Sign in to follow this  
Malcolm

Terrorists, Returning Terrorists and Internal Terrorists

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, st27 said:

We are on the same page Wolfhunter....but my point is that if the “safe third country agreement” only applies at manned entry points, why are we letting them in? Refugees or not, direct them to a legal crossing point and have some semblance of a border.

If the migrants would be denied entry at a regular crossing and returned to the “safe country”, the United States...isn’t that the intent of the agreement???? They are already in a safe country so no need to cherry pick and come to Canada for it’s obvious social benefits.

Now that Canada has signed the UN Compact on migration, it will be even harder to control the flow, imo.

Hi there. You have nicely summarized my problem with the agreement and why I think it needs to be changed. Currently, if you present yourself to an authorized point of entry the safe third country agreement applies there (and only there) and you will be turned back.

If you cross the border anywhere else and present yourself to a Customs Officer, Peace Officer or Officer of the Canadian Forces and ask for asylum as a refugee, you are entitled to due process. The illegals know all about this which is why they cross at Roxham Rd etc. The RCMP warn them away (as a matter of course) and they cross anyway and ask for asylum. Building a wall, using riot police, big dogs with sharp teeth or troops is a different thread all together. IMO, putting a sanctuary city just down the road and sending out an open invitation is simply icing on the cake and begs a “what did you think was going to happen?” Please keep in mind that these people were invited, you may like that even less than I do but, not only were they invited, we put a sanctuary city at their disposal too.

As to the matter of revoking citizenship, I find the notion abhorrent and you will never convince me. This is part of the problem I have with people giving away citizenship and passports by the dump truck load and talking the talk about multiculturalism and diversity. They now seem to think it should be as easy to revoke citizenship.... it cheapens the very nature of what citizenship means in the first place. And where does it all end, do you revoke it for treason? Spying for the enemy? Child molestation? Acting as a drug mule? Murder?

 

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And of course once Citizenship is removed then what.  For example:

Shamima Begum will not be allowed here, Bangladesh says

Shamima Begum: 'I got tricked and I was hoping someone would have sympathy with me'

 

Shamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen and there is "no question" of her being allowed into the country, Bangladesh's ministry of foreign affairs has said.

The UK has stripped the 19-year-old - who fled London to join Islamic State - of her British citizenship.

Such a move is only possible if an individual is eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

It was thought Ms Begum had Bangladeshi citizenship through her mother.

But the ministry of foreign affairs said the government was "deeply concerned" she had been "erroneously identified" as a Bangladeshi national.

 

In a statement, it said Ms Begum had never applied for dual nationality with Bangladesh and had never visited the country.

It added that the country had a "zero tolerance" approach to terrorism and violent extremism.

Ms Begum was a schoolgirl when she left Bethnal Green in 2015, and was found in a Syrian refugee camp last week after reportedly leaving Baghuz - IS's last stronghold.

She gave birth to a son at the weekend and now wants to return home.

Ms Begum's mother is believed to be a Bangladeshi national, and lawyers have told the BBC that under Bangladesh law this means Ms Begum is automatically a citizen of the country as well.

But Ms Begum told the BBC's Middle East correspondent Quentin Sommerville that she only had "one citizenship" and it was wrong for the UK to revoke it without speaking to her first.

"I wasn't born in Bangladesh, I've never seen Bangladesh and I don't even speak Bengali properly, so how can they claim I have Bangladeshi citizenship," she said.

'Extreme circumstances'

While he said he would not comment on individual cases, Home Secretary Sajid Javid has suggested Ms Begum's baby could still be British.

He told the Commons: "Children should not suffer. So, if a parent does lose their British citizenship, it does not affect the rights of their child."

Mr Javid said the power to deprive a person of citizenship was only used "in extreme circumstances", for example, "when someone turns their back on the fundamental values and supports terror".

But shadow home secretary Diane Abbott accused him of breaching the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that "no-one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their nationality".

 

Ms Begum told the BBC: "I was hoping Britain would understand I made a mistake, a very big mistake, because I was young and naive."

She said she changed her mind about IS after they imprisoned and tortured her Dutch husband - an armed jihadi.

Escape was impossible, she claimed: "They'd kill you if you tried."

The lawyer for Ms Begum's family, Tasnime Akunjee, said they were considering "all legal avenues" to contest the Home Office decision and that she had effectively been made stateless.

Earlier, Ms Begum told ITV News that she found the Home Office's decision "heartbreaking", but she may try for Dutch citizenship via her husband.

He is a Dutch convert to Islam and is thought to have surrendered to a group of Syrian fighters about two weeks ago.

Islamic State has lost most of the territory it once controlled, but an estimated 300 militants are believed to be left in a tiny pocket of land near Syria's border with Iraq.

'Complex issue'

Under the 1981 British Nationality Act, a person can be deprived of their citizenship if the home secretary is satisfied it would be "conducive to the public good" and they would not become stateless as a result.

Ms Begum has the right to challenge the Home Office's decision either by tribunal or judicial review, said former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation Lord Carlile, but would have to prove the home secretary had acted disproportionately.

He said it was a "complex issue" which "could run for a very long time through the courts", and Ms Begum could stay where she is "for maybe two years at least".

Lord Carlile said her baby may be entitled to British, Dutch and Bangladeshi nationality.


Is Shamima Begum entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship?

By Clive Coleman, BBC legal correspondent

Lawyers have told the BBC that under Bangladesh law, a UK national born to a Bangladeshi parent is automatically a Bangladeshi citizen - a dual national - but the Bangladeshi authorities assert that's not the case for Ms Begum.

Under this "blood line" law, Bangladeshi nationality and citizenship lapse when a person reaches the age of 21, unless they make active efforts to retain it.

So, it is Ms Begum's age, 19, that is likely - in part - to have given Home Office lawyers and the home secretary reassurance there was a legal basis for stripping her of her UK citizenship.

In 2017, the government lost an appeal case brought by two British citizens of Bangladeshi origin who were stripped of their citizenship when they were abroad.

The Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled that E3 and N3 had not tried to retain their citizenship before they reached the age of 21, and so it had automatically lapsed.

