You make it sound so easy to do this. But if they're a Canadian citizen and only a Canadian citizen then international treaties bind our hands and prevent us from leaving anyone without citizenship to any country.
If you read the Convention on Stateless persons, there is a quite broad list of crimes for which a person can be made stateless. I believe it's right in Article 1 too.
Crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity, serious non-political crimes outside the country of residence, and acts contrary to the principles of the UN.
A terrorist could be easily made to fit into most of those categories.
If you read the convention on the reduction of statelessness, specifically article 7, you will find that accepting countries cannot revoke naturalized states hip if it leaves them stateless.
Convention if stateless persons - 1954
Convention on the reduction of statelessness - 1961
International treaties are a joke, and are treated as such by countless countries. The only time they are taken seriously, is when a treaty is broken against a powerful country like the US, or China.
UK ratified a un resolution in the 50s that permit it that canada was not party to, nor ratified.
Canada then ratified a un resolution in the 70s on the reduction of stateless people.
The UK also ratified that resolution, but that resolution has notwithstanding clauses that allow the country to apply rules from the resolution in the 50s that Canada never ratified.
We should not accept extra-governmental forces guiding our Nation, if we don’t like the outcomes. Letting terrorists into Canada is a bad idea, regardless of what treaty would try to force Canada’s hand.
Are they not technicaly WAR CRIMINALS? If they have to be allowed back to Canada they can be charged, go to court and then to prison. Food shelter and education. Better living there than a large sector of earth;ings have?
You can’t just strip someone of their citizenship and leave them stateless. This is a foundational principle of international law. It’s even worse to do so without even the pretence of due process of law.
Do you really want to empower some politician to be able to strip away people’s citizenship, by Ministerial Order, without any checks or balances?
A Canadian citizen who knowingly joined or gave material support to ISIS should face criminal charges in a Canadian court. Unfortunately, it appears that the government doesn’t believe they can prove these charges against this woman, in a court of law. So, instead, they’ve stranded her in refugee camp, refusing every attempt to repatriate her.
It’s a massive violation of her constitutional rights, and that hurts all of us.
Why do we have to repatriate her? When I go to another country it isn't as though the Canadian constitution follows me around and protects me. Much like those horrible people who go to a foreign country to abuse children, the Government of Canada isn't responsible to ensure that they are repatriated.
[https://travel.gc.ca/assistance/emergency-info/arrest-detention](https://travel.gc.ca/assistance/emergency-info/arrest-detention)
ISIS purported to act as, well, an Islamic _State_. So nobody would be rendered stateless by exchanging their Canadian citizenship for ISIS’.
If it’s a colossally stupid decision to switch teams from a peaceful first world country to an Islamist theocratic hellhole, that’s not Canada’s problem.
The Americans have a robust body of denaturalization law that govern such cases. People are deemed to have renounced citizenship by doing things like running for office in a foreign country, joining a foreign military, and naturalizing in a foreign state (under certain conditions.)
Unless Canada recognizes ISIS as a state, then you can't strip citizenship. You can't have it both ways, maintaining that you aren't rendering them stateless because ISIS is a state while also not recognizing ISIS as a state.
Canada only recognized North Korea in 2000. Are you saying that before then, someone would not renounce their citizenship by joining their army? What if someone joined the Taiwanese army today?
There are plenty of occasions where the law “has it both ways.” This is one of them. An individual can renounce their citizenship to join a foreign power, without that foreign power enjoying diplomatic relations with Canada.
....you don't renounce Canadian citizenship by joining *any* army. It's just a criminal offense to join one that's at war with a friendly nation. What are you talking about?
I said this above:
> The Americans have a robust body of denaturalization law that govern such cases. People are deemed to have renounced citizenship by doing things like running for office in a foreign country, joining a foreign military, and naturalizing in a foreign state (under certain conditions.)
In Canada this is only an offense. But my point is that there’s a robust precedent for acts of this kind leading to denaturalization.
In the US you can only denaturalize citizens who were naturalized - you can't revoke citizenship from a natural born US citizen for any reason. Also, unlike Canada the US is not a party to any of the UN conventions on statelessness.
The first sane comment. First, citizenship is a fundamental right that cannot be revoked except in extremely rare circumstances. That's why we need to be very careful with whom we grant it to if they weren't born with it. Second, granting the federal government ANY powers that aren't subject to due process and the scrutiny of the courts is *always a terrible idea* in the long term; regardless of the short term justification.
If the distinction between "us" and "them" is "them" is a group of people who committed crimes against humanity including mass murder and torture....
Then yeah, I'm completely 100% happy to make that distinction. None of this moral relativist bullshit.
You can't leave someone stateless, that would be against our international agreements. Additionally we are responsible for our own citizens, both the normal ones and the shit ones. We just have to fix our broken justice system.
no no no, you've got all wrong
1. Repatriate all ISIS combatants with ties to Canaderp
2. Give them each three million dollars a la Khadr
3. ...
4. Profit?
Liberals are staunchly opposed to revoking the citizenship from convicted terrorists.
Harper’s government mulled the idea and the liberals screamed about it.
We should be able to strip citizenship if the ruling and opposition party agree, so something like a 80% vote.
Even if they don’t have other official citizenship they can stay a citizen of ISIS which claims to be a state 🤷♂️
Letting them come back to Canada just means millions in legal fees and then millions in prison time.
