[Hehe]

Well, buzzling through my Facebook feed, something caught my attention... Bill C-24 came into effect.

Basically if you are a dual-citizenship Canadian, (doesn't matter whether you ever set foot on the other nation) you are a second class citizen as your Canadian citizenship can be stripped at the discretion of not a Judge, but the government themselves.

I have already sign the petition (https://www.change.org/p/hon-chris-alexander-pc-mp-canadian-government-stop-bill-c-24-don-t-turn-millions-of-us-into-second-class-canadian-citizens) and wrote to my local MP.

Seriously though, yes, I am a naturalized citizen and this affects me the most. But this is utter bullshit for any Canadian. This is a bill that does nothing but appealing the ego of elitist *Canadian* that never travel outside of Canada and lives in their little caves.

We are an immigrant country. As in, everyone except the First Nations were an immigrant from somewhere some time. And by undermining the core value of our citizenship and granting government a unprecedented level of power to control our citizenship is simply tyranny. It basically gives gov't the ability to strip any second class citizen of their citizenship just because they don't agree with the gov't.

The citizenship used to be a right for Canadians regardless whether they agree with their gov't agenda or not, so any right granted by the Canadian Charter would still protect such person. Now the gov't has the power to take away. :rukidding:

[Gucci Mane]

unless you're involved in some kind of illegal activity, why would this even matter to you?

[Marshall Placid]

Yes, I agree.

It is total BS.

It says, quote "It gives the government the discretion to strip the citizenship of any dual citizen convicted of terrorism, treason or spying abroad."

Here:
Bill C-24 is wrong: There is only one kind of Canadian citizen - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/bill-c-24-is-wrong-there-is-only-one-kind-of-canadian-citizen/article19400982/)

So, in effect, it gives the Government additional power and an additional punishment: to strip the guilty of Citizenship.

I believe that the guilty (of terrorism, spying, and treason) should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

However, to strip them of citizenship?

I am not for or against stripping them of citizenship.

That is not the issue at heart here for me.

However, the side effect of C-24 is that 99.999% of all of the "second-class" citizens will question and second-guess about their own Canadian citizenship status.

In effect, it is the perception of being a second class citizen that is in question here.

This bill makes "second-class" citizens feel like... second-class even though 99.9999% of all second-class citizens are not spies or terrorists.

No citizens should feel as if they are second class.

There should only be one-class of citizenship.

[Hehe]

unless you're involved in some kind of illegal activity, why would this even matter to you?

Because we should not set a precedent allowing gov't to continue down this path. What's next? Canadian gov't decides that you should NOT agree to the ideology of any group that it finds contradicting its agenda, or they threaten you to strip your citizenship based on treason. Remember, there is no need for a judge to rule whether what you do or think qualifies as treason. All it needs is that the gov't says so.

Canadian Charter or rights gives me certain freedom. And just because our gov't is against some of my ideas, they should be allowed to forced me into agreeing with them?

[twitchyzero]

my 1st time hearing about this...and the law was passed a year ago

any further reading that isn't the full document on the act?

this graduate student's analysis says it also applies if you leave Canada for work/school?

Critical Review of the New Canadian Citizenship Law Bill C-24 - Centre for Education, Law and Society - Simon Fraser University (http://www.sfu.ca/education/cels/bilingual/bilingual-corner/bill-c-24.html)

[N.V.M.]

so you want to come to this country, be a terrorist, and remain a Canadian?

how nice.

[Hehe]

so you want to come to this country, be a terrorist, and remain a Canadian?
how nice.

The problem is the language of the bill itself. It's discriminatory and all without the much needed chance of fair trial in a court of law as long as the gov't think you are someone who goes against their view.

If it targets specifically to terrorists, I'm all in for it. Nevertheless, it goes much further and it makes no sense.

If you are a second class citizen (which includes every Canadian with or eligible to a second citizenship through parents and everyone who were born abroad; Canadian citizens through their parentage), you are basically stripped of rights to any of those guaranteed to you as stand in Canadian Charters. This is not how our democracy works. We state specifically that everyone is equal in front of those rights.

Second, it's discriminatory against newer immigrants; those who are within 2 generations of BEING Canadian. It does not stop anyone, whose parents were Canadian (and not any other citizenship) for becoming a terrorist. Our Canadian charter would still protect such a TERRORIST because hey, he is a first class Canadian.

But the question is, what makes this person, or any other Canadian citizen for the matter any more Canadian than I am?

And now the law covers only terrorism and treason (which by itself is a big problem... you have a different opinion than your gov't? You are a fucking traitor and we are going to strip your citizenship), but where does it end? We don't shut this down today, what's stopping the gov't to introduce new reason to it? It could add whatever the gov't sees fit.

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

Don't let the gov't have their way on something that's clearly wrong. Or else, it might no be you, but your children or grandchildren who will pay the price.

Lastly, again on the topic of discrimination, the law was worded specifically so it would not have any resistance on the general population. If it were to be fair and square, so that ANY Canadian can be stripped of citizenship regardless their source of citizenship, I'm sure it would have had much more problem passing it.

[quasi]

I 've read the bill and I don't agree with you however goodluck with your fight it's your right as a Canadian.

For those who want to take the time to read it.

House Government Bill - Bill C-24 - First Reading (41-2) (http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6410225&File=4)

[vudooca]

here is the original act that the bill makes its amendments to

Citizenship Act (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/index.html#docCont)

if you are not well versed in the original act you might be confused...

[angel-voice]

The problem is the language of the bill itself. It's discriminatory and all without the much needed chance of fair trial in a court of law as long as the gov't think you are someone who goes against their view.

If it targets specifically to terrorists, I'm all in for it. Nevertheless, it goes much further and it makes no sense.

If you are a second class citizen (which includes every Canadian with or eligible to a second citizenship through parents and everyone who were born abroad; Canadian citizens through their parentage), you are basically stripped of rights to any of those guaranteed to you as stand in Canadian Charters. This is not how our democracy works. We state specifically that everyone is equal in front of those rights.

Second, it's discriminatory against newer immigrants; those who are within 2 generations of BEING Canadian. It does not stop anyone, whose parents were Canadian (and not any other citizenship) for becoming a terrorist. Our Canadian charter would still protect such a TERRORIST because hey, he is a first class Canadian.

But the question is, what makes this person, or any other Canadian citizen for the matter any more Canadian than I am?

And now the law covers only terrorism and treason (which by itself is a big problem... you have a different opinion than your gov't? You are a fucking traitor and we are going to strip your citizenship), but where does it end? We don't shut this down today, what's stopping the gov't to introduce new reason to it? It could add whatever the gov't sees fit.

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

Don't let the gov't have their way on something that's clearly wrong. Or else, it might no be you, but your children or grandchildren who will pay the price.

Lastly, again on the topic of discrimination, the law was worded specifically so it would not have any resistance on the general population. If it were to be fair and square, so that ANY Canadian can be stripped of citizenship regardless their source of citizenship, I'm sure it would have had much more problem passing it.

hey hehe, stop with this stupid intellectual masturbation please.

[Hehe]

hey hehe, stop with this stupid intellectual masturbation please.

I didn't find that sexy enough to masturbate on.

How smart does a person have to be to feel like it? :suspicious:

I could really give a ratass about what they do with this bill, as I don't think any would apply to me.

But I do feel like the bill was poorly written and lack much needed research before going forward. That plus the fact that it is discriminatory. The Supreme court is going to hear this case. But I suggest anyone who don't agree with the bill to write to their MPs.

If you or any of your family has a secondary citizenship, congrats! The person just became a second class citizen accordingly the law. (Yes, even if you were born and raised in Canada) I have read the entire bill back and forth twice and it creates more problem than what it tries to address. They can easily solve this discriminatory problem: by forcing every Canadian, no matter how they obtained their citizenship, into the bill's coverage.

[multicartual]

Does this have anything to do with skinny jeans?

[Bouncing Bettys]

Terrorism, treason, and spying, are ever broadening terms and nearly every other country does not hold the same standards and practices of law as we do. Going on the word of some shithole dictatorship government in order to revoke Canadian citizenship seems a bit of an unreasonable stretch - "Well if they said you did this, it must be true. You are no longer welcome here!"

[Tapioca]

I wouldn't worry too much. Someone will likely sue the Crown in the future, the Crown will lose, and the legislation will be re-written.

[godwin]

For future reference you are at least a year too late.

Bills with C prefixes are before Commons, after 3 readings it changes to S prefix for Senate.. You are supposed to submit opinions when it is still C, not when the amendment had become law!

Since the amendment had royal assent. It becomes expensive politically and money wise (the hours gov lawyers reviewed it) to repeal it, unless someone wants to spend the political capital on it. You want it changed, spend your own dime and challenge the constitutionality in court.. The government lawyer who takes up a few floors in Robson Court building don't just twiddle their thumbs during business hours you know, their job is to make sure the law is at least valid.

When the law is being debated in the commons, that is when you are supposed to tell your MPs to change it. What you are complaining now is analogous to you complaining about a neighbors' addition a few years after it had been built (and it had all the approval etc done).:rukidding:

Ignorance is no excuse either, it had been well publicized for quite a while at least in the speech from the throne... It takes at least a year to draft law and get feedback.

