Orwellian New Citizenship Act
Jun 14th 2003, 5:35 pm
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Orwellian New Citizenship Act
Why is the government so fixated on being able to deny citizenship to
someone it considers to have "demonstrated a flagrant and serious
disregard for the principles and values underlying a free and
democratic society"?
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/c...03b-1E.html#16
Another section of the act would allow them to deny citizenship to
someone who presents a threat to national security:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/c...03b-2E.html#17
Isn't it anti-democratic to deny someone citizenship (and the right to
vote) based on a difference of opinion about what constitutes a free
and democratic society if they AREN'T a threat to national security?
Indeed, isn't the title of that section of the law "Principles of a
Free and Democratic Society" Orwellian? We'll teach the bastards
freedom and democracy by shutting them out of both?
someone it considers to have "demonstrated a flagrant and serious
disregard for the principles and values underlying a free and
democratic society"?
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/c...03b-1E.html#16
Another section of the act would allow them to deny citizenship to
someone who presents a threat to national security:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/c...03b-2E.html#17
Isn't it anti-democratic to deny someone citizenship (and the right to
vote) based on a difference of opinion about what constitutes a free
and democratic society if they AREN'T a threat to national security?
Indeed, isn't the title of that section of the law "Principles of a
Free and Democratic Society" Orwellian? We'll teach the bastards
freedom and democracy by shutting them out of both?
Jun 14th 2003, 5:51 pm
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Orwellian New Citizenship Act
Jonathan Makepeace wrote:
>
> Why is the government so fixated on being able to deny citizenship to
> someone it considers to have "demonstrated a flagrant and serious
> disregard for the principles and values underlying a free and
> democratic society"?
>
> http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/c...03b-1E.html#16
>
> Another section of the act would allow them to deny citizenship to
> someone who presents a threat to national security:
>
> http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/c...03b-2E.html#17
>
> Isn't it anti-democratic to deny someone citizenship (and the right to
> vote) based on a difference of opinion about what constitutes a free
> and democratic society if they AREN'T a threat to national security?
>
> Indeed, isn't the title of that section of the law "Principles of a
> Free and Democratic Society" Orwellian? We'll teach the bastards
> freedom and democracy by shutting them out of both?
Orwellian? No. Citizenship has always been outside the control of the
Juris system. Immigration judges who are not really judges at all.
This just retains the political and supposed democratic control over
citizenship rather than having it fall into the Juris system over which
the politicos have no control.
This allows them to refuse citizenship to the Ernst Zundels of the
world.
Since parliament is the final arbiter, if you can get your MP to bring a
ministerial denial before parliament, it seems that the final result is
that of democratic means.
>
> Why is the government so fixated on being able to deny citizenship to
> someone it considers to have "demonstrated a flagrant and serious
> disregard for the principles and values underlying a free and
> democratic society"?
>
> http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/c...03b-1E.html#16
>
> Another section of the act would allow them to deny citizenship to
> someone who presents a threat to national security:
>
> http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/c...03b-2E.html#17
>
> Isn't it anti-democratic to deny someone citizenship (and the right to
> vote) based on a difference of opinion about what constitutes a free
> and democratic society if they AREN'T a threat to national security?
>
> Indeed, isn't the title of that section of the law "Principles of a
> Free and Democratic Society" Orwellian? We'll teach the bastards
> freedom and democracy by shutting them out of both?
Orwellian? No. Citizenship has always been outside the control of the
Juris system. Immigration judges who are not really judges at all.
This just retains the political and supposed democratic control over
citizenship rather than having it fall into the Juris system over which
the politicos have no control.
This allows them to refuse citizenship to the Ernst Zundels of the
world.
Since parliament is the final arbiter, if you can get your MP to bring a
ministerial denial before parliament, it seems that the final result is
that of democratic means.
