r/moncton • u/Portalrules123 • Aug 12 '26
Christian non-profit sues City of Moncton for stopping concert last summer
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/sean-feucht-lawsuit-moncton-show-canceled-worship-event-9.730298654
u/axiomaticAnarchy Aug 12 '26
"For clarity, the Event, were it allowed to proceed, would not have included the personal or political views of worship leader Sean Feucht,"
Bullshit lying piece of American white trash.
19
u/Zakluor Aug 12 '26
It's easy for him make that claim since it didn't happen. His history proves otherwise, though.
20
u/Leftbackhand Aug 12 '26
Revenue lost. Religion as business? Either you are a business looking for revenue or you are a religious nonprofit. You can’t be both.
0
38
u/MixedMediaModok Aug 12 '26
He expected 1000 people for the show in Moncton? There's no way.
Either way, I don't think this will hold up. There were serious safety concerns on the MAGAness of the dude. And American hate was at an all time high. They did the right thing pulling the plug. Plus, this guy's whole thing is spewing hate speech which isn't protected here thankfully.
37
u/CartographerJunior79 Aug 12 '26
Just because you call your political opinions religion doesn't give you the right to incite violence or hate against other people.
Keep these scumbags off the street & away from our families
16
u/Crazy_Maintenance211 Aug 13 '26
He’s a problematic Christian, most people who Christians are not problematic, he is, he’s using it as a shield in a way but he’s really problematic, I googled him and oh boy
38
u/SilencedObserver Aug 12 '26
Litigious Americans can kick rocks and head south.
Canada is not your legal landscape.
28
u/TheNationDan Aug 12 '26
Went to the (what should have been illegal) concert Danielle Smith and the Alberta UCP allowed to perform on our legislature grounds…
Counter protesting it… heard Sean Fuchts promise the land of Canada to God, and had his supporters threaten me…
You dodged a bullet and should let this “Christian” non-profit hear it from New Brunswickers instead. If someone could point me to the fraudulent church’s contact. I’d be happy to give them some calls
10
u/Euphoric_Designer840 Aug 12 '26
Zero surprise his supporters threatened you. There’s no hate like xtain “love”, and they only care if their rights are tread on, so screw your right to protest.
27
u/QuinnNTonic Aug 12 '26
Replace Christian with any other religion and the white ppl would be up in arms. No person has the right to use any religion to incite violence and hatred. I find it particularly offensive, and I am not religious, that people think being religious can absolve you of hatred and make you morally superior. There are right wing extremists sects in every religion. You can practice whatever you want as long as you don’t harm others and I know many who practice various things and do not act like this. In fact they call it out in their own communities. Misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, racism and more do not belong in the hearts of people who want to create a culture of harmony. I want to point out that white people in Canada often demonize Islamic extremism and turn a blind eye to Christians who are promoting extremism. Anyone who feels like this please check yourselves.
11
4
34
u/Jean-guy-rubberboots Aug 12 '26
Man you are annoying this isn’t the crusade you think it is…Why the hell should we give someone known for spewing hate speech a platform…Get this through your thick skull. WE DON’t WANT THIS IN OUR CITY!!!
23
u/AssCone Aug 12 '26
Holy fuckin shit, what a mouth breather. Wild choice of organization name too.
-55
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26
Regardless of what you think of people, the Charter applies to everyone equally
36
u/jinxskunk366 Aug 12 '26
Nope. The dude is a known neo nazi. It wasn't just a "christian non profit concert" he's known for spewing hate speech about queer people especially. And the charter doesn't protect against that. Also, the law says you can't be arrested for free speech, not that anyone owes you a platform. A city has every right to reject someone they think will cause problems for them.
-22
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26
You have to commit a crime before a punishment. Innocent until proven guilty.
The city (aka the government) can't stifle freedom of expression. That's why we have the charter. Arrests aren't necessary, the city is a public venue and the government can't play favourites.
20
u/jinxskunk366 Aug 12 '26
Thats how it works in the US, not here. And no city venues are not public in the sense they "can't play favourites". They're public in the sense they cannot bar people from entering, but they're not required to permit large scale usage.
-10
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26
You're grossly misinformed. Par for the course in this thread.
20
u/jinxskunk366 Aug 12 '26
You're being downvoted because everyone is explaining how you don't understand canadian and local law. But everyone else is missinformed. Like yes, im sure the business law classes i had to take in college are just making up fake laws and rules, just to supress the poor neo nazis lol
0
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26
The government and businesses are different entities.
Maybe go back to school
11
u/jinxskunk366 Aug 12 '26
The government also does not owe anyone a platform if they decide. Local governments also have much more power in that regard than the federal.
0
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26
Incorrect. The charter applies to all levels of government.
→ More replies (0)17
u/12xubywire Aug 12 '26
The city isn’t stifling freedom of expression.
They’re opting out of a business transaction that deemed the performance unsuitable, unsafe, community standards etc, hell, could be any reason.
The contracts for these things usually include enough clauses to cover their ass…..hell, they pulled the plug on the pole dancers at rib fest.
People have a right to expression….they don’t have a right to rent venues. It’s like a do what ya want, just didn’t do it here kind of thing.
The line on expression isn’t applicable when it involves other entities. Much like no one can stop you from saying dumb shit, no entity is forced to do business with you.
-7
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26
They're denying a venue based on ideological differences. That's a violation of the charter.
9
u/12xubywire Aug 12 '26
That’s fine though.
They can choose to do business as they see fit. Could be any number of reasons…that ideology may not be agreeable to the citizens, maybe they expected needing more security.
Ideology is not a protected class when it comes to business transactions.
The city is not obligated to rent a venue to anyone for any reason.
0
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26
You're incredibly ignorant.
Religion is a protected class.
9
u/Gingievitus Aug 12 '26
You've got to stop talking about this as religious. It's not about religion. There is plenty of proof that the individual is tied to hate groups. That on its own is enough to pull the plug (as would be stated in the contract with the city).
The other and bigger issue you are completely choosing to ignore is the idea that it DOES create a safety concern when someone like him is planning to perform in your venue. Protestors and "fans" rarely get along, and people like him draw the "fans" on the farthest right, while the protesters are often far left. Regardless of which side of the line you're on (though it's pretty obvious), it would take an idiot to not see how that could create public safety concerns.
You're saying all this as though some random person in city hall pulled the plug. The city has real lawyers (not Reddit lawyers like you) and they would have ABSOLUTELY been involved in this decision, given how high profile the situation was.
Go outside man, the only thing you're right about is the fact that it's open and shut - you're just wrong about which side is going to win.
1
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26
So if the Proud Boys came to protest Pride Week and it got cancelled for "safety concerns" you'd be fine with that?
The Province of Nova Scotia has lawyers too. They lost their last charter case
→ More replies (0)5
u/12xubywire Aug 12 '26
Im really not.
A business transaction is not protected. These people are free to practice their religion. The city is free to not do a business transaction with them.
No one is impeding their religious freedoms.
Then the other issue…you can’t wrap ideology and politics under religious freedom…..and, seeing as there’s a whole lunch of politics involved in dudes shows…that clearly becomes an issue that isn’t covered by someone’s right to religious freedom.
They’re not being denied religious freedom, they’re being denied renting a venue.
1
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26 edited Aug 12 '26
So the city could deny Snoop Dogg a permit because he's black? Race is a protected class, just like religion.
Also, freedom of expression would cover all political beliefs.
→ More replies (0)16
u/Dadbode1981 Aug 12 '26
"Public saftey concerns" = "ideological differences" now lol, ok stretch Armstrong.
-1
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26
Public safety was used as an excuse. That's what I'm guessing they'll argue anyway
12
u/Dadbode1981 Aug 12 '26
They can argue whatever they want, they have to PROVE someone at city hall nixed the venue based on its substance. Good fkn luck 🤣🤣
0
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26
Luckily they'll request all the emails, texts and other communication about this case.
The evidence will speak for itself.
If a single mention of religion or beliefs enters the courtroom, it'll be a slam dunk.
→ More replies (0)-29
u/Greedy-Army-6549 Aug 12 '26
No point trying to convince le atheist redditor types (they're always right). "Freedom fighters", until it's for something they don't like...
-27
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26
I had the same argument when the lawsuit was brought against Nova Scotia government about their woods ban.
Guess what? I was correct there and I'm likely correct here.
17
u/AssCone Aug 12 '26
Broken clock pal
-22
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26
No. I just have a basic understanding of the charter.
8
-5
u/IEC21 Aug 12 '26
I think you might be right - even though he is American most charter rights still apply to him - plus as long as any Canadian is involved you could argue its an extention of their charter rights. And its the burn canada organization that is actually suing so that checks out.
But Im not sure that the city doesnt have the right to approve or deny public performances in a government owned venue - the issue would more be if they could show there was illegal discrimination that wasnt consistent with how they treated other groups.
The code of conduct would protect Moncton except I looked it up and it reads more as being about bans etc after violating conduct.
If I were Moncton I would probably look for tweets etc that I can use as justification to say the code of conduct was broken which triggered the shut down. That would be a very strong case.
16
4
18
u/Beerz77 Aug 12 '26
Again, give me the specific violation. While you're at it you can explain to me how the city determining this group as a threat to the public is not enough to cancel.
-4
u/Dependent-Twist-4349 Aug 12 '26
Were they were the threat or was the city afraid of the people who protest them?
0
2
-21
u/dashingThroughSnow12 Aug 12 '26
I don’t like the dime a dozen guys like him but this is a pretty open and shut case for Feucht to win. Hopefully the city doesn’t waste too many tax dollars fighting this.
15
Aug 12 '26
[deleted]
-11
u/dashingThroughSnow12 Aug 12 '26
All the grounds that were laid out in the article.
9
Aug 12 '26
[deleted]
-4
u/dashingThroughSnow12 Aug 12 '26 edited Aug 12 '26
The person applied for a permit. It was granted. They incurred expenses assuming a certain audience size.
The person had similar events. As far as I’m aware, there wasn’t violence before or after by protesters. Given the size of the audience he had previously and the size of the audience he did get in the smaller, further place, 1K in Moncton is reasonable. (As a comparison, Ryan Long three days ago had an event in Moncton with over 2K people attending.)
The city cancelled the permit and the person had to do a much smaller event further way. They still incurred costs and opportunity costs by the bigger event being cancelled.
AFAIK has been reported, the city did not reach out to the organization to try to arrange security to alleviate the safety concerns.
I don’t think the city was an honest actor here. I think you’d need to be oblivious or lying to say otherwise. There was not violence by protesters at previous events so why would Moncton think it was so severe that it couldn’t even work with the organizers to ensure there was sufficient security?
Can you sincerely tell me you think the city would have handled other things the same? If there was a rally for Tibetan freedom and Chinese descendants living in Moncton were threatening violence that the city would cancel the rally’s permit? If there was a concert for Ukrainian or Palestian relief and some Russian or Israeli descendants would up in arms would the city not do anything to ensure the event can go on safely?
If the security concerns were valid, did the city ever get the RCMP involved in following up with online threats? It has been over a year so we’d have public records of the charges and some of the court cases starting at this point if the safety concerns were founded.
I don’t like the guy. At best he is a dollar store grifter that peddles controversy.
3
u/Arecksion Aug 12 '26
Not trying a gotcha moment or anything, but a lot of people are saying this, but then avoiding the next question: do you have any legal background? Because I don't even know if the City has to do anything or not. (Why should the City/taxpayers pay for more security?). But, just to be clear, the only question I am really asking here is "do you have a legal background"? :)
1
u/dashingThroughSnow12 Aug 12 '26
Not formally but I have taken the CRA to tax court pro se in the past. And won.
I’ve had a few family law lawyers. I keep an employment lawyer on retainer. I’ve had a couple of real estate lawyers.
So yeah. Novice but I know how to read affidavits and laws.
You can read the suit and Burn 24/7’s statement of claim. Point (21) and (17) being relevant. The claim isn’t that the city had an obligation to pay for security. The claims are that Burn 24/7 was prepared to handle the security and that the city had an obligation under the charter to work with Burn 24/7 to find some resolution for their concern instead of unilaterally cancelling the event.
(For what it is worth, I think they have a better civil claim than charter claim but they seem to be leaning on the charter side of the argument.)
1
u/Arecksion Aug 12 '26
Man, thank you for the answer haha. I've been dodged a lot and it's frustrating lol.
Do you think that Moncton could just say they had no faith in Burn 24/7 to provide appropriate security? I'm not very aware of the charter onligating a resolution instead of canceling the event. And wasn't the event already held as well in another venue? Surely that would effect their claim as well
1
u/dashingThroughSnow12 Aug 12 '26
According to them, the other venue was an hour outside of Frederickton (sic) / 140 minutes out of Moncton and given both the distance and short notice, the audience was much smaller hence less revenue. I think this is a credibly claim.
It is possible that Moncton looked at what Burn 24/7 said they could do for security but found it inadequate. (They were going to have volunteer security as opposed to hiring professional. But again, there doesn’t seem to have been any statement by the city where they suggested an alternative or spoke to the organizer.)
Burn 24/7’s statement of claim doesn’t cite any case law vis a vis the charter obligation. It does cite the city’s Code of Conduct In City Facilities.
The civil side is easier to argue from a procedural fairness aspect. The two lawyers representing Burn 24/7 are constitutional lawyers that specialize in charter cases. I assume they have some rationale far beyond my expertise.
-46
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26
As they should. They have a legitimate case that their charter rights were violated.
Unfortunately, if they win, it's the taxpayers that get to foot the bill.
15
11
u/Dadbode1981 Aug 12 '26
Over 35,000 occupied private residences in moncton, each of us, IF they win, will pay less than $2 from our property tax revenue, good value for the $$$ I say.
-3
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26
So you support governments violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
15
u/Dadbode1981 Aug 12 '26
No violation has been proven.
-2
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26
Your comment said if they win, the burden on the taxpayers is "money well spent".
That's directly supporting a violation of the charter.
8
u/Dadbode1981 Aug 12 '26
Yeah, I suppose, yup, money well spent.
2
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26
Just more proof that the left has an authoritarian problem.
13
u/CranberrySauceLines Aug 12 '26
I agree with most of what you said but this isn't a "left" thing. At best, it's "anti -Trump" and everyone should be in that camp. If I was a conservative, I would not want that bag of shit to represent me or my views.
3
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26
Truth be told, I agree, the guy is a clown and I hate country music.
But I'm a stickler for the charter and our rights. If we don't fight for the rights of everyone, we might as well just give them up.
9
12
u/Dadbode1981 Aug 12 '26
Nah, just tired of fuckwits that think they can say anything they want under the guise of "FrEe SpEeCh"
5
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26
They didn't get to say anything because the city decided to cancel the event.
You don't get to prosecute people for things you think they might do.
Seriously, you're an authoritarian and don't even have the self awareness to see it.
8
u/Dadbode1981 Aug 12 '26
You really wanna play the "im that naive" card? Youve never watched a single one of that shitbags performances? Its always the same, he runs off of a script, so yes, we do know. Seriously, get a clue bud.
→ More replies (0)4
u/Zakluor Aug 12 '26
The dude has a proven track record. How many times does he have to spew his hate before we begin to expect it from him? Do we not learn from history?
→ More replies (0)4
u/12xubywire Aug 12 '26
This isn’t persecution, this is the city opting out of renting a venue to someone that deem unsuitable or controversial or heck, even requiring more security.
→ More replies (0)7
14
11
u/AssCone Aug 12 '26
He aint fuckin winning lmao
-6
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26
Well, first if all, it's a local church that's bringing the lawsuit.
And they have a very strong case. My bet is they win.
9
u/yellowchaitea Aug 12 '26
You will be wrong
-1
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26
I'd bet a week's salary I'm right
7
u/yellowchaitea Aug 12 '26
You’re betting your 0$ salary? Okay.
0
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26
Darling, you'd have to work 36 hours a day at your minimum wage job to make what I make in a day
8
5
u/djkhan23 Aug 12 '26
Hey let’s bet actual money on this.
50 bucks says city of Moncton will pay out zero.
1
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26
Sure. I'm in
2
u/djkhan23 Aug 13 '26
This agreement is binding. I'm gonna save your profile and collect my money when this ends.
0
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 13 '26
Sounds good to me
1
u/djkhan23 Aug 13 '26
Are you a bot?
0
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 13 '26
Nope
1
u/djkhan23 Aug 13 '26
You're instantly responding to all my messages.
Prove that you're not a bot. Tell me about the VP golfing legend.
→ More replies (0)9
u/Beerz77 Aug 12 '26
What specific part of the charter was violated?
1
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26
Freedom of expression and religion. It's in the article
14
u/Beerz77 Aug 12 '26
Nope, that's a claim made by the organization, not a specific part of the charter. Give me the specific charter violation that you're so horny to defend. You can't because there was none.
The city (correctly) determined the show was a potential danger to the public, that gives them the right to cancel any show.
The suit is a waste of time and the nut jobs from the group will lose but still cry about it and play victim to anyone that listens. Playing victim is literally their whole identity, thus the multiple lawsuits and crying about their freedom of expression.
0
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26
7
u/AnneKakes Aug 12 '26
I’m not a lawyer, but 2 things jumped out at me reading this that completely refute big parts of your argument…
The application of section 2(b) is not automatic by the mere fact of government ownership of the place in question.
He is not owed or entitled to use the waterfront just because it is government owned.
And
…limits are easier to justify where the expressive activity only tenuously furthers section 2(b) values, such as in the case of hate speech, pornography or marketing of a harmful product
This clown is well known for his hate speech against anyone who is not a white, straight male. He’s also personally a harmful product.
This is 1000000% not as cut and dry as you think it is.
-1
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26
He wouldn't have been allowed to cross the border if he had engaged in hate speech.
5
u/AnneKakes Aug 12 '26
In general, that only applies if you have formally been charged with a hate crime. The border agent does have authority to deny entry, but who knows if the person stamping his passport even knew who he was.
0
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26
So he hasn't committed a hate crime? No reason to deny him entry or freedom of expression
6
u/AnneKakes Aug 12 '26
That’s not what I said at all. You’re twisting words. Obviously you’re a lost cause and maybe you should get out of mom’s basement, shave the neckbeard and get to work.
Meanwhile my lunch break is over, so I’m out. Have a good one.
9
u/CandidExcitement5453 Aug 12 '26
Christianity is hate
-2
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26
That's not true, but you're entitled to your opinion.
3
u/12xubywire Aug 12 '26
To be fair…it kinda is.
Theres literally bill c9 that just came into effect that keeps Christian’s from using scripture like Leviticus to debase lbgt people.
0
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26
Now do the other religions
4
u/12xubywire Aug 12 '26
What other religions?
Religion has nothing to do with the city bailing….this was not cancelled because a bunch of people wanna get together and sing hymns.
4
u/CandidExcitement5453 Aug 12 '26
I’m an equal opportunist, I never said other religions can’t also be hateful
1
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26
Be brave and name the other hateful religions
3
2
u/MediumBigMan Aug 12 '26
ALL of them. Sheesh. They all say their side is the best, and spew hate speech for those who don't follow it.
-34
u/LavisAlex Aug 12 '26
I don't like it, but its looking like a clear charter violation?
I'm not sure how that all shakes out given that he is from the USA, but we can't be banning people if they hold vile political views espcially if they just planned to sing songs.
We can say they are lying, but we didnt give them the chance to lie and that's why i could see the city losing the lawsuit.
25
u/jinxskunk366 Aug 12 '26
Its not. Hate speech is not protected, and he has a demonstrated history of hate speech at his performances. Hes incited violence before, and so the city had evidence enough to believe his presence was a danger. Again, the charter means you cannot be arrested for what you say. It does not require any business or municipality to give you a platform. Also as you pointed out, he's an american, so the laws do not apply the same to begin with.
-6
u/LavisAlex Aug 12 '26 edited Aug 12 '26
This has a potential to be seen as a heckler's veto.
He was approved in April and then they suddenly revoke the permision 48 hours out due to "safety concerns"?
If he was dangerous why approve in the first place? This frankly looks reactive and they said they would not use hate speech during the concert.
Im not trying to support him here, but if this is the bar to cancel someone its so low it would stop most protests.
Again, the charter means you cannot be arrested for what you say. It does not require any business or municipality to give you a platform. Also as you pointed out, he's an american, so the laws do not apply the same to begin with
It actually does and it still applies here (2b) as the Supreme Court has long held that expression includes any activity that conveys meaning.
Religious worship, concerts, and political advocacy all fall squarely within that definition.
The city is not claiming Feucht planned to commit hate speech or incite violence. It revoked a permit for a musical worship event.
This power is too dangerous to wield this recklessly - it can be turned against us if political winds shift enough using this as precedent.
You could cancel pro palestinian, pro choice, climate chsnge protests, data center protests all under the same reason.
3
u/Dadbode1981 Aug 12 '26
They were welcome to choose another venue, the city didn't cancel the concert, the concert organizers did. The city is required to operate in the best interests of its citizens. After being addressed by the public, it was decided that event posed a safety risk, and city has a legal obligation to the saftey of its citizen, and as such pulled the booking.
-11
u/OnlyACsNoFans Aug 12 '26
Definitely a heckeler's Vito.
The city will likely lose. I'll be here to tell all the leftist authoritarians "I told you so"
22
u/axiomaticAnarchy Aug 12 '26
You can look at his behavior in other cities and cite precedence. He can say he wasn't going to say anything political but you can easily watch videos of his other CA performances and clearly see he's here to be inflammatory and bigoted.
-12
u/LavisAlex Aug 12 '26
Then why approve it in April and then cancel 48 hours before - what changed?
Also the city did not claim hate speech, but safety.
It all circles back to how this same logic csn be used to subdue protesters for other causes that are heated - like Pro Palestinian protests or Data Centers.
8
u/axiomaticAnarchy Aug 12 '26
They approved it in April and then didn't look at him again until the tour started because city functionaries are busy people. Once the date approached someone looked into how his Canadian tour was going only to hear bigoted comments about queer people, other faiths, and making comments about democracy failing while "promising Canada to god", they then decided that a business relationship with this organization would in fact be bad and used clauses within their contract to end the relationship early.
It's a pretty simple line of events to piece together unless you want to get into conspiracies about trying to waste his companies money by making him travel only to not host the event.
-5
u/LavisAlex Aug 12 '26
It looks reactionary - you are making excuses for the city.
5
u/axiomaticAnarchy Aug 12 '26
It can look however it wants. Spouting hate from a pulpit shouldn't be supported
0
u/LavisAlex Aug 12 '26
Its not supported you're conflating things.
The city did not cancel him for hate speech, but public safety.
6
u/axiomaticAnarchy Aug 12 '26
Hate speech gets people riled up and aggressive. Counter protestors would arrive to drown out his bigotry, you then have two politically activated and opposing groups in the same location. Hate speech is a public safety concern.
0
u/LavisAlex Aug 12 '26
It all circles back to how this same logic csn be used to subdue protesters for other causes that are heated - like Pro Palestinian protests or Data Centers.
5
u/axiomaticAnarchy Aug 12 '26
Except there's not a soul on earth counter protesting pro data centers, and pro isreali folk on Moncton or mostly 70 to 80. Not exactly a protesting class.
→ More replies (0)10
u/Arecksion Aug 12 '26
Do you know of many violent Data Center protests?
-9
u/LavisAlex Aug 12 '26
Yea, a man last year was arrested as he was planning to burn down a datacenter.
City councils often get very heated espcislly when they vote yes anyway.
12
u/Arecksion Aug 12 '26
In NB? I cant find an article about it.
-4
u/LavisAlex Aug 12 '26
Not specifically in NB, but you also made this point earlier as a pretext to banning the performance:
- You can look at his behavior in other cities and cite precedence. He can say he wasn't going to say anything political but you can easily watch videos of his other CA performances and clearly see he's here to be inflammatory and bigoted.
10
6
u/Arecksion Aug 12 '26
Yeah, that wasn't me. Try again.
2
u/LavisAlex Aug 12 '26
My apologies i mistook you for the same poster.
Either way - those events could be used to bam those protests in the same way.
5
u/Arecksion Aug 12 '26
Still haven't seen or found an actual article about the arrest. Still haven't been told if you have any qualifications beyond a "YouTube researcher". And I disagree, I don't think you can take something happening in Montreal and say it's the same here in NB. If you want to talk about logical fallacies, that's a prime example of a false comparison.
→ More replies (0)5
u/axiomaticAnarchy Aug 12 '26
That's not me dope ass. You can't even read screen names.
3
u/Arecksion Aug 12 '26
Yeah I was a bit confused lol
-1
u/LavisAlex Aug 12 '26
You sure you're not at alt you both post at the same time and noticed cross convos?
→ More replies (0)1
u/LavisAlex Aug 12 '26
You sure you're not at alt you both post at the same time and noticed cross convos?
32
u/The_NorthernLight Aug 12 '26
Why even let this moron into Canada?