Terry Jones not allowed in Canada

[Guest American Woman]

Then they have the right to deny me entry. This is another mountain out of molehill thing that you do so well.

I'm sorry. How about making a list of issues that you find important so I don't make the mistake of finding any other issues important and/or worth discussing?

The fact that you always resort to making comments about me rather than what I've said tells me that you've got nothing to say - as you apparently can't stop yourself from responding to my posts.

[GostHacked]

I'm sorry. How about making a list of issues that you find important so I don't make the mistake of finding any other issues important and/or worth discussing?

Well, what is really there to discuss in this thread other than an intolerant sh*t disturber was denied entry into Canada for simply being a sh*t disturber.

Overall this thread does not mean much considering how much the US government is constantly eroding your very own free speech and your very privacy, while you complain that Canada is infringing on your free speech. Quite humorous.

The fact that you always resort to making comments about me rather than what I've said tells me that you've got nothing to say - as you apparently can't stop yourself from responding to my posts.

Terry Jones was denied access because he is a sh*t disturber. We have enough in the Canadian Parliament that do enough sh*t disturbing as it is, we don't need MORE people like Jones in Canada.

Maybe he can hang out with Coulter and Cheney in one of those nice US 'Free Speech Zones' that are fenced off.

[cybercoma]

So you don't believe in free speech. Got'cha. Now the question becomes - who gets to determine what's "worthy of being tolerated?"

How would you like it if someone parked outside your house and made derogatory and offensive remarks to you day and night over a bullhorn? Or how about if someone spread lies about you in the media that affected your ability to earn a living? Or how about if someone went around to your neighbours encouraging them to band together and riot against you? Or how about if you were in a crowded theatre and someone yelled "fire!" when there really wasn't one?

Maybe you should holster your childish, condescending and ridiculous snark and actually think about what it is people are posting for a change.

Edited October 13, 2012 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Well, what is really there to discuss in this thread other than an intolerant sh*t disturber was denied entry into Canada for simply being a sh*t disturber.

Overall this thread does not mean much considering how much the US government is constantly eroding your very own free speech and your very privacy, while you complain that Canada is infringing on your free speech. Quite humorous.

Terry Jones was denied access because he is a sh*t disturber. We have enough in the Canadian Parliament that do enough sh*t disturbing as it is, we don't need MORE people like Jones in Canada.

Maybe he can hang out with Coulter and Cheney in one of those nice US 'Free Speech Zones' that are fenced off.

He was denied entry because he has had legal issues and trouble entering other countries in the past.

Edited October 13, 2012 by cybercoma

[Guest American Woman]

How would you like it if someone parked outside your house and made derogatory and offensive remarks to you day and night over a bullhorn? Or how about if someone spread lies about you in the media that affected your ability to earn a living? Or how about if someone went around to your neighbours encouraging them to band together and riot against you? Or how about if you were in a crowded theatre and someone yelled "fire!" when there really wasn't one?

Maybe you should holster your childish, condescending and ridiculous snark and actually think about what it is people are posting for a change.

Really? People have been posting about making offensive remarks over a bullhorn day and night? Or spreading lies about in the media? Or going around to the neighbors encouraging them to band together and riot against people? And of course the ol' favorite, yelling fire in a crowded theater?

Funny, I thought this thread was about not depriving Jones of the opportunity to speak of his views in Canada.

And you tell me to respond to what's being said?? And of course, as usual, you resort to your juvenile personal insults instead of replying to what was said, so why don't you concentrate on yourself, and try to control your childish impulse to attack and instead respond to what I said - starting with answering my question? If you're capable of it, that is. Which I seriously doubt.

[Guest American Woman]

Well, what is really there to discuss in this thread other than an intolerant sh*t disturber was denied entry into Canada for simply being a sh*t disturber.

How about how ya'll feel about it? That might be something to discuss, eh? But I'm beginning to see that freedom of speech isn't a real big issue to a lot of you. Unless it's in the U.S. - I've noticed how you love to go on and on about the free speech zones, meant to protect the POTUS.