I thought they cover this in civics class in schools?

[Mr.C]

unless you're involved in some kind of illegal activity, why would this even matter to you?

Because "illegal activity" is one hell of a slippery slope.

[angel-voice]

maybe they should do something with the immigration.... it's too fucking easy to get into Canada. I'm not saying that we should boot people out of the country because we are xenophobes.... but you need actual Canadians that care and give a fuck about this country. If actual Canadians are outnumbered by immigrants, we are fucked like how Singapore is destined to be overtaken by immigrants.

[bobbinka]

If actual Canadians are outnumbered by immigrants

An immigrant with Canadian citizenship is still a Canadian.

What is your definition of 'actual Canadian'?

[Infiniti]

An immigrant with Canadian citizenship is still a Canadian.

What is your definition of 'actual Canadian'?

http://application.denofgeek.com/pics/film/list/toronto.films/3.jpg

[Tapioca]

Since the amendment had royal assent. It becomes expensive politically and money wise (the hours gov lawyers reviewed it) to repeal it, unless someone wants to spend the political capital on it. You want it changed, spend your own dime and challenge the constitutionality in court.. The government lawyer who takes up a few floors in Robson Court building don't just twiddle their thumbs during business hours you know, their job is to make sure the law is at least valid.


Or, what happened is that Crown lawyers recommended that it wouldn't stand up to a Charter challenge, but someone in the government decision-making chain said, "Thanks, but no thanks" and moved the bill along.

There are lots of celebrities or people with money that have dual citizenship. If people are concerned about this, they're better off tweeting them or getting them on-board with changes. Figure out how to get the media to pay attention - modern governments are in the business of trying to minimize negative press.

[Manic!]

White Christians don't worry even if you are a criminal Harper will let you in.

[Mr.C]

maybe they should do something with the immigration.... it's too fucking easy to get into Canada. I'm not saying that we should boot people out of the country because we are xenophobes.... but you need actual Canadians that care and give a fuck about this country. If actual Canadians are outnumbered by immigrants, we are fucked like how Singapore is destined to be overtaken by immigrants.

Actual Canadians... so Aboriginals, right?

[jasonturbo]

Just as a general comment, it seems reasonable to me that the same government which grants citizenship should have the right to revoke it.

Seems awfully 1+1= to me...

If you play nice and don't break any rules it shouldn't really matter... you can play the second class citizen angle if you like, the reality is that it's easy to punt a foreigner, if you tried to strip an "Actual Canadian" of their citizenship it's more complex because they don't have a home to which they can return...

The Canadian Gov. has had terrible immigration policies for a long time, these policies result from a rather thoughtless approach to increasing population growth. For generations we/the gov. have overspent, and the only way they believe the problem can be fixed is with more tax payers. (All while raping the land of its resources as quickly as possible...)

When capitalism goes wrong. *sigh*

[Timpo]

the bill C51 just got passed on and this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJGbW8WOIos

[Mikoyan]

Just as a general comment, it seems reasonable to me that the same government which grants citizenship should have the right to revoke it.

Seems awfully 1+1= to me...

If you play nice and don't break any rules it shouldn't really matter... you can play the second class citizen angle if you like, the reality is that it's easy to punt a foreigner, if you tried to strip an "Actual Canadian" of their citizenship it's more complex because they don't have a home to which they can return...

The Canadian Gov. has had terrible immigration policies for a long time, these policies result from a rather thoughtless approach to increasing population growth. For generations we/the gov. have overspent, and the only way they believe the problem can be fixed is with more tax payers. (All while raping the land of its resources as quickly as possible...)

When capitalism goes wrong. *sigh*

It's not just immigrants that they can revoke the citizenship from. They can take a Canada born citizen's citizenship as long as they have the possibility of citizenship from another country.

For example, you're a Canadian born in Canada. You get arrested and convicted in some other country on charges serious enough to warrant your citizenship taken away. Turns out Mom was a US Citizen at the time of your birth, and that makes you eligible for US citizenship. Whether or not you have US citizenship or not, the government can take your Canadian citizenship via bureaucratic process, not a judicial process.

Also, the government doesn't care if the charges are legit or not. If you're put up on trumped up charges by a third world dictatorship, too bad!

[Tone Loc]

Just as a general comment, it seems reasonable to me that the same government which grants citizenship should have the right to revoke it.


This. I don't see the problem with this type of policy, especially when such extreme policies will likely only affect a very tiny percentage of Canadians. It's not like the federal government will suddenly start booting out people left and right. My guess is that only in cases of extreme risk, such as terrorism, heinous crimes, extradition, etc., this policy will be used.

A much much less "significant" example of such discretionary law can be found in speeding... technically, if you are doing 51 in a 50 zone it is illegal and ticketable. But would any cop actually ticket you for that? Doubtful.

[sdubfid]

It's not just immigrants that they can revoke the citizenship from. They can take a Canada born citizen's citizenship as long as they have the possibility of citizenship from another country.

For example, you're a Canadian born in Canada. You get arrested and convicted in some other country on charges serious enough to warrant your citizenship taken away. Turns out Mom was a US Citizen at the time of your birth, and that makes you eligible for US citizenship. Whether or not you have US citizenship or not, the government can take your Canadian citizenship via bureaucratic process, not a judicial process.

Also, the government doesn't care if the charges are legit or not. If you're put up on trumped up charges by a third world dictatorship, too bad!

that happens to me all the time

[godwin]

Actually if people had really been worried about this, they would HAD tweeted / contacting MPs / suggesting changes long before the bill passed, house, senate and had royal assent.

My point is OP only found out now and what to complain a law that was passed ages ago? Should had complained when there were debates. These things are televised on CPAC.. it is not exactly backroom deals.. though I suspect backroom deals would had been way more interesting than CPAC.


There are lots of celebrities or people with money that have dual citizenship. If people are concerned about this, they're better off tweeting them or getting them on-board with changes. Figure out how to get the media to pay attention - modern governments are in the business of trying to minimize negative press.

[Hehe]

This. I don't see the problem with this type of policy, especially when such extreme policies will likely only affect a very tiny percentage of Canadians. It's not like the federal government will suddenly start booting out people left and right. My guess is that only in cases of extreme risk, such as terrorism, heinous crimes, extradition, etc., this policy will be used.

A much much less "significant" example of such discretionary law can be found in speeding... technically, if you are doing 51 in a 50 zone it is illegal and ticketable. But would any cop actually ticket you for that? Doubtful.

The problem is not when or who they decide to enforce such a law, but that the law, the way it was written, was plagued with discrimination to a certain group of Canadians with overly broad languages.

As it stands now, a Canadian who only has one citizenship and not eligible to any other can do whatever the fuck he/she wants. Want to join the ISIS? Go ahead, we have your back. While the same is not the case for those eligible for newer immigrants.

So, what is the reasoning of this? That the newer citizens are more likely to become terrorist? What's the scientific base on such claim? And even then, why not every Canadian? What makes the newer Canadians any less Canadian than older Canadians?

We can't know for sure when we give citizenship to a new Canadian (whether born/jus soli, naturalized, or parentage/jus sanguinis) that they are going to turn out right. Some of them might fuck'd up and become a terrorist or commit some serious crime. However, as a well-developed society, we believe that we will create far more good citizens than the bad ones and it's a risk we all take as we know we'd come out ahead in the long run.

What this bill does is not much different than when Canada decided to *repatriate* thousands of Japanese-Canadian during the war (with more than half of them born and raised in Canada), arguably the worst human right violation in Canadian history. And an act that Canadian gov't reverse course later on acknowledging the mistake made.

All in all, citizenship, or at least the rights granted to Canadians by the Charters are rights, not a privilege. Once you are a Canadian, you deserve the constitutional protection of having those rights. By making any less of it, they are trying to take the constitutional right away from its citizens.

[Bouncing Bettys]

Coulda shoulda woulda - thanks captian obvious. Its difficult to get people to use abstract thought, to think of the future and often times that means they don't give a shit until its too late. People are discussing this in the here and now. Trying to take the OP down a peg for not saying anything sooner does nothing to progress the discussion.

[Hehe]

Actually if people had really been worried about this, they would HAD tweeted / contacting MPs / suggesting changes long before the bill passed, house, senate and had royal assent.
.

And I believe that was the problem. The bill's coverage is in the verge of constitutional violation. Yet, there was no public hearing or research. The minister drafted a version that it sees fit (getting powers it wants with minimal resistance) and the parliament went along with it.

[ImportPsycho]

naturalized citizen, but not dual citizen.
Where do i go if they take away my citizenship?

[PiuYi]

For those saying "oh this law won't affect 99.999% of us, it's just for the terrorists..." that's like the government pointing a gun to your head and promising not to shoot unless they think you're a terrorist, does that make you feel safe and protected?

[godwin]

Basically they keep you in detention while they try to find a country to take you. Much like what they do with refugee claimants remember the boat people from Sri Lanka a few years ago?

If you are naturalized, you still have a country before. eg certain countries like Malaysia.. unless you renounce your citizenship, they still consider you a citizen of the country. I don't think China you can renounce at all. I can see the government using this clause to kick out financial / crooked politicians running away with money from say China to Canada. This will give them pause..

