Canadian Supreme Court banned voting of overseas citizens
Two US Canadian workers, Gillian Frank and Jamie Dong, challenged the federal vote after failing to vote for the federal election in 2011. 5 years abroad
A liberal act of royal succession was obtained in December for the long-term overseers to vote. But the Supreme Court's decision was whether that rights could be taken by a future government.
A Canadian military member who has been born in Toronto, Canada, Dr. Frank now teaches American Studies at the University of Virginia, and Thursday in an interview with Globe and Mail, "It's always doing something to watch from the outside."
The court ruled that the dismissed constitution was not constitutional. "The abrogation of these citizens is not only a matter of basic democratic rights, but also of the sense of self-respect and respect for them," wrote Chief of Staff Richard Wagner for the four judges of the majority. (The fifth judge wrote in parallel). "These fakes are more speculative than any speculative benefit."
Dong, who works at the Cornish University in Iwaka, Canada, has been in tune with his birthplace on Thursday. "I was born in Canada, and my parents still live in Canada, I am a Canadian, and I am responsible for voting for my democratic process and for my contribution."
Voting to a low court judge was banned. But Ontario appeals later ruled Laws 2-1, allowing the lawyer to stand up to the householder, denouncing their routine daily. The judge said that there were restrictions on the non-resident non-resettled Canadian nationals to be second-tier citizens. Dr Frank and Dong appealed to the Supreme Court.
1.4 million Canadians have been overseas for more than five years since 2009.
The Convention on Rights and Freedoms states that every citizen can get citizenship in 1982.
Canada has always been in the habit of voting. Soldiers were allowed to vote during World War I. In the 1920s, the advance votes for merchants and sailors began. In 1945, Prokci was allowed to allow prisoners of war to vote. In 1970, ambassadors overseas and other public servants and their dependents were allowed to cast their vote. In 1993, citizens who were overseas for less than five years were voted.
It is reasonable to restrict the right to withdraw from voting as filed in the Federal Attorney General's Office in his Supreme Court. "The legal obligations of non-nationals under the Canadian national law are less than the responsibility of residential retired people." In other Parliamentary systems of the British Parliamentary tradition, the same restrictions apply to the right to vote.
According to the written arguments of the Supreme Court judge, Dr. Frank and Mr. Dewing, they are in a relationship with Canada on the grounds that they are working for Canadians who leave the country. The failure to cast votes, many of them have strong ties, including families in Canada, and are hoping to return to their country's direction or well-being. Many do not have the right to vote anywhere. , They said. It is due to the operation of the operations, the dignity of the operation and the feelings of one of them.
The final main issue of the vote was in 2002. It was the most controversial in the Charter of the Supreme Court. The court ruling was a 5-4 decision that federal prisoners could not exercise the right to vote. "Citizens' lawmakers have rejected, and chief justice Beverly MacLean wrote," those who commit serious violations are not counted as members of society yet, but from our rights and from the protracted devolution of the democratic system. " For the majority.