Globe and Mail | Jun. 07, 2001 | Eugene Harasymiw
Shortcomings of Bill C-11

Shortcomings of Bill C-11

June 7, 2001

Toronto Globe and Mail [[email protected]]

Dear Editor:

How laudable of experts Best, Campbell, Collacott, Gibson, Manion and Verma ("Canada must stand...", Globe and Mail, June 6, 2001) and of Ms. Aiken and Mr. Brouwer ("We could send back...", Globe and Mail, June 7, 2001) to draw our attention to the shortcomings of Bill C-11. But how careless of them to neglect to mention that, even without Bill C-11, the same egregious arbitrariness they rightly decry in that legislation is already present in current citizenship- stripping processes.

The first article fails to mention that no Charter protection is extended to full-fledged Canadians facing loss of citizenship and deportation who, left to the mercies of state-sponsored show trials, are victimized by findings of putative war criminality. The authors of the second article neglect to point out that undesirable by-products of Bill C-11 identified by them (guilt by association; the "certainty" of civil servants and politicians as to what constitutes "guilt"; the total absence of evidence of specific criminal acts; and the attendant lack of due process) have characterized section 10 and 18 "citizenship revocation" proceedings since at least 1995. How does one explain these glaring omissions?

Can the silence of such human rights advocates not be attributed to the bacillus of political correctness? Or is it they lack the courage to disturb the special-interest groups for whom marionette Ministers Caplan and McLellan are fronting?

Eugene Harasymiw, LL.B.
Alberta Ukrainian Self-Reliance League
Edmonton, AB