No Votes For Long-term Non-residents
- Thread starter SkyRider
- Start date
That's right- its another attack on the rights of canadians. If you are a citizen then you have the right to vote. Bad decision by the court
I also agree with the ruling.
In terms of earning income from Canada and paying tax on it, that just makes sense. Everywhere you go, if you earn money from a country, you pay tax to that country. It has nothing to do with voting rights. If you own shares of Walt Disney and you get a dividend, the US government is going to tax that money because you earned it from the US. Under what logic would you argue that you can then vote in the United States?
In terms of earning income from Canada and paying tax on it, that just makes sense. Everywhere you go, if you earn money from a country, you pay tax to that country. It has nothing to do with voting rights. If you own shares of Walt Disney and you get a dividend, the US government is going to tax that money because you earned it from the US. Under what logic would you argue that you can then vote in the United States?
I also disagree with the court ruling. You are either a Canadian citizen or not a Canadian citizen -period.
This decision starts the process of installing a class system of Canadian citizenship with varying rights and freedoms. Maybe there should be special class for affluent Canadians because of their sizable financial tax contribution. Maybe there should be lower suspended class of Canadian citizenship for welfare recipients and the unemployed. Let's not forget the retired Canadians (many war veterans) who are living out their retirement in Florida and other warm climates. They have lost the right to vote too ? Are they substandard Canadian citizens simply because they are retired ?
The other flaw (in my modest opinion) is the assertion that the Canadian government is only making decisions on revenue. As we have seen with Harper's security bill and prostitution bill, there are huge decisions that affect the freedom of all Canadian citizens independent where they are located. They might be serving overseas, heading the local Canadian branch of a Canadian company, held hostage for more than 5 years - they loose their Canadian rights ? The Canadian government may vote to take their property, revoke their citizenship ... yet they have no vote ??
I am not a lawyer but if you are removing voting rights based on tax contribution, are you not then opening up the possibility of voting rights to permanent residents (who choose not to be or are unqualified to be Canadian citizens) because of their tax contributions ? Are we then putting up Canadian citizenship rights on a for sale basis and diminishing the very rights that currently define a Canadian citizen ?
I really think it is a dangerous and poorly thought out decision.
Unless you are a dual citizen, in which case you are both a Canadian and an Egyptian or Iranian and you have twice the rights of a sole Canadian citizen.
You don't have twice the rights of a Canadian citizen because of dual citizenship - every citizen has the same Canadian rights. If you may have papers that give you rights in other countries but that doesn't in anyway change your status within Canada anymore than having a Costco card or foreign driving licence mean you have more Canadian benefits than any other citizen. If you are barred from entering the USA - does that affect your Canadian rights ?
For the record I don't have dual citizenship but I don't see that as problem.
First of all, not a fan of Harper but this was originally created by the Liberals back in 93 if you want to blame someone.
Secondly, it does not discriminate based on socio-economic status, tax contribution or any other basis. It is based on a choice that you personally make, to permanently leave the country or for more than 5 years.
It does not set a chain of events in motion, nor does it compromise ANY of our other rights and freedoms as citizens. Saying that the government may now want to revoke citizenship or some other ulitarian decision to make voting appear more fair is preposterous. That obviously won't happen here.
This is about voting in specific electoral districts. Nothing else. I fail to see why people keep associating other rights and freedoms like we automatically lose those too.
Simply. If you do not LIVE in your riding any longer, why should you feel the need to vote for someone along with others who live there and are directly affected by the decision? I don't see the logic. Because nationalism? No.
So...people want to vote...just because they can.
Regardless of if they chose to leave the very country they want to vote in?
Are they directly affected by any decision-making thereafter? No. They get to watch things happen from a distance.
For example...I don't want ex-pats being able to vote conservative and then watch that government desecrate our lives through ridiculous bills passed through the House and Senate and all they are able to do is "empathize".
Not a good enough reason in my eyes.
Decisions about representation should be decided by the people who are directly affected. Not by the people who can sit back and watch from a distance how things eventually play out.
