Trudeau Cheapens Canadian Citizenship by Importing Detainees with Alleged Terrorist Ties

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau bears full personal responsibility for the Canadian government’s decision to bring to Canada from Syria 10 adults held in Kurdish prison camps as ISIS-affiliated detainees.

The detainees hold Canadian citizenship and had not been yet charged or convicted of any crimes, but nor have there been declarations by authorities that the investigation into their links/actions with ISIS have been completed.

It was a wrong decision to bring them to Canada now … and it could put innocent Canadians lives in jeopardy.

The individuals… four men and six women…along with their 13 children,  have been held for three years as foreign nationals seized and suspected of being affiliated with ISIS.

This week a federal court in Ottawa “ordered the Canadian government to provide (four) men with emergency travel documents… and repatriate them,“ the Washington Post reported.

But I have seen no proof that military or police investigations into any of them had yet been completed. (It’s not easy to get proof of terrorist links or actions in an occupied area where conflict continues!)

But surely, when the safety of Canadians at home is involved, the federal government should exercise extreme caution, give us the highest priority… not the alleged ISIS supporters!

In my view [and I suspect that of many millions of other Canadians] any individuals who left Canada and went over to Syria to join or support the ISIS terrorist group and its actions abrogated and abandoned their Canadian citizenship. Especially if they were naturalized and not native born citizens of this country.

The federal government could have appealed the Federal Court decision right up to the Supreme Court … citing both errors in law by the judge and national security requirements.

It also could have passed laws since 2019 that revoked the citizenship of anyone who left Canada to join/affiliate with ANY recognized foreign terrorist group.

It did nothing formally … or legally … to protect us!

Instead the Trudeau government last week in fact expanded the Court decision affecting four individuals and decided to bring “home” 23 purported Canadian citizens now being held in the camps… four men, six women and 13 children.

And one of those Trudeau has included in his “repatriation” list has reportedly never ever been in Canada: British-born/raised Jack Letts just holds our citizenship because his father, who lives in Britain, was born here.

“Letts, a dual British-Canadian national who converted to Islam, traveled to Syria, and admitted to joining the Islamic State. Known as “Jihadi Jack,” Letts said of himself in one interview with the BBC: “I was definitely an enemy of Britain,”  the National Review reported.

“Letts’s parents, who were convicted of funding terrorism for transferring money to their son whilst in Syria, were sentenced to 15 months in prison in 2019 and have maintained their son’s innocence,” the paper added.

Happy to have him/them in YOUR neighbourhood?

By laying out such a large Welcome mat, Trudeau is cheapening Canadian citizenship … rather than challenging the lower Court ruling and introducing laws to keep Canadians safe and our citizenship sacred.

All this sure does not sound like the Trudeau who, in a Global news story in 1917, was quoted as expressing concern “about the national security threat posed by citizens who joined the Islamic state group returning to this country.”

“We recognize the return of even one individual [who joined the Isis group] may have serious national security implications,“ Trudeau told Parliament.

Too bad, so sad that Canada’s current compliant, complacent media is not raising Hell …or even hard questions … about this dangerous decision by Trudeau and his Cabinet.

Maybe Trudeau will even show up at the airport to welcome them home???

After all, he and the media love photo ops!

Harv Oberfeld

(Follow @harveyoberfeld on Twitter for FREE First Alerts of new postings on Keeping it Real.)

This entry was posted in International, National. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Trudeau Cheapens Canadian Citizenship by Importing Detainees with Alleged Terrorist Ties

  1. Steve Cooley says:

    Typo – Trudeau & 1917 in the same sentence!

  2. D. M. Johnston says:

    I wasn’t a rabid anti-Trudeau type, I just felt he was nothing but a poster boy for the Liberals, but the extremely weak NDP and conservative party leaders, was probably the best of a bad lot.

    Today, I am not so sure and in fact I think Trudeau is now a useful idiot for China and worse his Post National society rhetoric is shredding Canada of any firm identity. His massive hand outs to the first nations, yet not dealing with the cancer of the residential schools, which means taking on the Catholic Church (The Anglican Church is in complete disarray and near bankrupt) has shown Trudeau to be a weak appeaser a la Neville Chamberlain.

