Canada's Trudeau under pressure after Britain revokes citizenship of 'Jihadi Jack'

By Steve Scherer

 

FILE PHOTO: Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau attends a working lunch at the Group of 20 (G-20) summit in Osaka, Japan, on Friday, June 28, 2019. Kiyoshi Ota/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo

 

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau came under pressure on Monday from the opposition Conservatives who warned against giving any assistance to Jack Letts - a dual citizen dubbed "Jihadi Jack" by the media - after Britain's decision to strip him of his British citizenship.

 

Letts, who had dual Canadian-British citizenship, said he hopes Canada can get him out of the Kurdish prison where he has been held for about two years, even if it means he goes to prison in North America, according to an ITV News interview.

 

Trudeau's Liberals repealed a law that allowed for the citizenship of those convicted of terrorism offences to be revoked. The policy shift, and Trudeau's famous "a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian" mantra, has prompted accusations from some opponents that he is soft on national security.

 

The timing of the Letts' case - just two months ahead of the election - is not good for Trudeau. Most polls show the Conservatives holding a slight lead nationally ahead of the Oct. 21 vote.

 

"'Jihadi Jack' is in prison now and that is where he should stay," Conservative leader Andrew Scheer said in a statement to Reuters. "A Conservative government under my leadership will not lift a finger to bring him back to Canada." 

 

Letts, a Muslim convert, left Britain for Syria in 2014 when he was 18, according to media reports.

 

Canada's foreign ministry said on Monday its ability to provide consular assistance in Syria was "extremely limited." On Sunday, Canada said it had "no legal obligation to facilitate" Letts' return.

 

"If the Trudeau government is contemplating helping Jihadi Jack come to Canada, we urge him to stop those attempts now," Conservative lawmaker Pierre Poilievre said on Global News TV on Sunday. "It is not the job of the Canadian government or the Canadian taxpayer to now come to his rescue after he's been caught."

 

Britain's decision prompted a response from Trudeau's Liberal government on Sunday, with Canada saying in a statement that the United Kingdom was trying to "off-load" its responsibilities in the case.

 

"I've always felt that I am Canadian, my dad is Canadian, and I never grew up being accepted as a British person anyway," Letts told ITV. "I hope Canada does take me from here, I could go there, to prison of course."

 

Even if Canada could get people out of Syria, they "would most likely be detained by authorities and face serious charges in neighbouring countries," a government source said.

 

Asked whether his government would help the Letts family, Trudeau avoided a direct answer on Monday.

 

"It is a crime to travel internationally with a goal of supporting terrorism or engaging in terrorism and that is a crime that we will continue to make all attempts to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law," he said. "That is the message we have for Canadians and for anyone involved."

 

Letts' father disputed the "knee-jerk assumption" that his son fought with Islamic State while in Syria, but added that if his son had broken the law, he should be tried, according to an interview with Canada's Global News radio on Sunday.

 

"If Jack Letts has done something wrong, I will be the first person to stand up and condemn him publicly and ask for him to go on trial and be punished for what he did," he said.

 

(Reporting by Steve Scherer, additional reporting by David Ljunggren; Editing by Dan Grebler and Lisa Shumaker)

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-08-20

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

Finally, some good news!

Trudeau should welcome this opportunity to prove everyone wrong by bringing the jihadist to Canada and converting him back to western values through much money and love. I'd like to see it.

 

Bring him back convict him then turn him lose in the general prison population the problem will be taken care of in short order

1 hour ago, webfact said:

Canada's foreign ministry said on Monday its ability to provide consular assistance in Syria was "extremely limited." On Sunday, Canada said it had "no legal obligation to facilitate" Letts' return.

 

Good, then don’t. 

 

Let him rot where he is. 

Edited August 20, 20196 yr by Bluespunk

Give him his human rights- a trial under sharia law, then execute him!

A Canadian problem for Canada to solve.

Jack must deserve at least $10.5 by now to compensate for all the hardship he had to endure NOT ????

The bigger story with far reaching consequences is the UK’s decision to revoke the citizenship of a British born citizen.

 

Many undoubtedly agree this is a correct decision given this individual’s vile crimes and of course there is wide support for the UK Government’s actions in the face of the justifiable public outrage over his crimes.

 

The question this Government action raises for Britain and British citizens is who next and for what crimes?

