In a democracy, I don't think so.
1, Canada is not a democracy. 2, Democracy without the rule of law, is unrestrained. Without law and restraint, there can be no freedom.
We decide collectively, directly through voting, and indirectly through our representatives enacting legislation defining who can enter and who cannot.
And the rule of law, via the SCoC, will strike down anything that is found to be contrary to the rule of law.
In that way, we decide collectively as a democratic people who can come in ad who cannot.
What you seem to be proposing here is mob rule. That's dangerous.
Whether Galloway can enter Canada or not should not be at the whim of the PMO, but rather in accordance to established legislation parliament has agreed to.
Which is exactly what happened. Galloway was turned back by a Border Services Agent, based on flags on Galloway. Not because the PMO or any other politician said to do so.
No you say Galloway has indeed violated Canadian laws. Fair enough. But if he's violated the law, then the right thing to do is not to tell him he can't come into the country, but rather to warn him that he have a warrant out for his arrest, even requesting that he come.
So by this logic, every refugee that has ever been turned back, because they have ties to a terrorist organization or have a criminal past, should be arrested, tried and imprisoned if found guilty?
Are you insane? Do you know what that would cost the tax payers?
Also, if indeed he has violated a Canadian law, seeing that the UK is supposedly an ally, we should formally request extradition.
Now you're just being ridiculous.
Either he's a criminal or he isn't.
Fortunately, our immigration laws are closer to that of civil law, not criminal. In so being, that the you need only prove the mere preponderance. He met the burned of proof, he was denied entry.
We can't have it both ways.
Thankfully, our laws dictate otherwise.
If he's not a criminal, then as long as he meets whatever established requirement to enter the country, we should let him in.
Absolutely correct. Unfortunately, he failed to meet the standard and was denied entry.
If he is a criminal, then we ought to prosecute. Which shall it be?
Again, ridiculous.
Or are some foreign nationals more equal than others in Canadian law?
Not at all. We turn back thousands of claimants annually due to suspect histories.
If that's the case, then let's legislate accordingly, making it clear that foreign government representatives are granted diplomatic immunity from Canada's counter-terrorism laws.
Why would we do such an ignorant thing?
Of course if that's the case, why was Saddam Hussain not exempt?
Now you're being just plainly absurd.
No matter how we cut it, we need to follow through with the same standard for all.
We do.
Our refusal to grant him entry is suspicious at best.
Only if you believe the hype, have no idea how our borders work and are clueless to immigration law.
the Muslim mind is aware that humanity is divided,
And it exploits it.
it has been for thousands of years when it comes to religion.
It's been thousands of years since Islam was peaceful.
Were ever there is division there is no communication, like you cut a wire electricity doesn’t go to the other cut part,
BS, there is a monumental divide between you and I, yet here we are communicating.
THE instrument used to cut that wire is Ann Coulter and many others like her, a ROOM full of these cutting instruments.
By your own definition, you are the instrument that cuts the wire between Conservative and Liberal.
So……. if you not understand this division, your example of humour will not work with the Muslim ethnicity.
Not true, just as ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, you can't put the onus on Coulter.
It is not that I don't like what she said, the students don't need a person like her who has very limited understanding of humanity and they showed their protest.
It is expressly that you don't like what she said, that you would silence her.
What, it is illegal for the students to protest her presence, and it is humours her making racist remarks?
Not at all. They actually gathered, protested without incident, made their collective voices heard, and in the process left a black mark on the University.
Come on , what is this world have come too?
According to you, a fascist state where dissenting voices are silenced through intimidation and veiled threat.
Ann Coulter is a rightwing nut bar that espouses to Elitist thinking and that is a load of crap.
Agreed.
Typical Elitism I have more rights because I am not a minority in my country. That simply confirms that in Conservetivisem "equality" is not an important word.
This statement, given your expressed views on free speech, is hypocritical at best. Nonsensical at worst.
Her crew new that if she was going to go through with her stupid racist dribble she would have been tomatoed or pied, good call on their part. I called here names and I am sure the students called here worse. Nothing dangerous about me. I love all people until such time one will try to cause harm.:smile:
Yet you condone and advocate violence and threat of violence as a means of silencing dissension.
How interesting.
Well, well, well.
No u r, you are telling here that the students don’t have the right to protest when in fact her racial venom if OFFENSIVE.
No he is not. He is stating that the students, though free to express their views through peaceful protest, chose to be threatening and aggressive. That is not conducive to free expression, free speech and the spirit of our country.
when YOU UNDERSTAND THAT we can go further into the discussion.
No one here is arguing that her commentary is or is not offensive.
Cupish...............The students realised that their learning of human understanding was compromised by a racist like her, and they wanted nothing to do with her, she is not a divine energy to help lift the intellect of the young, she is one telling the world to hate one another because she does.
So? Meet her with reasoned, rational rebuttals, not throngs of seething children.
Human emotions are hard to control when race denigration fuels the fire.
Which is why the sane elevate themselves beyond emotion.
The one and only protest would have been to have all students unite at the last minute and do not show up as an audience, which will give her the massage that she is irrelevant and they are not interested, Unfortunately the unity part did not take place and the protest got started.
That mob seemed pretty united to me.
The argument is why she should not be allowed to speak, and given that she is extremely controversial the student attitude won over her.
I understand how pleased that must make you feel. Seeing as you do not support liberalism in any way.
So lets say you are a Muslim, I call you a bunch of bad insulting names denigrate your human dignity and ethnic roots in order to sell my book, how is that fair?
I'm Native, I have been inundated with racial slurs my whole life. I meet them with reasoned rebuttal, not my fist and certainly not by silencing the person uttering them.
I thought on the 21st century we are past the days where blacks would not be allowed to ride with white folks on the bus or air planes.:lol:
It's the 21st century, I thought that the days of McCarthyism were over. But here you are.
Most these "students" are braindead morons who are what Stalin would call "useful idiots". If I ever become a communist or a fascist dictator, I will without a doubt, start recruiting first thing at the universities.
Wise move.
These people really are an embarrassment. What is worse, they represent our intellectual future...
Agreed.
Is that because he refuses to support censorship, violence and fascism?