It happened to a lot of innocent people got stuck in Guantanamo. US took them, interrogated them found them to have nothing to do with terrorism, can't return them back to country of origin. They have to find a 3rd party country to take you in usually one of the Emirates.



naturalized citizen, but not dual citizen.
Where do i go if they take away my citizenship?

[jasonturbo]

I'm sorry I walked into this thread... Where is CIC when you need him?

[jackmeister]

Agree with the notion that if you're given citizenship, they should be able to take it away as well.

Having said that, how the hell would this survive a Charter challenge? I'm no lawyer and this is already a big mindfuck

[Tegra_Devil]

I don't mind.

[4444]

The problem is not when or who they decide to enforce such a law, but that the law, the way it was written, was plagued with discrimination to a certain group of Canadians with overly broad languages.

As it stands now, a Canadian who only has one citizenship and not eligible to any other can do whatever the fuck he/she wants. Want to join the ISIS? Go ahead, we have your back. While the same is not the case for those eligible for newer immigrants.

So, what is the reasoning of this? That the newer citizens are more likely to become terrorist? What's the scientific base on such claim? And even then, why not every Canadian? What makes the newer Canadians any less Canadian than older Canadians?

We can't know for sure when we give citizenship to a new Canadian (whether born/jus soli, naturalized, or parentage/jus sanguinis) that they are going to turn out right. Some of them might fuck'd up and become a terrorist or commit some serious crime. However, as a well-developed society, we believe that we will create far more good citizens than the bad ones and it's a risk we all take as we know we'd come out ahead in the long run.

What this bill does is not much different than when Canada decided to *repatriate* thousands of Japanese-Canadian during the war (with more than half of them born and raised in Canada), arguably the worst human right violation in Canadian history. And an act that Canadian gov't reverse course later on acknowledging the mistake made.

All in all, citizenship, or at least the rights granted to Canadians by the Charters are rights, not a privilege. Once you are a Canadian, you deserve the constitutional protection of having those rights. By making any less of it, they are trying to take the constitutional right away from its citizens.

the reason they can't do anything to a single citizenship Canadian, is that it is against international law to revoke one's citizenship when they have none other (or no offers of citizenship).

the alternative to what the government is doing is to make getting citizenship much, much harder - 3 years as a PR for citizenship? too easy - make it 10 years?

i dunno, i have dual cdn and another, my cdn was too easy to get in my eyes, not that i'd want it taken away.

[westopher]

I don't think its unreasonable to be able to strip someones rights based on terrorism charges. On the other hand once someone is a citizen of Canada, I believe they are an exact equal to any Canadian citizen wether born here or not. I get both sides of it for sure. This seems like kind of a no win sort of situation. I wish we could take away citizenship of "born here" citizens as well to be honest.
You want to be a terrorist? Well, better hope Syria keeps you there, because you can't leave that place since you are no longer able to travel anywhere without a passport or citizenship. Then there is the moral issue of fucking over Syria (just an example as I know terrorism can be based in many/all countries), which we know is in shambles already, and filling a country full of more garbage ruins the lives of its actual good citizens. We are pretty much fucked any way we do things, as there is always a risk of making the wrong accusations or punishments.

[melloman]

Bill C-24 isn't a big issue to me, considering it's targeting a very specific group of individuals. It is written straight forward enough that most people wouldn't bat an eye, and a year ago it hit the news and nobody really said shit.

If you want to go ape shit on a bill Hehe then go read Bill C-51. This bill literally is being passed through the courts so that the governments "agenda" can keep progressing. The government is finding that people are not as accepting as they once used to be of major capital projects for LNG, Oil & Gas and Hydro-Electric infrastructure.

A big one was covered by VICE News recently, tl;dr behind it is the BC Government gave land to some Native Indians yet didn't have enough forward thinking to map out their oil & gas pipelines.. Turns out that 3 major piplines are now mapped out to cross through all that land.. and the Native Indians have said "No Way in Hell" and have blockaded every entrance onto the land. Corporations & government have been using helicopters to survey and the Natives again use ATV's to go shoo them away at every instance.

[Mike Oxbig]

Its been known for decades now that the Canadian gov wants to genocide the first nation people

[BoredAtWork]

No point of arguing, already bitched and submitted my part of the petition last year.

Fact is governments screw up often. Giving this type of power to strip citizenship without fair trial is problematic.

precedent case? try to google "Japanese Internment Camps" during WWII.
no buts, ifs, trials what not, you are turned into a refugee because they say so.

Guess what happen to those Japanese Canadians? Your money, land, jobs, career, family. All gone in a flash, just because.
All of them innocent.

http://www.yesnet.yk.ca/schools/projects/canadianhistory/camps/internment1.html


Read our own Canadian history that was never taught in school

[ancient_510]

Agree with the notion that if you're given citizenship, they should be able to take it away as well.

I'm Canadian, born in Canada, lived here all my life.
recently acquired a foreign citizenship through Jus sanguinis.
where does that leave me?

[capt_slo]

Read our own Canadian history that was never taught in school

:suspicious: It was covered pretty well in my school....and I grew up in Surrey

[Manic!]

I'm Canadian, born in Canada, lived here all my life.
recently acquired a foreign citizenship through Jus sanguinis.
where does that leave me?

Are you white?

[JaPoola]

Most of the posters on here have not immigrated from a country that used to have a communist dictatorship in power. I have, and with the laws these fuckers are coming up with in the recent years, it's starting to feel like deja vu.

Eastern europe communist countries all had secret police spying on their own citizens. You'd be scared to say anything against the establishment because either the secret police would hear it, or a collaborator would rat you out. We already have the surveillance in place. Now put in some laws to deal with the "troublemakers". Next will be incentives to rat on people.

Speaking of snitching on your fellow citizen:

http://www.cknw.com/2015/06/10/79857/

[ancient_510]

Are you white?

Nope, I'm a terrorist.

[Aria]

deleted

[godwin]

US and Canada have pretty extensive data sharing rules.. I am sure they know

Hmm.. if I'm dual US and Canadian (without them knowing), I wonder what happens then.

[twitchyzero]

is there anything the public can do about this?
the change.org petition says to change the bill but it's now an official law
i read that now that it's an actual law it can finally be challeneged in court?
clearly i don't remember the civics stuff I learned in 8th grade.

[Tapioca]

is there anything the public can do about this?
the change.org petition says to change the bill but it's now an official law
i read that now that it's an actual law it can finally be challeneged in court?
clearly i don't remember the civics stuff I learned in 8th grade.

- Contact opposition MPs and have them raise the matter in committee or question period
- Tweet mainstream media political journalists and see if they'll write pieces about it
- Wait until someone "who's innocent" becomes a victim of the bill and crowdfund their court challenge
- Get a dual national celebrity to start a campaign about it
- Run as a candidate in the next federal election and campaign to do your hardest to have the legislation repealed (and get labeled as a terrorist sympathizer in the process)

Shitty laws get hacked by the courts all of the time. If this law is as shitty as people here and in other parts of the internet say it is, it will get hacked by the courts. You just have to wait for someone else to challenge it (hopefully, it won't be you).

[twitchyzero]

so an average citizen can only challenge a law when they're being victimized by it?
what can the opposition politicians actually get done during a question period?

someone has the contact for the manager of jim carey or bill shatner? heck even the two previous Governor General weren't born in Canada.

[Traum]

Anyone can challenge a law whether they have been victimized by it or not. If you do that, you are basically just suing the Government of Canada and taking them to court. But as with any legal process, the costs are going to be hugely expensive. So unless someone is footing the bill or willing to do this for free, the law remains unchallenged and people will just continue to bxtch.

If enough noise gets generated, however, somebody -- probably a focus group or certain well known individuals -- will find a way to take care of the expenses and take the government to court. For this particular bill/law, I feel confident enough that the wording means it will get struck down since it violates the Canadian constitution. So most likely, as soon as someone takes the government to court, the government lawyers will advise the government to settle with the plantiff and amend the law.

[Hondaracer]

All you second class Canadians need to pack up and get back to wheres ya cames from

[Hehe]

All you second class Canadians need to pack up and get back to wheres ya cames from

:rukidding:

Unless you are first nation, I would take that back if I were you.

[zulutango]

[The Khadrs:] Canada's First Family of Terrorism :: Daniel Pipes (http://www.danielpipes.org/1639/the-khadrs-canadas-first-family-of-terrorism)


Maybe this is who the legislators had in mind? Why are they still in Canada?

[BoostedBB6]

Has there been any cases where the government has exercised this? I would look myself but I really have no idea where one would look for information like that.

[dragondragon99]

i was born here niggaz

[Manic!]

All you second class Canadians need to pack up and get back to wheres ya cames from

Jealousy brings out hate.

[vitaminG]

[The Khadrs:] Canada's First Family of Terrorism :: Daniel Pipes (http://www.danielpipes.org/1639/the-khadrs-canadas-first-family-of-terrorism)


Maybe this is who the legislators had in mind? Why are they still in Canada?

maybe because they have not committed any crimes? obviously most canadians are repulsed by their ideas, but i dont think any of them have been found guilty of committing a crime.

as for omar khadr i dont think he is a citizen of any other country so this law wouldnt apply to him regardless.

this law is generally toothless since it wont even be effective against most of the people its aimed against. all it does is give government broad powers

[zulutango]

[QUOTE=vitaminG;8647094]maybe because they have not committed any crimes? obviously most canadians are repulsed by their ideas, but i dont think any of them have been found guilty of committing a crime.


