Canada’s Supreme Court ’signed my son’s death warrant,’ mother of alleged ex-ISIL member says

Letts was UK’s problem and its not accepting of that responsibility led to Letts’ family understandably advocating given that he is a dual citizen by descent (born and raised in UK). “Canadian of convenience” in one sense:

The mother of a Canadian man detained in Syria says the Supreme Court of Canada has signed her son’s death warrant by closing the door on a plea to hear his case.

“I’ve been screaming about this for 7 1/2 years now,” said Sally Lane, the mother of Jack Letts. “I’m exhausted. I just want my son back.”

The Supreme Court had already declined to hear a challenge of a Federal Court of Appeal ruling that said Ottawa is not obligated under the law to repatriate Letts and three other Canadian men.

In a fresh notice filed with the court in March, lawyers for the men said exceedingly rare circumstances warranted another look at the application for leave to appeal.

A letter to the lawyers, dated last Friday, says the motion for reconsideration cannot be accepted for filing, leaving no further remedies in the top court.

“I have reviewed your motion for reconsideration and your affidavit in support,” says the letter from the court registrar. “I regret to inform you that, in my opinion, your motion does not reveal the exceedingly rare circumstances which would warrant reconsideration by this Court.”

The detained Canadian men are among the many foreign nationals in ramshackle detention centres run by Kurdish forces that reclaimed the war-ravaged region from militant group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant….

Source: Canada’s Supreme Court ’signed my son’s death warrant,’ mother of alleged ex-ISIL member says

Opinion: Jack Letts and other Canadians held in Syria deserve proper justice

Not convinced, given the difficulty, if not impossibility, of successful prosecution in Canada. And Letts never had a meaningful connection to Canada and his parents, understandably, only approached when his UK citizenship, where he had lived virtually his entire life, revoked his UK citizenship, effectively dumping him on Canada:

When we met Canadian citizen Jack Letts in a prison in Northeast Syria last August, he asked if we thought he would still be there in 10 years. At that point he had been locked up in harrowing conditions without charge or trial for more than six years.

The letters, photos and books we were able to bring to him from his mother, who lives in Ottawa, were Jack’s first news of his family in years. Our visit was the first confirmation for his family in two years that he was even alive. He has no access to a lawyer. And he is not receiving any support from Canadian officials, as the Canadian government refuses to carry out consular visits in the region.

We paused before answering, not wanting to crush his sprits or give false hope. We told him it was unlikely he would still be in detention in 10 years, but that there was no prospect of short-term release. We told him we hoped he might be back in Canada in a year.

“Back in Canada,” of course, does not necessarily mean out of detention. If there is credible evidence that Jack has committed terrorism-related or other crimes, he would rightly be charged under Canadian law. Jack told us that he would willingly face any such allegation, as long as it involved a fair procedure. That, clearly, is not on offer in Northeast Syria.

We were cautiously optimistic because of a pending appeal application before the Supreme Court of Canada in a legal challenge brought by Jack and three other Canadian men unlawfully detained in Northeast Syria. Little did we know, however, that three months later the Supreme Court would inexplicably deny leave to hear that appeal, a deep disappointment. The court does not give reasons for leave decisions.

We have now passed the halfway point in what we hope will not prove to be misguided optimism of justice within a year. However, six months on, there is no sign that the Canadian government is readying to repatriate Jack.

Jack Letts is not alone. There are at least eight other Canadian men unlawfully imprisoned in Northeast Syria. We also know of one Canadian woman, 13 Canadian children and three non-Canadian women who are mothers of some of those children, who are held in a dangerous and overcrowded detention camp in the region, also with no end in sight.

And those Canadians are not alone. There are more than 50,000 prisoners, more than half of them children, unlawfully detained across Northeast Syria. Most are Syrian or Iraqi, but in all there are 60 different nationalities in the camps and prisons. Some have very likely been responsible for terrible abuses during the years that ISIL controlled that region, while others were themselves victims of or opponents to ISIL. All are denied any justice.

