[Delwin]

I posted a link earlier, you actually can't renounce your citizenship unless you are in a foreign country and complete the application process so I am not sure where this idea came from, although at this point I'm convinced Public Animal has access to a library of secret underground texts that no one else has seen or heard of.

$1:

Who can apply to renounce their Canadian citizenship?

To renounce your Canadian citizenship using this application you must:

not reside in Canada;
be a Canadian citizen;
be a citizen of a country other than Canada, or show that you will become a citizen of a country other than Canada, if your application to renounce is accepted;
not be a threat to Canada’s security or part of a pattern of criminal activity;
be 18 years of age or older; and
understand the significance of renouncing your Canadian citizenship.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/informatio ... 02ETOC.asp

[andyt]

So you can't renounce if you are a threat to Canada’s security or part of a pattern of criminal activity? Pretty well leaves out the jihadis renunciation then, doesn't it?

anyway, doubt they completed the necessary paperwork. Sorry, we've got to take them back. Best way is to prevent them from going to them first place, best way to do that is ally with the Muslim community to identify these guys before they go off. In fact the RCMP has a program doing just that.

[Delwin]

What it comes down to is, a person can't be left stateless because their nation doesn't want to deal with them as an issue.

If we could, why would we let them back in only to cause us grief or to have to bare the expense of having to house them in prison or pay for their welfare. We would just pack their bags escort them to the border and wish them luck.

They are our headache and we are the ones that have to deal with it.

[andyt]

And for the ones that are disillusioned we should use that to our disadvantage by making deals with them to spread the word against jihad.

[Delwin]

When it comes to radicalization, the first important fact to look at is that while almost all other religions are shrinking, Islam is the fastest growing religion as it pertains to both birth, and conversions according to this report by 20/20 and according to the Guinness book of world records.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iho3nmoHdKE

So while other religions are struggling to keep churches, temples and other religious buildings open, Muslim's are opening new Mosques all of the time.

This is despite any perceived negativity Radical Islam has received from the media.

Based on all evidence I have seen thus far, it appears to me that those who have recently converted are becoming radicalized at a much higher rate that those whom are born into Muslim families or have been studying Islam for long periods of time.(Speaking in regards to Canada)

I believe that herein lies the problem. The direct correlation between how recently people have converted and their likelihood of becoming radicalized can be explained in a number of ways:

The people whom are being converted are being taught a different form of Islam than those whom have been studying Islam in Canada for their whole life.

or

The people whom are looking to convert are searching out a more radical form of Islam to study.


This is an anomaly. Why is it that more people are converting when the overall perception of the religion is becoming more negative ? And why are the ones who are converting associating with the more radical interpretation of Islam ?

Either our society is producing immortality at a higher overall rate and those whom are immoral are searching out immoral groups or there are members of the society who are not accepting the story-line being put out by western media and rejecting it as false.

My inclination is to believe the latter. I do not accept that people have become more evil, I am more inclined to believe that people are sympathetic to the plight and view the western portrayal as false.

Why do they think like this ?

This part you can fill in yourself but in the end it comes down to one key factor: The foreign policy of bullshit

Newly converted Jihadists aren't buying the Western Story-line because it is complete bullshit. Bullshit justifications for war and Bullshit support for Tyrants. The actions of the west have lost any notion of Morale High-ground and until we start telling the truth about what we have done and why we did it, more and more people are refusing to buy the bullshit.

Until we regain credibility, our best policy is not to get involved. Trust is difficult to gain and easily lost.

[andyt]

It's not or, it's and. Islam is by far the most proselytizing religion out there (except maybe Scientology), so there's a lot of radical nutbars out there looking to convert people and teaching radical Islam.

And, many of those converting are seeking to make a radical break with their old lives, and looking for a radical approach to life. What's more radical than giving your life for a cause. Young men have always wanted this, the West doesn't offer much in the way of it right now.(If FD is successful, the radical cause will become killing Muslims). In the 60's we had the left, fighting against the man, man, which also many people took too far. Didn't have to journey to other lands to do it, just join the protests. Plus you get to smoke dope and get laid.

Which is why the West has to make common cause with the sane elements of Islam. If we push them into a corner, as FD and Martin want to do, they'll just join the jihadis, since there's nowhere else for them to go. Not a good thing to have a billion people go on a rampage all over the world.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

And for the ones that are disillusioned we should use that to our disadvantage by making deals with them to spread the word against jihad.

The ones thatb are disillusioned? How will you tell? They're all going to lay a big sob story if they want to get abck into Canada and stay out of jail. I imagine "I was just fo0llowing orders" and "If I didn't do those horrible things they would have killd me" will top the list. Or maybe "I was one of the nice ones and tried to put people's heads back on again."

[Delwin]

Zipper is right. They will have their defense well thought out before they get back. We have to assume that when they made their decision to leave they must have acknowledged, at least in part, that they were travelling down a one way street.

It is likely that we won't ever know what crimes these people are guilty of. As much as I am an advocate of jurisprudence, and the rule of law, in this instance I believe the correct policy is that these people are guilty by association. It's difficult for me to accept it too but I don't see any other way.

Duress is never a defense for murder since you can't put the value of your life above that of the victim and as far as I'm concerned even if all they did was nothing to stop them. They are still complicit.

If they have intel they can trade for leniency and our gain is greater than their threat, that is something they can work out with authorities, barring that, throw the book at them.

[andyt]

We can tell by their actions when they come back here. If they are willing to speak out against jihad, give them a break.

thing is, what are they guilty of? Did they break real laws that stand up at the supreme court, or Conservative bullshit laws that please their base, only to be tossed out by the Supremes?

[ccga3359]

andyt andyt:

We can tell by their actions when they come back here. If they are willing to speak out against jihad, give them a break.

thing is, what are they guilty of? Did they break real laws that stand up at the supreme court, or Conservative bullshit laws that please their base, only to be tossed out by the Supremes?

The Canadian Anti-Terrorism law, Bill C-36 was passed December 18th, 2001 was passed by the Liberal government of the day.

[andyt]

And these guys broke that law, and the govt can prove it?

[ccga3359]

andyt andyt:

And these guys broke that law, and the govt can prove it?

Certainly makes a case toward that don'tcha think?


http://www.canadaka.net/link.php?id=84371

[Zipperfish]

Yes, I believe leaving the country to join in terrorist activites is a crime, but under a newer law passed by the Conservatives (with LIberal support; NDP opposed).

[Delwin]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Yes, I believe leaving the country to join in terrorist activites is a crime, but under a newer law passed by the Conservatives (with LIberal support; NDP opposed).

Yes Bill S-7 Passed on April 24, 2013.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/25 ... -hearings/

This is the section dealing with leaving to commit terrorist acts:

$1:

Section 6:

83.181 Everyone who leaves or attempts to leave Canada, or goes or attempts to go on board a conveyance with the intent to leave Canada, for the purpose of committing an act or omission outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be an offence under subsection 83.18(1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications ... &File=30#2

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

The formal process only applies if you are actually living within Canada at the time you apply. If you renounce your citizenship while in a foreign country then you are no longer considered a Canadian..

I didn't know that. Do you have a source?

I erred. Was reading something late the night before I made that post which made it sound like you could freely renounce if your weren't actually living in Canada at the time. My bad because I usually double and triple check stuff like that before posting.
I do find it odd though, that a person can be refused citizenship if they are considered to be a threat to Canada and/or Canadians, while on the other hand your application to renounce your citizenship can be turned down if you are considered to be a threat to Canada and/or Canadians.

It also seems a little off that you need to pay the govt and get their permission to "switch allegiances".