Getting it all wrong: Kenney proposes revoking Canadian citizenship in cases of terrorism

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support in its summer fundraiser today for as little as $1 per month!

Change the conversation, support today.

Time and again, the Conservative government is getting it all wrong.

Jason Kenney recently announced that his government is exploring the idea of stripping Canadians of their citizenship if they were found to have gone abroad and committed acts of terror.

Of course, this project fits perfectly with the "law and order" agenda of Harper's vision for Canada but it hides a discriminatory and a two-tier system that Canada has been gradually adopting: a health system for Canadians and a second-class one for refugees, a legal system for the rich and a legal system for the poor, open trials for Canadians and secret trials for immigrants and refugees; the list is long.

Three main questions come to my mind. First of all, why do we need to introduce such a law and why now? And, why do we need a law especially directed at dual citizens, and finally why is Mr. Kenney targeting acts of terrorism exclusively?

Mr. Kenney and his supporters would point their fingers at the recent allegations reported by the media about the possible participation of a Canadian citizen in the hostage-taking in Algeria, as well as to the media reports that one of the terrorists who bombed a bus in Bulgaria held a Canadian citizenship. So far, security agencies such as the RCMP or CSIS have yet to report to the Canadian public on the authenticity of these reports.

There is word circulating that RCMP agents are travelling to Algeria to check on the allegations. We still don't know if these were "genuine" Canadians citizens or simply suspects with different nationalities carrying fake Canadian passports.

After all, one has to admit that this is not the first time in Canadian history that the blue document was "used." For instance, in 1997, the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency -- in its failed attempt to assassinate Khaled Meshaal, Hamas's political chief in Jordan -- used Canadian passports to conceal the true identity of their agents. Unless my memory has betrayed me, I don't think Canada reacted by introducing a law similar to the one it is touting today.

Some would reply that the world has evolved since then, that terrorism has became a major threat and that Canada must be more vigilant. I certainly agree. But, I still don't understand how stripping people of their citizenship would make our world safer.

Shouldn't we improve our immigration system to attract and retain only those people who are serious about their intent to stay, live and work in Canada? Shouldn't we spend more effort to control the originality of the Canadian passport? Why do we have to introduce a law that has all the ingredients of division and discrimination against a certain group of people?

In my opinion, this new project would create two classes of citizens and two classes of laws. Some laws for Canadians with one citizenship and other laws tailored for people with dual citizenships. Some laws for corruption, human trafficking, child pornography… and some laws for terrorism only.

Take the example of the corruption scandal unfolding right in front of our eyes in Montreal. The Charbonneau public inquiry showed that most of the witnesses and companies implicated in the suspicious schemes are of Italian descent. Their affiliation to the Mafia has been evoked several times. Nevertheless, it would be ridiculous if someone would suggest revoking their Canadian citizenship and sending the culprits back to Italy. To my knowledge, Vito Rizzuto, born in Sicily and head of the Montreal Mafia (who was recently extradited and sentenced in the U.S.), was able to come back to Canada and "enjoy" the rights of his Canadian citizenship after completing his prison sentence. I wonder why Kenney didn't raise the question of citizenship upon Vito Rizzuto's return to Montreal? How about Conrad Black?

In summer 2012, a Somali-born British man, Mahdi Hashi, who grew up in Britain, went missing in Somalia where he went to live few years before. After his mysterious disappearance, his family in Britain was distraught, suspecting that their son was being held in a notorious U.S. anti-terrorist base in Djibouti. The news in this case is that his British citizenship was revoked without any warning or prior notice. Hashi was apparently harassed by MI5 so much while he lived in Britain, that he decided to go live in Somalia. He claimed that the British security officials wanted him to spy on the Muslim community in Britain. Recent reports disclosed that Hashi is now in custody in the U.S. facing charges of terrorism.

Harassing Muslims (visiting them at work, asking them to work for CSIS…), "pushing" them out of Canada and then arresting them overseas… isn't this a familiar pattern: Abdullah Al-Malki, Ahmed El-Maati and Abousfian Abdelrazik were all Canadian citizens who faced similar tactics. They were later arrested in their respective countries of birth, imprisoned and tortured. Allegations of terrorism ran freely over them but these allegations were never proved in court. These Canadians were never charged with terrorism. After their cases became public, and after their outrageous treatment reached many Canadians, they were able to come back to Canada. They all held Canadian passports. Their Canadian citizenship allowed them to be treated relatively fairly while their second citizenship stripped them of all their rights. Assume the Canadian citizenships of these three Canadians were revoked because of terrorism allegations -- wouldn't they still be in brutal jails in Syria, Egypt or Sudan?

Did Mr. Kenney hear about these cases? Did he read the report of Justice Iacobucci that examined the cases of Mr. Al-Malki and Mr. El-Maati? Did he hear about the Federal Court judgement on Abdelrazik?

How can Mr. Kenney explain the rationale behind his new proposed law? Or is it precisely the rule of law that is bothering the government? A better explanation from him is warranted.

Monia Mazigh was born and raised in Tunisia and immigrated to Canada in 1991. Mazigh was catapulted onto the public stage in 2002 when her husband, Maher Arar, was deported to Syria where he was tortured and held without charge for over a year. She campaigned tirelessly for his release. Mazigh holds a PhD in finance from McGill University. In 2008, she published a memoir, Hope and Despair, about her pursuit of justice, and in 2011, a novel in French, Miroirs et mirages.


Related Items

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable. has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.