    The Liberal Party, except for a few MP’s is weak, but again, the national distaste for the Conservatives and the NDP, means the Liberals will again squeak in with a minority government, supported by an even weaker NDP.

    Trudeau’s rose coloured glasses blinds him to the current state of international affairs, such as the Ukraine and Russian aggression.

    The issue of the 10 detainees shows how weak Trudeau and the Liberals are and their seedy connections internationally. But again, the conservatives and the NDP are far too weak to show how seedy Trudeau and his Liberals are.

    In the end, the blame lies with the electorate for allowing their politcal parties to decay into a corrupt black hole, by failing to demand a higher standard of conduct.

    It seems many voters have been brainwashed by Tic-Toc, Fox News, the CBC, photo-ops, 10 second sound bites and the daily fish-wrap pretending to be newspapers.

    For Canada, fun in the sun, trumps good government and for those act as Orwell’s sheep, bleating this good and this is bad, look in the mirror and look at the problem.

    What Trudeau has done is make Canada an international pillock saying one thing and doing another. He has cheapened Canada to the point that the country has become a sort of laughing stock, no one takes seriously.

    Something that Russia and China are most anxious to welcome.

    (Response: Where is Poilievre? Surely, the Conservatives should realize how frightening it is for many Canadians to have these people allowed back here. I don’t know of ANY of them who mistakenly ended up there on a bus tour or a cruise!! h.o)

  3. Chuck says:

    Individuals and the media forget all this come election time …
    Sad … we have to keep reminding MP’s about all this as they supposedly represent us in Parliament …

    (Response: Where are our MPs on this???? Who is speaking out against this Trudeau dangerous capitulation?? Maybe the media should ask??? h.o)

  4. Gilbert says:

    This really doesn’t surprise me at all. Prime Minister Trudeau wants to make sure he wins the votes of terrorists and all their supporters. After all, every vote counts and he’s not ready to resign like his really good friend Jacinda.

    Since the NDP right now looks a lot like controlled opposition and the media is friendly , I think there’s a very good chance he’ll succeed in winning the votes of those who shouldn’t be in Canada. As for the next election, I’m not sure. Time will tell.

    (Response: Frankly, I doubt the federal NDP would support keeping these alleged terrorist group sympathizers or even members out. But I’d bet the Conservatives would ..if Trudeau had the backbone to introduce legislation to protect Canadians’ security by keeping those miscreants out. h.o.)

  5. Steve says:

    Canadian citizenship has been degraded over the years, to the point of becoming meaningless. It is like Panamanian or Liberian registry for a ship. There are minimal requirements and standards to attain it.

    (Response: In fact, there are “travel” companies … especially in China … who have promoted trips to Canada for pregnant women just to have their kids here … and get a Canadian passport. Literally Canadian citizenship for sale! But even that pales in comparison with allowing possible terrorists back here: ANYONE who leaves to go support or join groups designated by Canada officially as terrorist organizations should lose their citizenship. h.o.)

  6. nonconfidencevote says:

    The Trudeau policies are truly nauseating.
    During Harpers reign there was a case of home grown terrorists planning to attack Parliament and cut off the PM’s head.
    Bizarre fantasists especially when one considers CSIS and the RCMP were recording everything they were saying and doing.
    Britain has been dealing with home grown terrorism and has revoked British citizenship to anyone that leaves Britain and joins a terrorist group.
    Citizenship should be a privilege ….not a right.
    Especially if one threatens or attacks their country of origin.
    Let them rot in some one else’s country.
    Save our taxpayers the burden.
    One wonders if any of this registers in Trudeau’s utopian dream for Canada.
    I’m thinking he’s more worried about what color shoes he will wear when the media scurries to capture his best angle at the latest presser…

    (Response: I know it is difficult for governments to deal with Court decisions/rulings. But I believe Trudeau had plenty of time and opportunity to legislate to protect Canadians from those who leave the country to join or support those who would enslave and/or even slaughter many of us. He failed to do anything! And when the federal Court ordered the government to repatriate four people with alleged ties to a terror group, Trudeau decided to allow to come “home” TEN of them …and 13 offspring! Ridiculous! The government should appeal the Court decision …and hopefully delay their return for another year or two! h.o.)

