Poor Code Pink

[margrace]

Clearly you don't see a balance. IMO, you have just spouted alot of nonsense, about nothing.

This incident has nothing to do with a bridge, first of all

http://www.codepink4peace.org/article.php?...pe&type=328

Ann Wright, retired U.S. army colonel and former diplomat who quit in opposition to the Iraq war, and Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CODEPINK and founding director of Global Exchange, tested Canada's policy towards US peace activists on Thursday. They were on their way to Toronto at the invitation of the Toronto Stop the War Coalition but were denied entry into Canada due to previous arrests he women were questioned at Canadian customs about their participation

in anti-war efforts and informed that they had an FBI file indicating

they had been arrested in acts of non-violent civil disobedience.

Do you know how many peace activists have small petty charges against them, politically motivated, of course?!

That even charging these people for acts of civil disobedience, is nothing more the politically motivated punishment for challenging the "state"???

By these same actions do you know Martin Luther King could not have come in our country???

Clearly civilized, and I would add, coherently THINKING people, would see the imbalance in a state ,empowering itself through random politically motivated charges, against it's own population.

Neither would Mr Mandella from South Africa, in Northern Ireland it was the women who got together to stop the carnage. It becomes apparent that men still think, as did the Victoriand, that women are grown up children and have not the sense to understand how the world runs, apparently nothing really changes does it.

Edited October 15, 2007 by margrace

[old_bold&cold]

You clearly do not understand Canada. May I ask you if you are from the USA? It really does not matter but I think it does explain some of your reactions. First off, here in Canada if your protests are going to infringe on part of the peoples rights, you should first get the rules for a permit and see just where and how this can be done legally. Here we have municipal governments that will be the ones to issue permits and yes they will do so without any intervention, if the rules of the permit are followed. We have had a very large number of protests that have stopped traffic for marches and what I would call slow moving blockades, that were legal and within the permits given. It though will not allow you to have a stationary blockade, and have marches unannouced that disrupt traffic. It is a balance of the two differing rights, as to why and how this is done.

I do not know what the USA has along these lines, but I would think it is near the same there, but I can not be positive on that point. It really does not matter how or where these people got their arrest record, but rather that it exists. If they had invitations to speak here about anti war efforts, that was not the government inviting them and when you come to Canada it is the Government that invites you here or blocks your entrance. We do not want to allow every pprotestor into our country, as we have more then enough home grown ones to fil that need. Just because these people were here many times before and nothing blocked them, it does not mean that they have a right to still keep coming here and be allowed in. I mentioned my father before who is married to a woman from West Palm Beach, and they for decades wintered there and summers here. One day dad was stopped and they found he had a DUI back when he was a teenager, some 60 years ago. He was denied entry and had to come back home and get a pardon and register it with the US embassy in Ottawa, before he was allowed into the USA again. That was just how it was. Even though I thought it stupid, those were the rules and if he wanted to go down south in winter he had to jump through all the hoops. He is dead now, but I am sure he would have said, that it was just what the rules said and yes that criminal record can and does follow for life if you do not get pardoned for it, and that is something you have to do on your own. No one tells you that it is available.

[M.Dancer]

.............in Northern Ireland it was the women who got together to stop the carnage.........

[ScottSA]

My goodness, it's wonderful to see the left out in full puffed out defence of the inherent right of protest in a democracy. It's a shame the same folks took the other side of the issue when the protest in Belgium took place. And the Flemish nationalists didn't even chain themselves to things. How about that?

The two are different issues of course. That one concerned police brutality begun by the police against middle aged men standing quietly, and this one involves fury-breathing menopausal women denied entry to Canada, but hey, lets pave over the differences; protest is a right, right?

As Argus pointed out, this has nothing to do with any of that anyway. There is no inherent "right" to come to Canada; something the pro-immigration crowd seems not to understand. Why would we want to allow a troublemaker to come here? If her mission was to agitate for Canada to adopt "American style medicare," would her unsullied right to advance upon the Canadian establishment in the name of democracy still be worth flinging oneself down in front of the tanks? Somehow I suspect not.

Canada doesn't want her here. Canada has the right not to want her here. Canada has the procedural mechanism to deny her entry, and Canada has legal justification to deny her entry, even if it really doesn't need it.

[guyser]

When exactly was Code Pink beaten up and carted off in police vans for peacefully assembling?

Umm...never? Gosh , did I say they were?

Here is what you wrote....

These silly spoiled women who like to dress in pink and do whatever one wants to call the things they do in the name of "peace" seem to feel now that they're above the law.

Both the Belgians and the Pinks thought they were above the law, the Belgians did not have a permit, and the Pinks ignored theirs.

The Belgians were protesting, the Pinks were protesting. One had minor police scuffles and the other disrupted traffic.

One was okay, one isnt. Good.Flip flop still applies.

Traitors? Seditionist? oh my

Edited October 15, 2007 by guyser

[ScottSA]

Umm...never? Gosh , did I say they were?

Here is what you wrote....

Both the Belgians and the Pinks thought they were above the law, the Belgians did not have a permit, and the Pinks ignored theirs.

The Belgians were protesting, the Pinks were protesting. One had minor police scuffles and the other disrupted traffic.

One was okay, one isnt. Good.Flip flop still applies.

Traitors? Seditionist? oh my

You seem to be missing the point. Notwithstanding the fact that "minor police scuffles" in Belgium involved the police scuffling and the protestors crying out in pain, that is not the issue. The issue is Canada's right to deny entry to someone after the fact. Saudi Arabia, for instance, is well within it's rights to deny entry to Vlaam Belang members. South Africa is well within its rights to deny entry to KKK members. Canada is well within its rights to deny entry to pink clad menopausal battleaxes.

