Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#31 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,006 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 12 October 2012 - 12:46 PM

Wrapping up long-winded off-topic legal mumbo jumbo and getting to the point (In this case there was none, really, other than the other guy was only 'sort of' wrong) is okay. Really it is.
  • 0
Posted Image

#32 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 12 October 2012 - 12:53 PM

Wrapping up long-winded off-topic legal mumbo jumbo and getting to the point (In this case there was none, really, other than the other guy was only 'sort of' wrong) is okay. Really it is.

The "other guy" was completely wrong.

Feel free to continue to be ignorant and uninformed. You fit right in with a sizeable minority of CDC posters.

Since this case turns on "legal mumbo jumbo" it is relevant. Too bad you do not have the wit to comprehend that obvious fact.


An article from CBC News titled "What makes a person ineligible to enter Canada?"

Border agents can turn away any non-Canadian citizen or permanent resident looking to visit based on a number of factors, including past criminal convictions, health or financial problems, and a general risk to security.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...try-canada.html

As a leading Canadian immigration lawyer notes in the article:

“Everybody else has to satisfy the [Canada Border Services Agency] that they ought to come in, but to some extent it’s at the discretion of the person who is hearing your story,” said David Cohen, an immigration lawyer and senior partner at Campbell Cohen based in Montreal.

“You don’t have the right to just walk in.”
...
Cohen said there are three main areas that border guards focus on when determining whether a person can enter the country, including criminal convictions and health or security issues, although sometimes general circumstances come into play.

“If you show up with a U-Haul trailer and all of your belongings in them, and you drive up from the U.S. and you say, ‘I’m here to visit Canada,’ they may be suspicious, “ he said. “It kind of looks like you’re going to, as they say, centralize your mode of living here.”
...
The CBSA said "most criminal convictions … including a conviction of driving under the influence, make individuals inadmissible to Canada."

However, Cohen said a person found guilty of a single minor offence, such as disturbing the peace, can sometimes be allowed to enter the country.

If a person has several minor convictions, they can be denied unless they have been deemed rehabilitated by the CBSA. If 10 years have passed, a person is automatically considered rehabilitated, but can apply to be considered for rehabilitation if five years have passed, Cohen said.
...
Cohen said the CBSA also has leeway to turn away a person based on general security concerns according to information contained in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

A person can be turned away if he or she took part in espionage or subversion against a government, or engaged in terrorism or any acts of violence that might endanger Canadians.

Another clause makes a person inadmissible for “being a danger to the security of Canada,” which Cohen described as something of a “catchall.”

The impact of the events of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, not surprisingly, have also had an important impact on the ability of many people to enter Canada, Cohen said.

This is largely a result of better information sharing between governments, primarily between Canada and the United States, he said.

In the past, a person may have been able to say they had no criminal convictions but that changed after 9/11.

“Your past is now on display for the Canadian border agents,” Cohen said.


For years the US refused to let suspected Communists and sympathizers enter and in fact Pierre Trudeau was blacklisted by US immigration at one point before he became a federal MP.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#33 EX_Bert_Worshipper

EX_Bert_Worshipper

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,833 posts
  • Joined: 27-January 06

Posted 12 October 2012 - 01:01 PM

I love it when people do hateful things and then get all high and mighty and pull the "Freedom of Speech" card.
No, officer, I wasn't "uttering threats", I was using my "freedom of speech".
  • 1
Posted Image

#34 Red Light Racicot

Red Light Racicot

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,480 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 10

Posted 12 October 2012 - 01:02 PM

Canada is a lot more serious than the U.S. does when it comes to criminal charges. While the U.S. will let Canadians cross with certain charges, Canada will not with Americans.

Even minor criminal charges will give border services the right to refuse him entry, and I say good for them.


Tell that to the guy who still cant cross the border 40 years after customs found a bag of weed on him.
  • 0

#35 Grapefruits

Grapefruits

    Fruit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,300 posts
  • Joined: 18-March 08

Posted 12 October 2012 - 01:02 PM

Spoiler


Thanks for the info. I stand corrected. Just going off personal experience and what I have seen.

Edited by zero-ONE-three, 12 October 2012 - 01:04 PM.

  • 0

#36 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,006 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 12 October 2012 - 01:29 PM

Since this case turns on "legal mumbo jumbo" it is relevant. Too bad you do not have the wit to comprehend that obvious fact.

No, the wit to comprehend is there. But that wit was used for this instead:

Posted Image
  • 0
Posted Image

#37 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 12 October 2012 - 01:31 PM

Tell that to the guy who still cant cross the border 40 years after customs found a bag of weed on him.

What citizenship and what border into what country are referring to?

