Nut job Terry Jones denied at Canadian border

PJ_Soul

Terry Jones stopped and interrogated when trying to enter Canada, and turned away. Terry Jones and crazy friends now worried for Canada. :roll:

http://www.windsorstar.com/Customs+deni ... story.html

My first and only reaction to this new is 'good!!!! We don't want you coming here and starting shit!' Finally, Canadian customs actually does something right. I guess this asshole will have to continue being concerned for our rights, while we enjoy not having having his sorry ass around trying to disturb the peace and pissing everybody off (someone has a known record for doing just that on a criminal level, not to mention a known capability of agitating terrorist groups, and customs has every reason not to let him in.

Hairy Dane

Yeah those Monty Python members can wreck havoc whereever they go.

PJ_Soul

Hairy Dane wrote:

Yeah those Monty Python members can wreck havoc whereever they go.

That is an unfortunate same-name situation.

polaris_x

i dunno ... part of me thinks we should let him in ... it works both ways ... immigration has also denied visas to peace activists or anti-war folks in the past ...

gimmesometruth27

guess we are stuck with him :(

PJ_Soul

polaris_x wrote:

i dunno ... part of me thinks we should let him in ... it works both ways ... immigration has also denied visas to peace activists or anti-war folks in the past ...

Meh. I get the thinking, but I think they have way more tangible and justifiable reasons to keep this guy out of the country. He does have a record for disturbing the peace, plus is a borderline hate propaganda specialist. Nothing wrong with going on a case-by-case basis at the border. What's good for one is NOT good for all when it comes to who to let through IMO, and fortunately, border patrol doesn't operate like that. They tend to evaluate individual situations on their own merit (and are often stupid and wrong in their decisions. I just think that in this case, they are totally right). Fuck that guy. I don't want him here. You know his purpose in coming is to stir up trouble and preach hate.

PJ_Soul

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

guess we are stuck with him :(

:(

polaris_x

PJ_Soul wrote:

Meh. I get the thinking, but I think they have way more tangible and justifiable reasons to keep this guy out of the country. He does have a record for disturbing the peace, plus is a borderline hate propaganda specialist. Nothing wrong with going on a case-by-case basis at the border. What's good for one is NOT good for all when it comes to who to let through IMO, and fortunately, border patrol doesn't operate like that. They tend to evaluate individual situations on their own merit (and are often stupid and wrong in their decisions. I just think that in this case, they are totally right). Fuck that guy. I don't want him here. You know his purpose in coming is to stir up trouble and preach hate.

but that's how they portray the peace activists and anti warm speakers ... they point to the rallies that these people have attended and all of sudden they are a security risk ...

i have no interest in listening to this guy either but to me - you don't become a functioning democracy by shielding people from the hate ...

cincybearcat

Proper border control does work!!! Nicely one Canada!

Cosmo

Hairy Dane wrote:

Yeah those Monty Python members can wreck havoc whereever they go.

...
...
Amen.

PJ_Soul

polaris_x wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Meh. I get the thinking, but I think they have way more tangible and justifiable reasons to keep this guy out of the country. He does have a record for disturbing the peace, plus is a borderline hate propaganda specialist. Nothing wrong with going on a case-by-case basis at the border. What's good for one is NOT good for all when it comes to who to let through IMO, and fortunately, border patrol doesn't operate like that. They tend to evaluate individual situations on their own merit (and are often stupid and wrong in their decisions. I just think that in this case, they are totally right). Fuck that guy. I don't want him here. You know his purpose in coming is to stir up trouble and preach hate.

but that's how they portray the peace activists and anti warm speakers ... they point to the rallies that these people have attended and all of sudden they are a security risk ...

i have no interest in listening to this guy either but to me - you don't become a functioning democracy by shielding people from the hate ...

I am quite sure that plenty of peace activist DO get past the border though... This guy is a special case in my opinion, and I support not letting "special cases" into the country. Also, keeping people from getting into Canada isn't the same and what goes on within Canada. Two separate issues. The functioning of our democracy does not hinge on non-Canadians who want to get into the country. It hinges on what CANADIANS can do within the country. I don't think that letting hate-speech activists into the country, who aren't citizens, has an impact on Canadians' freedom of speech. And again, the guy has a criminal record for disturbing the peace... I don't think border customs should just be waving people with criminal records (especially ones connected to hate-speech) right on through. I don't think that "peace" activists who have criminal records for disturbing the peace should be waved on through either... those are often the types with the balaclavas who start riots during peaceful demonstrations.

polaris_x

http://agonist.org/u_s_peace_activists_ ... to_canada/

PJ_Soul

polaris_x wrote:

http://agonist.org/u_s_peace_activists_denied_entry_into_canada/

Uh huh... criminal records, profile with FBI. It's not the Canadian border custom's officer's faults that there were possibly some cops in the US who wrongfully charged them. All they know is that they were arrested during protests; the assumption has to be, for the sake of security, that they were rightfully charged and that they posed a potential threat to the peace. I for one don't want border guards letting Americans with FBI profiles into the country!!!! It is not their job to gauge whether or not those people OUGHT to be on that list. They aren't judges or politicians. For every person who PERHAPS shouldn't be on that list (I don't know if that's the case with those protestors at all; I don't trust them just because they are so-called peaceful protestors - lots of those folks aren't actually peaceful at all), there are 10 people who SHOULD be on it.

polaris_x

PJ_Soul wrote:

Uh huh... criminal records, profile with FBI. It's not the Canadian border custom's officer's faults that there were possibly some cops in the US who wrongfully charged them. All they know is that they were arrested during protests; the assumption has to be, for the sake of security, that they were rightfully charged and that they posed a potential threat to the peace. I for one don't want border guards letting Americans with FBI profiles into the country!!!! It is not their job to gauge whether or not those people OUGHT to be on that list. They aren't judges or politicians. For every person who PERHAPS shouldn't be on that list (I don't know if that's the case with those protestors at all; I don't trust them just because they are so-called peaceful protestors - lots of those folks aren't actually peaceful at all), there are 10 people who SHOULD be on it.

but you just said they should go on a case by case basis at the border

PJ_Soul

polaris_x wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Uh huh... criminal records, profile with FBI. It's not the Canadian border custom's officer's faults that there were possibly some cops in the US who wrongfully charged them. All they know is that they were arrested during protests; the assumption has to be, for the sake of security, that they were rightfully charged and that they posed a potential threat to the peace. I for one don't want border guards letting Americans with FBI profiles into the country!!!! It is not their job to gauge whether or not those people OUGHT to be on that list. They aren't judges or politicians. For every person who PERHAPS shouldn't be on that list (I don't know if that's the case with those protestors at all; I don't trust them just because they are so-called peaceful protestors - lots of those folks aren't actually peaceful at all), there are 10 people who SHOULD be on it.

but you just said they should go on a case by case basis at the border

By that I meant that they shouldn't be using blanket principles, i.e. this person has a subversive voice and therefore we won't let them in. I don't mean that they should do extensive research and look into whether or not people should or shouldn't be on a list given to them by the FBI! No one on a "red flag list" should be let in, ever! And no one who is known for starting weeks long racially motivated riots and propagating hate and has a criminal record for disturbing the peace should be let in either.

polaris_x

PJ_Soul wrote:

By that I meant that they shouldn't be using blanket principles, i.e. this person has a subversive voice and therefore we won't let them in. I don't mean that they should do extensive research and look into whether or not people should or shouldn't be on a list given to them by the FBI! No one on a "red flag list" should be let in, ever! And no one who is known for starting weeks long racially motivated riots and propagating hate and has a criminal record for disturbing the peace should be let in either.

but they are using blanket principles if they are based on a list ... especially a list that is based on someone getting arrested at a peaceful sit in ...

either way - i still believe that freedom of speech has to include hearing things from people you absolutely disdain ... because if its left up to our ow personal ideologies - it can end up being harmful via censorship based on political leanings ... which is what we've seen from harper ...

PJ_Soul

polaris_x wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

By that I meant that they shouldn't be using blanket principles, i.e. this person has a subversive voice and therefore we won't let them in. I don't mean that they should do extensive research and look into whether or not people should or shouldn't be on a list given to them by the FBI! No one on a "red flag list" should be let in, ever! And no one who is known for starting weeks long racially motivated riots and propagating hate and has a criminal record for disturbing the peace should be let in either.

but they are using blanket principles if they are based on a list ... especially a list that is based on someone getting arrested at a peaceful sit in ...

either way - i still believe that freedom of speech has to include hearing things from people you absolutely disdain ... because if its left up to our ow personal ideologies - it can end up being harmful via censorship based on political leanings ... which is what we've seen from harper ...

