Entitled refugees

[dialamah]

5 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Not everyone agrees with this.  You should stop spouting it as "fact".

I didn't 'spout it as "fact".  I said "he'd likely have gotten more".   The qualifying word likely indicates that this isn't a fact at all, but a possibility - albeit a strong possibility.  Perhaps more careful reading of what I actually post would help.

In any case, the government ultimately decided the prospect of having to pay more in a court-ordered settlement made the 10.5 million an  attractive option.  You can say they should have played it out to the bitter end, and maybe you'd be right.  On the other hand, what if you were wrong and the courts determined a settlement of two or three times that much?  Would that have somehow lessened your dissatisfaction with the outcome?  Or would you have all the same arguments you do now, plus a lot more money paid out?

[eyeball]

44 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Our laws have not caught up with the fact that these kinds of people have no laws.  We are trying to deal kindly with people who do not deserve it, don't appreciate it and would never do the same for us.

Our laws are just fine. It's unfortunate that some Canadians don't care or appreciate how they complicate our alliances with country's willing to eschew and ignore the same laws on their own books.

Besides just preventing and delaying  justice this lack of appreciation has also marched us into war while dividing and polarizing us against one another. It's what left the west open to attack in the first place. 

The shockwave from 9/11 sure rocked the western world and after nearly 2 decades it still remains our 21st century's defining moment.

Edited January 23, 2020 by eyeball

[Goddess]

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

the government ultimately decided the prospect of having to pay more in a court-ordered settlement made the 10.5 million an  attractive option.

Exactly.  The same Canadian government that bailed his father out when he was picked up in Pakistan for being a terrorist and let him continue to be a terrorist AND use Canada as their home base for terrorism.  I don't trust their judgment in this instance.

Edited January 23, 2020 by Goddess

[dialamah]

4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

His job was interpreting for terrorists and building the IEDs that definitely killed people.  That's pretty generous to say he didn't kill anyone.

Yes, and nice Western non-Muslims build drones that drop armaments on innocent civilians in far-off lands.  I know we're not at all willing to hold our own accountable for the innocent people they kill off the battlefield, but if we did, should we also hold the makers of the weapons accountable as murderers?   Does that make sense to you?  I mean, I'm all for that, personally - but I can see it's not actually realistic.  

[Goddess]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

and nice Western non-Muslims build drones that drop armaments on innocent civilians in far-off lands.

Lands that are at war with the West.  Innocent civilians die in all wars.  It happens on both sides.

Islam is at war with the West.  I know which side I would choose.

[dialamah]

Just now, Goddess said:

Exactly.  The same Canadian government that bailed his father out when he was picked up in Pakistan for being a terrorist and let him continue to be a terrorist.  I don't trust their judgment in this instance.

Sure, you can doubt the government in this, why not?   And you can wish there were more effective ways of dealing with exremism/terrorism than we currently have, both in preventing it and dealing with Canadians who go down that path; I certainly do.   I agree the warning signs of the Khadr family ought to have been taken more seriously and that some kind of intervention may have saved some lives - and $10.5 million bucks.

 

 

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, Goddess said:

Lands that are at war with the West.  Innocent civilians die in all wars.  It happens on both sides.

Right - when its your side killing innocent civilians it's a shrug.  If it's the other side killing innocent civilians, it's a war crime.  Why are your innocent civilians more important and more deserving of life than any other ones?

Quote

Islam is at war with the West. 

This is ridiculous, of course - just as ridiculous as an Imam or ISIS leader saying that the West is at war with Islam.  It's an extremist propaganda statement, whatever side you are on.

[dialamah]

32 minutes ago, Shady said:

Complete nonsense.

Out of cogent arguments already?   

[Goddess]

Just now, dialamah said:

Why are your innocent civilians more important and more deserving of life than any other ones?

I didn't say they were. I said it happens on both sides.  It's one of the many  drawbacks of war.

 

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

This is ridiculous, of course - just as ridiculous as an Imam or ISIS leader saying that the West is at war with Islam.  It's an extremist propaganda statement, whatever side you are on.

Islam just had a big assemblage at its 3rd most holy site stating they are at war with the West and expect to take over soon.  I'm a bad person for believing them?

[Shady]

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Out of cogent arguments already?   

No, it's that you have no idea what would've happened.  Your opinion isn't fact.  I disagree with your entire premise because it's nonsense.  

