Canadian denied passport and stranded

[dcbogey]

My belief is nuanced. (1) We probably do need a way to keep this guy out of Canada. (2) I am not happy at all about the way it is being done for exactly the reason you mention.

Why do we need to keep him out? If there is something someone knows that is incriminating, bring him back and take him to trial.

We need to enact a law that enables the government to deal with guys like this WITHOUT trodding on the constitution. There ought to be some sort of jury process by which someone is stripped of the right to enter Canada in situations where the evidence isn't sufficient to convict of a crime, but where it is strong enough to suggest there is a real threat to Canada.

I really don't want to bring up the "thin edge of the wedge" argument for a bunch reasons, but who do we allow to establish the rules regarding why someone would be stripped of citizenship? I'm not sure I trust the current government to do it, nor any replacement government on the foreseeable horizon.

 

[Anynym]

Actually Lanc, the demographics are moving against you. When you're downtown, you will probably realize YOU no longer look Canadian. You may find yourself stranded in the lobby of the Canadian Embassy in the UK some day.

More typical Canadian ignorance. Canada does not have an Embassy in the U.K, nor does the U.K. have an Embassy in Canada.

As for the case at hand, yes, any Canadian presenting him or herself on Canadian soil has the right to enter or leave Canada. Canada is not obliged to be their travel agent, however, and is not required to issue a passport to every Canadian citizen abroad where the exclusions apply.

This individual is likely within his legal rights to continue to remain in the Canadian Embassy - in fact, I would say the Canadian government has been very accomodating in this regard. That doesn't mean the Canadian government is obligated to ship him home, nor are they required to arrest him while in the Embassy.

 

[dcbogey]

As for the case at hand, yes, any Canadian presenting him or herself on Canadian soil has the right to enter or leave Canada. Canada is not obliged to be their travel agent, however, and is not required to issue a passport to every Canadian citizen abroad where the exclusions apply.

And those exclusions would be?

 

[gladheateher]

The guy doesn't look Canadian to me.


He's lilely some of the flotsom that got in under trewdough.



We finally have a gov't with the balls to say no more to our Country being a doormat for these vermin.






.

Agreed!

 

[Anynym]

And those exclusions would be?

As discussed previously in this thread.

 

[dcbogey]

As discussed previously in this thread.

That the RCMP and CSIS have cleared him?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

My position is who cares about this guy.

He managed to get himself on a terror watch list and it's up to him to get himself off of it which he has not been able to do.

The government works in concert with various authorities and agencies around the world who have files on what this guy has been up to. Believe it or not, -not all people in the world are Saints.

There's nothing wrong with reversing a position if it's the sensible thing to do. But media loves to characterize government as "reversing" whenever they can because it's more sensational and gets people hooked on reading the story.

Even if the more correct interpretation is "updating a position" to take into account all the latest intelligence information.

 

[JohnLarue]

LOL!!!
Those Yanks you've been palin' around with and define above, are only dittoheads and are NOT representative of the rest of America....

Just like all Canadians do not end every sentence with "eh"
Any guess how many times I have heard some obie noxious American rib me about the "eh" ?

It gets tired after the third time, irritating after the tenth time & annoying as hell once you lose count.
Bye the way, gun-toting, over-bearing, know-it-all people from any country would not be my pals.

Most of the Americans I have met are pretty decent people.
But that "eh" shit gets under my skin.
You might want to remember that next time you deal with people north of the boarder who happen to be your most important trading partner.

 

[WoodPeckr]

LOL!!!
Gotcha there Johnny.
Will file that away and try to keep that in mind, eh!....

 

[nottyboi]

More typical Canadian ignorance. Canada does not have an Embassy in the U.K, nor does the U.K. have an Embassy in Canada.

As for the case at hand, yes, any Canadian presenting him or herself on Canadian soil has the right to enter or leave Canada. Canada is not obliged to be their travel agent, however, and is not required to issue a passport to every Canadian citizen abroad where the exclusions apply.

This individual is likely within his legal rights to continue to remain in the Canadian Embassy - in fact, I would say the Canadian government has been very accomodating in this regard. That doesn't mean the Canadian government is obligated to ship him home, nor are they required to arrest him while in the Embassy.

Ok so we call it the "high commission" in the UK, whatever. No the govt does not have to ship him home, he has his own plane ticket. But they ARE obligated to provide unfettered right of return. So how is refusing to provide travel documents not "unfettered"?

 

[papasmerf]

Ok so we call it the "high commission" in the UK, whatever. No the govt does not have to ship him home, he has his own plane ticket. But they ARE obligated to provide unfettered right of return. So how is refusing to provide travel documents not "unfettered"?

Does your government also have the right to revoke a passport?

