Do you really not understand why this barely qualifies as news?
What will the clause say? Non-citizens who don’t agree with the government will be deported?
I so very much love this line. May I borrow it?
No, I think something along the lines of “loudmouth cunts who despise the country that has given them sanctuary shall get their sorry asses deported at our earliest convinience” should about cover it.
I’d be interested in seeing your proposed definitions for “loudmouthed cunts” and “despise the country”. Can a person joke about how much they hate Canada? Would that make them a loudmouthed cunt? What if I complain about how long the mail takes to arrive? Is that despising the country?
Isn’t the ambiguity that starts cropping up when you begin curtailing freedom of speech fun?
Hating Canada? That’s like hating toast! How can have a strong opinion in any direction?
-Jon Stewart
It figures that in any reasonably sized grouping of people there’s be a couple malcontents who hate everything about, well, everything. That’s life. Not seeing the big news story here, but maybe I’m just being a malcontent.
Fucking Canada! Thinks it’s so big. Well that’s just Mercator. MERCATOR! MERCATOR!
Did you call me?
No?
Sorry, it sounded like you did.
Deport them for being criminals after convicting them for any number of offences, such as:
[ul]Public incitement of hatred (already on the books)[/ul]
[ul]Advocating genocide (already on the books)[/ul]
[ul]Instructing a person to carry out a terrorist act or activity (pending law)[/ul]
[ul]Harbouring a terrorist (pending law)[/ul]
[ul]Causing mischief motivated by bias, prejudice or hate (pending law)[/ul]
Lama Pacos, the law in Canada is able to differentiate between making jokes and making bombs, or between complaining about mail delays and urging jihads.
Lama Pacos, there is a very great difference between disagreeing with the government, and promoting the killing of Canadians.
Canada is going head to head against the Taliban:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1703
54º40’ or fight!
Why no, I have absolutely no idea what qualifies as news, even after working in this industry for a decade. No clue at all.
:rolleyes:
It’s not like Canadians care about terrorists in their midst or anything.
As a father, you should know better by now. That call was for your daughter. The one lurking in Canada’s capital! 
Only in the United States is that a big deal.
Again, nobody is suggesting curtailing freedom of speech. Say what you will. I have no problem with these people saying what they like. They can continue saying it even as they’re led onto the plane to take them back to the countries they apparently miss so much. You do not have any right to be here if you’re not a citizen. Whether or not you’re permitted to be here as a non-citizen is a matter of national policy, not civil rights. I think it’s a perfectly reasonable policy position to say that people advocating violence against other Canadians are perhaps not the sort of people who should be permitted to stay.
We do have courts and legal systems in this country. I don’t see it as being all that hard to distinguish between those who criticize the government and those who hate other Canadians and advocate making war on Canada.
:laughing so hard that I’m pissing my pants:
Is this the same law that is theoretically able to distinguish between books about gay and lesbian sex, and obscene pornography?
Matt, there is a very great difference between a blow-job and blowing people up. I am confident that our legal system can tell the one from another.
As you are well aware, the gay bookstore matter dealt with the intertwining of the persecution of gays with the protection of society from obscenity. It was decided that blue laws should apply equally, without specific persecution of gays. I must assume, then, that your concern lies with the impingement of freedom of expression.
Obscenity is determined by a community standard. There is significant diversity of opinion in Canada as to what constitutes obscenity with regard to sexuality. That naturally leads to contentious litigation and even split decisions.
When it comes to blowing people up, the community standard does not apply, and even if it did, there is no significant diversity of opinion in Canada as to whether one should be permitted to blow people up.
I put it to you: should there be any sanction against a person in Canada who counsels others’ to blow-up Canadians, and if so, what should that sanction be and who should weigh the facts to determine if the sanction should apply?
No, my problem is with the continuing harassment of gay and lesbian bookstores by Canada Customs despite the rulings, and the impotence (or unwillingness) of the government and courts to put a stop to it once and for all. Essentially, every time a book of theirs is stopped, Little Sister’s has to go to court to get that shipment, and only that shipment, released. All this because Butler assumed that it was okay to let Canada Customs tell the difference.