Far left activists and politicians look to bully, intimidate, harass Christian music artist and parishioners from exercising right to practice religion

[User]

13 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

🤣

Mr Oxford is rolling in his grave right now.  

Once again... what is your point then?

 

[Legato]

14 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

🤣

Mr Oxford is rolling in his grave right now.  

 

 

 

Freedom of expression is a broader concept that encompasses freedom of speech.

It is in fact much broader than rabid nitpicking.

Mr. Oxford is currently enjoying a beer at the Wheel Tappers and Shunters social club.

[Barquentine]

15 hours ago, User said:

It is kind of like asking why someone was so special they got to walk to the park and play on the playground...

You said they weren't giving permits to anyone, yet he held an outdoor concert and when he was fined he called it harassment. If the speed limit in town is 30mph and I get a ticket for driving 50mph, is that an infringement on my rights? Break the law - pay the consequence!

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Barquentine said:

You said they weren't giving permits to anyone, yet he held an outdoor concert and when he was fined he called it harassment. If the speed limit in town is 30mph and I get a ticket for driving 50mph, is that an infringement on my rights? Break the law - pay the consequence!

It is absolutely an infringement if you were going 30 but the cops decided they didn't like the kind of car you drove. 

access has to be equal for everyone. Or it's absolutely an infringement.  Unless they are actually breaking the law they should be allowed the same rights to the venue as anyone else. 

[Barquentine]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Unless they are actually breaking the law

He was breaking the law in Nashville at the time.

[Venandi]

Like lawfare, weaponizing the permit system probably sounds like a fine idea now but I can already hear the screams of "Hitler" when the tide turns.... and the tide always turns. Speech is part of expression and if you're going to modify that concept then expect to be bludgeoned with the same club at some point in the future. 

 

Edited July 31, 2025 by Venandi

[CdnFox]

42 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

He was breaking the law in Nashville at the time.

Is Nashville chooses not to give him a venue that's fine, but he's not breaking the law in Canada. If he does arrest him

[CouchPotato]

Did anything actually happen to the guy who threw smokebombs in the church to protest this guy? I mean shouldn't that have been a priority over someone singing in church without a permit?

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

Did anything actually happen to the guy who threw smokebombs in the church to protest this guy? I mean shouldn't that have been a priority over someone singing in church without a permit?

Apparently it depends on what he said it when he threw it. If it was rainbow smoke then the guy was in the clear

[CouchPotato]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Apparently it depends on what he said it when he threw it. If it was rainbow smoke then the guy was in the clear

Sounds about right.

[User]

15 hours ago, Barquentine said:

You said they weren't giving permits to anyone, yet he held an outdoor concert and when he was fined he called it harassment. If the speed limit in town is 30mph and I get a ticket for driving 50mph, is that an infringement on my rights? Break the law - pay the consequence!

You seemed perplexed as to how he got to do it anyway... I am merely pointing out the he did not really get away with anything. 

I get it though, you COVID lockdown worshippers wanted the military deployed to ensure everyone remained in their basements. 

[eyeball]

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It is absolutely an infringement if you were going 30 but the cops decided they didn't like the kind of car you drove

Cops have always had the authority to take your shit box off the road if they don't like the condition it's in.

[User]

45 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Cops have always had the authority to take your shit box off the road if they don't like the condition it's in.

Cops can do that where exactly?

Most laws have certain road worthiness standards that must be met, it is not some subjective thing where the police can just do whatever they want because they don't like the condition. 

 

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, User said:

Cops can do that where exactly?

Everywhere in Canada. They can even impound your car if they deem it to be unsafe and a threat to public safety.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Cops have always had the authority to take your shit box off the road if they don't like the condition it's in.

But that's not what i said. As usual when you know i'm right and you're wrong you try to change the argument. 

I didn't say anything about the CONDITION of the car.  I said the KIND of car. 

And no they absolutely don't.  They can't just decide they don't like hondas and start pulling people out of their vehicles because it's a honda. 