That meant that the decision to strip them of their UK citizenship had rendered them stateless.

Ms Begum's case is different. Her Bangladeshi citizenship, if established, would remain intact until she reaches 21, even if she has never visited the country or made active efforts to retain her citizenship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Canadian Citizenship, here is what we have after the recent amendment.  https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/canadian-citizenship/acquisition-loss/revocation.html

Revocation of citizenship

 

Bill C-6, an Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, received Royal Assent on June 19, 2017, and amended the decision-making model for citizenship revocation. As part of the changes made in Bill C-6, the Federal Court becomes the decision maker for citizenship revocation cases except in cases where the individual requests that the Minister make the revocation decision.

Additional amendments to this page will be made at a later date.

This section contains policy, procedures and guidance used by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada staff. It is posted on the Department’s website as a courtesy to stakeholders.

The Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act (SCCA) introduces new grounds for revocation of citizenship and provides for a streamlined revocation process. Previously, the citizenship revocation process generally involved three steps: the Minister, the Federal Court, and the Governor in Council. Under the new revocation process, the Governor in Council will no longer have a role except for some transitional cases.

The new process has two decision-making streams:

  • the vast majority of revocation cases will be decided by the Minister;
  • certain complex cases will be decided by the Federal Court.

The new process comes into effect on May 28, 2015. Existing revocation cases will be processed according to transitional provisions.

Note: The Case Management Branch handles all cases considered for revocation of citizenship. Local office staff are not involved with these types of cases, other than to alert the Case Management Branch should information come to their attention regarding a case that should be investigated for possible revocation.

Grounds for revoking citizenship

Canadian law allows for revocation in certain circumstances. Subsections 10(1) and 10.1(1) of the Citizenship Act provide that a person’s citizenship or renunciation of citizenship may be revoked if the person obtains, retains, renounces, or resumes citizenship by

  • false representation;
  • fraud; or
  • knowingly concealing material circumstances.

Citizenship may also be revoked if a person (who is a dual citizen), before or after the coming into force of subsections 10(2) and 10.1(2) and while the person was a Canadian citizen,

  • was convicted of terrorism, high treason, treason, or spying offences, depending on the sentence received; or
  • served as a member of an armed force of a country or as a member of an organized armed group and that country or group was engaged in armed conflict with Canada.

Revocation and Canada’s international obligations

Article 8 of the United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness states that a state is not in breach of its obligations should it render a person stateless for having obtained the status through fraud or misrepresentation.

In order to comply with Canada’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, subsection 10.4(1) of the SCCA provides that revocation of citizenship on the grounds of being convicted of terrorism, high treason, treason, or spying offences, or of being a member of an armed force or organized armed group engaged in armed conflict with Canada will apply only to persons with dual citizenship. The Minister must have reasonable grounds to believe that the person is a citizen of another country before pursuing revocation under these grounds. Subsection 10.4(2) of the SCCA provides that the onus rests with the individual to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that they are not a citizen of another country.

Status of person under revocation proceedings

A person under revocation proceedings remains entitled to all rights and privileges of Canadian citizenship until the person’s citizenship is revoked. Under the new model, the date the person’s citizenship is revoked is either the date of the Minister’s decision to revoke citizenship or the date of the declaration by the Federal Court. For transition cases that still require a decision from the Governor in Council, the person’s citizenship is revoked on the date of the Order in Council.

Renunciation of Canadian citizenship during the revocation process

A person may not make an application to renounce their Canadian citizenship if they were given notice of the Minister’s intention to revoke citizenship or if the Minister has commenced an action seeking a declaration from the Federal Court.

If a renunciation application is made and the Minister subsequently provides the applicant with a notice to revoke citizenship or commences an action for a declaration from the Federal Court, the processing of that application is suspended until a decision is made on the revocation.

Refer to Renunciation of citizenship for the specific procedures to follow in such cases.

Status of a person post-revocation

If the person’s citizenship was revoked due to false representation or fraud or knowingly concealing material circumstances during the citizenship process only (e.g., lying about residence in Canada during the relevant period), the person becomes a permanent resident as per subsection 46(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). Revocation in such situations does not itself jeopardize the right of the person to remain in Canada; however, the person must meet all obligations under the IRPA. For the residency obligation under the IRPA, the five-year period begins on the date the person becomes a permanent resident. If the person’s citizenship was revoked on the grounds they became a permanent resident by false representation or fraud or knowingly concealed material circumstances, the person will revert to foreign national status. If the false representation or fraud or concealing of material circumstances was with respect to a fact described in sections 34, 35 or 37 of the IRPA, the Federal Court, in certain cases, may also declare the person inadmissible and issue a removal order.

If the person is a dual citizen and the person’s Canadian citizenship was revoked due to convictions for terrorism, high treason, treason, or spying offences, depending on the sentence received, or for serving as a member of an armed force of a country or organized armed group engaged in armed conflict with Canada, the person becomes a foreign national.

If the person, who is a foreign national, is in Canada once citizenship has been revoked, the person is in Canada without status. The person may be reportable under subsection 44(1) of the IRPA and may be subject to removal from Canada.

Impact of revocation on future citizenship applications

Any person whose citizenship is revoked for false representation, fraud, or knowingly concealing material circumstances (including in the permanent resident process) must wait 10 years from the date of revocation before applying for citizenship. A person whose citizenship was revoked cannot apply for resumption of citizenship under subsection 11(1). The person must meet all requirements of the Citizenship Act under subsection 5(1).

Any person whose citizenship is revoked due to a conviction for terrorism, high treason, treason, or spying offences, depending on the sentence received, or for serving as a member of an armed force of a country or an organized armed group engaged in armed conflict against Canada is permanently barred from being granted citizenship.

Notification of partners following revocation

The Case Management Branch advises the Operations Support Centre and partners (including the Passport Program, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police [RCMP], and the Canada Border Services Agency [CBSA]) once citizenship has been revoked, as necessary.

Transitional provisions

The transitional provisions in the SCCA indicate that, if on the day immediately before the new provisions come into force, the Minister was entitled to make or had made a report to the Governor in Council, revocations are to be dealt with and disposed of under the former legislation. This means that for cases where the Federal Court has made a determination that the person obtained citizenship by fraud, or where the person did not request that the Minister refer the case to the Federal Court and the time for making such a referral has expired, CIC must continue to proceed to the Governor in Council with these cases.

