News   Aug 13, 2024
Humber Bay Shades
 286     0 
News   Aug 12, 2024
Queen & Ashbridge's Buildings Top Off in The Beach
 922     2 
News   Aug 12, 2024
Niagara Region Proposes Redevelopment of Former Police HQ in St Catharines
 2K     0 

2015 Federal Election

Justin Trudeau is an absolute twit. How can anyone believe that convicted terrorists should be able to maintain their citizenship? Does he honestly think that they are equal to those that obey the rule of law? It's astonishing that someone so dense has any public support.
 
Armour said:
Justin Trudeau is an absolute twit. How can anyone believe that convicted terrorists should be able to maintain their citizenship? Does he honestly think that they are equal to those that obey the rule of law? It's astonishing that someone so dense has any public support.
Click to expand...

The only twits are those who believe that Harper is right on this matter.

Trudeau is 100% right. They should not have their citizenship revoked. They should be tried as Canadians, convicted as Canadians, and face the Canadian justice system. They belong in jail, not given a free go home card. They should be facing the same punishment that any Canadian would face here at home, not sent to unstable countries where our government won't be able to ensure that they do not pose a risk to Canadians.

You seriously think sending them back to their country is going to prevent them from killing Canadians here at home or abroad? Are you really that dense?

Stripping them of their citizenship does absolutely nothing to solve the problem, and just makes the situation worse. Deporting them will put them back into the hands of terrorist organizations, where they will be treated like heroes and encourage the next generation of terrorists to attack the west. How can you possibly think this is ok?
 
Tuscani01 said:
The only twits are those who believe that Harper is right on this matter.

Trudeau is 100% right. They should not have their citizenship revoked. They should be tried as Canadians, convicted as Canadians, and face the Canadian justice system. They belong in jail, not given a free go home card. They should be facing the same punishment that any Canadian would face here at home, not sent to unstable countries where our government won't be able to ensure that they do not pose a risk to Canadians.

You seriously think sending them back to their country is going to prevent them from killing Canadians here at home or abroad? Are you really that dense?

Stripping them of their citizenship does absolutely nothing to solve the problem, and just makes the situation worse. Deporting them will put them back into the hands of terrorist organizations, where they will be treated like heroes and encourage the next generation of terrorists to attack the west. How can you possibly think this is ok?
Click to expand...
In the example discussed last night at the debate...the individual was tried in a Canadian court, found guilty, sentenced and upon serving his sentence the conservatives say they will deport him as his citizenship has been revoked. Mr. Trudeau's opinion (Mr. Mulcair skirted this issue so I can't relay what he thinks on the matter) is that after the sentence is served, he should be released here as anyone convicted of non-terrorism charges would be.

This is a tough matter...and not as simple as many (on both sides) are making it out to be.
 
TOareaFan said:
In the example discussed last night at the debate...the individual was tried in a Canadian court, found guilty, sentenced and upon serving his sentence the conservatives say they will deport him as his citizenship has been revoked. Mr. Trudeau's opinion (Mr. Mulcair skirted this issue so I can't relay what he thinks on the matter) is that after the sentence is served, he should be released here as anyone convicted of non-terrorism charges would be.

This is a tough matter...and not as simple as many (on both sides) are making it out to be.
Click to expand...

Deporting him means we lose control of him, and lose track of him. Are we just supposed to trust that he (or any other) is just simply going to forgive and forget?

The notion that removing citizenship is going to make us safer is ridiculous.
 
Tuscani01 said:
Deporting him means we lose control of him, and lose track of him. Are we just supposed to trust that he (or any other) is just simply going to forgive and forget?

The notion that removing citizenship is going to make us safer is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I guess the opposing opinion/question is are we safe having that person wandering our streets with the full rights and privileges that citizenship bestows? How much control of him would we have then? All things worth pondering.
 
TOareaFan said:
I guess the opposing opinion/question is are we safe having that person wandering our streets with the full rights and privileges that citizenship bestows? How much control of him would we have then? All things worth pondering.
Click to expand...
Precisely.

I never said we'd be any safer by deporting terrorists. The issue is more to do with whether Trudeau sees them as being equal to law abiding citizens. By saying that Harper is creating two classes of citizenship, it sounds as if Trudeau feels that Harper is devaluing terrorists and that if it were up to him (Trudeau) they would be treated with the same respect as good, lawful, people. Remember, this is the same imbecile that said that calling honour killings "barbaric" is pejorative; as if we need to apologize for calling murder what it is.
 
Videodrome said:
Two women. Two women created this whole fuss!
Click to expand...

Some people claim that the Niqab is a religious requirement.

Does this mean that only 2 Muslim women tried to become citizens in the last 4 years - and were refused because they would not reveal their faces, or
does it mean that a great number of Muslim women became Canadian citizens and had no concerns revealing their faces - except for these two?
 
Armour said:
The niqab is not mandated by Islam. It is purely cultural.
Click to expand...

So? Neither is the hijab - there is no requirement until now for anyone to dress in a certain way for citizenship ceremony, why create a special category?

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/comm...e-naked-to-citizenship-ceremony-siddiqui.html

It's much to do about nothing - and besides, judge by actions, not dress.

Armour said:
Precisely.

I never said we'd be any safer by deporting terrorists. The issue is more to do with whether Trudeau sees them as being equal to law abiding citizens. By saying that Harper is creating two classes of citizenship, it sounds as if Trudeau feels that Harper is devaluing terrorists and that if it were up to him (Trudeau) they would be treated with the same respect as good, lawful, people. Remember, this is the same imbecile that said that calling honour killings "barbaric" is pejorative; as if we need to apologize for calling murder what it is.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter whether they are law-abiding or not - it's whether they are citizens. You don't decide whether to strip someone of it just because they have another passport, because then you would have created two classes of citizenship. If one is so concerned about the issue, the country should have prohibited dual-citizenship in the first place.

Besides, why stop there? Do we strip those who committed murder of their Canadian citizenship, even if they have say, an EU passport by birthright? We don't, even though the crime is henious. So why start these special categories that can't be equally applied to all now? Also, it's not like you strip it because they've lied when they applied for citizenship, in which case the basis for which becomes invalid.

Citizenship is a two way street - upon conferring it, the state have a responsibility - and it's theirs alone - for dealing with citizens who doesn't act in accordance with the law.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
So? Neither is the hijab - there is no requirement until now for anyone to dress in a certain way for citizenship ceremony, why create a special category?

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/comm...e-naked-to-citizenship-ceremony-siddiqui.html

It's much to do about nothing - and besides, judge by actions, not dress.



It doesn't matter whether they are law-abiding or not - it's whether they are citizens. You don't decide whether to strip someone of it just because they have another passport, because then you would have created two classes of citizenship. If one is so concerned about the issue, the country should have prohibited dual-citizenship in the first place.

Besides, why stop there? Do we strip those who committed murder of their Canadian citizenship, even if they have say, an EU passport by birthright? We don't, even though the crime is henious. So why start these special categories that can't be equally applied to all now? Also, it's not like you strip it because they've lied when they applied for citizenship, in which case the basis for which becomes invalid.

Citizenship is a two way street - upon conferring it, the state have a responsibility - and it's theirs alone - for dealing with citizens who doesn't act in accordance with the law.

AoD
Click to expand...
I'm not asking for a special category. My point was that it is not a religious requirement for Muslim women to wear a niqab, therefore using their religion as justification to wear one during citizenship oaths is a useless argument. No one should be allowed to conceal their identity, for any reason, in such a context. If we make an exception in this regard, then why should anyone have to identify themself clearly in any place? There should be one standard for all to follow.
 
Again, this is still making a fuss over nothing. No one is saying they shouldn't have to identify themselves. There are stupidly simple solutions to solve this problem that should make everyone happy, so anyone making a fuss about this is just stirring the shit for their own political benefit.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top