Canadian Political Events

Federal Politics => Canadian Politics => Topic started by: Boges on August 20, 2019, 02:12:47 pm

Title: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: Boges on August 20, 2019, 02:12:47 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/jihadi-jack-citizenship-canada-uk-isis-1.5253121

So a British-born ISIS fighter gets captured in Syria. He as Canadian parents and is therefore a dual citizen. The UK has recently stripped him of hi citizenship. This is something that Canada could have done before JT changed the law. The only citizenship he has left is that of Canada, are we his responsibility?

Quote
According to Letts's father John Letts, who is from southern Ontario but lives in Oxford, the Kurds expressed willingness last year to hand his son over to Canadian authorities. He has also said Global Affairs Canada told the family for months that it was working to get Jack released, but the department then decided it was too dangerous.

Quote
Leah West, a lecturer in national security law and counterterrorism,​​​​ told CBC's News Network on the weekend it's possible Letts could be prosecuted for terrorism offences in Canada. But the case for prosecution faces "hurdles" because Letts originally travelled from Britain — not Canada, said West, who's at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa.

"There's crimes in the Criminal Code for leaving Canada to facilitate terrorist activity or to commit offences on behalf of a terrorist organization. Letts doesn't fall within that category. He's not susceptible to prosecution for this offence because he did not leave Canada in order to do that."

If the Kurds let him go, will we be stuck with a terrorist that's never lived in Canada because JT insists once a Canadian, always a Canadian?

Interesting moral question.

Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: Omni on August 20, 2019, 02:30:08 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/jihadi-jack-citizenship-canada-uk-isis-1.5253121

So a British Born ISIS fighter gets captured in Syria. He as Canadian parents and is therefore a dual citizenship. The UK has recently stripped his citizenship. This is something that Canada could have done before JT changed the law.

If the Kurds let him go, will we be stuck with a terrorist that's never lived in Canada because JT insists once a Canadian, always a Canadian?

Interesting moral question.

Fuck Britain and their dereliction of duty. He's a citizen of theirs by birth, and I would be fine if they brought him back, put him on trial, and threw him in jail if they find him guilty. Citizenship should have some meaning and a government simply trying to wash their hands of it is scary and wimp assed when you look at the broader picture. Let's see, the current PM doesn't like the cut of your jib so you're not a citizen anymore. I'm sure Saudi does a similar thing.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: the_squid on August 20, 2019, 03:43:37 pm
**** Britain and their dereliction of duty. He's a citizen of theirs by birth, and I would be fine if they brought him back, put him on trial, and threw him in jail if they find him guilty. Citizenship should have some meaning and a government simply trying to wash their hands of it is scary and wimp assed when you look at the broader picture. Let's see, the current PM doesn't like the cut of your jib so you're not a citizen anymore. I'm sure Saudi does a similar thing.

He’s also Canadian citizen...  regardless of what Britain did.  So what should Canada do then? 

“A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: wilber on August 20, 2019, 03:50:24 pm
He’s also Canadian citizen...  regardless of what Britain did.  So what should Canada do then? 

“A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”

Even if you were born somewhere else, never lived in Canada and have publicly stated you are British, not Canadian? What do we owe such a person?
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: Omni on August 20, 2019, 03:56:56 pm

Even if you were born somewhere else, never lived in Canada and have publicly stated you are British, not Canadian? What do we owe such a person?

I'm certainly not a fan of this particular guy but the overarching concept is you put citizenship laws in place and you abide by them. You don't change them on a day by day basis because you don't like the color of someones skin for instance.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: wilber on August 20, 2019, 04:05:02 pm
I'm certainly not a fan of this particular guy but the overarching concept is you put citizenship laws in place and you abide by them. You don't change them on a day by day basis because you don't like the color of someones skin for instance.

I don't advocate breaking the law but maybe we should change it. This guy may have a Canadian father but in reality he is no more Canadian than Donald Trump.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: Omni on August 20, 2019, 04:11:49 pm
I don't advocate breaking the law but maybe we should change it. This guy may have a Canadian father but in reality he is no more Canadian than Donald Trump.