Overall this thread does not mean much considering how much the US government is constantly eroding your very own free speech and your very privacy, while you complain that Canada is infringing on your free speech. Quite humorous.

And here it comes. Can't actually discuss freedom of speech in Canada - or anything about Canada - without bringing up the U.S. and making it about the U.S., because God knows there aren't enough threads about the U.S. already.

FYI, I'm not "complaining" about anything - much less Canada infringing on my free speech. I'm stating my views on Canada's actions - you know, the way you and so many other Canadians are always stating your views about what goes on in the U.S.

Terry Jones was denied access because he is a sh*t disturber. We have enough in the Canadian Parliament that do enough sh*t disturbing as it is, we don't need MORE people like Jones in Canada.

So what is your quota? How many people should be allowed to speak their mind if you don't approve? And what if someone else doesn't approve of your viewpoint, and wants to limit that? Sounds sorta like an infringement on freedom of speech, eh?

Maybe he can hang out with Coulter and Cheney in one of those nice US 'Free Speech Zones' that are fenced off.

Well, looky here. You didn't disappoint.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think I could drive to the US Border and tell the guards that the purpose of my visit was to protect America and burn old glory ... and expect to be let in.

If they let me in, I would expect to be afforded the same rights as citizens in that regard, but maybe not...

[Guest Peeves]

You can't judge opposing views if you can't hear others views.

When you shut someone up you are denying others the right to hear them. Personally if they are as innocuous and ineffectual as this joker with a following of barely a minyan, I would think he'd be as welcome as would Jesse Jackson, Sharpton or Rev. Wright. Of course they'd be welcome as tourists, then, suddenly there'd be a photo op.

[Guest Peeves]

I don't think I could drive to the US Border and tell the guards that the purpose of my visit was to protect America and burn old glory ... and expect to be let in.

If they let me in, I would expect to be afforded the same rights as citizens in that regard, but maybe not...

True. That would be self defeating. But, would you deny anyone the right to burn a book? A bible, a Qur'an ? Christianity is a comedians font of joviality and insults, denigration and the like are constantly laughed at.

To me no book, no page and no insult to a religious personage is of consequence compared to the right to freedom of speech.

Those that act out over such are the ones to be faulted, not the offenders.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Peeves

[Guest Peeves]

How about how ya'll feel about it? That might be something to discuss, eh? But I'm beginning to see that freedom of speech isn't a real big issue to a lot of you. Unless it's in the U.S. - I've noticed how you love to go on and on about the free speech zones, meant to protect the POTUS.

And here it comes. Can't actually discuss freedom of speech in Canada - or anything about Canada - without bringing up the U.S. and making it about the U.S., because God knows there aren't enough threads about the U.S. already.

FYI, I'm not "complaining" about anything - much less Canada infringing on my free speech. I'm stating my views on Canada's actions - you know, the way you and so many other Canadians are always stating your views about what goes on in the U.S.

So what is your quota? How many people should be allowed to speak their mind if you don't approve? And what if someone else doesn't approve of your viewpoint, and wants to limit that? Sounds sorta like an infringement on freedom of speech, eh?

Well, looky here. You didn't disappoint.

Canada's free speech laws are not equal to the American's rights. We have had several cases where free speech was denied because. .....The costs/manpower security to stop the objections by rabble and to protect the speaker where unavailable.

Consequently all the mob need do is threaten the speaker and guess what..the venue becomes unavailable.

It's beyond disgusting. Canada is blackmailed into restricting certain speakers.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Peeves

[Michael Hardner]

True. That would be self defeating. But, would you deny anyone the right to burn a book? A bible, a Qur'an ? Christianity is a comedians font of joviality and insults, denigration and the like are constantly laughed at.

To me no book, no page and no insult to a religious personage is of consequence compared to the right to freedom of speech.

Those that act out over such are the ones to be faulted, not the offenders.

Yes, you have the right to provoke idiots...

