Jihadi Joe

[grassroots]

Should he be allowed back into the UK.

[Hamble]

No.

The loving parents can emigrate for a reunion in Canada.

[bambi275]

Canada doesn't seem to be too impressed with our decision though and as he is UK born then I don't blame them. Hopefully they can quash his Canadian citizenship and he can be left in Syria where he was so desperate to be but then if we leave the terrorists in a war torn country then what hope is there for peace there ever? A toughie to answer.

[crocodile35]

Should he be allowed back into the UK.

No

[rolling-thunder]

No he shouldn't be allowed back in the UK and the same for any Traitor. I don't blame his parents for trying to help their Son but they have to understand he is an enemy of the whole Country and as such he should be vilified and banned from ever stepping foot on his once Home soil. The same for any surviving Traitors.

[said]

Should he be allowed back into the UK.

No - he chose his allegiance, he should stay with it. The UK has no need for traitors. In any case - if he were allowed back into the UK, both he and his long suffering parents would receive continual abuse and probably much more. He should have no right in the UK and no right in Canada.

[Ceam]

Only so we can hang him from the tallest tree by his testicles.

[seivad]

No.

The loving parents can emigrate for a reunion in Canada.

There are millions of people living all over the world who weren’t born in Britain, and have never lived in Britain, but are dual British citizens by virtue of their parentage. How would you feel if, in order to avoid repatriation, another country stripped a terrorist of their natural born citizenship, leaving Britain with the responsibility for another country's traitorous trash?

I understand why you don’t want Letts to return to the UK. I don’t understand how anyone can think it’s acceptable to punt a British born and bred ISIS recruit on to Canada. It’s morally wrong, an easy way out of dealing with your own uncomfortable situation. In addition to this, should he ever reach these shores we can’t even prosecute him. As the law stands, in order for prosecution a person has to leave Canada to join a terrorist group. As Letts left the UK to join ISIS, he will be a free man in Canada. Britain should do its own dirty laundry.

[seivad]

No - he chose his allegiance, he should stay with it. The UK has no need for traitors. In any case - if he were allowed back into the UK, both he and his long suffering parents would receive continual abuse and probably much more. He should have no right in the UK and no right in Canada.

I agree with you, but note that you've changed your tune. Remember Shamima Begum? You stated that despite her being born in Britain, she was not really British and should be returned to Bangladesh, the country of her parents. What makes her less British than Letts? The colour of her skin?

[Hamble]

There are millions of people living all over the world who weren’t born in Britain, and have never lived in Britain, but are dual British citizens by virtue of their parentage. How would you feel if, in order to avoid repatriation, another country stripped a terrorist of their natural born citizenship, leaving Britain with the responsibility for their own traitorous trash?

I understand why you don’t want Letts to return to the UK. I don’t understand how anyone can think it’s acceptable to punt a British born and bred ISIS recruit on to Canada. It’s morally wrong, an easy way out of dealing with your own uncomfortable situation. In addition to this, should he ever reach these shores we can’t even prosecute him. As the law stands, in order for prosecution a person has to leave Canada to join a terrorist group. As Letts left the UK to join ISIS, he will be a free man in Canada. Britain should do its own dirty laundry.

1.The Canadian Government tried to negotiate Letts release.

2.Can he not be revoked under:

"Grounds for revoking citizenship
Canadian law allows for revocation in certain circumstances. Subsections 10(1) and 10.1(1) of the Citizenship Act provide that a person’s citizenship or renunciation of citizenship may be revoked if the person obtains, retains, renounces, or resumes citizenship by

false representation;
fraud; or
knowingly concealing material circumstances.
Citizenship may also be revoked if a person (who is a dual citizen), before or after the coming into force of subsections 10(2) and 10.1(2) and while the person was a Canadian citizen,

was convicted of terrorism, high treason, treason, or spying offences, depending on the sentence received; or
served as a member of an armed force of a country or as a member of an organized armed group and that country or group was engaged in armed conflict with Canada."

