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: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
How about if our soldiers ever take arms against any armed or unarmed citizens they get their citizenship revoked. Should go both ways. Don't want us to take arms against our forces? That's fine, just Don't give us a reason to.




posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
yeah BS on that idea
remember dudley george?
the cop shot an unarmed protester and then the indians won thier land back
how about you pull a gun on a canadian defending his rights
or support the dillwads that do
you get the chair
No?

how about if you voted for politicians who support the bombing and killing gahdaffi's children you get the same.
murder without trial.
No?

how about if you encourage Canada to be NAZI you come get the chamber?
no?

how about if you support NAZI gun control amoungst the peeps you get to go to a gun fight...
without a gun

a real man don't need a gun to stand for what's right
goons need guns

Canada is fast becoming a globalist nazi communist poo vault....
As former AG pierre Blais said:
"The truth is NO defence"

how about everyone who thinks like that in canada gets a ride on Frankenstien's ice flow....
see ya
edit on 11-6-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker11
 


It appears that we too have been infested by the globalization of totalitarianism. Essentially they don't want anyone to defend themselves regardless of what the governement does to us. This is pre-emptive and very telling of what they have in store for us all.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Egyptia
 

here here

like the new law in one of the states
a cop can makes an illegal entry into the wrong house and you can't fight back

the swiss are required to HAVE guns and hide them againsta totalitarian takeover....
they have almost no crime and no totalitarian takeovers...
Go Figure eh?
how about that.

PS to those who figure we can attack muslims and they aren't allowed to stand up
Fuyo mama


just heard on the radio NATO is running out of bombs in Libya.
don't you people dare fight back or everyone will want to....
ahhhh Phoooeeey


edit on 11-6-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
As an angry aboriginal, this is good to know. If my people become targets of murderous hate which will lead to the inevitable armed forces confrontation and the call goes out, i'll toss away my citizenship willingly.

I can only hope this wave of liberalism that had infiltrated Canadian society this last half century will not let this happen.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GAOTU789
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.


That kind of depends on who's version of "us" is used doesn't it?

A corrupt government can and will claim the mantle of legitimacy. The main thing is the winners write the history books, or as Franklin said "treason is only a crime when applied to someone else" or words to that effect.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
It is illegal for a country to render a person or persons stateless, no matter what, under the UN Charter which Canada is obviously a signatory.

So, if the person concerned is a Canadian citizen and only a Canadian citizen, you cannot strip their citizenship.

Also, I thought I'd comment on this as it is mentioned in the OP. The Bill of Rights 1689 does not confer the universal right to bear arms. It states you have the right to bear arms as allowed by law. A big difference.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeker11


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...

This is a pretty vague sweeping power and bothers me as well.
I would like some clarification on said allies. Does this mean a Canadian Palestinian who gets in a fight with IDF in Gaza or west bank would forfeit their citizenship and be arrested upon return to Canada.
What citizenry would a person have once disowned? Outcast being of earth with no rights?
It doesn't seem to be very clear on the jurisdiction as well. It states that you would be subject to arrest upon returning but if it took place here you would probably get arrested immediately.

It seems like Canada's Patriot act "Your either with us or with the terrorists". Not much of a problem unless your Gov decides to participate in actions that are misleading and not what we are being told in the media status quo.

It would be interesting to see how this would apply to a situation like the Oka native uprising.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
It is illegal for a country to render a person or persons stateless, no matter what, under the UN Charter which Canada is obviously a signatory.

So, if the person concerned is a Canadian citizen and only a Canadian citizen, you cannot strip their citizenship.

Also, I thought I'd comment on this as it is mentioned in the OP. The Bill of Rights 1689 does not confer the universal right to bear arms. It states you have the right to bear arms as allowed by law. A big difference.


Good to know.
Thanks for the clarification!



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:12 AM
link   
In the UK we have a good number of people we would like to deport, but can't because of their Human Rights.

It amazed me how many people we have either in or with close links to our Government that work or have interests in the hugely lucrative Legal Profession. By getting laws passed you know will be contentious and will be financed by that ever-flowing public fund trough, its the perfect way for a professon to protect financially its 'old-boy' network which one can then live off if the threat of non-election or redundancy hits you. . Let me give you Tony Blair and 'Cherry' Blair he passed it, she benefitted from it by being a Human Rights Barrister.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by seeker11
 


I'm not a Canadian or even know much about Canadian politics or foreign affairs so I'll ask a question..

What was Canada's official stance on the protesters in Egypt and Libya??

Many Governments support both them groups against Government troops...



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join