Jun 14th 2003, 6:48 pm
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Orwellian New Citizenship Act
another problem is you cannot deport a citizen. They had a similar
problem in the UK. There was an immigrant who had obtained British
Citizenship. He was a radical muslim cleric and preached at the same
place where the show bomber guy and nothers had been and was basicaly
just sitting there everyday preaching hate and inciting people to kill
etc. So the mosque banned him from preaching but the judicial system
couldnt really do anything other than that. However luckily for them
they discovered his marriage to get citizenship was fake so they could
remove it and then finally deport him. Had his Citizenship been legal
there would have been no way for them to remove him from the country.
The basis of the original posters argument is that Canada etc are
democracies which in the true sense of the word they are not. They are a
society where power is mandated to the majority party and they try and
run the country. They make laws based on what they believe is best. The
public is not consulted by referendum on every law or decision as in
pure democracy, the government take it that their mandate gives them the
power to make that decision for us. (even worse in the US where the
president didn't even win the popular vote and so represents less than
25% of the country with a 50% voter turn out). So they will protect the
society they see they want. There is no rule saying they must allow
anyone who wants to, to become a citizen of their society. Laws already
remove people we don't like. They put murderers, theives etc in jails
and remove them from society. waving yoru citizenship paers wont get you
out of jail. So they also now want the right to extend the basis for
getting citizenship. Already there are requirements. You must live in
Canada for 3 years in 4. Does that disciminate against teh freedoms of
those living in Canada for 2 years? You must read/write English or
French i believe. You have to pass a test, does that disciminate against
the peopel who know nothing? So now they want the ability, if you
satisfy everything else, not to grant Citizenship to people who are
activly working against the country. If you , for example, have an
individual who satisfies every current condition and would get
citizenship, but is openly say a member of al queda (extreme example)
and publishes books saying Canada and western civilsation should be
destroyed and so forth, woudl you not want the ability to say, look we
really don't want you to live here? Can a society not choose who it
wants to live among it? If the people don't want you to live there then
why would you want to? You would go and live in a different country that
did. So the very fact that someone would want to live in a country they
don't like in the first place is suspicious enough.
However all this is philisophical debate. In the real world would I
trust a government to responsibly use this law to only deny the most
dangerous and disturbed people? Woudl i trust the beurocrats to actually
act in societies best interests and not their own? Of course not. So i
have to agree it's one of those laws that gives far too much power to
the government.
Nowhere near as disturbing as the USA's Patriot act and it's recent
additions. If you think this citizenship act is orwellian because they
can remove citizenship from certain immigrants who breach national
security. Look at the US law allowing them to intern (imprison without
trial or charge indefinately) even their own Citizens, even those born
in the country witohut representation purely because the government
"suspects" they may be the enemy. Reminds me of the hunt for the
commies. Further to that if they declare you an "enemy combatant" then
the President, under his own executive order, can order your military
execution without trial or judge or representation. So in fact you could
be an american citizen by birth and sat at home and the government can
legally come and arrest you, imprison you somewhere like Guantanamo Bay,
deny you any access to legal representation or your family. Declare you
an enemy combatant and then execute you. All without any evidence or
trial or anything. In fact they just recently released two arab US
Citizens who were interned after 9/11 and held without charge for over
1.5 years and then released with no charge. They are currently suing the
US government.
S B wrote:
> Jonathan Makepeace wrote:
>
>>Why is the government so fixated on being able to deny citizenship to
>>someone it considers to have "demonstrated a flagrant and serious
>>disregard for the principles and values underlying a free and
>>democratic society"?
>>http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/c...03b-1E.html#16
>>Another section of the act would allow them to deny citizenship to
>>someone who presents a threat to national security:
>>http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/c...03b-2E.html#17
>>Isn't it anti-democratic to deny someone citizenship (and the right to
>>vote) based on a difference of opinion about what constitutes a free
>>and democratic society if they AREN'T a threat to national security?
>>Indeed, isn't the title of that section of the law "Principles of a
>>Free and Democratic Society" Orwellian? We'll teach the bastards
>>freedom and democracy by shutting them out of both?
