Why stripping citizenship is a weak tool to fight terrorism: Roach and Forces

2016/03/07 Leave a comment

Usual good analysis and assessment:

First, even assuming that citizenship revocations produced the removal of dangerous people from Canada, that strategy would amount to anti-terrorism NIMBYism. More concretely, Canada would embark of a policy of catch and release – setting up today’s convicts as tomorrow’s foreign fighters, with travel to foreign locales facilitated by the Canadian government. It seems unlikely other countries would embrace the “return” of people converted to violence in Canada, and deposited on their doorstep because of a potentially tenuous residual link of nationality.

Nor would it be sensible to assume that deported former Canadians would thereafter be unable or uninterested in engineering acts dangerous to Canada and Canadians. Operating far from Canada and its security services, they would enjoy a greater freedom to do so than would those kept closer to home, under watch and potentially more invasive strictures, such as peace bonds.

Second, the provisions only applied to dual nationals. The rationale for this focus was simple – making someone stateless would violate Canada’s international obligations. But this focus on a small subset of Canadians encouraged the dangerous delusion that terrorism is (or can be made into) a foreign threat and problem. The so-called Toronto 18 plot, the terrorist attacks of October, 2014, and the 1985 Air India bombing underline the fact that terrorism is a Canadian phenomenon. Some of those plotters were dual nationals, others were not. In almost all of the recent terrorism cases, the violent radicalization of plotters was made-in-Canada, not the product of residence in some foreign locale.

Citizenship revocation for dual nationals is at best a capricious and close to arbitrary tool, focused not on a class of people who are the most objectively dangerous, but on a population most legally vulnerable to the extraordinary revocation power.

Third, the law now being repealed would in most cases commit Canada to long and costly battles about whether it can deport a convicted terrorist to countries such as Iran without the person running the risk of torture. This is a path we have been down before, with the infamous (and to date fruitless) security certificate disputes – legal proceedings that have consumed millions of taxpayer dollars and have yet to result in the removal of any of the five foreign-born men accused of terrorism and subjected to removal orders after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The costs here stem not only from the extensive litigation but also from the reputational hit Canada incurs when it risks complicity with torture. The O’Connor and Iacobucci inquiries into the role of Canadian authorities in contributing to the maltreatment of Canadians in foreign jails are now a decade old, but their lessons remain acute. Stripping someone’s nationality before sending him to a foreign jail in a torturing country does not change in the least the ethical or legal implications of such conduct.

Fourth, the prospect of deporting terrorists who have served their prison terms provides Canada with another excuse not to dedicate resources to problems of prison disengagement from terrorism and rehabilitation. The Western world is slowly awakening to the reality that many people convicted under broad, post-9/11 laws enacted to prevent terrorism before it happens will eventually be released. The idea of citizenship stripping encourages the illusion that Canada can displace the risk of terrorism, rather than take responsibility for fighting it through programs that counter violent extremism, including for people convicted of terrorist plots.

All of these points condemn citizenship revocation even without considering questions of constitutional law and principle. But those, too, are ripe – not least, the issue of whether our courts would have followed their U.S. counterparts and condemned citizenship revocation as an underhanded supplemental punishment for things a citizen did, while still a citizen.

Source: Why stripping citizenship is a weak tool to fight terrorism – The Globe and Mail

Filed under Citizenship, Radicalization, Revocation Tagged with ,

Terrorist scumbag doesn’t deserve citizenship | Candace Malcolm | Toronto Sun

2016/03/01 1 Comment

Expressed more simply but using the same strand of arguments as in John Ibbitson’s Dual nationals convicted of terrorism, high treason or spying don’t deserve to keep Canadian citizenship:

Now, the Liberal government is not only saying this man can stay in Canada, but they are also honouring him with citizenship.

Does the Trudeau government plan to send a citizenship judge into Amara’s prison cell to host a citizenship ceremony? Will he be asked to utter the oath of citizenship, and pledge allegiance to Canada and the Queen? Maybe Trudeau will show up for a selfie.

This is an absolute mockery of our citizenship. This scumbag does not deserve the privilege of being Canadian.

And yet, the Trudeau government is going out of its way to grant citizenship to a person who, judging by his actions, has a hatred for Canadians. We are bestowing the privilege and honour of Canadian citizenship upon a radicalized self-confessed Islamic terrorist who conspired to wage war against Canada.

Immigration minister John McCallum justified the move by saying, “Canadian citizens are equal under the law.”

That’s just not the case. In Canada, much like every other Western country, a person convicted of an indictable offence loses many of the rights and privileges that come along with citizenship. Serious criminals are no longer equal under the law.

Amara committed the modern day equivalent of high treason. He should not be treated equally to law-abiding Canadian citizens.

When Amara is released from prison, we should be showing him the door, not handing him Canadian citizenship papers.

Source: Terrorist scumbag doesn’t deserve citizenship | Malcolm | Columnists | Opinion |

Filed under C-6, Citizenship, Revocation Tagged with

Matt Gurney: If deportation is appropriate for war criminals, why not for terrorists?

2016/02/29 Leave a comment

Matt Gurney is unsatisfied with the principle, “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian” as an explanation why we revoke citizenship for fraud and misrepresentation but not for terrorism:

After the Second World War, thousands of citizens of defeated enemy nations — Germany, Italy, Japan — moved to Canada. These immigrants included many who had served in the armed forces of those nations, and perhaps had even fought against Canadians. Mere military service in a once-hostile nation was not, and should not have been, found to be sufficient cause to deny them citizenship once the war was over. In some rare cases, however, Canada later discovered (or was told) that people living here as naturalized Canadians had been involved, for instance, in the Holocaust. These individuals, once convicted of their war crimes, had their citizenship taken away and were returned to their original countries of origin to face justice.

If that’s appropriate for war criminals, why not for terrorists?

The legal answer would be, of course, that these individuals weren’t stripped of their passports because they were terrible people who had done awful things, but because they’d lied about having done those terrible things. But while perhaps legally valid, the argument is morally and pragmatically absurd. We don’t exile liars, nor should fraud be somehow treated as a crime worse than, say, genocide. The legal circumstances provided an excuse to what’s really, and rightly, an exercise in morality — denying the honour of Canadian citizenship to those who do not deserve it.

If the Liberals wish to reverse parts of C-24, they of course have that right. They are the government. But concerned Canadians are owed more than slogans. The government should be clear why war criminals can be deported, but terrorists with dual nationalities can keep their passport forever. They may have an answer for it. If so, let’s hear it.

If I were writing the talking points:

  • There is a difference between one’s behaviour before one becomes a citizen and after one becomes Canadian
  • Before, all applicants must meet requirements (residency, language, knowledge etc) in order to take the oath and become citizens
  • Integrity is central to this process
  • Any misrepresentation or fraud, like any government program, means one loses the benefits of the particular program
  • After, all citizens must be treated equally before the law, whether Canadian-born or foreign-born, whether Canadian citizen only or dual-national
  • Current and past cases involve all of these variations, and should be subject to the same punishment. One should not have different punishments for the same crime

Responsive (if asked what about those lying when they take the oath)

  • There is no reliable way to test the sincerity of those taking the oath unlike the other, more easily verifiable, requirements

Comments or suggestions welcome …

Source: Matt Gurney: If deportation is appropriate for war criminals, why not for terrorists? | National Post

Filed under C-6, Citizenship, Revocation Tagged with

Asian sex abusers to be stripped of UK citizenship and deported

2016/02/29 Leave a comment

Implementation of the slippery-slope argument with respect to revocation in the UK (yes, these are horrific crimes, but very long jail time is the appropriate response):

Asian-born sex abusers will be stripped of their UK citizenship and deported at the end of their sentences under a new Home Office drive, The Independent can reveal.

Theresa May, the Home Secretary, is planning to significantly increase her department’s use of legal powers that allow serious criminals with dual nationality to have their British citizenship withdrawn, Whitehall sources say.