We met with one other Canadian male prisoner, all of the women, and six of the children while we were on the ground in August. The human rights violations they are enduring are extensive, and the Canadian government’s failure to take steps to protect them is a disgrace.

Last week, an exceptional application was filed with the Supreme Court, asking for reconsideration of the decision not to hear an appeal. Given the ongoing intransigence of the government, turning to the court, no matter how extraordinary the request, seems the only option. Past progress with repatriation has generally only happened under threat of possible court action.

That application has been brought because the situation on the ground continues to deteriorate, and the risks to these Canadians grow even more alarming. That is due in part to shifting political and military circumstances in the Middle East since the Oct. 7th Hamas attack in Israel and the humanitarian catastrophe unleashed by more than five months of unrelenting bombardment of Gaza by the Israeli military.

No doubt taking advantage of international focus being diverted to the Gaza crisis, the Turkish military has ramped up its deadly drone attacks in Northeast Syria. ISIL activity also appears to be increasing. And now there is talk that the U.S. military, whose presence in Northeast Syria has provided a minimal degree of stability, may be preparing to withdraw its troops. Notably, the U.S. government repeatedly calls on Canada and other countries to repatriate their nationals.

Things were bad enough when we were in Northeast Syria in August. The situation has only worsened since and seems slated to become more dire. What is needed is not protracted litigation. What is needed is a political decision to bring all Canadians home from there, to hold them accountable in our legal system if warranted. It is time for human rights to prevail.

Kim Pate is an Independent Senator for Ontario. Alex Neve is a Senior Fellow at the University of Ottawa’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs. Scott Heatherington is a retired Canadian ambassador and diplomat. Hadayt Nazami is an immigration and human rights lawyer in Toronto. They travelled to Northeast Syria as a civil society humanitarian delegation last August.

Source: Opinion: Jack Letts and other Canadians held in Syria deserve proper justice

Sun Editorial: ‘Jihadi Jack’ is not Canada’s problem

Agree. UK “offloaded” him to Canada despite him having born and raised in the UK and never having spent any time, or significant time, in Canada. Feel for the parents but not a reason to provide consular and other support:

Once again, pressure is being brought on the federal government to provide consular assistance to Canadians in Syrian prison camps.

Canadians are being held in camps run by Kurdish forces that reclaimed the area from the terrorist group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) — a military organization that seeks to establish an Islamic caliphate in Iraq and Syria.
A recent Canadian Press story recounted the visit of a four-person “civil society” delegation, including a senator, to the camp to discuss the repatriation to Canada of some of those held there. The report omitted vital details about one of the men mentioned, Jack Letts.At 18, Letts left his home in the U.K. to join the terror group ISIS. Dubbed “Jihadi Jack” by the British media, Letts gets his Canadian citizenship through his father, John Letts. It’s unclear how much time — if any — his son has actually spent in this country. Jack was born and educated in the U.K. and that country has revoked his citizenship. As a signatory to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, Canada can’t deprive a person of citizenship if it renders them stateless. So the U.K.’s pre-emptive action in revoking Letts’ citizenship has dumped the whole mess into our laps.

In 2019, then Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said, “Canada is disappointed that the United Kingdom has taken this unilateral action to off-load their responsibilities.” He told the CBC, “We have no obligation to facilitate his travel from his present circumstances, and we have no intention of facilitating that travel.”

This country should hold fast to that sentiment. It’s true Letts was young when he made the bad decision to join ISIS. His parents are exhausting every avenue in an attempt to return their son to them, as most parents would. Nevertheless, his presence in this country would be an insult to all those who honour the principles of freedom and democracy and those who have come here to escape terror.

Canadian citizenship is not a flag of convenience. It’s a badge of honour, hard won by those who fought and died for our rights and freedoms. Jack Letts does not in any way embody those values.

Source: EDITORIAL: ‘Jihadi Jack’ is not Canada’s problem

Civil society team heading to Syria, but Ottawa won’t support repatriation efforts

Bit naive to assert that “if any of the Canadians being held in Syria pose a security concern, those issues can be dealt with through the justice system” given the difficulty in obtaining evidence and the like.

