Canadian Politics Redux

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Meltdown99 said:

Does the law prevent Canada from killing its 'terrorist travellers'?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/killing-canadian-jihadis-death-squads-1.4429137

We should have followed the lead of the US, France and the UK on this one.

This is the area of law I feel we have available to us to effectively deal with these people if I have interpreted it correctly:

The right [to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice] is not absolute, said Mathen, noting that Canada can imprison criminals without violating Section 7's promise of liberty, and police can kill an armed suspect without violating the right to life.

"If we're talking about Canada taking an action that happens to kill Canadian citizens, that's very different than it developing a policy that has not been authorized by Parliament, not been authorized by law, where they're selectively targeting people for execution," she said.

There are exceptions, Mathen noted, where the government "could point to extreme or exigent circumstances in which it was forced to act" if, for example, there was a need to halt a specific plot or threat.

* I feel with the appropriate will, a strong case can be made that there are extreme and exigent circumstances surrounding these individuals and the threat has been demonstrated with passion and vigour.

Meltdown99

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Meltdown99 said:

Does the law prevent Canada from killing its 'terrorist travellers'?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/killing-canadian-jihadis-death-squads-1.4429137

We should have followed the lead of the US, France and the UK on this one.

This is the area of law I feel we have available to us to effectively deal with these people if I have interpreted it correctly:

The right [to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice] is not absolute, said Mathen, noting that Canada can imprison criminals without violating Section 7's promise of liberty, and police can kill an armed suspect without violating the right to life.

"If we're talking about Canada taking an action that happens to kill Canadian citizens, that's very different than it developing a policy that has not been authorized by Parliament, not been authorized by law, where they're selectively targeting people for execution," she said.

There are exceptions, Mathen noted, where the government "could point to extreme or exigent circumstances in which it was forced to act" if, for example, there was a need to halt a specific plot or threat.

* I feel with the appropriate will, a strong case can be made that there are extreme and exigent circumstances surrounding these individuals and the threat has been demonstrated with passion and vigour.

How are these returning POS's not classified as war criminals and tried as such?  Trudeau government is spineless...

PJ_Soul

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I'm not an expert, but it depends on what we would be prosecuting them for.

Our courts will only entertain crimes against Canada or Canadians... so... with no extradition treaties in place... the 160 returned ISIS fighters will get a pass for lopping heads off Syrians.

We did a fantastic job of allowing them to play 'terror voyeurs' and safely scurry home to a welcoming country before they needed to answer for their actions. And now that they are safe and sound... ready to regroup and plot against some more infidels... we don't feel they have done anything against our national interest that warrants charges.

Well... actually... only a few feel that way: our outrageously handsome PM is one.

wow.  I'm speechless.

Don't be. You're not getting anywhere near the whole story. Just the biased one (especially from Meltdown, who comes off as a watered down Canadian version of a Trump supporter). Here, read this - it's gives a much less biased summary of the situation: https://globalnews.ca/news/3889240/liberals-isis-fighters-canada-open-arms/

Meltdown99

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I'm not an expert, but it depends on what we would be prosecuting them for.

Our courts will only entertain crimes against Canada or Canadians... so... with no extradition treaties in place... the 160 returned ISIS fighters will get a pass for lopping heads off Syrians.

We did a fantastic job of allowing them to play 'terror voyeurs' and safely scurry home to a welcoming country before they needed to answer for their actions. And now that they are safe and sound... ready to regroup and plot against some more infidels... we don't feel they have done anything against our national interest that warrants charges.

Well... actually... only a few feel that way: our outrageously handsome PM is one.

wow.  I'm speechless.

Don't be. You're not getting anywhere near the whole story. Just the biased one (especially from Meltdown, who comes off as a watered down Canadian version of a Trump supporter). Here, read this - it's gives a much less biased summary of the situation: https://globalnews.ca/news/3889240/liberals-isis-fighters-canada-open-arms/

If you got something bro say say it directly to me.  I am no Trump supporter just because I don't like your IDIOT PM....

PJ_Soul

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I'm not an expert, but it depends on what we would be prosecuting them for.

Our courts will only entertain crimes against Canada or Canadians... so... with no extradition treaties in place... the 160 returned ISIS fighters will get a pass for lopping heads off Syrians.

We did a fantastic job of allowing them to play 'terror voyeurs' and safely scurry home to a welcoming country before they needed to answer for their actions. And now that they are safe and sound... ready to regroup and plot against some more infidels... we don't feel they have done anything against our national interest that warrants charges.

Well... actually... only a few feel that way: our outrageously handsome PM is one.

wow.  I'm speechless.

Don't be. You're not getting anywhere near the whole story. Just the biased one (especially from Meltdown, who comes off as a watered down Canadian version of a Trump supporter). Here, read this - it's gives a much less biased summary of the situation: https://globalnews.ca/news/3889240/liberals-isis-fighters-canada-open-arms/

If you got something bro say say it directly to me.  I am no Trump supporter just because I don't like your IDIOT PM....

I wasn't saying you are a Trump supporter. I said you're a weak Canadian version of one, i.e. you use the same tactics as Trump supporters sometimes.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I'm not an expert, but it depends on what we would be prosecuting them for.

Our courts will only entertain crimes against Canada or Canadians... so... with no extradition treaties in place... the 160 returned ISIS fighters will get a pass for lopping heads off Syrians.

We did a fantastic job of allowing them to play 'terror voyeurs' and safely scurry home to a welcoming country before they needed to answer for their actions. And now that they are safe and sound... ready to regroup and plot against some more infidels... we don't feel they have done anything against our national interest that warrants charges.

Well... actually... only a few feel that way: our outrageously handsome PM is one.

wow.  I'm speechless.

Don't be. You're not getting anywhere near the whole story. Just the biased one (especially from Meltdown, who comes off as a watered down Canadian version of a Trump supporter). Here, read this - it's gives a much less biased summary of the situation: https://globalnews.ca/news/3889240/liberals-isis-fighters-canada-open-arms/

That article isn't saying anything to dispute what I have stated. In fact, it seems to support what I've spoken to.

For example, despite telling veterans on the 'good side' they were asking too much from his government... the same government is planning on pouring resources to monitor the problem ISIS fighters roosting in Canada present (from your article): the government says it has deployed a full range of counter-terrorism tools for returnees, including surveillance, criminal investigations, peace bonds, and the revoking of passports. It's nice that we can find money to watch violent psychopaths intently even though we can't be bothered to support those that have defended the country's interests.

Even more disturbing (from your article when speaking of the Centre for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence) is this little tidbit: the federal government will not actually be rehabilitating or re-integrating returnees. How are these people ever going to become that important voice for Canada as the moron blathered about a while back when defending his pathetically weak stance on this issue?

PJ_Soul

I disagree that the article matches what you're said. I think the article clears some things up though, which was the point.

Do you literally think Trudeau is a "moron"? If you do, you've got a pretty weird definition of that word.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

I disagree that the article matches what you're said. I think the article clears some things up though, which was the point.

Do you literally think Trudeau is a "moron"? If you do, you've got a pretty weird definition of that word.

Disagree all you want, but I detailed why it did (you haven't refuted that).

Trudeau isn't a moron in the true context of the term. What he could more accurately be described is as 'a little boy': lacking vision and without the proper and necessary experience to occupy such a prominent and responsible role.

As I said before: we voted out the last bum and we'll vote out this bum. I can't wait for the day when we have someone we are electing to stay given the great job they're doing.

PJ_Soul

What I am saying is that neither of you ever said a single thing to make the situation clear to others reading the thread. You managed to find a couple of details that work in your favour as far as your opinion about it goes (and remember, I have the same opinion - you keep kind of acting like I don't).

Trudeau is neither a moron or 'a little boy'. I completely disagree that he lacks vision. He actually has way more vision than most politicians do. You just happen to disagree with his visions. As for experience... he has plenty of that too. Harper's campaign slogan about how he doesn't have any worked like a hot damn for sure, but it was never accurate. Trudeau was actually every bit as experienced and qualified as Harper was when he entered office. I'm saying this fairly objectively. I am neither a Trudeau lover nor a Trudeau hater.

I really don't think he'll lose the next election though. For one, plenty of people still think he's doing a fine job (including me, just depending on the issue - I like some of what he's done a lot, some of it kinda sorta, and some not at all). There is nobody else who could beat him IMO. I mean shit, is there anyone else who you think would be better? I mean if you take your biases out of it and think about it objectively? The leaders of the Conservatives and the NDP are both absolutely terrible options. Both parties made huge mistakes when they voted them in.

HughFreakingDillon

Doug Ford. 

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

Doug Ford. 

Oh fuck, lol.

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Doug Ford. 

Oh fuck, lol.

I just saw him on tv yesterday. I was thinking "is he purposely trying to look like his brother, or was Rob really so fat he made Doug look normal?". 

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

What I am saying is that neither of you ever said a single thing to make the situation clear to others reading the thread. You managed to find a couple of details that work in your favour as far as your opinion about it goes (and remember, I have the same opinion - you keep kind of acting like I don't).

