Trudeau Government Believes ISIS Terrorists Have A “Right To Return” To Canada

[HerrDrFunk]

1 minute ago, Roger Neilson's Towel said:

No, by all means disagree with my point of view. But arguing about semantics is a bit silly. 

Ah, gotcha. 

 

My comment wasn't arguing the semantics of your response. What I'm getting at is the idea of "not our problem!" regarding former ISIS fighters seems like a non answer to the problem. 

 

Just now, BowtieCanuck said:

Before December 7th, 1941 so was America.

American Revolution, War of 1812, Civil War, Spanish-American War, WWI. 

[Vinny in Vancouver]

47 minutes ago, Roger Neilson's Towel said:

I don’t care where they were born. If you have committed treason your citizenship should be revoked. Not just monitored and left up to our abysmal court system. 

Interesting suggestion, but I'm confused as to the implementation. So I'm born in Canada and my ancestors have been here for generations. If I then commit treason, I lose my citizenship and since there's no death penalty, what do you propose happen to me?

[Toews]

1 hour ago, GM said:

Forums are partly for spreading information. When it comes to politics, people believe what they want, so It's a complete waste of time debating unless you have a lot of time to kill like you apparently do.

 

I post articles and people can take what they want out of it.

 

Good luck.

What's the point of posting on a discussion forum if you are not interested in debate. 

[Roger Neilsons Towel]

14 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Ah, gotcha. 

 

My comment wasn't arguing the semantics of your response. What I'm getting at is the idea of "not our problem!" regarding former ISIS fighters seems like a non answer to the problem. 

That’s where the semantics come into play, as I didn’t mean “answer” as in solution. The solution to the problem is more complicated then that as we need to delve into the reasons people become radicalized in the first place. But in my opinion the right thing for Canada to do as a country is to protect its people by not allowing radicalized militants back into the country, and the way to do that in my opinion is to revoke citizenship. 

 

14 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

American Revolution, War of 1812, Civil War, Spanish-American War, WWI. 

Thank you. I was going to respond with that as well. +1

 

13 minutes ago, vinny_in_vancouver said:

Interesting suggestion, but I'm confused as to the implementation. So I'm born in Canada and my ancestors have been here for generations. If I then commit treason, I lose my citizenship and since there's no death penalty, what do you propose happen to me?

What happens to “you” (hypothetically speaking, as in this situation you are playing the terrorist) after that is up to you. I guess you would live the life of a terrorist outlaw with no nation to call your own. I’m sure there’s another terrorist cause you can find to fight for. In which case I would hope that you (again hypothetically) catch a bullet. 

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Roger Neilson's Towel said:

Their citizenship should be revoked as is done in the United Kingdom. 

Its not that simple, it has to be done right. Unfortunately Harper made a mess of it in 2014 with the unconstitutionality of C-14: "312 revocation cases under the purview of the Canadian Federal Court were declared void because under the original language of the 2014 Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, individuals were not provided a fair oral hearing and, “did not take into account humanitarian and compassionate considerations." 

 

And we do revoke citizenship for fraudulent applications: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/citizenship-revocation-trudeau-harper-1.3795733

 

Here's an interesting review comparing the issue in Australia, UK and Canada: http://cmsny.org/publications/unmaking-citizens/  . Its advocating for changing the current approach and reduce revocations, but the comparison is pretty informative. 

 

 

[SabreFan1]

30 minutes ago, BowtieCanuck said:

Before December 7th, 1941 so was America.

Not really. 

 

We went from the Spanish American War (1898) to WW1 (17-18 when the draft was begun) to WW2 (end of 41-45). 

 

It was just that after WW2, we started to build a defacto empire which led to us barely needing excuses to attack other countries.

[Down by the River]

43 minutes ago, Roger Neilson's Towel said:

No, by all means disagree with my point of view. But arguing about semantics is a bit silly. 

The issue is not semantics, the issue is that poorly thought-out ideas are not usually good ones. Maybe you have a good reason for your opinion, but you certainly are not articulating it. 