Any revocation proceedings that are pending before the Federal Court under the former legislation must be disposed of in accordance with that legislation. For these cases, if the Federal Court determines that citizenship was obtained on the basis of fraud, false representation, or knowingly concealing material circumstances, the Minister will prepare a report to the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council will decide whether or not to revoke citizenship.

However, any revocation proceedings that are pending before the Federal Court with respect to allegations of false representation, fraud, or knowingly concealing material circumstances with respect to facts described in sections 34, 35, or 37 of the IRPA are to continue under the new revocation model, with the Federal Court making the revocation decision. Under these cases, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness may become involved.

For any case not captured in the above-mentioned transitional provisions and where a notice of intent to revoke citizenship was given under the former legislation, that notice is cancelled and any proceedings arising from it are terminated. Such cases are to proceed under the new model. The Minister may send a Notice of Intent to Revoke Citizenship or a Notice of Intent to Seek a Declaration of the Federal Court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And south of the 49th.

Pompeo says Alabama woman who joined ISIS can't return to U.S.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says an Alabama woman who left home to join ISIS in Syria is not a U.S. citizen and will not be allowed to return to the United States.

 

Secretary of state says Hoda Muthana, 24, has no 'legal basis' to enter the U.S.

The Associated Press · Posted: Feb 20, 2019 3:25 PM ET | Last Updated: an hour ago
 
Hoda Muthana, , realized she was wrong and now wants to return to the United States, a lawyer for her family says. (Hassan Shibly via Associated Press)

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says an Alabama woman who left home to join ISIS in Syria is not a U.S. citizen and will not be allowed to return to the United States. 

In a brief statement that gave no details as to how the determination was reached, Pompeo said Hoda Muthana, who said she made a mistake in joining the group and now wants to return with her 18-month-old son, has no "legal basis" to claim American citizenship.

"Ms. Hoda Muthana is not a U.S. citizen and will not be admitted into the United States," Pompeo said. "She does not have any legal basis, no valid U.S. passport, no right to a passport nor any visa to travel to the United States."

 

The 24-year old made headlines this week when her lawyer said she wanted to return to the U.S. with her 18-month-old son after realizing she was wrong for aligning herself with the terrorist organization.

 

The announcement by Pompeo comes just two weeks after the U.S. State Department issued a statement calling on its allies to repatriate their own citizens detained in the conflict. 

 

It also comes one day after it was reported that the U.K. Home Office would be stripping Shamima Begum — who joined ISIS at 15 along with two other school girls — of her citizenship. Begum's lawyer has said the family is considering all legal avenues to challenge the decision.
Pompeo's statement comes one day after it was reported that the U.K. Home Office would be stripping Shamima Begum — who joined ISIS at 15 along with two other school girls — of her citizenship. (Laura Lean/Reuters)

On the issue of Canadian citizens in ISIS territory, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale has said Canada will not risk the lives of its diplomats to repatriate those detained in Syria.

Not all born in U.S. accorded birthright citizenship

Muthana's status had been considered by lawyers from the departments of State and Justice since her case arose, according to one U.S. official who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. The official would not elaborate but said Pompeo's statement was based on the lawyers' conclusions.

An attorney for the woman's family, Hassan Shibly, said the administration's position is based on a "complicated" interpretation of the law involving her father.

To say that I regret my past words, any pain that I caused ... would be hard for me to really express properly- Hoda Muthana

"They're claiming her dad was a diplomat when she was born, which, in fact, he wasn't," Shibly told The Associated Press. 

"She was born in Hackensack, N.J., in October 1994, months after her father stopped being a diplomat," he said in a statement to CBC News. "The Trump administration continues its attempts to wrongfully strip citizens of their citizenship."

Most people born in the United States are accorded so-called birthright citizenship but there are exceptions.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a person born in the U.S. to a foreign diplomatic officer is not subject to U.S. law and is not automatically considered a U.S. citizen at birth.

In a tweet Wednesday afternoon, U.S. President Donald Trump took credit for the move. 

'A big mistake'

On Tuesday, Shibly said Muthana regrets her actions and is putting herself at risk by speaking out against ISIS from a refugee camp, where she has lived since fleeing the group a few weeks ago.

Muthana, who dodged sniper fire and roadside bombs to escape, is ready to pay the penalty for her actions but wants freedom and safety for the 18-month-old son she had with one of two ISIS fighters she wed, he said. Both men were killed in combat.

 

 
Thousands of captured foreign ISIS fighters face an uncertain future in Kurdish prison camps as some want to return home, including several Canadians. 5:09

In a handwritten letter released by Shibly, Muthana wrote that she made "a big mistake" by rejecting her family and friends in the United States to join ISIS.

"During my years in Syria I would see and experience a way of life and the terrible effects of war which changed me," she wrote.

After fleeing her home in suburban Birmingham in late 2014 and resurfacing in Syria, Muthana used social media to advocate violence against the United States. In the letter, Muthana wrote that she didn't understand the importance of freedoms provided by the United States at the time.

A valuable intelligence asset?

"To say that I regret my past words, any pain that I caused my family and any concerns I would cause my country would be hard for me to really express properly," said the letter.

Shibly said Muthana was brainwashed online before she left Alabama and now could have valuable intelligence for U.S. forces. But the FBI didn't seem interested in retrieving her from the refugee camp where she is living with her son, he said.

Muthana's father would welcome the woman back, Shibly said, but she is not on speaking terms with her mother.

Ashfaq Taufique, who knows Muthana's family and is president of the Birmingham Islamic Society, said the woman could be a valuable resource for teaching young people about the dangers of online radicalization were she allowed to return to the United States.

"Her coming back could be a very positive thing for our community and our country," Taufique said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now the Internal terrorist:

US Coast Guard officer Hasson 'planned terror attack'

A cache of guns and ammunition uncovered by US federal investigators in the home of Coast Guard lieutenant Christopher Paul Hasson in Silver Spring, Maryland. on February 20, 2019Image copyright Reuters Image caption Guns and ammunition were found at the home in Silver Spring, Maryland

A US Coast Guard officer has been arrested on suspicion of planning a terror attack, court documents show.

