1  2  Next

The pub is private property, therefore the owner should be allowed to run the place into the ground by kicking out everyone who criticizes the Bush regime - which is just about everyone on earth.<br /> <br /> Complaining to the BCHRC about a foolish pub owner is about as cowardly as complaining to the CJC about the few posts in this forum that discussed the dastardly deeds of Zionism.<br /> <br /> I would however agree with complaining about false or misleading advertising, because people will walk in with no indication that they are not welcome. What's needed is a big sign on the front door that says "Only neocons and Bush loving idiots allowed".<br />

   

Got a name of that "Public House"?<br /> An Email addy?<br /> does boycot and picketing sound reasonable?<br />

   

thats a good point I think.... I dont think complaining to the BCHRC is cowardly, we can leave it up to them to decide whether its irrelevant, but we should try to help the owner spread out the news that people against Bush is not welcome, maybe at least get her to put up a US flag sticker or something, so people can inquire... I don't think the business should stay open too long. She should make it public so we can let the "free market" decide this one, not just nab chance individuals she happens to overhear and hide her belief and behavior.

   

Sounds Good!<br /> Give 'er

   

"I dont think complaining to the BCHRC is cowardly, we can leave it up to them to decide whether its irrelevant"<br /> <br /> Let's look at the flip-side of this issue. Suppose that the pub owner kicked out supporters of Bush's murderous neocon cabal, would anyone feel the urge to complain to the BCHRC about that?

   

It's called The Heriot Bay Inn on Quadra Island. I encourage everyone to boycott it. <br /> It appears there is nothing in Canadian law to enforce the charter of rights , period. It's just some hollow promises on paper .If a yank feels she can buy a fleabag hotel in Canada and that gives her the right to censor what political comments Canadians can make, there is nothing in Canadian law to stop her, or any other yank who wants to curtail criticizm of the US. Former friend ,and cowardly former BC Attorney General Gablemann didn't even include political discrimination in the BC Human Rights code. They are perfectly free to tell anyone "You support a politcal party we don't support ,so you are not allowed in out bar, restaurant , etc.There legally is nothing anyone can do about it. Illegal actions are our only option for defending freedom of speech in Canada.<br /> Brent<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Diogenes] Got a name of that "Public House"?<br /> An Email addy?<br /> does boycot and picketing sound reasonable?<br /> [/QUOTE]

   

"Illegal actions are our only option for defending freedom of speech in Canada."<br /> <br /> Keep in mind that you cannot defend freedom of speech by using flawed laws that are designed to repress political dissent.<br /> <br /> The best course of action is to boycott the establishment in question. Spread the word.<br />

   

When a son found out that his mother was conned out of her life savings by a televangelist, he programmed his computer to call the televangelist's toll free number every 30 seconds. When it went to court, the judge ruled "When you get a toll free number , you agree to accept all calls at your own expense.Case dismissed." It cost the bible thumper 8 million dollars in phone bills. <br /> The Heriot bay Inn has a toll free number .If you want to express your objections to a yank comming into Canada and telling Canadians what political opinions we are not allowed to express in our own country, you can give them a call( at their expense) at 1-888-605-4545. Call as often as the attitude problem bothers you. Call often and call long.Defend our freedom of speech, and that of future generations.It will cost you nothing but few minutes of your time, several times a day or week. Is your freedom of speech not worth that much?<br /> In the 4 years I've been wearing my T shirt , only 4 or 5 yanks have objected to it. The rest have strongly agreed.<br /> Brent

   

Another opportunity exists: Send an e-mail to [email protected]

   

"In some resides revenge so sweet.<br /> We present to them their deepest fear,<br /> the gleam of light to the dark.<br /> ajust to the yin/yan.<br /> See the complexities Balance them.<br /> What is out of balacnce wobbles"<br /> Dio (C)<br /> <br /> When we speak of rights we must also speak of wrongs and the wrongs are flagrant disregard for our Covenants with God under natural law <br /> <br /> <br /> You gotta lean to the left,<br /> Lean to the right<br /> Come up thru the middle, all right!<br /> <br /> Take some of this.<br /> Take some o’ that.<br /> Come up through the middle,<br /> That’s that.<br /> <br /> <br /> A little freedom, a lot of fuss<br /> Come up through the middle,<br /> Like thus!<br /> Like thus?<br /> OH YA! Come up through the middle <br /> Liken thus<br /> <br /> They gave me E-Rak, an’ the BIS<br /> They gave me ‘Ghanstan., What a mess!<br /> So it’s up through the middle, <br /> Is my guess <br /> Up through the middle <br /> Up through the middle <br /> Up through the middle <br /> Ew Ew<br /> Up through the middle <br /> Up through the middle <br /> Will do!<br /> Lyrics By <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'>avid © <br /> <br /> <br />

   

"When we speak of rights we must also speak of wrongs and the wrongs are flagrant disregard for our Covenants with God under natural law"<br /> <br /> OK, but whose god and whose natural law?

   

with apologies to Thomas Pynchoin <br /> Ifn ya can getz um ta ask the wrong q's ya don gotz ta answer<br /> The god you enquire after is the recognised supreme being all religions speakmof and natural law emerges from that<br /> RG <br /> Amigo,<br /> I believe I get your drift with the the Q <br /> but also within the question is not the devils advocate but the question asked by those either ill informed (you are not) or those desiring esoteric argument<br /> http://lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-101.htm I am speaking here of that which preceeds Brithish Common Law and the Laws to which Canada applies instead<br /> <br /> <br />

   

"OK, but whose god and whose natural law?"<br /> <br /> I think you understood my question, and thanks for the reply. Many people do not subscribe to a capital "G" god and as a result will write off the concept of "natural law" as being a component of the usual religious fanaticism. I did manage to work my way around the religious component to get to the meat of the concept, which I found agreeable, but the rest was just needlessly the way of my progress.<br />

   

Lonang is a gimongous site fine the introduction and start there <br /> The question of whether or not one does or does not subscribe has no bearing on Brithish Common Law<br /> If one is to find their ass slamed into the usurpt law courts where man's law now resides over the Bible we are to swear upon they will find a firm footing in Natural law to trup and trick the tricksters. <br /> As I have been harping on one of the basic precips (Maxums} of law is <br /> <br /> [juris ignorantia est cum jus nostrum ignoramus] <br /> it is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights.<br /> <br /> What I am calling for is for us to come out of ignorance<br />

   

While based on my experience with 'pubs', I'm not sure how the owner could know what others were talking about, or for that matter how the 'others' could know what they're talking about after a few rounds, I say let the 'invisible hand' decide.<br /> <br /> I'd bet that in the end livelihood will win out over a political viewpoint.

   

1  2  Next