Omar Khadre
- Thread starter landscaper
- Start date
At the END OF THE DAY....
HE DID IT!
HE MURDERED
HE WAS CONVICTED
HE DID TIME!
For those who thought not......he is now a CONVICT!!!
He admits his culpability....most honorable thing he has done to date!!!
HE DID IT!
HE MURDERED
HE WAS CONVICTED
HE DID TIME!
For those who thought not......he is now a CONVICT!!!
He admits his culpability....most honorable thing he has done to date!!!
A confession extracted under these condition is not worth the paper it is written on.At the END OF THE DAY....
HE DID IT!
HE MURDERED
HE WAS CONVICTED
HE DID TIME!
For those who thought not......he is now a CONVICT!!!
He admits his culpability....most honorable thing he has done to date!!!
I agree that the grounds given were false statements, my point is that the president has been set that a naturalized citizen can have their citizenship revoked for actions as defined by the laws of the country. What those laws are is in fact open for discussion.You have, but you seem not to be able to grasp the plain fact, that so is anybody else given citizenship on basis of a truthful application.
The grounds for rescinding the former Nazi`s citizenship was , that he had given false statements on his application for citizenship.
Did she falsly swear an oath , based on her past actions, ie., fund raising, and supporting a terrorist organization. Is fundraisng and supporting a terrorist organization grounds for removal of citizenship? I don't know but I am sure that any number of people would like to find out. Canadian citizenship is a privlidge, not a right and that privlidge comes with responsibilities as well as rights, chief amoung them is to obey our laws and stay faithful to the country. Her actions show that she did niether. IS that a reason to recind her citizenship, I believe it is worth doing , if for no other reason than to set the precedent that if you don't follow the rules there are consequences. Citizens opf convenience who run home for free health care when they or a family member is hurt and people who use the citizenship as a shield to get out of tight spots in the country they live in , ie., the middle east last ime there was a war need not apply.
A precedent has been set that a fraudulently obtained citizenship can be revoked, on the grounds that it was never properly granted. I'm not sure you can generalizes that to violation of any law.
I wouldn't object to us passing a law saying that someone guilty of high treason against Canada can be exiled, but I want to see it explicitly in law, and something that would be heard by a judge. It should be given similar weight to a sentence of life in prison in terms of the level of legal machinery that should be required to strip someone of their most basic rights.
I wouldn't object to us passing a law saying that someone guilty of high treason against Canada can be exiled, but I want to see it explicitly in law, and something that would be heard by a judge. It should be given similar weight to a sentence of life in prison in terms of the level of legal machinery that should be required to strip someone of their most basic rights.
The Guantanamo process is the worst possible outcome.
Nobody believes it has any credibility, it's widely seen as a kangaroo court.
I have no idea why they didn't proceed under one of the two credible legal systems the US already has, why they had to make up a new system, one where the rules were changed as they went along, and where judges were removed from office if they ruled favorably to the defense.
The whole thing is an embarrassment.
Nobody believes it has any credibility, it's widely seen as a kangaroo court.
I have no idea why they didn't proceed under one of the two credible legal systems the US already has, why they had to make up a new system, one where the rules were changed as they went along, and where judges were removed from office if they ruled favorably to the defense.
The whole thing is an embarrassment.
I agree that the grounds given were false statements, my point is that the president has been set that a naturalized citizen can have their citizenship revoked for actions as defined by the laws of the country. What those laws are is in fact open for discussion.
Did she falsly swear an oath , based on her past actions, ie., fund raising, and supporting a terrorist organization. Is fundraisng and supporting a terrorist organization grounds for removal of citizenship? I don't know but I am sure that any number of people would like to find out. Canadian citizenship is a privlidge, not a right and that privlidge comes with responsibilities as well as rights, chief amoung them is to obey our laws and stay faithful to the country. Her actions show that she did niether. IS that a reason to recind her citizenship, I believe it is worth doing , if for no other reason than to set the precedent that if you don't follow the rules there are consequences. Citizens opf convenience who run home for free health care when they or a family member is hurt and people who use the citizenship as a shield to get out of tight spots in the country they live in , ie., the middle east last ime there was a war need not apply.
You two comrade in arms are just blowing smoke out of your arses. The Charter only recognizes one kind of citizenship, and if citizenship has not been granted on fraudulent grounds, the supreme court would never allow any different treatment of naturalized citizens from natural born citizens. You may well wish, that naturalized citizens were somehow lesser citizens than natural born citizens, but there is no basis for that in law, and I would not imagine that any mainstream politician would propose such a system.A precedent has been set that a fraudulently obtained citizenship can be revoked, on the grounds that it was never properly granted. I'm not sure you can generalizes that to violation of any law.
