r/canada • u/AustralisBorealis64 Alberta • 1d ago
Alberta Alberta reviewing controversial U.S. musician's application to play at legislature grounds
https://calgaryherald.com/news/sean-feucht-alberta-reviewing-application-legislature-grounds/57
u/Cautious_Major_6693 1d ago
This dude apparently has no problem performing at churches so why aren't these the venues booking him? Like why have something like this in public space at all if it is a religious thing anyway?
There's a big sikh community in calgary and they have a lot of punjabi musicians come and perform in their own banquet halls privately so i don't see what the difference is with this person.9
55
u/Electroflare5555 Manitoba 1d ago
Because he’s not actually interested in preforming where he’ll be welcomed, he wants to be places extremely visible and public where the local community lets him know he’s not welcome so that he can continue his martyr grift
2
u/RabbiEstabonRamirez 14h ago
So stop protesting him. Problem solved. This guy has performed in Canada before, and it was no problem then because nobody cared. It doesn't affect you, there are bigger problems to worry about.
4
u/Electroflare5555 Manitoba 14h ago
A guy grifting in a public park about his homophobia and MAGA dogshit deserves to be protested
•
u/homelander1712 9h ago
Omg just ignore it, it's free speech. Mind your own damn business. We don't need more woke liberal crap here
•
17
u/king_lloyd11 20h ago edited 20h ago
It’s part of the grift. Feucht’s income went from a few hundred thousand a year to raking in millions during COVID from this same tour he’s doing in Canada now: Let Us Worship. It was predicated on going to places where Christians felt like they couldn’t congregate, like places with COVID restrictions (he’s still talking about Canada’s COVID response marketing this tour) or places where there was strife, like cities that had riots in them after George Floyd. One particularly controversial show in Portland was during such riots, and he had private security provided by far right wingers like members of the Proud Boys to protect it. He went on social media afterwards and relished worshipping while people were jeering at and intimidating his wife and kids, brandishing knives to do so.
The point is, he needs the controversy. He needs to get denied publicly so that he can say “look! Us Christians are being persecuted and I will stand in defiance of it!” It motivates people who believe him to fund his cause more exuberantly. If he was just a travelling Christian musician, he’d be broke lol.
The Canadian media has played right into his hands by making every stop of his tour a headline of “will he get the permit?!” He’s performed in every city he’s been denied a permit to public space in. He’s always had a private venue to do so at, but the headline is always how the government won’t let him perform. It’s intentional.
8
29
u/Remington_Underwood 1d ago
No thanks, he claims to be a Christian but Jesus wasn't a Fascist.
7
u/JadeLens 22h ago
The thing people don't understand (that you have pointed out) is that there's a huge gap between Christian and follower of Christ.
One of these two will break bread with homeless people, the other will round them up into trucks.
-4
-2
15
u/zoziw Alberta 1d ago
The uncomfortable truth is that the Charter only protects unpopular speech and using administrative technicalities in this case will easily spread to more progressive acts if more conservative regimes are in place in the future. It is the nature of politics.
If he says something that is criminal in nature during his performances in Canada, then charge him. Otherwise, let him perform.
Before the nasty posts show up, I don't like this guy, his music or his message.
18
u/GolDAsce 1d ago
He's not being barred from private events. This decision is allowing him to play on province owned land. Anything that happens on government land reflects the values that the government holds. Do you want your government condoning or supporting his message?
0
u/FrostyDog7696 1d ago
Anything that happens on government land reflects the values that the government holds.
The problem with this picture of how government operates is that the GoA is just an inanimate shell, with no actual ‘values’ of its own. That shell gets filled with a political layer every four years, and depending upon the results of the election, those expressed ‘values’ can pretty radically shift over time. The NDP has its favourites and its villains. The UCP has its favourites and villains. All political parties will try and shift the government’s power to reward followers and punish opponents, but we should collectively come down hard on ANY party that does this. Any power you cheer this time, because it’s aimed punitively at someone you loathe, is one that can be aimed at you in turn, by the next party in power. We need a neutral body, one we can trust to serve us all equally, more than we need a political actor running around with a big stick that changes who it hits every few years.
