And this how is this bias against gays related to the problem of the promotion of bombings, other than a general distrust of government by you?
Again, 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?
You already did that by coming into the country. If you wanna renege, out you go, and may the door bruise your ass clear to the pelvis on the way out.
The general distrust is quite enough to make me queasy.
Fair enough. But that still leads to the questions: “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?”
There’s a joke to be made here with a ‘government knowing its ass from a hole in the ground’ theme, but I don’t know what it is.
In any case I think it’s fair not to trust a government on an issue like this. Given the chance, I’d say any government will interpret the law in a way that expands its powers in ways that were not originally intended. The harassment of a gay bookstore does sound like a perfect example of that idea in action.
That’s all well and fine, but “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?”
What the hell does this have to do with the OP?
I mean, seriously. There’s two avenues of discussion here, really; one, being angry at people who hate other people for their religion and ethnicity; and the sideline about what the legal bar should be for deporting non-citizens who espouse hatred. Just what the flying Christ does your post have to do with either? Because you “Generally distrust” government? That’s not relevant to avenue 1, and avenue 2 has zippo to do with gay porn.
It could be relevant if laws were to be enforced such that there was persecution of a minority while protecting the majority (which is essentially what was prohibited by the court in the gay bokstore matter). I recognize the potential for minority persecution, but by the same token, I recognize the potential to be blown up by persons who are part – an exceedingly small part – of a particular minority. That’s why I keep pressing for a practical response from Matt.
What minority is being criticized by the OP apart from the minority of Canadians who want to murder other Canadians? I’m afraid I must admit that I, for one, am prejudiced against people who espouse murder.
I agree entirely. However, as you are aware, the terrorists are an extremelyl small part of the Muslim community which is a small minority in Canada, so any action taken to protect people from the terrorists must be directed at terrorists specifically, rather than at Muslims generally. I believe our legal system is up to the task. Matt appears to disagree.
Given the fact that the worst terrorist attack in Canadian history was perpetrated by Sikhs, not Islamists, I’d suggest to Matt that Canada’s anti-terrorism activities would certainly not be well served by concentrating entirely on Muslims. One must also be mindful of the Timothy McVeigh types.
Surely anyone would agree that a soverign nation has to at least try to do something about people who advocate the murder of other Canadians. You may not be entirely trustful of government - I’m not - but we do need one, and one of their more important jobs is stopping murder. I don’t support violation civil rights to get that job done, but the folks cited in the OP are making it pretty easy to identify the likely candidates without having to overstep the bounds of government limitations.
You keep asking that as if you expect an answer.
Good point. These women are extremists, their husbands, friends and family are extremists. They are the wives of accused terrorists and they have nothing to gain anymore by keepng silent. So why get outraged when they air their extremist viewpoints? You don’t really think that when hubby comes home and spews his hatred of all things Western, his wife will pat him on the head and say" “Now now, they aren’t all bad, I had a really nice conversation with that nice girl at the baker’s today”.
IMHO, extremists are entitled to free speech like anyone else. But yes, given the history on Islamic extremists, I’’ be glad to see some of my tax-money going into keeping a close watch on women like these to make sure they don’t commit any crimes.
The real question is what the point of this article is. So far, it seems to inspire a fairly emotional and broad-brushed “Canada, love it or leave it” attitude.
And like anyone else, their free speech does not encompass counseling violence.
More specifically, without getting into any of the pending anti-terrorism laws, under the good old Criminal Code of Canada, a person must not counsel another to commit a crime, even if that other person does not commit the crime (http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/267743.html#Section-464), and a person must not conspire with another a person where that person then commits a crime (http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/267743.html#Section-465).
A person must not commit the crimes of high treason or treason (http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/267062.html#Section-46).
A person must not commit the crime of advocating genocide (http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/267514.html#Section-318), or to the crime of public incitement of hatred (http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/267514.html#Section-319).
Our constitutionally protected freedom of expression does not protect a person who commits these crimes, even if part or all of the criminality was in the expresssion.
And guess what the existing law is for people who come to our country and commit serious criminality? They get the boot out the door (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/I-2.5/245785.html#Section-36).
Quite simply, freedom of expression ends where couselling violence begins.
And they aren’t citizens. I’m all for putting limits on the rights of, and deporting at the drop of a hat, anyone who gets a step out of line who isn’t a citizen. That can be one of the requirements of citizenship: the ability to keep your mouth shut and your nose clean for the time it takes to become a naturalized cit. You want to bitch about the country? Become a citizen, and bitch your black little heart out. Here as an alien? Shut the fuck up.
Matt’s point, if I may speak for him, is not that there should be any sanction of illegal acts, but that it is not wise to allow any person or persons the ability to rule by fiat, which is what your ‘everyone out’ arguments sound like. You guys have made the point that Canadian law is up the task of determining whether the women’s statements were illegal and meting out the appropriate punishement. Why not move beyond the simplistic to a more useful stand such as “when non-citizens use language that appears to advocate terrorism, mayhem, or wearing white in late autumn, an appropriate investigation will be conducted, a trial, if appropriate, will be convened, and sentence passed, if warranted; whereafter said non-citizen, after serving their time, will be tossed out of the country”. It doesn’t roll off the tongue, I know, but it gets the result you are after and gives a nod the to foundations of the free society you enjoy. More importantly, it strengthens freedom.
CJ
To be precise, Matt knows from his community’s unfortunate experiences that it is well to entertain a certain healthy skepticism in this regard.
I don’t resent those who exercise their First Amendment Rights in criticizing policy (this law is preposterous, unfair, or has consequences it’s authors haven’t considered, etc.) or in criticizing politicians (this guy is a jerk, corrupt, etc.). No, no, that shows political engagement; I don’t mind if they indulge their newfound freedom. As Albert Camus said, “Liberty is the right not to lie.” That’s good, even if they’re wrong about their opinions. It must be emotionally intoxicating to be able to shoot your mouth off for the first time, without a lot of tense throat-clearing or worries about the secret police.
My enmity is reserved for those who insult the soul of my country. What I mean by the soul of the country is the very philosophy that it was founded on, and by extension the very philosophy it revolves around today. Laws, minds, and politicians change, but the soul is forever.