>
>
> Orwellian? No. Citizenship has always been outside the control of the
> Juris system. Immigration judges who are not really judges at all.
> This just retains the political and supposed democratic control over
> citizenship rather than having it fall into the Juris system over which
> the politicos have no control.
>
> This allows them to refuse citizenship to the Ernst Zundels of the
> world.
>
> Since parliament is the final arbiter, if you can get your MP to bring a
> ministerial denial before parliament, it seems that the final result is
> that of democratic means.
problem in the UK. There was an immigrant who had obtained British
Citizenship. He was a radical muslim cleric and preached at the same
place where the show bomber guy and nothers had been and was basicaly
just sitting there everyday preaching hate and inciting people to kill
etc. So the mosque banned him from preaching but the judicial system
couldnt really do anything other than that. However luckily for them
they discovered his marriage to get citizenship was fake so they could
remove it and then finally deport him. Had his Citizenship been legal
there would have been no way for them to remove him from the country.
The basis of the original posters argument is that Canada etc are
democracies which in the true sense of the word they are not. They are a
society where power is mandated to the majority party and they try and
run the country. They make laws based on what they believe is best. The
public is not consulted by referendum on every law or decision as in
pure democracy, the government take it that their mandate gives them the
power to make that decision for us. (even worse in the US where the
president didn't even win the popular vote and so represents less than
25% of the country with a 50% voter turn out). So they will protect the
society they see they want. There is no rule saying they must allow
anyone who wants to, to become a citizen of their society. Laws already
remove people we don't like. They put murderers, theives etc in jails
and remove them from society. waving yoru citizenship paers wont get you
out of jail. So they also now want the right to extend the basis for
getting citizenship. Already there are requirements. You must live in
Canada for 3 years in 4. Does that disciminate against teh freedoms of
those living in Canada for 2 years? You must read/write English or
French i believe. You have to pass a test, does that disciminate against
the peopel who know nothing? So now they want the ability, if you
satisfy everything else, not to grant Citizenship to people who are
activly working against the country. If you , for example, have an
individual who satisfies every current condition and would get
citizenship, but is openly say a member of al queda (extreme example)
and publishes books saying Canada and western civilsation should be
destroyed and so forth, woudl you not want the ability to say, look we
really don't want you to live here? Can a society not choose who it
wants to live among it? If the people don't want you to live there then
why would you want to? You would go and live in a different country that
did. So the very fact that someone would want to live in a country they
don't like in the first place is suspicious enough.
However all this is philisophical debate. In the real world would I
trust a government to responsibly use this law to only deny the most
dangerous and disturbed people? Woudl i trust the beurocrats to actually
act in societies best interests and not their own? Of course not. So i
have to agree it's one of those laws that gives far too much power to
the government.
Nowhere near as disturbing as the USA's Patriot act and it's recent
additions. If you think this citizenship act is orwellian because they
can remove citizenship from certain immigrants who breach national
security. Look at the US law allowing them to intern (imprison without
trial or charge indefinately) even their own Citizens, even those born
in the country witohut representation purely because the government
"suspects" they may be the enemy. Reminds me of the hunt for the
commies. Further to that if they declare you an "enemy combatant" then
the President, under his own executive order, can order your military
execution without trial or judge or representation. So in fact you could
be an american citizen by birth and sat at home and the government can
legally come and arrest you, imprison you somewhere like Guantanamo Bay,
deny you any access to legal representation or your family. Declare you
an enemy combatant and then execute you. All without any evidence or
trial or anything. In fact they just recently released two arab US
Citizens who were interned after 9/11 and held without charge for over
1.5 years and then released with no charge. They are currently suing the
US government.
S B wrote:
> Jonathan Makepeace wrote:
>
>>Why is the government so fixated on being able to deny citizenship to
>>someone it considers to have "demonstrated a flagrant and serious
>>disregard for the principles and values underlying a free and
>>democratic society"?