The upside, if I can call it that is you honor his citizenship, put him on trial in a Canadian court and if found guilty he goes to jail and stops being a threat. Not sure what the fuck ya do with trumpdy dumpdy. He's already admitted he is a criminal ( I like to grab women by the pussy) but the US makes him president. What's wrong with this world?
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: wilber on August 20, 2019, 04:32:31 pm
The upside, if I can call it that is you honor his citizenship, put him on trial in a Canadian court and if found guilty he goes to jail and stops being a threat. Not sure what the **** ya do with trumpdy dumpdy. He's already admitted he is a criminal ( I like to grab women by the ****) but the US makes him president. What's wrong with this world?

Prosecution could be difficult. A: He didn't leave Canada to join ISIS, so did he break Canadian law?. B: How do you get live, willing witnesses from Kurdistan and Syria. Stuff like that.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: the_squid on August 20, 2019, 04:36:06 pm
I don't advocate breaking the law but maybe we should change it. This guy may have a Canadian father but in reality he is no more Canadian than Donald Trump.

Not true.  He has Canadian citizenship. 
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: wilber on August 20, 2019, 04:40:17 pm
Not true.  He has Canadian citizenship.

I know but he wasn't born here, nor has he lived here. I Imagine we will take him back though, I just hope we can prosecute him successfully because if we can't, it will set an awful precedent for the future.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: the_squid on August 20, 2019, 04:43:53 pm
I know but he wasn't born here, nor has he lived here. I Imagine we will take him back though, I just hope we can prosecute him successfully because if we can't, it will set an awful precedent for the future.

Hopefully we have an extradition treaty with a country who would like to prosecute him for crimes against their people/country perhaps...    I don’t know enough about what he’s accused of though.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: the_squid on August 20, 2019, 04:47:02 pm
Quote
...because JT insists once a Canadian, always a Canadian?

Totally unfair characterization.  The Harper government could have changed the law in their decade+ of governing.  Instead, they kicked the can down the road and tried to use it as a political issue during election time. 

Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: Omni on August 20, 2019, 04:47:09 pm
Hopefully we have an extradition treaty with a country who would like to prosecute him for crimes against their people/country perhaps...    I don’t know enough about what he’s accused of though.

We can prosecute him here for having traveled abroad to promote/participate in terrorism.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: wilber on August 20, 2019, 04:54:56 pm
We can prosecute him here for having traveled abroad to promote/participate in terrorism.

He didn't travel abroad from Canada. Some legal beagles think this could be an issue with Canadian law as it is written. Hope not.

Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: Omni on August 20, 2019, 04:59:19 pm
He didn't travel abroad from Canada. Some legal beagles think this could be an issue with Canadian law as it is written. Hope not.

Point being, once again, if he returns here we can prosecute him under Canadian law rather than letting him continue working for ISIS or whoever, which is what the UK ruling will allow.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: wilber on August 20, 2019, 05:00:42 pm
Point being, once again, if he returns here we can prosecute him under Canadian law rather than letting him continue working for ISIS or whoever, which is what the UK ruling will allow.

 It seems he travelled as a UK citizen so does that make him eligible to be prosecuted as a Canadian citizen? Things like that concern me.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: wilber on August 20, 2019, 05:08:18 pm
Just watching Goodale on Power and Politics. He says Canada is not obliged to repatriate him. Does anyone else see a parallel between this and Harpers attitude toward Khadr in Gitmo?
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: the_squid on August 20, 2019, 05:13:00 pm
Point being, once again, if he returns here we can prosecute him under Canadian law rather than letting him continue working for ISIS or whoever, which is what the UK ruling will allow.

You weren’t reading what Wilber was saying....    He may not have broken Canadian laws as they are written with respect to Canadians participating in foreign terrorism. 

