stopstaaron Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Seems like many protesters want to suppress Canadians' and others' free speech so as to uphold far-left philosophies and the supporters thereof. Cheney gives me the creeps and Coulter is an idiot, but I can still see the hypocricy on display when those who'd shout down anyone with whom they don't agree (like Cheney and Coulter) whinge about their right to free speech being denied when they aren't allowed to shout down anyone with whom they don't agree. [ed.: c/e] they could have still went on with their commitments but they chose not to, THEIR CHOICE, not the protestors Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
DogOnPorch Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) they could have still went on with their commitments but they chose not to, THEIR CHOICE, not the protestors What was the protesters' goal again? Edited March 21, 2012 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Smallc Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 George Galloway is still banned from entering Canada. But not from speaking here. He did that, over satellite. Canada has a right to protect its borders. Quote
stopstaaron Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 What was the protesters' goal again? Protesting a war criminal and protesting of a dunce who insults Canada on foxnews every chance she gets .. the protesters didn't want either talking ..however the protesters DO NOT EVER get to decide what happens next, its the people with the speakers in question..they made the choice, not the protestors Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
stopstaaron Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) Canada has a right to protect its borders. Galloway was not a threat to Canada, the conservatives didn't want him in Canada because they are authoritarians Edited March 21, 2012 by stopstaaron Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
g_bambino Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 they could have still went on with their commitments but they chose not to, THEIR CHOICE, not the protestors Cheney, perhaps. But, how could Coulter have done so at the University of Ottawa? Or Christie Blatchford at the University of Waterloo? The protesters don't stop until the event is cancelled. Quote
stopstaaron Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Cheney, perhaps. But, how could Coulter have done so at the University of Ottawa? Or Christie Blatchford at the University of Waterloo? The protesters don't stop until the event is cancelled. The protestors weren't where the speech was going to be. They might have been outside of it. But people could still have went through to go to their seats. Nobody but Coulter & her people stopped the speech Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
DogOnPorch Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Protesting a war criminal and protesting of a dunce who insults Canada on foxnews every chance she gets .. the protesters didn't want either talking ..however the protesters DO NOT EVER get to decide what happens next, its the people with the speakers in question..they made the choice, not the protestors Nice spin, doctor. I think they got exactly what they were after. Cheney was silenced for those wishing to see him by those not wanting to see him. But, all that is important is the protesters' freedom of speech...not mine or Dick Cheney's. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
g_bambino Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 The protestors weren't where the speech was going to be. At UofO they were in the lobby just outside the lecture theatre; enough of them shouting close enough to render it impossible for a lecture to be delivered in the theatre. At UofW, they were yelling inside the theatre itself. Quote
WWWTT Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 This from a guy claiming the US invaded Viet-Nam. Wasn't the Vietnam war the first time in human history of warfare where victory was measered in the numbers of people killed as opposed to territory/land claimed? WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
DogOnPorch Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Wasn't the Vietnam war the first time in human history of warfare where victory was measered in the numbers of people killed as opposed to territory/land claimed? WWWTT Doubt it. Attrition has been a form of warfare for centuries. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Guest Peeves Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Nobody threatened either of them. There were protests and one of them got out of hand. Get the heck over it. That is not a suppression of free speech. That's not true. When the site of the speech is forced to conclude they don't have sufficient security in place to guarantee safety and free speech then it is definitely suppression of free speech by a mob of violent rabble and that is apparent to anyone. Sure as an example, if you tell me if you go into 'such and such' neighborhood without armed guards and you refuse the guards, obviously it's my choice, but not really. It's simply a matter of semantics. YOU know why Ann and others were UNABLE to give their opinions, they were silenced by a threatening mob. Call it what you will, but, the bottom line is they were denied the right to freedom of speech under threats. That leaves ONLY...Hobson's choice. Quote