>>http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/c...03b-1E.html#16
>>Another section of the act would allow them to deny citizenship to
>>someone who presents a threat to national security:
>>http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/c...03b-2E.html#17
>>Isn't it anti-democratic to deny someone citizenship (and the right to
>>vote) based on a difference of opinion about what constitutes a free
>>and democratic society if they AREN'T a threat to national security?
>>Indeed, isn't the title of that section of the law "Principles of a
>>Free and Democratic Society" Orwellian? We'll teach the bastards
>>freedom and democracy by shutting them out of both?
>
>
> Orwellian? No. Citizenship has always been outside the control of the
> Juris system. Immigration judges who are not really judges at all.
> This just retains the political and supposed democratic control over
> citizenship rather than having it fall into the Juris system over which
> the politicos have no control.
>
> This allows them to refuse citizenship to the Ernst Zundels of the
> world.
>
> Since parliament is the final arbiter, if you can get your MP to bring a
> ministerial denial before parliament, it seems that the final result is
> that of democratic means.
Jun 14th 2003, 7:28 pm
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Orwellian New Citizenship Act
The Wizzard wrote:
> However all this is philisophical debate. In the real world would I
> trust a government to responsibly use this law to only deny the most
> dangerous and disturbed people? Woudl i trust the beurocrats to actually
> act in societies best interests and not their own? Of course not. So i
> have to agree it's one of those laws that gives far too much power to
> the government.
At the same time, a lot of executive powers in our government do rest at
a ministerial level. This is one example. It's not a new power
either. The problem is that there is no way to put this before the
judiciary without meaningful definitions of what constitutes reason for
objection.
> Nowhere near as disturbing as the USA's Patriot act and it's recent
> additions. If you think this citizenship act is orwellian because they
> can remove citizenship from certain immigrants who breach national
> security. Look at the US law allowing them to intern (imprison without
> trial or charge indefinately) even their own Citizens, even those born
> in the country witohut representation purely because the government
> "suspects" they may be the enemy.
US law, even before the Patriot Act was far more disturbing than either
of these. So many US government agencies can operate outside the juris
system it's astounding, because their work is "executive order". It's
really quite amazing how close, when you examine it, the US system is to
a potential dictatorship.
> However all this is philisophical debate. In the real world would I
> trust a government to responsibly use this law to only deny the most
> dangerous and disturbed people? Woudl i trust the beurocrats to actually
> act in societies best interests and not their own? Of course not. So i
> have to agree it's one of those laws that gives far too much power to
> the government.
At the same time, a lot of executive powers in our government do rest at
a ministerial level. This is one example. It's not a new power
either. The problem is that there is no way to put this before the
judiciary without meaningful definitions of what constitutes reason for
objection.
> Nowhere near as disturbing as the USA's Patriot act and it's recent
> additions. If you think this citizenship act is orwellian because they
> can remove citizenship from certain immigrants who breach national
> security. Look at the US law allowing them to intern (imprison without
> trial or charge indefinately) even their own Citizens, even those born
> in the country witohut representation purely because the government
> "suspects" they may be the enemy.
US law, even before the Patriot Act was far more disturbing than either
of these. So many US government agencies can operate outside the juris
system it's astounding, because their work is "executive order". It's
really quite amazing how close, when you examine it, the US system is to
a potential dictatorship.
Jun 15th 2003, 3:14 am
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Orwellian New Citizenship Act
in a recent article, Jonathan Makepeace ([email protected])
said:
> Why is the government so fixated on being able to deny citizenship to
> someone it considers to have "demonstrated a flagrant and serious
> disregard for the principles and values underlying a free and
> democratic society"?
I suspect that Aikido and 'Chris' will likely make a comment how
something like that would NEVER happen in the USA, but of course we all know
it does. Indeed, it's happening now with people being detained and deported
just because they're of middle-eastern heritage.
