Anti-gay crusader Peter LaBarbera detained in Canada under ‘hate propaganda’ law. Arrested At Canadian College After Refusing To Leave The Campus

  • metta

    Posts: 39143

    Apr 11, 2014 3:13 PM GMT
    Anti-gay crusader Peter LaBarbara detained in Canada under ‘hate propaganda’ law

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/11/anti-gay-crusader-peter-labarbara-detained-in-canada-under-hate-propaganda-law/
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Apr 11, 2014 4:16 PM GMT


    You have to admit, though, that “Canadian Homo-Marxists” has a certain ring to it… Good for another 15 minutes of fame?
  • Kazachok

    Posts: 415

    Apr 11, 2014 5:01 PM GMT
    Um, yeah, Peter LaBarbara should know that in Canada, you cannot cling to "free speech" and "religious freedom" as much as in his home country.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Apr 11, 2014 5:18 PM GMT
    Kazachok saidUm, yeah, Peter LaBarbara should know that in Canada, you cannot cling to "free speech" and "religious freedom" as much as in his home country.


    Canada also denied entry to Fred Phelps at one point, as did the UK.

    How do we get rid of these people if our allies won't take them in? icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2014 5:30 PM GMT
    He is known as “Porno Pete” to pro-equality activists because of his reportedly massive trove of gay male pornography, kept for “research.”
    Research yeah that is why he has that. Probably he has had sex with a lot of men too for his "research".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2014 5:53 PM GMT
    tazzari said
    Kazachok saidUm, yeah, Peter LaBarbara should know that in Canada, you cannot cling to "free speech" and "religious freedom" as much as in his home country.


    Canada also denied entry to Fred Phelps at one point, as did the UK.

    How do we get rid of these people if our allies won't take them in? icon_biggrin.gif


    Our favorite bastions of hate like North Korea and Uganda would be more fitting, and willing, to take d-bags like Phelps, LaBarbara, etc.
  • Kazachok

    Posts: 415

    Apr 11, 2014 7:20 PM GMT
    rsnextdoor saidHe is known as “Porno Pete” to pro-equality activists because of his reportedly massive trove of gay male pornography, kept for “research.”
    Research yeah that is why he has that. Probably he has had sex with a lot of men too for his "research".

    Oh, so that's why he is called Porno Pete. icon_lol.gif
    Curiously, apparently John Baird, our Minister of Foreign Affairs lives in a glass closet.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2014 7:28 PM GMT
    I kinda resent the article calling him a "crusader". There are civil rights crusaders, gay rights crusaders, crusaders for world peace, crusaders for world health issues, but not crusaders to oppose gay rights. That word has a more commendable & respectable connotation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2014 7:33 PM GMT
    Decision has been reversed; Porno Pee was allowed tomake his speech.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Apr 11, 2014 8:17 PM GMT
    rsnextdoor saidHe is known as “Porno Pete” to pro-equality activists because of his reportedly massive trove of gay male pornography, kept for “research.”
    Research yeah that is why he has that. Probably he has had sex with a lot of men too for his "research".


    lol, the idiot probably paid for it too icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2014 11:11 PM GMT
    Too bad, I like the idea of him clapped in irons.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14360

    Apr 11, 2014 11:13 PM GMT
    OtterBox said
    tazzari said
    Kazachok saidUm, yeah, Peter LaBarbara should know that in Canada, you cannot cling to "free speech" and "religious freedom" as much as in his home country.


    Canada also denied entry to Fred Phelps at one point, as did the UK.

    How do we get rid of these people if our allies won't take them in? icon_biggrin.gif


    Our favorite bastions of hate like North Korea and Uganda would be more fitting, and willing, to take d-bags like Phelps, LaBarbara, etc.
    You forgot Russia.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Apr 12, 2014 12:03 AM GMT
    YourName2000 said
    tazzari said
    Kazachok saidUm, yeah, Peter LaBarbara should know that in Canada, you cannot cling to "free speech" and "religious freedom" as much as in his home country.