Just nice, friendly, gentle "folks"....

The terrorism-related activities of other Khadr family members — wife, one of two daughters, three of four sons — complement their patriarch's record.

Wife Maha Elsamnah took her then 14-year-old son Omar from Canada to Pakistan in 2001 and enrolled him for Al Qaeda training.
Daughter Zaynab, 23, was engaged to one terrorist and married, with Osama bin Laden himself present at the nuptials, a Qaeda member in 1999. Zaynab endorses the 9/11 atrocities and hopes her infant daughter will die fighting Americans.
Son Abdullah, 22, is a Qaeda fugitive constantly on the move to elude capture. Canadian intelligence states he ran a Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan during the Taliban period, something Abdullah denies.
Son Omar, 17, stands accused of hurling a grenade in July 2002, killing an American medic in Afghanistan. Omar lost sight in one eye in the fighting and is now a U.S. detainee in Guantánamo.
Son Abdul Karim, 14, half-paralyzed by wounds sustained in the October 2003 shoot-out that left his father dead, is presently prisoner in a Pakistani hospital.

[godwin]

or winners like these:

Parents learn hard $170,000 lesson in breeding ?family crime empire? (http://www.theprovince.com/news/parents+learn+hard+lesson+breeding+family+crime+em pire/11129486/story.html)
By Adrian Humphreys June 11, 2015 8:54 PM

Two of their sons died in gangland shootouts, two others face drug trafficking or murder charges in mob-related cases, and a fifth is on the run abroad. Now, their parents are learning another hard lesson in breeding a self-made crime group — they’ve lost the $170,000 they posted to have their eldest son released from jail.

Hossein Al Khalil and Soumayya Azzam were fighting in court to salvage bond money paid to have Nabil Alkhalil released. Their bond was lost when he fled Canada on a bogus passport soon after.

The judge’s ruling against them — with Nabil still a fugitive — is but one entry in an unrelenting stream of bad news involving their sons.

“These two parents of five sons came to Canada, presumably to make a better life for themselves. Now, having buried two kids before they reached the age of 20, they have two more facing the possibility of a long time in prison,” said Sgt. Lindsey Houghton of B.C.’s Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit.

“The actions of these boys have destroyed that family.”

The family arrived in Canada from Saudi Arabia as refugees in 1990, although their roots are believed to be in Iran, and settled in Surrey, B.C. After two sons were killed in gangland violence, they moved to Ottawa and Montreal.

“They took all of their organized crime and gang connections with them,” said Houghton.

The couple’s second son had been the first to die.

In 2001, Khalil Alkhalil, 19, was shot dead in Surrey in a gunfight over a drug debt. His killer claimed self-defence and was freed. The shooter’s lawyer was beaten up in court by angry supporters of Alkhalil, and the shooter himself was later gunned down in Kelowna in a case that remains unsolved.

The fourth son, Mahmoud Alkhalil, was one of three people killed in a notorious gunfight in 2003 between gang rivals in Vancouver’s Loft Six nightclub. He made it out of the building, but was found bleeding and unconscious after crashing his car 20 blocks away. When he succumbed to his injuries at age 19, he already had a lengthy criminal record.

The youngest son, Rabih “Robby” Alkhalil, was only two when he came to Canada.

In February, Rabih was extradited to Canada after his arrest in Greece; Crown attorneys in three provinces are now lining up to see who gets first crack at prosecuting him.

In Vancouver, he is charged with first-degree murder in the 2012 hit on gangster Sandip “Dip” Duhre in the Sheraton Wall Centre. In Toronto, he is charged with first-degree murder in the 2012 shooting of Johnnie Raposo on the patio of the Sicilian Sidewalk Cafe in Little Italy.

‘These three brothers, despite what tragedy their family has undergone, have evolved their criminal activities and taken them to highest levels on an international scale’

In Montreal and in Niagara Falls, Ont., he faces cocaine smuggling charges with a member of the Hells Angels.

The couple’s third son, Hisham “Terry” Alkhalil, was arrested last year in Ottawa in what officers called “a pre-emptive strike” to avert a gang war. Police seized 24.5 kilograms of cocaine with an estimated street value of $12.5 million, four guns and an opulent $1.2 million home Hisham was about to move into.

Nabil is the eldest. Soon after his release from jail in 2005 for assault, his Cadillac was stopped for speeding on Highway 401 near Cornwall, Ont.

When Nabil, the driver, was asked to open the trunk, he drove off, leaving his brother Hisham behind as he led police on a long, high-speed chase. When he was caught, a duffel bag with 11 kilos of cocaine was found nearby.

Nabil was convicted of cocaine trafficking and ordered deported, as he had been before. But because he is considered stateless — no country will grant him travel papers as a citizen — he is considered unremovable.

He was released from immigration detention in 2010 after his parents posted $170,000 as surety.

Nabil’s wife, Louisa, told court her husband wanted to leave Canada because rival gangs were targeting him and his family.

She said Ottawa police warned him of threats against his life and he caught a private investigator watching their home. He feared rivals planned to kill him as retaliation against his brother Rabih.

He once visited the Lebanese embassy to obtain a passport but was unsuccessful, she said.

On Nov. 3, 2013, Nabil left home and called her three days later saying he was “somewhere in the Middle East,” she said. He is willing to meet Canadian officials abroad so they can confirm his departure. but no such arrangements have been made, court heard.

It was a violation of many of his strict conditions, including curfew and residences requirements. Canada Border Services Agency wrote to Nabil’s parents, saying their bond had been forfeited and demanding cheques to cover the remainder of the surety.

The parents complained to the Federal Court of Canada.

Judge Richard Mosley found they were “not wholly without guilt” in Nabil’s flight because they waited three days before alerting CBSA.

Police who have investigated the family for years said they are a stark example of the damage and danger that can come with a life of crime.

“These three brothers, despite what tragedy their family has undergone, have evolved their criminal activities and taken them to highest levels on an international scale,” said Houghton.

“They built a family crime group empire.”

But to do so they have lost so much.

A call to the parents’ Toronto lawyer was not returned before deadline on Thursday.

[vitaminG]

i dont see your point, nobody is arguing khadrs or alkalil are great people. if there is a law they broke they should be prosecuted by the courts. and if they are not canadians citizens they should be deported

my point is I dont think the canadian government should have authority to strip the citizenship of undesirables especially without any judicial oversight.

[zulutango]

There is a proces that is law, that has to be followed before that is done. That is the point of the law. The Govt HAS the authority to do that...to suggest there is no oversight is not correct. Some person doesn't just stand up, point a finger at someone and say get out of Canada....and personally, even here on RS I believe that most would rather live in a society where we let someone come here...but if they are involved in major crimes and attempt to destroy us and our way of life, they should get booted back home. Maybe I'm wrong on this ?

[Traum]

There is a proces that is law, that has to be followed before that is done. That is the point of the law. The Govt HAS the authority to do that...to suggest there is no oversight is not correct. Some person doesn't just stand up, point a finger at someone and say get out of Canada....and personally, even here on RS I believe that most would rather live in a society where we let someone come here...but if they are involved in major crimes and attempt to destroy us and our way of life, they should get booted back home. Maybe I'm wrong on this ?
Yes, there is a process that the government would have to follow to boot someone out, but under Bill C-24, this seems to have merely become an administrative process instead of a legal process -- there is no judge involved in the decision making process, and that is one of the biggest gripe I have with this particular law.

Additionally, while I kind of agree that it would be a good idea to boot someone out if they commit major crimes and attempt to destroy our way of life, in practice, there are other considerations to take into account as well. You are free to call me stupid, but I think equality stands higher on the totem pole. At its core, the fundamental rights enjoyed by one Canadian should be no different than those enjoyed by another, but this law throws that completely out of the window. Furthermore, I argue that there are already other laws that are more than enough to address the need to penalize an individual that would have been booted out of the country. Life imprisonment without parole seems perfectly adequate to me.

Last but not least, I think one particular aspect of this law is severely flawed. If I am not mistaken, this particular law allows Canada to strip a naturalized citizen's status if he was found guilty of terrorism charges in/by other countries. And remember, there is no (Canadian) judge involved in the process to review the citizenship revocation. To use an extreme example, let's say I was convicted of terrorism charges in DPRK because I forgot my Bible at some public place. Under C-24, I am now potentially eligible to have my citizenship stripped. And remember, there is no (Canadian) judge in the process to oversee things.

Of course, it is highly unlikely that I will get my citizenship revoked in such an extreme example, but the mere fact that I can potentially stand to lose my citizenship is already not acceptable.

I want to stress that there is a lot of good in other aspects of the bill. In particular, I support the more stringent requirements that are needed before someone can apply for citizenship. However, the glaring flaws in the bill far outweights the benefits that it brings. As a result, in its current form, this is not something I can support.