I don't think that excluding people on an FBI list is using blanket principles at all... or in any case, that's not what I meant by the term (and this peaceful sit in thing is only what they said... and remember, the border guards don't have access to some article from a local newspaper, nor a way to see if the story the protestors are telling is true. And it is probably best in the long run if customs trusts law enforcement before they trust some random news article full of testimony from the accused, right?).

I agree with what you say about freedom of speech, but I don't believe that it should be applied to border customs for non-citizens. Trouble-makers from other countries who tend to start riots and spread hate? No thanks. Whole other story if you're talking about Canadians or people already within Canada. I mean, someone caught with a joint in Canada isn't going to get in shit... does that mean the border is expected to let someone with weed through? No. Or with too much alcohol. Or with a legal firearm. Or with twenty boxes of Claritin.

polaris_x

PJ_Soul wrote:

I don't think that excluding people on an FBI list is using blanket principles at all... or in any case, that's not what I meant by the term (and this peaceful sit in thing is only what they said... and remember, the border guards don't have access to some article from a local newspaper, nor a way to see if the story the protestors are telling is true. And it is probably best in the long run if customs trusts law enforcement before they trust some random news article full of testimony from the accused, right?).

I agree with what you say about freedom of speech, but I don't believe that it should be applied to border customs for non-citizens. Trouble-makers from other countries who tend to start riots and spread hate? No thanks. Whole other story if you're talking about Canadians or people already within Canada. I mean, someone caught with a joint in Canada isn't going to get in shit... does that mean the border is expected to let someone with weed through? No. Or with too much alcohol. Or with a legal firearm. Or with twenty boxes of Claritin.

i agree - it is too much for a border agent to have to sort through and I suppose ultimately if one has a record - they should be applying for a visit with immigration canada as opposed to just showing up at a border ... but then, it basically allows the political ideologies of our current minister (kenney) to decide ...

Byrnzie

PJ_Soul wrote:

Terry Jones stopped and interrogated when trying to enter Canada, and turned away. Terry Jones and crazy friends now worried for Canada. :roll:

http://www.windsorstar.com/Customs+deni ... story.html

My first and only reaction to this new is 'good!!!! We don't want you coming here and starting shit!' Finally, Canadian customs actually does something right. I guess this asshole will have to continue being concerned for our rights, while we enjoy not having having his sorry ass around trying to disturb the peace and pissing everybody off (someone has a known record for doing just that on a criminal level, not to mention a known capability of agitating terrorist groups, and customs has every reason not to let him in.

I believe in freedom of speech, for everyone, including dickheads like Terry Jones.

As for him 'disturbing the peace on a criminal level', what were the circumstances of that? Who's 'peace' did he disturb?

PJ_Soul

Byrnzie wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Terry Jones stopped and interrogated when trying to enter Canada, and turned away. Terry Jones and crazy friends now worried for Canada. :roll:

http://www.windsorstar.com/Customs+deni ... story.html

My first and only reaction to this new is 'good!!!! We don't want you coming here and starting shit!' Finally, Canadian customs actually does something right. I guess this asshole will have to continue being concerned for our rights, while we enjoy not having having his sorry ass around trying to disturb the peace and pissing everybody off (someone has a known record for doing just that on a criminal level, not to mention a known capability of agitating terrorist groups, and customs has every reason not to let him in.

I believe in freedom of speech, for everyone, including dickheads like Terry Jones.

As for him 'disturbing the peace on a criminal level', what were the circumstances of that? Who's 'peace' did he disturb?

I believe in freedom of speech too. I don't believe in border guards allowing fuck heads with criminal records into my country to stir up shit and spread racist hate. Again, freedom of speech is not something border guards should be considering when stopping people with criminal records with an obvious risk of recommitting alfron crossing the border.
I don't know the details of the charges... I don't see how it's relevant to the situation. Customs needs to look at the person's record and their likelihood of reoffending in the country they're protecting, and not at whether or not there is done underlying political motivation on the part of law enforcement in another country.

Byrnzie

PJ_Soul wrote:

I believe in freedom of speech too. I don't believe in border guards allowing fuck heads with criminal records into my country to stir up shit and spread racist hate. Again, freedom of speech is not something border guards should be considering when stopping people with criminal records with an obvious risk of recommitting alfron crossing the border.