And of course hard to find any sympathy for these men or “to see what human rights concerns they may be facing” after they were part of a group that violated all or virtually all human rights:

The federal government has rebuffed an offer from a civil society delegation to travel to northeastern Syria on Ottawa’s behalf to repatriate detained Canadians.

Instead, a scaled-down group, including Sen. Kim Pate, intends to head to the region in late August to gather information about Canadians held in squalid camps and prisons.

The delegation is also to include Alex Neve, former secretary general of Amnesty International Canada, and Scott Heatherington, a former Canadian diplomat.

Participants plan to discuss details of the initiative at a news conference in Ottawa this morning.

Late last month, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned a judge’s declaration that four Canadian men being held in Syrian camps are entitled to Ottawa’s help to return home.

The May ruling set aside a January decision by Federal Court Justice Henry Brown, who directed Ottawa to request repatriation of the men as soon as reasonably possible and provide them with passports or emergency travel documents.

The Canadians are among the many foreign nationals in Syrian camps and jails run by Kurdish forces that reclaimed the strife-torn region from the extremist group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

On April 19, Sally Lane — mother of Jack Letts, one of the four Canadian men — wrote to Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly requesting that she promptly authorize a seven-member delegation to Syria in late May.

“I am convinced that in the current circumstances, authorizing this delegation is essential to saving Jack’s life and protecting the rights of all Canadian detainees,” Lane wrote. “As such, I will be a member of this delegation.”

In an interview, Lane said the government declined to provide support to the delegation. “They didn’t actually give a reason. All they said was that repatriation will be done by government members only.”

Given that the revamped mission set for August will be more of a fact-finding trip, Lane does not plan to go.

“It’s not actually going to be a repatriation trip,” she said. “I mean, it’s going to be preparatory to repatriation, but there won’t actually be any people coming back. And I just thought, I can’t face the idea of seeing Jack and leaving him there. I just think it would kind of break me, and I believe it would break him. So I’m not going on this trip.”

Asked why the government would not support the proposed delegation, Global Affairs Canada spokesman Jean-Pierre Godbout said Ottawa advises against all travel to Syria.

“Due to privacy and operational security considerations, we cannot comment on specific cases or potential future actions,” he added.

The identities and circumstances of the other three Canadian men are not publicly known.

Amid the court proceedings, lawyer Lawrence Greenspon reached an agreement with the federal government earlier this year to bring home six Canadian women and 13 children from Syria who had initially been part of the legal action.

Neve said in an interview that the government’s “seemingly implacable refusal” to assist the return of the men to Canada “is in our view, frankly, disgraceful.”

The three-member delegation plans to fly to Mosul, in northern Iraq, then travel overland to northeastern Syria.

The members hope to speak with as many of the Canadians — men, women and children — in the camps and detention centres as possible, said Neve, a senior fellow with the graduate school of public and international affairs at the University of Ottawa.

“We want to see about their welfare, we want to see what human rights concerns they may be facing,” he said. “So from that side of things, it’s a welfare and humanitarian mission, really.”

But the delegation also wants to meet with local officials to see if steps can be taken to help facilitate release of Canadians, Neve added.

Canadian government officials should be playing that role, as they have with some of the women and children brought home from Syria, he said.

“Many other countries have much more actively been involved in facilitating and carrying out the repatriation of their nationals, so Canada continues to very notably be a laggard in the international community,” Neve said.

“And I think that’s disappointing, especially for a country like Canada that that proudly asserts that we believe in human rights.”

Neve said if any of the Canadians being held in Syria pose a security concern, those issues can be dealt with through the justice system. But leaving citizens to languish overseas for years on end “is simply not acceptable.”

Source: Civil society team heading to Syria, but Ottawa won’t support repatriation efforts

Canada has planned for years to handle returnees from the Islamic State. Now the plan has to work

It all strikes me as a bit too trusting and naive. Money quote:

“The women “all seem pleased to be back home,” the report noted, but there were “worrying reports that the majority of women refuse or are unable to take responsibility for their decision to travel to Syria, to have exposed their children to life in a war zone.””

