Sign in to follow this  
Jaydee

ISIS and Terrorism

Recommended Posts

For those that have access to Amazon Prime videos, I HIGHLY recommend watching.     ISIS 2.0

It reveals in complete detail in easily understood terms how ISIS came to be and where it’s going. EXCELLENT video.

 

Needless to say the Bush (2) and OBAMA administrations don’t fare well .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man Who Tried Killing Three Canadian Soldiers While Screaming “Allah Akbar” Could Be Released Under “Indirect Supervision”

In 2016, Ayanle Hassan Ali tried killing three Canadian soldiers at the Yonge St. recruiting office in Toronto.

He punched a soldier in the head, then tried stabbing that soldier, then tried stabbing another soldier, before slashing at another.

As noted by the Toronto Sun, “During his attack, Ali shouted words to the effect of, “Allah akbar.” He told a paramedic that “Allah” had sent him “to kill people.” Both forensic psychiatrists who examined Ali testified that he believed soldiers were a “legitimate target” due to Canada’s military action in Muslim countries and he wanted to be a martyr.”

Ali had also said in a diary, “I have a licence to kill, I have a green light to kill. One soldier is all it takes, just one.”

But shockingly, a judge acquitted him of terrorism charges, and he was found ‘not criminally responsible’ due to ‘schizophrenia.’

And now, he’s going to be set free into the community:

 

https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/07/27/insane-man-who-tried-killing-three-canadian-soldiers-while-screaming-allah-akbar-could-be-released-under-indirect-supervision/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Danforth killer's brother court-ordered to live at home where carfentanil later discovered

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/danforth-killers-brother-court-ordered-to-live-at-home-where-carfentanil-later-discovered

 

 

 

Lethal carfentanil could be used by terrorists in mass attacks, experts say

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/3108514/lethal-carfentanil-could-be-used-by-terrorists-in-mass-attacks-experts-say/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like common sense prevailed.

Quote

Liberal MPs side with opposition, amend omnibus justice bill

Jody Wilson-Raybould

Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Jody Wilson-Raybould speaks to reporters in the Foyer of the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Monday, Feb. 12, 2018. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang

     
 
     
     
     
     
 
     
     

Rachel Aiello, Ottawa News Bureau Online Producer

@rachaiello


Published Thursday, October 25, 2018 3:36PM EDT
Last Updated Thursday, October 25, 2018 3:38PM EDT

OTTAWA – MPs on the House Justice Committee have unanimously voted to amend the government's wide-spanning justice reform legislation Bill C-75, to stop certain terrorist offences from potentially being re-classified as summary, and not indictable offences.

During clause-by-clause review of Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould's massive crime bill on Wednesday evening, Liberal MPs sided with the opposition parties and voted in favour of a series of Conservative amendments, and signaled intent to do the same on similar upcoming amendments regarding hybridizing genocide offences.

Bill C-75 is an omnibus piece of legislation that aims to reform a number of areas of Canada's criminal justice system, address court backlogs, and wraps in several bills that had stalled in the House. As part of the legislation, the Liberals are proposing to hybridize over 100 indictable offences that are punishable with up to 10 years in jail, in the name of prosecutorial discretion and efficiency. Among these offences: participating in or contributing to a terrorist group, and advocating or promoting genocide.

Criminal Code offences are classified as either summary, indictable, or hybrid; which is a combination of both summary and indictable. Generally, summary offences are for less serious crimes, and tried in provincial courts, while indictable offences are more serious and can be heard in both provincial and superior courts. Hybrid offences apply in cases where the seriousness can vary depending on the circumstances of the case. In these types of cases, the Crown can choose whether to proceed by indictment or summary conviction based on factors like the circumstances of the alleged crime, previous convictions, and the type of sentence being pursued.

The Conservatives had framed the proposed Liberal changes in Bill C-75 as watering down these serious crimes.

Testifying at the committee in the spring, Wilson-Raybould defended the hybridization, saying the proposal had been "mischaracterized" and was meant to allow prosecutors to have the discretion to determine how to prosecute these alleged crimes, and not about lowering sentences.

Wilson-Raybould said this change would still allow for serious crimes to be pursued by indictment in superior courts, and would reduce delays in the justice system by allowing more lesser crimes to be sped along summarily.

Though, in speaking to the amendments, MPs on the committee highlighted various examples of witness testimony opposing the hybridization of these offences, citing skepticism over how this proposal would help alleviate court backlogs.

