CouchPotato

It was interpretive dance actually.

The mandate does say anything about whether you have made controversial tweets in the past. Has he done any of this in a national park that you know of? Different venues sometimes have different speech values. You can be kicked from certain chat rooms and forums for using certain language right. But they can't ban you for having used that language someplace else. That's just insane.

I think you gave examples of things he said in the past. Like one of them was an X post. Are you saying that if you have tweeted 'unacceptable views' you are no longer allowed to hold a concert in a park? Do you have any examples of him promoting horrible things during his Canadian concerts? You could deny tons of artists that right to perform on this grounds.

What does he advocate that is contrary to the National Park's mandate?

Freedom of expression and peaceable assembly are.

Once again, how is this relevant? No one here is defending his status as a Christian. I doubt any of us heard of him before last week. He could be the most heretical Christian in history as far as I know. So what? What has he done that justifies denying him a venue? There are tons of performers who come to Canada all year long and make far more dough than that.

Well, it's certainly not a guaranteed right, but in general musical performers are allowed into Canada from the US and vice versa. On what justification should it be any different in this case?

Did Sean Feucht illegally immigrate here?

But on what basis should he have been denied. He had scheduled shows here didnt he. He has performed here before. So why should this be revoked. It seems there was no real standard here other than some people complained. And if that becomes the standard, then why can't anyone get enough people together and get any events they like cancelled? Foreigners aren't guaranteed any right to work in Canada as you say. So, if we got enough butthurt people to complain about some artist from outside of Canada that you might like, can we cancel him? Here is one. Would you have been ok with Ozzy playing in Canada?

Sadly, you are right about that. But not because expression does not include speech. It is that all the rights in the charter are only guaranteed to 'such reasonable limits'. So we have freedom of speech or any other form of expression to some arbitrary reasonable degree. That is the sad reality of the charter. But once again, which of Canada's draconian speech laws has he violated in any of his performances? How has he gone beyond the bounds of expression allowed in Canada? There are tons of people who have previously espoused all kinds of views who are allowed to come to Canada. What puts this guy beyond the pale? I mean if we are talking about musicians many of them have done more than just espouse so called unacceptable things, but have broken tons of laws.

Fundamental Freedoms Marginal note:Fundamental freedoms 2 Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association. You may not have realized this but speech is a form of expression, as are artistic media like a musician performing.

Well, Herbie doesn't like to let his left hand know what the right one is doing. He even spent weeks making an MS13-themed quilt for Kilmar Abrego.

Yeah, but we are not chipping in on the church's fine. Herbie is clearly doing everything he can with his time and money to help those illegal immigrants.

I see August more like a Japanese zen monk. The posts are really minimalist like haikus. I don't think it's always important to understand them in a purely logical sense.

Socks and sandals. Shoot on sight. Shoot twice to be sure.

Maybe. At least I'm not as stupid as you.

So I can't argue that a fine is unjust unless I donate to help pay the fine? Is that really your argument here, herbie? That's an incredibly stupid thing to say. You spend far more time sniveling on here than I do. Am I supposed to believe that with regard to every topic you post on you are somehow providing financial support to the people or parties involved whom you support?

I rarely expect a principled response from you on any matter. Are we talking about Trump or Sean Feucht here?

So basically half of the US should not be allowed to perform in Canada? Has this Feucht guy expressed any views about annexing Canada?

What hatred is he bringing? Are you saying that anyone who supports Trump should not be able to perform in Canada?

Yeah, apparently you can't even sing in Church without a permit.

And has he been convicted of anything under our draconian hate laws?? So far, the only arguments I see against him are that he has expressed certain views in the past. So he has been denied the right to perform based on the fact that he thinks certain things.

Why is this relevant? Basically you are arguing that he is an heretical Christian or that his Christianity is not genuine. So what? I really don't know enough about what the guy espouses. I never heard of him before last week. Why does this even come into play? His right to free speech is not based on whether or not he is what you or I consider to be a genuine Christian or not.

So basically the test for denial of free speech is how much of a stink one raises. If I don't like something you say I just need to organize enough people and make a fuss and I can shut you down.

He hadn't even spoken anything yet. They shut it down because people made a stink about him simply because he has expressed 'unacceptable views' in the past. They don't know what he is going to talk about or sing about. It's pretty concerning that in Canada you can prevent someone from performing based on the fact that you know they hold certain views. That is ridiculous.