Quote
“We are between a rock and a hard place. Our legislation works on the assumption — actually stated in legislation — that you have to leave from Canada in order to be prosecuted for a terrorist offence. We are unable to initiate any prosecution,” he said.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/canada/ive-always-felt-i-am-canadian-jihadi-jack-hopes-to-take-refuge-in-canada/wcm/b5dce5f4-0d0d-49c5-9d6b-d0aefe88f240
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: the_squid on August 20, 2019, 05:15:20 pm
Just watching Goodale on Power and Politics. He says Canada is not obliged to repatriate him. Does anyone else see a parallel between this and Harpers attitude toward Khadr in Gitmo?

Not really.  Khadr was a Canadian born citizen with no other citizenship. Canada has an argument to make that Canada still considers Jack a Brit.   Seems like a reasonable position to take when your ally tries to offload a terrorist onto you. 
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: Omni on August 20, 2019, 05:22:43 pm
You weren’t reading what Wilber was saying....    He may not have broken Canadian laws as they are written with respect to Canadians participating in foreign terrorism.

Bottom line is we should not start tweaking such important laws to suit this or that current emotion.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: the_squid on August 20, 2019, 05:25:14 pm
Bottom line is we should not start tweaking such important laws to suit this or that current emotion.

I would say that it’s reasonable to strip a citizen who wasn’t born here and never lived here of their citizenship if they’re a terrorist.

What do you think?  Would that be reasonable? 

The way the law is written now, it may be that the Canadian citizen Jihadi-Jack could be a free man if he is allowed into Canada.  I don’t think that’s reasonable....
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: wilber on August 20, 2019, 05:25:37 pm
Not really.  Khadr was a Canadian born citizen with no other citizenship. Canada has an argument to make that Canada still considers Jack a Brit.   Seems like a reasonable position to take when your ally tries to offload a terrorist onto you.

Britain revoked his citizenship because they can under their law. We have no place telling other countries who they must have as citizens. I think the Brits are using his Canadian citizenship as a cop out but it is our law that will allow it, not theirs.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: wilber on August 20, 2019, 05:27:38 pm
I would say that it’s reasonable to strip a citizen who wasn’t born here and never lived here of their citizenship if they’re a terrorist.

What do you think?  Would that be reasonable?

I think so. We always go on about  the rights of citizenship but what about the obligations a citizen has to his country.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: the_squid on August 20, 2019, 05:28:53 pm
Britain revoked his citizenship because they can under their law. We have no place telling other countries who they must have as citizens. I think the Brits are using his Canadian citizenship as a cop out but it is our law that will allow it, not theirs.

That’s fine.  But that doesn’t mean Canada necessarily has to take him...   we’re allowed to have an opinion on Jack, regardless of British law.  If Canada is of the opinion that he’s not our’s to deal with, that seems fine to me.  Jihadi-Jack can fight it in court, of course. 
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: Goddess on August 20, 2019, 05:59:54 pm
We always go on about  the rights of citizenship but what about the obligations a citizen has to his country.

Ya, I asked that very question on the other site one time and everyone agreed that citizens have no responsibilities or obligations.  It was weird.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: the_squid on August 20, 2019, 06:02:01 pm
Ya, I asked that very question on the other site one time and everyone agreed that citizens have no responsibilities or obligations.  It was weird.

So enlighten us...   what are the obligations we should have as citizens or have our citizenship taken away?

Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on August 20, 2019, 06:35:45 pm
Even if you were born somewhere else, never lived in Canada and have publicly stated you are British, not Canadian? What do we owe such a person?

I find it ironic that the Trudeau gov is treating Jack just like the Harper gov treated Omar Khadr.  Looks like the UK are the smart ones & now we look like the fools, again.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: ?Impact on August 20, 2019, 06:53:48 pm
Looks like the UK are the smart ones & now we look like the fools, again.

No, the UK are the immoral ones.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: wilber on August 20, 2019, 07:31:52 pm
So enlighten us...   what are the obligations we should have as citizens or have our citizenship taken away?
Not to fight for terrorist organizations against our own military for starters. I'm not  in favour of making people stateless but dual citizens who weren't born or live here, dam right.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: Boges on August 21, 2019, 08:18:43 am
Perhaps if we are dead set on making Citizenship an irrevocable right. Then we probably shouldn't be allowing people who've never lived in Canada and have no loyalty to Canada be citizens.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: the_squid on August 21, 2019, 10:07:29 am
Perhaps if we are dead set on making Citizenship an irrevocable right. Then we probably shouldn't be allowing people who've never lived in Canada and have no loyalty to Canada be citizens.

Seems reasonable. 
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: Omni on August 21, 2019, 12:10:39 pm
Seems reasonable.

Um, what would you propose to do with children who are born abroad to Canadian parents who for instance are serving the country overseas?
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: the_squid on August 21, 2019, 03:43:39 pm
Um, what would you propose to do with children who are born abroad to Canadian parents who for instance are serving the country overseas?

Ummm...  make an exception in the law for those circumstances.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: ?Impact on August 21, 2019, 03:55:57 pm
Perhaps if we are dead set on making Citizenship an irrevocable right. Then we probably shouldn't be allowing people who've never lived in Canada and have no loyalty to Canada be citizens.

Yes, maybe age would be a defining criteria. I don't know how old the individual in this specific circumstance, but my suggestion is give people 3 years after their 18th birthday (ie. by age 21) to take up residency (minimum 6 months) to maintain their citizenship.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: Boges on August 22, 2019, 10:50:49 am
Um, what would you propose to do with children who are born abroad to Canadian parents who for instance are serving the country overseas?

That narrow exception kind of proves the rule.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on August 22, 2019, 11:04:42 am
Somebody born and raised in another country who has never lived in Canada, but goes to fight for a group dedicated to destroying Canada is not anywhere near close to the same as somebody born and raised in Canada, so why should they be treated as such?

"A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian" is nonsense since there's always exceptions, like this a$$hat.  Dual-citizenship is mostly ridiculous, choose your loyalty and choose wisely.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: the_squid on August 22, 2019, 11:07:27 am
Somebody born and raised in another country who has never lived in Canada, but goes to fight for a group dedicated to destroying Canada is not anywhere near close to the same as somebody born and raised in Canada, so why should they be treated as such?

"A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian" is nonsense since there's always exceptions, like this a$$hat.  Dual-citizenship is mostly ridiculous, choose your loyalty and choose wisely.

You mostly made sense until the last bit.  What is wrong with dual citizenship?  I have it.  Am I some sort of traitor to either country?   That’s just silly.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: Omni on August 22, 2019, 11:22:39 am
Somebody born and raised in another country who has never lived in Canada, but goes to fight for a group dedicated to destroying Canada is not anywhere near close to the same as somebody born and raised in Canada, so why should they be treated as such?

"A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian" is nonsense since there's always exceptions, like this a$$hat.  Dual-citizenship is mostly ridiculous, choose your loyalty and choose wisely.

We have laws regarding citizenship and laws regarding criminal activity. Don't confuse the two.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: ?Impact on August 22, 2019, 01:44:25 pm
Dual-citizenship is mostly ridiculous, choose your loyalty and choose wisely.

I agree that a few do abuse dual citizenship, but that does not mean it is an invalid concept. We are all part of humankind, and share this planet. The artificial boundaries of countries have both positive and negative consequences. The divisions created by these boundaries, along with other stupidity like skin color, religion, etc. have done more to destroy humanity than any thing else. Please pick your mother or father, because you can only have one - choose wisely.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: Goddess on August 22, 2019, 03:33:48 pm
Quote
Please pick your mother or father, because you can only have one - choose wisely.

Thank you.  I have dual but if push comes to shove, I'm Canadian.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: the_squid on August 22, 2019, 05:02:12 pm
Thank you.  I have dual but if push comes to shove, I'm Canadian.

It’s hypocritical to agree with that statement and still be a dual citizen.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: Goddess on August 22, 2019, 05:14:47 pm
It’s hypocritical to agree with that statement and still be a dual citizen.

