• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shooting at Canadian Parlament

ptif219 said:
Are you saying we should do nothing and wait for them to attack us? I guess them beheading innocent Americans means nothing to you
Click to expand...

No, I didn't say that either. But I do think we all must do what we can -- primarily through education and dialogue -- to change our ways of thinking and to prevent people from going extreme. Tell me... why do you think these radicals hate the West/America?
 
joG said:
Maybe if they had taken his passport from him Hemingway would have shot up Congress instead of going off to fight in Spain?

Now don't get me wrong and I do not know the details of this case. But stopping someone from traveling is qualitatively sort of like imprisoning him. It restricts the persons' movement. Unless a crime has been committed?

I am not sure, but I think we've got this one wrong.
Click to expand...

All countries have the ability to restrict the mouvement of its citizens outside of their borders. For example try being an American and going to Cuba. Canada is one the countries that does this the least.
 
Quag said:
All countries have the ability to restrict the mouvement of its citizens outside of their borders. For example try being an American and going to Cuba. Canada is one the countries that does this the least.
Click to expand...

I have never been very happy with that type of restriction. Movement is a rather fundamental right of citizens that governemt should not really be allowed to infringe apon. I understand the logic, but think it is wrong headed.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Canada has passed legislation around passports and travel for the purposes of fighting with terrorists. There's also legislation related to the withdrawal of passports and citizenship of those who are found to have traveled and fought in such "wars" if they are dual citizens or not natural born Canadians.

No laws are perfect - bottom line, however, is that no law made someone kill another person - that's always on the perpetrator.

To be clear, just in case it wasn't in my previous post, I support such laws.
Click to expand...

So I had understood. I do not think I like such laws.
 
joG said:
I have never been very happy with that type of restriction. Movement is a rather fundamental right of citizens that governemt should not really be allowed to infringe apon. I understand the logic, but think it is wrong headed.
Click to expand...

You can think that all you want but Canada remains one of the countries with the most freedom in respect to limiting the mouvment of it`s citizens outside its borders.
 
Quag said:
You can think that all you want but Canada remains one of the countries with the most freedom in respect to limiting the mouvment of it`s citizens outside its borders.
Click to expand...

Be it as it may. In this point Canada restricts a very basic right of freedom.
 
joG said:
Be it as it may. In this point Canada restricts a very basic right of freedom.
Click to expand...

It is not a blanket restriction and was done for a specific reason to a specific individual. As to a very bassic human right i think that is going way overboard as no country sees it that way.
 
Quag said:
It is not a blanket restriction and was done for a specific reason to a specific individual. As to a very bassic human right i think that is going way overboard as no country sees it that way.
Click to expand...

Freedom of movement is not a basic right? I would have thought it a necessary condition for free association, communication of opinions and so on.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
He apparently doesn't. He was smoking in the boys room during history class. LOL

He probably thinks the Europeans predated the Native Americans. LMFAO
Click to expand...

The Spaniards are native Americans? :lamo
 
Middleground said:
No, I didn't say that either. But I do think we all must do what we can -- primarily through education and dialogue -- to change our ways of thinking and to prevent people from going extreme. Tell me... why do you think these radicals hate the West/America?
Click to expand...

Oh, WE have to change for THEM? That's the worst strategy.
 
APACHERAT said:
Can I take your word for that ? I don't read Stormfront or have never visited the website.

You must have.
Click to expand...
You don't have to visit that that site to know it's comprised of individuals who believe that people should "speak English or get out" White Nationalism and all that garbage. If you aren't a WASP then you're not right.
 
joG said:
So I had understood. I do not think I like such laws.
Click to expand...