 

The Government has awarded itself the power to strip a British Born citizen of their citizenship and rights to live in the UK, today a vile terrorist, but again, who next and for what crimes.

 

Magna Carta specifically denied these very powers to the monarch and for very good reason.

 

Those who predict a future facist, a future communist, a future theocratic government or a government in control of all data and monitoring all communications ought to give some thought to the idea that government can now strip a British born citizen of their citizenship.

 

It is, until now, the citizens that choose the Government, not the Government that chooses the citizenship.

 

Cheer if you wish, you got rid of one vile terrorist at the cost of a fundamental right of inviable citizenship and by allowing the State  to award itself powers it has never had since Magna Carta.

 

Born and bred British, until somebody in Government decides otherwise.

 

 

Edited August 20, 20196 yr by Chomper Higgot

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The bigger story with far reaching consequences is the UK’s decision to revoke the citizenship of a British born citizen.

 

Many undoubtedly agree this is a correct decision given this individual’s vile crimes and of course there is wide support for the UK Government’s actions in the face of the justifiable public outrage over his crimes.

 

The question this Government action raises for Britain and British citizens is who next and for what crimes?

 

The Government has awarded itself the power to strip a British Born citizen of their citizenship and rights to live in the UK, today a vile terrorist, but again, who next and for what crimes.

 

Magna Carta specifically denied these very powers to the monarch and for very good reason.

 

Those who predict a future facist, a future communist, a future theocratic government or a government in control of all data and monitoring all communications ought to give some thought to the idea that government can now strip a British born citizen of their citizenship.

 

It is, until now, the citizens that choose the Government, not the Government that chooses the citizenship.

 

Cheer if you wish, you got rid of one vile terrorist at the cost of a fundamental right of inviable citizenship and by allowing the State  to award itself powers it has never had since Magna Carta.

 

Born and bred British, until somebody in Government decides otherwise.

 

 

 

You miss an important point. The 2 people stripped of British citizenship were not just British citizens. Being born in Britain btw does not automatically convey the right to British citizenship. (Like in most countries).

 

Letts has a Canadian father and joint Canadian citizenship. The other person has Bangladeshi parents, not British by ancestry right.

 

So your diatribe attacking the British Government and your assertion that all British Citizens can be stripped of that citizenship by the British Government is false. An incorrect statement.

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The bigger story with far reaching consequences is the UK’s decision to revoke the citizenship of a British born citizen.

 

Many undoubtedly agree this is a correct decision given this individual’s vile crimes and of course there is wide support for the UK Government’s actions in the face of the justifiable public outrage over his crimes.

 

The question this Government action raises for Britain and British citizens is who next and for what crimes?

 

The Government has awarded itself the power to strip a British Born citizen of their citizenship and rights to live in the UK, today a vile terrorist, but again, who next and for what crimes.

 

Magna Carta specifically denied these very powers to the monarch and for very good reason.

 

Those who predict a future facist, a future communist, a future theocratic government or a government in control of all data and monitoring all communications ought to give some thought to the idea that government can now strip a British born citizen of their citizenship.

 

It is, until now, the citizens that choose the Government, not the Government that chooses the citizenship.

 

Cheer if you wish, you got rid of one vile terrorist at the cost of a fundamental right of inviable citizenship and by allowing the State  to award itself powers it has never had since Magna Carta.

 

Born and bred British, until somebody in Government decides otherwise.

 

 

Not true.

 

The British government can only strip citizenship from someone who holds dual-citizenship.

 

Born and bred British? Even Jack Letts himself doesn't feel British.

 

" "I've always felt that I am Canadian, my dad is Canadian, and I never grew up being accepted as a British person anyway,"

22 minutes ago, nahkit said:

Not true.

 

The British government can only strip citizenship from someone who holds dual-citizenship.

 

Born and bred British? Even Jack Letts himself doesn't feel British.

 

" "I've always felt that I am Canadian, my dad is Canadian, and I never grew up being accepted as a British person anyway,"

To a certain extend I agree with you, but with the British citizenship just stripped of him, this quote of Jack is totally meaningless. After all he has no choice anymore.

44 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

You miss an important point. The 2 people stripped of British citizenship were not just British citizens. Being born in Britain btw does not automatically convey the right to British citizenship. (Like in most countries).