  7. Art Smith says:

    Hi Harvey, I just took some time to look back at your blog from Aug. 27, 2015. People complaining about how bad Harper is, and how much better Trudeau will be, I wonder what they think now. I know it is really hard to discern what a politician will be like before he/she is elected, but even though I thought Trudeau would be a disaster, I had no idea he would be literally, ripping the country apart. Ignoring the Constitution, freezing peoples bank accounts for simply supporting a legal protest, imposing the Emergency Act without proper authority to do so, (no matter what he says), and now trying to knee-cap Alberta and Saskatchewan with his Just Retrain or whatever it is. The reason behind it is to starve the energy industry of workers. Along with a whole host of other despicable sleaze, grift, mismanagement and dishonesty. Having Judges keep political prisoners in jail while murderers are out on bail, because he had a hissy fit (Tamara Licht). He is a vain, petty little man who will go to any lengths to exact revenge on anybody who crosses him.
    There are many other things he can be criticized for instance, immigration, especially the cases you mention above, as well as the huge numbers he is trying to bring in to the country over the next number of years, fifty churches or more burned to the ground and no urgency to find the culprits, making citizens into criminals for owning legal, until they weren’t, firearms, no not the ones involved in crime, but the ones owned by hunters and pleasure shooters.
    One of the big things people complained about were the deficits run up by Harper, wait till the bills from Trudeau start rolling in. Well, all you people who can’t afford food, housing or a car, this is just the beginning, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!

    (Response: The problem with ALMOST all politicians is that, once in power, they very seldom live up to their own advertising/promises/standards … and in my experience, they get worse the longer they are in office… and I’d say more arrogant too. Harper at the end of his term was nothing like the Harper who was elected and re-elected. Read my blogs about him in his last election campaign. TERRIBLE disappointment. Trudeau too, seems to me, is not the same as when he was first elected. Sad …but true of almost all of them. h.o)

  8. e.a.f. says:

    Can’t agree with you on this one Harvey. hear what you’re saying, but the people are Canadian citizens and thus have the right to return to Canada, end of story.

    The conditions the people are living in are unacceptable. It maybe argued they placed themselves in this position, but lets not forget they are human beings with families and children. Those children did nothing. Why are they being punished having to live in these camps or are we now punishing children for the alleged sins of their parents?

    Yes, they joined a terrorist organization willingly. That was their first mistake, but let us not make the mistake of leaving them in these camps to die. That to me is akin to murder. that would cheapen our Canadian citizenship. Joining a terrorist organization such as ISIS is not something they ought to walk away from. Bring them back into Canada under guard or pick them up in a military jet. Charge them, let the justice system work. Canada may want to investigate, I’m sure the RCMP is up to it. They can be held in jail here. If the parents remain in jail, their children can be cared for by family members. Leaving all of these people in the camps will eventually lead to deaths and this country doesn’t have the death penalty.

    The world has changed since the days many of our laws were greated. Canada may want to consider laws which deal with these situations. Perhaps different crimes need to be dealt with under different conditions, with different charges, different methods of tria, i.e. a regular criminal trial or a military tribunal or a seperate court of alleged terrorists heard by a panel of judges. \\
    Many would be considered terrorists and if they are, then send them to jail for 25 years. Don’t leave them to die from disease, lack of food and water, or violence.

    These Canadians are being held in territory which isn’t exactly a “safe zone”. It has been reported that if there is an attack on Kurds else where, the Kurds who are guarding the prisoners will leave to fight. What happens then is anyone’s guess. Some anaylists have suggested this would turn a whole lot of terrorists loose. Extreme violence is a foregone conclusion. There would be a good chance all those people could end up dead. Canada does not have a death penalty. We do not have a right to sentence these people to death. Don’t care what they did.

    Trudeau is doing the correct thing if they are brought back to Canada asap.

    As to Trudeau’s alleged faults, yes not all of his decisions have been great On the othr hand while Harper was P.M. he and his, including PP passed 9 pieces of Federal Leg. in the House of Commons which he was told violated the Canadian Constitution before hand. Fortunately there were people who were willing to take the Federal Government to Court and the Supreme Court over turned all of the leg. on Constitutional grounds. Then of course there were the violations of Veterans’ privacy, mistreatment, etc. Ya, I’m not ready for more of Harper.
    Lets not forget PP meeting with the bunch in Ottawa who disrupted the lives of all those people living in Ottawa. When I review his “mistakes” and then Trudeau’s, well Trudeau is still better than PP and his crew Remember a lot of them aren’t keen on our health care system and don’t support a woman’s right to control and make decisions about her own health care and body. That takes the Conservatives off of my list who I’d vote for every time.