I read it like:  Making people choose between their mother and their father - who would do that?  How do you choose?

I have family ties to the US and I lived there, owned property there.  Still have a US bank account.  The Star-Spangled Banner sometimes makes me cry, as does O Canada.

I'm not a hypocrite.  And I'm not sure Poonlight was completely disparaging dual citizenship.

Those cranky pants make your butt look amazing, BTW.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: bcsapper on August 22, 2019, 06:22:47 pm
Thank you.  I have dual but if push comes to shove, I'm Canadian.

Yeah, me too, and if push comes to shove, I'm English.

I still wouldn't want to move back there from Canada though.

Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on August 24, 2019, 08:58:21 pm
Yeah, me too, and if push comes to shove, I'm English.

I still wouldn't want to move back there from Canada though.

Are you a naturalized Canadian? re: Did you take part in a Canadian citizenship ceremony as an adult?
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: bcsapper on August 24, 2019, 09:05:30 pm
Are you a naturalized Canadian? re: Did you take part in a Canadian citizenship ceremony as an adult?

Yes I did.  I still have the photo of me with the Mountie, and the letter from David Crombie
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: ?Impact on August 25, 2019, 12:44:15 pm
I still have the photo of me with the Mountie

So does Dean Del Mastro.

(https://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.2440407!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_620/image.jpg)
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: bcsapper on August 25, 2019, 05:52:15 pm
So does Dean Del Mastro.

(https://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.2440407!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_620/image.jpg)

In mine you can see her face.  And we're both smiling.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: JMT on August 27, 2019, 12:33:47 am
Conservatives always have this knee jerk reaction to things, ignoring every legal and constitutional reality.  There is no affair.  He's a Canadian citizen with the constitutional right to enter and leave Canada, and it's that simple.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: Boges on August 27, 2019, 09:56:24 am
Conservatives always have this knee jerk reaction to things, ignoring every legal and constitutional reality.  There is no affair.  He's a Canadian citizen with the constitutional right to enter and leave Canada, and it's that simple.

Even the Liberals conceded they have no interest in helping him.

He becomes a political problem for them if he tries to come to Canada
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: cybercoma on August 27, 2019, 10:12:07 am
Conservatives always have this knee jerk reaction to things, ignoring every legal and constitutional reality.  There is no affair.  He's a Canadian citizen with the constitutional right to enter and leave Canada, and it's that simple.
I don't understand why the "law and order" party completely disregards not only primary law (the Charter of Rights) but also criminal law.

"That's preposterous! They don't ignore criminal law!"

Of course they do. They advocate for stupid things like blocking people entry into the country, instead of trying them in a court of law and laying criminal charges against them for crimes. Lay charges. Have a trial. But Conservatives rarely want that. It's like they're allergic to human rights. They're drifting further and further into fascism every day.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: JMT on August 27, 2019, 10:43:34 am
Even the Liberals conceded they have no interest in helping him.

I didn't say anything about helping him - there's no requirement for that, unless his life is in danger and he requests consular assistance.

Quote
He becomes a political problem for them if he tries to come to Canada

Yes, most people are ignorant of the Constitution.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on August 27, 2019, 10:36:10 pm
Conservatives always have this knee jerk reaction to things, ignoring every legal and constitutional reality.  There is no affair.  He's a Canadian citizen with the constitutional right to enter and leave Canada, and it's that simple.

There is an affair because unfortunately the Liberals reversed the Conservative law that said dual-citizens could be stripped of citizenship if convicted of terrorism offenses, a law the UK also has and May's government used.  "A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian", but clearly that's not the case with Jihadi Jack, who decided to become an enemy of the state for a group bent on destroying Canada.

Stripping citizenship is still rare in those cases but can be done (if we still had the law), as seen in the UK.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: Omni on August 27, 2019, 10:57:00 pm
There is an affair because unfortunately the Liberals reversed the Conservative law that said dual-citizens could be stripped of citizenship if convicted of terrorism offenses, a law the UK also has and May's government used.  "A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian", but clearly that's not the case with Jihadi Jack, who decided to become an enemy of the state for a group bent on destroying Canada.