Police found a cache of weapons and ammunition at the Maryland home of Christopher Paul Hasson.

The self-proclaimed white nationalist had drawn up a list of targets including prominent Democratic politicians, according to prosecutors.

He is said to have drawn inspiration from the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik.

"The defendant intends to murder innocent civilians on a scale rarely seen in this country," US District Attorney Robert Hur said in the court documents.

 

"The defendant is a domestic terrorist, bent on committing acts dangerous to human life that are intended to affect governmental conduct."

Prosecutors said that in a draft email from June 2017 Mr Hasson wrote: "I am dreaming of a way to kill almost every last person on the earth. I think a plague would be most successful but how do I acquire the needed Spanish flu, botulism, anthrax, not sure yet but will find something."

US media say the 49-year-old is a lieutenant at Coast Guard headquarters in Washington and lives in the Maryland suburb of Silver Spring.

The Coast Guard confirmed that a member of the service had been arrested but gave no further details.

Fifteen guns and more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition were found in Mr Hasson's basement flat along with illegal drugs, the attorney's office said.

A locked case of illegal drugs found in the home of Coast Guard lieutenant Christopher Paul Hasson in Silver Spring, Maryland, on February 20, 2019Image copyright Reuters Image caption Illegal drugs included human growth hormones and steroids, prosecutors say

A list of possible targets included Democratic House speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer as well as media personalities including MSNBC's Chris Hayes and Joe Scarborough.

Since 2017 Mr Hasson had studied parts of a manifesto by Anders Breivik on how to amass firearms and compile a list of targets, prosecutors allege.

Breivik murdered 77 people in 2011 in two terror attacks. He killed eight people with a car bomb in central Oslo and then shot dead 69 others, many of them teenagers, at a Labour Party camp.

Mr Hasson was arrested on Friday on weapons and drugs charges and is due to appear in court on Thursday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Malcolm said:

And now the Internal terrorist:

That didn't take long eh?.... is his citizenship to be revoked as well?

I see the whole thing as impractical, complicated and unworkable when none of it needs to be. Good Lord, this is the easy part. I for one want these "citizens" back, I want them tried for terrorism, I want them tried for treason and I want them jailed for a long time. How simple is that?

Letting them live in another country is, and always will be completely unacceptable to me for any number of reasons, I find the notion appalling and bordering on treason in and of itself. If they are in another country I want them extradited.... just as we do with other criminals. No one has yet explained why these guys should be treated differently then the criminals that they are. Or, for that matter, why we should cheapen the value of what citizenship means in the process of letting them off the hook. 

If they are in a refugee camp somewhere I want them returned in handcuffs post haste. If required, I would be using military transport with special forces escort to get them here. In short, go to another country, join a terrorist group, fight against the soldiers of your own country and I want you hunted down and returned. Why is this wrong headed?.... please educate a simple soldier, what am I missing here? 

As it stands now, I find the notion of removing citizenship and letting them off the hook more treasonous then their joining ISIS in the first place.

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now look at the picture of the weapons confiscated.  Which one are the scariest looking.  Now which ones arent so scary.  

Funny the ones at the bottom of the picture pack the same punch as the "scary" ones at the top.  As we all know, Looks arent everything.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wolfhunter said:

That didn't take long eh?.... is his citizenship to be revoked as well?

I see the whole thing as impractical, complicated and unworkable when none of it needs to be. Good Lord, this is the easy part. I for one want these "citizens" back, I want them tried for terrorism, I want them tried for treason and I want them jailed for a long time. How simple is that?

Letting them live in another country is, and always will be completely unacceptable to me for any number of reasons, I find the notion appalling and bordering on treason in and of itself. If they are in another country I want them extradited.... just as we do with other criminals. No one has yet explained why these guys should be treated differently then the criminals that they are. Or, for that matter, why we should cheapen the value of what citizenship means in the process of letting them off the hook. 

If they are in a refugee camp somewhere I want them returned in handcuffs post haste. If required, I would be using military transport with special forces escort to get them here. In short, go to another country, join a terrorist group, fight against the soldiers of your own country and I want you hunted down and returned. Why is this wrong headed?.... please educate a simple soldier, what am I missing here? 

As it stands now, I find the notion of removing citizenship and letting them off the hook more treasonous then their joining ISIS in the first place.

agreed.  The minute you take up arms against your own country, you have committed an act of Treason.  if you are an enemy combatant against your country of citizenship on foreign soil then you are as much of a target as the foreign national next to you.  Fair Game as they say.  Should you be captured in this situation you should be treated as any other prisoner of war.

Should you wish to return to your country of citizenship after participating in acts of aggression against said country you should be returned and face charges of reason and face the penalties of conviction.  you are a criminal.  Revoking citizenship does absolutely nothing to punish your actions since you were a citizen of convenience anyhow.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I want them tried for treason and I want them jailed for a long time. How simple is that?

Simple?? I’m afraid it isn’t that simple, as you are probably aware. Our legal (I won’t use the word justice) is a joke imo. The same reason “a Canadian is a Canadian ...” will have these trials drag on for years and years... and the examples of which are numerous. A man who was charged with murder 7 years ago finally convicted of 2nd degree manslaughter after his second trial, even though there was video evidence of him shooting his victims with a handgun. Two terrorists convicted of trying to blow up a bridge with a Via train on it in 2013 are appealing. Both cases claim the guilty were not sane at the time of the crime. 

Then there is the issue of the evidence required to convict of crimes that were carried out in a war zone half way around the world....would the individual be guilty by association. Our charter would probably prevent that.....the defence lawyers would have a field day. 

In the mean time, the accused would probably be released on their own recognizance soaking up taxpayer paid benefits, or worse, starting a go fund me account and becoming a social media martyr.

As much as I agree a Canadian should not carry out treasonous acts and expect repatriation, I would rather have them starve,suffer, maybe contract a disease and suffer a slow death in a refugee camp, than have them benefit from the circus our judicial system has become.

