lawsuits against C24

[Eminem slim shady]

When Australia increased the residency requirement from 2 years to 4, it applied it to newcomers not to PR holders.

Australia is really strict, and if what you are saying is correct, that's definitely a first for them. However, they require more documents, you need an oversees criminal clearance certificate, your docs have to be certified, the onus is on you to provide all documents. Infact you need a guarantor who works in certain occupations to verify your ID! Their applications are way more stringent,here currently, they verify on your behalf, photocopies by themselves are acceptable.

 

[SenoritaBella]

@ Eminem, here is the definition of learned.

learn·ed

/ˈlərnid/

adjective

adjective: learned

(of a person) having much knowledge acquired by study.

•showing, requiring, or characterized by learning; scholarly.
"an article in a learned journal"

synonyms: scholarly, erudite, well educated, knowledgeable, well read, well informed, lettered, cultured, intellectual, academic, literary, bookish, highbrow, studious; informal brainy
"he was by far the most learned man in their community"

I have been in Canadian court and heard the Crown(prosecutor) say, my "learned colleague on the other side". Going by your analogy, I guess there is no such thing as a "learned colleague" because a colleague is a colleague?

All Judges in my opinion are learned, compared to politicians. The issue here is I don't think a politician is in any position to make decisions on serious matters such as citizenship revocation.

 

[Intel]

@Eminem

Well, the federal election system in Canada does not provide fair representation. The tories had only about 40% of the 2011 votes and yet got majority in HoC.

Back to the main issue. Again, many of us are not against the grounds of revocation. However, you should not give such power to politicians or bureaucrats. How will you get a fair trial from a party who acts as the judge and the claimant at the same time?

I can give you one extreme example. Put yourself in a condition where you oppose Harper's agenda (remember the environmentalists encounter?). What will prevent his government (under the new law) from considering you a terrorist and stripping you of citizenship?

If you read the new law carefully, the process twist is: (revoke first, defend later). Imagine yourself an innocent citizen who is accused of conducting terrorist activities outside Canada and the minister revocates your citizenship on that ground (in UK, the revocation can be based on just a suspision); giving you 30/60 days to appeal at the federal court. What will happen if you miss the appeal window because you are restrained?

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.

 

[alphazip]

Im completely 100% in support of that provision.

Well, those in favour should vote Conservative. That way, you'll be sure to have two types of citizenship: one for REAL Canadians, those born in Canada, and another for 2nd class Canadians, those who are naturalized.

 

[Eminem slim shady]

Mods, please discipline this member and/or ban him, personal attacks such as this one with foul language are NOT welcome on this forum, thank you.

Thanks buddy...some people here really don't deserve to be in this country. They import their baggage here and its all vomited on this forum. Never mind the troll.

 

[Eminem slim shady]

@ Eminem

Well, the federal election system in Canada does not provide fair representation. The tories had only about 40% of the 2011 votes and yet got majority in HoC.

Back to the main issue. Again, many of us are not against the grounds of revocation. However, you should not give such power to politicians or bureaucrats. How will you get a fair trial from a party who acts as the judge and the claimant at the same time?

I can give you one extreme example. Put yourself in a condition where you oppose Harper's agenda (remember the environmentalists encounter?). What will prevent his government (under the new law) from considering you a terrorist and stripping you of citizenship?

If you read the new law carefully, the process twist is: (revoke first, defend later). Imagine yourself an innocent citizen who is accused of conducting terrorist activities outside Canada and the minister revocates your citizenship on that ground (in UK, the revocation can be based on just a suspision); giving you 30/60 days to appeal at the federal court. What will happen if you miss the appeal window because you are restrained?

