Canadian Politics Redux

mcgruff10

PJ_Soul said:

Of course there isn't.

Are there any pending laws that would put these people in jail for good?

PJ_Soul

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Of course there isn't.

Are there any pending laws that would put these people in jail for good?

Not at the moment, as far as I know. It's very complicated - I don't think they've had enough time to deal with it while making sure they avoid the use of a legal sledgehammer. Some people like sledgehammers, I know - the "results now, suffer the consequences later" types. I'm not one of those people. This is not as big a danger or concern as some would have you believe though. If you really look into the details of the whole thing it's much less unsettling than all the rhetoric surrounding it makes it seem. That said, it's a problem, yes. People should be concerned (and people are, including the PM). Remember, the opposition party is milking this one dry, so you're bound to get a skewed view of it, which is what always happens with one party goes on a rampage against another party with a talking point. People get hysterical..... You might want to look into shit like this in the US too, btw. There is so much shit going on there when it comes to not dealing with terrorist threats very well that if you put that immature spin I'm talking on it, you'd be shitting your pants.

DarthMaeglin

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Of course there isn't.

Are there any pending laws that would put these people in jail for good?

We used to have a law that revoked their citizenship...then the current government repealed it as one of their first acts.

There’s also a law still on the books that makes it illegal to support terrorist groups in any way, including traveling abroad to participate directly, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The problem with this law is gathering evidence to prove the case “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Perhaps it could be amended to become a reverse-onus charge (where the burden falls on the accused to prove their innocence)?

Edit: Oops, just saw “pending,” my bad.

mcgruff10

DarthMaeglin said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Of course there isn't.

Are there any pending laws that would put these people in jail for good?

We used to have a law that revoked their citizenship...then the current government repealed it as one of their first acts.

There’s also a law still on the books that makes it illegal to support terrorist groups in any way, including traveling abroad to participate directly, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The problem with this law is gathering evidence to prove the case “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Perhaps it could be amended to become a reverse-onus charge (where the burden falls on the accused to prove their innocence)?

Edit: Oops, just saw “pending,” my bad.

It seems like proving beyond a reasonable doubt would be an easy thing to do.  I can't imagine if one of these people were one of my neighbors.  ugh.

DarthMaeglin

mcgruff10 said:

DarthMaeglin said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Of course there isn't.

Are there any pending laws that would put these people in jail for good?

We used to have a law that revoked their citizenship...then the current government repealed it as one of their first acts.

There’s also a law still on the books that makes it illegal to support terrorist groups in any way, including traveling abroad to participate directly, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The problem with this law is gathering evidence to prove the case “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Perhaps it could be amended to become a reverse-onus charge (where the burden falls on the accused to prove their innocence)?

Edit: Oops, just saw “pending,” my bad.

It seems like proving beyond a reasonable doubt would be an easy thing to do.  I can't imagine if one of these people were one of my neighbors.  ugh.

The problem’s proving what suspect did while abroad in countries that aren’t keeping records (I guess that’s one thing ISIL learned from the Nazi trials after WWII).

oftenreading

DarthMaeglin said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Of course there isn't.

Are there any pending laws that would put these people in jail for good?

We used to have a law that revoked their citizenship...then the current government repealed it as one of their first acts.

There’s also a law still on the books that makes it illegal to support terrorist groups in any way, including traveling abroad to participate directly, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The problem with this law is gathering evidence to prove the case “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Perhaps it could be amended to become a reverse-onus charge (where the burden falls on the accused to prove their innocence)?

Edit: Oops, just saw “pending,” my bad.

Guilty until proven innocent? That’s a horrible precedent to set anywhere in our legal system. I find it hard to believe anyone would advocate for that, given the huge potential for abuse. 

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

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?

Lol.

The facts have been presented and they've been damaging for Mr. Trudeau.

I'm sorry his miserable performance on so many issues leads so many to caricaturize him; however, don't get too worked up about that- it's a common practice and par for the course in politics (have you been in the Trump thread?).

The 'he's not ready' thing might be infuriating to you, but to others... it's a very real reminder that perhaps some people were right when the expression was uttered as the country was set to embrace him. His actions to this point indicate they weren't far from the mark.

I voted for him. I'm not regretting my choice (Harper was a bigger tool), but it's safe to say I'm disappointed.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

DarthMaeglin said:

mcgruff10 said:

DarthMaeglin said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Of course there isn't.

Are there any pending laws that would put these people in jail for good?

We used to have a law that revoked their citizenship...then the current government repealed it as one of their first acts.

There’s also a law still on the books that makes it illegal to support terrorist groups in any way, including traveling abroad to participate directly, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The problem with this law is gathering evidence to prove the case “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Perhaps it could be amended to become a reverse-onus charge (where the burden falls on the accused to prove their innocence)?

Edit: Oops, just saw “pending,” my bad.

It seems like proving beyond a reasonable doubt would be an easy thing to do.  I can't imagine if one of these people were one of my neighbors.  ugh.

The problem’s proving what suspect did while abroad in countries that aren’t keeping records (I guess that’s one thing ISIL learned from the Nazi trials after WWII).

Some of the same people suggesting we cannot get accurate information on these people are saying we can fully vet refugees from the same sources.

PJ_Soul

DarthMaeglin said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Of course there isn't.

Are there any pending laws that would put these people in jail for good?

We used to have a law that revoked their citizenship...then the current government repealed it as one of their first acts.

There’s also a law still on the books that makes it illegal to support terrorist groups in any way, including traveling abroad to participate directly, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The problem with this law is gathering evidence to prove the case “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Perhaps it could be amended to become a reverse-onus charge (where the burden falls on the accused to prove their innocence)?

Edit: Oops, just saw “pending,” my bad.

Again I just want to qualify that first statement. Yes, the current government repealed a law, but not to help terrorists obviously. It was to help immigrants and refugees who don't deserve to be expelled, not to help those who do deserve it to stick around. Now, I've never understood why a lot of laws can't just be written with a lot more fine detail in order to better handle exclusions ... perhaps a lawyer has a good answer to why that never seems to be the case in Canada or elsewhere. It's like that sledgehammer I was talking about but in reverse. It's very frustrating. Perhaps the answer is something at least half reasonable... and perhaps the answer is "the people in control are fucking lazy assholes who couldn't be bothered to do it right." I honestly am not sure.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

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?

Lol.

The facts have been presented and they've been damaging for Mr. Trudeau.

I'm sorry his miserable performance on so many issues leads so many to caricaturize him; however, don't get too worked up about that- it's a common practice and par for the course in politics (have you been in the Trump thread?).

The 'he's not ready' thing might be infuriating to you, but to others... it's a very real reminder that perhaps some people were right when the expression was uttered as the country was set to embrace him. His actions to this point indicate they weren't far from the mark.

I voted for him. I'm not regretting my choice (Harper was a bigger tool), but it's safe to say I'm disappointed.

I am not sure what you're lol'ing at.
Yes, the facts have been presented, and they are both damaging to the PM, as well as proof that the silly rhetoric about him is garbage.

The "he's not ready" thing is just plain old bullshit. He was as ready as the guy the ones who made up the slogan were trying to get elected. I personally disagree that this action have indicated otherwise, and that absolutely includes the things that I very much disapprove of. I feel like people simply can't consider this objectively. It's just "I don't like it, therefore he's a moron and wasn't ready." It's crap. It's really just "I don't agree. I'm not happy with that."

Yes, I've been in the Trump thread as you know, and that is one of the reasons I am indeed getting worked up about it. I think it's important that someone does, because the long-term results of that kind of rhetoric can be profound.... Well, we see what damage it can lead to in the US right now!

I'm disappointed about some things, and not at all disappointed about others. Surely you feel the same way - I can't believe you think EVERYTHING he's done sucks, since he's fulfilled a few campaign promises to the T.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

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?

Lol.

The facts have been presented and they've been damaging for Mr. Trudeau.

I'm sorry his miserable performance on so many issues leads so many to caricaturize him; however, don't get too worked up about that- it's a common practice and par for the course in politics (have you been in the Trump thread?).

The 'he's not ready' thing might be infuriating to you, but to others... it's a very real reminder that perhaps some people were right when the expression was uttered as the country was set to embrace him. His actions to this point indicate they weren't far from the mark.

I voted for him. I'm not regretting my choice (Harper was a bigger tool), but it's safe to say I'm disappointed.

I am not sure what you're lol'ing at.
Yes, the facts have been presented, and they are both damaging to the PM, as well as proof that the silly rhetoric about him is garbage.

The "he's not ready" thing is just plain old bullshit. He was as ready as the guy the ones who made up the slogan were trying to get elected. I personally disagree that this action have indicated otherwise, and that absolutely includes the things that I very much disapprove of. I feel like people simply can't consider this objectively. It's just "I don't like it, therefore he's a moron and wasn't ready." It's crap. It's really just "I don't agree. I'm not happy with that."

Yes, I've been in the Trump thread as you know, and that is one of the reasons I am indeed getting worked up about it. I think it's important that someone does, because the long-term results of that kind of rhetoric can be profound.... Well, we see what damage it can lead to in the US right now!

I'm disappointed about some things, and not at all disappointed about others. Surely you feel the same way - I can't believe you think EVERYTHING he's done sucks, since he's fulfilled a few campaign promises to the T.

I'm as objective as it gets (debatably).

The legalization of dope was a very significant accomplishment and one I'm very pleased with.

I just really struggle with his silly ways (peoplekind), the gun to my head (with the pipeline), and most significantly (to a level where he has lost me)... what we have been talking about here. I know there was a challenge there, but my whole point is that challenge needed to be met- there wasn't even an effort. To boot, the 'pitch' for Canadians to endorse the idleness was poor (the rehabilitated ISIS guys will be great voices for Canada).

There's other items as well, but I'm not going there right now.

oftenreading

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

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?

Lol.

The facts have been presented and they've been damaging for Mr. Trudeau.

I'm sorry his miserable performance on so many issues leads so many to caricaturize him; however, don't get too worked up about that- it's a common practice and par for the course in politics (have you been in the Trump thread?).

The 'he's not ready' thing might be infuriating to you, but to others... it's a very real reminder that perhaps some people were right when the expression was uttered as the country was set to embrace him. His actions to this point indicate they weren't far from the mark.

I voted for him. I'm not regretting my choice (Harper was a bigger tool), but it's safe to say I'm disappointed.

I am not sure what you're lol'ing at.
Yes, the facts have been presented, and they are both damaging to the PM, as well as proof that the silly rhetoric about him is garbage.

The "he's not ready" thing is just plain old bullshit. He was as ready as the guy the ones who made up the slogan were trying to get elected. I personally disagree that this action have indicated otherwise, and that absolutely includes the things that I very much disapprove of. I feel like people simply can't consider this objectively. It's just "I don't like it, therefore he's a moron and wasn't ready." It's crap. It's really just "I don't agree. I'm not happy with that."

Yes, I've been in the Trump thread as you know, and that is one of the reasons I am indeed getting worked up about it. I think it's important that someone does, because the long-term results of that kind of rhetoric can be profound.... Well, we see what damage it can lead to in the US right now!

I'm disappointed about some things, and not at all disappointed about others. Surely you feel the same way - I can't believe you think EVERYTHING he's done sucks, since he's fulfilled a few campaign promises to the T.

The “little boy” and “he’s not ready” comments are just this month’s “get him latte”, because that stopped getting any reaction. Similarly meaningless. 

