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

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

Exactly. This guy flouts the laws, calls it oppression and fundraises on that from the gullibles. Read the Rolling Stone piece about this guy, see what he does.

If he flouted the law arrest him.

The fact is actually violate Parks Canada mandate, they're breaking it by denying him his right to speech. You can't be inclusive by excluding people. 

If he was calling for the death or the like of gay people then sure. But saying that you disagree with Lgbtq organizations isn't the same thing.

They are trying to fight what they perceive as hatred and bigotry with even more hatred and bigotry. The left have been pushing for a decade now. And what we've seen in both countries is an increase in hate crimes. Which is entirely predictable.

People told the democrats in the south if you keep promoting hatred, if you keep using welfare, if you keep violating people's rights, then when the next guy gets in he's going to use it against you and you will not be happy. They are finding that out right now.

So I'll say the same thing to you now. If you steal people's rights because you think that what they have to say isn't a good idea and if you deny people public spaces because you don't approve of their message, this will be used against you in time and you will be unhappy about it

[West]

58 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

So it's not just us and it isn't new...

Oct 11, 2020 Nashville,TN. "We had THREE venue changes and so much resistance BUT THE CHURCH WILL NOT BE SILENCED!"

Oct 12 2020: Nashville Tennessean
"Nashville did not permit the event
Nashville officials said Monday morning that organizers did not apply for a permit to host the event and that the Metro Public Health Department is working to investigate what happened."

But here's what he's really about:

Rolling Stone: July 11, 2022
 "Sean Feucht Ministry Inc. ballooned in revenue from $280,000 in 2019 to more than $5.3 million in 2020, ending the year $4 million richer than it started. (The accounting is curious: The ministry claims to have received zero dollars in contributions, despite Feucht avidly soliciting such gifts.)

Warren Cole Smith, president of Ministry Watch, says that leveraging a ministry to live the high life, is not just unseemly, it’s potentially illegal.  If a guy that makes less than $200,000 a year is buying multiple, million-dollar properties, at a minimum that warrants additional questions.”
What’s more curious is that Fuecht, who slaps “donate” buttons on all of his web sites, told the IRS he received zero dollars in contributions in 2020. Yet a review of public Venmo transactions reveals that Fuecht’s ministry received at least 250 donations during a one-week stretch in July 2020."

Christians love that graft!

😆.  

Let me guess this person from ministry watch was one of the folks Gabbard alluded to when they said the Democrats were using tax psyer money to bribe off churches. 

[TreeBeard]

39 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

Freedom of expression and peaceable assembly are.

 

34 minutes ago, User said:

The issue isn't about holding a concert being a right, it is that it was denied based on the dislike of the speech...

 

The right to free expression isn’t absolute.  This may have been an overreach.  I’m perfectly willing to concede that, but not based on a couple MAGA/religious nuts’ opinion on the matter. 

[User]

4 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

 

The right to free expression isn’t absolute.  This may have been an overreach.  I’m perfectly willing to concede that, but not based on a couple MAGA/religious nuts’ opinion on the matter. 

I never said it was "absolute." You keep moving the goal posts here from trying to avoid this being content discrimination to it being about a permit and now to the extreme of freedom of speech not being absolute after you earlier tried to claim it was not even in your Charter or whatever you guys call it. 

Now, all you are left with is saying it may have been an overreach... 

 

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

 

The right to free expression isn’t absolute.  This may have been an overreach.  I’m perfectly willing to concede that, but not based on a couple MAGA/religious nuts’ opinion on the matter. 

So basically we have to get Greta thurnberg to sign off on it for you.

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, User said:

I never said it was "absolute." You keep moving the goal posts here from trying to avoid this being content discrimination to it being about a permit and now to the extreme of freedom of speech not being absolute after you earlier tried to claim it was not even in your Charter or whatever you guys call it. 

Now, all you are left with is saying it may have been an overreach... 

 

You don’t even know where Canadian legal rights come from. You’re not equipped to debate about Canada.  Learn something about the country and the rights you are trying to argue against and come back another time.   Clearly you can’t be bothered to be informed, but you sure do have an opinion about it regardless!

[User]

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

You don’t even know where Canadian legal rights come from. You’re not equipped to debate about Canada.  Learn something about the country and the rights you are trying to argue against and come back another time.   Clearly you can’t be bothered to be informed, but you sure do have an opinion about it regardless!

I knew more than you did. 

You tried to claim freedom of speech was not there, then tried to claim it was really just "expression" as if speech did not fall under that...

Apparently, you are not equipped for this debate either. 

 

[TreeBeard]

47 minutes ago, User said:

You tried to claim freedom of speech was not there

It’s not.  It’s freedom of expression. 
 

Thats like saying the US constitution includes freedom of expression.  It doesn’t. It includes freedom of speech.  It may seem semantics, but the differences go beyond merely semantics.  
 

