Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Qur'an-Burning Pastor Terry Jones Denied Entry To Canada


Humble Rodent

Recommended Posts

I think everyone is missing the fact that he was not denied entry because he burned the Qur'an but rather because he was arrested and could not prove that all the charges were dropped.

That is Canadian policy if you have been arrested and there are charges against you or have been convicted of a crime you must apply for a special acceptance to come to Canada.

The border guards only have the info about the arrest that they get from the country of origin. If it doesn't state the charges were completely dropped then anyone would be denied entry regardless of if they burned a holy text or not.

My guess is if he had of done his homework to check on his own eligibilty for entrance into Canada they would have warned him about the potential for his prior arrest to hold him at the border. They would probably have also advised to carry with him the documentation to show that the charges for the arrest were dropped. If he had of done that I bet he would have been allowed into Canada within 5 - 10 minutes.

This is not a matter of "freedom of speech" rather the fact that Canada does not want other country's criminals coming here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think everyone is missing the fact that he was not denied entry because he burned the Qur'an but rather because he was arrested and could not prove that all the charges were dropped.

That is Canadian policy if you have been arrested and there are charges against you or have been convicted of a crime you must apply for a special acceptance to come to Canada.

The border guards only have the info about the arrest that they get from the country of origin. If it doesn't state the charges were completely dropped then anyone would be denied entry regardless of if they burned a holy text or not.

My guess is if he had of done his homework to check on his own eligibilty for entrance into Canada they would have warned him about the potential for his prior arrest to hold him at the border. They would probably have also advised to carry with him the documentation to show that the charges for the arrest were dropped. If he had of done that I bet he would have been allowed into Canada within 5 - 10 minutes.

This is not a matter of "freedom of speech" rather the fact that Canada does not want other country's criminals coming here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I will rephrase my post:

I think everyone (Except DarthNinja_S19Blade) is missing the fact that he was not denied entry because he burned the Qur'an but rather because he was arrested and could not prove that all the charges were dropped.

That is Canadian policy if you have been arrested and there are charges against you or have been convicted of a crime you must apply for a special acceptance to come to Canada.

The border guards only have the info about the arrest that they get from the country of origin. If it doesn't state the charges were completely dropped then anyone would be denied entry regardless of if they burned a holy text or not.

My guess is if he had of done his homework to check on his own eligibilty for entrance into Canada they would have warned him about the potential for his prior arrest to hold him at the border. They would probably have also advised to carry with him the documentation to show that the charges for the arrest were dropped. If he had of done that I bet he would have been allowed into Canada within 5 - 10 minutes.

This is not a matter of "freedom of speech" rather the fact that Canada does not want other country's criminals coming here.

Better? ;) Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I will rephrase my post:

I think everyone (Except DarthNinja_S19Blade) is missing the fact that he was not denied entry because he burned the Qur'an but rather because he was arrested and could not prove that all the charges were dropped.

That is Canadian policy if you have been arrested and there are charges against you or have been convicted of a crime you must apply for a special acceptance to come to Canada.

The border guards only have the info about the arrest that they get from the country of origin. If it doesn't state the charges were completely dropped then anyone would be denied entry regardless of if they burned a holy text or not.

My guess is if he had of done his homework to check on his own eligibilty for entrance into Canada they would have warned him about the potential for his prior arrest to hold him at the border. They would probably have also advised to carry with him the documentation to show that the charges for the arrest were dropped. If he had of done that I bet he would have been allowed into Canada within 5 - 10 minutes.

This is not a matter of "freedom of speech" rather the fact that Canada does not want other country's criminals coming here.

Better? ;) Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having a prior arrest record is not a loophole, regardless of the circumstance. The person writing the article is either looking for something that isn't there or the pastor is looking for more publicity. The fact is if you have a prior arrest, no matter who you are, you cannot enter Canada. That is not a loophole, that is the law. Therefore the freedom of speech discussion is not valid.

Get arrested here and before your court date try to go to the US, see if they allow you entry. If they don't is that a loophole because they don't like you?

The bottom line is YOU CANNOT ENTER CANADA WITH A PRIOR ARREST ON YOUR RECORD unless you can show the charges were dropped or you apply for a special permit to enter Canada (which I believe must be done before you get to the border.)

NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH VIOLATIONS TO SEE HERE FOLKS!!! PLEASE MOVE ALONG!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you yelling? Did you miss the part where he was acquitted of both charges. They said Jones didn't follow the appropriate protocol and he suggests that he did. If he was unjustly denied entry because of his prior deplorable, yet perfectly legal, conduct would that be an infringement of his rights? That is point of the OP, discuss it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...