[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

Catholic priests may refuse Chrisitan funerals in case of assisted suicide

Hmm, I thought it was a definitive "We don't want you anymore in our Church if you chose to ask someone to kill yourself", but it's rather full of 'maybe'.  Shody journalism in reporting the news here...

When it comes to funerals, the bishops ask Catholics to hold two truths in balance. "First, all ecclesiastical funerals are offered for sinners. The Church, as a generous mother, is eager to intercede for her children even when they have wandered," the bishops say. "Second, however, the Church requires her funeral celebrations to be real signs of faith and to be respectful of the conscience and decisions of those who have died."

The document lists the categories of sinners, heretics, apostates and so on who are not eligible to receive Catholic funeral rites unless there was some sign of repentance before death. Those who die by euthanasia or assisted suicide call for additional considerations, the bishops write.

"The Church does, in fact, celebrate Christian funerals for those who have been found after the fact to have committed suicide," they write. "We are not able to judge the reason the person has taken that decision or the disposition of their heart."

Not that much of a scandal to rant against.  I'm sad

There is no obligation for a Rabbi to celebrate the funeral of a Christian, so why should the Catholic Church celebrate a religious funeral for someone who rejects core values of its Faith?  I don't expect to be celebrated in church when my time comes.  I don't go to Church, I don't give them money.  I paid for my spot in the cemetary, that's all.


Quebec's bishop have announced that they won't "gently but firmly pressure" people to renounce their wish of euthanasia.  They will tell them the position of the Church and engage in a dialogue with the soon to be deceased, but they will not refuse the last rites under any circumstances.

[HVC]

It wasn't that long ago that suicide victims (perpetrators?) weren't allowed to be buried in Catholic cemeteries. I'm kind ok with this. Hard to repent for a sin that's your very last act.

[viper37]

It wasn't that long ago that suicide victims (perpetrators?) weren't allowed to be buried in Catholic cemeteries.

70-80 years ago give or take a decade, yeah.  I think it was only in the 60s, after the Quiet Revolution that the Church allowed suicide victims to be burried in cemetaries, in Quebec.

[viper37]

Alain Perreault guilty of premeditated murder

That was an interesting trial, from a lawyer's perspective, I guess.  It was his second trial.  The guy was caught for the murder of Lyne Massicotte in 2003.  He was arrested in 2010 following a Mister Big operation where the police recruited him in a false crime ring.  There, after multiple crimes, he met the Big Boss who promised a minimal annual salary of 50k$ and a fully paid condo if he were to came clean with the suspucisons concerning this murder.  It was that or leave the ring.

He finally confessed to the crime, on video.  That, plus a lot of circumstancial evidences* had him declared guilty.  But then the Appeal court ruled that following the CSC new rules regarding such operations, he had the right to a 2nd trial.  I'm glad it's the same verdict.  Lots of evidences weren't presented to the jury, since they were not directly related to the crime he was accused of, but could have indicated violent tendancies on his part.

There is one part I don't like in the french news report, is that they give ample details on the errors he committed:
Look for "Les quatre erreurs du meurtrier" (the 4 mistakes of the murderer) and translate from there.  It's like a handbook on how not to get caught...

Anyway, he parked the victim's car in his usual parking spot, while the victim was from out of town and did not know the city very well.
His hard drive contains lots of details, like the rape websites he visited prior to the murder, research on the penalty for murder and stuff like that.
The mud found on the victim's car could came from only a few specific places on the south shore of the St-Lawrence, and one of these 2 or 3 places is the spot he allegedly disposed of the body, according to his confession during the Mr Big operation.

For the family's sake, I hope it's over now.

[Valmy]

It wasn't that long ago that suicide victims (perpetrators?) weren't allowed to be buried in Catholic cemeteries.

70-80 years ago give or take a decade, yeah.  I think it was only in the 60s, after the Quiet Revolution that the Church allowed suicide victims to be burried in cemetaries, in Quebec.

You sure it wasn't Vatican II? Or was that just a coincidence?

[Grey Fox]

It wasn't that long ago that suicide victims (perpetrators?) weren't allowed to be buried in Catholic cemeteries.