[Gucci Mane]

Additionally, while I kind of agree that it would be a good idea to boot someone out if they commit major crimes and attempt to destroy our way of life, in practice, there are other considerations to take into account as well. You are free to call me stupid, but I think equality stands higher on the totem pole. At its core, the fundamental rights enjoyed by one Canadian should be no different than those enjoyed by another, but this law throws that completely out of the window. Furthermore, I argue that there are already other laws that are more than enough to address the need to penalize an individual that would have been booted out of the country. Life imprisonment without parole seems perfectly adequate to me.


there should be absolutely no equality for people who have committed major crimes. if someone is a convicted rapist with a couple of convictions under their belt, fuck em. they shouldn't even be allowed to be in jail chewing up my fucking tax dollars to give them a nice place to sleep, watch tv and have 3 square meals a day. that person should be thrown into a fucking hole and left to rot there. plain and simple.

life imprisonment is also a joke. whats the point of us keeping a criminal from a foreign country in our jail sucking up $117,000 a year of tax payers money? i work my butt off and i dont make any where near that much in a year. again, send them to a shit hole that they can rot in.

as you can tell, i have absolutely no sympathy for criminals that have caused pain or suffering to other human beings or animals. that being said, i also think that prison sentences for white collar crime are a little too stiff. theres no need to throw someone in jail for life that stole 100million from some big corporation..

[Traum]

I have very little sympathy for people who commit major crimes as well. The biggest problem I've outlined is, in its current form, the conditions that make a naturalized citizen eligible to lose its citizenship is highly questionable. And then there is the problem of not having a Canadian judge to review the citizenship revocation process.

Please see my DPRK example again.

[Spoon]

there should be absolutely no equality for people who have committed major crimes. if someone is a convicted rapist with a couple of convictions under their belt, fuck em. they shouldn't even be allowed to be in jail chewing up my fucking tax dollars to give them a nice place to sleep, watch tv and have 3 square meals a day. that person should be thrown into a fucking hole and left to rot there. plain and simple.

as you can tell, i have absolutely no sympathy for criminals that have caused pain or suffering to other human beings or animals. that being said, i also think that prison sentences for white collar crime are a little too stiff. theres no need to throw someone in jail for life that stole 100million from some big corporation..

Oh the irony. First you wanted people who committed major crime to be booted. Then you inject your personal biases into what's considered major crime. Not that easy huh?

[jasonturbo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scHCT4IIN0o

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

life is war.

born into the notions of struggle and sacrifice.

you can be passive and peaceful, and hope your enemies have enough empathy to do the same. Failure will only end in the acceptance of your failed contribution to the ideals of peace.

or you can fight with tooth and nail, but you should expect them to do worse to you than you did to them.

fucked if you do, fucked if you don't.

the harder we make our laws, the harder our citizens and enemies will become, eventually, and always leading to creating enemies within the our borders.

life is war.

the only way to win, is to take the higher moral position, and to always just forgive and forget. over. and over. and over again. indefinitely.

if you pick up that gun to fire back, you have just willfully joined the war. and they will never forget or forgive. and neither will you.

[westopher]

:rukidding:

Unless you are first nation, I would take that back if I were you.
http://static.fjcdn.com/comments/I+think+your+sarcasm+detector+is+broken+_0cc314f18 897b5ea86ad9062efb8ac9e.jpg

[Tone Loc]

There is a proces that is law, that has to be followed before that is done. That is the point of the law. The Govt HAS the authority to do that...to suggest there is no oversight is not correct. Some person doesn't just stand up, point a finger at someone and say get out of Canada....and personally, even here on RS I believe that most would rather live in a society where we let someone come here...but if they are involved in major crimes and attempt to destroy us and our way of life, they should get booted back home. Maybe I'm wrong on this ?

You're absolutely correct. Problem is, a lot of people - including, sadly, many of these RS comments - are not thinking logically. People are acting like all of a sudden, people are going to be evicted from Canada en masse, without any judicial oversight, trial or appeal. When in reality, these laws are so mired with legal mumbo-jumbo and bureaucracy that I would be surprised if even one person was successfully booted out of Canada and lost their appeal (if any) to stay. I hate to say it, but I personally see it as a form of "me too" posturing that shows the rest of the world that we too are doing something about the "war on terror".

I don't see what the big deal is, my parents are immigrants and technically that would make me a "second-class citizen" because I qualify for Philippine citizenship which would open the door to getting me 'booted out' of Canada... but again, I am not worried about me or my family being deported because nobody in my family is a fucking terrorist...

[zulutango]

My parents were immigrants too...escaped from Scotland in the 1800's and landed in New Scotland....

[Hehe]

My parents were immigrants too...escaped from Scotland in the 1800's and landed in New Scotland....

How old are you again? :pokerface:

[underscore]

As in, everyone except the First Nations were an immigrant from somewhere some time.

They immigrated as well, but they were the first ones to do so.

It's not just immigrants that they can revoke the citizenship from. They can take a Canada born citizen's citizenship as long as they have the possibility of citizenship from another country.

Are you certain it's the possibility of citizenship from another country, and not that you actually have existing dual citizenship?

Also, the government doesn't care if the charges are legit or not. If you're put up on trumped up charges by a third world dictatorship, too bad!

I'm doubtful that it's an instant, black or white response to charges, but I could be wrong. Care you direct me to some sauce on that?

My parents were immigrants too...escaped from Scotland in the 1800's and landed in New Scotland....

This made me chuckle as I just watched the episode of Archer where they transport a terrorist fighting to separate Nova Scotia from the rest of Canada.

[twitchyzero]

somewhat related
When Canada took away Captain Paul Watson's passport on behalf of Japan... : canada (http://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/39br14/when_canada_took_away_captain_paul_watsons/)

coles:
japanese gov't asked canada to revoke environmentalist's passport...done
environmentalist is known to ram his ship into japanese vessels that are conducting illegal whaling
reddit comments says despite losing his canadian passport he is still a citizen and can re-enter canada

biased article and not really a result of c-24 but shows what our federal gov't is wiling to do at the drop of a hat.

[ancient_510]

Are you certain it's the possibility of citizenship from another country, and not that you actually have existing dual citizenship?

+1

A fundamental part of countries that base citizenship on Jus Sanguinis is that if you are eligible to receive citizenship by their criteria, you are a citizen. Doesn't matter if you don't have or don't want a passport, or don't even realize it; you are a citizen.

But I'm not a terrorist! This doesn't affect me!
Ever think of protesting the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion? Well you may end up on a terrorist watch-list (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/lesslie-askin-71-shocked-to-be-deemed-a-kinder-morgan-terror-threat-1.2769777).

So now let's connect some dots:
Born in Canada?
Have a father or grandfather from Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Greece, Haiti, Hungary, Israel (or Jewish from any country), Iran, Italy, Kiribati, Lithuania, Philippines, Rwanda, Serbia, Tunisia, or Ukraine? (non-comprehensive list)
Attended an anti Kinder Morgan protest
You didn't even have to "cross the line" against the injuction on Burnaby Mountain when considering Criminal Code 83.01 (1) (b) (ii) (E) together with a "terrorist group" as defined in the Criminal Code.

Congratulations. You are now eligible to be removed from Canada.

[multicartual]

If you're not a billionaire and/or famous, you're automatically a second or third class citizen

If you're famous or have enough money, you are truly an asset to the country

[CP.AR]

This bothers me a lot.

Yes, I moved away from Canada for work... that is after fully paid out all my student loans and working for the past 7 years part time and full time (including working for the federal government). I paid all my taxes, loved and continue to love my mother country (I have a Canadian flag on my front door here in Hong Kong). I participate what I can still participate in Canada in terms of voting, and have always longed to one day return to Canada to build my own family and eventually retire and die.

Now, just because I have dual citizenship there is the SLIGHTEST hope that I can have my citizenship taken away? that doesn't sit right with me.

I participated in the Occupy Central protests in Hong Kong, something that the mainland government will (i'm sure) one day frown down upon as a "revolution/anarchist movement". will this put me on the map as a potential threat to Canada because I was fighting for true democracy?

man this is so wrong.

[Traum]

Now, just because I have dual citizenship there is the SLIGHTEST hope that I can have my citizenship taken away? that doesn't sit right with me.

I participated in the Occupy Central protests in Hong Kong, something that the mainland government will (i'm sure) one day frown down upon as a "revolution/anarchist movement". will this put me on the map as a potential threat to Canada because I was fighting for true democracy?

man this is so wrong.
Bruh, under Bill C-24, you are so fxxked. You are practically the exact example that I thought of as a victim to the bill.

When the Chinese Mainlandization of Hong Kong is complete, you know the Mainland central government will brand the active Umbrella Movement participants (or anything similar to that) as terrorists. If you continue to engage in those kinds of activities, you are practically setting yourself up to be labelled by the Mainland central government to brand you as terrorist as well. And then what happens? Canada will theoretically have the power to revoke your citizenship under Bill C-24 as well.

Conspiracy theory? Possibly. Will the Canadian government exercise this power to revoke your citizenship? I'd say it is extremely unlikely. But the mere fact that the Canadian government has the power to do this -- ie. revoke your Canadian citizenship because you participated in a democracy rally -- is ridiculous enough.