stopstaaron Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 funny how the conservatives are whining about cheney and coulter being "denied free speech" but consider it okay that the canadian conservative government banned a left winger speaker (galloway) from entering the country under the guise of "he's a hamas apologist, that is more of a violation of free speech than protestors Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
DogOnPorch Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 funny how the conservatives are whining about cheney and coulter being "denied free speech" but consider it okay that the canadian conservative government banned a left winger speaker (galloway) from entering the country under the guise of "he's a hamas apologist, that is more of a violation of free speech than protestors Who are these 'Conservatives'? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
stopstaaron Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Who are these 'Conservatives'? Smallc, Bambino has also before stated that he was glad Galloway was not allowed in the country Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
DogOnPorch Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Smallc, Bambino has also before stated that he was glad Galloway was not allowed in the country Are they Conservatives? Did they vote for the Evil Party? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
stopstaaron Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Are they Conservatives? Did they vote for the Evil Party? Yes, and yes they did Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
DogOnPorch Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Yes, and yes they did Oh...then you're a 'Liberal', I'm guessing? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
waldo Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 funny how the conservatives are whining about cheney and coulter being "denied free speech" but consider it okay that the canadian conservative government banned a left winger speaker (galloway) from entering the country under the guise of "he's a hamas apologist, that is more of a violation of free speech than protestors bringing up Galloway is a non-starter for Harper Conservative partisans... Cheney/Coulter/Galloway... the so-called 'war on terror' selectively applied when determining "free speech denial". Quote
stopstaaron Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Oh...then you're a 'Liberal', I'm guessing? I've only voted twice, in the 2011 federal election I voted NDP, and in the 2011 Ontario Provincial election I voted NDP but I'm not a card carrying member of the NDP.. if the Liberals are the better choice I'll vote for them but will never ever vote for a conservative Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
DogOnPorch Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 I've only voted twice, in the 2011 federal election I voted NDP, and in the 2011 Ontario Provincial election I voted NDP but I'm not a card carrying member of the NDP.. if the Liberals are the better choice I'll vote for them but will never ever vote for a conservative I grew up getting Birthday and Christmas cards from Trudeau and Joe Clark/Robert Stanfield. Talk about mixed messages. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
stopstaaron Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 I grew up getting Birthday and Christmas cards from Trudeau and Joe Clark/Robert Stanfield. Talk about mixed messages. yes, I can see how that would send you mixed messages Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
DogOnPorch Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 yes, I can see how that would send you mixed messages I felt loved, at least. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
fellowtraveller Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 I have no problem with anybody coming to speak in Canada, with one requirement applying to everybody. If you require public security beyond the usual contingent of police on normal duty that day, you pay for it yourself. If Cheney or Galloway want to come and speak as a private citizen and it will require lots of cops and private security to ensure public order and personal safety, they pay for it all. If security is inadequate and property or people are damaged, their extensive , preapproved liability insurance pays. If they can't afford the security or insurance , they can stay home. If Cheney or Galloway or anybody is here at the invitation of our government, the public purse coughs up. Quote The government should do something.
Guest American Woman Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 I have no problem with anybody coming to speak in Canada, with one requirement applying to everybody. If you require public security beyond the usual contingent of police on normal duty that day, you pay for it yourself. If Cheney or Galloway want to come and speak as a private citizen and it will require lots of cops and private security to ensure public order and personal safety, they pay for it all. More like the people sponsoring the event pay for it - most likely through the price of the ticket to see him/whoever. There were, I believe, 5000 people holding tickets to hear Cheney, and a lot of disappointment that he won't be appearing. If security is inadequate and property or people are damaged, their extensive , preapproved liability insurance pays. If they can't afford the security or insurance , they can stay home. Ummmm. They are staying home. But if security is inadequate, that wouldn't be their failing; it would be the failing of the people/organization sponsoring the speaker. If Cheney or Galloway or anybody is here at the invitation of our government, the public purse coughs up. That would apply to whoever is doing the inviting. Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.