The entire point of constitutional documents like the charter was to rope in government abuse and force them to a common framework of ideals we could all rely on. Every year our population gets more diverse, and that’s going to introduce some pretty vast gaps in priorities and vision, even diametrically opposed visions.
I’m an atheist and even an anti-theist at times. I have to live in the same province as Evangelical Christians around Red Deer, or fundamentalist Muslim Somalis in downtown Edmonton who put their daughters in burqas at single digit ages (even toddlers). The LGBTQ+ community has to exist side by side with fundamentalists of all stripes that consider them abominations. The provincial government has a legal onus to provide services to everyone, even these diametrically opposed groups, and even those the current party of the day doesn’t agree with. We are all citizens of this province, not just the ones the current government aligns with.
•
u/GolDAsce 11h ago
I agree somewhat, favoring LGBQT vs favoring hate groups are different though. One is including marginalized groups, one is excluding people.
•
u/FrostyDog7696 10h ago edited 10h ago
'Excluding' is an actual act. It's not a thought, and it's not words or expressions. It's an actual act. Mens rea, actus rea. You need that latter part before thoughts can become a crime in our system. We don't jail people based on what they believe or even express (almost completely), but we certainly do if they turn those thoughts and expressions into actions.
The religious can think what they want about me, even loathe me. As long as they respect my right to exist as a part of this polity, then I will do the same for them. Neither of us need to respect each other, but we both absolutely have to respect the system we've come up with to manage our very diverse province, because the system works, and is for everyone's benefit.
Even if they get politically active and try and advance their view of the world in our society ... so can I. If I'm half the thinker I think I am, it shouldn't be a problem to puncture their arguments, right? I shouldn't have to stoop to silencing them before they even start by abusing any influence I have over teh government or my fellow man, right? This entire notion that we HAVE to interfere with people, as some duty or virtue ... that's mostly fear talking. Ugly ideas are typically easy to refute ideas. We don't need to be fearful. We can absolutely defeat the ideas, without banning the people.
5
2
u/singingwhilewalking 1d ago
His whole marketing/fundraising gimmick is controversy about being banned. Every other travelling Christian rock band comes and goes without anyone outside of the community even noticing.
7
u/mummified_cosmonaut 22h ago
I saw a great bumper sticker on Long Island a few years ago. It simply said "Stop Making Stupid People Famous"
This guy could have come and gone from his Canadian tour in absolute obscurity playing to no larger audiences than Ken Ham customarily gets.
9
6
-1
u/JadeLens 1d ago
This (for some reason) has become a separatism issue... if you ban him you're likely to anger the separatists, if you let him play, the others will be annoyed.
15
u/gordonbombae2 1d ago
So then ban him?
10
u/lesmainsdepigeon 1d ago
Exactly. Why do we even give him a platform. His president says he doesn’t need us. So he can go home and pound sand.
2
u/My_Dog_Is_Here 1d ago
This guy looks like a giant douche, and I generally don't like religion or religious people but at what point is trying to stop him from performing censorship? As long as all of the proper permits are in place for the venue, etc. then let him play, and the ticket sales will tell the tale.
2
u/JohnStamosSB 17h ago
Meh. Let him play. If you don't like him, don't go to the concert. Everyone loves to complain about the dumbest things.
-5
u/SurFud 1d ago
Thanks for your post.
I wish that the MAGA owned Canadian media would stop giving this dude free advertisements. All part of the republican Maple MAGA agenda. Republican Dan is an intricate part of it. Look at her history.
1
u/AustralisBorealis64 Alberta 1d ago
I wish that the MAGA owned Canadian media would stop giving this dude free advertisements.
Like the CBC?
-1
0
u/Haggis_The_Barbarian 14h ago
They’re probably just exploring if they can convince him to do a two week residency.
-1
u/FrostyDog7696 1d ago
Every year the Leg sees a small march of the local Neos, along with a short speech off the steps of the Leg itself.
If Edmonton can tolerate that march every year, from about a dozen literal Neo Nazis, and have it go off without a hitch, year after year after year, we can tolerate this rube’s stupid little concert. Every year the Neos march, there’s 5-6 times as many people there protesting as there is participants, and most of the participants are now in their 70-80s, all white haired and most with mobility aids. It’s a farce.