"With respect to the changes not achieving their objectives of efficiency and timely trials, the vast majority of cases are already heard in provincial court. An astounding 99.6 per cent are heard in provincial court and only 0.4 per cent in superior court according to 2015-16 StatsCan statistics. Therefore, this change will not have the desired effect," University of British Columbia law professor Debra Parkes told the committee last month.

The Conservative amendments to the handful of sections of the bill that proposed to hybridize various terrorist offences were supported by all MPs on the committee. Committee Chair and Liberal MP Anthony Housefather also spoke up to register his support, though he could not vote for the amendments, given his position.

Liberal MP Colin Fraser told the committee that he was supportive of the Conservative amendments because the terrorism and genocide offences are "distinguishable" from the many other proposed offence hybridizations in Bill C-75 that the Conservatives are also pushing to reverse, without Liberal support.

Fraser also signaled his intention to support similar amendments when they get to the section of the bill dealing with hybridizing the advocating or promoting genocide next week, when the committee resumes its clause-by-clause review of the bill.

Fellow Liberal committee member, Ali Ehsassi, is expected to back reversing the hybridization of the genocide offences. Testifying at the committee as the chair of the Parliamentary Group for the Prevention of Genocide, he told his fellow committee members that: "Given the extremely serious nature of the issue at hand, as well as Canada's moral obligation to serve as a leader in the field of genocide prevention, this committee should support an amendment to Bill C-75 ensuring that incitement to genocide provisions are not included within the otherwise prudent attempts at hybridization and reclassification."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When they made their decision to revoke his UK citizenship I imagine the conversation went somewhat like this:

Labour party: you can not do this, he will be left homeless

Conservative: don't worry Justin will take him in.

 The Canadian government once had the power to revoke citizenship for reasons of treason, spying, or terrorism — possible because of a Citizenship Act amendment enacted in 2015. But the Liberals repealed that amendment.

August 18, 2019 9:45 am
Updated: August 18, 2019 10:12 am

U.K. citizenship stripped from ‘Jihadi Jack,’ leaving him only with Canadian citizenship

By Maryam Shah National Online Journalist, Breaking News  Global News
 
 
 
 
 
Jack Letts, who is British but has Canadian citizenship through his father, is being held by Kurdish forces in northeast Syria.

Jack Letts, who is British but has Canadian citizenship through his father, is being held by Kurdish forces in northeast Syria.

Handout
- A A +

British-Canadian Jack Letts, nicknamed by the British media “Jihadi Jack,” has been stripped of his British citizenship, leaving him only with Canadian citizenship.

John Letts confirmed to Global News’ Roy Green that his son’s British citizenship has been revoked.

A spokesman for Minister of Public Safety Ralph Goodale said in a statement the government is aware of the U.K.’s decision.

“Terrorism knows no borders, so countries need to work together to keep each other safe. Canada is disappointed that the United Kingdom has taken this unilateral action to off-load their responsibilities,” the statement read.

“Investigating, arresting, charging and prosecuting any Canadian involved in terrorism or violent extremism is our primary objective. They must be held accountable for their actions.”

READ MORE: Don’t strip ISIS terror suspects like ‘Jihadi Jack’ of citizenship, experts say

The Mail on Sunday was the first to report the news. Sky News and ITV News say they have verified this latest update on Letts’ case with their sources.

Letts joined ISIS as a teenager and is currently being held in a Kurdish-run jail in northern Syria.

A Muslim convert, Letts was a U.K. citizen who also holds Canadian citizenship through his father. In 2014, he traveled to Syria, where he was captured by Kurdish forces.

The statement from Goodale’s office acknowledged that the government is “aware of some Canadian citizens currently detained in Syria.”

“There is no legal obligation to facilitate their return,” the statement read. “We will not expose our consular officials to undue risk in this dangerous part of the world.”

It also noted that Goodale’s office is “not able to comment on specific cases or national security operational matters.”

The Mail on Sunday story claimed the U.K.’s decision had ignited a diplomatic spat with Canada — a characterization that the Canadian government contests.

READ MORE: Why the U.K. can revoke an ISIS bride’s citizenship, while the U.S. won’t let one return

Letts’ Oxford, U.K.-based parents made headlines earlier this summer when a British court convicted them of funding terrorism.