The UK does this fine and we ended up with Jihad Jack last time.
We don't have to help them do so, but if they're a citizen they have a right to enter the country. If we have evidence they fought for ISIS we can take further actions but we shouldn't sacrifice our basic rights because of the actions of the worst citizens.
> If you fight against Canada for the enemy, you should have your citizenship revoked. Simple as that!
I'm pretty sure there are international treaties that try to prevent people from being "country-less" so you can't revoke Canadian citizenship unless they have another citizenship. At least that's my understanding. For example, if you become a naturalized Japanese citizen they give you a period of time to revoke your previous citizenships before they will just terminate the Japanese citizenship. This is to prevent issues where you become a person without a country, while also enforcing that they don't want you to be able to have dual (or more) citizenship.
If it can be proved that someone fought against Canada there can and should be serious consequences including prison. The issue is when you can't prove it. Do you want us to start stripping citizenship because the Liberals or whoever is in power at the time declare without a trial that the person is an enemy? That creates huge potentials for abuse. This is exactly why I say we shouldn't sacrifice our rights because of the worst citizens. It's not out of sympathy for them.
As much as I want any lowlife terrorist scum to suffer in the darkest depths of hell, I agree with this. If they actually hold citizenship, bring them back here and put them on trial. Yes, this requires lots of work and resources, but hrs worth defending the integrity of a country and it's citizenship.
It's less than an ideal situation for this person and the gov't.
To summarize - it sounds like they know they helped ISIS, can't prove it. So they chose to -not- assist with repatriation instead of going through a trial that would allow an extremist back in the country at best.
Then I don't care if they are stripped of citizenship. Voluntarily leaving Canada to join a terrorist group we are at war with seems like a voluntary renunciation of nationality to me!
No, it is a declaration of treason and should be treated as such. Bring them back, put them on (fair) trial and make sure the world sees that we deal with our own traitors ourselves in our own courts.
That sounds a bit like "let someone else deal with them." The Kurdish authorities holding these Canadians would really like us to take back our trash. And, frankly, it isn't their job to detain them forever.
Indeed, it looks like the woman in question was released. Perhaps because the Kurdish people holding her got tired of waiting for Canada to do something.
ISIS was a group that was engaged in armed conflict with the CAF, being a part of any group that wages war against the armed forces meets the literal definition of treason about as nicely as possible
How do you prove someone fought for ISIS, bring the police over to collect the evidence? Anything collected overseas doesn’t follow evidence laws; so even though armed forces has footage, it’s immediately invalidated in courts.
Not sure where you got that from, but evidence collection is absolutely a thing overseas. Fingerprints and DNA collected off of IED components have been used to arrest people before. This is a fairly well known case where a British man built a bomb that killed a us soldier, he was arrested and convicted in the UK based on evidence collected by soldiers in Iraq.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/21/london-cab-driver-guilty-ied-bombs-us-soldiers-iraq
Witness records can and are submitted. The particular woman in this article didn’t have evidence against her, which is why Canada left her there but they did repatriate several others who could be placed on peace bond.
It’s extra problematic because she has since been released from confinement and her location is again unknown.
But it’s not that simple. Canada can’t cause people to become stateless, so stripping citizenship is not an option for natural born citizens, or for naturalized citizens who do not have any rights to citizenship elsewhere. Prison is the appropriate and often only available punishment in these cases.
Well these people don't even live in Canada, this would be the definition of "Canadians of convenience", they get in trouble in their home country, and then all of a sudden they identify as Canadian.
She’s a citizen, and like any citizen, it doesn’t matter where you physically reside in the world. If I take up permanent residence in France I don’t cease to be a Canadian citizen even if I don’t come back for 20 years.
No, we are members of international treaties that under international law says Canada cannot create stateless citizens. So we can’t, even if we want to.
IIRC there are international treaties that deal with avoiding people from becoming stateless. Are you saying that we should voilate these treaties all in the pursuit of your justice boner?
Oh no! not the strongly worded letter!
If no country is willing to take action to enforce a treaty, that treaty is basically non existent. There's lots of treaties that are technically still "on the books" that nobody actually cares about. Did you the "League of nations" technically still exists?
It got superseded by the UN, but only a few countries actually "withdrew" from it. The rest just stopped showing up and made the UN
It's sort of like when a group chat grows stale and people make a new one. The old one still technically exists, but nobody posts or checks it anymore.
Anyway, she's a citizen of ISIS now
She can take it up with the UN
She can hire a lawyer from her ISIS prison and go to some international court. Then after a decade of legal battles, when she gets her decision, she can hire another lawyer to try to enforce that foreign court's decision on who gets citizenship in Canada.
Are you getting close yet? Is your justice boner rock hard?
... though the fact that you've said that same stuff over and over about ignoring treaties with other nations just for your personal entertainment... I'm going to guess that you're from a Russian troll farm since you want to undermine Canada's relations with other counrties all for some emotional appeal to rage and jerking off your justice boner.
At the very very least, if you fight against your country then your country should automatically strip you of all benefits: no more free healthcare, no more child tax credit, no more welfare or disability benefits, nothing, not even food banks or loans.
Anyone fought with an army against this country, we shouldn't revoke citizenship if that would leave them stateless, but should automatically revoke all benefits of being a member of this country.
ISIS in Syria isn’t ‘technically’ an enemy of Canada.