Until now, the powers have predominately been used to remove the UK passports of terrorists and terrorist sympathisers.

But senior department sources told The Independent that – in response to the series of Asian sex abuse gangs uncovered in towns across the country in recent years  – there is likely to be an “acceleration of passport strike-outs and potential deportations”.

British-Pakistani members of the gang of six men and women from Rotherham who were convicted on Wednesday of offences including rape, forced prostitution, indecent assault and  false imprisonment are expected to face action to strip them of their UK citizenship after they are sentenced today. Legal proceedings seeking their potential deportation to Pakistan are likely to follow.

The abuse of predominantly white girls by networks of Asian men has led to prosecutions across the North of England and the Midlands. More trials are imminent.

David Greenwood, head of the child abuse department at Switalskis solicitors in Sheffield, who represents almost 60 victims subjected to sexual abuse by the Rotherham gang between 1996 and 2012, said: “This trial is just the first of many and is the tip of a very big iceberg. From the work I have done, it appears that gangs of Asian men have been operating to sexually abuse young white girls in Rotherham, Oxford, Keighley, Bradford and Rochdale.”

Although amendments to British nationality laws in 2014 making it easier to strip dual nationals of citizenship were primarily aimed at terrorists who could undermine the UK’s security, the Home Office is now using the same legal sanctions to target serious crime, including sex abuse.

Source: Asian sex abusers to be stripped of UK citizenship and deported | Crime | News | The Independent

Filed under Citizenship, Multiculturalism, Revocation Tagged with , , ,

Various Commentary on Citizenship Act Changes

2016/02/26 Leave a comment

Commentary on the Liberal government’s planned changes to citizenship (Bill C-6), from those advocating a more facultative approach (including myself) and former Minister Alexander:

“We are very pleased with the government’s decision to rescind the previous government’s Bill C-24 that made it far more difficult to obtain citizenship and far easier to lose,” said Debbie Douglas of the Ontario Council for Agencies Serving Immigrants.

“We are particularly pleased that we are moving away from two-tier citizenship where dual citizens could have their citizenship revoked. We commend the Liberal government for taking this principled decision.”

The new citizenship bill also makes some new changes by extending immigration authorities’ power to seize documents suspected of fraud and barring those serving conditional sentences from seeking citizenship or counting the time toward the residency eligibility.

Andrew Griffith, a former director-general with the immigration department, said the proposed legislation surprisingly retained many of the provisions passed by the previous government to improve enforcement and integrity of the citizenship system while reducing unreasonable hurdles for would-be citizens.

“They are removing some of the worst abuses the Conservatives did, promoting its diversity and inclusive agenda, without changing the fundamental value of real and meaningful commitment to Canadian citizenship,” Griffith said.

“These proposed changes reflect, apart from revocation, relatively modest changes, in line with the Liberals’ public commitments, and that retain virtually all of the previous government’s integrity measures.”

While he is pleased with the proposed citizenship changes, veteran immigration lawyer Lorne Waldman said those who face citizenship revocation on the grounds of misrepresentation are still not entitled to a hearing – a practice that is under a legal challenge in the federal court.

“Why are we keeping this Harper legacy?” Waldman asked.

Under the Harper government, the citizenship application backlog had ballooned with processing time significantly lengthened. New resources were brought in last year to reduce the wait time.

McCallum said new citizenship applications are now being processed in 12 months and the backlog is expected to be cleared by the end of this year.

 Source: Ottawa reverses course of Canada’s ‘easier to lose, harder to get’ citizenship | Toronto Star

In an email to The Canadian Press ahead of the announcement, former Conservative immigration minister Chris Alexander said the changes his government made were in keeping with Canadian values.

“Terrorism, espionage and treason are serious crimes, representing gross acts of disloyalty. They are far more serious violations than covering up minor crimes from one’s past — a common form of misrepresentation,” he said.

The Conservative bill was attacked as setting a dangerous precedent and even challenged, unsuccessfully, as unconstitutional.

