Activist judge puts stop to citizenship revocation

An unelected judge has made a ruling that will significantly weaken the value of Canadian citizenship.

The landmark decision delivered by the Federal Court this week drastically restricts the government’s ability to revoke citizenship from people who gained it through fraud or misrepresentation.

  • The Deplorable Rosenmops

    “Individuals found to have lied or cheated to become a citizen will be afforded more tax-payer funded resources to plead their case and appeal decisions they don’t like.”

    • BillyHW

      Tell it to all the women who believe they should be allowed to vote.

      • The Deplorable Rosenmops

        I’m a woman who did vote for truDOPE! There are dozens of us!

  • felis gracilis

    The activist judges are products of cultural Marxist SJW training in our so-called education system. Since many of our elected politicians attended the same schools and were indoctrinated by the same loony profs, they either agree with these activist rulings or else they are too nutless to do anything about them like asserting their role as legislators, using the Notwithstanding clause if they have to. Of course this kind of legislative acquiescence goes off the charts when we have a snowboard PM and a kindergarten cabinet running the country.

    • Alain

      No disagreement, but I would like to point out a very important fact. The judicial activists were only granted such power by Trudeau Sr. with his charter and changing the constitution. Prior to that they had no ability to legislate no matter how hard they tried.

      • The Deplorable Rosenmops

        Trudeau’s charter seems to benefit only criminals.

        • BillyHW

          And faggots.

        • Alain

          It is consistently done by unelected judges legislating in lieu of Parliament, and it also allows tyranny of minorities in all areas of our lives along with criminals as you point out.

      • felis gracilis

        I agree that the Trudeau charter threw the door wide open to judicial legislating, but not every case propounded by a judicial activist is a charter case. In fact, the case discussed in this current post was referenced not to the Charter, but to the earlier Bill of Rights which was enacted in 1960 by the Diefenbaker government.

        “Justice Jocelyne Gagné determined that while the rules do not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they do infringe upon Canada’s Bill of Rights. Gagné ruled that those facing citizenship revocation “should be afforded an oral hearing before a court.””

        Of course there is a case to be made that the significant enabling of judicial activism made possible by the Charter has created or abetted a culture of judicial activism that influences rulings in non-Charter cases as well.

        • Alain

          If my memory is correct Diefenbaker’s Bill of Rights did not take precedence over the constitution the BNA Act, and until now there never was a case of a judge attempting to override the BNAA using the Bill of Rights. Trudeau’s charter was supposed to replace the Bill of Rights along with granting judges the ability to legislate, the second part kept under cover at the time. Now it is really something that this judge goes back to the replaced document in order to override parliament. What section of the Bill of Rights was twisted into justifying this? Oh, it really doesn’t matter since they also make up things as they go along such as even reading into Trudeau’s charter things that were purposely excluded.

  • Bla Bla

    Canada ceased to exist last year according to our esteemed PM… So I’d have to just say that citizenship cannot get anymore worthless than it is now. I’m not pessimistic, just a realist!

  • disqusW6sf

    Yes a marxist woman…wouldn’t you know. Wants to leave her mark no doubt.

  • Alain

    Why not just sell Canadian “citizenship” (even the word has become an oxymoron) on line, maybe at

  • Again, why don’t we elect our judges?

    • Chris

      We elected Trudeau, Notley, Wynne, and McGuinty, what makes you think we would elect better judges?

      • Well, we would IF we had IQ tests to vote.

        • CodexCoder

          And if we outlawed stupidity, bad behavior and public service unions, all our problems would be solved.

        • Alain

          Perhaps even just restricting the right to vote to tax payers would help. I personally would prefer owning property being a requirement along with paying taxes, but that wouldn’t fly.

          • Simply have some form of IQ test to determine if one is fit to drive a car, vote or own property. If the test-taker cannot answer questions a grade five student can, then one does not want them voting.

          • Doesn’t exactly work because Asian (the real ones not the “Brit” ones) score very well on IQ tests and can’t drive worth a damn.
            (Yes, I hate Seth MacFarlane too.)

          • I swear by Thor I saw a truck doing a U-turn in the middle of a highway en route from the Incheon airport.

            That Asian driving thing isn’t always a stereotype.

    • Alain

      They should be and we should be able to remove them from the bench. However remember how it became even impossible for Harper to appoint competent judges due to the progressives? So they would need to be elected without that sort of thing.

      • I keep saying we need referenda for things. I think this should be one of them.

        • Alain

          How true about the need for referenda for all major issues. That has always been something I greatly admire about the Swiss system. Yes, I know it isn’t perfect but then no system is, and the referenda requirement would be a huge improvement here.

          • The facts that an electoral reform referendum was kibboshed gives one an idea of how well referenda would go down.

            Apparently, we’re not smart enough to think about issues.

          • Alain

            We all know the reason that we are denied referenda on major issues, and that has been the case with both the CPC and of course the Liberals. They discovered with the Charlottetown Accord that the majority of Canadians profoundly rejected their narrative and agenda. The so-called Conservative government at the time figured it was in the bag with all the constant pro-propaganda, but got a rude awakening instead. Yet it is clear the people, the majority that is and not all the special interest groups, need to have a voice, otherwise it is if I may say “soft” totalitarianism. Elections have proven not to be enough, as once elected promises are discarded and we are told in words and actions that they know better than we do what is best for us and the country.

          • Bingo.

            Let people rob politicians of their power grabs is most unfair.

  • J. C.

    So that’s it, then… Monsef is staying. 🙁

    • andycanuck

      And her mom (if she’s still alive).

    • Sadly …

    • Editor

      That was my first thought also.

  • CodexCoder

    Whether we like or not, we live in an oligarchy – rule by the few – and those few are our judges as we cannot elect them, fire them or otherwise deal harshly with them and they, more often than not, answer to no one but themselves.

  • Reader