Terry Jones not allowed in Canada

[Guest American Woman]

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

Thank you. It's rather surprising to me how little most Canadians in this thread seem to care about it, even defending it.

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.

I posted this is a previous reply, but I'm curious as to what you think about it:

The U.K. had already barred him [Terry Jones] 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.”

Does that sound to you as if the majority government, which I assume would be setting "public policy," would determine who would and wouldn't be allowed to enter Canada? That Canada is considering such a bill basically confirms that Jones wasn't kept out of Canada for any reason other than being controversial; obviously the desire to be able to openly do so is there.

Yet I posted that anti-Israel signs, anti-Israel rallies, are allowed in Canada, and this is what was allowed in the U.K. last summer:

Sure, we have signs such as these at rallies in the U.S., too, but we also have Terry Jones burning his Koran. Will Canada be following the U.K.'s lead?

Edited October 14, 2012 by American Woman

[msj]

This case is embarrassing to Canada, regardless of how many bad comparisons we invent to explain it away.

It is not a matter of explaining it away.

Dre and cybercoma have already done an excellent job of explaining the possible reasons for not allowing Jones in and the difficulties of dealing with freedom of speech versus maintaining order.

I'm not going to feel any more embarrassed by this story than AW or any other American is going to feel embarrassed by the legal gymnastics their government use to justify the assassination of American citizens, the detaining of various people without trial for months/years at a time, and sending in the FBI to talk to a photographer because he liked the clouds in the horizon but failed to notice the oil refinery nearby.

Mountains and molehills and BS mountain too.

Edited October 14, 2012 by msj

[dre]

Sure, we have signs such as these at rallies in the U.S., too, but we also have Terry Jones burning his Koran. Will Canada be following the U.K.'s lead?

You can burn the koran here in Canada too if you want to. Thats not what this is about.

Thank you. It's rather surprising to me how little most Canadians in this thread seem to care about it, even defending it.

Well thats your own completely bogus narrative. Theres nothing at all in this thread that suggests Canadians dont value free speech. That right is in our charter. Problem is our charter does not apply to Terry Jones and our border agents are free to turn away anyone they think might be coming here to cause problems. In this case it makes good sense, because in the last month this guy poured fuel on a fire that got a whole bunch of people killed, and we are already dealing with our own protests over that.

But go ahead. Keep ignoring that context. Terry Jones wasnt allowed in because Canadians dont value free speech

[WWWTT]

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.

Yes I also believe that I wrote that Jones is not even able to bar anyone from their right to freely express themselves.

What I wrote or at least meant to imply is that Jones is against the Islamic religion,therefore against freedom to practice your own religion,would also include freedom of expression.And he proved where he stands by burning the Koran.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

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

I am not aware of Marilyn Manson's content,so I can not comment.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Yet I posted that anti-Israel signs, anti-Israel rallies, are allowed in Canada, and this is what was allowed in the U.K. last summer:

Before I got married,my wife tried to apply for a visa to enter into Canada twice,and twice she was denied.

The Canadian visa officer in Beijing sent her a generic letter both times saying that they did not believe that she would go back to China.

By no means am I defending the Canadian government on their policies.

But if my wife was denied twice,you think their going to let this Jones guy in?You got to be freekin joking lady?!?!

From how I understand this,travel between the US and Canada was made even stricter by the US!

It was the US that started to make Canadians use a passport instead of photo ID,Canada had no choice but to return the favor.

Oh and by the way,how is that wall separating US/Mexico coming along?

WWWTT

[Michael Hardner]

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.

Burning a flag is one of the most controversial examples of freedom of speech. I should have typed "protest" not "protect". If I went to US customs and said I was going to burn a flag - which is still protected speech for Americans in the US - I very much doubt they would let me pass.

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?

I wasn't aware of that. I WAS, however, thinking of Yassir Arafat being banned from entering the US - which effectively banned him from speaking at the UN.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1988-12-08/news/8802230084_1_palestine-liberation-organization-yasser-arafat-palestinian-leader

I'm thinking out loud about this issue... part of me thinks that Canada actually should afford the same rights to international visitors too... Cybercoma's point though made me think that if we still have countries, we can at least use our borders to enforce our national standards for dialogue. (And, yes, I accept that Canada's speech is less free than America's)

[GostHacked]

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.

Funny thing you are complaining about free speech when the US government has done quite a lot to curb your very own free speech rights. And you complain about Canada not giving someone like Jones a stage?

How free IS your speech when you have to designate a zone for it? And in your mind, Jones getting denied entry into Canada is a bigger deal than your own country's free speech issues and how it is being constantly infringed upon? And you go on about how I hate free speech?

Free speech is a big deal, just that US citizens are not guaranteed any free speech rights while in Canada. Simple as that, and the vice versa is the reality as well.

[GostHacked]

It is not a matter of explaining it away.