PJ_Soul

I'm still trying to work out why everyone got so rattled over the peoplekind joke, lol.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

oftenreading said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

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?

Lol.

The facts have been presented and they've been damaging for Mr. Trudeau.

I'm sorry his miserable performance on so many issues leads so many to caricaturize him; however, don't get too worked up about that- it's a common practice and par for the course in politics (have you been in the Trump thread?).

The 'he's not ready' thing might be infuriating to you, but to others... it's a very real reminder that perhaps some people were right when the expression was uttered as the country was set to embrace him. His actions to this point indicate they weren't far from the mark.

I voted for him. I'm not regretting my choice (Harper was a bigger tool), but it's safe to say I'm disappointed.

I am not sure what you're lol'ing at.
Yes, the facts have been presented, and they are both damaging to the PM, as well as proof that the silly rhetoric about him is garbage.

The "he's not ready" thing is just plain old bullshit. He was as ready as the guy the ones who made up the slogan were trying to get elected. I personally disagree that this action have indicated otherwise, and that absolutely includes the things that I very much disapprove of. I feel like people simply can't consider this objectively. It's just "I don't like it, therefore he's a moron and wasn't ready." It's crap. It's really just "I don't agree. I'm not happy with that."

Yes, I've been in the Trump thread as you know, and that is one of the reasons I am indeed getting worked up about it. I think it's important that someone does, because the long-term results of that kind of rhetoric can be profound.... Well, we see what damage it can lead to in the US right now!

I'm disappointed about some things, and not at all disappointed about others. Surely you feel the same way - I can't believe you think EVERYTHING he's done sucks, since he's fulfilled a few campaign promises to the T.

The “little boy” and “he’s not ready” comments are just this month’s “get him latte”, because that stopped getting any reaction. Similarly meaningless. 

To be fair... just like a lot of your fluff, Often.

DarthMaeglin

PJ_Soul said:

DarthMaeglin said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Of course there isn't.

Are there any pending laws that would put these people in jail for good?

We used to have a law that revoked their citizenship...then the current government repealed it as one of their first acts.

There’s also a law still on the books that makes it illegal to support terrorist groups in any way, including traveling abroad to participate directly, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The problem with this law is gathering evidence to prove the case “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Perhaps it could be amended to become a reverse-onus charge (where the burden falls on the accused to prove their innocence)?

Edit: Oops, just saw “pending,” my bad.

Again I just want to qualify that first statement. Yes, the current government repealed a law, but not to help terrorists obviously. It was to help immigrants and refugees who don't deserve to be expelled, not to help those who do deserve it to stick around. Now, I've never understood why a lot of laws can't just be written with a lot more fine detail in order to better handle exclusions ... perhaps a lawyer has a good answer to why that never seems to be the case in Canada or elsewhere. It's like that sledgehammer I was talking about but in reverse. It's very frustrating. Perhaps the answer is something at least half reasonable... and perhaps the answer is "the people in control are fucking lazy assholes who couldn't be bothered to do it right." I honestly am not sure.

I had to double check, and I admit I didn’t properly represent the law passed be the conservative government. What it did was strip dual citizens of their Canadian citizenship after an individual had been convicted of a terrorist act, and it was repealed on the basis of Trudeau’s “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian” comment and philosophy. It led to one of the Toronto 18 remaining Canadian.

 I also agree with the other comment that we need to tread very carefully with reverse-onus laws, but there has been precedent, I’ll have to google that next, lol.

oftenreading

DarthMaeglin said:

PJ_Soul said:

DarthMaeglin said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Of course there isn't.

Are there any pending laws that would put these people in jail for good?

We used to have a law that revoked their citizenship...then the current government repealed it as one of their first acts.

There’s also a law still on the books that makes it illegal to support terrorist groups in any way, including traveling abroad to participate directly, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The problem with this law is gathering evidence to prove the case “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Perhaps it could be amended to become a reverse-onus charge (where the burden falls on the accused to prove their innocence)?

