guyser Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 And why do you think he was denied entry? Because of run ins with the law. Because the border guards didn't like the color of his car? Because they were silly? Never said they did like his car, nor that was a reason. Say it's true that border guards "do silly things all the time" - I sincerely doubt this was just a case of "silliness" on their part. If that's what you believe, if you think preventing him from having his say had nothing to do with it, so be it. But it doesn't look that way from here, and your defense of their actions, your simplistic dsimissal, doesn't do anything to change that - quite the opposite, actually. Border security denies entry both waysfor the spurious of reasons. They chose his criminal record as the reason. Its no simple dismissal, its the truth. Border guards deny on basis that make no sense to anyone. This is no different. The 'behind the scenes' reasons are just that, not the official reason, but a reason none the less. Does a 30 or 40 yr old DUI charge make sense as a denial? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 And why do you think he was denied entry? And why do you think he was denied entry? My two guesses are bolded below. Some people are not allowed to come to Canada. They are known as “inadmissible” under Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). There are a number of reasons you can be found inadmissible, denied a visa or refused entry to Canada under IRPA, such as: security human or international rights violations criminality organized criminality health grounds financial reasons misrepresentation non-compliance with IRPA or having an inadmissible family member I think flags were probably raised for both of those issues, and I think security was probably the biggest one. Countries have an excersize carte blanche when it comes to the security concern. Hell... theres many thousands of people on various "watch lists" that are on there simply because some beaurocrat decided they were likely to cause some trouble. Many with absolutely no criminal history, or criminal record at all. In this case we have a guy with a known history of trying to create tensions between muslims and westerners, and enrage muslims around the world wanting to come in and start more shit. The government has almost complete discretion on security matters, and they decided to excersize it. We will never know if they were right or wrong to do it, because we cant be certain whether this clown would have caused a bunch of trouble or not, but its certainly not unusual for governments to excersize such rights, and its not possible for it to infringe on his right to free speech, because he HAS NO SUCH RIGHT HERE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 Because of run ins with the law. [...] They chose his criminal record as the reason. Its no simple dismissal, its the truth. [..] The 'behind the scenes' reasons are just that, not the official reason, but a reason none the less. It's the truth that they claim the reason they denied him entry is because of his "criminal record." It's the "behind the scenes" reasons that are objectionable to some. If it were a simple matter of his "criminal record," one has to wonder why he was detained for hours. Why his car was searched. Why his belongings were searched. His "criminal record" should have simply had him immediately turned away. Simply accepting that explanation is what I see as "simple dismissal" of his being denied entry. Others apparently see it as denial of free speech: Amin Elshorbagy, president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, said Jones ought to have been allowed to air his views regardless of how extreme they may be. "Personally I'm not really in favour of blocking or banning anybody," he said. " Read it on Global News: Global Toronto | Qur'an burning pastor Terry Jones denied entry into Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 It's the truth that they claim the reason they denied him entry is because of his "criminal record." It's the "behind the scenes" reasons that are objectionable to some. If it were a simple matter of his "criminal record," one has to wonder why he was detained for hours. Why his car was searched. Why his belongings were searched. i posted earleir on this thread about an incident in which an American horror filmmaker was stopped, everything searched, and he was detained for ten hours, on stated concerns about "transporting obscene materials" ( a copy of his horror films). Just incidentally, that too sounds to me a bit outrageous. But obviously it's not unprecedented, and I think Dre's remarks are lent some credence by the fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) i posted earleir on this thread about an incident in which an American horror filmmaker was stopped, everything searched, and he was detained for ten hours, on stated concerns about "transporting obscene materials" ( a copy of his horror films). Just incidentally, that too sounds to me a bit outrageous. But obviously it's not unprecedented, and I think Dre's remarks are lent some credence by the fact. Whether it's unprecedented or not, it's not a good policy, and yes, it is outrageous. As I said, it doesn't speak well for Canada and/or it's "tolerance" level or freedom of speech - and the acceptance of it by so many in a 'democratic, tolerant nation' is baffling. I don't believe for a minute that Jones was denied entry for any reason other than to prevent him from speaking, and I'm not the only one who feels that way. The quote I cited attests to that and says it all, IMO. Edited October 12, 2012 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 I would wager that many a foreigner who has burned the American flag has been granted entry into Canada - and I would wager that no Canadians have ever been reprimanded for it. Which was my point. I believe that there have been a couple muslim clerics denied access into Canada Perhaps someone here can provide the links? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 Does a 30 or 40 yr old DUI charge make sense as a denial? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 Does a 30 or 40 yr old DUI charge make sense as a denial? Not to me. The government needs to keep people out that are a real threat to Canada. I guess it's nice that so many socialists are taking the side of the Conservative government and PM Harper. All lefties in this thread are officially siding with PM harper. Will you now be voting for Pm Harper and his Tories in the next election? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 I believe that there have been a couple muslim clerics denied access into Canada Perhaps someone here can provide the links? WWWTT Dr Naik was denied entry. Sheikh Riyadh ul-Haq was denied entry. We are , if nothing else, equal opportunity deniers. I dont know why people are up in arms over this, people are denied entry to countries all the time, but some want this used for some sort of an agenda. Silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 Questions about his identity? You've got to be kidding. As for having been denied entry into another country before, what does that have to do with Canada? As for his "legal issues," I'm guessing applying the same standards to everyone trying to enter Canada would significantly reduce the number who are granted entry. Al very convenient excuses, at best. If you've been arrested before, they can and do deny people entry into the country. If you've been denied entry into the country or any other country before, they can and do deny people entry into the country. You live in Michigan. I'm sure you've been over the border before. You know how the process works and what kinds of questions they ask. I don't know why you're pretending like you don't get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 Does a 30 or 40 yr old DUI charge make sense as a denial? It happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 Because of run ins with the law. Never said they did like his car, nor that was a reason. Border security denies entry both waysfor the spurious of reasons. They chose his criminal record as the reason. Its no simple dismissal, its the truth. Border guards deny on basis that make no sense to anyone. This is no different. The 'behind the scenes' reasons are just that, not the official reason, but a reason none the less. Does a 30 or 40 yr old DUI charge make sense as a denial? as an RCMP officer once told me, "you can lie to the police, you can lie to a judge, but never lie to border services they have their own justice," judge jury and executioner, they do as they please... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 I’m not sure what kind of rights we enjoy at border crossings but it seems to be some sort of legal twilight zone...I recall crossing the border once and they had some guy detained for whatever reason, I came back two days later and he was still there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 Whether it's unprecedented or not, it's not a good policy, and yes, it is outrageous. As I said, it doesn't speak well for Canada and/or it's "tolerance" level or freedom of speech - and the acceptance of it by so many in a 'democratic, tolerant nation' is baffling. I don't believe for a minute that Jones was denied entry for any reason other than to prevent him from speaking, and I'm not the only one who feels that way. The quote I cited attests to that and says it all, IMO. Yes, this coming from someone who lives in a country which gladly detains people without trial on a regular basis (although Canada has done this too). A country where the President does legal gymnastics to justify the assassination of a US citizen. That's ok because those are brown people who bow down towards Mecca 5 times per day. But deny a white Christian entry into Canada and all of a sudden it doesn't "speak well" for us Canadians!!! Anyone else find this hilarious coming from AW? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 What do you propose instead? One world government, of course ! Global enforcement is the only approach to universal human rights and environmental protection, provided only with open communications and real representation for all such matters that have global domain. Responsive and active local government for issues that make sense close to home. Regional government to apply economics of scale where that makes sense. Countries as the nation-state are currently meaningless - they are not set up to stop rich people and corporation-people from moving from country to country, but to stop people from doing so. This means we have an open market of labour but not an open supply. Companies don't have to compete for people, people have to compete for companies. This is actually a libertarian view - individual freedom shouldn't be restricted if corporate freedom isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) Global enforcement is the only approach to universal human rights and environmental protection, provided only with open communications and real representation for all such matters that have global domain.Except "universal human rights" are not really universal. Many people dispute the things that get included on the list.This means we have an open market of labour but not an open supply. Companies don't have to compete for people, people have to compete for companies.So what? As soon as a country offers a social program it has no choice but to restrict access. The obsession with "universal human rights" means restricting access to a country is easier to do than restricting access to a social program once people have entered.This is actually a libertarian view - individual freedom shouldn't be restricted if corporate freedom isn't.The pure libertarian view also feels governments should not be providing social programs which dramatically reduces the incentive to migrate. Edited October 13, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 Except "universal human rights" are not really universal. Many people dispute the things that get included on the list. Which list do you refer to ? We as people can agree to a basic list of rights that would be an improvement for many peoples. The rest can be debated. So what? As soon as a country offers a social program it has no choice but to restrict access. The obsession with "universal human rights" means restricting access to a country is easier to do than restricting access to a social program once people have entered. A country isn't just the social programs, it's also the wages offered, the environment ... many things. Companies can go to dictatorships where people are starving - that is their "Market" of labour. Those people can't move to where they have rights and a decent living. That's government force, from what I can see. The pure libertarian view also feels governments should not be providing social programs which dramatically reduces the incentive to migrate. You can't claim to be following the libertarian view unless you do it consistently. I have never claimed to be libertarian - but they have some views which I believe in. The rights of the individual should include the right to leave. As for letting people in - companies can bring their money to a dictatorship because the people are captive and held there by force. Those companies are international tourists who are promoting a system of slavery. Yes, they're making things better for the people in those countries, but globalization generally only makes sense as a progression to a single world system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 Which list do you refer to ? We as people can agree to a basic list of rights that would be an improvement for many peoples.Who is we? Does it include the 1 billion Muslims or the 1 billion Chinese? A list of rights which would be universally acceptable would be a very short list.Companies can go to dictatorships where people are starving - that is their "Market" of labour. Those people can't move to where they have rights and a decent living.They can't move because the possible destinations don't want them and gain no benefit by allowing them to move.The rights of the individual should include the right to leave.A right to leave does not mean you have a right to enter somewhere else. Countries exist for the same reason private clubs exist. People want a space which they control access to. Few people will ever agree to give up the right to restrict access to their country which means your complaints about people not being able to leave dictatorships are moot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 Dr Naik was denied entry. Sheikh Riyadh ul-Haq was denied entry. We are , if nothing else, equal opportunity deniers. You think being "equal opportunity deniers" makes it somehow better? I dont know why people are up in arms over this, people are denied entry to countries all the time, but some want this used for some sort of an agenda.Silly. No one is claiming that people are denied entry into countries all the time; that's not the issue - it's the reason for his denial that's being criticized. Obviously the question of allowing people to speak their mind in Canada isn't perceived as "silly" by everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) Which wouldn't speak well for them, would it? Sorry, but from this side of the border, hearing all of the talk about multi-cultural Canada and how tolerant Canada is, Jones being denied entry to have his say - and the defense that the decision is getting from so many Canadians - speaks volumes. Idiots should not be tolerated anywhere. Using Jones as an example of Canada's intolerance of his own intolerance is intolerable. Edited October 13, 2012 by GostHacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 Who is we? Does it include the 1 billion Muslims or the 1 billion Chinese? A list of rights which would be universally acceptable would be a very short list. Do you want to go back to the Bill of Rights ? Do you think that there would be universal rejection of those values ? They can't move because the possible destinations don't want them and gain no benefit by allowing them to move. Really ? I heard this week that Canadian mining companies are bringing in Chinese mine workers. And a CBC radio article on fast food workers imported from the Phillipines. Somebody wants them. A right to leave does not mean you have a right to enter somewhere else. Borders keep people in place, but not companies. Do you not see that there's a two-tier level of rights there at a basic level ? I realize that there are practical considerations that prevent us from removing borders, but that's not the same as saying that national borders are a desirable and natural artifact. Countries exist for the same reason private clubs exist. People want a space which they control access to. Sorry - you asked who is "we" above - so I will as you who are "they" ? Few people will ever agree to give up the right to restrict access to their country which means your complaints about people not being able to leave dictatorships are moot. Whose country ? Any company can bring in people to work for them, apparently, but I can't bring over my friends to work here even if they could get a job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 Idiots should not be tolerated anywhere. So you only believe in allowing those who you don't perceive as an idiot to speak, is that it? What if someone were to consider you an idiot? See how that works? No one would have any freedom of speech any more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 So you only believe in allowing those who you don't perceive as an idiot to speak, is that it? What if someone were to consider you an idiot? See how that works? No one would have any freedom of speech any more. Not everything is worthy of being tolerated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 Not everything is worthy of being tolerated. So you don't believe in free speech. Got'cha. Now the question becomes - who gets to determine what's "worthy of being tolerated?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) So you only believe in allowing those who you don't perceive as an idiot to speak, is that it? What if someone were to consider you an idiot? See how that works? No one would have any freedom of speech any more. Then they have the right to deny me entry. This is another mountain out of molehill thing that you do so well. Edited October 13, 2012 by GostHacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.