Dre and cybercoma have already done an excellent job of explaining the possible reasons for not allowing Jones in and the difficulties of dealing with freedom of speech versus maintaining order.

I'm not going to feel any more embarrassed by this story than AW or any other American is going to feel embarrassed by the legal gymnastics their government use to justify the assassination of American citizens, the detaining of various people without trial for months/years at a time, and sending in the FBI to talk to a photographer because he liked the clouds in the horizon but failed to notice the oil refinery nearby.

Mountains and molehills and BS mountain too.

You said it better in that post than I did in this thread overall. Hard to disagree with you here.

[jefferiah]

What I wrote or at least meant to imply is that Jones is against the Islamic religion,therefore against freedom to practice your own religion,would also include freedom of expression.And he proved where he stands by burning the Koran.

That makes no sense. Being against a religion or burning it's holy book does not mean you are against freedom to practice that religion or freedom of expression. If you are against freedom of expression you attempt to curtail expression. He has not done that by simply burning a book he possessed.

Burning a book could be an expression of disagreement with its contents. You don't get to decide what it symbolizes for him or what certain actions mean. So there is no way to know his personal opinion on freedom of religion or freedom of speech. Furthermore, even if you could download his personal thoughts to view in a pdf file and see that he is against free speech, it does not mean he is not entitled to it.

Edited October 14, 2012 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

Funny thing you are complaining about free speech when the US government has done quite a lot to curb your very own free speech rights. And you complain about Canada not giving someone like Jones a stage?

Funny thing, I have seen you post in the US Politics forum. You have no problem sharing your views on America.

[Guest American Woman]

Funny thing, I have seen you post in the US Politics forum. You have no problem sharing your views on America.

Thank you for pointing that out for me. But of course that's different - and of course it's just sharing his views on America, while I'm "complaining" about Canada.

[cybercoma]

our charter does not apply to Terry Jones

It does. However...

our border agents are free to turn away anyone

This is certainly true, if they're not a citizen.

[cybercoma]

Burning a flag is one of the most controversial examples of freedom of speech. I should have typed "protest" not "protect". If I went to US customs and said I was going to burn a flag - which is still protected speech for Americans in the US - I very much doubt they would let me pass.

You don't even have to go that far. Just tell them at the border you're going to attend an Occupy Wall Street protest. See if they let you in.

[Mr.Canada]

You don't even have to go that far. Just tell them at the border you're going to attend an Occupy Wall Street protest. See if they let you in.

Considering that the democrats are more right wing then the Tories and Mr. Harper are in Canada I doubt you'd like it down there.

[GostHacked]

Funny thing, I have seen you post in the US Politics forum. You have no problem sharing your views on America.

Thank you, and I shall continue to do so.

[msj]

Funny thing you are complaining about free speech when the US government has done quite a lot to curb your very own free speech rights. And you complain about Canada not giving someone like Jones a stage?

Funny thing, I have seen you post in the US Politics forum. You have no problem sharing your views on America.

Not sure what your point is.

I don't read what GH had to say as if he is telling anyone they should not be commenting on Canadian matters unless they are a Canadian.

Where is that in that post? It just isn't there - it's in your own mind.

The way I read GH's post is that it is similar to mine: AW is being hypocritical for making such a hysterically big deal out of something while ignoring some pretty big violations in her own country.

Lets take the country names out of this:

Country A turns some nutcase back at the border versus country B that assassinates its own citizens, detains people for years at a time without trial, and, AND, sends the FBI in to talk to someone who takes a picture of an oil refinery.

I know which country has the larger issues to deal with and which one deserves the more vocal complaints.

Edited October 15, 2012 by msj

[dre]

It does. However...

Wow you learn something every day. I never knew the charter applied to foreign citizens that are not in Canada.

[cybercoma]

Wow you learn something every day. I never knew the charter applied to foreign citizens that are not in Canada.

It does apply to foreign citizens and when they're talking to a border agent, they're technically in our country, since they've crossed the border.

[guyser]

You think being "equal opportunity deniers" makes it somehow better?

Better may not be the correct word, but border services deny people all the time for various reasons. If nothing thats consistent.

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.

He could not produce evidence of his acquittal on any of the charges CBSA had in front of them. Ergo, denied.

What is silly is anyone trying to frame his denial as an affront to free speech. He was never denied his ability to speak,. he was denied entry.

And really, Terry Jones is of the ilk that wants to deny free speech to others, he does afterall encourage everyone to burn korans until there are no more around.

But either way, he was denied access to a country and nothing more.

[Guest American Woman]

Better may not be the correct word, but border services deny people all the time for various reasons. If nothing thats consistent.

Again, no one is denying that border services do deny people for various reasons. Again. It's the "reasons" in this situation that are up for discussion.

He could not produce evidence of his acquittal on any of the charges CBSA had in front of them. Ergo, denied.

