Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

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

Recommended Posts

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

By Steve Scherer

 

2019-08-19T173427Z_1_LYNXNPEF7I164_RTROPTP_4_CANADA-POLITICS-TRUDEAU.JPG

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Trudeau's Liberals repealed a law that allowed for the citizenship of those convicted of terrorism offences to be revoked.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)

 

 

reuters_logo.jpg

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-08-20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Canadian problem for Canada to solve.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by UnkleGoooose
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Chomper Higgot
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...