Liberals to pull back Tory rules, restoring citizenship to convicted terrorist
In the National Post, John Ivison harshly criticizes the repeal of the revocation provisions (as well as pandering to ethnic voters):

It’s true, as Immigration Minister John McCallum pointed out, that this fulfils an election pledge, made to drive a wedge between the Tories and the ethnic communities that supported them in three elections.

The Conservatives signed their own death warrant by tightening up the family reunification criteria, raising the income threshold necessary for new immigrants to bring in parents and grandparents.

The Liberals campaigned hard on easing those restrictions and on their intention to revoke the Conservative citizenship bill, exploiting fears in ethnic communities that they could be stripped of their citizenship and deported if convicted of a crime.

…. the central failing of this bill. Dual nationals can now be convicted of terrorism, high treason or spying and retain their Canadian citizenship.

You can be supportive of civility, tolerance and inclusion and still believe this move is dangerous and misguided.

Loyalty is the measure of good citizenship.

When you betray that trust, you should forfeit the rights, privileges and duties of being a member of Canadian society.

Dual nationals convicted of terrorism, high treason or spying don’t deserve to keep Canadian citizenship

I am waiting for Ivison’s colleague, Chris Selley, to weigh in given his previous strong criticism of revocation (National Post | Chris Selley: Stripping jihadis’ citizenship feels good. But what good does it do?)

Tasha Kheiriddin in iPolitics starts from the same place but ends with a more nuanced criticism, making a distinction between those who became citizens as children, which should be treated no differently from Canadian-born, and those who became citizens as adults:

But the fear of losing one’s citizenship struck a deep chord with immigrants and native-born Canadians alike. Trudeau’s impassioned defence of citizenship was widely seen as a highlight of that debate — that rare sort of knockout punch pundits and audiences yearn for. The Liberals carried that punch from the debate to the doorstep, where it — coupled with their defence of the niqab and opposition to the Conservatives’ barbaric cultural practices tip line — helped cement the Liberals’ reputation as pro-New Canadian, and the Conservatives’ image as anti-immigrant.
This week, Immigration Minister John McCallum announced that the government would be reversing Bill C-24. “Canadian citizens are equal under the law, whether they were born in Canada or were naturalized in Canada or hold dual citizenship,” McCallum said in a statement. …

The bill also will restore Canadian citizenship to anyone stripped of it under Bill C-24. As a result, Amara will have his citizenship reinstated once the Liberals’ new bill becomes law.

Opponents of the Conservative law decried the creation of two different “classes” of citizens — those born in Canada and those who have dual nationalities. But those individuals are arguably already in two different classes — in fact, more than two, depending on how they obtained their citizenships. Some did so by birth, some due to a parent’s move to Canada, and some by their own choice as an adult. And the implications of revocation for each group can be very, very different.

In Amara’s case, he came to Canada as a 13-year-old. While he arguably took his oath as a child, nothing would have prevented him from renouncing his Jordanian citizenship as an adult. Maintaining it, however, gave him certain advantages, including freedom to live, work and travel in Jordan, where he was born. Those advantages are not available to other Canadians. Should they complain that they’re second-class citizens, because they don’t have the same privileges? Should he complain that he received unequal treatment, when he himself maintains an unequal status?

In the case of dual citizens born in Canada, who hold dual citizenship by virtue of their parents, the situation is somewhat different. Saad Gaya, also one of the Toronto 18, was deemed to have Pakistani citizenship retroactively, due to his parents’ possessing Pakistani nationality. Unlike Amara, Gaya had no connection to his parents’ country, and claimed that he didn’t even have said citizenship. Furthermore, as a child born here, he did not choose Canada. Because of this, he claimed that sending him to Pakistan would constitute “cruel and unusual treatment”.

A better version of the law would be one that allows the state to cancel the Canadian citizenship of a person convicted of treason who obtained that citizenship consciously and deliberately as an adult. This would deter those seeking citizenship for no other reason than to enable them to strike back at their adopted country, or who used their ability to move freely in Canada to facilitate terrorist acts.

While there is no doubt that withdrawal of citizenship should not be subject to the whim of the state, neither should citizenship be completely taken for granted. For citizenship to have value, it must not just be a passport of convenience — or worse, a cover for crime.