    All of us like to bitch and complain but can we do a better job?

    (Response: I believe the day ANY Canadian “citizen” heads overseas to join/assist ANY recognized terrorist group/caliphate/party/state that wants to enslave/kill/torture/mutilate Canadian “infidels”, they give up their rights to Canadian citizenship. And Trudeau put the lives of Canadians at risk by NOT legislating such riff-raff as having given up their citizenship rights … forever! h.o.)

    • e.a.f. says:

      Even if they go off to do what you list, that doesn’t mean we can take away their Canadian citizenship. Once a Canadian, always a Canadian until you renouce your Canadian citizenship.

      Many of those men who went to fight for ISIS were young men and not really playing with a full deck. That frontal lobe isn’t closed for many until they’re 25. Young people do a lot of strange things which are very, very dumb.

      As Canadians we have to uphold the rights of all citizens, whether we like what they have done or not. We have a Constitution and it needs to be followed. When we start to make “exceptions” we start down a very slippery slope.

      (Response: Your bleeding heart liberal excuses could place the lives of innocent Canadians at risk. Can you guarantee any of them won’t attack a church or synogogue, shopping mall …or even a mosque they think is too moderate? Do you know any of them personally? If not, how can you conclude they were “not really playing with a full deck”. If they were old enough to drive, own a gun and/or vote … they were old enough to know right from wrong… and may indeed still be dedicated jihadists. As for your “once a Canadian always a Canadian” rationale: that’s the problem! In fact, Britain REVOKED Jihadi Jack’s citizenship!!! Bravo!! Why didn’t Trudeau bring in similar law? Instead of allowing him to come to Canada! That’s why I say Trudeau bears personal responsibility for any security risk or criminal activity any jihadi commits after being allowed back into Canada … probably with all travel expenses paid by taxpayers, and full welfare/health care when they get here. ho)

      • nonconfidencevote says:

        If you attack your own country.
        You citizenship should be revoked.
        Persona non grata. Citizenless.
        Good luck trying to go on a Jihad without a passport.
        Case closed.

      • e.a.f. says:

        Canada is not G.B.
        Trudeau is not peronally respnsibility for any security risks. Those who commit the crimes are responsible for their own actions.

        As to how dangerous the returnees might be, well if we followed my suggestions, i.e. investigate, trial if necessary and prison if guilty, things ought to go fairly smoothly. Those who are not guilty would be released just like other Canadians who are found not guilty. I’m sure they aren’t going to be any more dangerous than others.

        As to chances of being killed by the returnees, I wouldn’t worry about that too much. You’re usually murdered by the people you know. If you’re female 64% of those murdered are murdered by their partners, exs or other family members.

        Have a look at statistics in this country. How many people are killed by terrorists each year and how many women are killed each year in this country. When you talk murder, well lets see Pickton murdered 49 women and for years no one was that interested in women disappearing. In 2020 at least 160 women and girls were murdered in Canada. Number of missing? who knows and who knows what happened to them.

        I’m not concerned about a “terorrist” killing me, but one of the neighbours, perrhaps. My driving is more likely to kill me than a terrorist. These days many people are more afraid of those around them, i.e. attacks by strangers while out and about living their lives.

        (Response: Trudeau and other politicians with the power to act ARE responsible when they FAIL to act, FAIL to protect Canadians and especially when they FAIL to prevent the import into Canada of ANYONE who has been captured or shown to have supported terrorist groups. Keep them out! They made their beds, now let them lie in them. h.o.)

  9. Not Sure says:

    After reading your post, I wondered if there was a logical reason for repatriating citizens who have left their country to fight for ISIS. Apparently there are several reasons. And several articles. Now I haven’t had the time to read much of them but here is one of many.

    Both the Trump and Biden administrations are in favour of repatriating their citizens. Other countries have been as well (although so far the US and Italy are the only ones to repatriate men) but as this article points out, in many countries it is controversial because of the political considerations. Like you, most people look at this and go WTF. But consider.