John and Jane Letts were found guilty of sending their son £223 (CAD$348) in September 2015. Police had reportedly warned them not to do so.

WATCH: ‘Jihadi Jack’s’ parents stand trial for funding terrorism

2019-05-23T21-48-45.133Z--640x360.jpg?w=670&quality=70&strip=all

Letts’ citizenship was reportedly revoked under Theresa May, who resigned as prime minister July 24.

Under international law, countries cannot revoke a person’s citizenship if doing so renders them stateless.

READ MORE: Parents of ‘Jihadi Jack’ guilty of funding terrorism, U.K. jury finds

The Canadian government once had the power to revoke citizenship for reasons of treason, spying, or terrorism — possible because of a Citizenship Act amendment enacted in 2015. But the Liberals repealed that amendment.

Former U.K. defence minister Tobias Ellwood addressed dual nationalities of ISIS fighters on Twitter Sunday, saying that conflicts have “changed but international laws have not been updated.”

“If (we) are to stay safe and prevent ISIS 2.0 we must work with our allies and think more strategically than simply removing UK citizenship from radicalised dual nationals,” he tweeted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply don't understand this logic.

I want him fast tracked back here, interrogated, tried and jailed. Then I want all of his friends who hold Canadian citizenship back here as well. The sooner the better. Any delay in returning them should only be to pass the laws required to jail them long term for even joining ISIS. Their actions while there only adds to the existing sentence for membership in a terrorist organization and acting as combatant  against Canada... treason has a nice ring to it, let's call it treason.

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


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

I simply don't understand this logic.

I want him fast tracked back here, interrogated, tried and jailed. Then I want all of his friends who hold Canadian citizenship back here as well. The sooner the better. Any delay in returning them should only be to pass the laws required to jail them long term for even joining ISIS. Their actions while there only adds to the existing sentence for membership in a terrorist organization and acting as combatant  against Canada... treason has a nice ring to it, let's call it treason.

The problem with that Wolf, is that under our "justice" system he would be deemed to be rehabilitated and released into the general population after a few years or perhaps given millions to compensate for their anguish. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Marshall said:

under our "justice" system the would be deemed to be rehabilitated and released into the general population after a few years or perhaps given millions to compensate for their anguish. 

I understand your concern, but isn’t following that logic to its natural conclusion tantamount to setting a new (and dangerously lower) standard for our definition of a justice system. We are essentially shipping our criminals off to another country for them to deal with instead of taking ownership ourselves; and, in the process, potentially letting them escape the justice they rightly deserve. Putting aside what atrocities they may have committed as a member of ISIS, they are guilty of joining a terrorist organization and taking up arms against Canada and the Canadian Forces. 

Put another way, are we to stop bringing criminals to justice because we perceive that our legal system is inadequate and not up to the task? Should we revoke the citizenship of other murderous criminals currently in detention and ship them overseas? Which country should we foist our (OUR) most dangerous criminals on? As it stands now, other countries don’t even want our plastic. Were I the leader of such a country I would be shipping him back to Canada in the same container as the plastic.

It seems unrcontionable to me. How do we justify simply exporting the worst of our worst and what do we say to other countries who would seek to play the same trick on us?

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another issue that Trudeau won’t touch until after the election. He would have a have to rationalize his “Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian” position to defend bringing an ISiIS convert back to a country .... a country the ISIS supporter has never lived in....

Letts was born, raised and educated in the UK. I can find no reference to Letts even visiting Canada.

From an article a few months ago....

”Letts' father is Canadian. He told ITV News that he had a Canadian passport through his father at one point but is unsure if it is still valid. He said he is not seeking to return to Canada.  

"I feel British, I am British. My dad's Canadian, if the U.K. accepted me I would go back to the U.K., it's my home, but I don't think that is going to happen," he told ITV News.

"I don't think I'm going to be given ... back to Britain, for example ... or some Canadian official is going to come and help me because like I said —  no one really cares." 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this stands as a good example of why I don't like the notion of dual citizenship. If the status of his citizenship is not valid, on its own merits, then revoking it is simply correcting a mistake that shouldn't have been made in the first place. But, if he really has valid citizenship (here or in the UK) how is it possible to justify foisting him on another country? Putting aside the right of a country to incarcerate foreign nationals for crimes committed on their soil, is it acceptable to revoke citizenship simply to block the legitimate attempt of another country to deport a Canadian back to Canada?