They started disappearing a decade ago.

Slowly and mysteriously, then in a growing wave, young Canadians left behind their homes and families to join fellow Muslims fighting in Syria and Iraq or to experience the radicalized utopia of an Islamic caliphate promised by the Islamic State terrorism group.

Five or so years ago, psychologists such as Michael King and Ghayda Hassan began preparing for their imminent return — one that is expected only now, with a judge’s ruling last week that the federal government must bring Canadian citizens home from overseas detention camps.

“When the caliphate kind of crumbled and lost all its territory,” said King, of Alberta’s Organization for the Prevention of Violence, “there was this massive fear that everyone was going to come back to their countries of origin and charges wouldn’t be laid because it was hard to collect evidence in foreign countries.”

Like surfers in a strange sea, psychologists, social workers, police and radicalization experts waited in vain for that wave of returning male ISIS fighters, female adherents and their children.

Now it is taking shape. Six women, between the ages of 27 and 40. Among them are 13 children between the ages of two and 14.

Separately, there are four Canadian men who range in age from late 20s to early 40s. They have been detained for years in makeshift Syrian prisons on suspicion they fought with or supported ISIS, but they have never been charged with a crime.

One of them — Jack Letts, the 28-year-old son of a British mother and Canadian father — was reportedly being held with up to 30 other men in a cell built for six. Claiming to have been tortured, he is seeking the protection of the Canadian government after the U.K. revoked his citizenship.

Source: Canada has planned for years to handle returnees from the Islamic …

Canadian ISIL suspect with ties to Chatham could settle in Ottawa after repatriation

Sigh… An overly sympathetic treatment of an apparent ISIL member, UK born and raised, whose UK citizenship revocation allowed the UK government to “offload” him to Canada, despite his having never lived here. While I understand the desire of parents to do everything for their son, government should appeal this particular case (a Canadian is a Canadian need not necessarily be deemed a Canadian in cases such as this):

An activist working with the family of an alleged terrorist connected to Chatham and held for the past five years in Syria says Jack Letts could wind up living in Ottawa with his mother if he’s brought back to Canada.

Letts, a former British national nicknamed “Jihadi Jack” by the media there, is one of four Canadian men a court ruled last week must be repatriated to Canada. Stripped of his U.K. citizenship by the British government for alleged ties to ISIL, the Oxford-born Letts still retains a Canadian citizenship through his father, who is originally from the Chatham-Kent region but now lives in England.
Matthew Behrens, an advocate with the group Stop Canadian Involvement In Torture, which has been working with the Letts family on their repatriation efforts, said the “hope is that he will join his mom in Ottawa”He said Letts’ mother, Sally Lane, moved to the nation’s capital a few years ago after her son was stripped of his British citizenship. Behrens said Lane decided to move to Ottawa to maintain pressure on the Canadian government to bring her son home “because Jack is a Canadian citizen who has a right to return here.”

Source: Canadian ISIL suspect with ties to Chatham could settle in Ottawa after repatriation

Court orders government to repatriate 4 Canadian men detained in Syria

Of note. One of the arguments used against the previous government’s citizenship legislation revocation provision was that countries would “offload” their problem citizens to other countries. Jack Letts, a Canadian citizen by descent had his British citizenship revoked, forcing Canada to be responsible, despite him having minimal ties.

Gurski is likely correct that none of the returnees will ever be prosecuted given difficulties in obtaining evidence and witnesses:

The Federal Court has ordered the government to repatriate four Canadian men currently being held in northeastern Syria.

The Canadians are among a number of foreign nationals in Syrian prisons for suspected ISIS members that are run by the Kurdish forces that reclaimed the war-torn region from the extremist group.

Family members of 23 detained Canadians — four men, six women and 13 children — had asked the court to order the government to arrange for their return. They argued that refusing to do so would violate their charter rights.

The government agreed Thursday to move forward on repatriating the 19 Canadian women and children.

In the written decision, the judge cited the conditions of the prison and the fact that the men haven’t been charged and brought to trial.

“The conditions of the … men are even more dire than those of the women and children who Canada has just agreed to repatriate,” the decision reads.

“There is no evidence any of them have been tried or convicted, let alone tried in a manner recognized or sanctioned by international law.”

The judge also noted that the court was not asked to rule on why the applicants went to the region and that the government didn’t provide evidence that they took part in terrorist activities.

Lawrence Greenspon, the lawyer for most of the applicants, said that if there is any evidence the Canadians took part in terrorist activities, Canada should put them on trial here.

“These are Canadian citizens, they are being unlawfully, arbitrarily detained in either detention camps or in prisons, they haven’t been charged with anything,” Greenspon told CBC.

“There’s no likelihood that they’re ever going to be charged with anything over there. So bring them home.”

Jack Letts, who has been imprisoned in Syria for more than four years after allegedly joining ISIS, is among the four men.

Letts admitted in a 2019 interview to joining ISIS in Syria. His family says he made that admission under duress and there is no evidence that he ever fought for the group.

The former British-Canadian dual citizen, who was born and raised in Oxford, U.K., had his British citizenship revoked three years ago, leaving the Canadian government as his only viable means of escaping.

Barbara Jackman, the lawyer representing the Letts family, told CBC on Thursday that it is a violation of the detainees’ human rights to hold them without trial.

“This case was based on the human rights that are detained abroad and whether Canada, as a country, is obligated to help them,” she said.

Former CSIS analyst Phil Gurski told CBC News Network on Thursday that he doubts any of the adults returning would face justice for any crimes they may have committed.

“The witnesses aren’t here, the evidence isn’t here,” he told host Natasha Fatah. “As a Canadian citizen, I’m outraged that people are going to get away with it.”

Gurski said it would also put extra pressure on Canada’s intelligence bodies to monitor the individuals that do return.

In a statement Saturday, Global Affairs Canada said the department is reviewing the decision.

“The safety and security of Canadians is our government’s top priority. We remain committed to taking a robust approach to this issue.”

Source: Court orders government to repatriate 4 Canadian men detained in Syria

LILLEY: Jihadi Jack’s parents ask Canada to bring the Brit here

Classic example of off-shoring citizenship revocation. One of the examples against the previous Conservative government’s C-24, ironically that Lilley supported at the time if memory serves me correct:

The parents of British-born terrorist Jihadi Jack are seeking the help of politicians in this country to get him sprung from a Syrian prison to live a life of freedom in Canada.

Emails obtained exclusively by the Toronto Sun show that John and Sally Letts have approached MPs and senators asking for meetings to assist their son Jack.

Nikita Bernardi, a public relations consultant working on behalf of the family, makes an empathetic pitch for a man who has admitted to being a member of ISIS and willing to detonate a suicide bomb.

“Jack, who is 23, has been held without charge, and therefore arbitrarily and illegally, since 2017 by the Kurdish forces in overcrowded and unsanitary prison conditions,” Bernardi wrote last week.

Jack Letts was born in Britain in 1995, and beyond some trips to Canada to visit relatives, has never lived here. He was raised in the U.K., educated in the U.K., converted to Islam as a teen in the U.K., and went to Syria in 2014 at the age of 19 because he rejected life in Britain.

He is able to claim Canadian citizenship because his father is a Canadian who moved to Britain decades ago. His connections to this country, beyond asking for consular assistance, are negligible at best, but since the British government stripped him of his citizenship there in 2019, Letts may only be recognized as a Canadian now.

That doesn’t mean we should take him or lift a finger to help him, despite claims by Bernardi that Letts is owed, “assistance and protection as is necessary.”

“Unfortunately, the Canadian government continues to take no action towards repatriating Jack,” Bernardi wrote.

You can’t repatriate someone who has never lived here.

He went to fight in Syria, something he and his family have denied for several years. But a 2019 interview with the BBC shows Letts discussing his work with ISIS and desire to be a suicide bomber — if needed — in battle.

“I used to want to at one point, believe it or not,” Letts told the BBC. “Not a vest. I wanted to do it in a car. I said if there’s a chance, I will do it.”

