Bill C-24 creates group of second class Canadian citizens

Although Bill C-24 was passed a year ago, provisions that create two types of citizenship, those Canadians who can have their citizenship taken away and those who cannot, have just come into effect.

+ Add Image	1 of 2

As is common with the Harper government, the legislation plays upon Canadians' desire for security and fears of terrorism. Before this law was passed all Canadians, whether born in Canada, immigrants who have become Canadian citizens or dual citizens, were treated the same under the judicial system. Statistics showthat foreign-born Canadian citizens are no more likely than citizens born in Canada to commit crimes, in fact some data suggests they are less so. Under the new law, only those born in Canada and are not eligible for or do not have another nationality as well will retain their citizenship no matter what crime they commit. The government invokes the threat of jihadism in defending these new rules and claims that Canadians will be safer:

Also officially in force as of today is a new, more streamlined citizenship revocation process. This new process will help ensure Canada and Canadians are protected, and that revocation decisions can be made quickly, decisively and fairly.

What sort of fairness is it when a Canadian born citizen is charged for going to fight for the Islamic State or commits a terrorist attack against the Canadian government, but cannot lose his or her citizenship as punishment but a foreign-born citizen , dual citizen, or someone born in Canada but eligible for dual citizenship can? Bill-C-24 also allows the punishment of exile. Maybe Harper can arrange with Russia to exile some of those convicted to Siberia. Australia is not likely to welcome any new convicts as immigrants as in the past.

At the time that the Bill C-24 was passed, an article in the Globe and Mail was critical of the provisions. A second article noted that Al Jazeera journalist Mohamed Fahmy could have had his Canadian citizenship revoked on the grounds he had been convicted of terrorism in an Egyptian court. The Canadian government replied that it would not apply the law to Fahmy. The same article refutes the argument that Chris Alexander, Citizenship and Immigration Minister provided namely that citizenship was a privilege not a right:Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander has defended his bill by arguing citizenship is a privilege, not a right. He is wrong. It may come with responsibilities, but it is a right. And once legitimately acquired, by birth or naturalization, it cannot be taken away. Bill C-24 gives the government the kind of sweeping power that is common in dictatorships, not in a democracy built upon the rule of law, where all citizens are equal. The changes to the Citizenship Act erode those basic principles, creating a two-tier citizenship that dilutes what it means to be Canadian.

.....Even if citizenship is a privilege not a right, what sense does it make to deprive those who worked for and earned the privilege of that privilege when they commit certain crimes, while allowing others who simply have the privilege as a result of being born here to still retain it? The argument makes no sense whether citizenship is a right or a privilege. These new provisions of Bill C-24 will no doubt face challenges in the courts now that they are the law of the land. The BC Civil Liberties Association has a petition on the issue that can be found here.

BC Human Rights Group withdraws from Iacobucci Inquiry

Probably this is a good idea. The groups involved have little involvement after the first phase. There are to be some public hearings later but the main work was done behind closed doors and even the lawyers for the parties in whose name the inquiry was called have had very little role. Some may yet withdraw as well. Complaints about the process have gone nowhere. However, the process is precisely what the government wants. Iacobucci is earning his fees.


Human-rights group withdraws from closed-door torture inquiry
December 11, 2007 - 1:05 pm

By: Murray Brewster, THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA - A leading human-rights group has withdrawn from the secretive inquiry into claims by three men that Canadian authorities had a hand in their overseas torture.

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association, an intervener in the case, says Justice Frank Iacobucci has refused to hold any "meaningful" proceedings in public.

"As an experienced advocate for civil liberties and public accountability, the BCCLA is deeply worried this commission will establish a dangerous precedent for closed-door, secret inquiries," said a letter sent Tuesday to the commission's lawyer, John Laskin.

"Indeed if the potential complicity of Canadian officials in torture does not justify a public inquiry, then few ever qualify."

Iacobucci is looking into the conduct of Canadian officials in the cases of Abdullah Almalki, Muayyed Nureddin and Ahman Abou-Elmaati from 2001 to 2004.

The lawyer for the inquiry, John Laskin, was not immediately available to comment on the association's withdrawal.

Unlike the inquiry into Maher Arar's torture in Syria, this latest inquiry is being held almost entirely behind closed doors.

Lawyers for the three men have noted that the government's own terms of reference for the commission direct Iacobucci to take "all steps necessary to ensure the inquiry is conducted in private."

Paul Copeland, the lawyer for Almaki, says he shares the frustration of the civil liberties association and there have been preliminary discussions about his client withdrawing from the proceedings.

"It has been very difficult for us," he said.

The three men and their lawyers have been asking for documents, the names of witnesses, and assurances that testimony concerning Canadian government policy on torture and other crucial matters be given in public.

The civil liberties association says a Nov. 6, 2007, ruling issued by Iacobucci behind closed doors to participants effectively ruled out public hearings, despite a promise by the Conservative government to hold at least some proceedings in the open.

The government insists the commission has made a lot of progress, interviewing as many as 40 witnesses under oath and reviewing over 35,000 documents.

Government lawyers have been vetting documents to screen out national security material.

The former Supreme Court justice recently asked the Conservative government for an extension beyond his Jan. 31 deadline to complete his investigation.

Elmaati says he was tortured in Egypt and Syria, while Almalki and Nureddin say they were tortured in Syria.

Almalki, an Ottawa electronics engineer, was detained in Syria in 2002 and held for 22 months.

Elmaati, a Toronto truck driver, was arrested in Syria on a visit in 2001, then sent to Egypt in early 2002. He was imprisoned there for almost two years.

Toronto geologist Nureddin was held for 34 days in Syria in late 2003 and early 2004.