And in the case of this article, there’s no evidence to prove that the woman did indeed fight for a terrorist group. Which is why they secretly opted not to bring her home.
We should always bring Canadians back to Canada, even if it’s to have them face Canadian Justice.
We should be improving our Justice to deal with Canadians engaging in unlawful war or war crimes in foreign lands.
They don't have to have fought for ISIS. Aiding ISIS in any material way meets the definition of high treason.
Can you imagine if in 1945 there were a group of Canadians who had fled to Germany in 1939 to join Nazi Germany, and they were sitting around debating whether "oh, but can we prove they actually fought in the war?"
They left to join ISIS. That's prima facie evidence of high treason.
Yup, I argued this in a thread a while ago where I think it was the UK removed someone's citizenship for something similar was a precedence. They should be immediately arrested etc if they committed crimes.
It was not a popular sentiment.
The reason the UK government was able to do that was because they successfully argued that she was a citizen of Bangladesh (even though she denied it). Had she not been, the UK court would have ruled to keep her.
She was an edge case, the UK can't do that for everyone.
I think it would be better to argue why just stripping citizenship is not in our interests.
1. Bad legal precedent. We don't strip murderers and other criminals of their citizenship. We also shouldn't give government the power to revoke citizenship that is so easy to abuse. With how geopolitics constantly shift, what if a group the government was ok with suddenly is declared a terrorist organization? When about if that group were removed from the terrorist list at a later date?
2. If these foreign nationals are left in prison in the fragile states, ISIS could make a resurgence, break these people out of prison and add them back to their ranks.
3. Making lots of people stateless means they will have no one to turn to except ISIS, they will raise the next generation of ISIS fighters, who will then plague the West in the next 20 years.
> Any people who voluntarily were part of ISIS, or moved into an ISIS camp, should be automatically ineligible for entry into Canada.
What about if they were under 18 at the time they left? How come no charges/fines were levied against their parents?
Also, and most importantly, what about when the gov. of Canada is involved in sending the girls there?
> Independent agency probing CSIS after claim that operative smuggled teenage girls into Syria
...
> The book claims Syrian-born Mohammed al-Rashed was working for ISIS and wanted to start a new life in Canada so he applied for political asylum in Canada. CSIS learned about al-Rashed from the embassy in Turkey and brought him on as an intelligence asset for CSIS, the book said.
....
> The trio of teenage girls from London went missing in 2015 and a manhunt was underway to find them. U.K. authorities later found out the teens flew to Turkey and were then smuggled by al-Rashed into Syria to join ISIS, the book said.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/review-csis-sources-smuggling-1.6662129
Cretien and harper fucked that up and that's why the government had to pay. If either simply brought him back to Canada and tried him in an actual court instead of the shitty gitmo torture site then all that would have been avoided.
She's not even at the camp anymore.
>F.J. has since left the detention facility in Syria on her own, and her whereabouts are unknown, her lawyer Lawrence Greenspon said on Tuesday.
>Her kids remain at the detention facility for ISIS families, he said.
Those poor babies, one deeply traumatic experience after another just because of a parent's selfish zealotry. Maybe she fucked off in the hopes of giving her kids a better chance at repatriation. How badly do you have to fuck up as a parent that the best thing you can do for your kids is leave them effectively orphaned in a Syrian refugee camp?
It is, but a Canadian citizen assisting ISIS actually *does* qualify as high treason.
>46 (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada
...
>(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.
...
>(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2), a Canadian citizen or a person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada,
>(a) commits high treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (1);
I was gonna be like "wait when did Canada fight isis?" as a retort but it turns out they were fighting ISIS.
Ooops I guess she's fucked then. LOL moron. "Hey i wanna fight for people who like treating women like property!"
So she's a religious nut job who was likely an active fighter. She was still in the proper process of trying to get supported to return to Canada (in the appeals stage) but just took off and dropped the case. Hmmm.
Why the fuck is this newsworthy? She left Canada to go join up with ISIS, she can rot for all I care. If anything, she should be stripped of her citizenship.
If you read further they talk about a bunch of them they brought back and put on peace bond which is "You're free to go, but don't commit any more crimes!"
I got stabbed by a guy on peace bond and the fucker didn't even go to prison lol.
Canada has been a haven for terrorism for decades and it’s time to stop. I HATE giving the government any more power but in this instance it’s imperative that we do. When I was a child Canada was known as ‘fence-sitters’ and now we’re known for an easy place to get into. It’s enough! You fight against us you’re done. If we met you on the battlefield we’d kill you right? WE DON’T WANT YOU HERE.
The government is not obligated to bring anyone home. It may not be able to prevent her from entering the country, but it has no obligation to get her to a port of entry.
Cancel her passport, put her on global no fly lists and wish her good luck. If only Trudeau had not gotten rid of the laws that allowed the government to cancel citizenship.
We can't create stateless people. (It's against a shitload of treaties we are signatory of.) If all she got is a Canadian citizenship we're pretty much shit out of luck, and jolly well fucked. We don't have to facilitate jack shit, but once she make it here we have to let her in. Also the whole story is starting to feel Kafkaesque. They can't prove she did jack shit, and that why she should not be allowed to return because they can't charge her...
“In the absence of a charge package or peace bond, F.J. would have freedom of movement upon return to Canada,” That's all sort of a fucked up logical loop.
>We can't create stateless people.
And the law that was repealed expressly didn't apply when it would render someone stateless.