In 2019, when the Brits pulled citizenship from Letts, then-public safety minister Ralph Goodale said the government was disappointed with the British government’s “unilateral action to offload their responsibilities.”

Asked for comment Monday, Marco Mendicino, the current public safety minister, declined to comment on any specific case, but a spokesperson said criminal charges and prosecution could be in the future of any extremist traveller who comes to Canada.

“It is a Criminal Code offence to travel abroad to engage in terrorist activity. If an extremist traveller is seeking to enter Canada, federal departments work together to tailor an approach to address the threat that the individual may pose,” said spokesperson Craig MacBride.

He added that the government could use tools, including peace bonds, the no-fly list, and revocation of passports in dealing with such travellers.

The family has filed complaints against both the British and Canadian governments and with the United Nations. Bernardi wrote that Canada can be held responsible for anything that happens to Jack while he is in a Kurdish prison.

Did the Canadian government send him to Syria to fight with one of the most blood-thirsty groups the world has even seen? No, they did not — he did that on his own.

There are Canadians, actual Canadians born here or who have lived here at least, held in foreign prisons for various crimes. We don’t get them all back, and we don’t have to try.

If Letts gets out of that Kurdish prison, he is Britain’s problem, not ours.

Source: LILLEY: Jihadi Jack’s parents ask Canada to bring the Brit here

‘Jihadi Jack’ and the folly of revoking citizenship: Macklin

Understandably, Macklin is the most quoted expert on citizenship revocation:

The British government has just stripped Islamic State recruit Jack Lettsof his United Kingdom citizenship.

In one sense, the move was unsurprising. The U.K. has been the undisputed leader in reviving banishment as punishment for “crimes against citizenship,” deploying it primarily against those deemed threats to national security.

The country’s Home Secretary favours stripping citizenship of nationals already abroad, which has the convenient effect of circumventing legal accountability and human rights impediments to deportation.

The mildly surprising feature of the U.K.‘s decision is that it has opted to make Letts Canada’s problem. Letts is currently being held in a jail in northern Syria after being captured by Kurdish forces in 2017.

Letts’ father is a Canadian citizen and, therefore, his son is a Canadian citizen by descent. As a result, the U.K. can deprive him of citizenship without rendering Letts stateless because he will remain a citizen of Canada.

With limited exceptions, international law prohibits rendering people stateless, though the U.K. plays fast and loose on that front. It strips citizenship from those who are dual citizens as well those who are not, but whom the Home Secretary speculates could, in the future, possibly obtain citizenship from some other country.

It doesn’t much matter to the U.K., really. Once discarded, the former citizen might be executed by drone strike, transferred elsewhere for prosecution or persecution or detained indefinitely by non-state armed forces. Wherever they go, it won’t be back to Britain, and whatever happens to them, they are someone else’s problem. That’s what makes citizenship deprivation, in the language of the British law, “conducive to the public good.”

No espionage or treason

Why another country should bear sole responsibility for a citizen that the U.K. disavows is an interesting question. These are not classic instances of espionage or treason, where the historic narrative underwriting stripping citizenship was that the individual betrayed one state in the service of the other state.

Shamima Begum, a British citizen who joined the Islamic State as a 19-year-old in 2015, was not working for Bangladesh in Syria. Jack Letts was not a Canadian spy.

I speculate that the British government has, until Letts, traded on a tacit understanding that British Muslims with brown skin inherently “belong” less to the U.K. than to some other country where the majority of people are Muslims with brown skin — even if they were born in Great Britain and have never even visited the other country of nationality.

On this view, stripping citizenship merely sends the targets back to where they “really” come from. Citizenship deprivation thus delivers an exclusionary message to all non-white, non-Christian British citizens that their claim to U.K. membership is permanently precarious, however small the literal risk of citizenship deprivation.

Indeed, British legal scholar John Finnis explicitly flirted with a similar idea a few years ago by proposing the “humane” expulsion of all Muslim non-citizens from Britain.

The Letts conundrum

But Letts is white, his parents are middle class and Christian in upbringing (though secular in practice). His other country of citizenship, Canada, is also predominantly white and Christian in origin.