Edited October 15, 2007 by ScottSA

[guyser]

You don't get arrested for "trying to present petitions", unless that involves trespassing or blocking people from leaving or entering the building.

No one is suggesting these people are dangerous. But that is not our criteria for allowing people to visit. Just as you yourself exclude people who, while not criminals, might be troublemakers and general pains in the ass from attending a party at your home, so too do we as a nation exclude people who are likely to be general pains in the ass. You have no right, as a foreigner, to enter Canada. We can exclude you on a whim. It's our home and we can keep anyone out we want for whatever reason we want.

While I agree , it does seem crazy that the denials rendered at the border are not doled out with any degree of fairness. And while I agree that we have the power to deny, perhaps we should deny some of the more dangerous people like the followers of NOI , and many others that seem to get a pass to come in for a few days.(plenty of musicians should be banned if we are advocating equal treatment)

At the end of the day, they are on a list ,and were denied entry . Not going to get worked up for protestors , but rather that the fairness issue that surrounds it be addressed.

[ScottSA]

At the end of the day, they are on a list ,and were denied entry . Not going to get worked up for protestors , but rather that the fairness issue that surrounds it be addressed.

Are you creating a "fairness issue" when you invite freinds to your house and deny entry to people you don't know?

[guyser]

Are you creating a "fairness issue" when you invite freinds to your house and deny entry to people you don't know?

The Border Guards dont know anyone when they are working, thus they have guidelines. Perhaps they need to re-visit their guidebook.

I have no problem that these women were denied. But to let in others, some of which are dangerous, is foolish .

[guyser]

You seem to be missing the point. Notwithstanding the fact that "minor police scuffles" in Belgium involved the police scuffling and the protestors crying out in pain, that is not the issue. The issue is Canada's right to deny entry to someone after the fact.

Is that the issue? Really?

So why the hyperbole about sedition , silly pink women, traitors.......? You end your post with "they should be treated worse than criminals" . Funny, but both groups were criminal.

Flip flop.

Hyperbole central.

[Argus]

Umm...never? Gosh , did I say they were?

Here is what you wrote....

Both the Belgians and the Pinks thought they were above the law, the Belgians did not have a permit, and the Pinks ignored theirs.

The Belgians were protesting, the Pinks were protesting. One had minor police scuffles and the other disrupted traffic.

One was okay, one isnt. Good.Flip flop still applies.

What you are ignoring - deliberately, I suspect - is that one was refused permission to demonstrate at all, while the other was allowed to demonstrate, even if it did disrupt traffic, but chose to violate their agreement specifically so they would disrupt traffic much more and make it hard for commuters during the rush hour.

Would you allow that refusing permission to demonstrate at all is a far more serious violation of rights by the state than merely telling demonstrators not to block a major highway during rush hour?

[guyser]

What you are ignoring - deliberately, I suspect - is that one was refused permission to demonstrate at all, while the other was allowed to demonstrate, even if it did disrupt traffic, but chose to violate their agreement specifically so they would disrupt traffic much more and make it hard for commuters during the rush hour.

The deliberate ignoring is not done on my part. And for you to try and change the tenor of what the original poster was saying is funny. He starts his post with women who think they are above the law. He started the Belgian thread arguing that just because they were not marching legally they should not suffer any repercussions.

Both recd what was coming to them. The Belgians and the Pinks were arrested.

I am not ignoring anything . They were both illegal. One in the way and time they did it (Pink) and the other for not having a permit. (Belgians)

Would you allow that refusing permission to demonstrate at all is a far more serious violation of rights by the state than merely telling demonstrators not to block a major highway during rush hour?

Show me that the Belgians had a "right" to protest in the public square.

Blocking a highway was stupid, and I am not defending them , nor have I.

Edited October 15, 2007 by guyser

[kuzadd]

My goodness, it's wonderful to see the left out in full puffed out defence of the inherent right of protest in a democracy.

It is wonderful to note that those who regularly associate themselves with the "right", coming out in full puffed up defence, of loss of freedoms, all government enforced, of course.

Clearly civilized, and I would add, coherently THINKING people, would see the imbalance of power in a state ,empowering itself ,through random politically motivated charges, against it's own population.

But hey I can think of so many leaders, who would be sooo grateful to have such a complacent populace, that would go along with this garbage.

[Argus]

The deliberate ignoring is not done on my part. And for you to try and change the tenor of what the original poster was saying is funny. He starts his post with women who think they are above the law. He started the Belgian thread arguing that just because they were not marching legally they should not suffer any repercussions.

Both recd what was coming to them. The Belgians and the Pinks were arrested.

So you're saying the Belgians were perfectly correct in denying a permit to protest based upon their disagreement with the theme of the protest? That, in effect, governments should always ban protests with which they disagree? And everyone must abide by those bans?

[guyser]

So you're saying the Belgians were perfectly correct in denying a permit to protest based upon their disagreement with the theme of the protest? That, in effect, governments should always ban protests with which they disagree? And everyone must abide by those bans?

No.

Let me make it easy since you try and spin it in so many different ways.

Whether I agree or disagree with issuance of a permit is neither here nor there. The Belgians didnt get a permit and were arrested.

The Pinks got one and then ignored the rules and were arrested.

But one gets a clean slate , the other gets the silly sexist remarks.End of story.