So you’re still here with an opinion on a topic of which you’re ignorant about.  

[User]

19 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

It’s not.  It’s freedom of expression. 
 

Thats like saying the US constitution includes freedom of expression.  It doesn’t. It includes freedom of speech.  It may seem semantics, but the differences go beyond merely semantics.  
 

So you’re still here with an opinion on a topic of which you’re ignorant about.  

Oh, so you are back to this obtuse argument that expression doesn't include speech?

I suppose they were only referring to Mimes... 

 

[CouchPotato]

5 minutes ago, User said:

Oh, so you are back to this obtuse argument that expression doesn't include speech?

I suppose they were only referring to Mimes... 

 

It was interpretive dance actually.

[Army Guy]

17 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Quote the part of the Constitution that mentions “freedom of speech”. 
 

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-11.html#h-40

I found this from your own source...Note all of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are listed in part 0ne, CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982....Freedom of speech is covered under freedom of expression

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-12.html

[TreeBeard]

25 minutes ago, User said:

Oh, so you are back to this obtuse argument that expression doesn't include speech?

I suppose they were only referring to Mimes... 

 

20 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

It was interpretive dance actually.

 

15 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I found this from your own source...Note all of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are listed in part 0ne, CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982....Freedom of speech is covered under freedom of expression

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-12.html

So I’d be correct if I said the US Constitution had freedom of expression as one of its clauses?  Of course not.  I’d use the proper term, since I’m not retarded.  Did any of you pass grade 10 social studies?   (Other than being an American.  Apparently, you don’t need knowledge about a subject to have really strong opinions about it)

[User]

18 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I found this from your own source...Note all of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are listed in part 0ne, CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982....Freedom of speech is covered under freedom of expression

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-12.html

Nope, they were talking about interpretive dance, not speech... ROFL

Why is it so many folks on this forum refuse to admit they are wrong on anything and insist on playing these dumb games?

 

1 minute ago, TreeBeard said:

So I’d be correct if I said the US Constitution had freedom of expression as one of its clauses?  Of course not.  I’d use the proper term, since I’m not retarded.  Did any of you pass grade 10 social studies?   (Other than being an American.  Apparently, you don’t need knowledge about a subject to have really strong opinions about it)

Except, you were now trying to argue that speech is not part of freedom of expression. 

Did they teach you anything about basic logic, things like a Venn Diagram in your K-12 education? 

[TreeBeard]

21 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Freedom of speech is covered under freedom of expression

Speech is covered under the freedom of expression clause.  Yes.  This has been said many times.  But there is no “freedom of speech” clause within the Charter.

It may seem like semantics to you, but it’s not. 

Edited July 29, 2025 by TreeBeard

[TreeBeard]

5 minutes ago, User said:

you were now trying to argue that speech is not part of freedom of expression.

Nope. 
 

Quote the part where I said speech isn’t part of freedom of expression. 

Edited July 29, 2025 by TreeBeard

[User]

7 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Nope. 
 

Quote the part where I said speech isn’t part of freedom of expression. 

Oh, OK... so what are you here quibbling about then?

 

[Army Guy]

53 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

It’s not.  It’s freedom of expression. 
 

Thats like saying the US constitution includes freedom of expression.  It doesn’t. It includes freedom of speech.  It may seem semantics, but the differences go beyond merely semantics.  
 

So you’re still here with an opinion on a topic of which you’re ignorant about.  

It is not semantics, it is just worded differently....Expression is defined as ANY activity or communication ....the second red quote explains it even further it protects speakers and listeners....in order to protect speakers one must have "speech"

1. Does the activity in question have expressive content, thereby bringing it within section 2(b) protection?

Expression protected by section 2(b) has been defined as “any activity or communication that conveys or attempts to convey meaning” (Thomson Newspapers Co., supra; Irwin Toy Ltd., supra). The courts have applied the principle of content neutrality in defining the scope of section 2(b), such that the content of expression, no matter how offensive, unpopular or disturbing, cannot deprive it of section 2(b) protection (Keegstra, supra). Being content-neutral, the Charter also protects the expression of both truths and falsehoods

Freedom of expression includes more than the right to express beliefs and opinions. It protects both speakers and listeners (Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326). “Expression” may include all phases of the communication, 

expressing oneself in the language of choice (in order to do that you must have speech or sign language)

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art2b.html

Protected expression has been found to include:

• “music, art, dance, postering, physical movements, marching with banners, etc.” (Weisfeld v. Canada, [1995] 1 F.C. 68 (F.C.A.), CanLII - 1994 CanLII 9276 (FCA) at paragraph 30 (F.C.A.);
• commercial advertising (R. v. Guignard, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 472; Ford, supra; Irwin Toy Ltd., supra; Rocket, supra; Ramsden v. Peterborough (City), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 1084; RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; JTI-Macdonald Corp., supra);
• posters on utility poles (Ramsden, supra);
• peace camps (Weisfeld (F.C.A.), supra);
• signs and billboards (Guignard, supra; Vann Niagara Ltd. v. Oakville (Town), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 158);
• picketing (R.W.D.S.U., Local 558 v. Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 156; Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. R.W.D.S.U. Local 580, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; B.C.G.E.U v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214; Dieleman v. Attorney General of Ontario (1994), 20 O.R. (3d) 229 (Ont. Gen. Div.); Morasse v. Nadeau-Dubois; 2016 SCC 44);
• handing out leaflets (U.F.C.W, Local 1518 v. Kmart Canada Ltd., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 1083; Allsco Building Products Ltd. v. U.F.C.W. Local 1288 P, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 1136);
• ******(expressing oneself in the language of choice (Ford, supra);)******
• hate speech (Keegstra, supra; R. v. Zundel, supra; Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 467; Ross v. New Brunswick School Board (No. 15), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825; Taylor v. Canada (Human Rights Commission), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892);
• pornography (R. v. Butler, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452; Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120);
• child pornography (Sharpe, supra; R v. Barabash, 2015 SCC 29);
• communication for the purpose of prostitution (Reference re: section 193 and paragraph 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (Manitoba),[1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123);
• noise being emitted by a loudspeaker from inside a club onto the street (Montréal (City), supra, at paragraph 58);
• importation of literature or pictorial material (Little Sisters, supra);
• defamatory libel (R. v. Lucas, supra at paragraph 25-27);
• voting (Siemens v. Manitoba (Attorney General), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 6 at paragraph 41; Haig v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995);
• running as a candidate for election (Baier v. Alberta, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 673);
• spending in election and referendum campaigns (Harper, supra; Libman v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 569; B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2017 SCC 6);
• broadcasting of election results (R. v. Bryan, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 527);
• engaging in work for a political party or candidate (Osborne v. Canada (Treasury Board), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 69);
• publication of polling information and opinion surveys (Thomson Newspapers Co., supra);
• monetary contributions to a fund may constitute expression, for example, donations to a candidate or political party in the electoral context (Osborne, supra), though not where the expenditure of funds would be regarded as the expressive conduct of the union as a corporate entity (Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211) and
• political advertising on public transit vehicles (

[Army Guy]

12 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Speech is covered under the freedom of expression clause.  Yes.  This has been said many times.  But there is no “freedom of speech” clause within the Charter.

It may seem like semantics to you, but it’s not. 

Freedom of speech is covered under the freedom of expression as you have been shown...if your entire agreement was it defined as freedom of speech no it was not. it was defined in the fine print in freedom of expression...And it is semantics, and your making a play on words...speech is protected here in Canada...and parks Canada can not override any of our freedoms....at any time, as it is a public domain...They were concerned about protesting groups and the safety of others because snowflakes can't stand the power of words...Snowflakes have control of the conversation, they have done so with many speakers or events from the US even Canada...this is another example....

[TreeBeard]

27 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

It is not semantics, it is just worded differently

🤣

Mr Oxford is rolling in his grave right now.  

[Barquentine]

3 hours ago, User said:

public gathering was frowned upon and not being permitted at the time. 

And yet he's so special he gets to do it any way?

[Moonlight Graham]

18 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

No foreigner is entitled to work in Canada. 

On what grounds would the Canadian government deny him the ability to work in Canada like any other law-abiding American musician?

You think the feds should ban all Americans who may have been Trump voters or doctrine-following Christians?   You're nuts.

[CouchPotato]

27 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Mr Oxford is rolling in his grave right now.  

Hope he's got a permit for that.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Nope. 
 

Quote the part where I said speech isn’t part of freedom of expression. 

If freedom of speech is part of freedom of expression and there's a freedom of expression clause then there is a freedom of speech clause.

This is the most childish argument I've ever seen you make

[User]

6 hours ago, Barquentine said:

And yet he's so special he gets to do it any way?

It is kind of like asking why someone was so special they got to walk to the park and play on the playground... I guess you were an authoritarian COVID fear-mongerer who would have preferred the National Guard be deployed to ensure all people were confined to their homes?

 

[Nationalist]

14 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

It’s not.  It’s freedom of expression. 
 

Thats like saying the US constitution includes freedom of expression.  It doesn’t. It includes freedom of speech.  It may seem semantics, but the differences go beyond merely semantics.  
 

So you’re still here with an opinion on a topic of which you’re ignorant about.  

Wow! Just...wow!

So now you Libbies think you can warp the meaning of expression.

You do realize that in the end, you will lose this argument and once again be exposed as the ignorant little twerps you really are. Don't you?