• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Quran Burning Pastor Barred From Entry Into Canada [W:73]

PrometheusBound said:
In the 1930s Winston Churchill was trying to "incite violence" too, but people didn't listen to him until it was too late. Also, in America, look up General Billy Mitchell. But when cowards have moral authority, prophets are slandered.
Click to expand...

Winston was not trying to incite violence, he was attempting to tell the world of the threat of Nazism in the wake of Chamberlain's disgusting appeasement.

Mitchell, was not attempting to incite violence, he was advocating for a stronger air force and a focus on building air craft carriers. He was court martialled for insubordination because he got seriously pissed at his superiors for their iron bound conservative ideas about war as the technology was rapidly developing.
 
PrometheusBound said:
So judgments on freedom are based on the way savages will react to it?
Click to expand...

no, judgements on freedom of speech are based on (in this example) if the speaker knew that his comments would illicit a violent reaction - he clearly did and that is incitement to violence.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Then that's not free speech. That's free speech without hate speech designed to incite violence. Surely you can see the contradiction there.
Click to expand...

As you can see the contradiction of free speech when a person yells fire in a theatre.

There isn't a country on the planet that has true freedom of speech where there is no responsibility or consequence to whatever they say or preach.
 
Jonsa said:
As you can see the contradiction of free speech when a person yells fire in a theatre.

There isn't a country on the planet that has true freedom of speech where there is no responsibility or consequence to whatever they say or preach.
Click to expand...

Then it's not free speech is it?
 
PrometheusBound said:
That's different! That's part of their religion. Besides, they might attack us if we don't let them say what they want. Freedom Through Appeasement! Being nice is the only way to be safe. And if you don't like Qanadians being cowards, it's their country and they can shelter as many jihadist sleeper cells as they want. Big Brotherhood Is Watching You!
Click to expand...

If a mullah or Islamist was stupid enough to stand up in Canada and preach hatred and incite violence against Canadians, his fellow muslims who love this country and its society would probably take care of him before any charges were laid. there's only been a few terror plots in Canada and those cases authorities were first alerted by fellow muslims.

And if they didn't take care of him, the law would, without fear of reprisals. Guess it must be something in the air up here in the great white north.
 
It's not free speech when they charge money for tickets.:roll:
 
Voltaire X said:
Wow, talk about giving extreme powers to law enforcement. So much abuse potential.
Click to expand...

That is their job though. You guys barred Trudeau who would later become prime minster back when you were into the whole anti-communism thing and that was for political statements aswell.
 
Voltaire X said:
Wow, talk about giving extreme powers to law enforcement. So much abuse potential.
Click to expand...

if you are not american, you should see how US border guards utilize their extreme powers. abuse is bound to happen in any system where such power is delegated down the chain to the front line.
 
0bserver92 said:
That is their job though. You guys barred Trudeau who would later become prime minster back when you were into the whole anti-communism thing and that was for political statements aswell.
Click to expand...

The US did a lot of messed up things back then, I certainly won't deny that.

Jonsa said:
if you are not american, you should see how US border guards utilize their extreme powers. abuse is bound to happen in any system where such power is delegated down the chain to the front line.
Click to expand...

US border guards definitely don't have the power to deem someone "crazy" based off of whatever statements they have made in the past and deny them entry to the country.
 
PrometheusBound said:
That's different! That's part of their religion. Besides, they might attack us if we don't let them say what they want. Freedom Through Appeasement! Being nice is the only way to be safe. And if you don't like Qanadians being cowards, it's their country and they can shelter as many jihadist sleeper cells as they want. Big Brotherhood Is Watching You!
Click to expand...

I do have trouble with the double standards, myself, because once Canada identifies one, specific belief system as inviolate, then to be consistant, they should establish all belief systems in the same way.

I see burning The Q'ran as provocative, but there is an enormous difference between a symbolic act aimed at a religio-political doctrine and actually trying to stir up violence against a people. Considering the fact that religious belief is a matter of free choice in Canada just as it is with any other ideology, then it should follow that provocative acts of symbolic protest against this ideology should also be a free choice.

The day that Canada refuses entry to Muslims who express similar attitudes towards Jews or Christians is the day I will believe them to be upholding a principle. Until then, they are just acting politically correct and very much hypocritical.
 
Wake said:
Hm.

I might change my mind on this.

I support people's right to say they hate something/someone...

...but if they're doing something they know is going to cause blood to be spilt, then perhaps that should be stopped.

A lot of the radical Muslims in other countries are insane. If this pastor guy KNOWS blood is going to be spilt by what he's doing, then he needs to take some of the responsibility for it.
Click to expand...
No, the Muslims are totally responsible for it. And those who don't mow the mobs down contribute to it. Terry Jones is guilty only of telling it like it is.
 
Wake said:
Hm.

I might change my mind on this.

I support people's right to say they hate something/someone...

...but if they're doing something they know is going to cause blood to be spilt, then perhaps that should be stopped.

A lot of the radical Muslims in other countries are insane. If this pastor guy KNOWS blood is going to be spilt by what he's doing, then he needs to take some of the responsibility for it.
Click to expand...

PrometheusBound said:
No, the Muslims are totally responsible for it. And those who don't mow the mobs down contribute to it. Terry Jones is guilty only of telling it like it is.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Wake, it's not is fault they are so thin-skinned and easily offended.
 
0bserver92 said:
The Quran burning pastor form Florida is the news again but here in Canada. In this article by The Globe, it says that the pastor has for now been barred for entry because of a breach of peace charge in his past. I think the real reason they are stopping him is that we don't want him here. We don't take too kindly to people like him and don't want him in our country. What are American's thoughts on this?

Edit: He was travelling to Cnada to debate several people about free speech including: Imam Steve Rockwell the director of Sheikh Deidat Mosque, Dr Masud Ansari a prominent Islamic author, Dr Bikram Lamba Canada’s most prominent Sikh leader and author, Ron Banerjee Director of Canadian Hindu Advocacy.
Click to expand...
It is your country. Do as you wish.
 
Gardener said:
The day that Canada refuses entry to Muslims who express similar attitudes towards Jews or Christians is the day I will believe them to be upholding a principle. Until then, they are just acting politically correct and very much hypocritical.
Click to expand...

We haven't really needed to so far.
 
Jonsa said:
We do respect free speech. what we won't tolerate is hate speech designed to incite violence. Our hate speech laws are very specific, because freedom of speech is a fundamental right as outlined in our charter of rights and freedoms.

You'd want it for lets see.... tons of natural resources trailing only Russia in that regard. 1/4 of the worlds fresh water. Tim Horton's coffee, the best hockey players, beavertails, and monster mosquito zappers, oh and of course way better beer.
Click to expand...
Sure. I say we let Canada be Canada.
 
Jonsa said:
no, judgements on freedom of speech are based on (in this example) if the speaker knew that his comments would illicit a violent reaction - he clearly did and that is incitement to violence.
Click to expand...
That's if you want to play nice and then feel morally superior about yourself as you are, as a consequence, marched away to your beheading. But a proper response of people wanting to preserve their freedom is "Bring Them On!" Not only will the rioters expose to the world the true nature of what the Koran inspires, they will give us clear targets for our embassy Marines to mow down. But I guess the Red White and Blue has now become yellow, and the Marines, under pacifists' orders, have stopped wearing dress blues and are now wearing blue dresses to swish at the rabid Arab rabble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom