It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Canada a new resolution being considered; Take up arms against Canadian Forces lose your citizenship

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
This is incredibly worrisome to me. Talk about slowly putting everything in place for whatever future uses this might serve. Ugh. Well, we have no right to bear arms anyways so maybe they're talking about knives, pencils, forks??


Although it really isn't a laughing matter.


The resolution states that any Canadian citizen, "whether by birth or by naturalized grant of Canadian citizenship or by claim of landed immigrant or refugee status" who "takes up arms against the Canadian Forces or the Forces of Canada’s Allies automatically invalidates his or her Canadian citizenship or claim" and "should be tried for high treason under the Canadian Criminal Code" if they return to Canada.


www.cbc.ca...

ETA Well technically we do have a right to bear arms it's just not widely touted like in America


Canadians do have the Right to Bear Arms. Many Canadians believe (and our government would certainly have us believe) that there is no Right of the citizen to keep arms for their own use and defense, like the US Second Amendment, in Canadian law. To those citizens, I would suggest a bit of reading up on our own history and legal framework. Our right to bear arms is not mentioned in recent documents such as the Constitution or Charter because it's already stated elsewhere in Canadian law. Our right to keep and bear arms in our own or the country's defense comes from exactly the same place as the American one -- English Common Law, the English Bill of Rights 1689, the writings of Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries on English Law, and others. All these laws (and indeed the full body of English Law), became part of Canadian law on our Confederation in 1867 with the affirmation of the British North America (BNA) Act. We have this Right, though our government is attempting to suppress it and deny citizen's their age-old right to self-defense with the egregious and unconstitutional (not to mention horrendously expensive) Firearms Act and other proposals. It leads one to wonder why the government so wants an unarmed and defenceless populace. See The Legal basis for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Canada.


www.rkba.ca...
edit on 11-6-2011 by seeker11 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
AKA, pull a weapon on us or our "allies" (US armed forces?), and a bullet will become your judge, jury, and executioner.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
This is probably in response to the whole Omar Khadr deal.

I'd agree with this.

If you want to fight against us, then you have no right to call yourself Canadian.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
they are expecting some kind of military resistance it would seem..

this is far worst then I initially thought.

setting the stage.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by GAOTU789
 


Well in any normal circumstance if you just want to up and fight your own military for no good reason, of course this is unacceptable. But what if it turned into a military state and things were being done against the good of its citizens. What then? You don't get to be a citizen because you fight back? Or are people only allowed to do peaceful protests...

Just makes me wonder.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker11
 


It is most likely a response to the Khadr (don't know if I spelled that right) family situation. We have a lot of north African and Middle Eastern immigrants who's children are being targeted by extremist mullahs or who have been raised in extremist homes and go back "home" to fight but keep Canada as a home as it's safer for their families.

Granted it doesn't bode well if this pertains to any events on Canadian soil, but from that snippet it sounds like it's aimed at those who take part in wars on foreign soil.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by canuckistanian
 


Yeah that makes total sense to me. However it is a nice set up in place for any future citizen uprising doncha think?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeker11
reply to post by GAOTU789
 


Well in any normal circumstance if you just want to up and fight your own military for no good reason, of course this is unacceptable. But what if it turned into a military state and things were being done against the good of its citizens. What then? You don't get to be a citizen because you fight back? Or are people only allowed to do peaceful protests...

Just makes me wonder.


exactly. it sets a negative precedent. as noble of an idea as it is someone with lesser intentions could come along and then there's no defense against such a thing. the problem is we can't clearly define when we are in such a state, we could be in the middle of it right now and with such headlines running amok lately of all the war and brutality on all acounts one must question these sorts of acts by the people pushing along an agenda.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I don't think Canadians will ever aim their weapons at our own military. We are not the same as some of the other countries. In the event a situation comes up where the citizens need to fight back, the military will not stand in our way. They're not mindless, and would never fight their own people.

So we have no reason to point guns at our military. In the event that we have to, well..'citizenship' will not matter at that point. Assuming things get as bad as they're predicted

On another note: If they are preparing us for some sort of combination of the US and Canada into a north american union, i doubt canadians would just give up their sovereignty just like that.

These are just my opinions on the matter, i am canadian. And it's going to stay that way. If
edit on 11/6/11 by AzureSky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker11
 


I agree that it does leave the door open for that possibility, but there does need to be something done about extremists using Canada as a haven for their families and them undermining the ideals that we as Canadians hold dear.

