Bizarre overuse of emojis in all of Manning's tweets.
That's her thing
Oh.
Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada
31–40 of 44 posts
Re: Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada
#32You can be barred entry for a DUI so I don't know what she was expecting. She could seek a waver which may or may not be granted.
DUI is objective human transgression against safety. Treason is more relative and arbitrary. One country's traitor can be another's hero. Treason is more like blasphemy or copyright infringement.
And you expect a border guard to be the one to make that determination on the spot at the border? Mitigating circumstances are why the waiver system exists.
If you've been in prison for any reason you shouldn't expect to be let in without a hassle regardless of the crime. Someone is going to have to look at the situation carefully and make a decision.
Re: Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
> unrelated to Chelsea directly I think you skipped over the above or maybe I wasn’t clear, I didn’t mean to imply the letter said that, I have first hand knowledge to my statement.
Could you possibly expand a bit more on what sort of data in excess of normal law enforcement agencies is shared? I certainly don't want to pry on the situation you are thinking of specifically, but I am curious about the subject on a macro level. On the Canadian side this debate is normally painted as the Americans wanting yet more data. So of course I am curious to hear the debate from the opposite side.
That's the sound of one hand waving bye-bye.
Re: Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you possibly expand a bit more on what sort of data in excess of normal law enforcement agencies is shared? I certainly don't want to pry on the situation you are thinking of specifically, but I am curious about the subject on a macro level. On the Canadian side this debate is normally painted as the Americans wanting yet more data. So of course I am curious to hear the debate from the opposite side.
That's the sound of one hand waving bye-bye.
Huh?
Re: Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
> unrelated to Chelsea directly I think you skipped over the above or maybe I wasn’t clear, I didn’t mean to imply the letter said that, I have first hand knowledge to my statement.
Could you possibly expand a bit more on what sort of data in excess of normal law enforcement agencies is shared? I certainly don't want to pry on the situation you are thinking of specifically, but I am curious about the subject on a macro level. On the Canadian side this debate is normally painted as the Americans wanting yet more data. So of course I am curious to hear the debate from the opposite side.
Email me via contact info in my profile.
Re: Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you possibly expand a bit more on what sort of data in excess of normal law enforcement agencies is shared? I certainly don't want to pry on the situation you are thinking of specifically, but I am curious about the subject on a macro level. On the Canadian side this debate is normally painted as the Americans wanting yet more data. So of course I am curious to hear the debate from the opposite side.
That's the sound of one hand waving bye-bye.
These dismissive comments are unhelpful. The nice thing about HN is substantive discussion can happen, whereas I rarely expect it elsewhere. But preemptive comments like yours can prevent this from happening.
Re: Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's your gender if you can't procreate with someone of either sex?
Would your body produce eggs if it was working flawlessly? Then you are a female; if not, male.
What about people with both testes and ovaries? If those were working flawlessly, they would produce eggs and sperm. Your definition labels them female. If you're happy with that, good for you, but it seems misleading to simply label such a person "female" based on egg production.
If you'd like to exclude such people from your definition, and restrict it to people who are (for want of a better term) "stereotypical" male or female, that seems like a circular definition.
Re: Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a multi-dimensional spectrum of biological characteristics commonly used to define "gender", true enough. If 'actual' gender means a binary choice, that's a social construct that disagrees with physical, biological reality.
> If 'actual' gender means a binary choice, that's a social construct that disagrees with physical, biological reality. There is a binary category in which you fall into that defines if you can procreate with the other or not.
There is a binary category in which you fall
In which some people fall. This definition seems to exclude many people from the definition completely. If you're happy with that, good for you; many people aren't happy with it and find this binary label system just doesn't work when applied to the world of actual people.
Re: Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a multi-dimensional spectrum of biological characteristics commonly used to define "gender", true enough. If 'actual' gender means a binary choice, that's a social construct that disagrees with physical, biological reality.
> If 'actual' gender means a binary choice, that's a social construct that disagrees with physical, biological reality. There is a binary category in which you fall into that defines if you can procreate with the other or not.
[deleted]