Re-admission of Canadian ISIS fighters a travesty
The recent decision by the federal Liberals to re-admit more than 60 ISIS fighters to Canada with an eye to “rehabilitating” them, does not reflect the will or desire of the Canadian people.
Instead it is a policy crafted by elitists and left leaning special interest groups. Even Ralph Goodale, a veteran Liberal cabinet minister has admitted that full rehabilitation is unlikely, making the decision all the more astonishing. Small wonder that it has aroused such anger among average Canadians. These men, former ISIS fighters and terrorists, renounced their loyalty to Canada and to all civilized standards of behaviour when they left to serve a cause distinguished by its sick violence and twisted ethic of hatred and perversion.
It is not just puzzling, but astonishing that the P.M. and his supporters would, in light of this, say that “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.” and admit to our wonderful country those who have likely committed atrocities that most of us could not even imagine. If Himmler, Heydrich, Mengele, or a host of other Nazi monsters were admitted to Canada because they had been born or raised here, or just happened to hold Canadian citizenship would we not object to it?
At what point do we Canadians wake up and begin to protest decisions like these, instead of thinking of ourselves as a haven for those who have committed crimes against humanity in the service of their cause? It should be the right of a concerned citizenry to demand the rejection of those who are a danger to the peace and security of the state. Why is this so incomprehensible to so many?
Even if these men do not commit a future act of terrorism in Canada, a country that already has a history of terrorist violence, their potential influence on others could be de-stablilizing and lead to future incidents. Canadians should write to their representatives and tell them in no uncertain terms that the decision to re-admit these people is a mistake and a violation of our right to input on both government policy and public discourse.
Perry Foster
Duncan