Canada is a staunch British ally, an important diplomatic and trading partner and a G7 member. Queen Elizabeth remains the formal head of state in Canada.

The illogical underpinning of citizenship deprivation now emerges clearly, shorn of implicit appeals to racism, Islamophobia and colonial arrogance. Letts is no more or less a risk to national security in Canada than the U.K. In no sense does Letts “belong” more to Canada than to the U.K., the country where he was born, raised, and that formed him.

The world is not made safer from terrorism when the U.K. disposes of their unwanted citizens in Canada, Bangladesh or anywhere else. The very phenomenon of foreign fighters testifies to that.

Claims that “citizenship is a privilege, not a right” or that the undeserving citizen forfeits citizenship by his actions is flimsy rhetoric intended to distract from the grubby opportunism that motivates citizenship revocation.

The U.K. does this not because it enhances the value of citizenship or makes the world safer from terrorism. It does it because it can.

If the British government thinks stripping citizenship is a good way for a state to respond to the challenges of national security, it must think it’s a good idea for all states. So imagine that Canada also had a citizenship revocation law. In fact, Canada’s Conservative government did enact such a law in 2014 (inspired by the U.K.), though it was repealed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government in 2017.

Here is the scenario: Letts, ISIS foreign fighter, is a citizen of the U.K. and of Canada. Neither country wants to claim him. Each has the possibility of revoking his citizenship as long as Letts is not rendered stateless.

The result?

Race to the bottom

An arbitrary race to see which country could strip his citizenship first. To the loser goes the citizen — maybe Canada, maybe the U.K.

This every-state-for-itself race to the bottom is the antithesis of co-operation in a global struggle against radicalizaton and terrorism; one need not be schooled in game theory to recognize it as counterproductive parochialism. Once states contemplate the possibility of being on the receiving end of citizenship stripping, the tactic doesn’t look quite so clever.

Until now, the U.K. has targeted individuals whose other state of nationality lacked the resources or diplomatic heft to challenge the British practice under international law. Maybe it’s time for Canada to step up, and to work with other countries, to pressure the U.K. and other states to abandon citizenship revocation as a means of disavowing “bad citizens.”

The Letts case reminds us that citizenship revocation policies can bite back. Any country that seeks to dispose of their citizens in this way may some day be a disposal site for other countries. If human rights aren’t enough of a reason to abolish citizenship revocation, and undermining global co-operation isn’t enough either, perhaps self-interest can tip the balance.

Source: ‘Jihadi Jack’ and the folly of revoking citizenship

Chris Selley: With Jihadi Jack, Britain gives Canada a taste of its own medicine

Good column by Selley. Nails country responsibility:

On Sunday we learned that Jack Letts, known in the British press as Jihadi Jack, is no longer a British subject. Then-home secretary Sajid Javid and then-prime minister Theresa May reportedly approved stripping the alleged ISIL fighter of his citizenship as one of their administration’s final acts and it seems they didn’t even send a telegram. Instead Letts was informed by an ITV News crew interviewing him at the Kurdish prison where he has been held for two-and-a-half years. Now, some fear, he will eventually wind up in Canada: He holds citizenship through his parents.

“Justin Trudeau must assure Canadians today that he isn’t trying to bring Jihadi Jack back to Canada,” Conservative public safety critic Pierre Paul-Hus said in a statement, calling it “naïve and dangerous” to think “anyone who signed up to fight with ISIS can be reformed.”

Paul-Hus does not exaggerate Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s remarkable rhetorical commitment to rehabilitating ISIL fighters. “Someone who has engaged and turned away from that hateful ideology can be an extraordinarily powerful voice for preventing radicalization in future generations and younger people within the community,” he told CTV’s Lisa LaFlamme in 2017. The Liberals didn’t just revoke the Conservative law allowing dual-citizen terrorists and traitors to be stripped of their citizenship; they made a big, principled show of it. “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian,” Trudeau would gravely intone, explicitly asking audience members to put themselves on the same level as Zakaria Amara, the Toronto 18 ringleader who lost his citizenship under the Conservatives and got it back under the Liberals.