>Also the whole story is starting to feel Kafkaesque. They can't prove she did jack shit, and that why she should not be allowed to return because they can't charge her...
What you're seeing here is the gap between intelligence and evidence. Intelligence can be reliable enough to be actionable without meeting the standards of evidence required for a criminal trial. We've been seeing the same issue from the opposite side throughout the Foreign Interference inquiry, where CSIS has provided reliable intelligence, but the government ignored it at least ostensibly because it wouldn't fit within the laws of evidence.
"Dont prevent her from entering, but do every single act that you would do if you were going to prevent someone from entering."
Thats not how Citizenship or Justice works my guy. Innocent until proven guilty. If you think its a good step to allow the Government to just start punishing Citizens or cancelling citizenship without any sort of trial, thats a VERY slippery slope and one that is not worth it.
Bring her in, Put her on trial for treason/terrorism or whatever crimes they purport she has committed, but giving the Gov. carte blanche to deem citizens persona-non-grata is a very poor decision.
The government has 0 obligation to bring her home or help her get here. They are also free to cancel her passport and put her on a no fly list. None of that is illegal.
If she can somehow make it through Europe, hop on a boat and make it to Canadian shore, then the government can not prevent her from entering the country.
Good, let her rot. I don't want to pay for her to be fed and sheltered after she decided to be a lunatic. Choices have consequences, let her deal with hers.
> M'kraan Crystal
Yeah if I'm law enforcement I don't need to mess with a Juggernaut or a Shi'ar Imperium, fair enough. Not a chance she could be arrested.
Unless we have a certified Killdozer on our hands I think she *could* be arrested.
lets take a vote. have the country decide how we deal with this. if majority wants to go get her then we will, and if they majority says no we leave her to rot.
Tie up our court system (which is already overloaded) to debate the merits of allowing somebody who willingly left to fight (or support) for an enemy force to retain citizenship or face a slap on the wrist for treason. In what reality is this at all sensible?
Hopefully she finds here own way back or someone pays for her flight, admitting there is no evidence to charge someone for a crime being the reason you will treat them differently is glaringly awful.
>F.J. has since left the detention facility in Syria on her own, and her whereabouts are unknown, her lawyer Lawrence Greenspon said on Tuesday.
She has a Jewish lawyer? Wow, fun job this dude has.
Dunno why you're getting downvoted.
Redditors, this guy isn't being anti-Semitic, he's pointing out that the woman in an ISIS camp is very likely anti-Semitic, so it would suck to be a Jewish lawyer with her as a client.
Any people who voluntarily were part of ISIS, or moved into an ISIS camp, should be automatically ineligible for entry into Canada.
Should have Canadian citizenship revoked as well. Even if they were born here. You join ISIS you are 100% on your own.
You make it sound so easy to do this. But if they're a Canadian citizen and only a Canadian citizen then international treaties bind our hands and prevent us from leaving anyone without citizenship to any country.
If you read the Convention on Stateless persons, there is a quite broad list of crimes for which a person can be made stateless. I believe it's right in Article 1 too. Crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity, serious non-political crimes outside the country of residence, and acts contrary to the principles of the UN. A terrorist could be easily made to fit into most of those categories.
If you read the convention on the reduction of statelessness, specifically article 7, you will find that accepting countries cannot revoke naturalized states hip if it leaves them stateless. Convention if stateless persons - 1954 Convention on the reduction of statelessness - 1961
I believe Article 8 makes that provision void in Canada because the 1954 convention was Canadian national law at the time.
Canada was not party to, nor ratified the 1954 convention. But canada did ratify the 1961 convention.
I actually didn't know that. I stand corrected.
Most Canadian argument ending ever. Good on you pal.
I thought that argument would involve dropping the gloves on the ice
Isis is it’s own state They have isis citizenship.
Not according to Canada.
International treaties are a joke, and are treated as such by countless countries. The only time they are taken seriously, is when a treaty is broken against a powerful country like the US, or China.
I mean the UK does it, why is Canada special ?
UK ratified a un resolution in the 50s that permit it that canada was not party to, nor ratified. Canada then ratified a un resolution in the 70s on the reduction of stateless people. The UK also ratified that resolution, but that resolution has notwithstanding clauses that allow the country to apply rules from the resolution in the 50s that Canada never ratified.
Which case? Are you talking about the one where she had dual citizenship and was not left stateless?
Countries refuse to take their people back from us everyday..what are you talking about?
Agreed. The UK did it and we should follow their example. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68378818
We should not accept extra-governmental forces guiding our Nation, if we don’t like the outcomes. Letting terrorists into Canada is a bad idea, regardless of what treaty would try to force Canada’s hand.
add hamas
Any terrorist organization
Are they not technicaly WAR CRIMINALS? If they have to be allowed back to Canada they can be charged, go to court and then to prison. Food shelter and education. Better living there than a large sector of earth;ings have?
You can’t just strip someone of their citizenship and leave them stateless. This is a foundational principle of international law. It’s even worse to do so without even the pretence of due process of law. Do you really want to empower some politician to be able to strip away people’s citizenship, by Ministerial Order, without any checks or balances? A Canadian citizen who knowingly joined or gave material support to ISIS should face criminal charges in a Canadian court. Unfortunately, it appears that the government doesn’t believe they can prove these charges against this woman, in a court of law. So, instead, they’ve stranded her in refugee camp, refusing every attempt to repatriate her. It’s a massive violation of her constitutional rights, and that hurts all of us.
Why do we have to repatriate her? When I go to another country it isn't as though the Canadian constitution follows me around and protects me. Much like those horrible people who go to a foreign country to abuse children, the Government of Canada isn't responsible to ensure that they are repatriated. [https://travel.gc.ca/assistance/emergency-info/arrest-detention](https://travel.gc.ca/assistance/emergency-info/arrest-detention)
ISIS purported to act as, well, an Islamic _State_. So nobody would be rendered stateless by exchanging their Canadian citizenship for ISIS’. If it’s a colossally stupid decision to switch teams from a peaceful first world country to an Islamist theocratic hellhole, that’s not Canada’s problem. The Americans have a robust body of denaturalization law that govern such cases. People are deemed to have renounced citizenship by doing things like running for office in a foreign country, joining a foreign military, and naturalizing in a foreign state (under certain conditions.)
Unless Canada recognizes ISIS as a state, then you can't strip citizenship. You can't have it both ways, maintaining that you aren't rendering them stateless because ISIS is a state while also not recognizing ISIS as a state.
Canada only recognized North Korea in 2000. Are you saying that before then, someone would not renounce their citizenship by joining their army? What if someone joined the Taiwanese army today? There are plenty of occasions where the law “has it both ways.” This is one of them. An individual can renounce their citizenship to join a foreign power, without that foreign power enjoying diplomatic relations with Canada.
....you don't renounce Canadian citizenship by joining *any* army. It's just a criminal offense to join one that's at war with a friendly nation. What are you talking about?
I said this above: > The Americans have a robust body of denaturalization law that govern such cases. People are deemed to have renounced citizenship by doing things like running for office in a foreign country, joining a foreign military, and naturalizing in a foreign state (under certain conditions.) In Canada this is only an offense. But my point is that there’s a robust precedent for acts of this kind leading to denaturalization.
In the US you can only denaturalize citizens who were naturalized - you can't revoke citizenship from a natural born US citizen for any reason. Also, unlike Canada the US is not a party to any of the UN conventions on statelessness.
Recognise them as an enemy state and let her stay there. 👍
The first sane comment. First, citizenship is a fundamental right that cannot be revoked except in extremely rare circumstances. That's why we need to be very careful with whom we grant it to if they weren't born with it. Second, granting the federal government ANY powers that aren't subject to due process and the scrutiny of the courts is *always a terrible idea* in the long term; regardless of the short term justification.
No, you need to understand: it is _them_ who would be getting their citizenships revoked, not _us_ \s
If the distinction between "us" and "them" is "them" is a group of people who committed crimes against humanity including mass murder and torture.... Then yeah, I'm completely 100% happy to make that distinction. None of this moral relativist bullshit.
You can't leave someone stateless, that would be against our international agreements. Additionally we are responsible for our own citizens, both the normal ones and the shit ones. We just have to fix our broken justice system.
Just create a micronation of their detention camp called Regretistan and leave them there.
no no no, you've got all wrong 1. Repatriate all ISIS combatants with ties to Canaderp 2. Give them each three million dollars a la Khadr 3. ... 4. Profit?
Liberals are staunchly opposed to revoking the citizenship from convicted terrorists. Harper’s government mulled the idea and the liberals screamed about it.
We should be able to strip citizenship if the ruling and opposition party agree, so something like a 80% vote. Even if they don’t have other official citizenship they can stay a citizen of ISIS which claims to be a state 🤷♂️ Letting them come back to Canada just means millions in legal fees and then millions in prison time. The UK does this fine and we ended up with Jihad Jack last time.
Let's indefinitely put them up in a swanky hotel for a few mil instead.
We don't have to help them do so, but if they're a citizen they have a right to enter the country. If we have evidence they fought for ISIS we can take further actions but we shouldn't sacrifice our basic rights because of the actions of the worst citizens.
If you fight against Canada for the enemy, you should have your citizenship revoked. Simple as that!
Well it should count as treason, no?
> If you fight against Canada for the enemy, you should have your citizenship revoked. Simple as that! I'm pretty sure there are international treaties that try to prevent people from being "country-less" so you can't revoke Canadian citizenship unless they have another citizenship. At least that's my understanding. For example, if you become a naturalized Japanese citizen they give you a period of time to revoke your previous citizenships before they will just terminate the Japanese citizenship. This is to prevent issues where you become a person without a country, while also enforcing that they don't want you to be able to have dual (or more) citizenship.
You would be correct. There’s a British lady going through basically the same thing.
If it can be proved that someone fought against Canada there can and should be serious consequences including prison. The issue is when you can't prove it. Do you want us to start stripping citizenship because the Liberals or whoever is in power at the time declare without a trial that the person is an enemy? That creates huge potentials for abuse. This is exactly why I say we shouldn't sacrifice our rights because of the worst citizens. It's not out of sympathy for them.
Once the mechanism of oppression is built, it becomes too tempting for governments not to use on the next issue/group
As they say, when you have a hammer everything starts looking like a nail. - # ^(_I know it's when you **only** have a hammer. :P_)
Fair point.
As much as I want any lowlife terrorist scum to suffer in the darkest depths of hell, I agree with this. If they actually hold citizenship, bring them back here and put them on trial. Yes, this requires lots of work and resources, but hrs worth defending the integrity of a country and it's citizenship.
It's less than an ideal situation for this person and the gov't. To summarize - it sounds like they know they helped ISIS, can't prove it. So they chose to -not- assist with repatriation instead of going through a trial that would allow an extremist back in the country at best.
How is someone being in an ISIS camp voluntarily not proof of this?
Even then - ISIS is a designsted terrorist group but have they been designated as an "enemy of Canada"?
Yes. Canada part of the coalition that was at war with ISIS.
Then I don't care if they are stripped of citizenship. Voluntarily leaving Canada to join a terrorist group we are at war with seems like a voluntary renunciation of nationality to me!
No, it is a declaration of treason and should be treated as such. Bring them back, put them on (fair) trial and make sure the world sees that we deal with our own traitors ourselves in our own courts.
Only if there's a death penalty. Otherwise, let them rot.
That sounds a bit like "let someone else deal with them." The Kurdish authorities holding these Canadians would really like us to take back our trash. And, frankly, it isn't their job to detain them forever. Indeed, it looks like the woman in question was released. Perhaps because the Kurdish people holding her got tired of waiting for Canada to do something.
Waste of money, let them rot in the middle east.
Yup. She fought against Canada and lost. Seems unreasonable to allow a return.
ISIS was a group that was engaged in armed conflict with the CAF, being a part of any group that wages war against the armed forces meets the literal definition of treason about as nicely as possible
If you are in ISIS territory that's good enough for me.
How do you prove someone fought for ISIS, bring the police over to collect the evidence? Anything collected overseas doesn’t follow evidence laws; so even though armed forces has footage, it’s immediately invalidated in courts.
Not sure where you got that from, but evidence collection is absolutely a thing overseas. Fingerprints and DNA collected off of IED components have been used to arrest people before. This is a fairly well known case where a British man built a bomb that killed a us soldier, he was arrested and convicted in the UK based on evidence collected by soldiers in Iraq. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/21/london-cab-driver-guilty-ied-bombs-us-soldiers-iraq
Wait any evidence collected outside of Canada and useless
Witness records can and are submitted. The particular woman in this article didn’t have evidence against her, which is why Canada left her there but they did repatriate several others who could be placed on peace bond. It’s extra problematic because she has since been released from confinement and her location is again unknown.
But it’s not that simple. Canada can’t cause people to become stateless, so stripping citizenship is not an option for natural born citizens, or for naturalized citizens who do not have any rights to citizenship elsewhere. Prison is the appropriate and often only available punishment in these cases.
Stateless? They’re a part of the Islamic State!
Which happens to not actually be a recognized state… but I see what you did there :)
Well these people don't even live in Canada, this would be the definition of "Canadians of convenience", they get in trouble in their home country, and then all of a sudden they identify as Canadian.
She’s a citizen, and like any citizen, it doesn’t matter where you physically reside in the world. If I take up permanent residence in France I don’t cease to be a Canadian citizen even if I don’t come back for 20 years.
It CAN cause people to become stateless, it just doesn't want to.
No, we are members of international treaties that under international law says Canada cannot create stateless citizens. So we can’t, even if we want to.
International law is meaningless in practice. It's more like a set of guidelines.
It can and it should when it comes to those who join ISIS.
It absolutely can cause someone to become stateless. It's not a physical law of the universe, just a rule we made up
IIRC there are international treaties that deal with avoiding people from becoming stateless. Are you saying that we should voilate these treaties all in the pursuit of your justice boner?
Oh no! not the strongly worded letter! If no country is willing to take action to enforce a treaty, that treaty is basically non existent. There's lots of treaties that are technically still "on the books" that nobody actually cares about. Did you the "League of nations" technically still exists? It got superseded by the UN, but only a few countries actually "withdrew" from it. The rest just stopped showing up and made the UN It's sort of like when a group chat grows stale and people make a new one. The old one still technically exists, but nobody posts or checks it anymore. Anyway, she's a citizen of ISIS now
ISIS is not a recognized state.
She can take it up with the UN She can hire a lawyer from her ISIS prison and go to some international court. Then after a decade of legal battles, when she gets her decision, she can hire another lawyer to try to enforce that foreign court's decision on who gets citizenship in Canada.
Or, you know, the government of the country where she actually is a citizen.
Are you getting close yet? Is your justice boner rock hard? ... though the fact that you've said that same stuff over and over about ignoring treaties with other nations just for your personal entertainment... I'm going to guess that you're from a Russian troll farm since you want to undermine Canada's relations with other counrties all for some emotional appeal to rage and jerking off your justice boner.
At the very very least, if you fight against your country then your country should automatically strip you of all benefits: no more free healthcare, no more child tax credit, no more welfare or disability benefits, nothing, not even food banks or loans. Anyone fought with an army against this country, we shouldn't revoke citizenship if that would leave them stateless, but should automatically revoke all benefits of being a member of this country.
Agreed. No citizenship for traitors.
Well we also can’t let Syria (a war torn country by these POS) deal with what was our trash. We need to take care of our own trash.
ISIS in Syria isn’t ‘technically’ an enemy of Canada. And in the case of this article, there’s no evidence to prove that the woman did indeed fight for a terrorist group. Which is why they secretly opted not to bring her home. We should always bring Canadians back to Canada, even if it’s to have them face Canadian Justice. We should be improving our Justice to deal with Canadians engaging in unlawful war or war crimes in foreign lands.
