Bill C-24, the controversial citizenship act which passed in 2014 and came into force earlier this year, is now being used for the first time to revoke a Canadian citizenship.
To say that the bill was controversial is an understatement. Not only did it make the process for obtaining citizenship harder, but it granted the government the power to take away citizenship from a person who either had or was eligible for dual citizenship.
Zakaria Amara, a leader of the so-called “Toronto 18” who plotted bombings in 2006, is now (among a few others) having his citizenship revoked. This was the intended use of the bill, meant to be used against terrorists, spies, traitors, and members of armed groups at war with Canada.
Few people have sympathy for Mr. Amara, or indeed for any of the above. However, opponents fear that the scope of the bill may be gradually expanded in the future, or its provisions misused (i.e. by trumping up charges against those considered by the government to be troublemakers). Many argue that the law creates a “two-tiered” citizenship under which immigrants—and their children—hold a lesser status. Others hold that this law, rather than improving Canada’s security, simply ignores our responsibility to prevent terrorism. Terrorists do not lose their ability to commit acts of terrorism by losing their citizenship; the act, in a way, declares them “somebody else’s problem.” In fact, while deporting a terrorist who emigrated to Canada from elsewhere makes some sense, foisting a Canadian-born radical on another country is quite unfair to said country, who played no direct part in that radicalization. One suspects that this hypothetical country would be none too pleased.
Amara was born in Jordan and thus can, under Bill C-24, be deported when his prison sentence is finished (it is for life). Real Canadians are not terrorists, they say, and thus terrorists are not real Canadians, or not for long. However, it would be perfectly possible for a home-grown terrorist to be immune to this treatment. Needless to say, many find this discriminatory.
The bill was introduced and passed by Conservatives, and is strongly opposed by the NDP and the Liberals, who both say that they would repeal the Act if elected.
Meanwhile, what about Canadians who leave Canada? Assuming they commit no acts of terrorism, of course, they should retain their citizenship… but not their right to vote. After five years of living outside of Canada, Canadian expatriates lose the right to vote. The Ontario Court of Appeal has overturned an earlier ruling that declared the rule unconstitutional. Using the logic that those relatively unaffected by their voting choices ought not to vote, the government will not allow over a million long-term expatriates to vote in the upcoming election. As above, the Liberals and the NDP disagree with the Conservatives on this issue.
What does all this mean? Maybe that, in the mind of the government, citizens are who the Powers That Be say that they are.
Leave a Reply