Trudeau is neither a moron or 'a little boy'. I completely disagree that he lacks vision. He actually has way more vision than most politicians do. You just happen to disagree with his visions. As for experience... he has plenty of that too. Harper's campaign slogan about how he doesn't have any worked like a hot damn for sure, but it was never accurate. Trudeau was actually every bit as experienced and qualified as Harper was when he entered office. I'm saying this fairly objectively. I am neither a Trudeau lover nor a Trudeau hater.

I really don't think he'll lose the next election though. For one, plenty of people still think he's doing a fine job (including me, just depending on the issue - I like some of what he's done a lot, some of it kinda sorta, and some not at all). There is nobody else who could beat him IMO. I mean shit, is there anyone else who you think would be better? I mean if you take your biases out of it and think about it objectively? The leaders of the Conservatives and the NDP are both absolutely terrible options. Both parties made huge mistakes when they voted them in.

Not a single thing said to make things clear for people reading? Hmmm... not even these items (cut and pasted from previous posts):

1. Despite telling veterans on the 'good side' they were asking too much from his government... the same government is planning on pouring resources to monitor the problem ISIS fighters roosting in Canada present (from your article): the government says it has deployed a full range of counter-terrorism tools for returnees, including surveillance, criminal investigations, peace bonds, and the revoking of passports. It's nice that we can find money to watch violent psychopaths intently even though we can't be bothered to support those that have defended the country's interests.

2. The federal government will not actually be rehabilitating or re-integrating returnees. How are these people ever going to become that important voice for Canada as the moron blathered about a while back when defending his pathetically weak stance on this issue?

3. The right [to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice] is not absolute, said Mathen, noting that Canada can imprison criminals without violating Section 7's promise of liberty, and police can kill an armed suspect without violating the right to life.

"If we're talking about Canada taking an action that happens to kill Canadian citizens, that's very different than it developing a policy that has not been authorized by Parliament, not been authorized by law, where they're selectively targeting people for execution," she said.

There are exceptions, Mathen noted, where the government "could point to extreme or exigent circumstances in which it was forced to act" if, for example, there was a need to halt a specific plot or threat.

* I feel with the appropriate will, a strong case can be made that there are extreme and exigent circumstances surrounding these individuals and the threat has been demonstrated with passion and vigour.

... and I could submit more. I think they tell quite a bit about the situation. They're factual (and reflect my view given the reality).

Can you please cut and paste items you have submitted that might better summarize the situation? You've been eager to defend him, but you haven't succinctly stated why he should not face criticism for his extremely poor handling of this situation.

PJ_Soul

I posted the article.
And you keep losing the plot man - it's like you're in a totally different conversation or something, or trying to force me into a conversation I was never in. I do NOT defend his stance on this issue and I do NOT think he should not face criticism. I think I've said that a dozen times!

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

I posted the article.
And you keep losing the plot man - it's like you're in a totally different conversation or something, or trying to force me into a conversation I was never in. I do NOT defend his stance on this issue and I do NOT think he should not face criticism. I think I've said that a dozen times!

I cited the article. It never said anything different from what I've been saying.

The only thing it did was suggest Trudeau wasn't really 'embracing' these losers. Well duh. But if we're honest here... he isn't exactly defying them either- he's more on their side than not. And by trying to sell it to a public as he did (ie. they'll be a great voice for Canada), he made himself out to be an idiot. We're not that stupid, little boy.

PJ_Soul

No, he is not more on their side than not. This is what I've been talking about - that's how it's being painted incorrectly, or misinterpreted, and that is all I've been talking about this whole time, along with that jargon. "Little boy"? Gimme a break. That is the exact kind of shit we don't need in this country.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

No, he is not more on their side than not. This is what I've been talking about - that's how it's being painted incorrectly, or misinterpreted, and that is all I've been talking about this whole time, along with that jargon. "Little boy"? Gimme a break. That is the exact kind of shit we don't need in this country.

The exact kind of shit we don't need in this country is blind allegiance and fandom. If our leader proves to be incompetent handling some items... then he needs his feet held to the fire- not lamely excused because the task might have been too challenging for him.

Let's cut to the chase: he's handled this situation very poorly and you've admitted so yourself. The issue isn't a teeny weeny one where people should go "Oh well it's too complicated so why bother?" It's an issue that demands strong leadership and he has consistently demonstrated he is very weak. His hands are not tied as you seem to suggest- although with all the recent payouts I can see why you might think that way.

He had the legal means to challenge these pricks, but he chose not to. And even if he didn't have the legal means... he had a moral responsibility to contest their safe return from their 'terror vacation'. His actions indicate he is not in opposition... so where does that place him?