    1. Most of these people are detained in squalid living conditions susceptible to ISIS attacks to break them free.

    2. These camps are filled with men, women and children. The adults are one thing but the children are pretty much total innocents. Leaving them there both adults and children could lead to further radicalization. At a minimum should we not bring the children home? Do we bring them home without their parents Often, the Canadian father is dead and the mother is not a Canadian citizen.

    3. More than likely, some/most of the adults are guilty of some terrorist crime and should be tried. Who is responsible for putting them on trial. Iraq? Syria? Their country of origin? Do they not deserve a fair trial that proves their guilt or do we just presume guilt and leave them to rot for the rest of their lives.

    4. On the off chance that some are in fact innocent, do they not deserve to have their day in court so their innocence is confirmed?

    Anyway, according to the US State Department,

    “We encourage countries to take back their foreign terrorist fighters and associated dependents from Syria and Iraq…The United States believes that repatriation, prosecution as appropriate, and rehabilitation and reintegration is the best way to keep fighters off the battlefield and address the humanitarian crisis in detention centers…

    Let me hit the emphasis button: “repatriation, prosecution as appropriate, and rehabilitation and reintegration is the best way to keep fighters off the battlefield”

    Now you might think this is a whole load of BS. Fair enough. But it does make the discussion a bit more nuanced when both sides are presented.

    (Response: You may have noted I objected to bringing any of the 10 adults to Canada…not the 13 kids. As far as “repatriation” ..Jihad Jack apparently has never ever stepped foot in Canada; as for the others, I believe if/when they purposefully left Canada and headed over to ISIS’s caliphate area to help out in ANY way (whether to kill/behead infidels or just write press releases) they gave up ANY RIGHTS to come back here. And Trudeau had lots of time and opportunities over the past few years to enshrine that stance in law. Terrible that he did nothing! And now innocent Canadians here will have to live in fear. h.o)

  10. daniel says:

    Great topic Harvey. Maybe Trudeau wouldn’t mind if some of these people moved into his neighborhood? Not to worry, we’ll only be paying for their housing, medical, and all the other living expenses for years to come. You know, the stuff that regular Canadians are faced with daily in these trying times. Who’s going to hire one of these people? Pretty hard to spruce up your resume when your last occupation is listed as terrorist.
    He is now raising questions regarding the awarding of the Arrive Can app now that it’s hardly in use. A little late isn’t it? The companies responsible have all been paid millions and the money is gone. Will he be asking for a refund?
    Last August he did not wish to sell Germany our natural gas because it did not make business sense. A few weeks ago Japan came calling with the same request and were also refused. Bad decisions for trade, our economy, and our reputation as a trading partner. It did not conform to his net zero carbon energy policies. No worries about the millions in revenue Canada could be making while he shovels billions out the back door. Has he ever heard of compromise? He knows better than all the economists and business leaders. All this from his teaching degree. His arrogance knows no bounds.
    I believe history will prove that he was one of Canada’s worst prime ministers. I just wish I could be around to see it.

    (Response: The failure of the Canadian media to realize the importance of Trudeau’s FAILURES on this file appalls me. Can you just imagine how insecure, even frightened Canadians will be having these people in Canada! And I’d bet our American neighbours aren’t too happy either. (Maybe some intrepid journalist should ask them!) When any of these jihad enthusiasts went to Syria and hooked up with ISIS or their affiliates etc. I believe they GAVE UP their rights to beseech Canadians to bring them here. KEEP THEM OUT! h.o)

    • e.a.f. says:

      Agreed, terrorist as your last occupation isn’t going to look good on a resume. (good line). That is why you simply leave that time period as “travelling abroad”. Its not a lie, its just not the whole truth. They might be hired by companies who need blasters, such as those which built roads.

