Cherry once bubbled...
Ive never been to the beaver club but I would bet there is a waiter or Maitre'd seating you so the door is controlled and I wouldn't be suprised if somewhere near the entrance is a sign or other notice that speaks to the managements right to refuse service. All point to a privately controlled site. but then the phrase "public accomadation" is referenced from your law not ours I believe. Helll alot of Canadians think the RCMP have to Mirandize folks they dont tho. thats what growing up under 'merican TV does for us
I think that last statement is at the heart of the matter you can't create a Democracy. It didnt work any time in the past that the US has tried to do it. they have to be born. some times it takes a bloody war like the American revolution. sometimes it is a political birth like the British North America Act and it take 100 years. You cant "create" countries. Iraq, Iran,Saudi, Palistine,Jordan all created by forgien powers and still a mess.
Cherry
I'm fairly certain that you have a cognate under Canadian law that protects people from certain types of discrimination. Alternatively, wouldn't the Maitre'd be able to refuse service because, for example, they are a francophone or because they are in a wheelchair?
I'm also not convinced about the free speech aspects of your claim. I would be very interested in seeing some reported cases on the issue.
We have never tried to create a democracy. We have tried to create representative governments. Sometimes we've had more success than others. However, in the present case, we are not creating a new country. We are removing a repressive regime bent on terrorism and installing the framework for the Iraqi people to elect a new government of their own choosing. Certainly there will be safeguards to prevent a return of the terrorists, but is that anything more than we did to Germany and Japan after WWII?
It wouldn't entirely surprise me if private property owners in Canada were forced to endure more than we are in the States. Perhaps there would have been a different outcome if this had happened in Ottawa, perhaps not. The fact remains that the mall owner acted within its rights under the laws of the United States.
Your statement about the RCMP sums it up nicely. There are differences between our respective countries' laws. I could make an argument that failing to inform an accused of his/her rights at the time of arrest is barbaric and it would have as much credence as your claim that our rights are eroding because a person was denied what might possibly be a right conferred under Canadian law.
I'm still not convinced that we have all of this story. On a practical level, I find it very difficult to believe that the perp wasn't doing something else when he was told to leave.
Netdoc:
With all due respect, your dialogue is pure supposition. But even if it weren't, is there something wrong with that?
The First Amendment guarantee people the right to express themselves free of interference from the Government. The mall is not the Government and is absolutely free to do what it did.
The alternative is for the rights of a business invitee to override the rights of the property owner.