Edit: Oops, just saw “pending,” my bad.

Again I just want to qualify that first statement. Yes, the current government repealed a law, but not to help terrorists obviously. It was to help immigrants and refugees who don't deserve to be expelled, not to help those who do deserve it to stick around. Now, I've never understood why a lot of laws can't just be written with a lot more fine detail in order to better handle exclusions ... perhaps a lawyer has a good answer to why that never seems to be the case in Canada or elsewhere. It's like that sledgehammer I was talking about but in reverse. It's very frustrating. Perhaps the answer is something at least half reasonable... and perhaps the answer is "the people in control are fucking lazy assholes who couldn't be bothered to do it right." I honestly am not sure.

I had to double check, and I admit I didn’t properly represent the law passed be the conservative government. What it did was strip dual citizens of their Canadian citizenship after an individual had been convicted of a terrorist act, and it was repealed on the basis of Trudeau’s “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian” comment and philosophy. It led to one of the Toronto 18 remaining Canadian.

 I also agree with the other comment that we need to tread very carefully with reverse-onus laws, but there has been precedent, I’ll have to google that next, lol.

Some initial info. Reverse onus does exist in rare cases but very rarely succeeds and most have already been struck down (see Canada section) 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_onus

DarthMaeglin

oftenreading said:

DarthMaeglin said:

PJ_Soul said:

DarthMaeglin said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Of course there isn't.

Are there any pending laws that would put these people in jail for good?

We used to have a law that revoked their citizenship...then the current government repealed it as one of their first acts.

There’s also a law still on the books that makes it illegal to support terrorist groups in any way, including traveling abroad to participate directly, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The problem with this law is gathering evidence to prove the case “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Perhaps it could be amended to become a reverse-onus charge (where the burden falls on the accused to prove their innocence)?

Edit: Oops, just saw “pending,” my bad.

Again I just want to qualify that first statement. Yes, the current government repealed a law, but not to help terrorists obviously. It was to help immigrants and refugees who don't deserve to be expelled, not to help those who do deserve it to stick around. Now, I've never understood why a lot of laws can't just be written with a lot more fine detail in order to better handle exclusions ... perhaps a lawyer has a good answer to why that never seems to be the case in Canada or elsewhere. It's like that sledgehammer I was talking about but in reverse. It's very frustrating. Perhaps the answer is something at least half reasonable... and perhaps the answer is "the people in control are fucking lazy assholes who couldn't be bothered to do it right." I honestly am not sure.

I had to double check, and I admit I didn’t properly represent the law passed be the conservative government. What it did was strip dual citizens of their Canadian citizenship after an individual had been convicted of a terrorist act, and it was repealed on the basis of Trudeau’s “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian” comment and philosophy. It led to one of the Toronto 18 remaining Canadian.

 I also agree with the other comment that we need to tread very carefully with reverse-onus laws, but there has been precedent, I’ll have to google that next, lol.

Some initial info. Reverse onus does exist in rare cases but very rarely succeeds and most have already been struck down (see Canada section) 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_onus

Thanks, I did see that as well, but still haven’t figured out how to post links on my phone. Then tonight’s hockey game started, lol.

oftenreading

Further to the above - reverse onus largely exists in procedural matters, such as an accused having to prove that they are suitable to be released on bail. I don’t think it applies to a legal finding per se.

Meltdown99

mcgruff10 said:

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.

If ISIS was able to recruit POS to go from Canada to participate in there terror cause, then of course its reasonable to a assume their are Canadians that support these terror groups...just like their are people in the US that support terror groups.

mcgruff10

Meltdown99 said:

mcgruff10 said:

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.

If ISIS was able to recruit POS to go from Canada to participate in there terror cause, then of course its reasonable to a assume their are Canadians that support these terror groups...just like their are people in the US that support terror groups.

You are absolutely right.  ugh