Citizenship is priviledge, its NOT a right and the courts have even said this.A priviledge that comes with responsibilities.So since its deemed a priviledge and not a right it doesn't need to go through then judicial process of revocation, it should be revoked by the authority that granted it. If one wants to challenge this, they have legal options available to them to do so. Like I mentioned before, your citizenship is now being granted by the minister, it should be also revoked by the minister. If you have disputes, you have legal options including going to court at your own expense. Just like filing for manandus inorder to receive Citizenship, if the minister hasn't granted you citizenship in a timely manner, you can also challenge a revocation in court . That hasn't changed infact. But yes, the authority that grants you citizenship should have the same authority vice versa to revoke it, and onus is on you to prove why that shouldn't be the case in court.After all, a court is there to settle disputes. So an elected official has the right to revoke it if you are suspected of or engaged in terrorist activities. You nor me don't have a right to citizenship, its a priviledge we are applying for here, so if you are suspected of terrorist activities, THE authority that granted you citizenship should have the legal authority to revoke it. If what you say is correct in regards to the new revocation process, then its being done to prevent endless appeals and time buying.After all, no one is being left stateless here, and that has been made extremely clear. Biggest lesson here is, don't be anywhere near such people nor activities.Its simple.


To answer some of your questions, if you miss the appeal window in the UK because you have been suspected or charged with engaging in terrorism, my friend, that's your own fault!! This is not shop lifting or getting a speeding ticket, terrorism is a serious charge where law enforcement has concrete evidence against you. If you are suspected, you yourself know deep down you have been involved in activities so serious , repercussions will follow. I don't believe people who commit such things are oblivious of their actions, I don't believe people do such things "accidentally" I don't believe people do such things without a single thought as to the actions and consequences. I dont believe Minister Alex will just wake up and snap his fingers and immediately decide to revoke someones citizenship at a whim! Like i said, law enforcement, CSIS,have to mount evidence against you inorder to support such a decision from the minister.You do the deed, you face the harsh and tough measures against you and you do the time.

A terrorist has a definition, their activities are now monitored and traceable thanks to the digital footprint that everyone leaves these days. Like I said before, these are not petty crimes like shop lifting or the like, this is aspiring to commit treason, kill women and children, and destroy infrastructure using explosives , Jets or anything possible.These are sophisticated and planned activities...surely someone that does this deserves NOT to be a Canadian citizen. This is not your everyday Joe, this is a sick person, sometimes undetectable in society, but sick nonetheless.How ever way you look at this.If you truelly support revocation of people who commit such crimes, then support that and the efforts being made to make sure such bannishments happen, fullstop. Why worry about them so much? They plan to do the deed, they should be punished, they are not being waterborded or tortured , they are being punished and jailed rightfully so.

 

[Eminem slim shady]

Well, those in favour should vote Conservative. That way, you'll be sure to have two types of citizenship: one for REAL Canadians, those born in Canada, and another for 2nd class Canadians, those who are naturalized.

You really don't understand this law in depth I have noticed.And your statement is not realistic, just emotional.Also, if what you think is true, why bother applying for Canadian citizenship in the first place if you fear its becoming a two -tier system?

 

[labeamer]

Thanks buddy...some people here really don't deserve to be in this country. They import their baggage here and its all vomited on this forum. Never mind the troll.

i do not care what people like you think. I do not respond to people who are ignorant, selfish or devoid of fundamental concept of fairness. You keep spouting your misconceptions here. Anyhow whatever, good luck with you ignorance... minister chris this, this government that... this country this, this citizenship that... this person good, that one bad... suspected of terrorism and banish him... pass judgements when you are not a judge... etc.

 

[Eminem slim shady]

i do not care what people like you think. I do not respond to people who are ignorant, selfish or devoid of fundamental concept of fairness. You keep spouting your misconceptions here. Anyhow whatever, good luck with you ignorance... minister chris this, this government that... this country this, this citizenship that... this person good, that one bad... suspected of terrorism and banish him... pass judgements when you are not a judge... etc.

Thank you for the kind words. You don't have to agree with me, but have the decency to be civil.After all, this is Canada isn't it? Everyone is free to express themselves without hindrance, insults or vilification.

 

[alphazip]

You really don't understand this law in depth I have noticed.And your statement is not realistic, just emotional.Also, if what you think is true, why bother applying for Canadian citizenship in the first place if you fear its becoming a two -tier system?