As it stands now, there are some 400 Mexican cartel members active in Canada (who arrived with fake passports) following the relaxation of the VISA requirement in 2016. Would you consider it acceptable for Mexico to simply revoke their citizenship so that we couldn't deport them back to Mexico? It just doesn't seem reasonable to me. It seems like a dirty trick that I wouldn't want other countries to play on us either.

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree...don’t like the idea of dual citizenship either.....look at the situation in Hong Kong where there are 300,000 people over there claiming Canadian citizenship..what is the governments responsibility to them??? The Lebanese evacuation a few years ago was a mess...aircraft chartered to evacuate Canadian “citizens” who had gone  “home”......(who complained about food, seating assignments and  baggage on the rescue flight) only to return when the crisis had abated..

Do you agree with Trudeau that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian??.....there should be a penalty for going abroad to engage in terrorist activities, expecting to be able to scurry back to the safety and fallibility of the Canadian justice system.

Share this post


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

Do you agree with Trudeau that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian??.....there should be a penalty for going abroad to engage in terrorist activities, expecting to be able to scurry back to the safety and fallibility of the Canadian justice system.

It’s actually one of the few things I do agree with JT on. Because of that, i feel it makes my opposition to dual citizenship all the more valid. The penalty for crimes against Canada and Canadians should be determined in Canada and paid for in Canada IMO. Again though, it doesn't detract from another countries right to try, convict and incarcerate Canadian citizens for crimes committed in that country. 

I perceive that you dislike the notion of people with dual citizenship rubbing both ends against the middle when it serves their purpose. If I have that right, I absolutely agree and submit that it stands as sufficient grounds (in and of itself) to oppose the concept of dual citizenship.

Unless obtained by fraudulent means, citizenship, once granted, should be irrevocable IMO. Just imagine if other countries did that to us as a matter of course. This is perhaps the first time I find myself in agreement with Mr Goodale....

“Canada is disappointed that the United Kingdom has taken this unilateral action to off-load their responsibilities"

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canada-criticizes-uk-move-to-strip-jihadi-jack-of-british/

Each case needs to stand on its own merits of course, for the record, I view the UK's action here as reprehensible. If its OK for them (or us) to revoke this guys citizenship, would you agree that its OK for mexico to do the same thing with those cartel members in Canada? The circumstances are different but the concept is cause for concern IMO.

Got to run... cheers

 

 

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the distinction that should be made with reference to the cartel example is that the crimes are relatively routine....theft, drugs, fraud, murder....crimes that can be tried with an abundance of evidence. So, citizenship would not be an issue.

In the case of terrorism, and specifically Isis, these are crimes against humanity and should have grave consequences...one of them being, you lose your citizenship and the help of the government to repatriate you. 

In a perfect world, the people held overseas would be tried by a war crimes court and dealt with accordingly.

My fear with Letts and all the other returning Isis “volunteers” is that the Canadian judicial system would not be able to gather enough credible evidence from the crimes/accusation and the individual would be free to resume his life back in Canada after murdering/beheading/raping citizens of other countries.

There is already an example of a Yazididi refugee recognizing one her Isis masters (she was a sex slave in Syria) riding on a bus in London, Ontario.

btw...you are right about my views on dual citizenship...people use the Canadian passport as a get out of jail free card or use it as a convenience in case life gets too onerous in their preferred locale. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dual Citizenship should be "Ranked"  If you were Born in the UK and that is where your Birth Certificate is held then that is your "Natural" citizenship which should never be revoked.  you were born there.  Period. that is your home country.

Should you then emigrate to another country (Canada) then you apply for citizenship in there, then that would be your "Secondary" citizenship.  This Should be a "conditional" citizenship which could be revoked based on the conditions mentioned above. (treason, spying, terrorism, etc.) 

While RESIDENT in the country of secondary citizenship, all benefits in the Natural country should be suspended until such time and you again establish residency.  Residency should only ever be allowed in a single country.

if you are a secondary citizen of Canada and you reside in a Third country (say the US) then all benefits assigned to a resident citizen of Canada would be suspended until such time as residency was re-established.

This would solve many of the issue of non-resident citizens claiming benefits in Canada as it suits them.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

The Dual Citizenship should be "Ranked"  If you were Born in the UK and that is where your Birth Certificate is held then that is your "Natural" citizenship which should never be revoked.  you were born there.  Period. that is your home country.