Prior to April 10, 1978 when the Immigration Act 1952 was in force, possession of marijuana or even simply admitting that you smoked marijuana to an immigration officer was sufficient to get you deported by way of what was known as a Special Inquiry under the jurisdiction of a Senior Immigration Officer who was simply another officer with an extra designation.

The process was known as the "5(d) and (k)" method referencing inadmissibility sections of the 1952 Immigration Act - 5(d) offences involving moral turpitude (of which possession of marijuana was one and it was classed as a narcotic) and 5(k) trafficking in a narcotic (which included giving). As the 1952 Act provided:

5. No person, other than a person referred to in subsection two of section seven, shall be admitted to Canada if he is a member of any of the following classes or persons :

...

(d) persons who have been convicted of or admit having committed any crime involving moral turpitude...

...

(k) persons who are engaged or are suspected on reasonable grounds of being likely to engage in any unlawful giving, using, inducing other persons to use, distributing, selling, offering or exposing for sale, buying, trading or trafficking in any substance that is a drug within the meaning of The Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, 1929, or persons who at any time have been so engaged

http://www.canadianh...n_act_1952.html

It would go something like this - an Immigration officer would get a person to admit that he/she smoked marijuana in the past (assuming he/she was not currently in possession) and that he/she had shared the joint with a friend or friends which constituted trafficking. Bing, bam, boom - deported from Canada within a matter of minutes and those deportation orders continue in force to this day. There are thousands upon thousands of such deportation orders

This all changed 10 April 1978 when a much different standard of criminal inadmissibility was introduced.

Edited by Wetcoaster, 12 October 2012 - 01:36 PM.

  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#38 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 12 October 2012 - 01:38 PM

No, the wit to comprehend is there. But that wit was used for this instead:

Posted Image

You appear to think you are a real wit... you have proven yourself to be half-right.

Just another of the ill-educated and uninformed group who subscribe to the TL;DR school of ignorance.
  • 1
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#39 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,110 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 12 October 2012 - 02:08 PM

One would think we could bar a foreigner from entering the country based simply on the reasonable belief that he's a ****distrubing jerk that's only coming up to raise a stir and going to piss people off.
  • 0

#40 Langdon Algur

Langdon Algur

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,568 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 07

Posted 12 October 2012 - 02:56 PM

One would think we could bar a foreigner from entering the country based simply on the reasonable belief that he's a ****distrubing jerk that's only coming up to raise a stir and going to piss people off.


And who gets to decide who's a "distrubing jerk" and who isn't? Say you were going to the US and wearing a Canucks hat and a t-shirt that say's Briuns Suck, the boarder guards a hard core Briuns fan and decides he doesn't want to let you in cause as a Canucks fan you're likely to start a roit. Is this fair?
  • 0
"What is the good of having a nice house without a decent planet to put it on?" ~ Henry David Thoreau

CDC's 2014 draft preferences vs. Canucks actual picks
http://forum.canucks...g-2014-edition/

#41 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,320 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 12 October 2012 - 03:11 PM

And who gets to decide who's a "distrubing jerk" and who isn't? Say you were going to the US and wearing a Canucks hat and a t-shirt that say's Briuns Suck, the boarder guards a hard core Briuns fan and decides he doesn't want to let you in cause as a Canucks fan you're likely to start a roit. Is this fair?


I agree with this. As soon as you start barring people for burning a religious textbook you cross a line. What if he'd only crticized the text of the religion. People do have the right to criticize religion still don't they? Under Canadian law you have the right to all freedom of speech as long as you aren't inciting violence.

As long as he physically owned the book, he had a right to burn it. It is after all just a book. Because some choose to see it as a symbol of their own religious beliefs, that does not force that same symbolism on others.
  • 0

#42 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 12 October 2012 - 04:12 PM

I agree with this. As soon as you start barring people for burning a religious textbook you cross a line. What if he'd only crticized the text of the religion. People do have the right to criticize religion still don't they? Under Canadian law you have the right to all freedom of speech as long as you aren't inciting violence.

As long as he physically owned the book, he had a right to burn it. It is after all just a book. Because some choose to see it as a symbol of their own religious beliefs, that does not force that same symbolism on others.

That is an incorrect statement of Canadian law.

It is essentially true of the US line of cases on free speech but US laws do not apply to Canada. Many people seem to assume our laws are the same as they see on US TV but they are not.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#43 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,320 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 12 October 2012 - 04:42 PM

That is an incorrect statement of Canadian law.

It is essentially true of the US line of cases on free speech but US laws do not apply to Canada. Many people seem to assume our laws are the same as they see on US TV but they are not.


Umm no.....

The US laws are different, but only becasue they are even laxer.