What racist hate? Or is this something else about which you don't know the details?

PJ_Soul wrote:

I don't know the details of the charges... I don't see how it's relevant to the situation. Customs needs to look at the person's record and their likelihood of reoffending in the country they're protecting, and not at whether or not there is done underlying political motivation on the part of law enforcement in another country.

You don't see how the details of the charges against him relating to disturbing the peace are relevant to the claim that he shouldn't be allowed into Canada because he was previously accused of disturbing the peace?

PJ_Soul

Byrnzie wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

I believe in freedom of speech too. I don't believe in border guards allowing fuck heads with criminal records into my country to stir up shit and spread racist hate. Again, freedom of speech is not something border guards should be considering when stopping people with criminal records with an obvious risk of recommitting alfron crossing the border.

What racist hate? Or is this something else about which you don't know the details?

PJ_Soul wrote:

I don't know the details of the charges... I don't see how it's relevant to the situation. Customs needs to look at the person's record and their likelihood of reoffending in the country they're protecting, and not at whether or not there is done underlying political motivation on the part of law enforcement in another country.

You don't see how the details of the charges against him relating to disturbing the peace are relevant to the claim that he shouldn't be allowed into Canada because he was previously accused of disturbing the peace?

Not as far as the Canadian customs officers making the call at the time are concerned.

Byrnzie

PJ_Soul wrote:

Not as far as the Canadian customs officers making the call at the time are concerned.

And whether the pigs were right or wrong, and possibly acting to silence someone for his political beliefs, is irrelevant, right?

PJ_Soul

Byrnzie wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Not as far as the Canadian customs officers making the call at the time are concerned.

And whether the pigs were right or wrong, and possibly acting to silence someone for his political beliefs, is irrelevant, right?

For the customs officers at the time?? Yes, of course! What are they supposed to do?? Hold the person in question while they carry out a new trial??

lukin2006

Does he have a criminal record? If he does anywhere he will not be let in...as for the custom officers I doubt they care what his views are...something must have shown up on the computer that alerted them to do a secondary inspection...but if has a criminal record he will have a tough time getting in...

dignin

According to the article OP posted he has no criminal record

"The CBSA's questioning included references to the group's past run-ins with the law - such as breach of peace charges related to a protest last year in Dearborn, Mich. The charges were eventually dropped."

He is a piece of shit but I have no problem letting him cross our border, this does look like a case of censorship.

lukin2006

I have no problem keeping him out if it could have potentially cost taxpayers extra money for police to secure where he was speaking. If who was having him here top speak was willing too pay for police and cover any extra cost to the taxpayer associated with him speaking ... then by all means let him speak.

But for now I'll just have to go with the CBSA judgement on this one.

PJ_Soul

dignin wrote:

According to the article OP posted he has no criminal record

"The CBSA's questioning included references to the group's past run-ins with the law - such as breach of peace charges related to a protest last year in Dearborn, Mich. The charges were eventually dropped."

He is a piece of shit but I have no problem letting him cross our border, this does look like a case of censorship.

You're right, my bad... but no way he's not on the FBI red flag list at least, and is clearly watched closely by his own government and law enforcement. There is no way customs is sitting there conversing about the merits or black thereof of what this guy has said and then determines to censor him by not letting him in. The guy is a danger to the peace, and it is not custom's job to uphold freedom of speech. At all. It's to make the most conservative decisions possible in order to ensure the safety of its citizens and government. It's not a round table for discussing the Charter of Rights as it applies to NON-citizens who aren't even within the country where it applies.

mickeyrat

its not fair. First you inflict Celine Dion on us. THEN Nickelback. then Justin Beiber. you OWE us.

PJ_Soul

mickeyrat wrote:

its not fair. First you inflict Celine Dion on us. THEN Nickelback. then Justin Beiber. you OWE us.

Yeah, but we also gave you Ryan Gossling, Wayne Gretzky, and Neil Young, so we're square.

mickeyrat

PJ_Soul wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

its not fair. First you inflict Celine Dion on us. THEN Nickelback. then Justin Beiber. you OWE us.

Yeah, but we also gave you Ryan Gossling, Wayne Gretzky, and Neil Young, so we're square.

And Rush . Cant forget about Rush.