 

Letts has a Canadian father and joint Canadian citizenship. The other person has Bangladeshi parents, not British by ancestry right.

 

So your diatribe attacking the British Government and your assertion that all British Citizens can be stripped of that citizenship by the British Government is false. An incorrect statement.

Diatribe, attacking the government?

 

I’ve spotted your diatribe, now point out my attack on the British Government.

 

The Government has awarded itself the power to strip a British citizen born in the UK of their citizenship- Fact.

 

Now imagine a religious group gaining ascendency (take your pick) and winning a majority in Parliament forming a religious based government and with the power to strip citizenship from those who do not support the government or it’s doctrines.

 

Perhaps you really can’t see the problem with that.

 

 

Edited August 20, 20196 yr by Chomper Higgot

this action doesn't surprise me in the least, just look at the state of affairs in the UK..

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/jihadi-jack-citizenship-uk-canada-1.5251437

53 minutes ago, nahkit said:

Magna Carta specifically denied these very powers to the monarch and for very good reason.

If you could provide a reference to the Magna Carta section where it states this I would would be very grateful, and educated. And this of course is the action of a government, not the sitting monarch, so I'm not sure of the relevance of your erroneous correlation.

Edited August 20, 20196 yr by UnkleGoooose

1 hour ago, UnkleGoooose said:

If you could provide a reference to the Magna Carta section where it states this I would would be very grateful, and educated. And this of course is the action of a government, not the sitting monarch, so I'm not sure of the relevance of your erroneous correlation.

If you don't accept that Magna Carta is applicable to the modern government and law of the UK, I suggest you read up on the 1769 findings of Judge Sir William Blackmore and his affirmation of the constitution settlement of the 'Glorious Revolution', the 'Declaration of Rights 1688' and 'The Bill of Rights 1689'. 

 

Also of importance, Magna Carta is a treaty, not a statute, Parliament have no power to repeal Magna Carta.

 

wrt your query on Magna Carta Refer Clause 39 and 42

 

For an illustrative example of what can happen when the protections of Magna Carta are denied refer to one of the more shameful chapters of English history, the Edict of Expulsion. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Expulsion

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 20, 20196 yr by Chomper Higgot

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Born and bred British, until somebody in Government decides otherwise.

Only if they take up dual nationalty. A British citizen cannot be stripped of his nationality unless he has another nationality to fall back on.

 

Personally, I would ask the Syrian government to grant all British jihadists Syrian nationality. They chose to fight for that country, let them live happily ever after there.

 

Oh wait, terrorism intended to overthrow the Syrian government by a Syrian citizen is punishable death. Oh well live happily as long as their life lasts. Som nam na.

7 hours ago, Orton Rd said:

Give him his human rights- a trial under sharia law, then execute him!

Post ???? of the thread.⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

4 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

Only if they take up dual nationalty. A British citizen cannot be stripped of his nationality unless he has another nationality to fall back on.

 

Personally, I would ask the Syrian government to grant all British jihadists Syrian nationality. They chose to fight for that country, let them live happily ever after there.

 

Oh wait, terrorism intended to overthrow the Syrian government by a Syrian citizen is punishable death. Oh well live happily as long as their life lasts. Som nam na.

You miss the point entirely. 

 

Until this case, the citizenship of a person who obtains their citizenship by birth in the UK were inviable. 

 

No ifs, no buts, inviable. 

 

The  Government have responded to the justifiable public outcry  over this man's vile crimes by adopting a power they have never had and that was specifically denied them in Maga Carta. 

 

The long term consequences of the Government handing themselves that power are yet to be seen. 

 

The UK's citizens need to hope their Government never becomes tyrannical, politically or religiously so. Refer the Edict of Expulsions for the consequences.  

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You miss the point entirely. 

 

Until this case, the citizenship of a person who obtains their citizenship by birth in the UK were inviable. 

 

No ifs, no buts, inviable. 

 

The  Government have responded to the justifiable public outcry  over this man's vile crimes by adopting a power they have never had and that was specifically denied them in Maga Carta. 

 

The long term consequences of the Government handing themselves that power are yet to be seen. 

 

The UK's citizens need to hope their Government never becomes tyrannical, politically or religiously so. Refer the Edict of Expulsions for the consequences.  

Shamima Begum?

11 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

Shamima Begum?

