Lawyers argue law to revoke Canadian citizenship is unconstitutional

2014/10/25 Leave a comment

A case to watch:

“Once you are a citizen, you are a citizen,” said lawyer Rocco Galati, who brought the case before the court along with lawyer Manuel Azevedo and the Constitutional Rights Centre Inc.

Calling Ottawa’s act “an indirect amendment to the Canadian constitutions,” Paul Slansky, who represented the constitutional rights centre, said the government only has the authority over “aliens and naturalization,” but does not have the power to strip the citizenship of Canadian-born people.

“The issue is whether it can be taken away without your consent with the natural-born and naturalized citizens,” he told Justice Donald Rennie. “The government does not have the authority to legislate on this issue.”

Government lawyers asked the court to dismiss the case because the revocation provision has yet to be enforced and any constitutional challenge should be dealt with when an affected individual brings a case forward.

Federal legal strategy interesting – prefer to have this decided through case law.

Lawyers argue law to revoke Canadian citizenship is unconstitutional | Toronto Star.

And Chris Selley reminds us of the counter-productive aspects of revocation:

Now imagine Rouleau’s and Zehaf-Bibeau’s attacks had been thwarted at the last minute. Presumably they would now be facing terrorism charges. And now imagine they were dual citizens. There would now be mass calls to strip their Canadian citizenship and fire them out of a cannon toward whichever foreign capital issued their second passport. And this would be feasible, in theory anyway, under very popular new Citizenship Act amendments passed into law in June.

I have several philosophical objections to those amendments. But the Rouleau case illustrates its most basic practical flaw. Our sensible strategy is to keep the closest possible tabs on terrorism risks — and, if anything, closer tabs, one would think, on convicted terrorists who are eventually set free. Deportation is the very opposite of close tabs.

On the one hand, we’re seizing passports from people we fear may wind up on the ISIS battlefront. The government is actively publicizing this. On the other hand, the government has endorsed precisely the opposite notion: Get rid of terrorists entirely, and we’ll somehow be more safe.

In fact, a fairly common sentiment on Wednesday was that we would be better off not seizing these people’s passports. Fly to Istanbul, head down to Syria, see if we care. They’ll not be long for this world if they go, according to this view; we can cancel their passports once they leave, marooning them in the Levant; and denying them travel just invites them to turn their anger toward Canadian targets.

These two men were Canada’s responsibility. We nearly caught at least one of them

It’s difficult to overstate how churlish this is. It would amount to bolstering the forces of an enemy with which we’re at war. Perhaps 100 or so Canuck jihadists wouldn’t make much of a difference to the overall mission — but they could make an awful lot of innocent people’s lives miserable before finding themselves in the crosshairs of a coalition jet.

The Conservatives aren’t making that case, of course. It would be seen as morally bankrupt, which it is. But its difficult to draw a moral line between that case and the Conservatives’ own stated eagerness to pass off our terrorist garbage on other nations — indeed, the latter encourages the former.

These two men were Canada’s responsibility. We nearly caught at least one of them. We need to redouble our efforts and keep our eyes on the ball, not indulge childish exile fantasies.

Chris Selley: Our bad jihadi apples: Squash them or chuck them?

Filed under Citizenship, Revocation Tagged with , ,

“Protecting Canadian Citizenship” – Citizenship Fraud Update – Numbers Still Small

2014/10/22 2 Comments

Citizenship Fraud.037Given the number of citizenship fraud investigations (some 3200), numbers are still relatively low (see my earlier Overstating “Fraud” – New Canadian Media – NCM).

While 300 Notices of Intent to Revoke Citizenship may seem a lot, in the context of an average 140,000 new citizens per year – 2009-13, or the 200,000 plus this year, appears that the rhetoric has exceeded the reality):

Since the beginning of 2014, the Government has revoked the citizenship of 22 people who obtained their Canadian citizenship through fraud or misrepresentation

… Since 1988, the government has revoked citizenship from 119 individuals who were found to have obtained their citizenship fraudulently.

The Government is revoking citizenship on a scale that has never been done before with 300 Notices of Intent to Revoke Citizenship since July 2011.

Protecting Canadian Citizenship – Canada News Centre.

Filed under Citizenship, Revocation Tagged with

Should the Canadian government revoke the citizenship of dual-nationals who fight for ISIS?

2014/10/08 Leave a comment

Good CBC Radio interview with Raj Sharma, an immigration lawyer, who was scheduled to testify during the parliamentary hearings on Bill C-24 revisions to the Citizenship Act and revocation.

One of the better plain language explanations of the shortcomings of the Government’s approach:

Should the Canadian government revoke the citizenship of dual-nationals who fight for ISIS? – The 180 – CBC Player. (about 6 minutes)

Filed under Citizenship, Revocation Tagged with

Winnipeg man could be test case for Canada’s latest tool in fight against terrorism: revoking citizenship

2014/10/06 Leave a comment

A likely test case given Hiva Mohammad Alizadeh, a dual Iranian-Canadian national, pleaded guilty in Canadian courts (Hiva Alizadeh — arrested in Project Samosa — pleads guilty to terror plot):

Both the NDP and Liberals oppose the legislation, known as C-24. In a June 25 letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, NDP leader Thomas Mulcair wrote that the case of Mohamed Fahmy, a Canadian-Egyptian Al Jazeera journalist imprisoned in Egypt, illustrated the dangers of the law’s reliance on the decisions of foreign courts.

John McCallum, the Liberal immigration critic, said he was also concerned that the judgments of foreign courts could influence Canada’s decision to revoke citizenship, arguing the term terrorism was used “extremely loosely” against government opponents in countries like Sri Lanka.

The safeguards built into the law are also weak, he said, and it creates two classes of Canadians — those who hold dual nationality and those who don’t. “We think a Canadian is a Canadian and we should not have two classes of Canadians, some of whom could be deported and have their citizenship taken away.”

Neither was he convinced that deporting terrorists was a sound national security strategy. “If you’re serious about stopping them from killing people, you want to put them in jail, you don’t want to deport them to a place where they could go on killing.”

In a recent interview, Chris Alexander, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, said the law “sends a very clear message already to those who have grown up here or immigrated here who think it’s just natural that they should be able to go as Canadian citizens with their Canadian passport off to a theatre of war like Syria and join a barbaric group like Daesh,” another name for ISIS.

“No one, however misguided, can be in any doubt now about whether that kind of move should be taken lightly. It shouldn’t be. It’s a serious crime,” he said. “Where there is a conviction and it’s a dual national, you will lose your citizenship.”

He would not comment on which or how many cases were under consideration, saying it was “early days” and procedures were still being put into place. “I hope there’s early action under this provision, but I can’t give you firm timelines,” he said.

But during a meeting Tuesday with U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, Public Safety Minister Stephen Blaney “highlighted the Government of Canada’s determination to revoke citizenship from dual nationals found guilty of terrorism,” according to the Prime Minister’s Office.

Winnipeg man could be test case for Canada’s latest tool in fight against terrorism: revoking citizenship  

Filed under Citizenship, Radicalization, Revocation Tagged with

Mo3 and the risky idealism of youth: Salutin | Toronto Star

2014/10/02 Leave a comment

Rick Salutin on the one-sided language and focus on revocation and similar measures, rather than helping families and communities on prevention:

But ensuring decent options isn’t a task that parents can take on alone. It’s for all of society, especially its leaders. And believe me, pious denunciations of evil at the UN, by leaders with their own hideous, ongoing records to be ashamed of, won’t cut it with the young. I have that on vivid recall.

This week an Alberta leader of Somali Canadians asked the Harper government to expand outreach programs for youth. Their only response was a promise to protect “law-abiding Canadian families” by stripping citizenship under their new law for “dual-nationals who engage in terrorism.”

Well, these are law-abiding Canadian families whose kids are at risk and any criminal acts, including treason, can be dealt with already. All revoking citizenship does is dehumanize its targets, since citizenship is a human right. Do we really want Stephen Harper or Chris Alexander to decide who counts as human and who to exclude as monsters? This is sheer incitement of more anger and alienation. I’m against revoking anyone’s citizenship but if you were going to do it for encouraging radical, violent behaviour, you’d start with these official, elected provocateurs.