However there are so many grey areas when it comes to which foreign governments are supported by our government but with whom we citizens don't agree with. i.e. Saudi Arabia's laws about women's rights (or lack thereof)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
If i need to. I'll use a scalding hot Tim Hortons coffee on their face. Effective AND delicious.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by AzureSky
 


What's up with that coffee? Do they put crack in it or something? People up here seem addicted to the stuff!


I don't like the tone this law sets at all. As well meaning as it might be, I can see how it could also be abused in the future.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by AzureSky
 


While I love the coffee, the steeped tea seems to be hotter.

You'd have to be double fisted, tea to go, coffee to drink. Day old scones make awesome projectiles too...



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by AzureSky
If i need to. I'll use a scalding hot Tim Hortons coffee on their face. Effective AND delicious.


HAHA. As a former Tim Horton's employee I am highly trained in the dangerous ways of wielding a hot pot of coffee.


As for the other comments. I do very much agree that Canada should not be a safe haven for people to take advantage of the priviledge of being a landed immigrant or having obtained citizenship. This is unnaccaptable behaviour. I just wanted to point out the potential for misuse of this type of resolution in the future.

I did not want to sensationalize the subject to the point of doom and gloom, but wanted to direct awareness to the matter.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Actually, this may not be as bad as some would think. I am half-kidding and looking at the fact that I am not sure I want to be a citizen of any country that's military does or plans to take up arms against its own citizens.

There should also be the inclusion that any Canadian Military member that turns his arms on a fellow citizen should also lose his/her citizenship. Yes, I know, that will never happen.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GAOTU789
 


Does this also apply to the citizens being arrested by police for protesting?
I would call that patriotic.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by AzureSky
I don't think Canadians will ever aim their weapons at our own military. We are not the same as some of the other countries. In the event a situation comes up where the citizens need to fight back, the military will not stand in our way. They're not mindless, and would never fight their own people.


Don't be so sure of yourself friend, that logic is dangerous.Your own police had no hessitation flogging their own at the G20.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
And if a tyrannical government is put in place, non elected by the people, in order to assume total control on the Canadian people with what ever means necessary, and ye fight this government, you shall not be Canadian.!

I fear after you take over a hypothetical tyrannical Canadian government, you would then have to choose a new name besides Canada.

So In basic terms I feel this is only stating that if Canada goes corrupt, and you make it not corrupt, you then can not be a Canadian Citizen anymore, you must pic a new name for the land.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
It occasionally occurs that a member or members of the armed forces do something appalling that has to be stopped. If you intervene and your status is a civilian eg part of a news team would you be liable to deportation?
If Drunk soldiers in a bar get into a fight with the locals,

I do think that for a very small number of crimes along the lines of bombings, corruptly arming and funding an enemy we are at war with, acts to destabalize the country by manipulation of the markets and its banking system that has dire consequences for the public at large, these are treasonable offences and yes, I think people who do this should face charges of treason. In fact if we had these charges in place perhaps by defining the effects of a crime, rather than trying to define it specifically so a good lawyer could get a person off easily, a country could protect itself from being vulnerable to the blackmail of thing like our bankers. (I can't define it well enough but hope you can get what I have in mind). If we had treasonable charges it might be a deterrant to skulduggery all round.

The problem is if you go to deport them, who do you persuade to take them into their country. You shove them on a plane and the country the plane lands in simply returns them with the sticker 'too much trouble, not wanted here thank you'. Also what right do you have to unload your criminals onto another country. If you take a Canadian who has no links to another country whatsoever you're up a gum tree.

This is the kind of law that starts as the tip of the iceberg and you don't need much imagination to see how it could pan out. 10 years time and 2/3rds of the population deported for actions such as debt, resisting arrest etc, etc, deemed as treason. Welcome to the New Canada, we have so much space, food, water and so few people to spoil it all.+



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Alright, I suppose my comments have been taken out of context.

I'll try and clarify instead of addressing each person individually.

If you are fighting against our Military, the part about other military's doesn't matter to me( I do find that part rather unsettling), as it things stand right now, you don;'t have the right or the honour to be called Canadian.

I didn't say anything about military states, dictatorships, police states, protesting(peacefully or otherwise),which is enshrined in our Charter of Rights( not the unpeacefully part), or any other reason that may arise to have to fight against our Government for legitimate reasons.

The opening line off my first post said....

in response to the Omar Khadr deal, a Canadian caught over seas fighting against Nato/ISAF forces and detained.

All those strawman arguments don't hold water. I never said anything about future possibilities or otherwise.



new topics




 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join