I wouldn't object to us passing a law saying that someone guilty of high treason against Canada can be exiled, but I want to see it explicitly in law, and something that would be heard by a judge. It should be given similar weight to a sentence of life in prison in terms of the level of legal machinery that should be required to strip someone of their most basic rights.
To remove canadian citizenship for severe crimes is plainly impractical. Where would you send them in excile? Would you set Colonel Williams and karla Homolka adrift on a little boat in the atlantic? Or is the procedure only supposed to be used for muslims?
You continue to post that Omar Khadr is not one of us, which he is. It makes me wonder who else among canadian citizens you consider not part of Canada. jews? blacks? muslim? catholics? Calvinists? asians? Why don't you tell us what is on your wharped mind.
Again, the Hypocrite misses the issue. It is not that Omar is Muslim, or wether someone is Catholic, Jew or Asian, the point is that the asshole took up arms against the West, and by extension Canada. But I agree that the rule of law should be upheld.
Throw the bum in jail into the general population. Then strip the family members that were granted Canadian citizenship their Canadian citizenship (the process does exist) and expel them to where they will fit in.
You are displaying yet again your idiocy.Again, the Hypocrite misses the issue. It is not that Omar is Muslim, or wether someone is Catholic, Jew or Asian, the point is that the asshole took up arms against the West, and by extension Canada. But I agree that the rule of law should be upheld.
Throw the bum in jail into the general population. Then strip the family members that were granted Canadian citizenship their Canadian citizenship (the process does exist) and expel them to where they will fit in.
I'm not proposing there be any difference between naturalized and natural born citizens. I would think being exiled for high treason is a punishment that could be inflicted on anybody, regardless of how they came to be a citizen.the supreme court would never allow any different treatment of naturalized citizens from natural born citizens.
Currently there is no such process in Canadian law. An Act of Parliament could change that.
Likely the punishment should actually be a stint in prison OR exile, and if the convict can find a place to go, then they can avoid prison and go there--with the proviso that they NEVER return to Canada. In the common case of spies, likely the country that hired them to do the spying would be a willing destination. Khadr can probably find a couple of countries that would happily take him in as well.To remove canadian citizenship for severe crimes is plainly impractical. Where would you send them in excile?
It's actually an option that could be given to ANYONE convicted of a crime where the nature of their crime indicates their values are incompatible with Canadian values.
In a serious case like high treason the punishment could be 10 years in jail FOLLOWED by a choice of exile or continued life in jail, at the convict's option. The advantage of offering exile to such a person is it saves the Canadian taxpayer a lot of money not to continue to hold them in jail for life.
What part of at least half a dozen posts did you either not read or not comprehend? If they are born here they are our problem. That is the end of that conversation .You two comrade in arms are just blowing smoke out of your arses. The Charter only recognizes one kind of citizenship, and if citizenship has not been granted on fraudulent grounds, the supreme court would never allow any different treatment of naturalized citizens from natural born citizens. You may well wish, that naturalized citizens were somehow lesser citizens than natural born citizens, but there is no basis for that in law, and I would not imagine that any mainstream politician would propose such a system.
To remove canadian citizenship for severe crimes is plainly impractical. Where would you send them in excile? Would you set Colonel Williams and karla Homolka adrift on a little boat in the atlantic? Or is the procedure only supposed to be used for muslims?
Naturalised citizens have rights , they also have responsabilities that go with those rights. One of them is to uphold the citizenship oath that they swore to get all those rights that are constantly cried over. If somebody took the oath fraudulently or broke the laws of a suffeintly serious level that a law says they should be stripped of the citizenship that they have demonstrated that they do not deserve, I do not have a problem with the courts removing their citizenship as per a law , to be passed by the house of commons and vetted by the SCC. The presedent of removeing the citizenship of a naturalized citizen has been set and the courts ruled that it can be enacted.
As to where to send them , back to there country of origin, kick them out on the runway there if that is nessisary, hell strap a parachute to them and kick them out over the runway for all I care.
I guess I missed the news that he was convicted or that he has actually entered a plea. Maybe you can provide a link.....At the END OF THE DAY....
HE DID IT!
HE MURDERED
HE WAS CONVICTED
HE DID TIME!
For those who thought not......he is now a CONVICT!!!
He admits his culpability....most honorable thing he has done to date!!!
