• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Bringing 'Em Back or Not? (I.D.'ed Cdn ISIS fighters, families, kids?)

Anyone seen an actual written decision for this yet? I want to read what specific legal issues were ruled on before I pipe up.
In all seriousness, I am too.

I was mostly taking a twirl around the suggestion that our government is violating their rights by not bringing them home.

I’m curious as to what rights, specifically, were/are being violated by leaving them in a country they chose to travel to.
 
Anyone seen an actual written decision for this yet? I want to read what specific legal issues were ruled on before I pipe up.
This popped up 20 Jan (and corrected 26 Jan) on the Fed Court site (also attached & archived here) - hard to find because of the "names" used (although a few names are named in there, including Jack Letts, mentioned in these parts before) ...
[1] This is an application for Charter relief, mandamus, judicial review, habeas corpus, and judicial review that was most recently argued in respect of 6 Canadian women, 13 Canadian children and 4 Canadian men. However, on January 19, 2023 counsel for all the Canadian women and children discontinued proceedings. While counsel for the women and children did not appraise the Court, it is now public information that Canada has agreed to repatriate these 19 additional Canadians. Unresolved are the claims of the four Canadian male Applicants. The Court encourages and welcomes the resolution effected between the Canadian women and children and the Respondents. In this case the legal principles applicable to the Canadian men are the same as those applicable to the Canadian women and children. These Reasons are a revised version, removing references to the women and children Applicants, of draft Reasons written with respect to the previous Applicants be they women, men or children. These Reasons now address the claims of the men.

(...)

... The status of some of the Applicants has changed since this Application was filed in September, 2021. BOLOH is an acronym to represent any given Applicant composed of a Canadian resident, their family members and a Canadian citizen currently detained in northeastern Syria. BOLOH stands for ‘Bring Our Loved Ones Home’ ...
 

Attachments

  • T-1483-21_20230120_JR_E_C_OTT_20230126131830_BRN_2023_FC_98.pdf
    671.1 KB · Views: 0
This popped up 20 Jan (and corrected 26 Jan) on the Fed Court site (also attached & archived here) - hard to find because of the "names" used (although a few names are named in there, including Jack Letts, mentioned in these parts
In all seriousness, I am too.

I was mostly taking a twirl around the suggestion that our government is violating their rights by not bringing them home.

I’m curious as to what rights, specifically, were/are being violated by leaving them in a country they chose to travel to.
Do they get a free air trip home courtesy of the taxpayers?
 
A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian

No matter what heinous shit they have committed
 
The ISIS women were just as sinister and evil as their male counterparts. When the women weren't torturing other women and men they were luring men to their deaths with dating ploys.

And the kids who’ve grown up…knowing nothing but “that life”. What will they be like as teenagers, adults.

Some are sinister and some are innocent. The hard part is determine who is which.

History? https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.715266
 
And the kids who’ve grown up…knowing nothing but “that life”. What will they be like as teenagers, adults.

Some are sinister and some are innocent. The hard part is determine who is which.

I'm fine with the kids coming back if they're willing to leave their parents behind.

Their parents chose to travel to fight for ISIS. As far as I'm concerned even if someone traveled to ISIS land to wash dishes they're guilty. I don't have any sympathy for these women.

We have refugees in Canada who were tortured by these people and who lost relatives to them. Now we're going to bring them back, probably set them up with social assistance, and wiat for them to sue the government? Hard pass.
 
I'm fine with the kids coming back if they're willing to leave their parents behind.

Their parents chose to travel to fight for ISIS. As far as I'm concerned even if someone traveled to ISIS land to wash dishes they're guilty. I don't have any sympathy for these women.

We have refugees in Canada who were tortured by these people and who lost relatives to them. Now we're going to bring them back, probably set them up with social assistance, and wiat for them to sue the government? Hard pass.

For the ones that fit the description above I agree. I wish we’d “found them” when we were looking for them above. Zero questions then. ROE and bomb trucks to do the job.
 
Last edited:
I'm fine with the kids coming back if they're willing to leave their parents behind.

Their parents chose to travel to fight for ISIS. As far as I'm concerned even if someone traveled to ISIS land to wash dishes they're guilty. I don't have any sympathy for these women.

We have refugees in Canada who were tortured by these people and who lost relatives to them. Now we're going to bring them back, probably set them up with social assistance, and wiat for them to sue the government? Hard pass.
Those kids have been fed a steady diet of "Jihad 101" since they could walk in the camps, I have no illusions about them. A couple hundred little Manchurian Candidates running around doesn't give me the warm and squishies.
 
Those kids have been fed a steady diet of "Jihad 101" since they could walk in the camps, I have no illusions about them. A couple hundred little Manchurian Candidates running around doesn't give me the warm and squishies.
Toronto is one of the safest cities in Canada. We could send them there to assimilate.
 
Those kids have been fed a steady diet of "Jihad 101" since they could walk in the camps, I have no illusions about them. A couple hundred little Manchurian Candidates running around doesn't give me the warm and squishies.
Good thing there’s only like 4 😉

(I hear ya tho)
 
And the kids who’ve grown up…knowing nothing but “that life”. What will they be like as teenagers, adults.

Some are sinister and some are innocent. The hard part is determine who is which.

History? https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.715266
As teenagers they might be a bit more dangerous than their peers, but let’s face it…all teenagers give us enough pause at times to ponder how we get them sent to Gitmo. (For like a few hours, is all)
 

I have a few issues with this.

First, what does citizenship by birth in your home country mean if it can be taken away? We can agree with the legal premise for doing it in this case, but what future crime could it become a sanction for under the right (or wrong) circumstances?

Second, it leaves her stateless, which should always be avoided in operations of law.

Third, and I think most compelling: she was a youth. She was 15 when she made her horribly poor decision to do what she did. Teenagers are idiots, and are vulnerable to ideological exploitation, which is what happened with a lot of these cases of young women who traveled to join ISIS and marry fighters. Kids need to be protected, including from themselves.

Many will disagree, but that’s how I see this one. And I’m not at all naive to the reality of what these extremist travelers chose and did.
 
Back
Top