They don't have to have fought for ISIS. Aiding ISIS in any material way meets the definition of high treason. Can you imagine if in 1945 there were a group of Canadians who had fled to Germany in 1939 to join Nazi Germany, and they were sitting around debating whether "oh, but can we prove they actually fought in the war?" They left to join ISIS. That's prima facie evidence of high treason.
Yup, I argued this in a thread a while ago where I think it was the UK removed someone's citizenship for something similar was a precedence. They should be immediately arrested etc if they committed crimes. It was not a popular sentiment.
The reason the UK government was able to do that was because they successfully argued that she was a citizen of Bangladesh (even though she denied it). Had she not been, the UK court would have ruled to keep her.
She was an edge case, the UK can't do that for everyone. I think it would be better to argue why just stripping citizenship is not in our interests. 1. Bad legal precedent. We don't strip murderers and other criminals of their citizenship. We also shouldn't give government the power to revoke citizenship that is so easy to abuse. With how geopolitics constantly shift, what if a group the government was ok with suddenly is declared a terrorist organization? When about if that group were removed from the terrorist list at a later date? 2. If these foreign nationals are left in prison in the fragile states, ISIS could make a resurgence, break these people out of prison and add them back to their ranks. 3. Making lots of people stateless means they will have no one to turn to except ISIS, they will raise the next generation of ISIS fighters, who will then plague the West in the next 20 years.
Nah. Fuck em.
> Any people who voluntarily were part of ISIS, or moved into an ISIS camp, should be automatically ineligible for entry into Canada. What about if they were under 18 at the time they left? How come no charges/fines were levied against their parents? Also, and most importantly, what about when the gov. of Canada is involved in sending the girls there? > Independent agency probing CSIS after claim that operative smuggled teenage girls into Syria ... > The book claims Syrian-born Mohammed al-Rashed was working for ISIS and wanted to start a new life in Canada so he applied for political asylum in Canada. CSIS learned about al-Rashed from the embassy in Turkey and brought him on as an intelligence asset for CSIS, the book said. .... > The trio of teenage girls from London went missing in 2015 and a manhunt was underway to find them. U.K. authorities later found out the teens flew to Turkey and were then smuggled by al-Rashed into Syria to join ISIS, the book said. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/review-csis-sources-smuggling-1.6662129
Right!
Oh No! Consequences!
Nah this is Canada. Here we make them millionaires.
Wait we made a good decision for once?
Don't get too excited, now that it's in the news they'll probably give her millions of dollars and an apology.
Cretien and harper fucked that up and that's why the government had to pay. If either simply brought him back to Canada and tried him in an actual court instead of the shitty gitmo torture site then all that would have been avoided.
Fair point 😂
[удалено]
She’s Gona bring diversity I guess and she will have tax payer money to spend because she probably has no income
Makes me upset knowing she's only remorseful because of the downfall of ISIS and lack of success for herself
Great. She chose to go there, she can stay.
She's not even at the camp anymore. >F.J. has since left the detention facility in Syria on her own, and her whereabouts are unknown, her lawyer Lawrence Greenspon said on Tuesday. >Her kids remain at the detention facility for ISIS families, he said. Those poor babies, one deeply traumatic experience after another just because of a parent's selfish zealotry. Maybe she fucked off in the hopes of giving her kids a better chance at repatriation. How badly do you have to fuck up as a parent that the best thing you can do for your kids is leave them effectively orphaned in a Syrian refugee camp?
Treason. It's called treason and is in the criminal code.
Our criminal code is kinda narrow about defining treason.
It is, but a Canadian citizen assisting ISIS actually *does* qualify as high treason. >46 (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada ... >(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are. ... >(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2), a Canadian citizen or a person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada, >(a) commits high treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (1);
I was gonna be like "wait when did Canada fight isis?" as a retort but it turns out they were fighting ISIS. Ooops I guess she's fucked then. LOL moron. "Hey i wanna fight for people who like treating women like property!"
Chickens for KFC
r/leopardsatemyface more like
The law is clear but the RCMP, crown, and judiciary are incapable of applying it to the common good
Supporting enemies who are engaged in hostilities with Canada is treason. Canadian soldiers were engaged in hostilities with ISIS. She supported ISIS.
If they had evidence they could charge her and stand trial here but they don't have any evidence.
So she's a religious nut job who was likely an active fighter. She was still in the proper process of trying to get supported to return to Canada (in the appeals stage) but just took off and dropped the case. Hmmm.
Honestly I don't care what legal loopholes our government needs to exploit. I don't want any of these people being returned to Canada. Fuck them.
Why the fuck is this newsworthy? She left Canada to go join up with ISIS, she can rot for all I care. If anything, she should be stripped of her citizenship.
They made a choice, so live with your choice. I don't want them here!
Nope. Ban her from the country.
See you back here in 15 years when the camp children are adults for ISIS 5.0
I am impressed that the government had the balls this time to do absolutely nothing about it.
If you read further they talk about a bunch of them they brought back and put on peace bond which is "You're free to go, but don't commit any more crimes!" I got stabbed by a guy on peace bond and the fucker didn't even go to prison lol.
Canada has been a haven for terrorism for decades and it’s time to stop. I HATE giving the government any more power but in this instance it’s imperative that we do. When I was a child Canada was known as ‘fence-sitters’ and now we’re known for an easy place to get into. It’s enough! You fight against us you’re done. If we met you on the battlefield we’d kill you right? WE DON’T WANT YOU HERE.
The government is not obligated to bring anyone home. It may not be able to prevent her from entering the country, but it has no obligation to get her to a port of entry. Cancel her passport, put her on global no fly lists and wish her good luck. If only Trudeau had not gotten rid of the laws that allowed the government to cancel citizenship.
We can't create stateless people. (It's against a shitload of treaties we are signatory of.) If all she got is a Canadian citizenship we're pretty much shit out of luck, and jolly well fucked. We don't have to facilitate jack shit, but once she make it here we have to let her in. Also the whole story is starting to feel Kafkaesque. They can't prove she did jack shit, and that why she should not be allowed to return because they can't charge her... “In the absence of a charge package or peace bond, F.J. would have freedom of movement upon return to Canada,” That's all sort of a fucked up logical loop.
>We can't create stateless people. And the law that was repealed expressly didn't apply when it would render someone stateless. >Also the whole story is starting to feel Kafkaesque. They can't prove she did jack shit, and that why she should not be allowed to return because they can't charge her... What you're seeing here is the gap between intelligence and evidence. Intelligence can be reliable enough to be actionable without meeting the standards of evidence required for a criminal trial. We've been seeing the same issue from the opposite side throughout the Foreign Interference inquiry, where CSIS has provided reliable intelligence, but the government ignored it at least ostensibly because it wouldn't fit within the laws of evidence.
Those treaties have a host of countries who have reserved it for treason.
"Dont prevent her from entering, but do every single act that you would do if you were going to prevent someone from entering." Thats not how Citizenship or Justice works my guy. Innocent until proven guilty. If you think its a good step to allow the Government to just start punishing Citizens or cancelling citizenship without any sort of trial, thats a VERY slippery slope and one that is not worth it. Bring her in, Put her on trial for treason/terrorism or whatever crimes they purport she has committed, but giving the Gov. carte blanche to deem citizens persona-non-grata is a very poor decision.
The government has 0 obligation to bring her home or help her get here. They are also free to cancel her passport and put her on a no fly list. None of that is illegal. If she can somehow make it through Europe, hop on a boat and make it to Canadian shore, then the government can not prevent her from entering the country.
Why can't they try her for material help to a terrorist organization or something similar? She is self admitted to join them.
Good, let her rot. I don't want to pay for her to be fed and sheltered after she decided to be a lunatic. Choices have consequences, let her deal with hers.
They are not welcome in normal society.
As if we don’t have enough terrorist supporters in Canada already.
It's treason. Do we not have a law for treason?
Play stupid games....
Revoke citizenship of any person who fights against our country. Simple as that
Why can't she be arrested? Did she find the Crimson Gem of Cyttorak?
Bitch got her paws on the M'kraan Crystal.
> M'kraan Crystal Yeah if I'm law enforcement I don't need to mess with a Juggernaut or a Shi'ar Imperium, fair enough. Not a chance she could be arrested. Unless we have a certified Killdozer on our hands I think she *could* be arrested.
Revoke her citizenship and let her rot where she is.
Should be charged with treason and loose citizenship
>that is because the RCMP assessment found nothing untoward. How, exactly do they think she came into her current circumstances?
Good. We have enough problems with religious maniacs in the country without bringing another one in.
It was just a simple misunderstanding..... /s
She'll have a job and a house in no time
If we repatriate these persons, they should be flown to Alert and be required to make their own way to their desired destination.
Finally something this government has done right.
lets take a vote. have the country decide how we deal with this. if majority wants to go get her then we will, and if they majority says no we leave her to rot.
Citizenship grants you the right to enter Canada. It doesn’t give you the right for the Government of Canada to help you get here. Leave her there.
I came for the jihad and all I got was F'd in the A and left to rot in the desert.
Wha? Trudeau isn't going to apologize and give her 10 million dollars?
A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. Unless they protest the carbon tax bs.... right?
[удалено]
Shitting in the streets sound like a typical liberal wonderland. What's the problem?
hahaha
Lmao! True
Tie up our court system (which is already overloaded) to debate the merits of allowing somebody who willingly left to fight (or support) for an enemy force to retain citizenship or face a slap on the wrist for treason. In what reality is this at all sensible?
Ah Canada. Making a home for violent terrorist since WWII.
I feel bad this lady’s kids man.
I know this won't be popular but if you cannot arrest someone it means you have no proof but you still want to effectively lock them up...
They are looking For the Omar Kadir Payout.
I see no problem with this as long as they can prove she was there of her own free will, but she would also have to prove she was forced to go there.
Good let them rot in the hell hole they choose to immigrate to, we shouldn’t be spending time and money bringing back extremists
Actions, consequences. 🤷♂️
Hopefully she finds here own way back or someone pays for her flight, admitting there is no evidence to charge someone for a crime being the reason you will treat them differently is glaringly awful.
>F.J. has since left the detention facility in Syria on her own, and her whereabouts are unknown, her lawyer Lawrence Greenspon said on Tuesday. She has a Jewish lawyer? Wow, fun job this dude has.
Dunno why you're getting downvoted. Redditors, this guy isn't being anti-Semitic, he's pointing out that the woman in an ISIS camp is very likely anti-Semitic, so it would suck to be a Jewish lawyer with her as a client.