SenoritaBella said:
@ Eminem,
I don't think anyone is against revocation of citizenship if there is concrete proof that the person committed a serious crime abroad. The issue is, should this decision be made by a bureaucrat/politician or learned Judges?
Also, you are assuming that anyone convicted of serious crimes overseas will actually have a fair trial. You do know there are countries with dictators who arrest and sentence people without trials(much less fair trials) or arrest and convict on trumped up charges, right? Does North Korea ring a bell?
If the minister bases citizenship revocation on such a case, can he really say justice was served? Is this fair to the person? These are reasons for which - a) Judges remain the only persons equipped to deal with such matters; b) people need to have an opportunity in Canada to be heard before a Judge, all facts taken into consideration before a decision is made to either agree to the revocation or reject the Minister's decision.
What happens if someone's citizenship is revoked based on such bogus conviction and they are proven to be infact not guilty 5 yrs later?
These are questions I intend to ask any politicians canvassing for votes in my neighborhood come October 2015. It is a dangerous precedent to give such powers to one human.
I don't think you understood my post...Again,Obviously there is going to be a hearing and the accused will have their legal options and chance to state their case. However,the Canadian gvt representative, be it a ministers delegate,lawyers etc will present evidence (a judge is a judge, no such thing as a learned judge!) will present their case as to why the accused citizenship should be revocked. The onus will be on the accused to prove otherwise as the gvt will have a mountain of evidence against this person.I am extremely confident in this gvts ability to detect who really does deserve to have their citizenship revocked. Law enforcement as well as the Canadian intelligence organisation here are competent, non partisan and will take the case to where ever the EVIDENCE leads them to. So if you are dragged to a hearing by these organisations , you have a case to answer. If you truly didn't do ANYTHING wrong, then the evidence or lack of will exonerate you. WHy fear if you have nothing to hide? Remember terrorist investigations are deep and thorough, no stone is unturned , so if you are innocent you wont have to worry.
Ofcourse rogue countries are known to fabricate things and occasionally are truthful. All such claims will be investigated by law enforcement and credible evidence will always be unearthed. No doubt in my mind if you are innocent , you will exonerated , and no doubt if you are found guilty, you are guilty. Normally people who end up in such situations always have a case to answer, be it aiding and supporting, or what ever minor role they think they played in terrorist activities. Humanitarian workers, journalists, activists, who are CLEAN have evidence on their side that is credible and proven.
SOunds to me, your only issue here is such decisions have to made by a judge and not a politician? Well remember elections?? Minister Alex is an elected official, a man who is won an election and charged to represent his riding and Canadians in the scope of immigration. He is charged with protecting our borders and delivering immigration services. He has the legal right to appoint delegates who carry out his exact mandates and has legal rights to deny and take away services and documents to those that violate the intergrity of such priviledges. He is not just a politician,he works for a legal gvt, is in charge of legal department , a legal framework that is deemed constitutional and works hand in hand with other legal departments such as the justice ministry, RCMP, CSIS, community organizations. They already have the blessings of the judicial system and have a legal team of lawyers who assist in crafting such provisions.