They aren't taking the right away completely. If you come back, you will have the right again.
Ruthless pragmatism.
No. People vote because it is their right to vote or not. Even prisoners. Second of all, NOBODY can take that right away from a Canadian citizen-completely or partially. If, as a country, we feel uncomfortable with non residents deciding local issues, we can designate a riding or two for the people out of the country who spend years away. The right to vote does not belong to a government to fuck with. It belongs to each individual citizen. It is incredibly dangerous to outsource our fundamental rights and freedoms to the politicians whose only aim is to prostitute themselves to the lowest common denominator in order to get elected.
Canadian prisoners having the right to vote makes perfect sense. Where are they housed? CANADA.
We can designate a riding or two to non-residents? Sounds like an okay resolution but not one that has been implemented. That is just one idea.
This ruling is just. When you look at the circumstances in play, it makes perfect sense. Why would a person who is gone for 5+ years, be even remotely in a position to make an accurate decision on who can run a country best? Because they experienced the past five years of what exactly?
How do you make a decision on something you haven't directly been privy to...
Rely on sensationalist journalism to back your opinions? Or hearsay?
Regardless, a long-term ex-pat is not an ideal decision maker if you ask me.
I'm a non resident Canadian citizen at the moment. I own property in Canada on which I pay tax, I have retirement savings on which I will pay tax when I retire someday, and I have no other citizenship besides Canadian.
How does the government know I won't move back to Canada in ten or twenty years and why should I not have a say in the meantime? I certainly think I will but at the moment I am non resident.
How does the government know I won't move back to Canada in ten or twenty years and why should I not have a say in the meantime? I certainly think I will but at the moment I am non resident.
How does a prisoner make a decision affecting local issues while locked up for 10, 15, 25 years? What you're advocating is discrimination based on place of residency. Not issues. I'm sure the SCC will strike this down. As for voters making informed decisions-surely you jest. Not to mention that's wholly beside the point.
Discrimination based on a personal decision you make to leave a country? Now you want to have the right to make a choice on who governs that country even after you've been away for half a decade? Tell me how that constitutes as discrimination.
The ruling states if you decide to return and maintain residency, you receive the privilege once again. That is not a true definition of discrimination. Discrimination is constant and doesn't change regardless of a choice YOU make.
Prisoners can still be affected by decisions made in Canada. What happens to someone who isn't in prison for that long? Or will be out by the time a new government is elected?
And how will I be compensated for having been unfairly denied the vote in the intervening years when I return and experience the consequences of those decisions first hand?
Also note that I exist on a Canadian passport the usefulness of which directly depends on how the Canadian government conducts itself. If Canada behaves poorly then the doors my passport opens may close.
Does that not give me an interest in at the very least Canadian foreign policy? Not to mention the economic management of the country that has the lion's share of my retirement savings and on which I will be paying a lot of Canadian tax.
I don't buy this line that I have no interest in the elections nor is it accurate to say that I am not patriotic or that I don't identify primarily as a Canadian.
You cannot receive what cannot be taken away. That's why it's called a right. Only death can robe you of the right to vote. Leaving and returning is also a fundamental right. It's right there in the Charter as well. The issues are unimportant. I have a right to vote, no matter what; I have a right to run for office, no matter what(hello there Iggy). Just ask yourself: how is Paul Bernardo's vote more valuable than Joe Blow's who happen to live in Paris? How can a serial murderer, who will never see freedom, get to vote and a citizen, who chose to live abroad, for whatever reason, not? That's discrimination based on location.Discrimination based on a personal decision you make to leave a country? Now you want to have the right to make a choice on who governs that country even after you've been away for half a decade? Tell me how that constitutes as discrimination.
The ruling states if you decide to return and maintain residency, you receive the privilege once again. That is not a true definition of discrimination. Discrimination is constant and doesn't change regardless of a choice YOU make.
Prisoners can still be affected by decisions made in Canada. What happens to someone who isn't in prison for that long? Or will be out by the time a new government is elected?
