• 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]

We like free speech we just draw the line at wanting death of x group and saying something to purposely cause harm.

That's the line, today. Tomorrow, you can't say nigger, honkie, spick, kike, dego, greaser, bohump, etc.

The next day, you can't cuss.

The day after that, you can't yell above a certain decibel level.

Then, it will be illegal look cross-eyed at someone.

The point being, if there is a line, then it can always be re-drawn.
 
Those cases were libel/defamation not hate speech.

No, they were "hate speech." The Human Rights Commission doesn't handle libel/defamation. The libel suits against Levant came after he beat the charges in the HRC.

Steyn was prosecuted by the HRC merely for quoting an Imam accurately.

Said Dean Steacy of the HRC: "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value . . . it's not my job to give value to an American concept."

(All this said, Canada can perfectly well deny entry to anyone it wants.)
 
That's the line, today. Tomorrow, you can't say nigger, honkie, spick, kike, dego, greaser, bohump, etc.

The next day, you can't cuss.

The day after that, you can't yell above a certain decibel level.

Then, it will be illegal look cross-eyed at someone.

The point being, if there is a line, then it can always be re-drawn.

That is the line drawn by provincial laws on the views of their constituents. We are not like paranoid Americans that think the government is always out to get them.
 
No, they were "hate speech." The Human Rights Commission doesn't handle libel/defamation. The libel suits against Levant came after he beat the charges in the HRC.

Steyn was prosecuted by the HRC merely for quoting an Imam accurately.

Said Dean Steacy of the HRC: "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value . . . it's not my job to give value to an American concept."

(All this said, Canada can perfectly well deny entry to anyone it wants.)

Yeah, sorry about that it's 1am and that's what I have been reading about recently.
 
That's the line, today. Tomorrow, you can't say nigger, honkie, spick, kike, dego, greaser, bohump, etc.

The next day, you can't cuss.

The day after that, you can't yell above a certain decibel level.

Then, it will be illegal look cross-eyed at someone.

The point being, if there is a line, then it can always be re-drawn.

Actually it is going in the opposite direction. Just listen to what is allowed to be said on TV compared to 20 yrs ago. Just listen to conversation around you in public.


By the way, what is a bohump?
 
Actually it is going in the opposite direction. Just listen to what is allowed to be said on TV compared to 20 yrs ago. Just listen to conversation around you in public.


By the way, what is a bohump?
Google tells me a goofy or ugly guy. Yeah it is going the other way on television and radio, just watch any show for pre-teens or teens.
 
I would like to know why? We probably would have just traded with Britain instead of you.

Canada survived for a quite a long time with just the commonwealth to trade with! I have a lot of respect for Canada as they have always answered the call and have managed to carve themselves a little piece of heaven in a region dominated by America.
 
That is the line drawn by provincial laws on the views of their constituents. We are not like paranoid Americans that think the government is always out to get them.

We're not like stupid Canadians, willing to sit back while our civil rights are slowly stripped away from us. Some folks act as it it's never happened, before.
 
We're not like stupid Canadians, willing to sit back while our civil rights are slowly stripped away from us. Some folks act as it it's never happened, before.

We view it as a reasonable limit on freedom of expression.
 
We're not like stupid Canadians, willing to sit back while our civil rights are slowly stripped away from us. Some folks act as it it's never happened, before.

Patriots act?
 
What do you mean the same criteria?

By same criteria I really mean whims of the government of the day.

Communists were once not allowed into the US, a Dutch politician was not allowed into the UK and book burners are not being allowed entry into Canada. My feeling is that anyone should get a visitors permit unless they are criminals or until they break the local laws.
 
We view it as a reasonable limit on freedom of expression.

I'm an adult Canadian and don't appreciate anyone telling me what i can see or hear.

Those with differing opinions are now being shouted down by Canadian leftists and the culture has become dull and predictable as a result. This affliction is not occurring only in Canada but throughout the western democracies, though seldom do i hear freedom of expression being rationalized, or given as a positive quality, as often as I do in Canada.
 
By same criteria I really mean whims of the government of the day.

Communists were once not allowed into the US, a Dutch politician was not allowed into the UK and book burners are not being allowed entry into Canada. My feeling is that anyone should get a visitors permit unless they are criminals or until they break the local laws.

I don't see this as flavour of the day as quite simply no matter who you are this guy is a looney. He also technically a criminal aswell.
 
Therein lies the problem: who gets to define, "reasonable limits"?

The government on input by their constituents, and approved by the supreme court.
 
Respect for Canada: -100 points

well considering we generally score somewhere around a gazillion points in the respect column around the world, I think we could absorb your 100 penalty assuming of course we even noticed it.
 
Actually, Canada prosecutes for much, much less than that. Ask Ezra Levant or Mark Steyn.

that was the human rights commission. Its not a judicial prosecution and the dude adjudicating it ain't a judge. Its a travesty that is slowly getting fixed as the crazier commissioners are fired and the public gets more indignant. Neither Levant nor Steyn should have had to go thru that crap.

I happen to think steyn is a racist and levant is seriously anti-muslim, but expressing their opinions isn't remotely a human rights violation against some pansy assed citizen. (it only takes one complaint to get drawn into this absurd "legal" quagmire).
 
Blown out of proportion?

Not a single civil right was ever threatened by the Patriot Act.

Excuse me? habeus corpus isn't a civil right? unlimited detention isn't a violation of civil rights? spying on american citizens isn't a violation of civil rights?

What do you think the Patriot act is?
 
BTW I happen to know for a fact that a canadian with a criminal record (equivalent of a misdemeanor in the states) is denied entry to the US. further, even if the canadian has been granted a pardon by the Canadian government, the US does not honour said pardon. for a canadian with a criminal record to enter the US it takes a payment of $580(US) and filling out various forms and then waiting for up to 6 months for approval to enter. If you want to enter again at a later date, you go thru the same process, until some guy sitting at a desk decides you can get a waiver and pass across the border freely.

does it sound like I know what I'm talking about? I spend two grand doing that for a few years, until I got my waiver. all over getting pinched for possession of hashish 40 years ago.
 
I don't see this as flavour of the day as quite simply no matter who you are this guy is a looney. He also technically a criminal aswell.

He was not allowed to speak in Canada so we don't know whether he's a looney or not.

He is "technically" a criminal? How so?
 
that was the human rights commission. Its not a judicial prosecution and the dude adjudicating it ain't a judge. Its a travesty that is slowly getting fixed as the crazier commissioners are fired and the public gets more indignant. Neither Levant nor Steyn should have had to go thru that crap.

I happen to think steyn is a racist and levant is seriously anti-muslim, but expressing their opinions isn't remotely a human rights violation against some pansy assed citizen. (it only takes one complaint to get drawn into this absurd "legal" quagmire).

That's the problem. This ridiculous Human Rights Commission decided what was "reasonable limits" and acted accordingly. Luckily for Canadians Mark Steyn (who is no way a racist) and Ezra Levant (so what if he is anti Muslim?) had the wherewithal to fight back. Other Canadians who were attacked by this kangaroo court, some might say with the consent of its "constituents", suffered mightily under the oppression of these bastards.
 
The government on input by their constituents, and approved by the supreme court.

Soon as you start giving the government too much power, they'll start making laws with less and less input from their constituents.
 
Back
Top Bottom