      As to the worst P.M. in Canadian history, there were a few others back in the day, who really were much worse. i.e. the guy who was P.M. when the government of Canada turned away a ship full of Jews who then had to go back to Europe and most were killed in the concentration camps. Then the P.M. at the start of the Depression, then there is the P.M. who decided it was a good idea to put Canadians of Japanese descent in camps and take their property and money. lets not forget all the P.M.s who thought it was a good idea to deprive Indigenous people and Canadians of Asian descent the right to vote. Lets see and then there were the years many ethnic groups were not permitted to be lawyers and doctors and hey, all the Kotogata Maru victims. Fair enough, you and many others believe Trudeau has not done a good enough job, but worst P.M. ever, not so much

      • nonconfidencevote says:

        We haven’t seen the long term effects of the “largest increase in the National Debt” under his reign of error.
        He Doubled the National Debt in 5 years.
        Essentially spending more money than ALL previous Prime Ministers in the history of Canada…
        CERB ? No problem.
        National Daycare? No problem.
        First Nations Reparations? No problem.
        Health Care? Big Problem.
        Inflation? Big Problem.

        Burning through billions of dollars on his vanity projects with the NDP cheering him on…and generations will pay for this.

        Absolutely Revolting.

        (Response: And now, accepting “home” possibly highly dangerous terrorist members/sympathizers who turned their backs on Canada to head over to join/assist/stand by the brutal murderous ISIS Islamic caliphate. Trudeau should have done what Britain did: revoke their Canadian citizenship … not bring them home and then give no doubt them financial support/assistance. Appalling! Scary!!! h.o)

  11. e.a.f. says:

    CTV is reporting the Canadian government is repatriating 6 Canadian women and 13 children according to their lawyer, Lawrence Greenspon, who is representing them in a federal court case. The men are excluded. “the government suspects the detainees may have ties to ISIS, but have not presented any evidence”. The Canadian government really needs to bring these people home. There are serious violations in refusing to bring them home, of our Constitution. We may not like what these people have done or not done, but we have to uphold our Constitution or who is excluded next?

    the governement has refused to bring into Canada the mothers of children whose fathers were Canadian citizens. The women have to choose between keeping their children in a dangerous sistuation or give them up so they can come to Canada. The conditions in the camp includes being in the line of fire , riots, lack of food, medical care, proper housing, sexual predators, etc. These are decisions no parent ought to have to make. Children ought not to be punished for “the sins of their parents” and the adults ought be to found guilty of a crime before being denied entry back into Canada.

    (Response: Think of the terror and horrors suffered by the victims of ISIS and other jihadists: beatings, torture, mutilations, beheadings. I have NO sympathy for anyone who had ANY role …direct or indirect aiding terrorists, and the LEAST of my worries is that, after being captured, anyone who had ANY role in assisting the terror are now enduring poor living conditions in detention camps. h.o.)

  12. Art Smith says:

    Hi Harvey,
    In Response to e.a.f.
    So some of Trudeau’s decisions haven’t been so great, maybe you could enlighten those of us here as to which decisions have been great:
    Giving Omar Khadr $10,000,000?
    Talking to a vet who had lost a leg, telling him he was asking for too much?
    Taking a vacation on a private island with a lobbyist who asks for great sums of money?
    Asking his Attorney General to do something illegal for his friends at SNC?
    Handing out billions of $$$ to various despots and dictators trying to get a UN post?
    Depending on China for Covid supplies that never materialized, but we paid for?
    Buying millions of dollars worth of mobile hospitals that weren’t used from SNC?
    Paying millions of $$$ for the ArriveCan app that didn’t work?
    This is just a partial list, but I am sure you will be able to come up with more of his amazing “accomplishments.”

    • e.a.f. says:

      What ever cash award Omar Khadr received he was entitled to. Actually its about $10.5 Million and I’m good with that. He was 15 years old and treated like an adult. He was tortured, Canada left him there for 8 yrs. Canada did more for “child soliders” from other countries than they ever did to help Omar Khadr. He filed a lawsuite and they settled. His rights were violated,

      He wasn’t the only Canada who won a case against the Government.

      A number of your allegations are just your view of matters. Some of the issues you present are simply doing business or haven’t you read about Mulroney Years, On the Take, by Stevie Cameron and if you think Harper and his cronies were so terrific think again. One of Harper’s cabinet ministers who he appointed to a position of judge had some interest in the baby sitter. Fortunately she went home and told the family which were a lot of cops.

      Whatever you may think about trudeau he is still way ahead of the competition over at the Conservative Party where its hard to trust them.

  13. Not Sure says:

    OK Harvey one more go at this.