[Hehe]

I participated in the Occupy Central protests in Hong Kong, something that the mainland government will (i'm sure) one day frown down upon as a "revolution/anarchist movement". will this put me on the map as a potential threat to Canada because I was fighting for true democracy?

man this is so wrong.

I think this is the main concern. If you have done something against the gov't in a country that Canadian gov't is trying to kiss their ass, our gov't can strip your citizenship based on whatever criteria it wants to lay on you.

No fair judicial process, and no argument. You are wrong because the other country says so. But citizenship is the last protection to anyone.

Think when Canadian are arrested for whatever reason in foreign soil, they'd first contact the consulate/embassy for assistance.

With C24, our gov't has the power to cherrypick who it wants to help with depending on its political agenda.

[$_$]

Bruh, under Bill C-24, you are so fxxked. You are practically the exact example that I thought of as a victim to the bill.

When the Chinese Mainlandization of Hong Kong is complete, you know the Mainland central government will brand the active Umbrella Movement participants (or anything similar to that) as terrorists. If you continue to engage in those kinds of activities, you are practically setting yourself up to be labelled by the Mainland central government to brand you as terrorist as well. And then what happens? Canada will theoretically have the power to revoke your citizenship under Bill C-24 as well.

Conspiracy theory? Possibly. Will the Canadian government exercise this power to revoke your citizenship? I'd say it is extremely unlikely. But the mere fact that the Canadian government has the power to do this -- ie. revoke your Canadian citizenship because you participated in a democracy rally -- is ridiculous enough.

This is scary on so many levels. If the government suspects that you have terrorist affiliations, they can take other actions against you. I don't understand the logic behind this at all. We were all immigrants at some point. What about home grown separatist terrorists?

[Mikoyan]

Are you certain it's the possibility of citizenship from another country, and not that you actually have existing dual citizenship?
Been working this weekend, looks like it's been answered by now by others.

I'm doubtful that it's an instant, black or white response to charges, but I could be wrong. Care you direct me to some sauce on that?


My wording may have been a bit glib, but a quick show trial in a kangaroo court is going to put you in a world of trouble.

My guess would be that countries would be quick to revoke someone's citizenship, just so they wouldn't be stuck dealing with that citizen. "He/she's not *our* citizen anymore, they're _________'s problem to deal with now."


Exact wording of the section in the bill:

(2) The Minister may revoke a person’s citizenship if the person, before or after the coming into force of this subsection and while the person was a citizen,
(b) was convicted of a terrorism offence as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code — or an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute a terrorism offence as defined in that section — and sentenced to at least five years of imprisonment;

http://www.cba.org/cba/submissions/pdf/14-22-eng.pdf

I found that to be worth reading, even though the Canadian Bar Association has it's own biases, but for me, it put the main points we've been discussing in plain english.

[Hehe]

The main concern is again the power that the bill grants to the gov't.

We have always taken the presumption of innocence in our justice system. Because we believe in that we'd rather have hundreds of guilty men roaming free than put one innocent man in jail. The justice system had always had the ultimate authority and nothing can be above law.

This bill basically lets the gov't to skip the law system and decides what is in the best interest of the gov't, which it argues it's in the best interest of people.

Should a person gets stripped of its citizenship as a consequence of this bill, sure he might appeal in the court of law, but the person would have to bear the consequence first until the court decides. Taking a guilty until proven innocent approach instead. However, this is against the fundamental right that Charters grant us.

[haymura]

Im trying to make sense of this...

Im currently a dual citizen and after reading all these comments, it makes me wonder if i should surrender my foreign citizen and just stick with my canadian citizen. Would giving it up lessen my chances of being revoked my canadian status?

[RFlush]

This bothers me a lot.

Yes, I moved away from Canada for work... that is after fully paid out all my student loans and working for the past 7 years part time and full time (including working for the federal government). I paid all my taxes, loved and continue to love my mother country (I have a Canadian flag on my front door here in Hong Kong). I participate what I can still participate in Canada in terms of voting, and have always longed to one day return to Canada to build my own family and eventually retire and die.

Now, just because I have dual citizenship there is the SLIGHTEST hope that I can have my citizenship taken away? that doesn't sit right with me.

I participated in the Occupy Central protests in Hong Kong, something that the mainland government will (i'm sure) one day frown down upon as a "revolution/anarchist movement". will this put me on the map as a potential threat to Canada because I was fighting for true democracy?

man this is so wrong.

If it bothers you a lot, why not renounce your Chinese citizenship in HK?

[twitchyzero]

Im trying to make sense of this...

Im currently a dual citizen and after reading all these comments, it makes me wonder if i should surrender my foreign citizen and just stick with my canadian citizen. Would giving it up lessen my chances of being revoked my canadian status?

no, you don't need to be a dual citizen, as long as you're eligible to be one, it applies to you

i wouldn't go as far as surrendering your other citizenship unless you're already labeled as a criminal there

[underscore]

A fundamental part of countries that base citizenship on Jus Sanguinis is that if you are eligible to receive citizenship by their criteria, you are a citizen. Doesn't matter if you don't have or don't want a passport, or don't even realize it; you are a citizen.

If that's the thought process then I'm a citizen of the UK. On the plus side I know of a very easy way to be ineligible for 5 years for the low price of a $598 ticket, which is nice.

My wording may have been a bit glib, but a quick show trial in a kangaroo court is going to put you in a world of trouble.

Not exactly, because as it says:

(2) The Minister may revoke a person’s citizenship if the person, before or after the coming into force of this subsection and while the person was a citizen,
(b) was convicted of a terrorism offence as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code — or an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute a terrorism offence as defined in that section — and sentenced to at least five years of imprisonment

It's not as simple as someone shouting "you're a terrorist!" and you get the boot, you need to have been charged with something considered terrorism in Canada and have gone to jail for 5 years for it.

Section 2 of the Criminal Code points you to 83.01(1)b, which states:

(b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,

(i) that is committed

(A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and

(B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and

(ii) that intentionally

(A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,

(B) endangers a person’s life,

(C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,

(D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or

(E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C),

and includes a conspiracy, attempt or threat to commit any such act or omission, or being an accessory after the fact or counselling in relation to any such act or omission, but, for greater certainty, does not include an act or omission that is committed during an armed conflict and that, at the time and in the place of its commission, is in accordance with customary international law or conventional international law applicable to the conflict, or the activities undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties, to the extent that those activities are governed by other rules of international law.

I bolded the ands because I feel someone will probably miss them, and underlined the two key clauses. As you can see, you have to try to seriously hurt of kill people for this to take effect, and you need to have gone to prison for at least 5 years for it. Given how severely acts of terrorism and murder are generally considered to be, I have doubts as to how many people will have done something severe enough to be branded a terrorist and charged with much less than a life sentence, in which case your citizenship doesn't matter for shit because you're never going anywhere.

[Traum]

Exact wording of the section in the bill:

(2) The Minister may revoke a person’s citizenship if the person, before or after the coming into force of this subsection and while the person was a citizen,
(b) was convicted of a terrorism offence as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code — or an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute a terrorism offence as defined in that section — and sentenced to at least five years of imprisonment;

http://www.cba.org/cba/submissions/pdf/14-22-eng.pdf

I think I have already briefly mentioned it in a previous post, but the fact that the "offence"can be committed outside Canada, when combined with the lack of a Canadian judge to oversee and review the process, is a seriously flawed problem. Any kind of dictatorship / authoritarian country can and will fabricate charges if they want to. The two prime examples that I can easily think of are Russia and China. I have friends that are vocal critics of the Russian and Chinese regimes, and I can easily foresee how they might travel to Ukraine or Hong Kong, only to be abducted and taken back to Russia / China, have some phony charges thrown at them. And then what? Is the Canadian government gonna follow up by revoking their Canadian citizenship as well? Canada may not kiss a$$ to Russia, but with at least one of the federal parties, I would not be surprised if they try to cozy up to the Chinese regime and go along with the citizenship revocation.

[nsx042003]

This bothers me a lot.

Yes, I moved away from Canada for work... that is after fully paid out all my student loans and working for the past 7 years part time and full time (including working for the federal government). I paid all my taxes, loved and continue to love my mother country (I have a Canadian flag on my front door here in Hong Kong). I participate what I can still participate in Canada in terms of voting, and have always longed to one day return to Canada to build my own family and eventually retire and die.

Now, just because I have dual citizenship there is the SLIGHTEST hope that I can have my citizenship taken away? that doesn't sit right with me.

I participated in the Occupy Central protests in Hong Kong, something that the mainland government will (i'm sure) one day frown down upon as a "revolution/anarchist movement". will this put me on the map as a potential threat to Canada because I was fighting for true democracy?

man this is so wrong.

eeh...does canada see permanent resident of hong kong as a citizen of china?

[RFlush]

eeh...does canada see permanent resident of hong kong as a citizen of china?

Of course not, why would someone with permanent resident in HK that's not even a Chinese citizen be considered Chinese?

[BoredAtWork]

To those who say "I was born in Canada so I dont give a sh!t about C-24":

The law applies to all those who have dual citizenship. ie. if one day you move to US to work or elsewhere, and you decided to enroll in citizenship there, your are under C-24 as well. Does not matter where you were born.

