Forums | MacLife

Humm,

Although no member of the group ever met McLean, they claim he lived an immoral and godless life, just like all other Canadians.

So on second thought I might want to visit Canada after all.

I don't think that they should have been barred either... at least on the basis of their plans to protest.

But, they could have been barred for other reasons... criminal records, etc.

Or, they could have been arrested the moment they contravened a Canadian law and shipped back out.

I think that the gubmint should only be allowed to bar someone at the border if they have a criminal record, are committing a crime at the border, or plan to commit a crime in Canada.

Protest plans are not - of themselves - criminal.

Of course, we could instead institute official protest zones and then arrest anyone who applied to use them. That's getting pretty good traction elsewhere lately.

Hank Rearden wrote:

Protest plans are not - of themselves - criminal.

I'm pretty sure conspiracy to commit an indignity to a dead body is crime. I don't see how these people are any different than the smurf who cut the guy's head off. If they want to make free speech issue out of it I say let 'em in and deport them to Germany and they can hang out with Ernst Zundel.

Of course those Westboro twits are extremists by the definition of all decent people. But, the Chinese probably see "Free Tibet" or democracy demonstrators as extremists as well.

The true test of freedom of speech comes when we have the opportunity to allow (or disallow) idiots to make further idiots of themselves. It's easy to grant the freedom to people that we mainly agree with - or at least people who we don't extremely vehemently disagree with. It's much more difficult to grant it to turds.

Hank Rearden wrote:

I think that the gubmint should only be allowed to bar someone at the border if they have a criminal record, are committing a crime at the border, or plan to commit a crime in Canada.

Protest plans are not - of themselves - criminal.

Of course, we could instead institute official protest zones and then arrest anyone who applied to use them. That's getting pretty good traction elsewhere lately.

They have a criminal record. Assault, disorderly conduct, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, trespassing, witness intimidation, and battery.

Hank Rearden wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

I think that the gubmint should only be allowed to bar someone at the border if they have a criminal record, are committing a crime at the border, or plan to commit a crime in Canada.

Protest plans are not - of themselves - criminal.

Of course, we could instead institute official protest zones and then arrest anyone who applied to use them. That's getting pretty good traction elsewhere lately.

They have a criminal record. Assault, disorderly conduct, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, trespassing, witness intimidation, and battery.

Then keep them out on that account, not because they planned to protest.

Are they being kept out "because they planned to protest" or because they have a history of illegal behavior and there was a very good chance that they'd continue that behavior in Canadia?

Also, some of them snuck in so add illegal border crossing to that rap sheet.

Hank Rearden wrote:

Of course those Westboro twits are extremists by the definition of all decent people. But, the Chinese probably see "Free Tibet" or democracy demonstrators as extremists as well.

The true test of freedom of speech comes when we have the opportunity to allow (or disallow) idiots to make further idiots of themselves. It's easy to grant the freedom to people that we mainly agree with - or at least people who we don't extremely vehemently disagree with. It's much more difficult to grant it to turds.

It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

There were threats of major counterdemonstrations. Hell, there were calls for the Winnipeg police to detain the Westboro people to stop them from being lynched.

They're clearly troublemakers.

It's not like there's such thing as a "right" without "limits," after all. One always has to weigh the public interest.

I haven't seen an official statement from Ottawa yet.

Keep 'em out.
A nation certainly has the right to determine who can and can not enter, and these smurfwits aren't coming in to pay respects to the dead, they want to come in to instigate problems.

Keeping them out is one of the few respectable things that Canada has done recently that I highly respect (that I know about anyway - I don't exactly search for Canada's actions ...)

These ass holes should have also been barred from protesting at the funerals of US service men - they can have their free speech, but the family of the dead have a right to a peaceful funeral and wake.

Tallgeese wrote:

Controversy? There would actually be enough Canuckleheads who think that Canadia has a moral obligation to let this evil smurfhead into their country to cause a controversy?

No. The Conservatives are the former Alliance party, which is the former Reform party, which had a number of homophobic nuts.

Bringing up this type of thing just might cause a residual nut or two to rise to the surface. Since it looks like there may be an election coming up in the next few months, the Conservatives could ill afford that type of thing.

Which amendment to the Constitution guarantees this right?