• frostbiker@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Were they doing a good job?

    Would you have the same laissez faire attitude if instead of proven jihadists these were radical christian supremacists that just came back from a modern crusade war?

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Probably, the operative word in the headline is former

      If they’re conducting themselves professionally I don’t see any issues aside from any possible debts to society yet to be paid, which could frankly just as well be covered by them providing a professional education for the next generation.

      • letmesleep@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Probably, the operative word in the headline is former

        Yeah, but it’s likely that the people in question only returned a few years ago. I.e. they probably should only now be at the time where the jails are considering releasing them. Getting them position of power (in this case over children) now seems to be rushing things. After ten or twenty years of not showing any signs of fanatism I wouldn’t be bothered.

    • tal
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d be more-inclined to take issue with Muslim extremists than Christian extremists, if anything. So, yeah, probably have pretty much the same take.

      • frostbiker@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I would have the same opinion in both cases as well: I don’t want (former?) violent fundamentalists teaching my children, any more than I would like e.g. (former?) sex offenders.