[Op-ed by Irwin Cotler, international chair of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights; and Mehmet Tohti is the executive director of the Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project.]
China’s new visa-free policy for Canadians may appear to signal openness. In reality, it exposes Canadians to risks our government has found difficult to mitigate.
Consider Huseyin Celil, a Canadian citizen illegally detained in China for two decades.
Mr. Celil, a peaceful advocate for the rights of the Uyghur people, travelled to Uzbekistan in 2006, where he was detained and forcibly transferred to China. There, he was convicted on baseless “terrorism” charges in a sham trial condemned by Canada.
China has continued to refuse to recognize Mr. Celil’s Canadian citizenship, thereby denying him the basic protections owed to him under international law, including consular access. His family in Canada has been without meaningful communication or reliable information about his condition for almost two decades. Their uncertainty is continuing; their suffering is immeasurable.
His case is an enduring injustice and test of Canada’s capacity to protect its citizens abroad.
…
It exposes a contradiction: How can a state that denies a Canadian citizen his rights simultaneously claim to welcome Canadians?
…
For those engaged in human rights advocacy, political activity, or public criticism of the Chinese Communist Party, this [visa-free visits to China] creates a major vulnerability at the border. They may face increased risks of refusal of entry, disappearance or imprisonment.
For many Canadians in these diaspora communities, the question is no longer “Can I travel?” but “Will I be safe if I do – and will my country help me if I am not?” This risk is not confined to diaspora communities. If Canadian citizenship can be ignored in Mr. Celil’s case, it can be ignored in others’.
When a foreign state can detain a Canadian with impunity and deny their Canadian citizenship, the protection that citizenship is meant to guarantee erodes for everyone.
…
The new visa-free policy intersects with a broader pattern of surveillance, intimidation and foreign interference. The Foreign Interference Commission concluded that **China “stands out as the most persistent and sophisticated foreign interference threat to Canada.” **Beijing targets democratic institutions, politicians, and the diaspora through intelligence services to advance its interests and manipulate Canadian politics. The PRC views Canada as a high-priority target, not only for foreign interference, but transnational repression, in violation of Canadian sovereignty and security.
…
Twenty years after Mr. Celil’s abduction, we call on the government of Canada to raise his case and to:
- Engage in high-level diplomatic representations to seek proof of life.
- As the home country, provide the necessary diplomatic and consular assistance and remedy. We likewise call on China, as the host country, to honour its obligations for that purpose.
- Restore family contact, including at least one phone call with his wife and children in Canada with all deliberate speed.
- Renew efforts to secure his release and reunite him with his family here.
These are not extraordinary demands. They are the minimum obligations owed to any Canadian citizen.
…
As usual a comment in defense of China by @avidamoeba@lemmy.ca. I’m just waiting for the other
sock puppetsfriends that permanently spread identical narratives.From exit bans to arbitrary arrests, vague laws, unsubstantiated charges, grueling prison sentences, and secret executions — the risks keep growing for China visitors, and it’s not only about ‘dual citizens’ but also those with a non-Chinese citizenship.
In 2024, China confirmed it had detained British businessman Ian Stones, five years after he first disappeared in Beijing and almost 18 months after he was put on trial in secret and convicted of “illegally providing intelligence” to overseas parties, as reported the Globe and Mail. The same article says, among others,
The article makes an interesting read.
In 2025, China also restarted to air forced confessions of foreigners in its propaganda channnels,
Reports say there are around 100 Canadians detained in China, some of them sentenced to death.
As usual criticism of misinformation is framed as defence of China. Now with added projection about using alts to spread narratives. Anyone in doubt can view my post history and contrast it to the post history of this set of accounts. Unlike them, I don’t post about China every day, but when I do, it’s often to reply to some false narrative from them. Which apparently makes me the sockpuppet. Brilliant stuff as usual. 🥹
@avidamoeba@lemmy.ca
Nothing what I said is misinformation. The sources I cited - as well as many others - provide undeniable proof that traveling to China comes with a high risk. Canada also officially warns to “exercise a high degree of caution” in its travel advisory. Your accusation of misinformation is wrong.
And your account has exactly the same spin as many others here as you well know. You are frequently spreading false narratives that are pro-China, anti-democratic (and often anti-Canadian), often paired with absurdly weird insults against OPs with a different opinion.
These accounts are sock puppets or part of an orchestrated disinformation campaign. This is not organic.
To anyone reading this thread, I implore you to read my posting history and then compare it to the posting history of these accounts, Scotty being one of them. The difference should be revealing.
The difference is very revealing. I am not a tankie.
Whoever the fuck you are propagandizing for it’s much worse than being a tanky.
Neither am I. Now go on with your day, you have an hour left before dinner time, you can make a few more posts about China imprisoning its own citizens, who may hold another citizenship they do not recognize.
Scotty with the daily propaganda push then calling others sockpuppets. It’s laughable. Anyone reading this and still unfamiliar with what you’re up to should just read your post history. It’s so obvious that your account is entirely focused on driving specific narratives.
also I still don’t get how China thinks they get a say on dual-citizenship like that. it screams unstable dictatorship…
Well, they’re allowed to make laws about who can hold Chinese citizenship, so it’s within their right to say that no citizen of another country can also be a citizen of China. However, the appropriate way of handling would-be dual citizens under those circumstances would be to strip anyone who obtains citizenship in another country of their Chinese citizenship, not play weird games where they ignore the foreign citizenship.
(I would consider it unsafe to go to China right now regardless of citizenship.)
honestly this still seems weird to me. primarily as it suggest that china sees all other nations as hostile entities. that alone should make them be treated like NK in international circuit but instead, because of their manufacturing capabilities, no one does…
its not fair to the citizens, dual-citizenship holds major benifits in trade and multi-national business. this would massively help china. but it’s like China thinks it can rule the rest of the world by dependence forever… it’s so weird.
long-term China’s economy would hurt from this tactic… so hinging citizenship like that is bonkers to me.
but I digress, and do agree. the logical standpoint would be to revoke citizenship to enforce. but this also goes along with their other actions where they “help”(kidnap) Thier citizens living abroad that violate this law.
the really bonkers thing about this all is I have a friend who is a Australian citizen, he was born there. but his mum was born in China, in a small village. she travels back and forth doing questionable things and China, while aware, does nothing. she has dual citizenship… so make it make sense…
In all fairness, most countries didn’t allow dual citizenship until the latter half of the 20th century (this year is the 50th anniversary of Canada allowing dual citizenship without restriction, according to Wikipedia). The revoke-one-to-get-another system used to be standard. Nor is China the only country that disallows dual citizenship—a lot of Asian countries don’t, or restrict it. It’s just that most of them handle the issue more cleanly (although India is starting to get pushy about the behaviour of their current and former citizens abroad in much the same way as China . . .)
Many countries ban dual-citizenship. India and Singapore are two of them.