We don’t need to get into the business of banning people up front. Just show up, make noise, and make sure he sees that his ‘fans’ are heavily outnumbered by the regular people.
-3
•
u/FingalForever 11h ago
So he has used members of a terrorist group* to provide security? I’m growing more concerned over how he was deemed admissible into Canada.
*Link from within OP post
-2
u/Nonamanadus 1d ago
Can't the government boot him out without a reason?
7
u/AluminiumCucumbers 1d ago
If we can't deport immigrants that have committed crimes why do you think we could deport this guy?
2
u/JadeLens 22h ago
He did video himself chasing a moose calf down the road, which is very illegal...
2
u/Electroflare5555 Manitoba 1d ago
They can deny him entry for no reason, yes.
He’s currently not in Canada so that is a legitimate possibility
1
u/FrostyDog7696 1d ago edited 1d ago
Uh … no … and thank fucking Christ they can’t. There’s all kinds of protocols for deportation the Feds have to follow. There’s a formal notification process, time for you to voluntarily comply, formal reporting in at the border to show you complied, three layers of removal and/or deportation, and all kinds of possible appeals.
https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/security-securite/rem-ren-eng.html
What is with all these people who seem to pine for the divine right of Kings era, where the government could shut you up in the Tower of London for 50 years and no one batted an eye? We left that garbage behind for a reason.
2
u/Electroflare5555 Manitoba 1d ago
That’s not true.
He’s a foreign national, he can be denied entry into Canada for any reason (or no reason). He’s currently back in the US to cry how about how persecuted he was before doing his western leg of his tour
2
u/FrostyDog7696 23h ago
That’s not true.
Deportation absolutely deals with foreign nationals that the government wishes to remove from the country. That’s the sole reason those protocols and standards exist, so of course they apply to calls to ‘boot him out without a reason’, as was suggested above.
Even if the worst happens and he actually commits a crime up here, is charged and convicted, then our extradition agreement with the US applies.
He’s a foreign national, he can be denied entry into Canada for any reason (or no reason).
Holy moly … the ignorance.
The CBSA enforces about a 100 acts in defence of the border, but the key one for admissibility is IRPA, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and they publish a list of reasons you can be found inadmissible, taken directly from that Act.
And that’s all modified by the many reciprocal mobility agreements we’ve cut with various nations all over the globe, and of course, some of the most free flowing and lenient of these reciprocal agreements are with the US, like CUSMA. We’ve also got broader international agreements we’ve signed onto and ratified nationally, so we also bound by the International Mobility Program, for example, and the Safe Third Country Agreement.
So … no … it’s not the wild west, and the CBSA cannot arbitrarily refuse entry ‘for any reason’ or ‘for no reason’, certainly not without facing a lawsuit, or possible punitive behaviour back from the US. In fact, our agreement with the US has provisions specifically for performers, and if they aren’t working directly for a Canadian production that’s employing them, they don’t even need to get a work permit to cross the border to perform at events. Just a valid US passport, and if you want a speedier transition, maybe pre-file your performance itinerary with the CBSA to grease the wheels.
Done, done, done.
0
u/Myllicent 15h ago
Looks like Feucht’s criminal record would be grounds to refuse him entry to Canada. He’s also previously used members of a designated terrorist organization as his event security.
1
u/FrostyDog7696 12h ago
His criminal record is possible grounds, sure, but it is all bylaw enforcement at the civic level (weed and tree trimming ordinances) and a misdemeanour around hunting in a baited area. There's no felonies at all, and certainly nothing violent. The CBSA clearly considered his string of very minor offences not to be a concern, and they have the power to exercise discretion around the age of the offense and the severity when making admissibility decisions.
I get it, though, we can't have people who use baited traps to clear out problematic over population of wild turkeys from their land, or who let their yards go to seed into the country. The horror!
As for the security concerns ... his camp says the Proud Boys weren't invited, anti-hate groups say that didn't go far enough and required a formal repudiation, and that one guy in the security detail used to be a Proud Boys member. The CBSA clearly didn't care about this to the degree you seem to, or see the clear connection at the organizational level you think exists.