As far as Canada goes though...I actually support it. After all, if
you're not a good citizen in the general sense, why should you get Canadian
citizenship?
said:
> Why is the government so fixated on being able to deny citizenship to
> someone it considers to have "demonstrated a flagrant and serious
> disregard for the principles and values underlying a free and
> democratic society"?
I suspect that Aikido and 'Chris' will likely make a comment how
something like that would NEVER happen in the USA, but of course we all know
it does. Indeed, it's happening now with people being detained and deported
just because they're of middle-eastern heritage.
As far as Canada goes though...I actually support it. After all, if
you're not a good citizen in the general sense, why should you get Canadian
citizenship?
Jun 15th 2003, 1:57 pm
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Orwellian New Citizenship Act
Man, as long as US does NOT change its current policy I have nothing to
worry. I am so relieved any time I see that they are so keen in rooting out
all terrorist elements inside their own borders, that they don't waste any
time or manpower in making (or at least trying) their country a safer place
to live in. And that's for the sake of their own citizens.
Therefore MR/MS "Trikky", anytime you mention my name think that I am ALWAYS
a winner and you are a LOOOOOOOOSER. And nothing in the world can change
that, and you know it very well. Of course until we will see a Canada-like
Liberal government taking power at the WH/Capitol Hill. But that will not
going to happen in my life time. Never. And you will always remain a LOSER.
Enjoy it!
Chris
"Trikky" wrote in message
news:BB1131DB.1182D%[email protected]...
> in a recent article, Jonathan Makepeace ([email protected])
> said:
> > Why is the government so fixated on being able to deny citizenship to
> > someone it considers to have "demonstrated a flagrant and serious
> > disregard for the principles and values underlying a free and
> > democratic society"?
> I suspect that Aikido and 'Chris' will likely make a comment how
> something like that would NEVER happen in the USA, but of course we all
know
> it does. Indeed, it's happening now with people being detained and
deported
> just because they're of middle-eastern heritage.
> As far as Canada goes though...I actually support it. After all, if
> you're not a good citizen in the general sense, why should you get
Canadian
> citizenship?
worry. I am so relieved any time I see that they are so keen in rooting out
all terrorist elements inside their own borders, that they don't waste any
time or manpower in making (or at least trying) their country a safer place
to live in. And that's for the sake of their own citizens.
Therefore MR/MS "Trikky", anytime you mention my name think that I am ALWAYS
a winner and you are a LOOOOOOOOSER. And nothing in the world can change
that, and you know it very well. Of course until we will see a Canada-like
Liberal government taking power at the WH/Capitol Hill. But that will not
going to happen in my life time. Never. And you will always remain a LOSER.
Enjoy it!
Chris
"Trikky" wrote in message
news:BB1131DB.1182D%[email protected]...
> in a recent article, Jonathan Makepeace ([email protected])
> said:
> > Why is the government so fixated on being able to deny citizenship to
> > someone it considers to have "demonstrated a flagrant and serious
> > disregard for the principles and values underlying a free and
> > democratic society"?
> I suspect that Aikido and 'Chris' will likely make a comment how
> something like that would NEVER happen in the USA, but of course we all
know
> it does. Indeed, it's happening now with people being detained and
deported
> just because they're of middle-eastern heritage.
> As far as Canada goes though...I actually support it. After all, if
> you're not a good citizen in the general sense, why should you get
Canadian
> citizenship?
Jun 15th 2003, 2:34 pm
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Orwellian New Citizenship Act
The Wizzard wrote in message news:...
> another problem is you cannot deport a citizen. They had a similar
> problem in the UK. There was an immigrant who had obtained British
> Citizenship. He was a radical muslim cleric and preached at the same
> place where the show bomber guy and nothers had been and was basicaly
> just sitting there everyday preaching hate and inciting people to kill
> etc. So the mosque banned him from preaching but the judicial system
> couldnt really do anything other than that. However luckily for them
> they discovered his marriage to get citizenship was fake so they could
> remove it and then finally deport him. Had his Citizenship been legal
> there would have been no way for them to remove him from the country.
