121 replies to this topic

[capricorn]

I can't believe he got into Canada so quickly.

All in the name of preserving Canada's reputation of being a compassionate nation. Just as Omar Khadr will be allowed to be reunited with his loving family.

Seems the Harper Government can keep out some and welcome others...

Whoever rules the roost gets its way.

[WWWTT]

post 54

Regardless Black was approved to enter Canada, therefore his previous circumstance did not prevent him from entering to visit family.

If you feel he was treated unfairly by the American justice system then start a thread revolving around this topic.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Regardless of what our various citizenship laws or regulations state, Canadian citizenship policy has always been lenient to people who were once citizens and then lost it.

False

Black did not lose his citizenship.He forfeited it in order to receive a titular honour from the UK.

WWWTT

[g_bambino]

Black did not lose his citizenship.He forfeited it in order to receive a titular honour from the UK.

Because Chretien told the Queen not to elevate Black to the Peerage, in contradiction to the advice Tony Blair had given her. Besides Chretien's pettiness, there was no reason Black couldn't have become a baron while still a Canadian citizen.

[WWWTT]

Because Chretien told the Queen not to elevate Black to the Peerage, in contradiction to the advice Tony Blair had given her. Besides Chretien's pettiness, there was no reason Black couldn't have become a baron while still a Canadian citizen.

Oh no no no!You can't pin this entirely on Cretien and turn this into a partisan political debate!

This goes back almost 100yrs in Canadian history,involved several other prime ministers,is part of our succession from Britain and our independence and several other commonwealth countries have taken similar positions as Canada has.

And when you consider the actual number of cases involving Canadians I would be much more inclined to believe that Blair and Black have errored.

WWWTT

[Fletch 27]

You are an idiot... You would have done the same.... Regardless of your leftist stripes...

[quotame='WWWTT' date='05 May 2012 - 05:28 PM' timestamp='1336264087' post='792552']
False

Black did not lose his citizenship.He forfeited it in order to receive a titular honour from the UK.

WWWTT
[/quote]

[WWWTT]

[quote name='Fletch 27' date='06 May 2012 - 07:26 AM' timestamp='1336307180' post='792600']
You are an idiot... You would have done the same.... Regardless of your leftist stripes...

[quotame='WWWTT' date='05 May 2012 - 05:28 PM' timestamp='1336264087' post='792552']
False

Black did not lose his citizenship.He forfeited it in order to receive a titular honour from the UK.

WWWTT
[/quote]
[/quote]
Thats a real big "assumption" you are making.

Are you aware that when you call other members here names as you have called me you can be banned or at the very least suspended?

Good Luck!

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

Because Chretien told the Queen not to elevate Black to the Peerage, in contradiction to the advice Tony Blair had given her. Besides Chretien's pettiness, there was no reason Black couldn't have become a baron while still a Canadian citizen.

I was under the impression it was a British rule. If it was Chretien's doing, then that's ridiculous. He should hold dual-citizenship. The only reason he was raised to that status was that he owned the newspaper, so it comes automatically with the position.

[cybercoma]

Oh no no no!You can't pin this entirely on Cretien and turn this into a partisan political debate!

This goes back almost 100yrs in Canadian history,involved several other prime ministers,is part of our succession from Britain and our independence and several other commonwealth countries have taken similar positions as Canada has.

And when you consider the actual number of cases involving Canadians I would be much more inclined to believe that Blair and Black have errored.

WWWTT

We have cabinet ministers with British citizenship.

[WWWTT]

We have cabinet ministers with British citizenship.

This case is involved.

Do a quick search of the 1919 Nickle resolution as I have and you'll be up to speed to debate this one.

This is not about dual citizenship but about titular honours being given to Canadian citizens from other countries.

WWWTT

[Michael Hardner]

You are an idiot... You would have done the same.... Regardless of your leftist stripes...

Fletch, this isn't helpful for the conversation - just an insult.

[Topaz]

The bottom line is Kenney, even though he says he has nothing to do with the decision, did, because he's another Harper, IF HE wanted Black to stay out he would have overruled the decison and he didn't, so he agrees.

[g_bambino]

You can't pin this entirely on Cretien and turn this into a partisan political debate!

I pinned it entirely on noone. But it was a partisan, political matter.

This goes back almost 100yrs in Canadian history,involved several other prime ministers,is part of our succession from Britain and our independence...

Not really. It's the arbitrary choice of the sitting prime minister to allow or disallow such honours. But, his jurisdiction extends only to Canadian citizens, not British ones. Other British-Canadians received such a distinction after 1919: the Viscount Bennett, the Baron Thomson of Fleet; and still others (whether dual citizens or not) carry on hereditary Peerage titles (which Black's is not): the Baron Beaverbrook, the Marquess of Exeter, the Baron Shaughnessy.

It was as a British citizen Black was receiving the honour, not as a Canadian citizen, but Chretien took it upon himself to intervene anyway.
[ed.: +]

Edited by g_bambino, 06 May 2012 - 07:27 AM.

[WWWTT]

I pinned it entirely on noone. But it was a partisan, political matter.


Not really. It's the arbitrary choice of the sitting prime minister to allow or disallow such honours. But, his jurisdiction extends only to Canadian citizens, not British ones. Other British-Canadians received such a distinction after 1919: the Viscount Bennett, the Baron Thomson of Fleet; and still others (whether dual citizens or not) carry on hereditary Peerage titles (which Black's is not): the Baron Beaverbrook, the Marquess of Exeter, the Baron Shaughnessy.

It was as a British citizen Black was receiving the honour, not as a Canadian citizen, but Chretien took it upon himself to intervene anyway.
[ed.: +]

OK now first off you are using the titles given to the individuals in question which makes this hard to debate!

Secondly,I believe from what I have read that there are several examples,but less an less frequent after WWII.

Therefore it is not as if every Canadian sitting PM had an opportunity to weigh in on this vague topic.

And there are significant differences between Black circumstance compared to others.

I should point out that Cretien is from Quebec and that this happened not too long after the Quebec vote of 1995.Perhaps fear of fuelling Quebec seperation may have played some role in this.But I doubt there is enough evidence to prove any classic liberal vs conservative politics.

WWWTT

[g_bambino]

I believe from what I have read that there are several examples,but less an less frequent after WWII.

Likely true, but that doesn't undermine my point.

But I doubt there is enough evidence to prove any classic liberal vs conservative politics.

That's essentially what it was. Chretien didn't like what was written about him in Black's newspapers, so he advised the Queen not to grant Black - a British citizen - a life peerage, contrary to her British prime minister's advice.

I guess the Queen didn't take it too personally, since she appointed Chretien to the Order of Merit, a rarer honour than a life peerage and a personal gift of the Queen (as opposed to honours granted on government advice), which must've earned at least a scowl of disapproval from Black.
[ed.: +]

Edited by g_bambino, 06 May 2012 - 10:51 AM.