The top old video is an ad from the 2015 Federal election. There are plenty of bleeding hearts, misguided people, moral relativists, and professional subversion agents who argue that convicted foreign terrorists/traitors should get to keep their Canadian citizenship.
Spoiler: if a person goes on national TV, it isn’t private.
(A) Cairo Declaration on “Human Rights”
(B) UN Terrorist Repatriation Initiatives
(C.1) Bill C-6 (citizenship for terrorists)
(C.2) Bill C-59, Terrorism, Young Offenders
(C.3) Bill C-75, Weakening Terrorism Penalties
(D) UN Blasphemy Vote (Criticism of Islam)
(E) M-103 (Iqra’s Blasphemy Motion)
(F) CBC Promoting Islam, Hijab Day
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mahjoub, 2001 CanLII 22177 (FCA)
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mahjoub, 2003 FC 928 (CanLII),  1 FCR 493
Harkat (Re), 2003 FCT 759 (CanLII),  4 FC 1020
December 2003, terrorism suspect dropped as client
Abdurahman Khadr (Omar Khadr’s older brother)
R. v. Ghany, 2006 CanLII 24454 (ON SC)
Horrace v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 114 (CanLII)
Galati v. Canada (Gov General), 2015 FC 91 (CanLII),  4 FCR 3
Galati v. Canada (Governor General), (A-52-15)
T-1476-14 Citizenship For Convicted Terrorists
R. v. Ahmad, 2009 CanLII 84772 (ON SC)
R. v. Ahmad, 2009 CanLII 84774 (ON SC)
R. v. Ahmad, 2009 CanLII 84776 (ON SC)
R. v. Hersi, 2014 ONSC 1211 (CanLII)
R. v. Hersi, 2014 ONSC 1217 (CanLII)
R. v. Hersi, 2014 ONSC 1258 (CanLII)
R. v. Hersi, 2014 ONSC 1273 (CanLII)
R. v. Hersi, 2014 ONSC 1303 (CanLII)
R. v. Hersi, 2014 ONSC 1368 (CanLII)
R. v. Hersi, 2014 ONSC 1373 (CanLII)
R. v. Hersi, 2014 ONSC 4143 (CanLII)
Best v Ranking, 2015 ONSC 5075 (CanLII)
Best v Ranking, 2015 ONSC 6269 (CanLII)
Best v Ranking, 2015 ONSC 6279 (CanLII)
Best v. Ranking, 2016 ONCA 492 (CanLII)
(From the Ontario Court of Appeals):
 Paul Slansky, counsel for the plaintiff Donald Best, appeals from a decision requiring Mr. Slansky to pay costs personally, in the sum of $84,000, on a joint and several basis with his client. He submits that the motion judge erred in two respects:
• The hearing was unfair, because he did not have adequate notice of the grounds upon which the motion judge grounded her decision to order him to pay costs personally.
• The motion judge awarded costs against him because he took on a weak case, not on the basis pleaded by the respondents, which was that he had taken procedural steps which wasted costs.
 More generally, Mr. Slansky submits that the motion judge should not have ordered him to pay costs personally, and would not have done so had she exercised the extreme caution required.
 For the following reasons, I would dismiss the appeal.
 On appeal, Mr. Slansky argues that Action 2 was not abusive. It was against many different parties and for different causes of action. That issue has now been conclusively determined by the dismissal of Mr. Best’s appeal from the decision striking Action 2 as an abuse of process. Action 2 made similar allegations of impropriety as had been voiced in the course of Action 1. The motion judge did not err in considering that Mr. Slansky incorporated into the pleading in Action 2 accusations of criminal misconduct against opposing counsel that had repeatedly been judicially rejected as baseless.
 Finally, as this court indicated in Galganov, at paras. 23-25, deference is owed to a motion judge’s decision as to whether a lawyer should pay costs personally:
 For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed with costs payable by Mr. Slansky in favour of the respondents in the agreed sum of $30,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.