[Hamble]

I agree with you, but note that you've changed your tune. Remember Shamima Begum? You stated that despite her being born in Britain, she was not really British and should be returned to Bangladesh, the country of her parents. What makes her less British than Letts? The colour of her skin?

I was for allowing British born Shamima Begum entry on the grounds that she was a minor when she left and 'groomed'.

Letts was an adult and 'groomed' his Canadian and British parent.

Interesting to know if money sent was in or Canadian Dollars!

[seivad]

1.The Canadian Government tried to negotiate Letts release.

In early 2018 when Letts' family asked Canada for assistance, consular officials had no option but to contact Letts and Kurdish officials. The Kurds said they would release him to either Britain or Canada if either government requested his release. Neither government has requested his release.

Canadian officials did say they would try to assist him, but made no promises, and it seemed to have died a death. It's an issue that's even less popular here than it is in the UK.

2.Can he not be revoked under:

"Grounds for revoking citizenship
Canadian law allows for revocation in certain circumstances. Subsections 10(1) and 10.1(1) of the Citizenship Act provide that a person’s citizenship or renunciation of citizenship may be revoked if the person obtains, retains, renounces, or resumes citizenship by

false representation;
fraud; or
knowingly concealing material circumstances.
Citizenship may also be revoked if a person (who is a dual citizen), before or after the coming into force of subsections 10(2) and 10.1(2) and while the person was a Canadian citizen,

was convicted of terrorism, high treason, treason, or spying offences, depending on the sentence received; or
served as a member of an armed force of a country or as a member of an organized armed group and that country or group was engaged in armed conflict with Canada."

Apart from obtaining naturalised Canadian citizenship fraudulently, all of the above provisions of Bill C24 (enacted by the previous Conservative government) were repealed by the current Liberal government on the basis that it contravened the Bill of Rights (which it did) Plus, as Letts only has one citizenship now, it would violate international law to make him stateless.

[seivad]

I was for allowing British born Shamima Begum entry on the grounds that she was a minor when she left and 'groomed'.

I agree. That, and the fact that Bangladeshi citizenship is not automatically conferred upon the children of Bangladeshi parents. As an application for Bangladeshi citizenship had never been made by Begum or her parents, she is now stateless, which contravenes international and British law.

Interesting to know if money sent was in or Canadian Dollars!

The money sent to Letts by his parents? Why would it be Canadian currency? If anything US dollars are far more acceptable internationally, and probably sterling too. Nobody wants our monopoly money!

[Hamble]

In early 2018 when Letts' family asked Canada for assistance, consular officials had no option but to contact Letts and Kurdish officials. The Kurds said they would release him to either Britain or Canada if either government requested his release. Neither government has requested his release.

Canadian officials did say they would try to assist him, but made no promises, and it seemed to have died a death. It's an issue that's even less popular here than it is in the UK.


Apart from obtaining naturalised Canadian citizenship fraudulently, all of the above provisions of Bill C24 (enacted by the previous Conservative government) were repealed by the current Liberal government on the basis that it contravened the Bill of Rights (which it did) Plus, as Letts only has one citizenship now, it would violate international law to make him stateless.

Surely if this Law applies then the very fact Letts has not been convicted
is neither here nor there?
"
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."

Canada got involved.
That is awkward.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...ay-emails-show

[Hamble]

I agree. That, and the fact that Bangladeshi citizenship is not automatically conferred upon the children of Bangladeshi parents. As an application for Bangladeshi citizenship had never been made by Begum or her parents, she is now stateless, which contravenes international and British law.


The money sent to Letts by his parents? Why would it be Canadian currency? If anything US dollars are far more acceptable internationally, and probably sterling too. Nobody wants our monopoly money!

Less suspicious?

Quote
"Sally Lane, 57, and John Letts, 58, sent their son Jack Letts £223 in September 2015 when he was in Syria despite concerns he had joined IS.

They were found not guilty of a second terror charge of sending him a further £1,000 in December 2015, and the jury was undecided on a third relating to an attempt to send money in January the following year.

The couple have been sentenced to 15 months in prison suspended for 12 months."


https://news.sky.com/story/jihadi-ja...orism-11744699