The article I chose for this project is “A Canadian is not a Canadian when he’s a terrorist” by John Gormley. In this opinion editorial, John is discussing whether terrorists with dual citizenship should retain their Canadian citizenship. In May of 2015, Bill C-24 strengthening the Canadian citizen act was passed into law. This bill introduces three new laws that affect dual citizens and the people applying for their Canadian citizenship. One of the new rules is that Canada will not allow anyone who has served as a member of an armed force engaged in armed conflict with Canada to become a Canadian citizen. The second new rule is if you were convicted of any type of treason, spying offence or sentenced to life imprisonment in any country outside …show more content…
He doesn’t discuss the long-term consequences of his arguments and of the Bill, which are important and need to be addressed. If you were to follow his logic, there are two major social consequences; the inadvertent creation of two class citizenship and the government indirectly saying that they have lost faith in the Criminal justice …show more content…
By the passing of Bill C-24 now inherently creates a two class citizenship. One, a normal Canadian citizenship where your sole citizenship is Canadian, and the second, a Canadian with dual citizenship with reduced rights. This goes against the definition of democracy. Through John Gormley’s argument styles he neglects to comment on the reduction of democracy in Canada by the passing of B C-24. John infers that people are paranoid that the government will continue to remove the rights of some of our Canadian citizens and thus further reducing Canada’s status as a democracy. Steven Harper when asked directly whether he is going increase the difference between the two types of citizenships has said that he is willing to look into expanding the laws in the future. That is confirmation that this is not in fact paranoia, but the government is actually open to expanding the laws in the future. Clearly as a lawyer John should be aware that he is an advocate of a two class
A more sudden, but perhaps equally profound event is the adoption in 1982 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Whereas before the adoption of the Charter Canadian legislatures were supreme, having power without limit within their jurisdictions, they now have debatable supremacy within altered jurisdictions. Moreover, although no powers or rights have been explicitly ‘reserved’ to the people, supporters of the charter nevertheless appear to give Canadians hope that the possibility may exist.
The Dual Nation Theory took its heading starting in 1960, with the beginning of the sovereignty movement (Gorman, Robert F. 2008. 2018-2020). It truly took off, however, with the Quiet Revolution, where the idea of “maîtres chez nous” and the shift from being a distinct part of Canada to Quebec being a nation in its own right begins to take hold. Québécois nationalism defined Confederation as being an agreement between two peoples: the French and the English. “Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society, which includes a French-speaking majority, a unique culture and civil law tradition” (Chotalia, 1993). This is significant to mention because this is the theory that ultimately leads to the Three Nation Theory.
There are Canadian citizens who thought that the Canadian government we have is perfect, citizens who believed that every aspect of the government was truly democratic, and citizens who believe that government could do no wrong. Truly this group of believers has been living a lie. In our Canadian system of government, large aspects within are far from democratic and need to be changed. Liberal-minded people will cry out for a change in order for government to serve the people better, and on the other hand the more conservative thinkers will argue that no change is needed because our government is efficient and considerate. However, our voting system, our Senate, and the power vested to the Prime Minister are far from democratic, do not meet the actual needs of the people and definitely need to be addressed.
Trying to apply new reforms in the Canadian constitution has been no easy task. The mixture of the parliamentary/monarchy powers denies the citizens’ direct participation in the government’s decision-making process and does not allow the existence of a complete free democratic system. A true democracy simply cannot fully exist with a restricted monarch selecting type of government and any reforms must be applied to make Canadian constitutions’ laws be based on democratic principles.
The federal and provincial government’s bona fide ability to implement bounds on the rights and freedoms enjoyed by the Citizens of this great nation is an absolute necessity. The confines permitted by the ‘reasonable limits clause,’ ‘notwithstanding clause’ and the need for increased powers in extreme circumstances demonstrate society’s inherent need for confines to prevent disorder and mayhem. If the governments were unable to invoke restraints, chaos and anarchy would prevail. However, the need to ensure that the limitations do not unreasonably infringe of rights and freedoms of Canadians is equally important. If governments began to continuously and unreasonably infringe the rights and freedoms, individual Canadians would become a communist state such as North Korea.
May, E. (2009). Losing Confidence: Power, politics, and the crisis in Canadian democracy. Toronto, ON: McClelland & Stewart.
Let’s envision that you were kicked out of somewhere you referred to as home, solely because people assume you don’t belong? Rather than be given a path to belong. This is a current issue, people ruling over and kicking out those who “don’t belong”, but why? Instead how about we join forces and give everyone a chance to become equal, as we should be. For the following reasons, undocumented immigrants should get a “path to citizenship”. They deserve to become citizens because America is a country of immigrants, immigrants improve the economy, and it costs too much to deport them.
