Big Guy Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 Am not sure thgat this belongs in this section but I'll take that chance. There is a blogger who calls himself ROOSH V is about to speak in Toronto. Some people feel he should be shut down; http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/roosh-v-not-welcome-in-toronto-mayor-john-tory-says-1.3186647 Is his opinion commentary free speech or hate speech? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 I was initially a reluctant supporter of this person's right to have abhorrent opinions until it was brought to my attention that other individuals are denied entry to Canada for ... unclear reasons. Context: Official listed reasons for denial of entry: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/inadmissibility/who.asp Examples: Alex Jones' organization's reporters denied entry: https://www.facebook.com/WeAreChange.org/videos/133712193319456/ http://www.infowars.com/g20-activists-arrested-denied-entry-into-canada/ Understanding that there will always be a subjective nature to each case, can people provide a strong reason either way for this denial of entry ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted August 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 Thank you for the link. I had no idea that the conditions were so vague and could be applied subjectively. Most of the people I know who are outspoken and have minority views could be rejected on these grounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 That dude is just an in-person troll. He seems to advocate violence against individuals which is pretty cut-and-dried case on the basis of this point: health grounds – if their condition is likely to:[/size] endanger public health or public safety, He's accused of encouraging violence: http://www.cjad.com/cjad-news/2015/08/04/movement-underway-to-bar-us-pick-up-artist-from-coming-to-montreal Just another MSM media troll. I'd be ok with them letting him into Canada, then imprisoning him indefinitely so that he can get the attention he seems to love. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 Most of the people I know who are outspoken and have minority views could be rejected on these grounds. How so? I see nothing like that on the CIC government site stating the conditions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 (edited) That dude is just an in-person troll. He seems to advocate violence against individuals which is pretty cut-and-dried case on the basis of this point: endanger public health or public safety, I don't really see how he's a public health and safety risk. You think the slim possibility of him advocating for Canada to change its laws to allow rape on private property is a health/safety risk? How so? I also don't see him as a troll, he believes what he says I think. Also, he says rape on private property should be legal. He didn't say "men should illegally rape people". Big difference. He's advocating a change in laws, of the US btw not Canada that I see, he's not advocating breaking the law. Are pro-choice views also hate speech because they want to change laws in order to kill unborn babies? I'd argue no. That's different than saying "Despite abortion being illegal in X jurisdiction, women should kill their unborn babies". He's not advocating for anyone to break the law. Denying him entry based on ONE statement he made and calling it hate speech (which as I said I don't think it is), despite him writing many books and blog posts, and figuring he's going to spread hate-speech when he talks in Canada is quite a stretch. I just read through some of his website/blog, his speech is pretty controversial and certainly not appealing to left-leaning or feminist sensibilities, but I wouldn't deny him entry for it. His writing is about are about how to pick up women to have sex with, plus a bit of talk about of his views on gender roles, not about raping women or committing violence against them. Personally I think some people just strongly disagree with his controversial views and want him muzzled. Denying someone free speech is a very serious thing, and should be considered very seriously. Edited August 11, 2015 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 Canada is quite backward when it comes to "freedom of expression"....let alone "free speech". Speech is routinely curtailed or censored for any number of vague reasons. God bless Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash74 Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 Canada is quite backward when it comes to "freedom of expression"....let alone "free speech". Speech is routinely curtailed or censored for any number of vague reasons. God bless Canada. A guy got arrested for telling juries what rights they have in the states. http://anonhq.com/man-arrested-charged-with-multiple-felonies-for-telling-jurors-about-their-rights/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 (edited) Hate speech laws are an oxymoron. "Peace and good order" are more important than "free speech" in some nations. Edited August 11, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 I don't really see how he's a public health and safety risk. You think the slim possibility of him advocating for Canada to change its laws to allow rape on private property is a health/safety risk? How so? I think he has clearly led an anonymous group to threaten people based on that link. He's advocating a change in laws, of the US btw not Canada that I see, he's not advocating breaking the law. He's saying outrageous things to bring any kind of attention to himself possible, ie. a troll. Personally I think some people just strongly disagree with his controversial views and want him muzzled. Denying someone free speech is a very serious thing, and should be considered very seriously. But we seem to do it