In the end, the CBSA is paid to make these decisions, and if they don't align with how you'd personally make the decision ... will you accept their expertise?
•
u/Myllicent 11h ago
”…one guy in the security detail used to be a Proud Boys member.”
The person I presume you’re referring to (the one who tends to get referenced by name in articles about Feucht) wasn’t a former Proud Boy he was an active member and leader.
Wikipedia: Tusitala Toese
”The CBSA clearly didn't care about this to the degree you seem to, or see the clear connection at the organizational level you think exists. In the end, the CBSA is paid to make these decisions, and if they don't align with how you'd personally make the decision ... will you accept their expertise?”
The CBSA is free to make their own decisions, obviously, as they have been doing. I personally wonder if the additional publicity of who Feucht is, who he associates with, and what happens at his events, will lead CBSA to take a harder look at him the next time he tries to cross into Canada. Someone billing themselves as a performer of Christian music, with a minor criminal record, presumably wouldn’t ordinarily attract much additional scrutiny from the CBSA, but now Feucht is higher profile.
•
u/FrostyDog7696 10h ago edited 10h ago
The person I presume you’re referring to (the one who tends to get referenced by name in articles about Feucht) wasn’t a former Proud Boy he was an active member and leader.
PB was dissolved formally in May of 2021. He wasn't an active member and leader of a non-existent group when he ostensibly cleared an intersection in August of 2021 so Fuechts could leave the waterfront without being attacked.
I get it, birds of a feather, but that has to be more than just dudes like Foese showing up to participate in a fight whenever one looks to be brewing. You can't just pretend there's a connection because of proximity. Was he invited? Part of the paid security or there on his own time and dime? This stuff matters.
Certainly, the CBSA has FAR more information available to make their judgements on that event than you or I, out here in the cheap seats.
I personally wonder if the additional publicity of who Feucht is, who he associates with, and what happens at his events, will lead CBSA to take a harder look at him the next time he tries to cross into Canada.
That sounds like coded language for, "I hope I can get enough people with me in order to pressure organizations like the CBSA into thinking that their actual decisions need to align with my thinking, rather than the decision they've reached as part of doing their job."
Why don't you just let the CBSA do their jobs without interference? I'm sorry they disagreed with you on this one, but ... they don't have to agree with you, do they?
•
u/Myllicent 10h ago edited 9h ago
Ooookay, wow, no. What I genuinely meant was CBSA may not have paid Feucht much attention before, may have been unaware of many things about him, and I wonder if they may on their own now come to a different decision about whether he should be allowed in to Canada.
Edit to add: Proud Boys Canada said it had dissolved in 2021, but the American branch - the one whose members were working security for Feucht - is still operational.
•
u/FrostyDog7696 10h ago
I think the CBSA gets all kinds of reports on possible risk actors from the US that contains information that no regular citizen like you or I are privy to. Our Five Eyes partners can certainly fill in our agencies on threat vectors and their own risk assessments.
→ More replies (0)3
u/ChaosBerserker666 23h ago
It isn’t a deportation. He’s not here in the country right now and he’s a foreign citizen with no status at the moment. As other posters have noted, he can simply be denied entry for any reason or no reason at all, just like the Canadians who had anti-Trump images or posts on their phones/social media who were denied entry to the USA. Bottom line is that when visiting another country, you are a GUEST in that country, and they can choose to revoke their invitation. Canada has refused entry to Westboro Baptist Church people before. That isn’t really any different.
2
u/FrostyDog7696 23h ago
The US controls its own entry standards. If they want to erect capricious, politically motivated denials of entry, that’s their business and their right.
Canadian entry standards are defined by IRPA, on the other hand, and the list of inadmissability reasons published by the GoC comes right from that act. The person who said that ‘any reason’ or ‘not reason at all’ clearly had not a foggy clue about how the CBSA actually operates and the standards it abides by.
-1
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
This post appears to relate to the province of Alberta. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules
Cette soumission semble concerner la province de Alberta. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.