Only living in Canada can make you "Canadianized", sez judge

This article is not intended to be read by any would-be immigrant to the Great Not-so-white North. Already on the rustbucket boat or Air Lanka DC3? Stop reading now!

Here's how the Canadian immigration "system" is supposed to work. First, you get into Canada by lying or bribing your way through the application and interview -- or by just showing up and hollering "refugee" -- and then they give you your house and your car and the other benefits to which you are entitled as a "permanent resident".

After four years, you can apply for citizenship, which gets you another free house and car. Just kidding. What you get is a nice dark blue passport (a steal at just $120), plus the right to vote in the travesty Canada calls "elections", and serve in the armed forces if you want to go back where you came from and shoot some of your former countrymen.

But there's a catch. To pass the citizenship test, you're supposed to be "Canadianized". You have to be able to sing the first verse of O Canada in either English or French, and know how to make love in a canoe. And you're supposed to have actually lived in the nitwit country for 3 years -- 1095 days -- out of the last four.

But, says Federal Court of Canada judge Peter Annis, the law has repeatedly been interpreted incorrectly to mean that some people could become citizens by fulfilling only a fraction of the 1,095-day residency requirement. In one case, he said, a student was granted citizenship after spending only 79 days in Canada.

And then there was the case of Fatima Naveen, a medical student born in Pakistan [surprised? Ed.] who was granted citizenship after spending only about 150 days in Canada -- well below the three years called for in the Citizenship Act. Ruling that Ms Naveen had not spent enough time in Canada to qualify for citizenship, Mr Justice Annis said the intrinsic values of Canadians are unique in the world and can only be understood by those who have spent sufficient time in the country.

He went on to attempt to correct what he called "radical" interpretations of the citizenship law, setting out not only the "essential characteristics of being a Canadian" but also how one becomes "Canadianized". He wrote that being a Canadian was based on "attitudes of respect for others and a willingness to accommodate cultural, social and economic challenges to resolve our differences." Apparently the term "politically correct" didn't occur to him.

However, Mr Justice Annis expressed agreement with former Federal Court judge Francis Muldoon that "being a Canadian is something that cannot be readily learned, but only experienced by living here because 'Canadian life and society exist only in Canada and nowhere else.'"

Furthermore, the judge wrote, "If one tries to make the case that the time spent by students who attend universities around the world in those countries that share democratic principles and political and cultural experiences with Canada constitutes Canadianization, then this is to admit that Canada is no different from other countries for the purposes of citizenship or for what it stands for.

"I am satisfied that our history and unique circumstances have created a Canadian character and institutions that are significantly distinct and different from those of other countries, including that of our neighbour to the south, despite all that we share with them."

Ms Naveen's lawyer declined to comment.

Footnote: Steve Harpoon's government last week announced plans to make Malala Yousafzai an honorary Canadian citizen. As far as is known, Ms Yousafzai has never set foot in Canada. She did, however, shake the Dear Leader's hand when they met for a photo op at the Disunited Nations.