In my opinion, that is the ONLY reason a person should be stripped of
her or his citizenship, if he or she obtained it by fraud. Once a
naturalized citizen, an immigrant should be the legal equal of a
native-born citizen. Why is the hatemongering of an immigrant worse
than the hatemongering of someone born a citizen?
I don't see the right of a citizen to remain in her or his country as
a "problem."
> another problem is you cannot deport a citizen. They had a similar
> problem in the UK. There was an immigrant who had obtained British
> Citizenship. He was a radical muslim cleric and preached at the same
> place where the show bomber guy and nothers had been and was basicaly
> just sitting there everyday preaching hate and inciting people to kill
> etc. So the mosque banned him from preaching but the judicial system
> couldnt really do anything other than that. However luckily for them
> they discovered his marriage to get citizenship was fake so they could
> remove it and then finally deport him. Had his Citizenship been legal
> there would have been no way for them to remove him from the country.
In my opinion, that is the ONLY reason a person should be stripped of
her or his citizenship, if he or she obtained it by fraud. Once a
naturalized citizen, an immigrant should be the legal equal of a
native-born citizen. Why is the hatemongering of an immigrant worse
than the hatemongering of someone born a citizen?
I don't see the right of a citizen to remain in her or his country as
a "problem."
Jun 15th 2003, 2:53 pm
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Orwellian New Citizenship Act
S B wrote in message news:...
> This allows them to refuse citizenship
> to the Ernst Zundels of the world.
I guess that is what disturbs me. I am both gay and Jewish, a target
of Mr. Zundel's hate; but I believe very firmly that freedom of
expression lies at the core of freedom and democracy.
Should those who oppose same-sex marriage be denied Canadian
citizenship for hatemongering? What if they said blacks or Catholics
shouldn't be allowed to marry? How about if they argue that Canada
should put gays in jail for crimes against nature? What if someone
proclaims that Christianity is an evil missionary religion that must
be opposed by all reasonable people? Should they be denied Canadian
citizenship? If we deny people citizenship based on the non-violent
expression of their views, we stifle the free speech of immigrants.
Can I defend the policies of Ariel Sharon, or would that be
considered racist hatemongering against Palestinian Arabs?
Once we start down that road where does it end?
> This allows them to refuse citizenship
> to the Ernst Zundels of the world.
I guess that is what disturbs me. I am both gay and Jewish, a target
of Mr. Zundel's hate; but I believe very firmly that freedom of
expression lies at the core of freedom and democracy.
Should those who oppose same-sex marriage be denied Canadian
citizenship for hatemongering? What if they said blacks or Catholics
shouldn't be allowed to marry? How about if they argue that Canada
should put gays in jail for crimes against nature? What if someone
proclaims that Christianity is an evil missionary religion that must
be opposed by all reasonable people? Should they be denied Canadian
citizenship? If we deny people citizenship based on the non-violent
expression of their views, we stifle the free speech of immigrants.
Can I defend the policies of Ariel Sharon, or would that be
considered racist hatemongering against Palestinian Arabs?
Once we start down that road where does it end?
Jun 15th 2003, 3:01 pm
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Orwellian New Citizenship Act
Jonathan Makepeace wrote:
>
> S B wrote in message news:...
> > This allows them to refuse citizenship
> > to the Ernst Zundels of the world.
>
> I guess that is what disturbs me. I am both gay and Jewish, a target
> of Mr. Zundel's hate; but I believe very firmly that freedom of
> expression lies at the core of freedom and democracy.