Stripping citizenship is still rare in those cases but can be done (if we still had the law), as seen in the UK.

The UK simply demonstrated a dereliction of duty. I suppose you'll see more of that under Boris.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: wilber on August 28, 2019, 09:24:04 am
The UK simply demonstrated a dereliction of duty. I suppose you'll see more of that under Boris.
Jack was born in the UK, the Canadian legislation never advocated stripping citizenship from Canadian born citizens.

This is interesting. Another piece of Liberal Hypocrisy?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/citizenship-revocation-trudeau-harper-1.3795733
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: wilber on August 28, 2019, 11:09:18 am
Making a mistake or lying on your citizenship application is now a reason to have your citizenship revoked but being convicted of terrorism, treason or espionage is not.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: the_squid on August 28, 2019, 11:30:58 am
Making a mistake or lying on your citizenship application is now a reason to have your citizenship revoked ...

It was always a reason. 


Quote
...but being convicted of terrorism, treason or espionage is not.

Once you’re a Canadian, then you’re subject to laws like someone born here.   There shouldn’t be different classes of Canadian.   But, like you put forward in your previous posts, maybe we should make becoming a Canadian a touch more difficult. 

Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: ?Impact on August 28, 2019, 04:33:44 pm
This is just a race to the bottom, last one to strip someone of their citizenship loses - because they have signed international agreement to such effect. Regardless of what laws we had, we would be stuck with this loser anyway.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: the_squid on August 28, 2019, 05:37:06 pm
This is just a race to the bottom, last one to strip someone of their citizenship loses - because they have signed international agreement to such effect. Regardless of what laws we had, we would be stuck with this loser anyway.

Not true.  He wasn't born here and has never lived here.  So if we had the residency requirements suggested earlier in the thread, we wouldn't be stuck with him.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: ?Impact on August 28, 2019, 05:39:02 pm
Not true.  He wasn't born here and has never lived here.  So if we had the residency requirements suggested earlier in the thread, we wouldn't be stuck with him.

How old is he, are are you suggesting we make laws retroactive?
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: the_squid on August 28, 2019, 05:47:42 pm
How old is he, are are you suggesting we make laws retroactive?

No.  I didn't suggest anything.  Although, it might not be a bad thing either.  I haven't thought about how a new law might apply. 

 This issue prompted discussion about how to avoid future jihadi jacks.   
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: ?Impact on August 28, 2019, 05:48:48 pm
No.  I didn't suggest anything.  This issue prompted discussion about how to avoid future jihadi jacks.

Ok, not how I understood your response but fine.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on September 05, 2019, 10:18:20 am
Yeah, me too, and if push comes to shove, I'm English.

I still wouldn't want to move back there from Canada though.

bcsapper, you seem like a very nice fellow, so don't take this personally, but this I see as the fundamental problem.

This is Canada's 'Oath of Citizenship' you said you took during your Citizenship ceremony:

Quote
I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

So you swore true allegiance to the Queen of Canada, but you just said "if push comes to shove, I'm English".  What that suggests (correct me if I'm wrong) is that in the unlikely event of a conflict between Canada and the UK, your "true allegiance" remains with Britain.  You love living in Canada, but your heart and allegiance remains with the UK.  Correct?

You probably didn't lie during your oath. What I think likely happened, which happens with a lot of Canadians from the UK, is that you may think that the Queen of Canada and the Queen of the UK are the same entity (since they are served by the same person, Elizabeth II), so you likely thought you're swearing loyalty to the royal crown in general.  But the Queen of Canada and Queen of the UK are completely separate legal entities, and Canada no longer has any formal legal ties to the UK or the Queen of the UK.