Dual nationals convicted of terrorism don’t deserve to keep Canadian citizenship

Comparatively little to no coverage or commentary in Quebec media, unless I missed it.

Filed under C-6, Citizenship, Revocation Tagged with , , , , , ,

Changes coming soon to #Citizenship Act, John McCallum says

2016/02/20 1 Comment

Messaging is more in the nature of relatively minor changes/reversals, in contrast to his earlier reference to “radical changes” (McCallum promises ‘radical changes’ to Citizenship Act | hilltimes.com). We should know which is it in a few weeks:

But McCallum said the Liberal government has two main goals when it comes to making its changes to the Citizenship Act.

“We would make it impossible for the government to take away someone’s citizenship, and we would reduce the barriers currently in place that people have to overcome,” he said.

One of those barriers is a test to prove language proficiency in English or French. Bill C-24 expanded the age range for people required to take that test, to those aged 14 to 64 from a ranged of 18 to 54.

McCallum hinted the government is considering restoring the original age limit, among other changes.

“We could bring it back to [age] 54,” he said. “That’s an adjustment at the margin on the grounds that some older people coming to this country may not be fully proficient in English, although their children will be and their grandchildren certainly will be.”

“It’s one of the things we are potentially considering,” he added.

But McCallum made clear the government has no plans to scrap the language testing.

“I think you could call it tweaks to the system, and certainly not ditching the system.”

As for when Canadians can expect an announcement from the government, McCallum said to be on watch “in the coming days and weeks, but not very many weeks.”

Source: Changes coming soon to Citizenship Act, John McCallum says – Politics – CBC News

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act, Revocation Tagged with

Why a new citizenship law in France has outraged the French left – The Washington Post

2016/02/13 Leave a comment

Good summary:

On Wednesday, the Assemblé Nationale voted 317 to 199 in favor of a constitutional amendment that would permit one of the most controversial pieces of French legislation in recent years — the so-called déchéance de la nationalité. In the aftermath of the Nov. 13 attacks across Paris, the law that would strip citizenship from French-born dual citizens accused of terrorism. Fifty deputies abstained.

Since the November attacks, perpetrated by Islamist militants, President François Hollande declared a state of emergency that lasts officially until Feb. 26, a period in which a host of new measures have increased the powers of the Interior Ministry to raid homes and to place citizens suspected of terrorist activity under house arrest. The state of emergency is likely to be renewed. Although there has been considerable criticism of the more than 3,000 police raids that have taken place since Nov. 13 — which have resulted in only around 360 arrests — the proposed citizenship law has undoubtedly caused the greatest outrage.

According to Le Monde, there are approximately 3.3 million people in France with dual citizenship, and critics — mostly from within the ranks of Hollande’s own party, the Parti Socialiste — insist that this law would make an entirely unnecessary distinction among French citizens, who are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the state. They also dispute whether it would be an effective means of fighting terrorism. After all, would removing the French citizenship of French-born terrorists keep them from pulling any triggers?

On a deeper level, these predominately leftist critics have argued, the déchéance de la nationalité would strike at the heart of French Republican values, devoted to the holy trinity of liberty, equality and fraternity. As Patrick Weil, a leading French historian of immigration, told the New York Times in January: “The principle of equality is one of the pillars of French identity. That [Hollande] wants to distinguish between French citizens is creating a tsunami.”

Christiane Taubira, Hollande’s justice minister, resigned over this proposed law on Jan. 27, and many other prominent socialists and leftists — including Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo and the far-left politician Jean-Luc Mélénchon — have condemned it outright. The so-called tsunami ultimately split the Parti Socialiste in Wednesday’s vote: 168 voted in favor, while 119 either voted against or abstained. The same was essentially true of the center-right, despite a plea from Nicolas Sarkozy. In response to the vote, as well as to the government shake-up this morning that saw the former prime minister Jean-Marc Ayrault replace Laurent Fabius as France’s Foreign Minister, Hollande is expected to appear on French television this evening to assuage public opinion.

