I can speak to this, if you'll permit me.
French President François Hollande has recently announced that they have abandoned their attempt to enact that legislation, so I don't think France is doing that.
It is true that Australia doesn't have any kind of entrenched bill of rights. In Britain, from what I understand, it is continually litigated and remains litigated, most recently in the Pham case. Rather than point out the anomalous cases of countries that have enacted this legislation, I think it's more interesting to note how many haven't, including the United States, which long ago, through the U.S. Supreme Court said, “citizenship is not a license that expires upon misbehaviour”.
As to the idea that we are made safer by stripping citizenship and removing people, my understanding is that governments have characterized terrorism as a global problem. That is to say, it is not one that is parochial in the sense that we resolve it by exporting it to somewhere else. In fact, people remain at risk, so exporting people who are alleged terrorists to some other country is in fact not a solution on its own terms, such as countries have characterized this problem.
Finally, allow me to highlight the absurdity of following the British model. Let's say that somebody is a Canada-U.K. citizen, and let's say that both countries decide that revocation of this person's citizenship is warranted, then I guess it's just a race to see who gets to revoke it first. The other country has to accept that person because that person will become a “mono-citizen”. If one thinks that the UK approach is a model that ought to be emulated by all other countries, one needs to think of consequences if everybody behaves in that way. I would suggest that the consequences are absurd.