|
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Okay, time for me to chime in.....
There is no question that Canada does have the legal authority to stop Mr. Jackson from entering the country. He has been convicted of a fellony offence in the US and therefore we have grounds to bar him from the country. That said, I find it odd that we have never elected to execute this option with regard to Mr. Jackson in the past. This can be explained in a number of ways but the most accurate is likely that the political will was not present in the past. Why the change..... could be the increase in gang related violance, could be the controversy surrounding his movie, could be the looming election, I prefer not to speculate.
While it is clear that we have the right, ability and perhaps the political will this does not mean we should prevent him from entering the country. If the immigration minister chooses to do this it will be censorship and nothing more. We clearly do not have a problem with his criminal past as it has not prompted us to stop him at the boarder numerous other times. The problem is his message, which may or may not be a legitamate complaint, however, his message is not illegal, does not infring upon the rights of Canadians in general, and does not incite hatred. I do not see any legal grounds for him to be censored. The government realizes this, therefore if they want to stiffle him they have to do it another way. This is why they are now looking at his past. I do not support this move, it is an attempt to circumvent the right to expression conscious and thought. If we hold the charter dear to us then we should not support censorship via any legal loophole. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Not that someone has to die, there has to be a demonstrable corolation between the alleged cause and effect. If it cannot be proven that 50 cent (or any such act) causes criminal activity then it is unconstitutional to ban it. This is a legal standard. It is much the same as if I were to claim that mini skirts incite rape and therefore we should ban mini skirts..... because my position cannot be proven no such ban would be legal but if there were emperical evidence to support a causal relationship as I claimed then there may be grounds to ban mini skirts. This is a test that is in place to protect our rights. Personally, I'm just not willing to make the suspension of rights and freedoms an arbitrary thing.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the arguments with regard to 50 and I really do believe that there is a corolation between hip hop and violance. Unfortunately for all those that believe as I do (and you do, I presume) is that we live in a society governed by the rule of law. Our personal feelings are insignifacant in contrast with the law. The court has decided that certain tests must be met prior to limiting charter rights..... this situation does not meet those legal standards. The law must be respected. |
thanks, you saved me the time of composing my own posts 
I couldn't agree more...
I think 50 Cent is a piece of garbage with little to offer other then being "entertaining" to some. He's no role model, he's not causing any positive change in the world, etc. and, if anything, he's perpetuating ridiculous stereotypes of gangsterism and being able to become rich while being an uneducated thug. The American Dream at its finest. There's nothing illegal about any of that though.
|