70-80 years ago give or take a decade, yeah.  I think it was only in the 60s, after the Quiet Revolution that the Church allowed suicide victims to be burried in cemetaries, in Quebec.

You sure it wasn't Vatican II? Or was that just a coincidence?

No, it's all inter-related.

[crazy canuck]

Lots of big news coming out of Ottawa and we are discussing Vatican II?

[garbon]

Indeed!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-new-red-light-cameras-1.3788964

[Monoriu]

Lots of big news coming out of Ottawa and we are discussing Vatican II?

Nobody mentioned the Royal inspection

[viper37]

Lots of big news coming out of Ottawa and we are discussing Vatican II?

what do you mean?

   
• The future King&Queen visiting with the future King and his sister?  Boring.
• The Federal government making unilateral decision that pisses Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia and threatens their economy?  Been there done that and I warned you about it.
• The Federal government breaking its promise of maintaining the current level of health&education transfers as 6% GDP instead of the proposed 3% by Conservatives?  I also told you about it.
• The Federal government deciding the totally non ambitious plan to reduce greenhouse gazes by the Conservatives would be just fine now that they are in power?  We talked about it already.
• A 3 year old kid displaying better judgement than 37% of the Canadian population?  We talked about it already.
• The indians, disastisfied by the false hopes promised by Trudeau trying to appeal to whatever sense of nobility they thought the Royals had?  Not much to discuss here.  The Conservatives were actually giving them a fighting chance by fighting corruption, the Liberals have simply endorsed it.  business as usual.
• The sale of indian kids by Canada to foreign countries?  We knew it happenned in Canada, the only new part is the international adoption.

[viper37]

This should please CC and other proud Liberal voters
A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian

Trudeau government revoking citizenship at much higher rate than Conservatives

More (predictable) hypocrisy from the Libs

The Trudeau government used powers granted by the Harper government's controversial citizenship law to make 184 revocation decisions without legal hearings between November 2015 and the end of August. About 90 per cent of the decisions resulted in a negative finding and the loss of a person's citizenship.

The numbers show that the Trudeau government has used the law far more aggressively than the Harper government itself.

But in a Federal Court filing late Friday, the government said it would not grant a moratorium on revocation cases, and added that claims by some that the system was revoking large numbers of citizenship are speculative.

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau made the sanctity of citizenship an issue in last year's federal election.

"A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian," Trudeau said in a leaders' debate three weeks before storming to victory.

He used it to dress down Stephen Harper for passing Bill C-24, a law that aimed to strip dual citizens of their Canadian passports if they were convicted of crimes of terrorism, treason or espionage against Canada, or took up arms against Canada.

Immigrant communities rallied to the Liberal Party, concerned that Canadians born overseas would be reduced by C-24 to an insecure second-class status.

Once elected, one of the Liberals' first acts was to repeal the parts of C-24 that applied to those convicted of terrorism-related crimes, ensuring that they can keep their Canadian passports.

But the Trudeau government left intact other parts of the law that allow the government to strip citizenship from other holders of Canadian passports for misrepresentation.

The 184 revocation decisions of the first 10 months of the Trudeau government nearly match the total number of decisions over a 27-year period between 1988 and the last month of the Harper government in October 2015.

Revocations increase as Trudeau takes office

Although the powers being used come from a law passed by Stephen Harper's Conservatives, the law has been used much more aggressively under Trudeau.

In the first full month of the law's operation, June 2015, only three revocation decisions were made. None were made in July or August, two in September and two more in October.

The Trudeau cabinet was sworn in on Nov. 4, 2015. That month saw 21 revocation decisions. The following month there were 59. The year 2016 averaged 13 decisions a month up to Aug. 31, the latest data CBC News has been able to obtain.

The monthly average under the Harper government from 2013 to 2015 was only 2.4 cases a month, some under the auspices of C-24 and some under rules that existed previously.

Liberals accused of hypocrisy

In recent days, following revelations that the birthplace of one of its own cabinet ministers was misrepresented on her passport documents, the government has said it is open to reforming the system.

But in the preceding months, it had used the revocation measures at an unprecedented rate.

"The Liberals criticized these provisions when they were in opposition," says Laura Track of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. "They said they were going to fix it. And yet they have been using it even more than the Conservatives did."

The government says the revocation decisions are being taken to protect the integrity of the citizenship system and are aimed at cases of fraud.

Nancy Caron of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada said "many cases that are being processed for revocation are as a result of large-scale investigations into possible residence fraud."

The department carried out those investigations with Canada Border Services Agency and the RCMP. Investigations led by those agencies have resulted in the conviction of immigration consultants who helped individuals obtain citizenship illegally.

"The revocation process is then undertaken to determine whether the individuals associated with these investigations, fraudulently obtained their Canadian citizenship through having intentionally misled the government of Canada about key aspects of their citizenship application such as concealing past criminal activities or submitting false documents to demonstrate residence in Canada when in fact they were not living in Canada‎. Many of the decisions to revoke citizenship that have been made since May 2015 directly result from those investigations," Caron said in an email to CBC News.
Monsef case an uncomfortable parallel

But lawyers representing some citizens targeted for revocation say they're seeing cases that don't fit that frame.

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association says those targeted for revocation include at least two young adults who came to Canada as infants, grew up in the country and have broken no laws, but who are now being stripped of citizenship because the government says one of their parents misrepresented facts on their original application years ago.

In one case, a young man who arrived in Canada at nine months of age said he has been issued with a notice of revocation because his father had failed to report a criminal conviction in his country of origin when the family immigrated to Canada.

He did not wish to speak to CBC News and said he wished to remain anonymous.

The case bears similarities to that of Liberal Minister of Democratic Institutions Maryam Monsef, who says it was her mother who misrepresented her country of birth when she immigrated to Canada. A spokesperson for Monsef recently said she would update her Canadian passport.

Another citizen being assisted by BCCLA was targeted for revocation because she had declared herself single on her application for permanent resident status when she had left a husband behind in Iran. The woman, who also wished to remain anonymous, said she was fleeing an abusive marriage with an older man and considered herself single.
No moratorium: Federal government

When the Trudeau government introduced legislation to repeal Bill C-24, New Democrat MP Jenny Kwan attempted to introduce amendments in committee that would have addressed the problem of people losing citizenship without any opportunity for a hearing.

But the Liberal chair of the immigration committee ruled those amendments out of scope, and the machinery of revocation without a hearing has continued to operate, and would continue to operate in the future under C-6, the Liberal government's replacement for C-24, which has passed the House and is now in the Senate.

Immigration Minister John McCallum recently told the Commons that C-6 was not intended to change the parts of C-24 that deal with misrepresentation, but suggested that the government may be open to the idea.

"C-6 adheres to our fundamental election commitment that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, and it revokes citizenship revocation for criminal acts applied to dual citizens alone. That was the central focus of the bill.

"Citizenship revocation for misrepresentation is under consideration and we are considering further lines of appeal."

The BCCLA has gone to Federal Court seeking a stay in further revocation cases pending a constitutional challenge.

McCallum has suggested the government might consider a moratorium on revocations — but that suggestion seemed to be put to rest with the government's response Friday.

In the meantime, lawyers who work in the field say they continue to be approached by citizens who have received notices of intent to revoke their citizenship in recent weeks.

I'm so glad we have an honest and respectful of its citizens government in Ottawa

[Oexmelin]

Out of curiosity, Vip, do you support the power to revoke citizenship as granted by C-24?

[Josephus]

I am strongly against revoking citizenship for anybody who has their Canadian citizenship legally, no matter what they do afterwards with that.

But in cases where citizenship was acquired illegally, or through misrepresentation, then that's another story

[viper37]

Out of curiosity, Vip, do you support the power to revoke citizenship as granted by C-24?

it was there before, and yes I support it, for terrorism cases, or if it was obtained in a fraudulent manner.  After the facts have been proven in a court of law.

The French have another option (can't remember the name of the procedure, but ask them) that seeks to achieve the same objectives without specifically targetting those born abroad.  If we were to have that procedure, I would prefer that to removing citizenship for those born abroad.

[Oexmelin]

So, then, you were complaining about the Liberals, not about the fact that they are applying a policy you actually support?