|
Liberal MP wants to ban 50 cent from Canada (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| 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. |
|
|
| b4k-oz |
Well guys you are entitled to your opinions.
However, I see things a little different.
I see that Canada has an obligation to protect us from harm or any form of unrest. If an artist or a political activist is seen as an instigator of discord or unrest, then Canada has a right to protect us. If you don't agree with that...then maybe you need to find yourself another country that will support your beliefs ahead of your personal rights and protection. Try the States where Raves are banned and your rights are sensored even more than what they are here. Your welcome to go to any other country that you like to...Canada gives you that freedom. But don't sit there and say that you don't approve of sensorship without taking into consideration your own personal security in the club district.
The End. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| ^Neo nazis deserve freedom of speech too? Even when we know it's harmful to society? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by b4k-oz
Well guys you are entitled to your opinions.
However, Canada has an obligation to protect us from harm or any form of unrest. If an artist or a political activist is seen as an instigator of discord or unrest, then Canada has a right to protect us. If you don't agree with that...then maybe you need to find yourself another country that will support your beliefs ahead of your personal rights and protection. Try the States where Raves are banned and your rights are sensored even more than what they are here. Your welcome to go to any other country that you like to...Canada gives you that freedom. But don't sit there and say that you don't approve of sensorship without taking into consideration the rights of every Canadian.
The End. |
I understand your point and I agree that when one person's freedoms or rights impose on another's freedoms or rights a balance has to be struck and certain freedoms and rights must be limited. I do not feel, however, that this is one of those instances. If a causal relationship between 50cent and criminal activity could be documented then I would support your position. Unfortunately, no such causal relationship has been proven. |
|
|
| b4k-oz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I understand your point and I agree that when one person's freedoms or rights impose on another's freedoms or rights a balance has to be struck and certain freedoms and rights must be limited. I do not feel, however, that this is one of those instances. If a causal relationship between 50cent and criminal activity could be documented then I would support your position. Unfortunately, no such causal relationship has been proven. |
LOL MH..so what your saying is that someone has to die in order for measure to be taken.
Sorry I don't share that same point of view.
Oh well...atleast we can agree to disagree here. Thank god we live in Canada...and we have that right to disagree. |
|
|
| mushyflowa |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
The problem is....this is not just entertainment and music to him...this is a way of life that he is glorifying. |
+1 |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by b4k-oz
LOL MH..so what your saying is that someone has to die in order for measure to be taken.
Sorry I don't share that same point of view.
Oh well...atleast we can agree to disagree here. Thank god we live in Canada...and we have that right to disagree. |
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. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
Ban all of em from society.We dont need more of this ,the damage has been done,we have all seen the effects of these co called artists on kids.It is time to step up and show them that we are against them and it is time to stop to stop them from promoting this garbage into out kids heads.
p.s I think it is time to ban that in BET channel :whip: :whip:
it is filled with bull and it is useless. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
What if someone came up with the idea that posting on tranceaddict is bad for qorker production and therefor costs our whole country X amount of money per year in lost productivity meaning we all pay more taxes? And what if by using this arguement they found a loophole in order to shut down tranceaddict?
Yeah its reaching.... but its the same line of thinking as banning 50 cent. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| 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 :p
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. |
|
|
| magikb |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
What if someone came up with the idea that posting on tranceaddict is bad for qorker production and therefor costs our whole country X amount of money per year in lost productivity meaning we all pay more taxes? And what if by using this arguement they found a loophole in order to shut down tranceaddict?
Yeah its reaching.... but its the same line of thinking as banning 50 cent. |
now now Jay.. lets not go getting all crazy with the banning TA bit ok?? :p |
|
|
| Blue. |
"I don't think people in Toronto or any urban centre need or want to hear Mr. Jackson's message right now,'' McTeague said."
What an idiot, shouldn't we be the judge of that? If he wasn't wanted here then he likely wouldn't have been booked here and they have no problem because no one will pay to see him in which case he likely won't be coming back anytime soon. |
|
|
|
|