>
> Should those who oppose same-sex marriage be denied Canadian
> citizenship for hatemongering? What if they said blacks or Catholics
> shouldn't be allowed to marry? How about if they argue that Canada
> should put gays in jail for crimes against nature? What if someone
> proclaims that Christianity is an evil missionary religion that must
> be opposed by all reasonable people? Should they be denied Canadian
> citizenship? If we deny people citizenship based on the non-violent
> expression of their views, we stifle the free speech of immigrants.
>
> Can I defend the policies of Ariel Sharon, or would that be
> considered racist hatemongering against Palestinian Arabs?
>
> Once we start down that road where does it end?
That's why it's a ministerial decision and he answers to Parliament.
If you're going to deny that then you must conversely also deny
ministerial permits of all matters related to citizenship and
immigration which have been used to accept people into Canada who under
the normal process of law might not get here.
It's a two edged sword.
>
> S B wrote in message news:...
> > This allows them to refuse citizenship
> > to the Ernst Zundels of the world.
>
> I guess that is what disturbs me. I am both gay and Jewish, a target
> of Mr. Zundel's hate; but I believe very firmly that freedom of
> expression lies at the core of freedom and democracy.
>
> Should those who oppose same-sex marriage be denied Canadian
> citizenship for hatemongering? What if they said blacks or Catholics
> shouldn't be allowed to marry? How about if they argue that Canada
> should put gays in jail for crimes against nature? What if someone
> proclaims that Christianity is an evil missionary religion that must
> be opposed by all reasonable people? Should they be denied Canadian
> citizenship? If we deny people citizenship based on the non-violent
> expression of their views, we stifle the free speech of immigrants.
>
> Can I defend the policies of Ariel Sharon, or would that be
> considered racist hatemongering against Palestinian Arabs?
>
> Once we start down that road where does it end?
That's why it's a ministerial decision and he answers to Parliament.
If you're going to deny that then you must conversely also deny
ministerial permits of all matters related to citizenship and
immigration which have been used to accept people into Canada who under
the normal process of law might not get here.
It's a two edged sword.
Jun 15th 2003, 11:31 pm
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Orwellian New Citizenship Act
S B wrote in message news:...
> If you're going to deny that then you must conversely also deny
> ministerial permits of all matters related to citizenship and
> immigration which have been used to accept people into Canada who under
> the normal process of law might not get here.
Not true. Just because parliament grants a minister discretion to
extend a privilege to some who would otherwise be ineligible for it
does not mean that parliament should grant a minister discretion in
denying something to which the person would otherwise have a right.
> If you're going to deny that then you must conversely also deny
> ministerial permits of all matters related to citizenship and
> immigration which have been used to accept people into Canada who under
> the normal process of law might not get here.
Not true. Just because parliament grants a minister discretion to
extend a privilege to some who would otherwise be ineligible for it
does not mean that parliament should grant a minister discretion in
denying something to which the person would otherwise have a right.
Jun 15th 2003, 11:47 pm
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Orwellian New Citizenship Act
Jonathan Makepeace wrote:
>
> S B wrote in message news:...
> > If you're going to deny that then you must conversely also deny
> > ministerial permits of all matters related to citizenship and
> > immigration which have been used to accept people into Canada who under
> > the normal process of law might not get here.
>
> Not true. Just because parliament grants a minister discretion to
> extend a privilege to some who would otherwise be ineligible for it
> does not mean that parliament should grant a minister discretion in
> denying something to which the person would otherwise have a right.
So, you think it's ok that he exercise that privilege to say the whole
Indian subcontinent? After all, he could.
>
> S B wrote in message news:...
> > If you're going to deny that then you must conversely also deny
> > ministerial permits of all matters related to citizenship and
> > immigration which have been used to accept people into Canada who under
> > the normal process of law might not get here.
>
> Not true. Just because parliament grants a minister discretion to
> extend a privilege to some who would otherwise be ineligible for it
> does not mean that parliament should grant a minister discretion in
> denying something to which the person would otherwise have a right.
So, you think it's ok that he exercise that privilege to say the whole
Indian subcontinent? After all, he could.