The “déchéance” is not yet official, as it will still need to pass in the Senate, where it will be discussed in several weeks. It also must be approved by a three-fifths majority vote from lawmakers of both houses. But with this week’s vote, it has come one step closer to becoming the law of the land.

Source: Why a new citizenship law in France has outraged the French left – The Washington Post

Filed under Citizenship, Revocation Tagged with , , ,

McCallum promises ‘radical changes’ to Citizenship Act | hilltimes.com

2016/02/09 Leave a comment

No details yet on the ‘radical changes’ promised but a strong indication of Liberal caucus concerns, which seem primarily around language assessment.

However, Minister McCallum’s mandate letter only had three commitments:

  • Work with the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to repeal provisions in the Citizenship Act that give the government the right to strip citizenship from dual nationals.
  • Eliminate regulations that remove the credit given to international students for half of the time that they spend in Canada and regulations that require new citizens to sign a declaration that they intend to reside in Canada.

But a clear signal of intent to do more.

I find it somewhat amusing that after being critical of some of the changes to citizenship made by the previous government, I now find myself defending them on language assessment:

Immigration Minister John McCallum says the government will be “producing radical changes” to the Citizenship Act in the next few weeks. Liberals have been telling him that the government should eliminate the language requirement for new immigrants to apply for Canadian citizenship, which was brought in by the Conservatives in 2014 as part of the controversial Bill C-24.

Mr. McCallum (Markham-Thornhill, Ont.) told The Hill Times that he’s aware of the concerns and will make an announcement in a few weeks. “We’re going to be producing radical changes to the citizenship bill,” Mr. McCallum said. “We’re going to be announcing the details of those changes in just a few weeks.”

Liberal MPs told The Hill Times that although they want new immigrants to acquire proficiency in both or at least one of the two official languages of Canada, it’s also a question of fairness, saying the language requirements disenfranchise new immigrants from their right to take part in the political process.

“It’s a big problem the way the system has been set up under the previous government for language requirements,” said rookie Liberal MP Shaun Chen (Scarborough North, Ont.) whose riding has the highest visible minority population of 90.1 per cent, in the country.

But in some cases MPs said new immigrants fail to achieve the required proficiency for a variety of reasons. For example, some immigrants come to Canada under the family sponsorship program, as parents or grandparents and may not have any knowledge or a limited understanding of English or French. At that age, MPs said, it becomes an uphill battle, for some, to learn a new language. Also, when new immigrants move to Canada, the first priority for them is to provide for their family and take care of the expenses and a significant number take up any odd job to earn a living which can mean they don’t have the time to learn a new language, MPs said.

“Often times, families are sponsoring elders and grandparents at a very elderly age. It’s very challenging and difficult for them to be at such a high proficiency of English or French. To me, it makes sense for us to [adopt a system] that’s more inclusive,” said Mr. Chen. “It’s helpful to families that need to sponsor, for example, grandparents. Those new Canadians play an important role to look after children to be there and to support the family and, absolutely, it’s something that we will need to revisit and look at.”

Canadian citizens have a significant number of advantages over permanent residents, including the ability to work, participating in the political process by voting and running for political office, having a passport that makes it easy to travel internationally, and having the right to get consular support overseas.

….Liberal MPs Darshan Kang (Calgary Skyview, Alta.) and Sukh Dhaliwal (Surrey-Newton, B.C.) also told The Hill Times that they are in favour of eliminating the language proficiency test as a requirement to apply for Canadian citizenship.

“Why don’t we let those individuals who are part and parcel of this economy, that are part and parcel of building Canada, the Canada we all aspire, why should they be denied a right to participate in our democratic process which is the fundamental difference that Canadians have over many other countries that we have come from,” said Mr. Dhaliwal, who came to Canada as an immigrant from India and whose riding has a 70.2 per cent of visible minority population. Mr. Kang’s riding has a 59.6 per cent of visible minority population.