In my opinion, it's impossible to bear "true allegiance" to two different countries, because when a conflict of interest ever arises between those 2 countries (ie: war, a diplomatic dispute, you work for the government etc), one naturally will often not remain neutral and can even be forced to take sides (sort of like this Jihadi Jack asshat).  That's why when "push comes to shove", IMO every Canadian should feel and have allegiance to Canada.  Therefore dual citizenship shouldn't be allowed, even though it's still fine and natural to retain a sense of connection and fondness with another country.  This will help ensure that "A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian".
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on September 05, 2019, 10:18:42 am
Here's the 'Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America' taken by new Americans.  Notice that this oath requires the oathtaker to "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty", and for that reason IMO is a superior oath to Canada's:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/naturalization-test/naturalization-oath-allegiance-united-states-america
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: Granny on September 05, 2019, 01:03:00 pm
bcsapper, you seem like a very nice fellow, so don't take this personally, but this I see as the fundamental problem.

This is Canada's 'Oath of Citizenship' you said you took during your Citizenship ceremony:

So you swore true allegiance to the Queen of Canada, but you just said "if push comes to shove, I'm English".  What that suggests (correct me if I'm wrong) is that in the unlikely event of a conflict between Canada and the UK, your "true allegiance" remains with Britain.  You love living in Canada, but your heart and allegiance remains with the UK.  Correct?

You probably didn't lie during your oath. What I think likely happened, which happens with a lot of Canadians from the UK, is that you may think that the Queen of Canada and the Queen of the UK are the same entity (since they are served by the same person, Elizabeth II), so you likely thought you're swearing loyalty to the royal crown in general.  But the Queen of Canada and Queen of the UK are completely separate legal entities, and Canada no longer has any formal legal ties to the UK or the Queen of the UK.

In my opinion, it's impossible to bear "true allegiance" to two different countries, because when a conflict of interest ever arises between those 2 countries (ie: war, a diplomatic dispute, you work for the government etc), one naturally will often not remain neutral and can even be forced to take sides (sort of like this Jihadi Jack asshat).  That's why when "push comes to shove", IMO every Canadian should feel and have allegiance to Canada. Therefore dual citizenship shouldn't be allowed, even though it's still fine and natural to retain a sense of connection and fondness with another country.  This will help ensure that "A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian".

You talk as if we're all incapable of making intelligent, informed decisions and choices about any issues that may arise between our dual national attachments. That's your opinion only. There are many ways that having substantial numbers of Canadians with dual citizenships from a variety of countries give Canada important and beneficial links with those countries.

That's one issue.

Next:
Note that the legal "loyalties" you cited include our Head of State, and our laws.
It does not include the Government of Canada, a partisan political body that must tolerate people dissenting and protesting against it, because that IS democracy.

Democracy easily erodes into fascism if we allow ourselves to be forced into blind loyalties and enforced 'nationalism', and curtailment of freedoms.

That's the danger. More regulation and more enforcement don't mean a better Canada.

Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: Omni on September 05, 2019, 03:21:28 pm
bcsapper, you seem like a very nice fellow, so don't take this personally, but this I see as the fundamental problem.

I'm sure you're a nice fellow too but slightly misinformed as to the power the Queen still has. Canada is a constitutional Monarchy where the monarch agrees to loan her powers to the elected politicians, mostly the Prime Minister. The Canadian constitution grants the queen sweeping powers declaring that the executive government and authority of and over Canada is vested in her.  She is the head of Canada's parliament and the commander in chief of the Canadian Armed Forces. Symbolic you can argue but she still holds those powers.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: bcsapper on September 05, 2019, 09:50:09 pm
bcsapper, you seem like a very nice fellow, so don't take this personally, but this I see as the fundamental problem.

This is Canada's 'Oath of Citizenship' you said you took during your Citizenship ceremony:

So you swore true allegiance to the Queen of Canada, but you just said "if push comes to shove, I'm English".  What that suggests (correct me if I'm wrong) is that in the unlikely event of a conflict between Canada and the UK, your "true allegiance" remains with Britain.  You love living in Canada, but your heart and allegiance remains with the UK.  Correct?