So you say. Makes one wonder, for starters, if that's all it was, why the border guards felt the need to search his vehicle and confiscate his protest posters.

What is silly is anyone trying to frame his denial as an affront to free speech. He was never denied his ability to speak,. he was denied entry.

What is silly is not recognizing that denial of entry amounts to denial of free speech. What's also silly is pretending that his opinions have nothing to do with the denial. As I've pointed out, there's a law in the works in Canada to prevent the Terry Jones' from entering Canada. In fact, your Immigration Minister tied the proposal to Terry Jones failed attempt to enter Canada.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney defended a proposed law Tuesday that would give him the power to bar visitors from Canada for reasons of “public policy,” saying it be used rarely and only against hatemongers who incite violence.

Responding for the first time to the controversy surrounding Koran-burning pastor Terry Jones’ failed attempt to bring his message to Canada, the minister said the issue “brought to mind” legislation currently before Parliament to deal with such incidents.

http://news.national...or-terry-jones/

And really, Terry Jones is of the ilk that wants to deny free speech to others, he does afterall encourage everyone to burn korans until there are no more around.

So that makes it ok? Two wrongs make it right? Furthermore, calling for banning the Koran rather than burning it would be more in line with wanting to deny free speech to others. What he is "encouraging" is hyperbole, since I'm sure even he is bright enough to realize that Muslims aren't going to burn the Koran even if he's stupid enough to believe he could get everyone else to do it.

But either way, he was denied access to a country and nothing more.

Definitely more.

Minister Kenney also cited the example of two radical imams who spoke in Canada last year despite what Mr. Kenney called “long public records of promoting violent hatred against women, gays and lesbians, and Jews.”

Although there was an outcry from those who wanted the pair kept out of Canada, Mr. Kenney said there was nothing the government could do because neither had criminal records, nor were they involved in terrorist organizations.

If they could have kept the two radical imams out, they would have; unfortunately, the two didn't have a criminal record to prevent it. So there was nothing Canada could do. Sounds as if the government wanted to keep them out so they couldn't have their say, same as Jones, but their hands were tied. This new legislation would allow the government to keep them out - no criminal record required.

You can deny that preventing Jones from having his say was behind his being denied entry into Canada, but that would be silly.

Edited October 16, 2012 by American Woman

[kraychik]

Jason Kenney's proposal to broaden his power to deny entry to Canada based on "public policy" grounds is a terrible move. Not Terry Jones nor anyone else should be kept out of the country simply for holding an unpopular opinion. It's a horrible precedent to set. I'm with Ezra Levant on this one.

[guyser]

Again, no one is denying that border services do deny people for various reasons. Again. It's the "reasons" in this situation that are up for discussion.

The reason, he could not prove he was acquitted of some charge(s)

Anything else is speculation. There well may be more, but the reason is the reason.

So you say. Makes one wonder, for starters, if that's all it was, why the border guards felt the need to search his vehicle and confiscate his protest posters.

So says CBSA.

Lots of people have their car searched, Mine was once too. Nothing was confiscated, although I do know some stuff is confiscated and the person or party are sent on their way.

Nothing new about this.

What is silly is not recognizing that denial of entry amounts to denial of free speech.

Not in the slightest .

Any projecting that this was a free speech issue forgets that borders and their guards have autonomy on who to allow in . Once he was in he would well have had his meeting . He could not get in to do so,

.

What's also silly is pretending that his opinions have nothing to do with the denial.

They dont.

His opinions and his criminal record are separate issues.

As I've pointed out, there's a law in the works in Canada to prevent the Terry Jones' from entering Canada. In fact, your Immigration Minister tied the proposal to Terry Jones failed attempt to enter Canada.

Not a good idea at all

If they could have kept the two radical imams out, they would have; unfortunately, the two didn't have a criminal record to prevent it. So there was nothing Canada could do. Sounds as if the government wanted to keep them out so they couldn't have their say, same as Jones, but their hands were tied. This new legislation would allow the government to keep them out - no criminal record required.

You can deny that preventing Jones from having his say was behind his being denied entry into Canada, but that would be silly.

The Imams were clean in a criminal way, so they got in.

Jones wasnt, so no entry.

The rules were applied the same.

ETA: Border guards deny entry for 30 yr old DUI's to someone who has neither a political agenda, nor a disruptive intent but merely sightseeing and shopping ambitions.

The border guards are denying that person mobility rights as set out in Section 6 of the CCRF or the freedom of movement in the US.

Does that sound right?

Edited October 16, 2012 by guyser

[bleeding heart]

Considering that the democrats are more right wing then the Tories and Mr. Harper are in Canada I doubt you'd like it down there.

I have been to the United States many, many, many times. I like it there very much.

But then, I don't paint my every experience as profoundly related to battles between Tory/Liberal and Republican/Democrat.