[Roger Neilsons Towel]

1 minute ago, Down by the River said:

The issue is not semantics, the issue is that poorly thought-out ideas are not usually good ones. Maybe you have a good reason for your opinion, but you certainly are not articulating it. 

“Answer” vs “Response” is literally semantics. 

 

As for articulating my point of view...

 

30 minutes ago, Roger Neilson's Towel said:

That’s where the semantics come into play, as I didn’t mean “answer” as in solution. The solution to the problem is more complicated then that as we need to delve into the reasons people become radicalized in the first place. But in my opinion the right thing for Canada to do as a country is to protect its people by not allowing radicalized militants back into the country, and the way to do that in my opinion is to revoke citizenship. 

 

I believe that is articulated enough for you to see where I’m coming from, which is the protection of Canada and its citizens. 

[Roger Neilsons Towel]

30 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Its not that simple, it has to be done right. Unfortunately Harper made a mess of it in 2014 with the unconstitutionality of C-14: "312 revocation cases under the purview of the Canadian Federal Court were declared void because under the original language of the 2014 Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, individuals were not provided a fair oral hearing and, “did not take into account humanitarian and compassionate considerations." 

 

And we do revoke citizenship for fraudulent applications: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/citizenship-revocation-trudeau-harper-1.3795733

 

Here's an interesting review comparing the issue in Australia, UK and Canada: http://cmsny.org/publications/unmaking-citizens/  . Its advocating for changing the current approach and reduce revocations, but the comparison is pretty informative. 

 

 

Thanks Jimmy. I’ll take a read through that later tonight when I’m relaxing at home. Cheers. 

[Dazzle]

Just now, Roger Neilson's Towel said:

You trust our court system with that? The article states they have trouble collecting evidence to even bring it to trial. 

Leaving them out in the open is not a solution either. Besides, expelling them is not going to make them go.. "Oh damn, they cut us off. Oh well, we're not Canadians anymore :'(""

[Dazzle]

Just now, Roger Neilson's Towel said:

That’s where the semantics come into play, as I didn’t mean “answer” as in solution. The solution to the problem is more complicated then that as we need to delve into the reasons people become radicalized in the first place. But in my opinion the right thing for Canada to do as a country is to protect its people by not allowing radicalized militants back into the country, and the way to do that in my opinion is to revoke citizenship. 

 

Thank you. I was going to respond with that as well. +1

 

What happens to “you” (hypothetically speaking, as in this situation you are playing the terrorist) after that is up to you. I guess you would live the life of a terrorist outlaw with no nation to call your own. I’m sure there’s another terrorist cause you can find to fight for. In which case I would hope that you (again hypothetically) catch a bullet. 

You would think that if he committed treason that he would still care about being part of Canadian. This is not a punishment whatsoever.

 

"Hoping he catches a bullet" is weak. What if he doesn't and goes on to hurt more people elsewhere in the world?

 

Stripping someone of citizenship is a lazy way of pretending that the problem doesn't exist anymore.

[BowtieCanuck]

58 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

Not really. 

 

We went from the Spanish American War (1898) to WW1 (17-18 when the draft was begun) to WW2 (end of 41-45). 

 

It was just that after WW2, we started to build a defacto empire which led to us barely needing excuses to attack other countries.

Neither WWI or WWII were wars that the American public or government really wanted to be a part of, ESPECIALLY WWI. There was a good reason that one of the most populist countries in the world had the 11th biggest military before WWII. People in America made it very clear before WWI and WWII that they did not wish to be involved in what was considered 'European Wars'. Hell, Canada didn't want to be part of either war and actually pushed with much of the commonwealth after WWI to be able to legally decide when or what wars they would fight in.

[BowtieCanuck]

1 hour ago, HerrDrFunk said:

American Revolution, War of 1812, Civil War, Spanish-American War, WWI. 

A war the country had fight to exist, a war over territory, a war necessitated by the growth of the country (and human dignity), another territorial war and another war that America was eventually forced into, strongly against public opinion.

