Conservatives introduced this two sets of rules. One for dual citizenship, one for single citizenship.

What can you do if a convicted terrorist has dual citizenship relinquishes their other citizenship and keeps only Canadian citizenship? Where can you deport them to?

What if a Jordanian Canadian dual citizen is convicted and Jordan brings in a similar law that they will take away citizenship of convicted terrorists who have dual citizenship. Which country's law will be upheld, Canada's or Jordan's? Can you leave a person stateless?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Give free food http://www.thehungersite.com ||

IMO, why mercy to the terrorist??? Serious crime convicted person should send back to the Original birth place country...no second thought at all...

If original birth country is not accepting person back.... that means is not necessary that Canada is a La..La...land country and we accept him and give him/her a VIP treatment from tax payers money....

Say you go to a Flea Market where ever you are and see a nice big sword on sale, that was a gift of honour for a Karate Kid and want to take it home for your collection and while you are doing this there is an incident that happens not too far from the market and they nail you for carrying a SWORD and declare you as a TERRORIST, you have NO HOPE in HELL to get out of all of the legal wrangles and all of the innumerable headaches that go with it. These all are sceneries that we do not analyse and so I cannot pass a judgment on such issues. But see what happened when Harper passed the rule into a LAW. See below and understand what it is that they are trying to correct. You might not agree with it too. That is your privilege. I will not deny you that.

The changes made by the previous law, known as Bill C-24, allow a government minister to revoke the Canadian citizenship of anyone who is a dual citizen of another country (or anyone the government thinks is even eligible for dual citizenship), whether they were born in Canada or abroad, if they commit certain serious crimes. It also makes new Canadians vulnerable to having their citizenship revoked if they move abroad to take a job, study internationally or take care of a sick relative in another country. New Canadians have to promise they intend to reside in Canada, an obligation not imposed on other Canadians, who may live and work outside the country for as long as they like. The right to move freely in and out of Canada is a key right guaranteed to all Canadians. Bill C-24 makes that right contingent on where you were born.

ALSO..

The grounds for revoking citizenship under Bill C-24 include being convicted of serious terrorism and national security-related offences. While these are indeed very serious offences, the previous government speculated that the number of crimes that could lead to revocation could be expanded in the future to include other, less serious offences. This is a radical departure from Canada’s long-standing approach to dealing with crime. We rely on our criminal justice system to ascertain guilt or innocence and to impose a just sanction for violations of our laws. We rightly decry the use of lawless spaces like Guantanamo Bay, where unaccountable officials make life and death decisions impacting people’s fundamental rights, and where detainees have little recourse to redress. Bill C-24 took us a step in that direction. The proposed amendments, thankfully, draw us back.

TO Bring it to a close..

Critics point out that the government can still revoke someone’s citizenship on the basis that they lied or committed fraud in order to obtain it. How can that be a more serious offence than terrorism, some wonder? However, the two scenarios are fundamentally different. Citizenship obtained by fraud is a citizenship that should never have been granted. Revoking it is akin to correcting an error. Revoking citizenship from a Canadian based on a crime they committed after citizenship was legitimately obtained is a punitive response that amounts to the ancient punishment of exile. Such medieval practices have no place in a rights-respecting democracy.

It’s no secret who would have been targeted by the law: new Canadians of colour who arrived in Canada only one or two generations ago. This unequal treatment is why the BC Civil Liberties Association and Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers challenged the law in court last summer, arguing that it is discriminatory and violates key constitutional rights. It is also poor security policy, and fundamentally wrong.

We applaud the government for taking the first steps towards bringing about the law’s demise. The reforms are not perfect, and still leave too much power in the hands of government bureaucrats to revoke citizenship in cases of fraud or misrepresentation, without the involvement of a judge. But it’s a step in the right direction — the direction of equal rights for all Canadians.


Copied from.. VOICES

FH.