[Shady]

25 minutes ago, dialamah said:

 I said "he'd likely have gotten more". 

And that's not true.  So stop repeating it.

[dialamah]

Just now, Shady said:

Your opinion isn't fact.  I disagree with your entire premise because it's nonsense.  

"I disagree because it's nonsense" isn't an argument.  So, you are out of cogent arguments.  I win!  

[Shady]

Just now, dialamah said:

"I disagree because it's nonsense" isn't an argument.  So, you are out of cogent arguments.  I win!  

No, it's nonsense because like I've already said, you have no idea what the outcome would be.  It's like me saying money could've been saved.

[Goddess]

10 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I win!  

I think this is what its really all about for you.

[Shady]

2 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I think this is what its really all about for you.

They always err on the side of rewarding terrorists/murderers.  It's in their DNA.

[Rue]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

The Khadr family is the poster child for "Entitled Refugees".  They used the benefits of Canadian citizenship, all the while denigrating the country and all Canadian citizens and using our country as a home base to terrorize int he name of their religion.  They are an embarrassment to our country.  How some people can defend them is beyond me.

One brother openly renounced his family and said the above about them. So that brother of Kadr I distinguish. His sister and mother I deeply criticize as they have gone in to the Muslim community and preached extremist Islamist ideology. How popular they are I do not claim to know.

 

32 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Oh, I agree with this by the way - Canada definitely needs to address the issue of extremism/terrorism by Canadian citizens at home and abroad.   

Should this apply to mercenaries?  Hmmmm .... 

Well yah the issue. Being hateful in itself is not illegal. If it incites crime or violence it then may be considered a hate crime. So it has been used to prevent certain people from getting a visitor's visa to Canada when they have wanted to come and give lectures or speeches. It is of course a tricky topic because there is a fine line between hate crimes and freedom of expression guaranteed in s.2 and other sections of the Charter.

The current immigration laws give a Canadian Border Security officer the right to challenge entry on the grounds a foreign national may be a security risk, a fugitive of a criminal conviction where that crime is the same in Canada, or is suspected of being part of organized crime, a terrorist organization or having violated war crimes or UN conventions.

The problem with that of course is when the foreign national steps foot on Canadian soil, the Charter applies. So if they do not agree to leave asap and demand an appeal, they are detained and have a detention hearing and an admissibility hearing and the evidence is reviewed as to the grounds to deport.

Many countries will not take back criminals or terrorists. They refuse. A classic example is Jamaica. It goes out of its way at times to avoid taking back known gang members who try to get into Canada with fake names, etc.

Here is another twist. We added a new definition of refugee that states a person who commits a crime in another country, where that crime is not a crime in Canada or where they were convicted of a sentence much harder than they would in Canada or claim they would be killed if sent home or tortured and can not avail the protection of the state can apply for state protection and be granted refugee status. Its been used for a teacher in her 30's who had sex with a 16 year old and was convicted of statutory rape in Florida since it was not considered statutory rape in Canada. Its been used to allow a 4 time pedophile serial killer from Iraq to remain in Canada because he would have faced a death sentence in Iraq.

It can be used by anyone who commits a crime for murder and is sentenced to capital punishment in another country and can flee. It has not been used that way.

In Kadr's specific case, the laws he was tried under  were found unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court 4 times so the US regardless of President had to release him. Each time his conviction was called unconstitutional Bush Jr. would change the law leading to yet another appeal and was able to do that 4 times but after his tenure as President Obama did not want to push that process and scrapped it.

The US system failed because it attempted to fuse military tribunal processes with civilian criminal law processes. In so doing it did not allow full disclosure of the evidence used to define Kadr as guilty violating the US constitution and for that matter the Canadian Charter of Rights, Australian, United Kingdom and all laws of full disclosure in Western allied countries.

There are no international conventions states have agreed to follow to suggest the treatment of  terrorists, child terrorists. This is because no one can agree on what a terrorist is.

With Kadr the US had two other alternatives. It could have treated Kadr as a prisoner of war, but he would have had to be released once hostilities were at an end and could not be punished for his killing of the US soldier. He could have also been arrested and charged with violating Afghani laws but the US felt if placed in an Afghani prison he would have easily escaped.

The primary motive of the US in creating the hybrid law it did because it felt it morally imperative to contain and punish terrorists especially those who killed a US soldier.

Today we are no further ahead.