Hate speech in Canada is covered by sec 318 and 319 of the criminal code. 318 deals with the advocation of genocide, which obviously does not apply here. 319 deals with incitement of hatred. In the present case, we are dealing with wheather the Koran burning is likely to provoke a response.

The criminal code, in fact, defends a persons right to argue with religious text. Under the section dealing with defences:

  • (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
  • (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true


The simple fact of the matter is that anyone has as much right to burn a Koran as people have to believe in it.

Edit: This applies to any other religious text for that matter.

Edited by taxi, 12 October 2012 - 04:55 PM.

  • 2

#44 SkeeterHansen

SkeeterHansen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,140 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 11

Posted 12 October 2012 - 05:34 PM

Except it's not private property. It's like saying you won't let someone into a public park simply because you don't agree with his opinions (whether they're stupid or not is irrelevant).


I tried that once.


The guys face hasn't looked the same since :bigblush:
  • 0

/=S=/


#45 Red Light Racicot

Red Light Racicot

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,480 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 10

Posted 12 October 2012 - 07:34 PM

What citizenship and what border into what country are referring to?

Prior to April 10, 1978 when the Immigration Act 1952 was in force, possession of marijuana or even simply admitting that you smoked marijuana to an immigration officer was sufficient to get you deported by way of what was known as a Special Inquiry under the jurisdiction of a Senior Immigration Officer who was simply another officer with an extra designation.


I guess I got a bit carried away with the stereotype there. My bad.
  • 0

#46 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 13 October 2012 - 11:10 AM

Except it's not private property. It's like saying you won't let someone into a public park simply because you don't agree with his opinions (whether they're stupid or not is irrelevant).


Canada is a multicultural society that doesn't tolerate hate speech. We celebrate all cultures and religions and we respect all cultures and religions unlike our neighbors to the south. We don't tolerate others making mockery of other people's religion. You could have your opinion but a rally and probably a Quran burning festival in a public forum should not be tolerated. This would be similar to a white supremacists rally. You could voice your opinion but we don't need you to spread your hatred.

Edited by Pouria, 13 October 2012 - 11:11 AM.

  • 0

Posted Image


#47 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 13 October 2012 - 11:17 AM

Umm no.....

The US laws are different, but only becasue they are even laxer.

Hate speech in Canada is covered by sec 318 and 319 of the criminal code. 318 deals with the advocation of genocide, which obviously does not apply here. 319 deals with incitement of hatred. In the present case, we are dealing with wheather the Koran burning is likely to provoke a response.

The criminal code, in fact, defends a persons right to argue with religious text. Under the section dealing with defences:



The simple fact of the matter is that anyone has as much right to burn a Koran as people have to believe in it.

Edit: This applies to any other religious text for that matter.


I will go with what Wetcoaster said, since he is more informative about the Canadian law. Canadians generally are more strict about racism and insults to other religions and cultures.
  • 0

Posted Image


#48 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 13 October 2012 - 11:23 AM

I agree with this. As soon as you start barring people for burning a religious textbook you cross a line. What if he'd only crticized the text of the religion. People do have the right to criticize religion still don't they? Under Canadian law you have the right to all freedom of speech as long as you aren't inciting violence.

As long as he physically owned the book, he had a right to burn it. It is after all just a book. Because some choose to see it as a symbol of their own religious beliefs, that does not force that same symbolism on others.


You have the right to your opinion and you have the right to burn the Quran but you don't have the right to spread hate speech. Does a racist person have the right to burn images of black people in a public forum and organize a rally to support white supremacy? I mean it is free speech and they have the right to burn images of black people, right?
  • 0

Posted Image


#49 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 13 October 2012 - 11:30 AM

I love it when people do hateful things and then get all high and mighty and pull the "Freedom of Speech" card.
No, officer, I wasn't "uttering threats", I was using my "freedom of speech".


Freedom of speech card is as bad as the racism card. Both are used and abused endlessly. Its like if I made a racist remark, I could defend it by using the "freedom of speech" card.
  • 0

Posted Image


#50 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 13 October 2012 - 11:34 AM

And who gets to decide who's a "distrubing jerk" and who isn't? Say you were going to the US and wearing a Canucks hat and a t-shirt that say's Briuns Suck, the boarder guards a hard core Briuns fan and decides he doesn't want to let you in cause as a Canucks fan you're likely to start a roit. Is this fair?


What if you wore a t-shirt that said "I hate black people" and wanted to cross the boarder. The boarder guard is black and doesn't want to let you in because as a racist you're likely to start a controversy. Is this fair?
  • 0

Posted Image


#51 DarthNinja

DarthNinja

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,769 posts
  • Joined: 18-November 08

Posted 13 October 2012 - 04:56 PM

The criminal code, in fact, defends a persons right to argue with religious text. Under the section dealing with defences:


  • (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
  • (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true

The simple fact of the matter is that anyone has as much right to burn a Koran as people have to believe in it.