When he says things like "They'll be a great voice for Canada' (making reference to rehabilitated ISIS guys)... and stopping someone mid-sentence to correct their use of 'mankind' to 'peoplekind' (to a collective groan from all in attendance)... and all those other annoying little things he does... I think he's a little boy. To be fair though... he did get real tough with British Columbians though when he asserted "This pipeline will get built!"

To this point in time... it appears he wasn't ready after all.

PJ_Soul

Why are you even talking about blind allegiance and fandom? All I'm saying is that we don't need stupid, childish, populist-esque rhetoric in order to hold his feet to the fire. Share the facts, not shit like "he will give the terrorists a big hug" and calling him "little boy" (you know he's not a little boy, so wtf are you talking about when you say you think he's a little boy??), and you continue to characterize the PM's perspective on this. That's not me defending his perspective. It's me voicing my opposition to how you present it. I don't understand how you are defending that given the facts, and being a reasonable adult. You are still trying debate the issue, which we already agree upon (although a rehabilitated ISIS guy could be a great voice for Canada. An un-rehabilitated one wouldn't be). I'm saying I want Canadians to drag political debate out of the muddy playground. I want it to be rational and mature. But it's going in the opposite direction, and that is a terrible thing.
And omfg, that "he's not ready" thing is infuriating for the exact reason I'm talking about. That is such stupid bullshit. Are you going to mention his hair now too?

mcgruff10

Meltdown99 said:

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

No, if he weren't cognizant of the legal difficulties and technicalities involved here, then he'd be a moron.

So Canadian law makes it difficult to challenge returning ISIS fighters coming home after things didn't work out very well for them? Surprising (sarcasm fully intended!).

But not impossible given the spectrum of the law.

As I stated... sometimes you need to pick your fights. If I was PM... this would definitely be one I'd be picking. Not ours though. Our PM seems to be rolling up his sleeves for a fight with BC to build a pipeline. He's in the corner in front of ISIS guys and Texas oil tycoons opposing average Canadians.

Yes, that's right, it does. Sure, it's frustrating, but it certainly isn't Trudeau's fault.

As I stated... I agree that the PM should be confronting this differently (and I wish he wasn't for the pipeline, but he never claimed otherwise, so that part isn't at all surprising to me). My only point has always been that he's not a moron for his view, doesn't want to give terrorists hugs, lol, and that hyperbolic bullshit being spewed by people on social media that completely warps reality and is just brainless propaganda is damaging and really the only moronic thing going on in this regard. It worries me because it's just so... Trumpian.

We're really close here.

I still think Trudeau has responsibility here because it's his leadership to challenge the process and pursue the legal avenues he has to thwart the return of beheaders.

What worries me is the fact that such light and passive leadership on issues such as this damages the left position (and rightly so). Some of the stuff you are talking about is rearing its head as a result of failed leadership and responsibility to the Canadian public in these matters. 

Again I could google this but I'll ask the two of you....if an ISIS fighter returns home to canada you can't prosecute him or her?  Is that correct?

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

No, if he weren't cognizant of the legal difficulties and technicalities involved here, then he'd be a moron.

So Canadian law makes it difficult to challenge returning ISIS fighters coming home after things didn't work out very well for them? Surprising (sarcasm fully intended!).

But not impossible given the spectrum of the law.

As I stated... sometimes you need to pick your fights. If I was PM... this would definitely be one I'd be picking. Not ours though. Our PM seems to be rolling up his sleeves for a fight with BC to build a pipeline. He's in the corner in front of ISIS guys and Texas oil tycoons opposing average Canadians.

Yes, that's right, it does. Sure, it's frustrating, but it certainly isn't Trudeau's fault.

As I stated... I agree that the PM should be confronting this differently (and I wish he wasn't for the pipeline, but he never claimed otherwise, so that part isn't at all surprising to me). My only point has always been that he's not a moron for his view, doesn't want to give terrorists hugs, lol, and that hyperbolic bullshit being spewed by people on social media that completely warps reality and is just brainless propaganda is damaging and really the only moronic thing going on in this regard. It worries me because it's just so... Trumpian.

We're really close here.

I still think Trudeau has responsibility here because it's his leadership to challenge the process and pursue the legal avenues he has to thwart the return of beheaders.

What worries me is the fact that such light and passive leadership on issues such as this damages the left position (and rightly so). Some of the stuff you are talking about is rearing its head as a result of failed leadership and responsibility to the Canadian public in these matters. 

Again I could google this but I'll ask the two of you....if an ISIS fighter returns home to canada you can't prosecute him or her?  Is that correct?

The PM of Canada prefers hugs over accountability...

Pleas tell me there is no support amongst the Canadian people for these pieces of shit.

PJ_Soul

Of course there isn't.