Goddess Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, eyeball said: What terrorist activities? Aren't those indictable crimes? Perhaps it was just a signal of Canada's virtue or some such thing. Even Trudeau tries to put on a brave face of regret when it comes to the way Ottawa's hands are tied with regards to Khadr - reminds me of the excuses he makes when defending our weapon sales to Saudi Arabia. It wouldn't bother me in the least, I have no doubt CSIS or someone from the government will be following Khadr around for the rest of his life in any case. I suspect you'd come just as unglued if Omar was with me unsupervised. Why can't you answer the question? Why did the government originally set up the restricted access to his family? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 Just now, Goddess said: Why can't you answer the question? Why did the government originally set up the restricted access to his family? Because the government is trying to appease you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goddess Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 4 minutes ago, eyeball said: It wouldn't bother me in the least, I have no doubt CSIS or someone from the government will be following Khadr around for the rest of his life in any case. I suspect you'd come just as unglued if Omar was with me unsupervised. This was your answer to my question: Do you think Omar should be with this person unsupervised? Your answer says that it wouldn't bother you at all to let a convicted terrorist continue to have unrestricted visits with his terrorist family and that he should be given a Canadian passport so that he can travel to Saudi Arabia. Isn't that what got him into all this trouble in the first place? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goddess Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, eyeball said: Because the government is trying to appease you. The government barely knows I exist. I suspect they restricted access to his family because they are terrorists. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 Just now, Goddess said: The government barely knows I exist. I suspect they restricted access to his family because they are terrorists. Islamophobe. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 Let's not forget that ol' Justy is practically family to these folks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goddess Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 6 minutes ago, Goddess said: This was your answer to my question: Do you think Omar should be with this person unsupervised? Your answer says that it wouldn't bother you at all to let a convicted terrorist continue to have unrestricted visits with his terrorist family and that he should be given a Canadian passport so that he can travel to Saudi Arabia. Isn't that what got him into all this trouble in the first place? Eyeball's take on this is such a bizarre viewpoint to me. It would be like a Catholic priest who molested a bunch of children, then got off on a technicality and who then petitions the courts to give him unrestricted access to young boys and permission to travel anywhere in the world where young boys are available for molesting. And Eyeball would say, "Sure! Give him access to all the things that led to his criminal actions in the first place. Absolutely bizarre. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goddess Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: Let's not forget that ol' Justy is practically family to these folks. They've been protected by the Canadian government for a long time. I don't know why no one cares to find out WHY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 10 minutes ago, Goddess said: The government barely knows I exist. I suspect they restricted access to his family because they are terrorists. Why weren't they ever charged then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Goddess said: They've been protected by the Canadian government for a long time. I don't know why no one cares to find out WHY. Boyle, Khadr, Trudeau, etc...they ALL know each other...but...you know...nothing weird here at all, folks. Edited December 12, 2018 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 4 minutes ago, Goddess said: Eyeball's take on this is such a bizarre viewpoint to me. It would be like a Catholic priest who molested a bunch of children, then got off on a technicality and who then petitions the courts to give him unrestricted access to young boys and permission to travel anywhere in the world where young boys are available for molesting. And Eyeball would say, "Sure! Give him access to all the things that led to his criminal actions in the first place. Absolutely bizarre. The things that led to his activities were crimes his parents were never charged with, how do you explain that? I would love to see the government charge his mother with indoctrinating a child into being a terrorist. How do you explain why I think that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 7 minutes ago, Goddess said: They've been protected by the Canadian government for a long time. I don't know why no one cares to find out WHY. I know why. I've explained why many times around here too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, eyeball said: I know why. I've explained why many times around here too. Birds of a feather flock together. Edited December 12, 2018 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Goddess said: Why can't you answer the question? Why did the government originally set up the restricted access to his family? It was the courts which limited him, and the feds are not appealing his request, cos I guess they don't want him to feel like he's in gitmo anymore. Edited December 12, 2018 by scribblet 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OftenWrong Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 A little hard to understand why there is any legal restriction. What was the apology and the $10M all about then? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turningrite Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said: A little hard to understand why there is any legal restriction. What was the apology and the $10M all about then? You've got to wonder, for sure. When all is said and done, nothing in recent Canadian history will have served to undermine the reputation of Charter more than the Khadr settlement. If this be the law, or a result of the law, many will conclude that the law is an ass. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goddess Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 1 minute ago, turningrite said: You've got to wonder, for sure. When all is said and done, nothing in recent Canadian history will have served to undermine the reputation of Charter more than the Khadr settlement. If this be the law, or a result of the law, many will conclude that the law is an ass. Except for Khadr's supporters, such as Eyeball. Our laws are woefully inadequate to deal with Islamic terrorism because terrorism and Islamic extremism is moving faster than we can change laws. To Eye, we dont' need to update our laws to allow us to deal legally with terrorists. He's okay with letting them continue to travel to Islamic terrorist hotbeds and giving them unfettered access to their fellow terrorists. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 14 minutes ago, OftenWrong said: A little hard to understand why there is any legal restriction. What was the apology and the $10M all about then? I find it a little odd to be apologizing to a convicted murderer, at all...let alone giving him $10+ million in Jizya. Improper questioning on the battlefield or in POW custody?? Please.... Let's hand out speeding tickets at Daytona, next. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 2 hours ago, turningrite said: You've got to wonder, for sure. When all is said and done, nothing in recent Canadian history will have served to undermine the reputation of Charter more than the Khadr settlement. If this be the law, or a result of the law, many will conclude that the law is an ass. C'mon, you guys were trying to undermine the Charter and its reputation long before anyone had even heard of Khadr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 2 hours ago, scribblet said: It was the courts which limited him, and the feds are not appealing his request, cos I guess they don't want him to feel like he's in gitmo anymore. Well , what will there be to stop you when your side is in power again? You probably could have him thrown back into Gitmo if you really wanted too. Trump would have a field day if we offered him the opportunity to make a spectacle of Khadr. You can dream but you know your feds won't do a thing when you're in power and you know why that is too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turningrite Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 19 minutes ago, eyeball said: C'mon, you guys were trying to undermine the Charter and its reputation long before anyone had even heard of Khadr. Your proof? I submit that you know little to nothing about me. I was once a Charter supporter but have become more skeptical of it over time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 2 hours ago, Goddess said: Except for Khadr's supporters, such as Eyeball. Our laws are woefully inadequate to deal with Islamic terrorism because terrorism and Islamic extremism is moving faster than we can change laws. To Eye, we dont' need to update our laws to allow us to deal legally with terrorists. He's okay with letting them continue to travel to Islamic terrorist hotbeds and giving them unfettered access to their fellow terrorists. So just get rid of or update the laws you don't like. Exactly what is stopping you? What stopped Harper when he had the chance? The easiest way to deal legally with terrorists is to uphold our principles. Those are what I support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turningrite Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 (edited) 14 minutes ago, eyeball said: Well , what will there be to stop you when your side is in power again? You probably could have him thrown back into Gitmo if you really wanted too. Trump would have a field day if we offered him the opportunity to make a spectacle of Khadr. You can dream but you know your feds won't do a thing when you're in power and you know why that is too. I think Scribblet was being sarcastic. And I believe Khadr is inadmissible to the U.S. so he doesn't have to worry about what Trump might or might not do to him. Edited December 12, 2018 by turningrite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 Just now, turningrite said: Your proof? I submit that you know little to nothing about me. I was once a Charter supporter but have become more skeptical of it over time. Skeptical before, after or because of Khadr? The Charter is a symbol of progressiveness that the hard-boiled right-wing in Canada has hated for decades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turningrite Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, eyeball said: Skeptical before, after or because of Khadr? The Charter is a symbol of progressiveness that the hard-boiled right-wing in Canada has hated for decades. Constitutional provisions sometimes have unintended consequences. Just ask many Americans about the Second Amendment (i.e. "the right to bear arms") if you want to comprehend the dilemma.There has been much debate in this country in recent years about Charter and judicial overreach. The Charter altered the relationship between the legislative and judicial branches in Canada. Many who initially saw the Charter as a good idea have no doubt since concluded that it likely ceded too much power to the judiciary. Ultimately, democracy is about the collective power of voters (and not judges) to determine public policy. Undermining this proposition surely can't be considered "progressive" under any historically valid meaning of that term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.