Mo3 and the risky idealism of youth: Salutin | Toronto Star.

Filed under Citizenship, Revocation Tagged with , ,

Rex Murphy: The case for revoking the citizenship of Canadian terrorists

2014/09/29 2 Comments

Rex Murphy makes the case for revoking citizenship.

Like Wente (How can we stop the jihadi tourists? – Margaret Wente), he forgets, either by design or by ignorance,  to mention that this means different treatment for the same crime based upon whether one has Canadian or dual nationality:

Priests are defrocked; medals from honour societies have been imperiously stripped from their holders; soldiers are court-marshalled and drummed out in disgrace; lawyers disbarred, judges swept from the bench, Senators tossed from caucuses, and even Presidents impeached.

The soldier who flees in combat and exposes his fellows to danger is seen as not worthy of being a solider. The judge who has oiled his palm with a bribe is seen as not worthy of being a judge. Treason and excommunication are long-standing responses to ultimate disfealties — and they are surely a kind of cancellation of status, one by the death penalty, the other by exclusion from the community of believers and the possibilities of salvation.

To my mind, these are all of an inferior enormity to the case of a citizen who abandons the country in which he was born, or to which he gave the oath of citizenship, who then pledges his fealty to a murderous band professing a murderous creed.

It’s a strange world in which we have even to contemplate such exigencies, but it is a strange world we find ourselves in today, in which nationals of the democracies willingly travel abroad to invest themselves in the orders of international terrorism, spit on their achieved citizenship, and threaten the safety of their onetime fellows in nationality.

The denial of passports is a stage toward the denial of citizenship. But the denial or witholding of passports is not a sufficient signal of the detestation a country and its people hold for those who so contemptuously forsake the gifts of loyalty and respect that a country rightfully commands from real citizens.

So to use his examples, decisions to defrock a priest do not depend on whether he was born into that religion or converted.

Neither are medals stripped, soldiers court martialed, lawyers disbarred, judges swept from the bench, or Senators tossed on the basis on the distinction whether they are single or dual nationality.

It is the crime or infraction that determines the punishment, with the same punishment for the same crime.

Passport cancellation applies to all, Canadian-born or naturalized, single or dual nationality, and thus consistent with the fundamental principle of equal treatment.

So pursue relentlessly, punish through the Canadian justice system but don’t make a distinction between nationality. After all, we have any number of Canadian-only nationals involved in extremist activity (e.g. Damian Clairmont, the Gordon brothers, John Maguire).

Rex Murphy: The case for revoking the citizenship of Canadian terrorists

Filed under Citizenship, Radicalization, Revocation Tagged with

Sept. 26: When jihadis ‘R’ Us – my letter in The Globe

2014/09/27 Leave a comment

My letter to The Globe on How can we stop the jihadi tourists? – Margaret Wente (tighter version than my post):

The cancellation of passports is not the same as the revocation of citizenship. Cancellation of passports potentially applies to all Canadians, whether born here or naturalized, whether dual national or not. Revocation applies only to those with dual nationality or with the right to another nationality.

Take an example from a Calgary terrorism cell. Canadian-born extremist Damian Clairmont would not have been subject to revocation while “cell mate” Pakistani dual national Salman Ashrafi, who came to Canada as a child, would have been. Both are dead, but there are comparable cases.

Two different punishments for the same crime. Hard to see how this would not be successfully challenged before the courts.

Far better to use the Australian approach, as stated by Prime Minister Tony Abbott: “If you fight with a terrorist group, if you seek to return to this country, as far as this government is concerned, you will be arrested, you will be prosecuted and you will be jailed for a very long time indeed.”

Sept. 26: When jihadis ‘R’ Us – and other letters to the editor – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under Citizenship, Radicalization, Revocation Tagged with ,

How can we stop the jihadi tourists? – Margaret Wente

2014/09/26 2 Comments

Wente conflates cancellation of passports with revocation of citizenship.

Not the same at all. Cancellation of passports potentially applies to all Canadians, whether born in Canada or naturalized, whether Canadian citizens only or dual nationals.

Revocation on the other hand, applies only to those with dual nationality (or with the right to another nationality).