a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 (edited) Canada is quite backward when it comes to "freedom of expression"....let alone "free speech". Speech is routinely curtailed or censored for any number of vague reasons. God bless Canada. Many people in Canada think we are too good for free speech and protecting the public from dangerous ideas makes us morally superior to the states. At least that's what I infer from the claims of others. Edited August 11, 2015 by -1=e^ipi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 Who are these protesters, his PR team? The more they fight him, the more hits his site gets. Besides, he is pretty funny (in an Andy Kaufmann/Dice Clay sort of way). I highly doubt he believe even half the stuff he says. From what I can see, most of it is a troll-job just to watch SJWs lose their minds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 I think he has clearly led an anonymous group to threaten people based on that link. Well, how did he incite people to threaten her? She was a nude model, and he posted a publicly available picture of her from a modeling website. I don't see where he told anyone to threaten her. The article from CJAD AM is also written by a supporter of the protestor, I wouldn't rely on it as a fair and unbiased view of the case. Doesn't really matter to our discussion, if the article is true, and he's deemed to incite whatever by the authorities and that's against our laws, then yes they can deny entry. If not, let him in. Speech that clearly incites people to threaten others with violence/rape/sexual assault should be a limit on free speech. I was initially a reluctant supporter of this person's right to have abhorrent opinions until it was brought to my attention that other individuals are denied entry to Canada for ... unclear reasons. What does that change about your support? Legally, there would have to be legitimate reasons to deny entry. CBSA needs to follow the law like everyone else, whether it be IRPA or the CCC or whatnot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 Do they follow set criteria though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash74 Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 Yes as much as I may disagree with people.(Racists,Politically Correct people,Liberals) I feel I have no right to stop them from spewing their crap. My fear is that once you stop one thing that is said it leads to another and another and another. If it keeps up it will be like we are all living on a university campus http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/brian-hutchinson-free-speech-rights-not-protected-on-university-campus-judge-tells-pro-lifers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 Many people in Canada think we are too good for free speech and protecting the public from dangerous ideas makes us morally superior to the states. At least that's what I infer from the claims of others. Agreed.....that seems to be their rationale. The counter for hate speech is more free speech, not censorship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted August 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2015 How so? I see nothing like that on the CIC government site stating the conditions. My point is that the criteria is subjective and open to interpretation depending on which government official is making the decision. I belong to a private men's club. One of the criteria for expulsion is "conduct not becoming a gentleman". This basically tells folks that unpopular guys are not welcome and will be tossed. It works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted August 12, 2015 Report Share Posted August 12, 2015 Many people in Canada think we are too good for free speech and protecting the public from dangerous ideas makes us morally superior to the states. At least that's what I infer from the claims of others. Really? That's pretty weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted August 12, 2015 Report Share Posted August 12, 2015 Maybe the answer is to threaten public shaming for people who attend his dog and pony show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted August 12, 2015 Report Share Posted August 12, 2015 Even better, film the protesters and publicly shame them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted August 12, 2015 Report Share Posted August 12, 2015 Hmmm.... Filming in public to address a perceived social problem ? See the Pervasive Surveillance thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted August 12, 2015 Report Share Posted August 12, 2015 Many people in Canada think we are too good for free speech and protecting the public from dangerous ideas makes us morally superior to the states. At least that's what I infer from the claims of others. For someone who gets whingy whenever anyone follow your logic to make inferences about you or your beliefs, you're awful quick to make inferences about amorphous "others." But then, you've been doing that since you turned up here on your anti "SJYW" jihad. Even better, film the protesters and publicly shame them. Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 12, 2015 Report Share Posted August 12, 2015 Who? the blogger (real name Daryush Valizadeh) attracted a paltry 34 men to his speech on “neomasculinity” in Montreal this past weekend. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/why-blasting-misogynists-online-actually-works-in-their-favour/article25932437/Oh.*yawn* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted August 12, 2015 Report Share Posted August 12, 2015 Why? Why not? If it's good for the goose... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted August 12, 2015 Report Share Posted August 12, 2015 Why not? If it's good for the goose... Because they have nothing to be ashamed of. 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.