[blueblood]

At least there is some consistency of not allowing nut bars into the country. I don't think it says in the charter that foreigners have the constitutional right to visit Canada. Not only that, his speeches would be skating on thin ice as far as the criminal code was concerned

[cybercoma]

Really? People have been posting about making offensive remarks over a bullhorn day and night? Or spreading lies about in the media? Or going around to the neighbors encouraging them to band together and riot against people? And of course the ol' favorite, yelling fire in a crowded theater?

Funny, I thought this thread was about not depriving Jones of the opportunity to speak of his views in Canada.

And you tell me to respond to what's being said?? And of course, as usual, you resort to your juvenile personal insults instead of replying to what was said, so why don't you concentrate on yourself, and try to control your childish impulse to attack and instead respond to what I said - starting with answering my question? If you're capable of it, that is. Which I seriously doubt.

So... about the post you responded to?

I said not everything should be tolerated.

You got on your condescending goggles and decided to try and chide me for not believing in free speech.

I give you examples where free speech is not always free.

And the response you have to that? Well, I'm not sure how it's relevant to anything. You say we're not talking about those particular incidents, but that is precisely what I'm talking about. Free speech has limits, whether you're going to admit it or not. So get the hell out of here with your condescending nonsense about not believing in free speech. There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech.

[cybercoma]

I don't think I could drive to the US Border and tell the guards that the purpose of my visit was to protect America and burn old glory ... and expect to be let in.

If they let me in, I would expect to be afforded the same rights as citizens in that regard, but maybe not...

Border Guard: The reason for your visit, sir?

Visitor: I'm coming to America to protect it from the Jewish vermin that have infested its shores! I'm going to burn the Torah and rally everyone to exterminate the filthy Jews!

Border Guard: Not today you're not.

Visitor: YOU'RE DENYING ME FREE SPEECH!

[Guest American Woman]

I don't think I could drive to the US Border and tell the guards that the purpose of my visit was to protect America and burn old glory ... and expect to be let in.

I suppose they might think you had a screw loose if you said the purpose of your visit was to "protect America." I'm sure they might have some questions about how you intended to do that - which really has nothing to do with the purpose of Jones' visit to Canada. I doubt if he said he was going to burn anything, either. In other words, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Furthermore, you're making an assumption, which really means nothing when we are speaking of reality. Since many controversial people have been allowed to enter the U.S., Iranian President Ahmadinejad being allowed to speak at Columbia comes to mind, I'd need a real life example if you want to make comparisons to this situation - and since I supported the right of Ahmadinejad to speak, I'll be critical if you can find an example comparable to this. Fair enough?

If they let me in, I would expect to be afforded the same rights as citizens in that regard, but maybe not...

Of course you would be afforded the same rights. You think you would be arrested for burning the American flag? Depended on where you did it, I suppose. Just don't inhale the fumes: http://www.dailymail...film-rally.html

[sharkman]

This case is embarrassing to Canada, regardless of how many bad comparisons we invent to explain it away. I read in today's Post that the border guards detained the guy for 4 hours, took some signs or posters he had and then turned him away. They didn't give his property back! Meanwhile if known criminal gang members from various Asian countries want to immigrate, they gain entrance.

Edited October 13, 2012 by sharkman

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry that should have said 'protest America'.

Damn autocorrect ...

[BC_chick]

Jones doesn't just practice free speech, he crosses the line into inciting hatred.

Whether or not that should keep him out of Canada is a subjective opinion, but the issue is definitely not as black or white as some posters are making it sound.

[Guest American Woman]

This case is embarrassing to Canada, regardless of how many bad comparisons we invent to explain it away. I read in today's Post that the border guards detained the guy for 4 hours, took some signs or posters he had and then turned him away. They didn't give his property back! Meanwhile if known criminal gang members from various Asian countries want to immigrate, they gain entrance.

