taxi Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkeeterHansen Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Light Racicot Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 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". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthNinja Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodzillaDeuce Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 You don't see single line westcoaster posts really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooker Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Yeah, because such acts are usually performed 'in good faith' as a 'subject of public interest' and 'for the public benefit'. (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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.