 

[User]

12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Everywhere in Canada. They can even impound your car if they deem it to be unsafe and a threat to public safety.

Yes, and that is based on clearly defined OBJECTIVE laws regarding vehicle safety. An Officer can't just say, I don't like your car, and impound it lawfully. 

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Everywhere in Canada. They can even impound your car if they deem it to be unsafe and a threat to public safety.

What's that got to do with the kind of car it is?

You know that you're wrong so you try to change the argument.

And you're wrong again. Cops absolutely CAN NOT arbitrarily decide that your vehicle is unsafe.  They must base that entirely on the DOT regulations regarding vehicles.  If your vehicle meets those requirements a cop can't say jack shite. 

Just now, User said:

Yes, and that is based on clearly defined OBJECTIVE laws regarding vehicle safety. An Officer can't just say, I don't like your car, and impound it lawfully. 

Ha! Great minds!  I was just posting that too.  Cops can't arbitrarily decide they don't like your car 

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, User said:

Yes, and that is based on clearly defined OBJECTIVE laws regarding vehicle safety. An Officer can't just say, I don't like your car, and impound it lawfully. 

That's right. Just like you need hate speech laws to authorize preventing or stopping hate speech.

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

What's that got to do with the kind of car it is?

It was your analogy, you tell me.

[CdnFox]

Just now, eyeball said:

That's right. Just like you need hate speech laws to authorize preventing or stopping hate speech.

 

But this wasn't done under the hate speech law. This was an arbitrary decision based on whether or not they like what the person is saying, not whether it's hate speech. Can you show me where he's been convicted of hate speech in Canada?

Quote

It was your analogy, you tell me.

So basically what you're saying is you were too stupid to understand them analogy. Something as simple as "A police officer cannot arbitrarily decide he doesn't like the car you're driving and stop you from driving it" Was just too complicated for you to comprehend and you need it spelled out in crayon.

Go play with your Lego, boy. The adults are talking

[User]

15 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That's right. Just like you need hate speech laws to authorize preventing or stopping hate speech.

I think a random bot would make more sense than you. 

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, User said:

I think a random bot would make more sense than you. 

Why would you say that, you seem to get dinglenuts analogy.

56 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

"A police officer cannot arbitrarily decide he doesn't like the car you're driving and stop you from driving it"

Not arbitrarily no. As User pointed out there needs to be a reason before a cop can issue an impoundment notice and before summoning a tow truck.

As such, hate speech also requires an objective legal process before stopping or preventing it.

[User]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

As such, hate speech also requires an objective legal process before stopping or preventing it.

Having an objective definition of what is hate speech doesn't change the fact that the process of developing said standard is arbitrary, subjective, and often counter to the point of freedom of expression. 

Example:

You can objectively define "hate speech" as being using the word "green." It doesn't have to make sense as to why you chose green for that to be an "objective" standard to enforce. 

 

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 

Not arbitrarily no. As User pointed out there needs to be a reason before a cop can issue an impoundment notice and before summoning a tow truck.

 

In other words you were wrong. A cop can't just decide he doesn't like The type of car you're driving

You spend a lot of energy being wrong you know. Maybe if you thought a little bit before opening your mouth you'd spend less time looking dumb

[Aristides]

This guy is not a Canadian, he has no right to enter Canada. When you go to someone else's country you are their guest, so act like one.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, User said:

Having an objective definition of what is hate speech doesn't change the fact that the process of developing said standard is arbitrary, subjective, and often counter to the point of freedom of expression. 

No, it's just political is all. Get over it.

1 hour ago, User said:

Example:

You can objectively define "hate speech" as being using the word "green." It doesn't have to make sense as to why you chose green for that to be an "objective" standard to enforce. 

Sure, and a cop could say your tires were either bald or worn. I mean you could spend the next 9 pages arguing in here what either means but a cop would probably have arrested you for resisting by page 3. Good luck arguing with the judge you were just exercising your right to free speech.