But that’s just me...😀

 

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/eaton-centre-shooter-guilty-of-manslaughter

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/mandel-via-rail-terrorist-might-just-get-new-trial

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, st27 said:

Simple?? I’m afraid it isn’t that simple, as you are probably aware. Our legal (I won’t use the word justice) is a joke imo. The same reason “a Canadian is a Canadian ...” will have these trials drag on for years and years... and the examples of which are numerous. A man who was charged with murder 7 years ago finally convicted of 2nd degree manslaughter after his second trial, even though there was video evidence of him shooting his victims with a handgun. Two terrorists convicted of trying to blow up a bridge with a Via train on it in 2013 are appealing. Both cases claim the guilty were not sane at the time of the crime. 

Then there is the issue of the evidence required to convict of crimes that were carried out in a war zone half way around the world....would the individual be guilty by association. Our charter would probably prevent that.....the defence lawyers would have a field day. 

In the mean time, the accused would probably be released on their own recognizance soaking up taxpayer paid benefits, or worse, starting a go fund me account and becoming a social media martyr.

As much as I agree a Canadian should not carry out treasonous acts and expect repatriation, I would rather have them starve,suffer, maybe contract a disease and suffer a slow death in a refugee camp, than have them benefit from the circus our judicial system has become.

But that’s just me...😀

 

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/eaton-centre-shooter-guilty-of-manslaughter

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/mandel-via-rail-terrorist-might-just-get-new-trial

Completely unacceptable to me by any measure. Letting people off the hook because you don't have faith in the legal system is self defeating and could easily be a multi-page thread if you saw fit. It has both national and international implications  and I will never willingly go there or follow anyone who suggests the journey. If you have no evidence of wrong doing, then you have no case and you have no grounds (NONE) to revoke citizenship. I want these folks repatriated and tried.  

BTW, how is it that people are all surprised that some of these folks would run off and join ISIS? This is all part of the backlash I feared while people were screaming racist in my face. I guess my vote will cancel yours because you will never convince me that they should be let go or that we should simply shrug our shoulders while letting them. I consider this sentiment even worse than their decision to take up arms against Canada and I'm left with nothing more to say..... cheers 

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will make you feel warm and comfy.

 

February 21, 2019 4:56 pm

Updated: February 21, 2019 5:00 pm

Canadian who tried to join terror group in Syria released on parole despite being ‘high risk to public safety’

 
 

An Ontario man who travelled to Syria to join an al-Qaida faction is being released from prison less than two years after pleading guilty, even though the Parole Board of Canada is concerned he might continue to engage in terrorism.

In a newly-released decision obtained by Global News, the Parole Board said Kevin Omar Mohamed had not participated in any de-radicalization efforts and there was no evidence he was committed to changing his “extremist ideological beliefs.”

“Thus, the Board is concerned that you may continue to commit terrorist related offences,” according to the decision issued Wednesday, which said Mohammed’s most recent assessment had labelled him a “high risk to public safety.”

READ MORE: How police hunted down an Ontario terror suspect from anonymous online posts

Although the former University of Waterloo student was sentenced to 4.5 years imprisonment as recently as October 2017, he is already eligible for statutory release, when the time he had served awaiting trial is taken into consideration.

But the Parole Board said that because it was concerned he might reoffend, it had imposed a number of “special conditions” on him, including that he undergo religious counselling and not use a computer able to access the internet.

WATCH: Canadian sentenced to 4.5 years after trying to join terror group

TUE_AFF_VUCHNICH_TERRORSENTENCE_311017_848x480_1085745731941.jpg?w=670&quality=70&strip=all

He must also let his parole officer inspect his electronic devices and not “possess, access or view, or attempt to acquire” any terrorist-related materials. He is also required to live at a facility approved by corrections officials.

“The Board remains very concerned that the serious nature of your offences alone, coupled with your dangerous radical religious beliefs, would impede your reintegration and continue to present significant risk to the community as a whole,” the decision said.

Prof. Stephanie Carvin, a terrorism expert at Carleton University’s Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, questioned the religious counselling requirement, saying it was still unclear whether such programs were successful.

“Who is administering that counselling and how effective it is? I think it’s good we have these programs in place, but there is not a lot we know about them and how effective they are,” she said. “It may be effective but we have no idea.”

In 2014, Mohamed flew to Turkey and crossed into Syria to join Jabhat Al-Nusrah, an affiliate of al-Qaida. He met members of the terror group but his trip was cut short when his mother and brother followed him to Turkey and convinced him to go back to Canada.

READ MORE: Prosecutor says Canadian who pleaded guilty to terrorism motivated by ‘prejudice and hate’

Upon returning to Canada, he posted messages on social media under various aliases praising Osama bin Laden and proposing terrorism in the West, suggesting attackers “start small” by burning cars and “kufar” [non-believers] in parking lots.

“In those posts you made comments supportive of terrorist activities, promoted violence, and suggested that a person could create timed bombs to be put on planes or boats, and burn cars of “non-believers”; you also commented on the beauty of attacking the west, suggestive of attacks on the Western world,” the Board wrote.

In February 2016, Mohamed left home and went into hiding. He withdrew cash from his bank account and went online to ask how to join Jabhat Al-Nusrah while on the run from police. He was arrested in Waterloo, Ont., in March 2016.

“Upon arrest in March 2016, you were found to be in possession of a large hunting knife, heavy duty work gloves, a large sum of cash and handwritten notes taken from Al-Qaida publications which outlined targets, how to generate a plan, discussed firearms and grenades, and preparing then executing the operation,” the Board decision said.

READ MORE: Canadian captured in Syria admits to role in gruesome ISIS execution videos

Given what it felt was the ongoing safety risk, the Board wrote in its decision that Mohamed required close monitoring in the community and “ongoing interventions,” which it said the residency condition could provide.

“Based on the public safety factors and above noted considerations, your risk to public safety has been rated as high because there are current indicators of high risk/concern,” according to the decision.

“CSC [Correctional Service of Canada] notes that you were not involved in any employment, education or psychological services. You declined psychological services while incarcerated,” it added.