Mr. Griffith, however, said that language proficiency is a critical element of a new immigrant’s integration and success in a new country. He said that he’s in favour of requiring new immigrants to learn English or French but also said that if new immigrants over the age of 54 are not able to learn either of the languages, this requirement should be waived.

“If you don’t learn English or French, depending on where you are, you’re basically hurting yourself. It means you’re not going to be able to integrate properly, you’re not going to be able to help your kids with school work, and everything like that. If you start to waive the language completely, you’re basically not helping people succeed in the society,” said Mr. Griffith.

Source: McCallum promises ‘radical changes’ to Citizenship Act | hilltimes.com

Filed under Citizenship, Citizenship Act, Language, Revocation Tagged with ,

Christine Taubira, justice minister at odds with French government, resigns

2016/01/28 Leave a comment

A further reflection of the divisions within the Hollande government and party members and supporters over the proposed citizenship revocation measures:

French Justice Minister Christiane Taubira, a left-winger often considered at odds with her government on matters of law and order enforcement, resigned on Wednesday, President Francois Hollande’s office said in a statement.

The announcement came as parliament prepared to examine a controversial constitutional reform that would allow for people convicted of terrorism to be stripped of their citizenship in certain circumstances.

Taubira, who expressed reservations about the plan, said on her Twitter account: “Sometimes you remain in place to resist. Sometimes resisting means you go.”

The statement from Hollande’s office said Taubira would be replaced by Jean-Jacques Urvoas, widely regarded as more supportive of Prime Minister Manuel Valls and Hollande.

Taubira, born in French Guiana, was perhaps best known for shepherding legislation through parliament to legalize same-sex weddings in France. While her active role on that major social policy change was widely recognised, she was often accused of advocating a softer touch on law and order than others in her government.

That stance has looked even more problematic in the wake of the Nov. 13 Islamist militant attacks on Paris and the security clampdown they sparked, and as countries across Europe take a harder line on policing.

Source: Christine Taubira, justice minister at odds with French government, resigns – World – CBC News

Filed under Citizenship, Revocation Tagged with , ,

ICYMI: French proposal to strip terror convicts’ #citizenship faces fire

2016/01/05 Leave a comment

More on some of the debates within France regarding citizenship revocation:

Patrick Weil, a political scientist who met Hollande and advised him against the decision, said France would become “the first democracy in the world” to enshrine in its constitution the principle of unequal treatment of dual nationals.

“It introduces the idea of a different penalty for the same act, just because of the random chance of their birth,” said Weil, who teaches at Yale University in the United States.

“That people — who sometimes don’t even know they have a second nationality — can be banned is like the return of banishment as a penalty.”

For many in Hollande’s Socialist party, and others on the left of French politics, the move is little short of ideological treason.

“In wanting to steal the thunder of the far right, we risk implementing their programme,” said Cecile Duflot, a former minister in Hollande’s government.

Economist Thomas Piketty, author of the blockbuster book on inequality “Capital in the 21st Century”, wrote on his blog: “To its economic incompetence, the government has now added infamy.”

As well as breaking a legal principle, the measure also touches a raw nerve from France’s history, say critics.

The Vichy regime, which collaborated with the Nazis in the 1940s, stripped thousands of Jews and foreigners of French citizenship during World War II.

Dissenters say Hollande has borrowed from the playbook of the right wing, not least since the treatment of immigrants was one of the few areas where there was clear daylight between the two mainstream parties.

When right-wing leader Nicolas Sarkozy raised the idea of removing the “droit du sol” from some types of violent criminals in 2011, he was blasted by the Socialists.

Worse still in the eyes of the left, it was an idea first mooted by the far-right, anti-immigrant National Front (FN).

FN leader Marine le Pen happily took credit when the new reforms were outlined last week, saying it was a direct result of her party’s record tally in recent polls.

“Removal of nationality: the first effect of the 6.8 million votes for the National Front in regional elections,” Le Pen wrote on Twitter.

Source: French proposal to strip terror convicts’ citizenship faces fire | The Times of Israel

Filed under Citizenship, Revocation Tagged with

← Older posts

Newer posts →