Born in the UK, a British citizen by birth, same arguments as above laced with the fact she was a minor when she made her criminal decision to leave the UK  to join ISIS.

 

 

Edited August 20, 20196 yr by Chomper Higgot

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Born in the UK, a British citizen by birth, same arguments as above.

Had her British citizenship revoked on the grounds that she could get dual nationality (Bangladeshi father). Unfortunately, Bangladesh said that they wouldn't grant her citizenship after the event. AFAIAA it's still ploughing through the courts. She's still languishing in a detention camp in Syria though and still refusing to condem ISIS. To allow someone like that to wander free in the UK would be a dereliction of duty by the British government on the grounds of national security. I agree that it's an inventive solution by the government but necessary.

Edited August 20, 20196 yr by DannyCarlton

3 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

Had her British citizenship revoked on the grounds that she could get dual nationality (Bangladeshi father). Unfortunately, Bangladesh said that they wouldn't grant her citizenship after the event. AFAIAA it's still ploughing through the courts. She's still languishing in a detention camp in Syria though and still refusing to condem ISIS. To allow someone like that to wander free in the UK would be a dereliction of duty by the British government on the grounds of national security. I agree that it's an inventive solution by the government but necessary.

Like I say arguments of expediency employed to fundamentally change the relationship between citizens and government and for government to award itself powers it hasn’t had since Magna Carta.

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Like I say arguments of expediency employed to fundamentally change the relationship between citizens and government and for government to award itself powers it hasn’t had since Magna Carta.

It's necessary. To combat ISIS, who don't play by any rules, there's a need to get "inventive". The Americans do it continuously via the CIA and it's significant that, although they are ISIS's No:1 target, there have been very few attacks by ISIS or Al Quaida on American soil since 9/11, whereas Europe has suffered many. Sometimes, we might not like it, but needs must.

18 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

It's necessary. To combat ISIS, who don't play by any rules, there's a need to get "inventive". The Americans do it continuously via the CIA and it's significant that, although they are ISIS's No:1 target, there have been very few attacks by ISIS or Al Quaida on American soil since 9/11, whereas Europe has suffered many. Sometimes, we might not like it, but needs must.

Yup, the ends justify the means.

 

Until one day they don’t.

 

And all that left is the means looking for an ends.

 

 

Edited August 20, 20196 yr by Chomper Higgot

15 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Yup, the ends justify the means.

 

Until one day they don’t.

 

And all that left is the means looking for an ends.

 

 

Well on that day, I'll post on TV and agree with you, until that day, I want the government to do whatever's necessary to keep my children safe.

4 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

You miss an important point. The 2 people stripped of British citizenship were not just British citizens. Being born in Britain btw does not automatically convey the right to British citizenship. (Like in most countries).

 

Letts has a Canadian father and joint Canadian citizenship. The other person has Bangladeshi parents, not British by ancestry right.

 

So your diatribe attacking the British Government and your assertion that all British Citizens can be stripped of that citizenship by the British Government is false. An incorrect statement.

I suspect HMG's stance might be strengthened if a dual national is found to have used their 2nd passport at some point after leaving UK in order to travel to their intended destination.

 

(If their last electronic signature was say as a Canadian or Bangladeshi in Turkey.....)

Edited August 20, 20196 yr by evadgib

1 hour ago, DannyCarlton said:

It's necessary. To combat ISIS, who don't play by any rules, there's a need to get "inventive". The Americans do it continuously via the CIA and it's significant that, although they are ISIS's No:1 target, there have been very few attacks by ISIS or Al Quaida on American soil since 9/11, whereas Europe has suffered many. Sometimes, we might not like it, but needs must.

With US citizens, supported by the NRA & Trump, doing ISIS's job for them, why would they bother?

Just now, khunken said:

With US citizens, supported by the NRA & Trump, doing ISIS's job for them, why would they bother?

Thought they were just IS now?  Sorry, haven't been keeping up the daily doses of media garbage to know the current flavor of the month terms.

36 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

Well on that day, I'll post on TV and agree with you, until that day, I want the government to do whatever's necessary to keep my children safe.

Perhaps ceasing the free housing and a monthly check practise could help keep them a bit safer?

4 hours ago, khunken said:

With US citizens, supported by the NRA & Trump, doing ISIS's job for them, why would they bother?

Wow.