Should you then emigrate to another country (Canada) then you apply for citizenship in there, then that would be your "Secondary" citizenship.  This Should be a "conditional" citizenship which could be revoked based on the conditions mentioned above. (treason, spying, terrorism, etc.) 

While RESIDENT in the country of secondary citizenship, all benefits in the Natural country should be suspended until such time and you again establish residency.  Residency should only ever be allowed in a single country.

if you are a secondary citizen of Canada and you reside in a Third country (say the US) then all benefits assigned to a resident citizen of Canada would be suspended until such time as residency was re-established.

This would solve many of the issue of non-resident citizens claiming benefits in Canada as it suits them.

That sounds reasonable to me, at least it sounds like a reasonable foundation and a good starting point for furthering the debate.... certainly better than what seems to exist now. I'll vote for you...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re citizenship.  Revoking their citizenship is IMO the way to go vs bringing them to Canada to face charges under our justice system. Leaving them to rot in foreign prisons would seem to be a much harsher punishment than anything we can met out here.  

Regarding the creation of 2nd class citizens, I don't favour that at all. If you are a citizen go overseas to fight against Canadian Forces, caught and imprisoned    outside of Canada, then your citizenship should be removed with you being left in the foreign prison and welcome to taste "foreign Justice"  Such a fate might just be enough to deter others.

If on the other hand you at not caught and somehow get back to Canada, if evidence allows you should be tried and judged under our laws as they pertain to TREASON.

Quote

Punishment for high treason 

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-8.html#docCont

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-47.html?pedisable=true

  • 47 (1) Every one who commits high treason is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.

  • Marginal note:Punishment for treason

    (2) Every one who commits treason is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

    • (a) to be sentenced to imprisonment for life if he is guilty of an offence under paragraph 46(2)(a), (c) or (d);

    • (b) to be sentenced to imprisonment for life if he is guilty of an offence under paragraph 46(2)(b) or (e) committed while a state of war exists between Canada and another country; or

    • (c) to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years if he is guilty of an offence under paragraph 46(2)(b) or (e) committed while no state of war exists between Canada and another country.

  • Marginal note:Corroboration

    (3) No person shall be convicted of high treason or treason on the evidence of only one witness, unless the evidence of that witness is corroborated in a material particular by evidence that implicates the accused.

  • Marginal note:Minimum punishment

    (4) For the purposes of Part XXIII, the sentence of imprisonment for life prescribed by subsection (1) is a minimum punishment.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Marshall said:

Revoking their citizenship is IMO the way to go vs bringing them to Canada to face charges under our justice system

If Mexico were to do that with those 400 drug cartel members here illegally (with bogus passports) would that be OK then?

I don't think it is and I fear it might be a possible outcome (or something like it) if this were to become a trend. I can't see a scenario where I wouldn't want treasonous, murderous thugs (of any stripe) returned to Canada in order to face trial. They would get no free pass from me as I don't see losing your citizenship as a "grave consequence" when its compared to the crimes committed. Perhaps some of the lifers currently in jail would jump at that option.  Funny how people look at these things differently eh? 

Not trying someone because you are not sure of the verdict doesn't meet the threshold of making our criminals another country's problem IMO. In my world, the only proof required here would be that you were a serving member of ISIS. His parents have already been charged (I think convicted, but not sure) of financing terrorism simply  by sending him money.  

Crimes against humanity are perfectly legitimate here as well, the sentences could run consecutively I guess but becoming a combatant in a terrorist organization and actively fighting against the Armed Forces of Canada is more than sufficient to warrant a life sentence IMO. If those laws aren't currently in force, then by all means leave these guys where they are until such time as we are ready to take them back. If this were taken to the extreme, we would be unable to deport anyone because the country of origin would simply revoke citizenships of those they don't want to deal with.

I can't think of anything more to add here as this is not a discussion I ever thought I would have. The notion of abandoning our responsibility to prosecute these guys and dumping it on someone else had simply never occurred to me.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Marshall said:

Loosing their citizenship and being left to rot in a foreign gaol is hardly a free pass.

OK, then one last question before I take leave of the subject:

Is it OK if other countries do that to us?  