[Derrickk]

I still can't believe this is haopening

[Mr.HappySilp]

Why don't we stop allowing dual-citizenship altogether. You pick either Canadian or where you come from.

[Manic!]

Why don't we stop allowing dual-citizenship altogether. You pick either Canadian or where you come from.

Because many Canadians go to work in foreign countries or marry people from other countries.

[Mikoyan]

It's not as simple as someone shouting "you're a terrorist!" and you get the boot, you need to have been charged with something considered terrorism in Canada and have gone to jail for 5 years for it.

It does when it's a foreign government that does the shouting, and convicts you under their system. Like Mohamed Fahmy. He was a journalist and got sentenced to 7 years for Terrorism related offences, while reporting about the unrest in Egypt.

Egyptian-Canadian journalist Mohamed Fahmy gets 7 years in prison | Globalnews.ca (http://globalnews.ca/news/1409882/egyptian-canadian-journalist-mohamed-fahmy-gets-7-years-in-prison/)
Detained Canadian journalist Mohamed Fahmy gives up Egyptian citizenship - Politics - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/detained-canadian-journalist-mohamed-fahmy-gives-up-egyptian-citizenship-1.2940018)

[underscore]

It does when it's a foreign government that does the shouting, and convicts you under their system. Like Mohamed Fahmy. He was a journalist and got sentenced to 7 years for Terrorism related offences, while reporting about the unrest in Egypt.

Egyptian-Canadian journalist Mohamed Fahmy gets 7 years in prison | Globalnews.ca (http://globalnews.ca/news/1409882/egyptian-canadian-journalist-mohamed-fahmy-gets-7-years-in-prison/)
Detained Canadian journalist Mohamed Fahmy gives up Egyptian citizenship - Politics - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/detained-canadian-journalist-mohamed-fahmy-gives-up-egyptian-citizenship-1.2940018)

He was sentenced to 7 years, but that's a pretty bad example you're picking as he's out on bail after less than a year and Canadian foreign affairs was working to help him. Even if you ignore that, the charges have to be equivalent to Canadian ones that land within the section of the Criminal Code I quoted above, and from what I can gather about the nonsense Egypt threw against him they do not. Maybe I'm missing something here but please read the section of the Criminal Code above and tell me how being charged with fabricating footage is equivalent to any of that.

[Mr.HappySilp]

Because many Canadians go to work in foreign countries or marry people from other countries.

If you work in another country you apply for a work visa in that country. So you are still a Canadian but granted permission from the country that you are there to work.

If you marry other people from other country is the same thing you can opt to stay as a Canadian or apply citizenship for the country you are going to marry and live.

Many countries around the world don't allow dual citizenship.

[Mikoyan]

He was sentenced to 7 years, but that's a pretty bad example you're picking as he's out on bail after less than a year and Canadian foreign affairs was working to help him. Even if you ignore that, the charges have to be equivalent to Canadian ones that land within the section of the Criminal Code I quoted above, and from what I can gather about the nonsense Egypt threw against him they do not. Maybe I'm missing something here but please read the section of the Criminal Code above and tell me how being charged with fabricating footage is equivalent to any of that.

I'm happy to even *find* an example.


(A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and

He was being accused of being a member and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood.

(B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada,

Accused of threatening Egypt's national security, and creating a "terrorist media network."

and E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C),

Accused of threatening Egypt's national security, and creating a "terrorist media network."

and includes a conspiracy, attempt or threat to commit any such act or omission, or being an accessory after the fact or counselling in relation to any such act or omission, but, for greater certainty, does not include an act or omission that is committed during an armed conflict and that, at the time and in the place of its commission, is in accordance with customary international law or conventional international law applicable to the conflict, or the activities undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties, to the extent that those activities are governed by other rules of international law.

You don't have to actually take part in an actual successful event. Attempting, planning, helping or encouraging is enough.

He was on bail because they were retrying him on the charges. The first trial was was full of gems like:

The prosecution, on multiple occasions, aired video footage that was unrelated to Egypt, showed clips from networks other than Al Jazeera, and played sound recordings that were inaudible, presenting it as evidence.

“Previous court dates have bizarrely included the prosecution showing footage of Sky News Arabia tourism reports, BBC podcasts, songs by Gotye, photo-shopped images of Mohammed Fahmy, Peter Greste’s family photos, and some of Greste’s award-winning work from East Africa,” said Al Jazeera in a statement after a 16 June hearing.

On another occasion, three audio/visual witnesses for the prosecution were unable to recall the footage presented to them by the investigators. They could not identify if the footage constituted a crime, and one witness directly contradicted his written affidavit, and indicated the prosecutor added additional footage after it was viewed by the witnesses.

His second trial is still ongoing. Prosecution lacks evidence of wrongdoing, retrial of Al Jazeera journalists told. | Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/06/11/prosecution-lacks-evidence-of-wrongdoing-retrial-of-al-jazeera-journalists-told.html)

Here's an op/ed from Mohamed himself, bolds are mine as he points out even Egyptians didn't like a law that treated citizens and non citizens differently, and he's a person that's directly impacted by this bill:
Mohamed Fahmy: I'm a pawn in a geopolitical game | Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/06/22/mohamed-fahmy-im-a-pawn-in-a-geopolitical-game.html)


The ongoing 18-month trial of we Al Jazeera journalists in Egypt has sparked unprecedented global debate about the rule of law, the ethics of journalism and free speech.


Abdel Fattah el-Sissi, the Egyptian president, decreed a deportation law in November 2014 while I was imprisoned for more than 400 days, to permit the extradition of non-Egyptian convicts or prisoners under investigation to their respective countries to serve their time or continue their trial.


Several weeks after the announcement, Egyptian secret service officers came to ask me to renounce my Egyptian citizenship so I could benefit from the new law. My initial reaction was an immediate refusal — I cherish both my Egyptian and Canadian citizenships. “This is from high above,’” I was told. “We want to help you get out of this case.”


The officer handed me a phone. To my surprise, it was a senior official: “Fahmy, we know you are patriotic and innocent,” he said. “Sign the documents. You can come back as a tourist and easily apply for it again. Nationality is in the heart, not just a piece a paper.”


I signed but still struggle today to describe the humiliating feeling as I stamped my finger prints on the official renunciation documents. I also signed an agreement that both the government and I would not disclose my renunciation in the media.


The decree stated that Ottawa would have to officially request my deportation and that is exactly what my lawyers and embassy did. We got assurances from both governments that it was a matter of days.


Sadly, an announcement from then Canadian foreign minister John Baird, who declared my deportation “imminent,” was premature.


My mixed emotions of joy for my buddy Peter Greste and the feeling of despair for myself got the best of me as I watched him freed while our third colleague Baher Mohamed and I faced a retrial.


The government in Egypt published confirmation of my renunciation of citizenship in the official paper. This was after I had already been wrongly framed as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood — designated a terrorist organization under Egyptian law.


There was never any evidence against me personally and the fact that I protested against the despicable group alongside millions of Egyptians didn’t resonate with the prosecutor who branded me as the ringleader of a terrorist group.


Overnight, I was branded as the man who “sold out” his country. Indeed, it was a first, for an Egyptian to drop his citizenship to get out of prison.

The backlash against me continued because my colleague Baher Mohamed held only Egyptian citizenship. Public opinion crystallized against a law that allows foreigners in the same case, facing the same charges, for the same evidence, to be let off the hook while their Egyptian co-defendants languish in jail.

In court I raised an Egyptian flag to make a point that nationality is not just a piece of paper. Indeed, I am planning to legally reclaim my citizenship at the appropriate time. I just hope Judge Hassan Farid, who is presiding over the retrial, understands that I am no traitor as he announces his new verdict next month.


Meanwhile the Canadian government has implemented a new law that allows ministers to revoke the Canadian citizenship of dual nationals convicted of terrorism. As I face bogus terrorism charges in Egypt, I now have to worry about Canada stripping my citizenship under this dangerous law that overrides the judiciary and tramples due process.


The failure of Stephen Harper’s government to gain my release when I renounced my Egyptian citizenship resonated again last month when the U.S. government won the deportation from Egypt of Mohamed Soltan, an American-Egyptian activist and Brotherhood sympathizer serving a life sentence, who had renounced his Egyptian citizenship secretly before his transfer was announced last month.


As my retrial reaches a conclusion I’m confident that on the basis of the evidence — or lack thereof — we should be acquitted, so that this long and very painful ordeal will be over and I can get on with my life. But I know this trial is influenced by factors other than evidence.


It is still possible that we will take the fall for violations committed by Al Jazeera in failing to obtain a proper operational licence, and that we will pay a heavy price for Qatar’s meddling in Egypt’s internal affairs — its well-documented sponsorship of the banned Muslim Brotherhood. I and my colleague have spent too long as pawns in geopolitical games in which we, as journalists, have no part. Perhaps our situation is a manifestation of the biblical tale of David the shepherd who defeated Goliath the mighty giant using only his slingshot and rock. But, the underdog here is only armed with words of truth and the world’s best lawyers who will hopefully prevail.  

[Manic!]

If you work in another country you apply for a work visa in that country. So you are still a Canadian but granted permission from the country that you are there to work.

If you marry other people from other country is the same thing you can opt to stay as a Canadian or apply citizenship for the country you are going to marry and live.