“As you have not engaged in interventions and there is little in the way of evidence of progress to assess your level of commitment to change versus your degree of adherence to extremist ideological beliefs. As such, the Board finds you continue to present at least a moderate risk to re-offend violently.”

Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that it would make a difference but we’re there no restrictions on possession of firearms??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, st27 said:

Not that it would make a difference but we’re there no restrictions on possession of firearms??

  the normal conditions of Parole cover weapons. 

Conditions of release

Standard Conditions

All offenders released on conditional release must abide by a set of standard conditions. These include reporting to a parole officer, obeying the law and keeping the peace, not owning or possessing a weapon, and reporting any change in their family, domestic or financial situation to their parole officer.

Special Conditions

The Parole Board may also impose any special conditions it considers reasonable and necessary to further manage an offender's risk in the community, such as to abstain from the use of drugs or alcohol. The Board also takes into account requests from victims to impose special conditions. The most common request is for no contact with the victim or their family members.

If an offender does not abide by conditions placed on their conditional release...

If the conditions of parole are not met, the Parole Board of Canada (PBC) has the power to revoke the parole and return the offender to prison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, st27 said:

Guess I haven’t been on parole lately....no offence Malcolm 😉

If I had, I imagine my pension would have gone further. What does surprise me is that there is no ankle bracelet so as to allow for tracking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

What does surprise me is that there is no ankle bracelet so as to allow for tracking

Tracking these folks is labour and resource intensive, it's part of the cost I keep asking "are you willing to pay?" The option for other options has come and gone.... it seems an elusive concept for most but you should consider it money well spent (I sure do). I often detect a note of surprise in these discussions, it's like no one thought this stuff could possibly ever become an issue when in reality, it could never have ended differently. And, incase you are wondering, yes.... it will get worse. Please start spending the money now.

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Wolfhunter said:

Tracking these folks is labour and resource intensive, it's part of the cost I keep asking "are you willing to pay?" The option for other options has come and gone.... it seems an elusive concept for most but you should consider it money well spent (I sure do). I often detect a note of surprise in these discussions, it's like no one thought this stuff could possibly ever become an issue when in reality, it could never have ended differently. And, incase you are wondering, yes.... it will get worse.

The cost of monitoring could indeed be less than the possible outcome if things go south so as far as I am concerned $$$$ well spent if indeed parole is not avoidable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Malcolm said:

The cost of monitoring could indeed be less than the possible outcome if things go south so as far as I am concerned $$$$ well spent if indeed parole is not avoidable.

Although off thread topic, reductions to the RCMP forensic gun lab is an example of the sort of thing I find concerning. At the very time we need to be spending more on "these things" we seem willing to spend less. I consider this notion as wrong headed as some of the policies that have conspired to make the lab (in this case) more valuable now than it was previously. We are attacking both sides of a simple common sense equation at the same time and unbalancing it as a result.

https://theworldnews.net/ca-news/rcmp-labs-make-more-cuts-to-firearms-testing-impacting-criminal-cases

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

‘They chose to join ISIS’: Little public sympathy to not bring ISIS brides home

 
‎Yesterday, ‎February ‎22, ‎2019, ‏‎6:45:37 PM

CALGARY (660 NEWS) — Should the federal government repatriate ISIS brides and their children who remain in Syria? It appears there is not much public sympathy to bring them home.

It’s estimated there are more than two-dozen ISIS brides and their children currently in Syrian refugee camps — but there isn’t much public sympathy for their plight.

“You can’t become a criminal and then say ‘I changed my mind and want to come back’ and then if they come back, will bring a dangerous element into our society,” said Terrorism and Security Expert at Simon Fraser University Andre Gerolymatos. “There are no grounds for this. We have people going off and becoming terrorists, then coming back and suing the government.”

Federal Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale has said repatriating foreign fighters and their families is not a priority.

Several countries, such as Britain and the United States, are also wrestling with this issue.

This past week, Britain stripped the citizenship of a teenage ISIS bride who left that country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With that as an SOP, we could empty our prisons and save a fortune. Please tell me why the same fate should not befall the guy in the article below? I consider him worse than a 15 year old baby mama. Why the sudden urge to let people get away with treason? I simply don't understand the thinking of most voters.... and I'm glad of it.

If you can't make the case then you have no grounds for the action being contemplated. That is the corner stone of our justice system and I'm loath to yield that fundamental principal to fools that insisted on such things as open borders and minimal vetting who now display symptoms of buyers remorse.

Our country was formed on certain principals, certain ideas, and certain values that I still support and I stand unwilling to cast them asunder in an effort to solve easily anticipated issues.... and at first contact BTW. I see little difference between Canadian domestic treason and domestic terrorism and that committed by Canadians abroad. I guess convincing me that they are (or should be) viewed differently is the first step toward convincing me that I have this wrong..... and don't say lack of evidence unless you are ready to argue that lack of evidence stands as proof of guilt. Many of these threads have discussed "values" be they Liberal or conservative. At the end of the day, regardless of persuasion, hopefully we are all Canadians and it is exactly those values I see at risk here. Backlashes always seem statistically popular, that's because those who were opposed to the policy( that created the problem) still stand opposed; their numbers are then supplemented by those with buyers remorse and all of a sudden, you have statistics saying 70% of Canadians support bla or bla bla bla. 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/naval-spy-to-be-first-canadian-punished-under-security-of-information-act/article7986929/

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ISIS Brides Should Not Live among Us

RTR3WKMT.jpg?fit=789%2C460&ssl=1 A militant Islamist fighter cheers as he takes part in a military parade along the streets of Syria’s northern Raqqa province, June 30, 2014. The fighters held the parade to celebrate their declaration of an Islamic “caliphate.” (Reuters Stringer) In the whole debate around Islamist extremism one of the things we have most lacked is strong signals.

It is almost five years since ISIS declared a caliphate in parts of northern Iraq and Syria. From countries across the West, hundreds of Muslim citizens found the promise of the caliphate so enticing that they heeded the call to join. Now we are in precisely the situation that anyone could have predicted, and many did: former members of Islamic State, who turned their backs on the West, are now trying to get back to the West. In each country there is now a completely predictable political row over whether they should be allowed to return or not.