So take some examples from the same Calgary terrorism cell. The Canadian-born extremist Damian Clairmont would not be subject to revocation while his “cellmate” Pakistani dual national Salman Ashrafi, who came to Canada as a child, would be.

Both are dead, but there are other comparable cases among the known and likely unknown extremists.

Two different punishments for the same crime. Hard to see how this would not be successfully challenged before the courts.

Far better to use the Australian approach, as stated by PM Abbott, “If you fight with a terrorist group, if you seek to return to this country, as far as this government is concerned, you will be arrested, you will be prosecuted and you will be jailed for a very long time indeed.”

Justin Trudeau, the Liberal Leader, has said he opposes the Conservatives’ new measures, and that homegrown terrorists should be dealt with through the criminal justice system. “I think that a lot of Canadians, including very conservative Canadians, should be worried about the state willing to, and taking the power to, arbitrarily remove citizenship from people,” he said. “That’s a slippery slope that I don’t think we want to go on.”

But Mr. Trudeau – who is now out of step with the rest of the world – will not be eager to raise the subject again. After all, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has allied himself not only with Britain and Australia, but with Barack Obama and the UN.

It’s a very serious matter for governments to revoke the passports of their citizens, restrict their freedom and deprive them of their citizenship. And people who warn that states might abuse their new powers are right. Without vigilance, they probably will.

Finding the balance between national security and personal liberty is always tricky. But our first obligation is to protect ourselves – and the world – from bad Canadians. The virus of murderous fanaticism hasn’t gone away. And it will be around for a long time to come.

How can we stop the jihadi tourists? – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under Radicalization, Revocation Tagged with , ,

Venezuela: Move to Revoke Actress’s Citizenship – NYTimes.com

2014/09/20 Leave a comment

The dark side of revocation against freedom of speech:

The government said Wednesday that it would seek to revoke the citizenship of the actress Maria Conchita Alonso, left, a fervent critic of its socialist-inspired policies. Ms. Alonso was born in Cuba and moved to Venezuela as a child, becoming a naturalized citizen. She has lived for years in the United States. The Interior Ministry will take judicial action to revoke her citizenship, according to the Information Ministry website.

In May, Ms. Alonso said in an interview with the Voice of America, “I wish that the United States would invade with bullets to remove all those wretched communists from Venezuela.” Venezuela is mired in an economic crisis, with inflation of 63 percent a year and shortages of basic goods, problems for which the government frequently blames its opponents. Ms. Alonso competed in the Miss Venezuela pageant in 1975 and has appeared in many films, including “Predator 2.”

Venezuela: Move to Revoke Actress’s Citizenship – NYTimes.com.

Filed under Citizenship, Revocation Tagged with ,

Canadians fighting with Islamic State could lose citizenship | Toronto Star

2014/09/17 Leave a comment

Minister Alexander’s standard talking points on revocation:

Canadians with dual citizenship fighting with Islamic extremists in Iraq and Syria could have their citizenship revoked under newly passed legislation, Immigration Minister Chris Alexander says.

Alexander says revoking the citizenship of those convicted of terrorism offences — allowed now under new citizenship legislation that became law earlier this year — is an important tool to help stem the tide of foreign fighters flocking to join Islamic State also known as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

“We will do it in every case we can, in the case of dual nationals,” Alexander told reporters Monday.

“Terrorism, espionage, treason are the most serious acts of disloyalty that you can commit. Terrorism is incompatible with citizenship.”

Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati is challenging the legislation, saying Parliament does not have the constitutional power to strip a Canadian-born citizen of his or her citizenship.

But Alexander said that revocation would happen only with “clear safeguards,” such as a court conviction for terrorism.

“Only when we have that conviction will revocation become a possibility,” the immigration minister told reporters on Parliament Hill.

The inconvenient truth is the number of Canadian-born with single nationality (e.g., Damian Clairmont, André Poulin, the Gordon brothers, John Maguire) would not be subject to revocation (those still alive), thus different punishments for the same crime.

Another likely defeat for the Government when the first cases come before the courts.

Canadians fighting with Islamic State could lose citizenship | Toronto Star.

Filed under Citizenship, Revocation Tagged with

← Older posts

Newer posts →