 

[oldjones]

Does your government also have the right to revoke a passport?

Sure, but this is a case of the Canadian government refusing to allow a Canadian citizen to return to his country, a citizen who has not been convicted of any offence, and who is not charged with any offence here or abroad. Refusing to issue a one-trip passport's just the latest trick they've used.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

My position is who cares about this guy.

He managed to get himself on a terror watch list and it's up to him to get himself off of it which he has not been able to do.

I don't agree with government (or you) on this one.

The problem with police state policies like terror watch lists is they cast a broad net. Often times innocent people get caught in the net as has happened numerous with the terror watch list. One day, you could find yourself caught in this net. If that day ever comes, I suspect you will have a change of attitude.

If he is a Canadian citizen, give him his passport and allow him to return to his country. If he is a terrorist, arrest him at the airport and give him a trial.

If he is a terrorist, wouldn't it make more sense to get him off the street than to ignore him and leave him to his terrorist activities?

 

[Never Compromised]

Sounds good to me. Next get rid of all the frigging asians, many of whom are here
illegally taking jobs from real canadians.

From a sociaeconomic perspective, I think it is more important to start with the Nordic peoples. At least the males.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

From a sociaeconomic perspective, I think it is more important to start with the Nordic peoples. At least the males.

LOL.

 

[oldjones]

My position is who cares about this guy.

He managed to get himself on a terror watch list and it's up to him to get himself off of it which he has not been able to do.…edit…

Clearly many people do. More to the point, they care about the actions of their government being just and lawful, not arbitrary and capricious as they appear to be in this case.

As to your second point, please outline the steps one must take to get off "the terror watch list". In our system of justice, it's up to the accuser to prove guilt, not merely to have a suspicion. But never mind that, since you say it's his burden, just name the agency to which he must apply with his evidence to be 'cleared' of whatever unspecified charges may or may not have been made against him.

 

[danmand]

It is very simple: If the government can disallow any canadian citizen access
to Canada, the government can disallow you and I access to Canada.

We don't want that, do we???

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

It is very simple: If the government can disallow any canadian citizen access
to Canada, the government can disallow you and I access to Canada.

We don't want that, do we???

Exactly. That is the critical point in this debate.

 

[oldjones]

That's not accurate. They said they have no SUBSTANTIVE evidence. My guess is they do have a lot of evidence but nothing which could be used in court, or nothing that is strong enough to convict.

It troubles me too that we have no way of knowing which is why I say we need to revamp the process that we use to deal with these cases.

Substantive: Not imaginary; actual; real. See any number of dictionaries.

You said earlier we need a process to deal with traitors. We have one, it's called the law. Under that process institutions called courts examine substantive evidence and if it establishes the accused has committed the charged offense, they are sentenced to legal prescribed penalties and punishments.

If the governent has more than suspicions, they can arrest and charge him, if they have only suspicion, that's quite sufficient to institute further investigation by appropriate agencies until they have such evidence—or discover, as CSIS admitted, that there is none.

Technically they've allowed his right of return to Canada, by allowing him to stay in the embassy, but everything else they've done makes them look stupid and totalitarian. If Dick Cheney was running the PCO he couldn't have screwed things up worse. Maher Arar cost them $10 million, and still this government's learned nothing about doing justice right.

 

[Davy.Biggie]

So you're saying that trumps the Charter sec. 6(1) and I guess you're ok with that.
6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

That's the Charter - good luck changing it.

You are forgetting section 1 of the charter

" 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. "

the key is "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" so the Charter itself limits itself to subject to reasonable limits under the law.


As for the consulate he is in, it is Canadian soil so his rights under the charter are being upheld.

he can not travel from where he is to the country of Canada without a passport. Now it is up to the laws regarding the issuing of a passport. He has been deemed a national security threat. Until he is no longer a threat to national security he will not be given a passport.
I wonder who is after him that he will not leave the embassy? f there is a death penalty or he faces a death squad he will not be forced to leave the consulate. For some reason i think he has overstayed his welcome in that country and now wants to run back here. It's lunacy to think he enjoys living in the consulate building but the reality is he is afraid of stepping off of Canadian Soil which tells you he really pissed someone off there. We are protecting his rights as a Canadian as much as we can. We removed the death penalty from this country and I agree to it to a point. Just like I believe we are a neutral country and must not allow people to be a threat to our own country or any other country from within our borders regardless if they are Canadian citizens or not. I miss being able to go to the USA using only my driver's license as ID. Because of us NOT being proactive enough the USA now requires a passport from all Canadians. This should be the catalyst to change the way immigration and Traitors and conspirators are dealt with. Long gone are the days of public hanging. But in reality, how many criminals would think twice before a crime if they knew they would hang from the neck until dead?