I don't have to apply for Canadian citizenship; I'm a Canadian citizen from birth, having been born in the USA to a Canadian parent. Your views on this subject are in line with those of the current Conservative government. Mine are not. We'll just have to wait and see how the Supreme Court views the question of whether there are two classes of citizenship: one held by people born in Canada, and another held by dual citizens (including persons who have no way of divesting themselves of their original citizenship). This isn't a question of how bad some citizens are (and the crimes they commit), it's a legal principle that is being tested. The correct punishment for committing a crime is the Canadian court system.

 

[brbr]

Thank you for the kind words. You don't have to agree with me, but have the decency to be civil.After all, this is Canada isn't it? Everyone is free to express themselves without hindrance, insults or vilification.

Hey buddy,

I am thinking don't interact with that member any more, and you are welcome for the earlier comment. It's sad to see how some people can't express their disagreement in a well mannered and civil way. I don't understand how people like that can flourish in the 21st century. As a business leader I would be flabbergasted to have someone behave like that on my team. It is easy for people to hide in the shadows of anonymity online, but in the real world only those who can constructively articulate are the ones who are taken seriously. Personal attacks do NOT add value, they only deconstruct any validity to an argument which you were about to make.

 

[Eminem slim shady]

I don't have to apply for Canadian citizenship; I'm a Canadian citizen from birth, having been born in the USA to a Canadian parent. Your views on this subject are in line with those of the current Conservative government. Mine are not. We'll just have to wait and see how the Supreme Court views the question of whether there are two classes of citizenship: one held by people born in Canada, and another held by dual citizens (including persons who have no way of divesting themselves of their original citizenship). This isn't a question of how bad some citizens are (and the crimes they commit), it's a legal principle that is being tested. The correct punishment for committing a crime is the Canadian court system.

And that's fine,thats your own opinion and I have mine. I still doubt a lawsuit will make it all the way to the supreme court, that's way too optimistic in my mind. Lets all stay tuned and see how this unfolds. On another note, the USA takes protecting its citizenship very seriously, I think Canada should do the same.

 

[Eminem slim shady]

Hey buddy,

I am thinking don't interact with that member any more, and you are welcome for the earlier comment. It's sad to see how some people can't express their disagreement in a well mannered and civil way. I don't understand how people like that can flourish in the 21st century. As a business leader I would be flabbergasted to have someone behave like that on my team. It is easy for people to hide in the shadows of anonymity online, but in the real world only those who can constructively articulate are the ones who are taken seriously. Personal attacks do NOT add value, they only deconstruct any validity to an argument which you were about to make.

Hey buddy! Thanks and thanks again! I couldn't have said your words better you know.You hit the nail right on the head. Im afraid this country has admitted the wrong types indeed, there are some people that don't just fit in with the values and norms of this nation. That's the biggest thing before anything else. Makes me see why most Canadians these days are against immigration of any kind and how they feel about certain cultures immigrating here. Some people will never be Canadian no matter what piece of paper or passport they hold,their attitude will always overwhelm them.

 

[torontosm]

I am against revocation of citizenship under any circumstances except fraud. A person born in Canada (without other citizenships) isn't stripped of his/her citizenship for committing a crime. Why should a naturalized Canadian be treated any differently? If a citizen commits a crime, charge him/her in court. That's how crimes are dealt with, not by the medieval custom of banishment!

People born in Canada are subject to the same rules, and can be stripped of their Canadian citizenship if they are citizens of another country,.

 

[alphazip]

People born in Canada are subject to the same rules, and can be stripped of their Canadian citizenship if they are citizens of another country,.

And when I wrote: "A person born in Canada (without other citizenships) isn't stripped of his/her citizenship for committing a crime", it wasn't clear that I was referring to Canadians WITHOUT OTHER CITIZENSHIPS? In other words, yes, a person born in Canada with other citizenships CAN be stripped of his/her citizenship.