And, I might as well as you, What part of at least half a dozen posts did you either not read or not comprehend? There is no difference between naturalized citizens and born canadians (except in cases where the naturalized citizen was granted citizenship under false information). End of story.What part of at least half a dozen posts did you either not read or not comprehend? If they are born here they are our problem. That is the end of that conversation .
Naturalised citizens have rights , they also have responsabilities that go with those rights. One of them is to uphold the citizenship oath that they swore to get all those rights that are constantly cried over. If somebody took the oath fraudulently or broke the laws of a suffeintly serious level that a law says they should be stripped of the citizenship that they have demonstrated that they do not deserve, I do not have a problem with the courts removing their citizenship as per a law , to be passed by the house of commons and vetted by the SCC. The presedent of removeing the citizenship of a naturalized citizen has been set and the courts ruled that it can be enacted.
As to where to send them , back to there country of origin, kick them out on the runway there if that is nessisary, hell strap a parachute to them and kick them out over the runway for all I care.
I have in my files a letter from the government of Canada, which clearly and specifically states that I have exactly the same rights and responsibilities as any other canadian citizen.
Is that hard to understand. read it again, if you did not understand the significance of it. And again ....
I don't know why everyone is so wound up about naturalized vs. natural born. If we were to pass a law allowing us to exile Canadian citizens we could just as easily make it apply to everyone, and I don't see why we wouldn't.
The guy in the title of this thread, after all, is natural born. If the law couldn't be brought against a guy like that, then what use is it?
Danmand you can relax unless you're planning to commit high treason I don't think anyone is proposing anything that would strip you of your rights, so calm down, you aren't being deported.
The guy in the title of this thread, after all, is natural born. If the law couldn't be brought against a guy like that, then what use is it?
Danmand you can relax unless you're planning to commit high treason I don't think anyone is proposing anything that would strip you of your rights, so calm down, you aren't being deported.
I have many times been accused of high treason here in the political forum.I don't know why everyone is so wound up about naturalized vs. natural born. If we were to pass a law allowing us to exile Canadian citizens we could just as easily make it apply to everyone, and I don't see why we wouldn't.
The guy in the title of this thread, after all, is natural born. If the law couldn't be brought against a guy like that, then what use is it?
Danmand you can relax unless you're planning to commit high treason I don't think anyone is proposing anything that would strip you of your rights, so calm down, you aren't being deported.
In any event, where would Canada deport me? I have no other citizenship than Canada's. Denmark surely would refuse to pay for my welfare and medical bills for the rest of my life. And who else would take me? That is the fatal flaw of your proposal.
Which is quite a bit different than being convicted of it in open court.I have many times been accused of high treason here in the political forum.
If you actually read my proposal you'd know you'd be offered a choice: Life in jail in Canada, or exile to a country that will take you if you can find one. The onus would be on you to find one, otherwise, Canada would keep you in jail.In any event, where would Canada deport me? I have no other citizenship than Canada's. Denmark surely would refuse to pay for my welfare and medical bills for the rest of my life. And who else would take me? That is the fatal flaw of your proposal.
Importantly so.Which is quite a bit different than being convicted of it in open court.
Makes sense. Now, please explain it to the landscaper.If you actually read my proposal you'd know you'd be offered a choice: Life in jail in Canada, or exile to a country that will take you if you can find one. The onus would be on you to find one, otherwise, Canada would keep you in jail.
Khadr would be welcome in Yemen..........here's a video produced by the Yemen Ministry of Travel, Tourism and Terrorist Repatriation (the "YMTTTR") extolling the benefits of choosing Yemen (over a Canadian prison cell)
http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2010/Yemen/Yemen_10_reasons_to_worry/EN/index.htm
http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2010/Yemen/Yemen_10_reasons_to_worry/EN/index.htm
If you don't live up to those responsibilities there are consequences, I just want to extend the consequences to removing the privilidge of Canadian citizenship from people who do not live up to the responsibilities. Seems reasonble to me, its a two way street we supply you with rights and you live up the reponsibilities.And, I might as well as you, What part of at least half a dozen posts did you either not read or not comprehend? There is no difference between naturalized citizens and born canadians (except in cases where the naturalized citizen was granted citizenship under false information). End of story.
I have in my files a letter from the government of Canada, which clearly and specifically states that I have exactly the same rights and responsibilities as any other canadian citizen.
Is that hard to understand. read it again, if you did not understand the significance of it. And again ....
Interesting travel video Seth.Khadr would be welcome in Yemen..........