    In your response to Daniel you suggested that the US would not be happy with Canada’s policy. As I pointed out in my previous post, the US, first under Trump and continued by Biden, support bringing back their citizens who fought with ISIS. I will repeat their position

    “repatriation, prosecution as appropriate, and rehabilitation and reintegration is the best way to keep fighters off the battlefield”

    The camps are breeding grounds for further radicalization. People can escape these camps and do further damage. It is a country’s responsibility to deal with its own citizens. (Would you be happy if the Kurds just let them go?) People are entitled to fair trials which will either establish their innocence or prove their guilt so they face the consequences of their actions.

    The key here is a trial. That is is the US policy. Prosecution as appropriate. According to one article that I can’t find now, the US has brought back 28 fighters and prosecuted 12 of them.

    I have no idea what the Canadian government plans to do with the people who are returning but if prosecution is appropriate then by all means prosecute them.

    Here is another article I found. How Canada should manage returning foreign fighters.

    The article is actually four years old so this topic is hardly new. It is lengthy and I did skim but here is the conclusion.

    Open trials can serve as means by which to lay bare ISIS’ narrative and to help counter violent extremism. They can also serve as a deterrent and warning to other Canadians who might try to join ISIS as it mutates and moves to other countries …. If Canada truly stands for multiculturalism, pluralism, the rule of law, global justice, human rights and the liberal international order, then we must remain firm and take a principled stand to prosecute those have fought with ISIS. That includes our own citizens.

    Right now, I have no problem bringing these people back to Canada but they should definitely be prosecuted if warranted. That is the question reporters should be asking.

    (Response; Unfortunately, repatriation in Canada under Trudeau will not likely be the same as in the US …where, as you noted, there would be prosecution (and I suggest if found guilty, lengthy prison terms) or rehabilitation for those not criminally responsible. In Canada, there will be little or no prosecution .. and if any at all, very light or even “time-served” sentences; plus government grants/support for ALL to resettle; maybe even millions in compensation for a Canadian school system that failed them, and, lots of soft sympathetic interviews on CBC radio/television .. portraying their struggle for “justice for Islam” … of course, all of it concluding with condemnation of Israel as being responsible for the woes of Syria, Iraq, Lebanon … and, who knows, on the CBC, probably climate change in the Mideast too. h.o.)

  14. Gilbert says:

    I have to respond to the view that Omar Khadr deserved $10.5 million. If we asked Canadians, I doubt many would agree. It’s sad that he got compensation, but the widow in the tragedy did not.

    The fact is that he fought for a terrorist oganization. He should consider himself lucky to be out of jail and back in Canada. The real irony is that Liberals who defend Omar Khadr may not realize that he probably doesn’t share their liberal views.

  15. Keith says:

    It is possible to bring charges against this latest batch as there is a precedent,

    and at present there is no decision whether to appeal the court order.

    In regard to the questions about where are the M.P. s and the opposition, they are back in the house Monday 30th Jan. For Polievre and the opposition this issue is a godsend, ( unless they agree with the so far non committal wishy washy approach). Polievre doesn’t need to spin or go over the top on this one, his matter of fact style of questioning is perfect to hammer away and ask questions of;

    Trudeau, Ministers responsible for immigration, intelligence and security, foreign affairs, Justice, national defence, etc. etc. In addition questions can be raised about any coordination with British ( Jihadi Jack) and other security services.

    I very much agree with the example from noncofidencevote

    “Britain has been dealing with home grown terrorism and has revoked British citizenship to anyone that leaves Britain and joins a terrorist group.”

    For Canada, that should be a no brainer.

    (Response: You’re right …it should be a no brainer … and like Britain, anyone who leaves Canada to support an officially designated terrorist group/campaign/caliphate should lose their citizenship here. Except Trudeau has become so “woke”, he has invited back MORE detainees than even the Court designated. Where is Poilevre??? Where are the Conservative critics??? Where are the media??? h.o.)

  16. Chuck B says:

    I have read all the responses on this topic and it amazes me not a single radio station in and around Vancouver have not asked Mr Oberfeld to come on with his views. The media misses a good voice .. as a former broadcaster, I would jump at the chance to have him on an open line or on political television program…

    Just saying …

    (Response: I’m retired….and how embarrassing it would be for “working” media (some of whom are very highly paid) to bring on a pensioned colleague to raise issues/questions THEY should be doing!! 🙂 h.o)

  17. Not Sure says:

    OK just for argument’s sake let’s all agree that people guilty of terrorist attacks should have their citizenship revoked. There are arguments against that mind you but let’s pretend.