I do - I believe it's the responsible thing to do for a country to control those who wish to travel on the country's documents in order to cause death and destruction in other countries. A national passport is a privilege, not a right - a passport says to the world that this citizen of this country is law abiding and carries a form of "guarantee" that he/she is not a threat. Canadian passports are well respected and desired and many dual citizens travel only on their Canadian passport because of that respect/reputation. I've got no problem with revoking that privilege from anyone who wants to abuse it for illegal purposes.
 
joG said:
Freedom of movement is not a basic right? I would have thought it a necessary condition for free association, communication of opinions and so on.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as complete freedom of movement. It is absurd to think you have the right to go anywhere whenever you want and as such it is NOT a necessary condition for free association or communication.
Denying an individual the right to leave the country to go fight against said country is NOT denying someone a basic right, it is acting responsibly.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I do - I believe it's the responsible thing to do for a country to control those who wish to travel on the country's documents in order to cause death and destruction in other countries. A national passport is a privilege, not a right - a passport says to the world that this citizen of this country is law abiding and carries a form of "guarantee" that he/she is not a threat. Canadian passports are well respected and desired and many dual citizens travel only on their Canadian passport because of that respect/reputation. I've got no problem with revoking that privilege from anyone who wants to abuse it for illegal purposes.
Click to expand...

I understand the argument. But till the citizen has committed a crime? I really do not know. That is a very slippery slope we have ventured out on. If they state they want to fight against the interests of allies, I guess then we can argue validly. If it is only a (well documented) suspicion? If it goes wrong, then a government could suspect you.
 
joG said:
I understand the argument. But till the citizen has committed a crime? I really do not know. That is a very slippery slope we have ventured out on. If they state they want to fight against the interests of allies, I guess then we can argue validly. If it is only a (well documented) suspicion? If it goes wrong, then a government could suspect you.
Click to expand...

There are many "crimes" that don't involve the actual, successful, commission of the crime. That's why conspiracy laws and "attempted" laws are rampant in most democracies. To me, if anything, the two individuals involved in the two incidents here in Canada this week could easily have be charged with conspiracies based on their reported intentions and social media musings.
 
Quag said:
There is no such thing as complete freedom of movement. It is absurd to think you have the right to go anywhere whenever you want and as such it is NOT a necessary condition for free association or communication.
Denying an individual the right to leave the country to go fight against said country is NOT denying someone a basic right, it is acting responsibly.
Click to expand...

That is the kind of argument that people use, when the have none.

In this case, I guess we might find common ground, if the said person has stated that he wants to fight against the country or an allied nation. Did he?

And it does seem unreasonable to prevent people going to fight against Assad, if they want to and are not at the same time fighting their own country. Would you forbid a citizen going to Ukraine to help? Maybe as a fighter or say as a medic for the guys in the East?
 
CanadaJohn said:
There are many "crimes" that don't involve the actual, successful, commission of the crime. That's why conspiracy laws and "attempted" laws are rampant in most democracies. To me, if anything, the two individuals involved in the two incidents here in Canada this week could easily have be charged with conspiracies based on their reported intentions and social media musings.
Click to expand...

Conspiracies are also rather difficult, if the individual is acting alone. But a charge of conspiracy is a valid argument, if it is used in all cases of conspiracy. Here in Germany the use is rather selective, which I find dangerous.

We are in an area of law and legal application that is getting close to the substance of free society. Value judgments can go this way or that. And where you start forbidding citizens their freedom of movement, you need very important trade-offs to justify it and the hardest of proof for government to act. Otherwise you might find yourself in a tight spot a little later. This was the discussion in the 1920s, when fascism was the rage. And I think it wiser to err on the side of maintained freedom at a reasonable risk than risk freedom. But it is by far and away not clear cut.
 
joG said:
That is the kind of argument that people use, when the have none.

In this case, I guess we might find common ground, if the said person has stated that he wants to fight against the country or an allied nation. Did he?

And it does seem unreasonable to prevent people going to fight against Assad, if they want to and are not at the same time fighting their own country. Would you forbid a citizen going to Ukraine to help? Maybe as a fighter or say as a medic for the guys in the East?
Click to expand...

If you accept that a country has a right/responsibility to deny passports to its citizens under certain circumstances then we are on common ground if you think people have the right to go anywhere they want whenever they want then we dont.
 
shrubnose said:
No. this was the act of a wannabe terrorist who won't be doing any more harm thanks to the courage of one man.
Click to expand...

He's a bonefide islamic terrorist; not a wannabe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom