RE: Denied entry .... wahhhh (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


kdsub -> RE: Denied entry .... wahhhh (10/14/2012 11:53:58 AM)

quote:

legal dismenors




But unless Lucy is wrong, or I read wrong, he has no record of legal convictions that were not over turned on appeal. If you appeal and win then your convictions are wiped out are they not?

Butch




YN -> RE: Denied entry .... wahhhh (10/14/2012 12:38:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Thaz

In other words 'Doc' was refused entry not on speech grounds but on past legal dismenors. For which Cannucks get refused entry to the USA all the time (often enough that there are a host of legal websites touting for business trying to overturn such decisions).

Was that a pretext for the Canadians to avoid having the objectionable preacher on their turf? Yes. But hey. Save their tax payers a fortune in having to protect the idiot and police his events so I wouldnt object any more than I did my own Government refusing him entry to speak to the EDL puppets.


Perhaps. A victory in the battle of Form against Substance to me.

It likely cost them more in effort and expense to search the Interpol databases for world citations and such in order to passive-aggressively deny Jones entry then it did the English who did not use evasive pretenses and instead honestly and with moral courage denied him admission in this style

quote:

"The Government opposes extremism in all its forms which is why we have excluded Pastor Terry Jones from the UK." - UK Home Office spokesman


One can have more respect for the United Kingdom then Canada in this case, regardless of what one thinks of Jones in general.

Upright men and women would state the true reason and exactly why they refused him admission, as the English did, when he attempted to travel to meet with and speak to various reactionaries in the United Kingdom.





tazzygirl -> RE: Denied entry .... wahhhh (10/14/2012 12:50:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

legal dismenors




But unless Lucy is wrong, or I read wrong, he has no record of legal convictions that were not over turned on appeal. If you appeal and win then your convictions are wiped out are they not?

Butch


But its not Canada's place to ensure that his records from Germany are accurate.




kdsub -> RE: Denied entry .... wahhhh (10/14/2012 1:29:27 PM)

quote:

But its not Canada's place to ensure that his records from Germany are accurate

Then whos records are they using?

I am just going by Lucy's post...whatever source Canada got his conviction from should also have had his appeal don't you think?

Butch




tazzygirl -> RE: Denied entry .... wahhhh (10/14/2012 2:24:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

But its not Canada's place to ensure that his records from Germany are accurate

Then whos records are they using?

I am just going by Lucy's post...whatever source Canada got his conviction from should also have had his appeal don't you think?

Butch


Germany... you would think.... Canada didnt get it. You arent suggesting Canada is supposed to investigate Germany over this, are you?




thompsonx -> RE: Denied entry .... wahhhh (10/14/2012 6:13:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

I wouldn't let the fucker in my house, either, Butch. Not unless he had a mob chasing him.


Why?




thompsonx -> RE: Denied entry .... wahhhh (10/14/2012 6:20:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

I am unable to understand why Americans are whinging over the free speech issue in this instance


Name one Canadian that has been denied entry to the US because of a spoken word ...that is what we are talking about Canada and the US.


Butch


According to tj this guy :Canadian Olympic snowboarder Ross Rebulati was.
He once said he smoked marijuana...no conviction no proof just an idle statement.




kdsub -> RE: Denied entry .... wahhhh (10/14/2012 8:08:01 PM)

I am wanting to know who gave, or where did the border guards get, the information... did he volunteer it...did they use a database search...how?

Butch




tazzygirl -> RE: Denied entry .... wahhhh (10/15/2012 1:24:01 AM)

I would go with a database.




fucktoyprincess -> RE: Denied entry .... wahhhh (10/15/2012 6:54:45 AM)

FR

The last I checked international borders are the jurisdiction of the particular country and they can deny entrance for any reason at all. I do not see what his right to free speech within the U.S. has to do with Canadian border control. Canada is a separate country. Am I missing something here???? [&:]




kdsub -> RE: Denied entry .... wahhhh (10/15/2012 10:52:13 AM)

quote:

Am I missing something here????


Yes…Both countries profess and are proud of their free speech laws. This should mean that no one should be denied entry between countries over their spoken word no matter how distasteful it is.

Of course that is not the reason given but is the real reason for his denied entry into Canada.

I have seen no one in this thread that disagrees with their decision. Some are just pointing out the hypocrisy of the border guards actions.

Butch




Moonhead -> RE: Denied entry .... wahhhh (10/15/2012 11:38:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
Of course that is not the reason given but is the real reason for his denied entry into Canada.

You can demonstrate that his being denied entry has nothing to do with the criminal fraud that was cited, then?
If you can do so, go for it. Maybe you should have saved everybody a lot of time and done that four pages back, though...




fucktoyprincess -> RE: Denied entry .... wahhhh (10/15/2012 11:53:14 AM)

quote:

This should mean that no one should be denied entry between countries over their spoken word no matter how distasteful it is.


You may feel that is ought to be the law, and I respect that, but I don't believe this is the state of International law today. The US is not required (and who would require it of us as a sovereign nation?) to let in anyone. That's just the way the law works. And every other country is the same way. Every country has the right to stop anyone they want from entering their country. Period.

If someone believes there is some international treaty or other agreement that says otherwise, I would be interested to see it because I am currently unaware of any such thing.

Canada is not another state of the US. It is a separate country. [&:]





tazzygirl -> RE: Denied entry .... wahhhh (10/15/2012 12:34:57 PM)

quote:

This should mean that no one should be denied entry between countries over their spoken word no matter how distasteful it is.


So now we, because we are the mighty USofA, can dictate to another country who should or should not be allowed into their borders?




sforwomen -> RE: Denied entry .... wahhhh (10/15/2012 12:39:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

This should mean that no one should be denied entry between countries over their spoken word no matter how distasteful it is.


So now we, because we are the mighty USofA, can dictate to another country who should or should not be allowed into their borders?


oh that is a nice idea ... after the mighty USofA prohibited nazi symbols and nazi propaganda in Germany after the war - now you want to impose it back on us and others? - no thanks you can keep your own nazis and religious madmen over there




tazzygirl -> RE: Denied entry .... wahhhh (10/15/2012 1:33:11 PM)

Totally a different situation. But I cant fault you for the sentiment of us keeping our own kooks.




Moonhead -> RE: Denied entry .... wahhhh (10/15/2012 1:53:58 PM)

That said, they had no objection to importing the notorious hook handed kook Abu Hamza, did they?




tazzygirl -> RE: Denied entry .... wahhhh (10/15/2012 2:31:23 PM)

Guess not.. lol




dcnovice -> RE: Denied entry .... wahhhh (10/15/2012 3:14:16 PM)

quote:

The last I checked international borders are the jurisdiction of the particular country and they can deny entrance for any reason at all. I do not see what his right to free speech within the U.S. has to do with Canadian border control. Canada is a separate country.

Of course. I don't think anyone disputes that.

But, at the risk of repeating myself . . .

To me, the real question is whether it's wise for a nation to use its border officials as a tool for censoring unpopular ideas. Presumably some Canadians were interested in Jones's (repulsive) views, or they wouldn't have invited him to their event. Isn't it a constriction of those Canadians' liberty to deny them the right to hear differing viewpoints?

Eagerness to use governmental muscle as a way to shelter ourselves from disagreeable thoughts strikes me as worrying, wherever it happens.




tazzygirl -> RE: Denied entry .... wahhhh (10/15/2012 3:35:45 PM)

The Constitution of Canada incorporates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.[1] Section 2 of the of the Charter grants to everyone, among other things, freedom of conscience and religion, and freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media. Section 1 restricts the granted freedoms by making them subject "only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."[2]

The Criminal Code of Canada

Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Code forbid hate propaganda.[3] "Hate propaganda" means "any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319." Section 318 prescribes imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years for anyone who advocates genocide. The Code defines genocide as the destruction of an "identifiable group." The Code defines an "identifiable group" as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation." Section 319 prescribes penalties from a fine to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years for anyone who incites hatred against any identifiable group. Section 320 allows a judge to confiscate publications which appear to be hate propaganda. Under section 319, an accused is not guilty: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Canadian Human Rights Commission

The Canadian Human Rights Commission administers the Canadian Human Rights Act.[8] Section 3 of the Act prohibits discrimination based on "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted." Section 13(1) addresses the issue of hate speech. The section states:
It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Section 13(2) makes clear that posting hateful or contemptuous messages to the Internet is prohibited. Section 54(1) allows a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to order a respondent to cease any discriminatory practice, to compensate the victim where the discrimination was wilful or reckless by an amount not exceeding $20,000, and to pay a penalty of not more than $10,000.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Two_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_One_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875