[HerrDrFunk]

25 minutes ago, BowtieCanuck said:

A war the country had fight to exist, a war over territory, a war necessitated by the growth of the country (and human dignity), another territorial war and another war that America was eventually forced into, strongly against public opinion.

......so? 

[Roger Neilsons Towel]

30 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

You would think that if he committed treason that he would still care about being part of Canadian. This is not a punishment whatsoever.

 

"Hoping he catches a bullet" is weak. What if he doesn't and goes on to hurt more people elsewhere in the world?

 

Stripping someone of citizenship is a lazy way of pretending that the problem doesn't exist anymore.

I wasn’t proposing a solution to the problem itself. Simply proposing to keep the problem outside of our borders to mitigate the potential for harm on our people. 

 

What is is your proposed solution to the problem?

[Dazzle]

Just now, Roger Neilson's Towel said:

I wasn’t proposing a solution to the problem itself. Simply proposing to keep the problem outside of our borders to mitigate the potential for harm on our people. 

 

What is is your proposed solution to the problem?

Neither am I. I'm not claiming to be smart enough to find the 'right' solution. I understand that it's a very contentious issue.

 

If we're trying to mitigate the potential harm for our people, stripping him/her of citizenship doesn't mean squat, in my opinion. It's not like he/she is going to legally try to enter the border and be content with being turned away.

 

He/she should be in jail. We could make it easier for charges to go through, somehow. If we're radical enough, they should be candidates for experimental drug testing. But of course, that is highly unethical.

[Dazzle]

Just now, BowtieCanuck said:

A war the country had fight to exist, a war over territory, a war necessitated by the growth of the country (and human dignity), another territorial war and another war that America was eventually forced into, strongly against public opinion.

Am I the only one that thinks that this quote has a lot of bombastic rhythm?

[SabreFan1]

3 hours ago, BowtieCanuck said:

Neither WWI or WWII were wars that the American public or government really wanted to be a part of, ESPECIALLY WWI. There was a good reason that one of the most populist countries in the world had the 11th biggest military before WWII. People in America made it very clear before WWI and WWII that they did not wish to be involved in what was considered 'European Wars'. Hell, Canada didn't want to be part of either war and actually pushed with much of the commonwealth after WWI to be able to legally decide when or what wars they would fight in.

The US population rarely wants to go to war.  Even before the Revolutionary War only 1/3 of the country was in favour of fighting Britain.  In the War of 1812, several states flat out refused to join and send militia to help fight it.  That's when the federal gov't learned that it needed it's own standing army of regulars because without the state's support, it was toothless.

 

Up until 2001, it has usually been the politicians in the US government that dragged the country into wars where the US wasn't directly provoked, with the exception of the wars and battles with Native Americans.  Even with the recent middle eastern wars, the population wanted out of Iraq after it became clear that they had nothing to do with attacking the US.

 

WW1 was a strange war that never should have happened.  As for WW2, the US was always going to get involved in it.  We were supplying the Allies with weapons and raw materials to fight it.  It was a foregone conclusion that eventually we'd join.  We just wanted to profit off of it for as long as we could first since it immediately pulled us out of a Great Depression and made the country very wealthy.  It took Europe decades to pay off what it owed the US.

 

Back to the original discussion though.  The people in the US are for the most part only interested in self-defence when it comes to war.  It's the politicians at the behest of the military industrial complex that continues to trot all over the globe to fight wars.  That and the politicians enjoy the influence that it gives them throughout the world.  Money and power are the two biggest drivers of war.  It's been that way for thousands of years.  It's just the U.S.'s turn in history.  China wants to be next.

[MoneypuckOverlord]

if they are immigrants they should be striped of their citizenship right away, but if they are actual Canadians if have to take them back.

 

 

[Gurn]

7 hours ago, Roger Neilson's Towel said:

I believe that is articulated enough for you to see where I’m coming from, which is the protection of Canada and its citizens. 

And one of the ways Canadians are protected is through the Charter Of Rights And Freedoms. The same charter that makes it difficult to just take things from people you disagree with.