The talking point is altogether ridiculous — Canadian citizenship is stratified according to criteria as basic as whether it can be passed on to foreign-born children — but like it or not, it was a brave stance.

The Liberals seemed less proud of Canadian consular officials making contact with Letts, refusing to comment when CBC got hold of audio tapes and transcripts of their meetings last year. Perhaps that’s because Letts said he would be happy to relocate to a Canadian prison if it would get him out of his current accommodations. Since then, Foreign Affairs seems to have lost interest in his situation entirely. Now, weeks out from an election, the Conservatives have been served a soft-on-terror talking point on a silver platter.

This case hardly illustrates the wisdom of the Conservative and British approaches

To their credit, neither Paul-Hus nor party leader Andrew Scheer has suggested this is a legislative problem. “(Letts is) in prison now and that’s where he should stay. I won’t lift a finger to bring him back to Canada,” Scheer said in a statement on Monday. Perhaps surprisingly, Paul-Hus wouldn’t even confirm to the National Post that a Conservative government would reintroduce the citizenship revocation provision.

Conservative partisans have been more than happy to draw the link, however.

“Under Stephen Harper, dual nationals could be stripped of their Canadian citizenship if they were convicted of terrorist offences. Justin Trudeau changed that law,” the pro-Conservative advocacy group Canada Proud tweeted. “So now, Canada is stuck with this ISIS terrorist.”

Letts hasn’t been convicted of anything, but he could theoretically have lost his citizenship under a different section of the law allowing the minister to seek revocation if he “has reasonable grounds to believe that a person … 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 an armed conflict with Canada.”

This case hardly illustrates the wisdom of the Conservative and British approaches, however. Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale quite rightly accused the Brits of attempting to “off-load their responsibilities” — Letts was born, raised, educated and lost the plot on British soil. Canada would be no better off at this point with the Conservative-era law in place: It only applied to dual citizens, and Letts is no longer one of those. From a hawk’s perspective, the best-case alternative scenario would be that we had denationalized Letts first, leaving Britain holding the bag. This would arguably be fairer, but surely a never-ending game of terrorist tag with our foreign allies — You’re it! No givebacks! — is a pretty lousy excuse for a national security strategy.

As annoyed as Canadians are right now with the prospect of helping or even housing this cretin, that’s precisely as annoyed as the Conservative legislation was sure to make other countries. That those countries might more often be Jordan or Egypt or Saudi Arabia than the United Kingdom does not redeem the exercise — rather, it raises the question of why we would want any more terrorists running around those countries instead of under close watch here at home. I happen to agree with Trudeau that dealing with our own trash is the right moral and ethical thing to do. But morals and ethics aside, purely as a practical matter, it strikes me as the only sensible approach.

Source: Chris Selley: With Jihadi Jack, Britain gives Canada a taste of its own medicine

And it appears that the Conservatives have no plans to re-introduce citizenship revocation should they win the election:

Mr. Letts’s case has refuelled a debate in Canada over dual citizens convicted of terrorism.

Former prime minister Stephen Harper passed a law in 2014 that gave Canada the power to revoke the citizenship of dual nationals who had been convicted of terrorism, treason or espionage. The Trudeau government reversed the law in 2017 after campaigning on the slogan “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.”

Despite Mr. Scheer’s opposition to repatriating Canadian foreign fighters, his office said the Conservatives “would not re-introduce grounds for the revocation of Canadian citizenship that relate to national security.” The Conservatives did not explain why Mr. Scheer would not reinstate the law.

Legal experts say the former law, if re-introduced, would likely lead to a legal challenge on the grounds that it would create a two-tier citizenship system.

Audrey Macklin, a law professor and chair in human-rights law at the University of Toronto, said these kinds of citizenship revocation laws encourage an “arbitrary race to see who could strip citizenship of dual nationals first.”

“It’s hard not to recall that Canada had such a law inspired by the U.K. itself but now it finds itself on the receiving end of another state’s practice. It just reminds us that this is a parochial, unhelpful, kind of grubby response,” Prof. Macklin said.