No surprise there... two dropped charges, denied on arrest record.
Controversial U.S. pastor Terry Jones denied entry into Canada - thestar.com
Controversial U.S. pastor Terry Jones denied entry into Canada - thestar.com
Controversial U.S. pastor Terry Jones denied entry into Canada
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
The German crime wasn't dropped. Using credentials improperly in Germany is considered to be a form of fraud. Given that I can order a doctorate from a fly-by-night website, this makes a certain amount of sense.
When you have an arrest record, you really should try to arrange a tourist visa ahead of time.
According to the news on the way home, it was what we would call a summary offence, and it was dropped.
I'm not sure what Canada's laws are on the use of the title "Doctor" re: honourary degrees. I've known only one beneficiary of an honourary degree, who used the title on his business cards.
For CBSA's position to hold true, it would have to be an indictable offence in Canada.
Last edited:
The politically correct definition of free speech is speech that they approve of, and they will go to any means to stifle their opponents as was seen when Ann Coulter was invited to speak....
Dhimmwits were quick to learn from that experience .....
Dhimmwits were quick to learn from that experience .....
Well I'm glad that the opposition has come out against the Conservative Party's attempts to pass a bill that will allow the immigration minister to deny entry to people for uncomfortable speech. I usually see the liberals supporting the suppressing of extremist speech and the conservatives defending free speech. It's odd to see the reversal, but good being a liberal and all.
Maybe I'm just highly, highly cynical but this is, to me, all just a part of the big PR game. What gets more press for him (or for anyone else denied entry) being denied access at the border or having to go through with a debate? Actually what I should say is, what is the easiest press?
I won't lose any sleep over it, could care less to hear what he has to say, I think he's a tool. But it's so contrived on both sides of the coin, making big drama even bigger drama.
I guess it is cynicism.
I won't lose any sleep over it, could care less to hear what he has to say, I think he's a tool. But it's so contrived on both sides of the coin, making big drama even bigger drama.
I guess it is cynicism.
That's the funny thing about free speech. You can say whatever you want but you can't force people to listen. When the media whips up the controversy over inflammatory speech, they are taking words which would normally be ignored and disseminating them, making it easier for people to hear the hate speech they're questioning should be said. They're creating the news, which isn't what the media should do but sure as hell makes them tons of money.
Don't misunderstand me, he has the right to his views, however moronic I may think they are. And he should have a right to speak freely, I think everyone should.
But both sides of this "issue" (or any other issue for that matter) play this great big drama game, and frankly I'm sick to death of it.
Nope, I'm all for it.
We should be able to deny entry for non-Canadians for any reason, on a whim, or for no reason at all.
This is our house, and we need not let anyone in if we don't feel like it.
I just wish we would stop letting in families with the women all dressed up in their own personal tents.
Free speech and the right to enter or stay in Canada are two very different things.
I think you should be able to say whatever you wish, especially when it comes to commentary on religious, political, or cultural issues.
But I don't have to let you into my house to say it.
Obviously we shouldn't let just anyone in the country. We could do it randomly or for no reason as you suggest, but it might be a good idea to establish criteria. Wouldn't you agree that denying entry to someone because they have known connections to terrorism is better than denying someone entry because they applied on a Tuesday? It seems a bit ridiculous to both have rational reasons and irrational reasons to deny people. The irrational would negate the rational. If you're worried about too many people, a simple criteria like a quota on top of screening people would suffice.
And if we do want rational reasons to deny people entry, wouldn't we want these reasons to reflect our values? Terry Jones is coming to Canada to debate whether one value system is compatible with ours. Sounds like it fits our values perfectly! A free debate on our values. I'd say that's the foundation of Western values.
I don't think my post reads as if I'm saying we have to let people into the country to express their opinions or that I'm conflating free speech and entering the country.
Denying entry to the book burning preacher has nothing to do with Bill C-43... But those happy with this occurrence will be the first ones to cry foul if entry into Canada is ever denies to one of their own activists...
It sounds like he was harassed by Border Services as well as denied entry. I'm sure it had nothing to do with his notoriety (sarcasm alert). The Islamaphobic Pastor had no criminal record of substance, no drugs, no weapons... just a big mouth. He should have been let into Canada.
........