 

 

Despite recently urging European countries to take responsibility for their own jihadis and have them back, President Trump says that he has instructed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to ensure that Hoda Muthana, of Alabama, is not allowed back into the U.S. The secretary of state has declared that Muthana “is not a U.S. citizen and will not be admitted into the United States.” In the U.K., the home secretary, Sajid Javid, has said that Shamima Begum — who, like Muthana, joined ISIS but is now pleading to return to her home country from a refugee camp — will be stripped of her British citizenship so that she cannot return to the country. It is claimed that Begum has Bangladeshi citizenship too, although the authorities in that country deny this claim and insist that there is no way Begum is heading to their country.

There are good arguments on each side of the larger debate that has ensued. Begum was 15 when she went to join ISIS, and though she is obviously now an adult, her case is an especially difficult one on which to base any policy because of the additional question of the age of terrorist responsibility. Added to that, all countries are expected to abide by the international obligation not to make any person stateless, and so unless the individual has joint citizenship and the second country rather surprisingly decides that it could do with an extra ISIS fanatic in the mix, withdrawing citizenship opens the relevant authorities up to legal challenge.

 

 

In Europe in particular — which is already struggling with the integration of its Muslim populations — there is a serious additional question over what message a policy of stripping citizenship gives out. If I were to decide to leave the country, destroy my passport, and swear allegiance to a foreign jihadist group and would-be state, would the U.K. government strip me of my citizenship? Would they only do so if, like Begum, I were the child of immigrants? Many people, including people who should be taken seriously in this area — such as Shiraz Maher of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at King’s College London — are insisting that the British home secretary’s treatment of Begum is actually “racist.” There are cases we could compare it with (such as that of “Jihad Jack,” a white convert who grew up in Oxford before joining ISIS), but the impression given out could well be that there is one rule for children of immigrants and another for others. If that impression is true, it would ride against the whole modern European multicultural insistence that once immigrants become citizens they are exactly, and in every way, equal.

What is remarkable is that we have had years to avert precisely this situation: not just half a decade with the case of ISIS, but almost two decades in which this general problem could have been averted. At least since 9/11, there has been some recognition in the counterterror community that our laws are not wholly fit for purpose — in particular, that our toolkit is missing something in the area of what used to be treason laws. In America as in Europe, you do not have to wait very long in the legal and counterterror communities for it to be assured that such laws are antiquated, defunct, moribund, or otherwise unusable. But in each case it also tends to be recognized that without something like a treason law (“subversion” or “aiding the Queen’s enemies” in the old adumbration) we cannot answer the specific challenge that people such as Begum and Muthana pose. That we are little nearer answering this predictable challenge is yet another example of the opportunity cost of a political and media class obsessed with what it cannot change and disinterested in what it could.

 

Those who insist that that such people should simply return and face criminal charges in domestic courts ignore the standards of evidence needed in a court, the difficulty of compiling such evidence, and the endless questions around fair trials, the presumption of innocence, and more. Shabina Begum claims to have merely been an ISIS housewife and seen some heads in bins and so on. The tedious domestic life of the Islamic State. If she played no role in any beheadings, or if there aren’t enough people around to give eyewitness testimony, what should she be prosecuted on? Should she simply be brought back to the U.K. and put through a “deradicalisation” program? To claim she should is to put a vast amount of trust in a program, and a policy, which is far from a science and far from even frequently successful. All this is in a country whose security services are already overstretched with the number of Islamists they would like to keep their eyes on versus the number they actually can afford to keep an eye on.

 

 
 

For what it’s worth, I am not especially torn over whether people like those who went to join ISIS should be allowed back into their countries of origin or not. The age issue with Begum is troubling. The prospect of an expansion of the use of such powers is an undeniable worry. But overriding this is another consideration which I have not seen stressed enough in the debate to date. In the whole debate around Islamist extremism one of the things we have most lacked is strong signals. There is a quote from Alexis de Tocqueville of which I’m fond: “One does not depend on laws to reanimate beliefs that are extinguished. But one does depend on laws to interest men in the destiny of their country.”

 

Over recent years the message given out from the Western democracies has been, “You can do absolutely anything here. You can mutilate your daughters and we won’t catch you. You can kill girls in your family who have brought you ‘dishonor’ and we won’t much bother to pursue you. You can preach the destruction of our society and we will tolerate you. You can fight for our enemies, and we will tie ourselves in legal knots over how — if at all — we might be able to discipline you afterwards.” I have always thought that the lack of strong signals is one of the strongest possible incentives for Islamist extremism. You can fight for your country, or you can fight for your country’s enemies. If you choose the latter and it all goes fine, you’re in clover. And if it doesn’t, then you can at any point return to the situation you were in when you started off, as though you never made that treasonous choice. In short, the number of negatives is not commensurate with the number of positives.

 

There are costs to everything in this life. A cost for making bad decisions, and a cost for making the worst ones. Joining ISIS is not an “oops,” but is among the worst decisions anyone of this generation could have made. Our entire value system is not on the line here. Only a couple of generations ago we would have hanged Begum for what she did. Perhaps she should be allowed to live. But not among us.

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who will take IS fighter and his London 'jihadi bride'?

By Anna Holligan BBC News, The Hague
A man suspected of being an Islamic State (IS) group fighter is searched by a member of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) after leaving the IS group's last holdout of Baghouz, in Syria's northern Deir Ezzor province on February 27, 2019Image copyright AFP Image caption This suspected IS fighter left Baghouz this week; Riedijk and Shamima Begum left earlier

Yago Riedijk was born and raised in well-to-do Dutch suburbia but abandoned it all in his early twenties for so-called Islamic State (IS).

Old pictures show a smiling teenager perched behind a child on a motorbike. A smattering of hairs on his chin suggests he is cultivating a beard.

He left the Netherlands in 2014 and faces a six-year jail term for joining a terror organisation.

You may be familiar with his jihadi bride, Shamima Begum from east London who is believed to have "married" him a week after she arrived inside IS territory aged 15.

They now face an uncertain fate.

 
Displaced people in Al-Hawl camp in north-eastern SyriaImage copyright Getty Images Image caption Shamima Begum and thousands of other displaced people are in Al-Hawl camp in north-eastern Syria

Riedijk was one of 300 Dutch men and women who travelled to Syria and Iraq. Some 135 Dutch nationals with "jihadist intentions" are still there, anti-terror officials say.

