Jaimito Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 if he can burn a bible, then let him in as price of admission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 The real reason he wasn't allowed in is because he's right freedom of speech is very important. However his freedom of speech directly infringes on the freedom of religion. It isn't right to walk on human/Canadian rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 The Qur'an mentions Jesus 25 times, while Muhammad just 3 times. It would appear that the only true 'Christian' in history was Jesus. Nobody since has acted like him. (Even though he did murder several people out of anger as an adolescent and did not ressurect them. Hey, maybe he was crucified to atone for those sins, and not for the sins of all mankind. Hmmm.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jai604 Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Freedom of speech my ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Not really upset that dill-hole wasn't let in but these people are aware it's the year 2012, right? They could simply have him attend the debate via Skype or something. Sure it would lose a little in the process but there's ways around this if they're not complete imbeciles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Could've just posted the last sentence there, bud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Could've just posted the last sentence there, bud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Could've just posted the last sentence there, bud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humble Rodent Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 You don't see single line westcoaster posts really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EX_Bert_Worshipper Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 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...
Red Light Racicot Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grapefruits Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 That is not correct. Canada and the US treat criminal acts, charges and convictions differently due to differing statutory language - Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and the US under the Immigration and Nationality Act as well as policy under the respective immigration legislation. Some crimes that would result in your inadmissibility to the US would not bar your admission to Canada and vice versa. To consider admissibility to Canada, Canadian officials assess the crime according to Canadian laws (the process is referred to as "criminal equivalencing"). They look at the nature of the offence, how long ago the act took place and whether any sentences were imposed. Simply because a crime was misdemeanour offence in the United States does not mean it is automatically considered an equivalent less serious summary conviction offence in Canada. In Canada our crimes are classed as summary, indictable or "hybrid" (i.e. they can be proceeded with summariiy or by indictment at the discretion of the Crown). The US generally classes crimes as misdemeanours (less serious) and felonies (more serious). Also some crimes in the US are not equivalent to crimes under our Criminal Code as they would fall within provincial regulatory offences - e.g. many offences under US securities law which in Canada are governed by provincial legislation and therefore outside the ambit of our Criminal Code which means it does not bar admission to Canada.. By the same token some provincial regulatory offences if they involve "moral turpitude" such as under our various securities acts would bar admission to the US. In Canada if a crime is a pure summary conviction (and not a "hybrid") offence and you have only been convicted of one such crime, then it is not a bar to admission. A conviction for possession of a small amount of marijuana for personal use would not bar the admission of US citizen to Canada as it is a summary offence but the same conviction would bar a Canadian from entering the US. Canada recognizes that if a person has been pardoned or received an absolute or conditional discharge (and the conditions have been satisfied) from the court, then the conviction is no longer a bar to admission. US court dispositions that are considered non-convictions for the purposes of the US criminal inadmissibility include deferred adjudication, conditional discharge, suspended sentence, dismissed charges & nolle prosequi. Also if a specified period of time has passed since conviction for certain classes of offences (including some serious indictable offences), then that criminal inadmissibility ceases to have any effect on admission to Canada. This is referred to as "deemed rehabilitation". http://www.canadavis...bilitation.html Under US immigration if you are criminal inadmissible that inadmissibility is in effect continuously unless your are able to obtain a waiver from US immigration authorities so diversion, suspended sentences and discharges have no effect. Canada has a similar provision to the US waiver process (called "individual rehabilitation") but it only applies to the most serious of criminal offences. http://www.canadavis...bilitation.html And by policy the strict rules on inadmissibility may be eased by policy as is the case with a conviction for impaired driving which renders a person inadmissible to Canada but not do so under US immigration law. This policy was put in place in February 2012 and took effect on March 1, 2012: A public policy was recently approved with respect to the entry of foreign nationals (FNs) who are inadmissible on A36(2) criminality grounds. Specifically, the policy allows the grant of a one-time fee exemption for a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP) for certain offences, including offences such as driving while impaired (also known as driving under the influence (DUI)). ... As of March 1, 2012 the public policy exemption would apply to an FN to whom a TRP is being issued at a port of entry (POE) or a visa office abroad, who is inadmissible solely on the grounds of “criminality” under section 36(2) of IRPA, and who:was convicted of an offence and received no term of imprisonment as part of the sentence imposed; andhas had no other convictions or committed any other acts that would render the person inadmissible. http://www.cic.gc.ca.../2012/ob389.asp The treatment of specific crimes may differ between Canada and the US as to inadmissibility - sometimes it works in favour of the person seeking entry and sometimes it does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Since this case turns on "legal mumbo jumbo" it is relevant. Too bad you do not have the wit to comprehend that obvious fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Tell that to the guy who still cant cross the border 40 years after customs found a bag of weed on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 No, the wit to comprehend is there. But that wit was used for this instead: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langdon Algur Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.