There’s a fundamental reason why I very much dislike these kinds of things. When you’ve set the precedent that citizenships can be removed it legitimizes that same action when it is applied in the other direction.
What is considered “treason” is very much subjective - the state simply should not have the power to remove citizenship.
When you say “applied in the other direction” - I read that as granting, rather than revoking, citizenship. Which doesn’t really make sense? I assume you mean an evil government revoking citizenship of good people, rather than this proposal for a good government to revoke the citizenship of an evil person.
But surely there needs to be a way to insulate ourselves from the detrimental effects of an individual’s influence.
All of these terms are subjective, too, but there has to be a line somewhere, right? A point at which to not act would be unconscionable? If revoking citizenship is off the table, what do you think a reasonable response would be? (I’m assuming hypothetical “objective wrongdoing” rather than looking for ways to get Elon out of the spotlight.)
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
There’s a fundamental reason why I very much dislike these kinds of things. When you’ve set the precedent that citizenships can be removed it legitimizes that same action when it is applied in the other direction.
What is considered “treason” is very much subjective - the state simply should not have the power to remove citizenship.
When you say “applied in the other direction” - I read that as granting, rather than revoking, citizenship. Which doesn’t really make sense? I assume you mean an evil government revoking citizenship of good people, rather than this proposal for a good government to revoke the citizenship of an evil person.
Yes. In this case it’s a left wing gov:t pondering removing citizenship for a right wing individual.
As “good” and “evil” are subjective, in both cases it will be the “good” gov:t revoking the citizenship of a treasonous “evil” person.
But surely there needs to be a way to insulate ourselves from the detrimental effects of an individual’s influence.
All of these terms are subjective, too, but there has to be a line somewhere, right? A point at which to not act would be unconscionable? If revoking citizenship is off the table, what do you think a reasonable response would be? (I’m assuming hypothetical “objective wrongdoing” rather than looking for ways to get Elon out of the spotlight.)