Bringing 'Em Back or Not? (I.D.'ed Cdn ISIS fighters, families, kids?)

[OldSolduer]

Also, since she has not been a resident of BC or any province for greater than 1yr, she should no longer be eligible for ANY provincially covered health care - none, zero.

Like that will EVER happen. She will be treated for any medical issue she has, for free.

Well its paid for by you and me. These jerks have a way of gaining a voice with the "a cup of tea and a hug " crowd who feel badly for her.

 

[lenaitch]

Question to those on here will a legal background - "prohibited from possessing a cellphone or any other device capable of connecting to the internet" - that phase/condition, what if the individual sits next to another individual holding a cellphone or device connected to the internet and then instructs the person holding said device on where to go on the internet and accessing the internet in that manner, does that break the terms of the bond? Since the wording states "prohibited from possessing", can she borrow/use said device?

Sounds like the concept of 'constructive possession'.

 

[ueo]

Sounds like the concept of 'constructive possession'.

Ummm what? Deserves some ampflication and explaination, least ways for us Grunts.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Since I favour single-class-of-citizen so strongly, I find it pretty much impossible to argue for some kind of two-tier treatment, even based on birth vs naturalization of citizenship. Once we accept people into the family, they are ours to deal with. Not sure how to share that responsibility for people with dual citizenship.

One path forward could be to enumerate (and this would probably have to be done constitutionally) some civil rights (not basic human or natural rights) that can be taken away upon conviction for selected, severe, offences. A minor example would be denial of right to vote in any election. Such sanctions could be applied regardless of method by which citizenship was acquired, therefore not being "two-tier".

 

[Fishbone Jones]

If that's the case, what's stopping the government from revoking the citizenship of someone who's born in Canada and never had to swear an oath to "faithfully observe the laws of Canada"? Guilty of breaking the law? No more citizenship for you, even if you're born here - off you go to where you came from! Oh, wait ...

I think that's where you get the concepts of two-tiered citizenship and not leaving people stateless that don't fly. I'm not a lawyer, either, so I stand to be corrected.

That's why the Brits had Australia and French had the South American penal colony on Devil's Island, amongst others.

 

[CBH99]

Since I favour single-class-of-citizen so strongly, I find it pretty much impossible to argue for some kind of two-tier treatment, even based on birth vs naturalization of citizenship. Once we accept people into the family, they are ours to deal with. Not sure how to share that responsibility for people with dual citizenship.

One path forward could be to enumerate (and this would probably have to be done constitutionally) some civil rights (not basic human or natural rights) that can be taken away upon conviction for selected, severe, offences. A minor example would be denial of right to vote in any election. Such sanctions could be applied regardless of method by which citizenship was acquired, therefore not being "two-tier".

That’s actually a very interesting idea…


One of my questions would be…what would prevent those individuals from voting?

I know we say they can’t vote…but what’s to keep them from going down to their local voting station & casting a ballot?

(Since voting is anonymous & I don’t think we would let local volunteers access each person’s legal status, which would be a Charter Rights nightmare of its own.)

 

[CBH99]

Any info on the price for bond? On who put up the $$ for her to make the bail amount?

Question to those on here will a legal background - "prohibited from possessing a cellphone or any other device capable of connecting to the internet" - that phase/condition, what if the individual sits next to another individual holding a cellphone or device connected to the internet and then instructs the person holding said device on where to go on the internet and accessing the internet in that manner, does that break the terms of the bond? Since the wording states "prohibited from possessing", can she borrow/use said device?

Good questions.

I mean she isn’t technically owning a device that can connect, so she isn’t technically breaching that condition.



However the intent of that condition is to prevent her from accessing the Internet.

I imagine the person holding the phone & accessing what she’s asking them to could be considered an accomplice, since they are willfully helping her to sidestep her condition?

 

[brihard]

Good questions.

I mean she isn’t technically owning a device that can connect, so she isn’t technically breaching that condition.



However the intent of that condition is to prevent her from accessing the Internet.

I imagine the person holding the phone & accessing what she’s asking them to could be considered an accomplice, since they are willfully helping her to sidestep her condition?

Plus the wording would likely be something like “…not use or possess any device capable of…”. On one hand you could argue such a scenario could be ‘use’. On the other hand, one could argue that the risk that condition is in place to address would be controlled by someone else possessing and using the device. Bail conditions exist to control or mitigate risk, they aren’t a punishment.

 

[lenaitch]

Ummm what? Deserves some ampflication and explaination, least ways for us Grunts.

Ya sorry. Very generally, it is the concept of something not in your actual physical possession but you benefit from it and exercise a degree of control over it. It's generally used in drug offences and charges such as possession of stolen property.

As Brihard points out, a lot would depend on the wording of the release order. Terms such as 'use' or 'access' would cover off these other situations. This isn't a new concept and I imagine there are templates for the judiciary to use.

 

[ueo]

Ya sorry. Very generally, it is the concept of something not in your actual physical possession but you benefit from it and exercise a degree of control over it. It's generally used in drug offences and charges such as possession of stolen property.

As Brihard points out, a lot would depend on the wording of the release order. Terms such as 'use' or 'access' would cover off these other situations. This isn't a new concept and I imagine there are templates for the judiciary to use.

Thanks

 

[brihard]

Update: looks like there was a significant court hearing this past week on an application to compel the government to facilitate return, including a day of classified testimony from which the public or applicants’ counsel were excluded:

After top-secret hearing, judge to decide on ordering federal government to repatriate Canadians detained in Syria

Following four days of hearings, including top-secret testimony on the final day of proceedings, a federal court judge will now decide if Canada has violated the rights of dozens of its citizens imprisoned in northeast Syria. More than 40 Canadians have been languishing in camps and prisons run...

www.ctvnews.ca

 

[OldSolduer]

Update: looks like there was a significant court hearing this past week on an application to compel the government to facilitate return, including a day of classified testimony from which the public or applicants’ counsel were excluded:

After top-secret hearing, judge to decide on ordering federal government to repatriate Canadians detained in Syria

Following four days of hearings, including top-secret testimony on the final day of proceedings, a federal court judge will now decide if Canada has violated the rights of dozens of its citizens imprisoned in northeast Syria. More than 40 Canadians have been languishing in camps and prisons run...

www.ctvnews.ca

I’m thinking Canada will have to take them back. What reparations - if any - we may have to pay are anyone’s guess.

 

[ModlrMike]

Have to allow them back =/= have to bring them back. There's lots of other Canadians locked up abroad who the government aren't being pressured to return.

 

[CBH99]

The article says "a judge must decide if the government has violated the rights of..."

- How has the government violated the rights of these people? They spent their own money to fly themselves all the way to Middle East, to join or support a brutal terror network.

Now we're supposed to bail them out of jail & fly them back, at taxpayers expensive? The same taxpayers they were getting ready to kill if the opportunity arose?



Sorry. You conciously made your bed, you can sleep in it.

 

[Kat Stevens]

The article says "a judge must decide if the government has violated the rights of..."

- How has the government violated the rights of these people? They spent their own money to fly themselves all the way to Middle East, to join or support a brutal terror network.

Now we're supposed to bail them out of jail & fly them back, at taxpayers expensive? The same taxpayers they were getting ready to kill if the opportunity arose?



Sorry. You conciously made your bed, you can sleep in it.

You must be new here, welcome to Canada!

 

[The Bread Guy]

And the decision?

Ottawa to help repatriate 6 women, 13 children being held in Syrian camps: lawyer - National | Globalnews.ca

The Canadians are among the many foreign nationals in Syrian camps run by Kurdish forces that reclaimed the war-torn region from the extremist Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

globalnews.ca

Canadian government to repatriate six women and 13 children from Syria

Most of the Canadians have been detained in camps operated by Kurdish authorities since the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria fell in 2019.

www.westernstandard.news

Canada to repatriate 6 women, 13 children detained in Syria: sources

Global Affairs has agreed to repatriate six Canadian women and 13 children currently detained in prison camps in northeast Syria, according to Lawrence Greenspon, the lawyer representing them in a federal court case.

www.iheartradio.ca

Canadian federal court orders repatriation of four citizens detained in Syria

Canada's Federal Court has ruled that the government must repatriate four of its citizens being held in detention centers in northeastern Syria run by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces.

www.upi.com

Federal Court orders repatriation of four Canadians detained in Syria - The Saxon

Spread the love General view of Al-Hol detention camp in northeastern Syria. The Federal Court on Friday ordered the repatriation of four Canadians who are currently being held in northeast […]

thesaxon.org

 

[Kat Stevens]

So they've sat in those camps for a couple years now, possibly getting more indoctrinated into the radical fold, and now we're bringing them back? To quote the guy who fueled up the Challenger, what's the worst that can happen?

 

[CBH99]

So they've sat in those camps for a couple years now, possibly getting more indoctrinated into the radical fold, and now we're bringing them back? To quote the guy who fueled up the Challenger, what's the worst that can happen?

Right?

I have a feeling they aren't going to be super pumped about getting to come back to Canada, and not hang out with their ISIS buddies...

Should have let them rot in prison over there. They'd genuinely be happier anyway...



My 0.02 cents

 

[CBH99]

Have to allow them back =/= have to bring them back. There's lots of other Canadians locked up abroad who the government aren't being pressured to return.

Imagine being in jail for some stupid nonsense & the government not lifting a finger to help you...

But if you wanna fly overseas for the express purpose of marrying an ISIS a******, no worries! We'll fly you back at taxpayers expense!

 

[brihard]

Anyone seen an actual written decision for this yet? I want to read what specific legal issues were ruled on before I pipe up.