You probably didn't lie during your oath. What I think likely happened, which happens with a lot of Canadians from the UK, is that you may think that the Queen of Canada and the Queen of the UK are the same entity (since they are served by the same person, Elizabeth II), so you likely thought you're swearing loyalty to the royal crown in general.  But the Queen of Canada and Queen of the UK are completely separate legal entities, and Canada no longer has any formal legal ties to the UK or the Queen of the UK.

In my opinion, it's impossible to bear "true allegiance" to two different countries, because when a conflict of interest ever arises between those 2 countries (ie: war, a diplomatic dispute, you work for the government etc), one naturally will often not remain neutral and can even be forced to take sides (sort of like this Jihadi Jack asshat).  That's why when "push comes to shove", IMO every Canadian should feel and have allegiance to Canada.  Therefore dual citizenship shouldn't be allowed, even though it's still fine and natural to retain a sense of connection and fondness with another country.  This will help ensure that "A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian".

Actually, I just meant I would want England to beat Canada at Soccer.  Or Cricket.

You can win Ice Hockey if you want.  I won't be too disappointed.

Seriously though, I made the oath as you say, but I also took the British Army oath of allegiance:

I (your name), swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me.

I took that one first, so I assume it holds sway.

I hope it never comes to a fight!
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: wilber on September 05, 2019, 10:04:48 pm
You talk as if we're all incapable of making intelligent, informed decisions and choices about any issues that may arise between our dual national attachments. That's your opinion only. There are many ways that having substantial numbers of Canadians with dual citizenships from a variety of countries give Canada important and beneficial links with those countries.

That's one issue.

Next:
Note that the legal "loyalties" you cited include our Head of State, and our laws.
It does not include the Government of Canada, a partisan political body that must tolerate people dissenting and protesting against it, because that IS democracy.

Democracy easily erodes into fascism if we allow ourselves to be forced into blind loyalties and enforced 'nationalism', and curtailment of freedoms.

That's the danger. More regulation and more enforcement don't mean a better Canada.
Maintaining important and beneficial links to other countries has nothing to do with dual citizenship.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: wilber on September 05, 2019, 10:10:15 pm
Actually, I just meant I would want England to beat Canada at Soccer.  Or Cricket.

You can win Ice Hockey if you want.  I won't be too disappointed.

Seriously though, I made the oath as you say, but I also took the Brithish Army oath of allegiance:

I (your name), swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me.

I took that one first, so I assume it holds sway.

I hope it never comes to a fight!

So you are a Canadian, is a Canadian, is a Canadian, until you decide to be a Britain again.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: bcsapper on September 05, 2019, 10:17:57 pm
So you are a Canadian, is a Canadian, is a Canadian, until you decide to be a Britain again.

Do you think Justin would be upset? Did he mention dual citizens?

Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: wilber on September 05, 2019, 10:41:54 pm
Do you think Justin would be upset? Did he mention dual citizens?
Jack wouldn't be an issue if he wasn't.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: the_squid on September 06, 2019, 12:25:07 am
Jack wouldn't be an issue if he wasn't.

What do you think of BCSappers’s allegiance to Britain?
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: wilber on September 06, 2019, 09:30:54 am
What do you think of BCSappers’s allegiance to Britain?

I don't have an opinion on it but it makes the argument, a Canadian, is a Canadian, is a Canadian questionable when it comes to dual citizens, as they are not in the same sense as Canadians with single citizenship.

The Brits must feel the same way as they just revoked the citizenship of someone who was born and raised in Britain who also held Canadian citizenship, even though he has never lived here. They are quite content to let him be a Canadian, is a Canadian, is a Canadian.
Title: Re: The Jihadi Jack Affair
Post by: wilber on September 07, 2019, 12:13:53 pm
What do you think of BCSappers’s allegiance to Britain?

I appreciate his honesty but it just goes to show that if dual citizens have to make a choice, there is no reason to believe they will automatically choose Canada.