I'm guessing it could easily work both ways and we would be unable to deport foreign national terrorists (or drug cartel members) for exactly the same reason, ie their government revoked their citizenship. As is often the case here, I urge caution when dealing with the law of unintended consequences... nothing is as simple as it sounds and we can't even seem to get the bathrooms right. Suggesting that would never happen hasn't worked out too well in my experience. I suspect that's exactly what would happen and the likelihood of it happening is directly proportional to the number of people who scream that it won't. In the grand scheme of things, these guys aren't that special.... they are bad guys doing bad things in a foreign country; we have a few of them here too (about 400 by all accounts).

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/400-mexican-cartel-traffickers-hit-men-and-criminals-have-entered-canada-since-trudeau-eased-visa-requirements/

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes as long as they are dealing with terrorists (treason). So far of course we have not had any foreign  terrorists here. Criminals yes and of course we know how to deal with criminals. So your question has no meaning at this time.  You will note that I did not include Canadians who have been convicted of criminal activity in a foreign country as there is no reason why they should not retain their citizenship and be able to return to Canada after serving their sentences in the country where they were convicted.  Traitors on the other hand, gave up their right to retain Canadian Citizenship when they committed treason against Canada while outside Canada.

so

-Canadian Citizen committing treason against Canada outside of Canada --- If gaoled in a foreign country revoke citizenship and let them rot in the foreign gaol

Canadian Citizen committing treason against Canada outside of Canada who returns to Canada , fair trial and if found guilty, revoke citizenship and incarcerate in Canada to the full extend of Canadian Law. 

-Canadian Citizen convicted of criminal activity outside of Canada - let them serve their sentence in the foreign gaol and then allowed to return to Canada.

-Canadian Citizen convicted of treason against Canada (inside of Canada), fair trial and the max. punishment for traitors. 

-Foreign Citizen convicted of terrorism in Canada to serve their full sentence and then kicked out and if stateless, then gaol time in Canada until death do us part.

- non Canadian citizen found guilty of crimes committed while in Canada.  Fair Trial, serve full sentence and then booted out.  If stateless then their gaol time would continue until some nation allowed them to enter their country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don’t think where you are from is based on a piece of paper. These things have very little meaning to me to be honest. I don’t think British citizenship is a big deal,” he said, according to quotes provided by ITV. 

“I’ve always felt that I am Canadian, my Dad is Canadian, and I never grew up being accepted as a British person anyway ... I hope Canada does take me from here, I could go there, to prison of course.”

https://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKCN1V91JW-OCATP

Quote

Letts' father is Canadian. He told ITV News that he had a Canadian passport through his father at one point but is unsure if it is still valid. He said he is not seeking to return to Canada.  

"I feel British, I am British. My dad's Canadian, if the U.K. accepted me I would go back to the U.K., it's my home, but I don't think that is going to happen," he told ITV News.

"I don't think I'm going to be given ... back to Britain, for example ... or some Canadian official is going to come and help me because like I said —  no one really cares." 

Quote

He told ITV News earlier this year that he wanted to return to the UK as he felt British - but understood it was unlikely he would be able to. 

"I'm not going to say I'm innocent. I'm not innocent. I deserve what comes to me. But I just want it to be... appropriate... not just haphazard, freestyle punishment in Syria," he said, at the time.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49385376

 

So which is it Jack and why should we accept what you say you did or didn’t do for ISIS???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Marshall said:

So your question has no meaning at this time

Well, you we and us seem to have a bit of a conundrum regardless of how any of us might feel about it. JT revoked the conservative law that allowed for the revocation of citizenship from dual nationals. I would suggest my question is exactly to the point should his captors wish to deport him.

In short, the UK beat us to the punch and now, as a result (like it or not) Canada is stuck with him as a citizen. Since Jack is no longer a dual citizen, even under the repealed conservative law his Canadian citizenship can’t be revoked… under international law, countries can not revoke a persons citizenship if doing so leaves them stateless. We just got a taste of what we were willing to do to our allies.

The best case scenario here was for Canada to strip his citizenship first turning the whole thing into a game of terrorist tag with one of our allies…. exactly the situation I would have sought to avoid and one of the reasons I think it’s a bad idea. The law of unintended consequence is already at work here; in effect, you got exactly what you were seeking to avoid and it happened in the opening seconds of round one. We will now see if his current jailers want to keep him. And, should he be tortured or mistreated while in their custody we leave ourselves open to more law suits. Ironically, the folks holding him now are actually listed as a terrorist group, cool eh?

It makes picking a bathroom door seem easy by comparison. Cheers

Edited by Wolfhunter

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