Many countries around the world don't allow dual citizenship.


What if you move to another country for work and have kid with a woman from that country?

[Hehe]

What if you move to another country for work and have kid with a woman from that country?

Second this. I've said it before, unless you can make sure that EVERY of your love ones would stay ONLY Canadian, they run at the risk of this BS law.

[RFlush]

What if you move to another country for work and have kid with a woman from that country?

Then you apply for your kids Canadian citizenship and then sort out whatever visa needed for your child to stay in that country with you.

[Hehe]

Then you apply for your kids Canadian citizenship and then sort out whatever visa needed for your child to stay in that country with you.

This is not possible if the kid qualifies for citizenship and you want the kid to reside in that country.

Child citizenship is either jus sanguinis or jus soli. The citizenship qualification is the first thing embassy checks when you register for newborn abroad. But what to apply is not optional. Same goes with cdn citizenship. If the kid qualifies for citizenship, you cannot apply permanent resident status for the kid as he's a citizen and doesn't qualify for such visa.

My son was born in us as wife was attending doctoral program there. At first, We tried to not applying his us citizenship to avoid the whole tax ordeal, but it's not possible to get him a U.S. Visa as consulate sees him as U.S. citizen on the jus soli ground. No but or ifs. They flat out refused to do it and issued him a U.S. Passport instead even when we stated we didn't want his American citizenship.

[underscore]

I'm happy to even *find* an example.

Doesn't this just support the point that this will not affect many people? Especially considering this guy has been held on BS charges and the Canadian gov't has been trying to help him, not trying to use this to revoke his citizenship?

He was being accused of being a member and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood.

Which as far as I can work out, is only considered a terrorist group by Egypt, not Canada.

Accused of threatening Egypt's national security, and creating a "terrorist media network."

A media network doesn't fall under A or C...

You don't have to actually take part in an actual successful event. Attempting, planning, helping or encouraging is enough.

Which imo is completely valid. If somebody attempts or assists in acts of terrorism they should be held accountable. I fail to see how people attempting/planning/helping/encouraging shouldn't be treated the same as anyone who does kill or injure significant numbers of people. However, as far as I can tell, the Muslim Brotherhood hasn't committed or attempted any terrorist acts since the late 70's, so again this wouldn't apply.

[Nomomo]

Hope you don't torrent
UOTE=Pidish;8645418]unless you're involved in some kind of illegal activity, why would this even matter to you?[/QUOTE]

[RFlush]

This is not possible if the kid qualifies for citizenship and you want the kid to reside in that country.

Child citizenship is either jus sanguinis or jus soli. The citizenship qualification is the first thing embassy checks when you register for newborn abroad. But what to apply is not optional. Same goes with cdn citizenship. If the kid qualifies for citizenship, you cannot apply permanent resident status for the kid as he's a citizen and doesn't qualify for such visa.

My son was born in us as wife was attending doctoral program there. At first, We tried to not applying his us citizenship to avoid the whole tax ordeal, but it's not possible to get him a U.S. Visa as consulate sees him as U.S. citizen on the jus soli ground. No but or ifs. They flat out refused to do it and issued him a U.S. Passport instead even when we stated we didn't want his American citizenship.
Then you renounce your american citizenship afterwards and retain your Canadian.

[Mr.HappySilp]

What if you move to another country for work and have kid with a woman from that country?

Then your kids will with citizenship from that country in which they are born in...... you can either end apply citizenship for that country and give up your Canadian citizenship or have your kids and wife apply for Canadian citizenship via sponsorship.

[$_$]

Then your kids will with citizenship from that country in which they are born in...... you can either end apply citizenship for that country and give up your Canadian citizenship or have your kids and wife apply for Canadian citizenship via sponsorship.

Yeah, but the crux of the problem is, despite the fact that your kid could have been born in Canada, you being "Canadian Canadian", just the sole fact that their mother holding dual citizenship or citizenship from another country can net your child to fall under the second class citizen category because they gain the ability to apply for a second passport. How is that fair?

Quite literally, they are systematically segregating people based on your heritage. And you don't see a problem with that?

It might seem fine and dandy to you now, when your political and foreign policy views align with the current government, but what happens when it doesn't? What happens when your wife's heritage nation is not on friendly terms with Canada? You don't see the slippery slope that this could have when you remove what use to be due process through a more rigorous justice system with a judge?

To all those people saying "just don't be a terrorist", ask any brown person traveling through the US what it feels like "not being a terrorist" and going through the TSA. Now apply that feeling to the possibility losing your CITIZENSHIP because you skin color or the country you come from is affiliated to a negative group based solely on your heritage.

Why should the government be given more power with less oversight? Who does that benefit?

Screaming "for the terrorists!" is the new "for the children!" and look how that turned out. Censorship, mass surveillance, a curtail of personal liberty and infringements on privacy. Just because it doesn't affect you now doesn't mean it won't affect you or someone you know or love in the future. I love Canada and I'm proud to be Canadian. And yeah, my family settled here after the white Europeans did. That shouldn't make me a second class citizen or any less Canadian.

[Hehe]

Then you renounce your american citizenship afterwards and retain your Canadian.

It is not possible until the kid reaches age of 18 or until he can fully demonstrate that he is fully aware of the consequence of renouncing his citizenship (presumably unfit until 16) at least as far as American embassy is concerned. Their view is that parents have no right to decide on behalf of child.

Similar stance is taken by other gov't. I.E.: there is no provision for minor to renounce citizenship in Canada.

So, it's easier said than done. It's not as easy as filling out a form and handing back the passport even for adults (the process was made deliberately complicated).

Furthermore, it's not about whether one qualifies for another citizenship or not. Just because I have/can have another citizenship doesn't make me any less Canadian than you, or millions of other Canadians. Then why should any of us be treated differently?

[Mikoyan]

Doesn't this just support the point that this will not affect many people? Especially considering this guy has been held on BS charges and the Canadian gov't has been trying to help him, not trying to use this to revoke his citizenship?

Which as far as I can work out, is only considered a terrorist group by Egypt, not Canada.

A media network doesn't fall under A or C...

Which imo is completely valid. If somebody attempts or assists in acts of terrorism they should be held accountable. I fail to see how people attempting/planning/helping/encouraging shouldn't be treated the same as anyone who does kill or injure significant numbers of people. However, as far as I can tell, the Muslim Brotherhood hasn't committed or attempted any terrorist acts since the late 70's, so again this wouldn't apply.

Your points are correct if he was being charged in a Canadian court, but considering that he was arrested and tried under Egypt's courts, not Canadian, makes it pretty relevant that Egypt considers the MB a terrorist group. The Egyptians felt he was supporting a banned ideological group. The Egyptians felt that his media organization was a threat to national security and fermenting unrest against the government. And they charged him under their laws as such.

The support he got from Canadian officials, according to him, and media reports at the time, seemed lower key, and it seemed like the government grudgingly took on the case because of the international outcry about it. Other countries involved seemed to be a lot more vocal about getting their citizens out.

Of course this only affects a small number of people. Any step to erode our rights starts small and only needs to be seen as affecting a small insignificant group, to be seen as non threatening and acceptance by the general public.

This bill concentrates too much power over our citizenship rights to the elected government than I'm comfortable with.

[twitchyzero]

Is there a party that will repeal both C51 and C24 in the upcoming election? These are two bullshit laws that makes me not want to make any effort to celebrate Canada's Day next week and it makes me sad.

[underscore]

Your points are correct if he was being charged in a Canadian court, but considering that he was arrested and tried under Egypt's courts, not Canadian, makes it pretty relevant that Egypt considers the MB a terrorist group. The Egyptians felt he was supporting a banned ideological group. The Egyptians felt that his media organization was a threat to national security and fermenting unrest against the government. And they charged him under their laws as such.

But for Canada to revoke his Canadian citizenship the charges and prison time have to translate over to Canadian law. The part that I think determines which of us is correct is how exactly the "conversion" is made from whatever foreign legal system someone is charged under to the Canadian Criminal Code (which might need someone more legalese-inclined to sort out). If they simply cross-reference the final charges with no regard for what they are based on then I agree, we could be in trouble for nonsense foreign charges. If they look at why someone was charged and the differences between what Canada deems terrorism and what a foreign country deems terrorism then I don't see much harm in calling someone deemed a terrorist under our laws a terrorist.

To simplify: If someone is arrested and charged as a terrorist in a foreign country, and what they did would have been a terrorist act under Canadian law had it happened on Canadian soil and they lose their citizenship, I don't see a problem.

If someone is arrested and charged as a terrorist in a foreign country, and what they did would not have been a terrorist act under Canadian law had it happened on Canadian soil and they don't lose their citizenship, I don't see a problem.

But if someone is arrested and charged as a terrorist in a foreign country, and what they did would not have been a terrorist act under Canadian law had it happened on Canadian soil and they do lose their citizenship, I see a problem.

[Hehe]

Liberal gov't introduced bill C-6 to amend C-21.

As a 'matter of principle,' convicted terrorists are fellow citizens - Politics - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/citizenship-terrorism-chris-hall-1.3464668)

"A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian"

:fuckyea:

[asian_XL]

Chinese mainlanders are considered as second class Canadian?