    Canada also denied entry to Fred Phelps at one point, as did the UK.

    How do we get rid of these people if our allies won't take them in? icon_biggrin.gif

    Yeah, I got some bad news for ya: we're not taking Bieber back either. "You broke it, you bought it." icon_razz.gificon_biggrin.gif


    Time I got back to my ranch in BC! The snow's largely off, but it's still pretty cold, but people are (largely )sane.

    I love Canada, even though you sent us the Biebs.
  • waccamatt

    Posts: 1918

    Apr 12, 2014 2:36 AM GMT
    metta8 saidAnti-gay crusader Peter LaBarbara detained in Canada under ‘hate propaganda’ law

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/11/anti-gay-crusader-peter-labarbara-detained-in-canada-under-hate-propaganda-law/


    I hope they send him to live in an igloo in Nunavut.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 12, 2014 2:44 AM GMT
    "Now I know what it means to be oppressed!"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 12, 2014 2:52 AM GMT
    It's appalling (but not surprising) that you white Liberals cheer the suppression of speech.

    Don't like what someone is saying? Use government coercion to shut them up. Yeah, that's real fucking "progressive."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 12, 2014 3:40 AM GMT
    Jack_NNJ saidIt's appalling (but not surprising) that you white Liberals cheer the suppression of speech.

    Don't like what someone is saying? Use government coercion to shut them up. Yeah, that's real fucking "progressive."


    problem with 100% unrestricted free speech is when you get to "incitement to riot" and similar situations. You can't hide behind freedom of speech to cause trouble for others. Example: US 1st Amendment allows the Klan to speak in public about their "ideals" but they cannot incite the crowd to go and bring harm to others. That worked in the 60s and 70s when we didn't have the internet but now people are able to spread hate far and wide without penalty. Just look at what American "Christian" evangelicals have done in the various African nations that are now enacting and enforcing the various "jail the gays" bills.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 12, 2014 4:04 AM GMT
    Jack_NNJ saidIt's appalling (but not surprising) that you white Liberals cheer the suppression of speech.

    Don't like what someone is saying? Use government coercion to shut them up. Yeah, that's real fucking "progressive."


    I agree, I personally would preach how republicans and conservatives should thrown in gas chambers, or wait, is that not ok? Or can I hide behind 'free speech'?
  • sportsguysd7

    Posts: 65

    Apr 12, 2014 7:10 AM GMT
    While it's good for a chuckle, things like this do more harm than good. Now he gets to play martyr and the Religious Right has 'proof' that they need more 'freedom to discriminate' bills in every deep red state.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 12, 2014 3:25 PM GMT
    I'm no fan of any of these loud-mouthed bigots, but I'll take the American concept of free speech and the right to travel over other countries' anyday. Canada's got its own legacy behind its view of the issue, and I respect it as much as I do any other common law one (even if parts of Canadian law, like this one, incorporate civil law concepts), but in terms of agreeing with it, count me out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 12, 2014 3:43 PM GMT
    Sweetooth said
    Jack_NNJ saidIt's appalling (but not surprising) that you white Liberals cheer the suppression of speech.

    Don't like what someone is saying? Use government coercion to shut them up. Yeah, that's real fucking "progressive."


    I agree, I personally would preach how republicans and conservatives should thrown in gas chambers, or wait, is that not ok? Or can I hide behind 'free speech'?


    Yes, actually you can. The antidote to speech you don't like is more speech, not suppression.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 12, 2014 3:47 PM GMT
    RoadsterRacer87 said
    Jack_NNJ saidIt's appalling (but not surprising) that you white Liberals cheer the suppression of speech.

    Don't like what someone is saying? Use government coercion to shut them up. Yeah, that's real fucking "progressive."


    problem with 100% unrestricted free speech is when you get to "incitement to riot" and similar situations. You can't hide behind freedom of speech to cause trouble for others. Example: US 1st Amendment allows the Klan to speak in public about their "ideals" but they cannot incite the crowd to go and bring harm to others. That worked in the 60s and 70s when we didn't have the internet but now people are able to spread hate far and wide without penalty. Just look at what American "Christian" evangelicals have done in the various African nations that are now enacting and enforcing the various "jail the gays" bills.


    Your "reasoning" is all over the map. "Incitement to riot" is not protected free speech. But only a repressive government can restrict someone's speech because it might lead to "incitement."

    The Internet is of little consequence. Speech is speech. If people "spread hate far and wide" online, someone else can counter that hate far and wide as well.

    As I said, the responses here are appalling. White Liberals again show their true fascist, authoritarian colors.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 12, 2014 7:55 PM GMT
    Jack_NNJ said
    RoadsterRacer87 said
    Jack_NNJ saidIt's appalling (but not surprising) that you white Liberals cheer the suppression of speech.

    Don't like what someone is saying? Use government coercion to shut them up. Yeah, that's real fucking "progressive."


    problem with 100% unrestricted free speech is when you get to "incitement to riot" and similar situations. You can't hide behind freedom of speech to cause trouble for others. Example: US 1st Amendment allows the Klan to speak in public about their "ideals" but they cannot incite the crowd to go and bring harm to others. That worked in the 60s and 70s when we didn't have the internet but now people are able to spread hate far and wide without penalty. Just look at what American "Christian" evangelicals have done in the various African nations that are now enacting and enforcing the various "jail the gays" bills.


    Your "reasoning" is all over the map. "Incitement to riot" is not protected free speech. But only a repressive government can restrict someone's speech because it might lead to "incitement."

    The Internet is of little consequence. Speech is speech. If people "spread hate far and wide" online, someone else can counter that hate far and wide as well.

    As I said, the responses here are appalling. White Liberals again show their true fascist, authoritarian colors.


    Actually, Jacko, the only one being all authoritarian and fascist here is.....you. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 13, 2014 12:20 AM GMT
    meninlove said
    Jack_NNJ said
    RoadsterRacer87 said
    Jack_NNJ saidIt's appalling (but not surprising) that you white Liberals cheer the suppression of speech.

    Don't like what someone is saying? Use government coercion to shut them up. Yeah, that's real fucking "progressive."


    problem with 100% unrestricted free speech is when you get to "incitement to riot" and similar situations. You can't hide behind freedom of speech to cause trouble for others. Example: US 1st Amendment allows the Klan to speak in public about their "ideals" but they cannot incite the crowd to go and bring harm to others. That worked in the 60s and 70s when we didn't have the internet but now people are able to spread hate far and wide without penalty. Just look at what American "Christian" evangelicals have done in the various African nations that are now enacting and enforcing the various "jail the gays" bills.


    Your "reasoning" is all over the map. "Incitement to riot" is not protected free speech. But only a repressive government can restrict someone's speech because it might lead to "incitement."

    The Internet is of little consequence. Speech is speech. If people "spread hate far and wide" online, someone else can counter that hate far and wide as well.

    As I said, the responses here are appalling. White Liberals again show their true fascist, authoritarian colors.


    Actually, Jacko, the only one being all authoritarian and fascist here is.....you. icon_lol.gif


    Example please?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 13, 2014 12:57 AM GMT
    Rule of Law, bitches:



    Why is the rule of law so important? Chapman University School of Law professor Tom W. Bell explains how the rule of law is a critical part of a free and tolerant society. The rule of law means that people are not subject to the arbitrary will of others. It means they can engage in activities that others might disapprove of without fear of persecution. When there is rule of law, people can buy property, plan businesses, and otherwise plan for the future with confidence. As Bell explains, the rule of law provides a necessary framework for civil society. To make his argument, Bell draws from such thinkers as Aristotle, John Locke, Thomas Paine, James Madison and Friederich Hayek.

    [emphasis mine]