    Here is my question? Who determines whether or not someone like “Jihadi” Jack is guilty. Who becomes judge, jury and executioner? Nobody, not me, not e.a.f., not Jack Letts’ parents or “Jihadi” Jack himself are saying he shouldn’t be put on trial and face the consequences of his actions. Prosecute and jail anybody we repatriate. That is what the Americans are doing.

    Yeh it sucks that we have a legal system that demands a fair trial, but better that than the alternative.

    This is a really interesting topic, Harvey. But it is also highly nuanced. I honestly don’t know what you expect from the media. Here is a Toronto Sun editorial that I am sure you agree with.

    But good journalism is not just about giving an opinion. The whole story – both sides – have to be presented. The Sun editorial fails to even acknowledge that there is another side.

    So my hope is that Poilievre or one of the Conservative critics asks what Canada’s legal system will be doing once these people are returned. I hope Trudeau or the minister responsible indicates that anybody that has committed any offense, especially terrorist related, will be charged and jailed if found guilty. I hope the press writes about that debate, presenting both sides.

    (Response: There are several possible answers to the question you raise “who determines who is guilty?“ when dealing with alleged terrorists or supporters. in civilized countries, governed by the rule of law, normally guilt is determined through a very sophisticated and complex system of charges, evidence, trials and even appeals. However in the chaotic world of terrorism, instant caliphates and autocratic dictatorships where the rule of law is either nonexistent or very sparse, perhaps the best way would be to use Harvey’s rule of “if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck… then it’s a duck“. I don’t know of a single case where someone from Canada, the US, UK, EU or Australia booked a vacation tour or exotic resort holiday and ended up in an ISIS camp or occupied territory. And remember, several of these “travellers” have made public statements denouncing the countries they came from or were captured bearing weapons. They gave up their rights to Canada citizenship when they went over to the other side and linked up with savages who want to enslave or kill almost all of us. We don’t need any of these traitors here in Canada… Keep them out! h.o)

  18. r says:

    (Response: Canada is evolving … according to Trudeau’s vision .. but I don’t think many Canadians are aware of how much or would support id they realized it. h.o.)

  19. Not Sure says:

    You often ask where is the media on whatever story you are commenting on.

    I found this just today. It is three days old but still well after the original announcement of the court order.

    For me this is exactly what I expect from journalists. An announcement is made and for a day or two people debate about what should or shouldn’t be done. And then it is forgotten. But here is a reporter who looked beyond the court order. What is the effect on people who are now living in Canada who were the victims of ISIS. Great reporting.

    Now here is where it gets interesting for me. This story has nothing to do with the pros and cons of repatriating the ISIS fighters in Syria. Most people will feel great empathy for the victims and that might sway them to question the repatriation but Dyer could actually support repatriation for all we know. Which is exactly what I expect from good journalists.

    For me, this article did not sway my opinion, but it certainly makes me want to ask what the government is doing and will do for these Yazidi refugees that we have welcomed into Canada who are still suffering the trauma from their experiences. We can’t ignore the collective guilt of ISIS and that is why I fully support trying those we repatriate.

    But, while we always want journalists to question government, how far do we want them to go. On the pros and cons of repatriation, I don’t want to hear a reporter’s point of view. Even if I support their opinion, I got extremely tired of guys like Jim Acosta who wore their biases on their sleeve when questioning Trump. Ask good questions and report the answers. If you don’t agree with the answer, find another angle to the story like Evan Dyer did. We need more of those stories.

    (Response: The reporter’s personal opinion should NEVER be discernible in factual news stories. Unfortunately, today cable news is as much advocacy as reporting … and so are some of the traditional news networks … in both national and local news coverage. It’s disappointing …and even despicable, and I place the BLAME on TOP executive management, those who do the hiring and set the editorial direction. Its no surprise to REAL reporters, news camera people, editors even some mid-range managers to see the dismal ratings/readership: they just cash their cheques and wait for retirement or a buyout as things get even worse. h.o.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *