Blogging Tory co-founder Captain Canada Stephen "I'm all about the democracy, law and order and free speech!" Taylor temporarily stuffs his ethics and principles into his sock drawer in order to smear Amy Goodman:
Amy Goodman sort of inadmissible to Canada?
... I contacted a spokeswoman for CBSA and they explained that while they cannot comment on specific cases, “all persons seeking entry into Canada must meet all requirements” set out by the CBSA. Applicants for entry must not have a record of criminality, for example.
Really, Steve? Is that the new standard for denial? A nebulous, ill-defined "record of criminality" which makes someone "sort of" inadmissible? Let's keep reading:
I’d wondered if Amy Goodman had ever been arrested since I’ve known her to be something of an activist on issues. A quick Google search revealed that she had been arrested at the Republican National Convention in 2008 for “conspiracy to riot”.
Steve has a point. Oh, wait, he doesn't:
The charges were eventually dropped against Goodman as the St. Paul City Attorney’s office refused to prosecute.
But an actual lack of criminal conviction is just an annoying detail for Law-and-Order Boy:
However, it is unclear as to whether charges without conviction is enough to create a “lookout” in the CBSA database. The CBSA spokeswoman also told me that criminality is certainly a red flag when it comes to determining a person’s fitness for admissibility.
Given the unprecedented security that is being put in place for the 2010 games, a less than perfect history with law enforcement may have given agents more pause when considering Goodman.
"Criminality": What a delightfully fungible word, right, Steve? Hey, I know -- Ann Coulter was never actually, you know, convicted of anything, but she did suggest murdering a Justice of the U.S Supreme Court. Would that count? And I've never heard Stephen object to the occasional visit of serial criminal George W. Bush.
Stephen Taylor: A man of principles. And if you don't like his principles, well, he's got others.
P.S. You do have to be amused by someone who is completely indifferent to potential Geneva Conventions war crimes being committed by his beloved Stephen Harper Party of Canada being terribly, terribly concerned about the temporary and unjustified detention of a reporter at a political convention in another country.
If the cognitive dissonance were any worse, I swear it would cause some of Stephen's internal organs to just start shutting down.
AFTERSNARK: Just for fun, let's re-examine that earlier passage from Captain Canada:
I contacted a spokeswoman for CBSA and they explained that while they cannot comment on specific cases, “all persons seeking entry into Canada must meet all requirements” set out by the CBSA. Applicants for entry must not have a record of criminality, for example.
Really, Stephen? They must meet all requirements? They must not have a "record of criminality?" This would seem to be an open-and-shut case, wouldn't it, Steve?
Either Goodman had a "record of criminality," whereupon she should have immediately been sent packing. Or she didn't have such a record. By your own words, Steve, and based on what you claim the CBSA told you, the fact that they (finally) allowed Goodman entry means that she could not possibly have had a "record of criminality." Your words, Steve -- your position.
And yet, Steve, you seem perfectly fine with a prominent journalist being detained at the border based on what you openly admit could not possibly have been a valid reason. See, Steve, that's what happens when you try to use logic and reason when you're just not used to it. Bad things happen.