When Kadr returned and he had to, he should have been forced to go to the Supreme Court of Canada on his request for compensation. It is very probable the courts would have said he is entitled to rehabilitation which might include schooling but they most probably would not have rewarded him money as Trudeau did in an out of court settlement citing the common law doctrine that one can not profit from crimes for any reason. Trudeau set a legal precedent to pay off terrorists rather than test this principle.

In regards to screening terrorists at this point, we rely on overseas consulates and other  government intelligence and police sources because CSIS has no budget or personnel to properly do this and the few CSIS officers we have are swamped screening diplomats.

We do have a shared intelligence agreement with the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand and we can ask for info from NATO allies or through Interpol but usually there is not enough time or manpower to do this.

The cost to have a proper screening process is something no one discusses.

As well no one discusses the implications of the Charter's application and how it makes many grounds some would want to be used to deport or block entry, unconstitutional.

Right now I am not sure how  much political will the current Prime Minister has to block anyone for any reason.

In regards specifically to Muslims coming to Canada our Charter says they must be treated as all others. Simply assuming they are terrorists because they are Muslim won't do it.

If on the other  hand they did what Kadr did then we have concrete proof of a crime.

The problem then is because Kadr was under 16 at the time of his crime he invoked the Young Offenders Act to argue a lesser sentence than age of majority individuals.. The Young Offender Act was predicated on dealing with domestic crimes not acts of  terror and war overseas and so it enabled Kadr to get out of a prison term for time already served.

Civilly I believe our courts acted unreasonably in not allowing the widow of the person he killed recover compensation from Kadr for wrongful death. I would have liked to have seen that appealed. The true injured parties are the family of the soldier Kadr injured.

In regards to Kadr, he was never rehabilitated. He has made it clear he has no remorse for what he did.

What can we do for current laws? Well we are going to have to clearly define what is a terrorist. We are going to have to write into the definition words that contemplate the Charter exemption from the Charter if it can be shown the anti terror law is justified as being a higher level of importance than  individual rights. The only way to do that is assure the evidence would be fully disclosed as to the grounds of terrorism. The problem with that is the state may not want to fully disclose the evidence for fear of compromising where it was obtained from.

So you see its a  complex matter.

[dialamah]

4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I think this is what its really all about for you.

Silly girl.   Of the two of us, who has gone out of their way to acknowledge and agree with the others' POV in the last couple of hours?   

26 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Islam just had a big assemblage at its 3rd most holy site stating they are at war with the West and expect to take over soon. 

Did they now?  You don't provide a site, and I couldn't find anything on Google - I even checked the Religion of Peace website, no luck.  So, I regard this statement with considerable skepticism.

Anyway, why wouldn't you believe them?  Probably the same reason you've dismissed the 300 Islamic leaders signing an anti-terror statement; one supports your view of Muslims as 'evil', and the other does not.

[Goddess]

9 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Silly girl.

I'm in my 50's.  Don't patronize me like you're one of the MAD MEN from 1950.

 

9 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Did they now?  You don't provide a site, and I couldn't find anything on Google - I even checked the Religion of Peace website, no luck.  So, I regard this statement with considerable skepticism.

It was discussed on the Islam thread.  The address to all followers of Islam was given just a week ago.

I would think that moderate Muslims all over the world would declare against this, but no.....silence.

https://www.memri.org/tv/jerusalem-hizb-ut-tahrir-alaqsa-mosque-conquest-of-rome

 

Quote

 

AL-AQSA MOSQUE ADDRESS: WE WILL SOON ESTABLISH THE CALIPHATE, LIBERATE JERUSALEM AND CONQUER ROME

January 17, 2020

 

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Goddess

[Goddess]

11 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Anyway, why wouldn't you believe them? 

The question is:  Why don't you?  They are saying it in black and white.  And Muslims are not in any way disturbed by this announcement/address.

[dialamah]

7 minutes ago, Rue said:

So you see its a  complex matter.

Indeed it is.

7 minutes ago, Rue said:

Well we are going to have to clearly define what is a terrorist. We are going to have to write into the definition words that contemplate the Charter exemption from the Charter if it can be shown the anti terror law is justified as being a higher level of importance than  individual rights.

This sounds reasonable to me, but I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to matter of law.  It also sounds time-consuming and expensive, and given that terrorists are relatively rare, is it going to be a priority for the government?   Quite often, we can't get government action on things that are of much more immediate threat to Canadians - such as effectively enforced no-contact laws on abusive men.  