Edit: This applies to any other religious text for that matter.



Yeah, because such acts are usually performed 'in good faith' as a 'subject of public interest' and 'for the public benefit'. :rolleyes:
  • (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
  • (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true

  • 0

"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens & the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We (Allah) parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an 21:30)

11477626583_2368927097.jpg     49997_b70e6ae14ce1652fa11bd1dda624afd1.g   7649118508_ce3e8a74a1_o.jpg

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (David Rockefeller)


#52 VICanucksfan5551

VICanucksfan5551

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,026 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 04

Posted 13 October 2012 - 05:08 PM

You have the right to your opinion and you have the right to burn the Quran but you don't have the right to spread hate speech. Does a racist person have the right to burn images of black people in a public forum and organize a rally to support white supremacy? I mean it is free speech and they have the right to burn images of black people, right?

White surpremacists do have the right to have rallies and to be racist
http://www.cbc.ca/ne...premacists.html
http://edmonton.ctvn...algary-1.621006
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#53 GodzillaDeuce

GodzillaDeuce

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,123 posts
  • Joined: 15-October 08

Posted 13 October 2012 - 05:12 PM

You don't see single line westcoaster posts really

You appear to think you are a real wit... you have proven yourself to be half-right.

Just another of the ill-educated and uninformed group who subscribe to the TL;DR school of ignorance.


Posted Image
  • 2

well I'm sorry that gd is soo perfect


#54 Cooker

Cooker

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 03

Posted 13 October 2012 - 05:21 PM

If you don't believe in freedom of expression for those of whom we despise, then we don't believe in it at all." Chomsky

You can say whatever the hell you want about the guy, you're entitled to it. But then you go around and say that he's not allowed to say whatever the hell he wants?

Wasn't intended to work that way.
  • 1

#55 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,782 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 13 October 2012 - 08:36 PM

I fail to see his freedom of speech being withheld. The way he acts is being put in check.

At what point did he figure all these wonderful things he has done magically disappear?

A spade is a spade, just because you made it look like a club recently does not make it less of a spade.

It all depends on where you're from. It's seen in a different light in Canada in regards to free speech, whereas in the US free speech includes such hateful expression. Truthfully it wouldn't matter to me either way.

Edited by zaibatsu, 13 October 2012 - 08:36 PM.

  • 0

#56 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,320 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 15 October 2012 - 11:19 AM

Canada is a multicultural society that doesn't tolerate hate speech. We celebrate all cultures and religions and we respect all cultures and religions unlike our neighbors to the south. We don't tolerate others making mockery of other people's religion. You could have your opinion but a rally and probably a Quran burning festival in a public forum should not be tolerated. This would be similar to a white supremacists rally. You could voice your opinion but we don't need you to spread your hatred.


White supremacists rallies are legal. People may not like them, but they are legal. Also, religion is a set of ideals. Freedom of speech give everyone the ability to burn flags, religious texts, etc...

Part of freedom of speech, means taking the good with the bad. It's the very same principle that allows you to practice religion in the first place.
  • 0

#57 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,320 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 15 October 2012 - 11:22 AM

It all depends on where you're from. It's seen in a different light in Canada in regards to free speech, whereas in the US free speech includes such hateful expression. Truthfully it wouldn't matter to me either way.


Canada does ban the "willful" promotion of hatred. But what constitutes willful expression of hate is quite restricted. White supremacist groups, although ignorant and wrong, are still legal in Canada.
  • 0

#58 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,320 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 15 October 2012 - 11:26 AM

Yeah, because such acts are usually performed 'in good faith' as a 'subject of public interest' and 'for the public benefit'. :rolleyes:

  • (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
  • (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true

Yeah, because such acts are usually performed 'in good faith' as a 'subject of public interest' and 'for the public benefit'. :rolleyes:

  • (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
  • (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true


In Canada, the honus of proving "good faith" it not going to be set very high. You may not like his opinion, but he honsetly believes that he is encouraging religious debate. He sees his religion as correct, and he is being obnoxious, but there's nothing illegal about what he's doing.
  • 0

#59 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,110 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 15 October 2012 - 11:48 AM

And who gets to decide who's a "distrubing jerk" and who isn't? Say you were going to the US and wearing a Canucks hat and a t-shirt that say's Briuns Suck, the boarder guards a hard core Briuns fan and decides he doesn't want to let you in cause as a Canucks fan you're likely to start a roit. Is this fair?


It's their country it shouldn't matter if it's fair.
  • 0

#60 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,312 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 15 October 2012 - 01:01 PM

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.
  • 2
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.