It is not known how many want to come back and if Riedijk is one of them. And it is not clear if they can.

Authorities across Europe are alive to the threat of returning jihadists:

  • The Netherlands this week removed the citizenship of Riedijk's fellow Dutch jihadist, Outhmane B.
  • Thirteen French citizens accused of fighting for IS are facing trial in Iraq rather than in France itself, and the French government will not intervene
  • Belgium has won an appeal which means it cannot be forced to repatriate two Belgian women convicted of being Islamic State militants from Syria along with their children
  • The UK has revoked Shamima Begum's citizenship

Where is Riedijk now?

As IS began to crumble, he and Shamima Begum escaped the town of Baghouz to protect their unborn child.

Riedijk, now 27, is held in north-eastern Syria while she was in the sprawling al-Hawl refugee camp - temporary home to 39,000 mostly women and children - but has now reportedly gone elsewhere.

p071hlbz.jpg
Media playback is unsupported on your device

Shamima Begum: 'I got tricked and I was hoping someone would have sympathy with me'

Exit player
 
Media captionShamima Begum: "I got tricked and I was hoping someone would have sympathy with me"

When the UK revoked her citizenship, she raised the prospect of applying for Dutch nationality through her "husband".

Will they be allowed in?

Although Riedijk is on a terror watch list his citizenship has not been revoked. If he made it to a Dutch embassy or consulate, in theory he would be allowed to return home.

Shamima Begum will struggle to get her underage union recognised in the Netherlands, but their newborn son, Jarrah, may be entitled to Dutch citizenship.

There are as many as 170 children in Syria who could lay claim on Dutch nationality.

A map of the world showing where IS children are from Image caption A map showing the verified origin countries of children who travelled to Iraq or Syria

Only this week the Dutch justice department warned of the threat posed by jihadist women returning from abroad, as well as by boys older than nine years old.

Even women and children who were not trained and did not take part in hostilities could pose a "long-term potential threat" because of exposure to IS ideology, it said.

How a city's teenagers were targeted for jihad

Jimmy's cafe nestles on a neat shopping precinct close to where Riedijk grew up, in the eastern city of Arnhem.

Softly spoken owner Jimmy gestures to the table where Riedijk and his friends used to gather.

Two men in their twenties talk candidly of friends seduced and conscripted by a brutal death cult.

Frustrated their city has been christened the Netherlands' "jihadist capital", they blame Dutch society for failing to stop "good kids" from being groomed.

Graphic of Dutch jihadists in Syria and Iraq

"They were kick-boxing, deejaying but then they stopped seeing opportunity here in the Netherlands," says one.

"Guys started coming to our mosque, preaching, and the boys started to break away, become more extreme in their thinking, they were meeting in apartments and then we hear they've gone."

Their experience tallies with the findings of a study that pinpoints a period in 2013 when radicalisation in Arnhem reached its peak.

Recruits often suffer from low self esteem and are searching for a stronger identity, says Barbara Klunder who has represented a number of young Dutch jihadist suspects.

"It's not so much religious, but more a feeling of belonging and being fully accepted by their own people fighting the same enemy."

'Arnhem terror cell'

The spotlight returned to Riedijk's hometown last autumn, when seven men were arrested at a holiday park in the southern town of Weert.

Leaked photos appear to show them kissing Kalashnikov rifles, posing in bomb vests, and preparing to carry out a terror attack at a rock festival in Arnhem with the aim of "creating as many casualties as possible", in the words of the Dutch prosecutor.

Police raid on jihadist suspects in NetherlandsImage copyright Dutch police Image caption A police image shows a raid on the suspected "Arnhem terror cell"

Six men between 21 and 35 who either came from Arnhem or lived there remain in custody awaiting trial.

Another element in the Arnhem terror cell case is Riedijk himself, as he is suspected of being linked to the group.

With a jail sentence awaiting him, it is unclear whether he will come back. His parents have declined to comment.

Patrick, a childhood friend, describes him as "one of the quiet people in class". Shocked by his departure, he believes Riedijk should be brought home and locked up for life.

Dutch justice officials will be taking no chances.

What other EU member states decide to do regarding repatriation is up to them, but that does not mean the Netherlands has to follow, says the National co-ordinator for security and counter-terrorism.

Arnhem Mayor Ahmed Marcouch believes he should be brought home to face justice. "We will continue to guide him and keep an eye on him," he told a local paper.

But he does not want Shamima Begum to come. "You cannot be eligible for a residence permit when you have committed terrorist crimes."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Malcolm said:

Shamima Begum: 'I got tricked and I was hoping someone would have sympathy with me'

Nope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The British continue to hold fast to how they handle British Citizens who left to join terrorist groups.

 

Shamima Begum: "I got tricked and I was hoping someone would have sympathy with me"

Exit player
 
Media captionShamima Begum: "I got tricked and I was hoping someone would have sympathy with me"

It was too dangerous to send British officials to rescue Shamima Begum's baby son in Syria, Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt has said.

The child died in a refugee camp after his mother, who joined IS in 2015, was stripped of UK citizenship.

The boy was a UK citizen - but Mr Hunt told the BBC that any rescuers' lives would have been at risk in the camp.

"The mother chose to leave a free country to join a terrorist organisation," he said.

Speaking on The Andrew Marr Show, the foreign secretary confirmed that Jarrah, who was three weeks old, was a British citizen even though his mother was not.

 

But he said that - although several journalists had reached the camp and spoken to Ms Begum - "we have to think about the safety of the British officials that I would send into that warzone".

"Shamima knew when she made the decision to join Daesh, she was going into a country where there was no embassy, there was no consular assistance, and I'm afraid those decisions, awful though it is, they do have consequences," he said.

He said that the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development were looking at ways to find the British children of other so-called "Islamic State brides" and get them out.

Home Secretary Sajid Javid has faced criticism for his handling of the similar case of Ms Begum.

Her three-week-old son, Jarrah, died of pneumonia on Thursday, according to a medical certificate.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47512659

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this