10 minutes ago, Rue said:

Civilly I believe our courts acted unreasonably in not allowing the widow of the person he killed recover compensation from Kadr for wrongful death. I would have liked to have seen that appealed. The true injured parties are the family of the soldier Kadr injured.

Would it be fair then for the families of innocent people killed in other lands by US/Canadian soldiers to sue the soldiers they believed responsible for those deaths?   Leaving aside whether Khadr did/did not actually kill anyone or how old he was, he was in a conflict situation.  It seems odd to me that he'd be such a special case that he could be successfully sued for killing someone in that conflict?   Conflict is conflict; each side believes they are right, and the other side is wrong - suing anyone for 'wrongful' death in those situations makes no sense to me.   Although if it were widely implemented, with the State (US, Russia, Syria, whoever) having to pay on behalf of it's soldiers, I suppose it would add to the cost of war and maybe we'd stop having so many?

18 minutes ago, Rue said:

the right to challenge entry on the grounds a foreign national

Which would not have applied in Khadr's case, as he's not a foriegn national, correct?

19 minutes ago, Rue said:

Many countries will not take back criminals or terrorists.

Yeah - every time someone's solution is "send them back to where they came from" I wonder what makes them so sure they'd be accepted back where they came from.  Perhaps we need another Australia to send all the 'unwanted' to.  Funny how that prison outpost became a place millions of people love to visit/live.

21 minutes ago, Rue said:

The cost to have a proper screening process is something no one discusses.

It kind of reminds me of places where people cross roads unsafely - the municipality knows about it, and they ticket people if they catch them - but they often don't actually do anything till someone, or a couple of someones, get killed - then they'll put a crosswalk in, or a fence that prevents people from crossing.  The fact is that terrorism, in Canada, is still pretty rare.  If/until that changes, the cost will be considered too high.  

26 minutes ago, Rue said:

In regards to Kadr, he was never rehabilitated. He has made it clear he has no remorse for what he did.

I agree that he was never rehabilitated, but to me he comes across as remorseful.  Why do you feel differently?

[Goddess]

I put Khadr in the same category as Karla Homolka.  Justice was not served and murderers are walking our streets.

[dialamah]

13 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I'm in my 50's.  Don't patronize me like you're one of the MAD MEN from 1950.

Don't be silly, then.

14 minutes ago, Goddess said:

It was discussed on the Islam thread.  The address to all followers of Islam was given just a week ago.

Thanks, I missed that in the Islam thread.  I suppose you think I haunt that thread, eh?  I'm only here so much lately cause I'm home sick, lack energy to do much and have time to spare.

Quote

I would think that moderate Muslims all over the world would declare against this, but no.....silence.

Well, I don't see "moderate Westerners" all over the world declare against the war on Islam statements of Trump, the leader of one of the world's superpowers.   Some do, for sure - and some support him while the vast majority are just silent.  I imagine that the same can be said of this Imam.  And if you yourself aren't willing to stand up against those who counsel war with Islam, why should you expect any Muslim to stand up against people counseling war with the West?

Anyway, I condemn this guy just as much as I condemn anyone who chooses to use propaganda to foment hate against an entire group of people.  If I had my way, I'd have him arrested and rehabilitated - but I guess that's up to Jerusalem authorities.

[dialamah]

17 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I put Khadr in the same category as Karla Homolka.  Justice was not served and murderers are walking our streets.

Fair enough. 

[Argus]

16 hours ago, Rue said:

I stand by my words. You now playing the victim and trying to deny what you said is to be expected and sad.

I don't need to deny what I said. I deny what YOU said I said.

You stand by your words all you want. They mark you as a hypocrite. You denounce my words even while later saying they were true and obvious. Bah. Your self-righteousness is trying my patience.

[Argus]

16 hours ago, Rue said:

The law already deports non Canadian citizens who deport a crime.

We rarely deport permanent residents for committing crimes. And we certainly don't do it after they've been here for three years and have gained citizenship.

Quote

Your reference to the law needing to be more selective means what....go on  Argus...just once tell everyone your criteria for selection.

Just once? As if I've been keeping that a secret rather than stating it repeatedly for longer than you've been on this web site. I want immigrants who are self-supporting, who can contribute economically, and who have an adaptable, flexible personality that WANTS to join with and integrate with the culture, values and people of Canada.

Edited January 23, 2020 by Argus