Interesting. I have to wonder why they confiscated the signs since he was denied entry, but I can understand why the "Koran Burning Site" sign would have given them pause. The other said "Islam is the New Nazism.” Yet the annual al Quds Day Rally, known as an anti-Israel rally, was allowed to take place outside the legislature.

I suppose those were Canadians, though. Anyone know if any controversial speakers were allowed to attend the event? But surely such a sign "incites hatred" as much as Jones'.

Edited October 14, 2012 by American Woman

[sharkman]

The thing is, Jones was not denied entry because of a claim that he incites hatred. They should have the cajones to admit that's the reason why they denied him if in fact that is why, rather than drag up some bogus thing in Germany. Jones is obviously got a couple of screws loose, but there are plenty of Muslims admitted to Canada who feel exactly the same way he does about Jews, homosexuals, women, and the list goes on. The above sign also demonstrates this I'm sure.

[Guest American Woman]

The thing is, Jones was not denied entry because of a claim that he incites hatred. They should have the cajones to admit that's the reason why they denied him if in fact that is why, rather than drag up some bogus thing in Germany. Jones is obviously got a couple of screws loose, but there are plenty of Muslims admitted to Canada who feel exactly the same way he does about Jews, homosexuals, women, and the list goes on. The above sign also demonstrates this I'm sure.

I agree. In reading further, I see that he said the Koran burning sign was from a protest in Michigan, and he didn't plan on burning any Korans in Canada. I find this interesting:

The U.K. had already barred him for “the public good.” But Canada lacks a similar law, although a bill currently before Parliament would give the immigration minister the power to deny entry to visitors on the grounds of “public policy considerations.”

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/10/11/koran-burning-pastor-terry-jones-barred-from-canada-for-anti-muslim-film-debate/

[jefferiah]

Perhaps you are right.

However,the freedom to practice your own religion would probably go together with the freedom to express.

Not perhaps. I am right. If he owned the Korans he burned he was not barring anyone else from reading theirs. No one's free speech was violated by his burning of a Koran. Muslim's can still freely practice their religion, whether or not Jones burns Korans he obtained. If you purchase a book, you own it. You can use it as firewood, you can use it as a door stop, you can use it as something to level out an old table with uneven legs.

Edited October 14, 2012 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

If it was a similar case,but reversed against Christianity,yes of course!

WWWTT

So, you think that Marilyn Manson should be barred from performing in Canada?

[jefferiah]

How about how ya'll feel about it? That might be something to discuss, eh? But I'm beginning to see that freedom of speech isn't a real big issue to a lot of you. Unless it's in the U.S. - I've noticed how you love to go on and on about the free speech zones, meant to protect the POTUS.

And here it comes. Can't actually discuss freedom of speech in Canada - or anything about Canada - without bringing up the U.S. and making it about the U.S., because God knows there aren't enough threads about the U.S. already.

FYI, I'm not "complaining" about anything - much less Canada infringing on my free speech. I'm stating my views on Canada's actions - you know, the way you and so many other Canadians are always stating your views about what goes on in the U.S.

So what is your quota? How many people should be allowed to speak their mind if you don't approve? And what if someone else doesn't approve of your viewpoint, and wants to limit that? Sounds sorta like an infringement on freedom of speech, eh?

Well, looky here. You didn't disappoint.

Excellent post, AW. It is nice to see someone who understands the importance of defending one of the most fundamental human rights.

In Canada, it seems, that in order to stifle free speech all you have to do is threaten those who practice it with violent consequences. The legal offensiveness of speech is directly proportional to how violent the opponents of that speech are willing to be.

Edited October 14, 2012 by jefferiah

[dre]

Excellent post, AW. It is nice to see someone who understands the importance of defending one of the most fundamental human rights.

In Canada, it seems, that in order to stifle free speech all you have to do is threaten those who practice it with violent consequences. The legal offensiveness of speech is directly proportional to how violent the opponents of that speech are willing to be.

Thats a nice story and all but theres absolutely no indication what-so-ever that stopping this guy at the border has anything to do with free speech at all.

This is a complete and total red herring.