Candidates from all parties have been getting in trouble, especially with past social media

There is a list of other candidates who have had social media gaffes
?Santa has to be white?: B.C. Liberal candidate quits over Facebook posts | Toronto Star

From my understanding it still isn't clear if he is or isn't a dual citizen since Pakistan changed some laws. What seems stupid on both sides of this is I haven't seen anything stating Pakistan's stance on his citizenship, if his citizenship is revoked without confirmation from Pakistan then yes that's a problem.

In both of those, I don't see any complaints about the ability to revoke citizenship.

I'm still waking up here, what part of section 2 is this no bueno with?

I think currently the most important thing is determining whether or not he has dual citizenship with Pakistan, directly from the Pakistani government. Like I said above since neither side seems to have sorted that part out yet, until then I can't say if I agree or don't with this application of C24.

If you are a convicted terrorist you shouldn't just be deported back, you should be air dropped back into wherever the hell you, or your parents for that matter, came from. No parachute. I don't want those idiots running around Canada.

We should deport people have no clue what they are talking about or have no idea what's going on and just like to complain coz some media reported in a certain way to get attention.

If you are a terrorist you should be lock up and rot in jail. if you are a dual citizen terrorist we should deport your ass back to your home country and rot in jail.

I didn't read half the shit posted, cause I am at work, but I am a little confused by the general anger here.

Do you guys realize how few people get convicted of something like terrorism?

It's not like I could walk out of my house one day and be arrested and convicted of being a terrorist. You have to be into some seriously nefarious activities in order for this issue to even remotely become a fear.

man, people need to lighten up about peoples posts on social media.

I couldn't care less if I saw a picture of harper getting drunk when he was 21 years old, with a harem of sluts.

who gives a shit if trudeau would tweet something like "yo momma so ugly, she makes timpo's body kits look good!"

there's a reason why Trump is making waves .. people are fed up with being too PC

Harper wants to expand it to other crimes outside of terrorism. Also does anyone think it's a good idea to sent someone back to the open arms of al qaeda?

This is exactly what Harper wants, for the idiots to be blinded by the larger issue and just see "oh terrorist gets sent out of canada...rock on!" even when you beat the facts in front of them all they see is "terrorist" the issue is larger than that

being able to apply for citizenship of another country based on ones ancestry should have no part in determining ones own natural born citizenship

if you want to play it like that, then every fucking criminal, or person Harper doesn't like?, can be sent to some foreign country (europe, asia, africa, america, first nation reserves) and since Harpers looking to expand it to lesser crimes, not just terrorism, everyone should be concerned...stepping stones

I think you might have unintentionally contradicted yourself there...

Having said that, would you be so kind as to explain to me what the greater issue is?

I'm not asking out of ignorance, I'm asking because I see the changes for what they are, I don't see a "hidden agenda". You make it sound like they want to revoke citizenship for all Canadians.

BTW, don't you live on the other side of the world?

Edit: Just to be clear, terrorism or not, the gov should be able to revoke the citizenship of child molesters etc. If there were people trying to immigrate to Canada that were convicted child molesters would you let them in? No fucking way I would, and if I could kick those people out, I sure as fuck would.

Okay. Do you care to enlighten me on this bigger issue?

I'm not too up to date on this issue. I may be missing something, but your post doesn't at all help me understand what I may be missing...

EDIT: Me and Jason posted at the same time. Unlike him however I am asking out of ignorance.

You guys don't seem to understand what this is leading up to and what this rule means to your constitutional rights

Let's say your parents are from China and moved here and are naturalized Canadian citizens about 20 years ago

You were born in Canada, and you have never been to China, but you are Chinese by race and a Canadian citizen by birth.

Because of the vagueness of the wording of Bill C51, if you are convicted of terrorism, you CAN be deported to China, EVEN if you have never been to China and have absolutely no relation to China, and no relatives in China, etc

No one here is saying that terrorists are good people etc

What we are saying that Bill C51 can be unconstitutional because it is a HUGE stepping stone towards revoking your Canadian citizenship, even if you are Canadian by birth. That's INSANE

You don't seem to understand Bill C51.

I just read it, nowhere in the bill did it touch on deportation or a loss of citizenship as a result of convictions arising from the use of the bill. The bill increases the Gov. ability to obtain information and use that information against someone who is suspected of being involved with terrorism - the court process still exists, you can still be found not guilty etc.

Bill C24 on the other hand... would expand the scope of those subject to citizenship revocation to include all those born in Canada presumed able to claim citizenship in another state through one of their parents. It would also significantly expand the grounds on which citizenship may be revoked.

The revocation process will primarily be a paper one, where the Minister gives notice of intent to revoke, the person responds and a decision is made by the Minister. The Minister may hold a hearing in some instances, and in limited circumstances there will continue to be a hearing before a Federal Court judge. There is no longer any recourse to the Governor in Council, who may take into account equitable considerations after a finding that revocation is warranted due to a breach of the Act.

What would constitute a breach of the act?

Basically any criminal offence.

Having read the bill yes it seems as though there should probably be additional checks in place, most notable for me was a recommendation by the CBA that said;

- The CBA Section recommends that a citizen facing revocation always have the right to a hearing before an independent and impartial decision-maker.

This would prevent the minister from making decisions with any bias etc.

Do I think either bill is evil or unconstitutional, no I do not.

I think there is an assumption among some immigrants/children born of immigrants that the Gov will start deporting every single person that commits any criminal if they meet the criteria.

Personally, I think that's crazy, I suspect the full scope of this bill and the associated act will only be used to get rid of the "worst of the worst". Plus, once these cases start to hit the books, expect the first few to hit the supreme court which could very well result in amendments to the bill/act.

Stepping back for a moment though, many people try to suggest that this is the first steps towards us ending up like London in V for Vendetta... I don't see that.

WTF!!!!!!

A person I know went to a local coffee shop where the local con candidate we was going to be having a meet and greet at 3 P.M. Guess what he canceled. Now I check out his events section on his website and everything is gone. He has nothing listed anymore. Guys in hiding mode scared to talk to anyone waiting for the second coming of jesus. And that jesus part is not a joke.

Events | Mark MacDonald for Nanaimo-Ladysmith

Also found out he got his degree in theology from a non accredited school in Texas.

to be fair, I would cancel my events if this was the type of quality person was going to ask me questions:

https://rjjago.xxxxxxx.com/2015/09/3...rom-questions/ (xxxxxx is wordpress -- removed so that it doesn't generate auto clicks)

"anti-native extremist" "racist" .. yeah buddy, keep posting on your blog about the white man keeping you down.

Then don't run for office if you don't want to answer questions.
Also this guy was the former editor of the local paper.

So if you are convicted of doing stupid shit like killing a mass of people, frankly I don't give a fuck where you end up as long as its not in Canada. The day you are convicted of terrorism is the day you lose your right to being a human, let alone a Canadian.

Smarten the fuck up.

This.

I mean fuck it if people are going to be so dumb about this, they can just scrap the deportation law, and just bring in the death penalty.

Balls in your court which one do you want?

The hidden agenda is to get a bunch of people talking about shit that will never effect them with polarizing views to keep them from discussing shit that matters like the environment and the economy.

Don't you feel a little CIC ish when you say things like that?

I don't think people taking a stand against the niqab negates their ability to consider other political matters.

All I ever see in the CBC comments is leftists bashing the cons for their "hidden agenda", the trouble with this "hidden agenda" is that it may or may not exist, we will never really know... I vote based on certainty, not on conspiracy and speculation.

Not in the fucking slightest.
People taking a stand about issues like a niqab doesn't mean they don't understand political issues, but if you have to see its pitting people against each other with completely irrational extreme views that is clouding their judgement on who can properly run a country because they feel so pointlessly passionate about something because their Facebook activism feed told them to.
The hidden agenda isn't that hidden. Would it help if I just called it an agenda? Because its obvious.

Why do people care so much about what people wear?

Because all Muslims wear them, and all immigrants are refugees, and all refugees are Muslims, and all Muslims are terrorists, and they all want to come here and turn Canada into Syria, and that's the real reason, and if you don't agree with that then you're a fucking terrorist too. :accepted:

#paranoia

Check this B.S. out.

Cons want a tip line for barbaric cultural practices at the same time selling weapons to the Saudis. A country that does not even let women drive.

Sarcastic Twitter users report 'barbaric cultural practices' to Conservatives | CTV News

NO you can't. A country can NOT deport someone unless they hold another citizenship.

Perhaps because people associate the niqab with a culture that severely oppresses women and is outright hateful to a number of other groups. (IE: Homosexuals)

I think the general issue is that people want foreigners to assimilate, they don't want to have to assimilate to the foreigners cultures.

Does that represent a racist/facist perspective? Perhaps, but I'm not sure it's really hurting anyone to establish a position of expectations that when you immigrate to Canada, you don't just immigrate here for the safety, jobs, health care, and education.. you immigrate here for the culture and way of life.

Again, the conservative hidden agenda is lost on me, if someone could spell it out, I would appreciate it.

I almost look forward to a scenario where the cons get punted and another party gets majority, then I can hear 80% of the current anti-cons bitching and complaining about the corrupt and ineffective NDP/LIBS etc.

Hopefully I'm wrong, but there is a reason why nobody ever speaks of previous governments with any nostalgia.