The freedom of people will reduce. Islamic State is a controversial subject, yet it does not mean that all the people who travel to terrorist hotspots such as Syria or Iraq, have the intention of joint terrorist groups. However, even if criminalizing travels to certain regions has a negative impact on people’s freedom; it is meaningful to the Canadian politics because this legislation will ensure the national security of the country and reduce numbers of Canadian citizens that travel to the Islamic State in order to join terrorist
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted under the Pierre Trudeau government on April 17, 1982. According to Phillip Bryden, “With the entrenchment of the Charter into the Canadian Constitution, Canadians were not only given an explicit definition of their rights, but the courts were empowered to rule on the constitutionality of government legislation” (101). Prior to 1982, Canada’s central constitutional document was the British North America Act of 1867. According to Kallen, “The BNA Act (the Constitution Act, 1867) makes no explicit reference to human rights” (240). The adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms significantly transformed the operation of Canada’s political system. Presently, Canadians define their needs and complaints in human rights terms. Bryden states, “More and more, interest groups and minorities are turning to the courts, rather than the usual political processes, to make their grievances heard” (101). Since it’s inception in 1982 the Charter has become a very debatable issue. A strong support for the Charter remains, but there also has been much criticism toward the Charter. Academic critics of the Charter such as Robert Martin believe that the Charter is doing more harm than good, and is essentially antidemocratic and UN-Canadian. I believe that Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic, although, the Charter itself represents a democratic document. Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic because the power of the executive is enhanced at the expense of Parliament, and the power of the judiciary is enhanced at the expense of elected officials, although, the notwithstanding clause continues to provide Parliament with a check on...
Every year, over 250,000 people make Canada their new home. Attracted by its education system, economy and universal healthcare system, there are few other places in the world like it. All Canadians are guaranteed equality before the law and equality of opportunity, regardless of where they are from. However, some might argue that Canadian policy has not been put into practice as well as it should be. Is the concept of true equality a far-fetched idea? It seems that Canada has taken great measures to promote the integration of immigrants socially, but can the same be said for their integration economically? Politically? To judge whether or not Canada has been successful at promoting the integration of immigrants in these realms, a deeper understanding of Canadian policy must be considered.
Many people and nations around the world are deprived of human rights. The government in the countries or nations usually can not help the people being deprived. Either because the government is too poor to, it is not one of the things the government is looking into, or the government does not know or care. Because of this certain people, or even whole populations are denied human rights and their living conditions and way of life are usually not on the positive side of things. There are many wealthier countries trying to help but sometimes that is not enough. To what extent should Canada have a role in working to increase human rights protection in other nations?
Anand, A. (2011). Combating terrorist financing: Is Canada’s legal regime effective? University of Toronto Law Journal, 61(1), 59-71. Retrieved from http://library.mtroyal.ca:2078/journals/university_of_toronto_law_journal/v061/61.1.anand.html
Throughout Canada’s relatively short existence we have created quite a reputation for ourselves. Our great nation is known for many things , and I am proud to say that most are positive. Does Canada have a strong national identity? Anyone can see the answer is yes. Just take a look at the facts. For example, we are renowned for our peacekeepers and no other country is considered more peaceful. Without a doubt this is the type of identity we should work to keep.
Migration has been a major part of human living and also animals, people migrate for various reasons such as seeking better lives, family, job opportunity, availability of social amenities etc. immigration policies were put in place to monitor and decide who immigrate to a country and these policies have been present since 1906, and these polices have had different reasons for their enactment and these reasons change as time and era changes (Baglay, 2014). The early policies were racially based restriction, economic growth, multiculturalism, restriction on refugee and economic immigration (Baglay, 2014). The Communitarian approach used by Michael Walzer to explain immigration policy is similar to Canadian immigration policy. This paper seeks to discuss and analyze the articles by Joseph Carens and Michael Walzer, explaining the different perspectives of explaining immigration policies. The paper would summarize and contrast the author’s main arguments. It would take a stand on which argument is more persuasive in explaining immigration policy and give reason for this position. It would also use other articles to support or refute each argument made by Joseph Carens and Michael Walzer. Lastly this paper would explain and come to a conclusion of if any of these arguments apply to Canadian immigration policy and give examples of these similarities. Carens and Walzer had very different view on immigration and open border, Carens used the Liberal perspective of explaining open border.
sets an example to how it will hurt the nation as one, not only will