Signals.Cpl

We have two classes Those who are Canadians for life no matter how bad they screw up, and those who are Canadians as long as they behave.

How so? By exporting those people to another country? They are Canadians and thus they are the problem of the government of Canada. Why should we destabilize another country because we don't want to deal with our own trash? And how would this make you safer when it is so easy to bypass? I forfeit my other citizenship and I become Canada's problem.

And how would my country of birth feel when I spend the majority of my life in Canada? From their perspective I am Canadian and therefore Canada's problem. This seems like a non-existent solution to a serious problem, its not a solution because it easily manipulated, I forfeit my other citizenship and Canada is SOL. And my other question still stands, why would any country accept someone who has lived all of their adult life in Canada? IF Canada accepts you as a citizen, you are Canadian for better or for worse, if you lied when applying that is a different story. That is all, you are Canadian and your citizenship should be absolutely equal in every way and right to that of the other 35+ million Canadians.

And how would this prevent such an event if those responsible were born in Canada, their parents were born in Canada and they only have Canadian citizenship?

So the only prerequisite to being Canadian is birth in Canada? And since I was young when I came to Canada why should my country of birth want me back if I become a terrorist? Instead of Marginalizing citizens, we need to fix the immigration and refugee system, hand out tougher sentences where terrorism is concerned and hunt down those who are doing the recruiting.

I understand that and if the goal is to remove dual citizenship the by all means bring forth legislation to remove the possibility for dual citizenship just don't feed me BS about how my family and I are safer because of a law that is so easily circumvented.

So someone who was born here and moved to some other country at age two and lived there for 30 years and then comes back and commits acts of terrorism should not be deported because he is Canadian, but I should be deported if I commit acts of terrorism because I moved here when I was 9 and have lived here for the last 20 years of my life? Once Canadian, always Canadian.

What if he is born in Canada and has only Canadian Citizenship? How do you protect Canadians then? If you don't think that those individuals received a long enough sentence then by all means try to fix that problem, focusing on the place of birth or secondary citizenship of the individuals means you get a nice big scoop of BS because how would it protect Canadians from the likes of Khadr and Zehaf-Bibeau? Both were born on Canada right? And I am sure that if you start deporting and revoking the citizenships of those born in Canada you will get more opposition because it is a lot easier to take away someone else's rights or marginalize their citizenship but not so easy when you fit that criteria yourself.

I am all for throwing them out if Canada if it is applied equally to every individual convicted terrorist. Since it cannot be applied equally then we should do it the only way we can, punish them in Canada as Canadians. Why should Immigrants become loyal to Canada if they never have a chance to become true Canadians? Why should immigrants serve in the Military and risk their lives FOR Canada if they are only second class citizens?

So it is aimed at dual citizens then? If you were born in Canada but have a citizenship from another country as well you are still not safe? Why would Pakistan want a CANADIAN BORN terrorist to add tot heir problems? What is to stop Pakistan from revoking his citizenship?

That will sure protect us from Omar Khadr right? Make it more difficult for him and individuals like him to commit acts of terrorism by taking away their citizenship and kicking them out right? Oh wait that's right, Khadr is a real Canadian because he was born here.

If he is Canadian that should not be an option. If I cure cancer tomorrow a whole lot of Canadians will be proud of the achievement of a Canadian but if I were to blow up a building in an act of terrorism I won't be considered a Canadian…see a problem with that?

So that oath only applied to you? I was to young to take an oath when I received my citizenship, does that mean I get a pass?

I don't think that is the point though, I think that one of the biggest arguments against revoking citizenship from only one segment of the population means that it creates a two class citizenship. Once someone is Canadian they are Canadian period unless it is proven that they lied at any point in the application process. I realize a lot of people make the argument that if you are not a terrorist you shouldn't worry about it, but then again once you marginalize a segment of your population politicians like Donald Trump can use that segment as the whipping boy to distract the rest of the people from the real problems, and this leads to the slippery slope where you start revoking citizenships based on lesser and lesser crimes.

Wherever we go, whatever we do with the military, at this point in time we really don't have the means to get our troops, equipment and vehicles into a war zone, supplied and if necessary out of a war zone without logistical support from the US at least in the moment. I don't see why people are complaining, if we are not willing to fund a military on our own, we might as well have a back up plan to remain even remotely relevant on the international stage.

They are reporting balanced from both sides, if a cop is executed by someone in the name of revenge for the black community. The question is what the media is reporting about, are they reporting more on everyday incidents which result in police casualties or is the increase specifically related to "unarmed" black individuals?

Well is seems only fair that the media that reports on police officer killing an "innocent" black individual and they are vilified in the media in most cases before all or even any facts are known would be the same media that would go and present a story of police officers being executed in the street in the name of a retaliation. How is it any less newsworthy that a black male kills two NYPD officers? If the media reported about every black man who is killed by police, but did not report when a black man executes police officers then there would be a bigger problem.

But are there other reasons for the increase in media reporting? Is the media increase because more officers are dying in the streets or is it because they are specifically being targeted because of being police officers?

Regulate the same way as Cigarettes and alcohol. Put the same restrictions as alcohol when it comes to driving etc… Allow companies the freedom to restrict use during work hours or have rules against any use by their employees and leave it at that.

Are you saying that the US will kill every journalist on sight? I posted relevant parts from your source that states when journalists MIGHT be considered an unprivileged belligerents and its not 100% of the time but in very specific circumstances. I suspect the rest of the points might be equally false but I have neither the time nor the interest to read the entire document.

Journalists fall into several categories depending on their actions... Seems to me that a Journalist would only be considered a spy if (s)he is caught in the act of spying or some similar activity… so basically a journalist falls in a number of categories only based on their position and/or actions.

What would you have done in his place? Run towards the gunfire? He is the PM of this Country, it is his job to run the country, not to stare down terrorists.

@ drummindiver: I think the state funeral is a Quebec "state" funeral rather than a federal one...You know they are a nation and all right? Better than those of us unfortunate enough to live in a mere province...

@ Topaz: Maybe others have said that and at the end of the day it is all the same to me whether it is someone from Alberta, Quebec or Nova Scotia. It sickens me that we pay pensions to former MP's who have spend their entire careers in Parliament with the aim of destroying the country, it seems hypocritical for those individuals to take money from the government of Canada and the citizens of Canada while spending decades trying to destroy Canada.

So? As far as I know she is alive, can't give a state funeral for those who are still alive... so what is your point?