Anti-Gay Activist Peter LaBarbera Leaves Canada After Arrest


Anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera left Canada a day after being released from jail following his arrest at the University of Regina. Apparently LaBarbera and fellow anti-gay hatemonger anti-abortion activist Bill Whatcott were planning to hit the University of Saskatchewan with their homophobic nonsense, but decided not to get arrested again.

CBC reports:

LaBarbera, 51, was questioned by Canadian border officials Tuesday morning following his arrest on the University of Regina campus a day earlier. LaBarbera and fellow activist Bill Whatcott were escorted off university property and charged with mischief Monday afternoon.

The university learned the men were on the property around 12:30 p.m., and they were asked to leave the campus several times. LaBarbera and Whatcott were displaying materials the university described as "graphic" and against the institution’s policy.

LaBarbera planned to hit up a right-wing talk show this afternoon to "discuss the Gay Thought Police in Canada and their American defenders."


  1. Thomas Zdon says

    PETER LABARBERA – sad case of a man who couldn’t adapt to a changing world. His suicide is likely imminent as when he comes out – it will be hard for him to reconcile the damage he has done.

  2. Rick says

    While I fully understand the impulse to applaud the arrest of this guy, given that he is a virulent homophobe, it sets a very bad precedent and I am glad the US has not made the mistake of going down the road Canada has of trying to curtail free speech.

    Just imagine how this could be used against others you might agree with. Would the creator of the Danish cartoon that ridiculed the prophet Muhammed have been arrested if he published his illustration in Canada, because it “promoted hate against Muslims?” Why not? What he did was no more hostile to Muslims than anything LaBarbera has done towards gays.

    A very slippery and dangerous slope when you started regulating speech. It is one thing to shut down those who are advocating genocide or encouraging people to murder members of an identifiable group (although even that is tricky); it is quite another to shut down those who simply don’t like another group or regard them as “sinners”.

    Canada is misguided in this–and at odds with not only the US, but the rest of the Western world–and their actions put them in the same camp as Putin’s Russia….

  3. thrutch says

    Canada does not have freedom of Speech, it has Freedom of Expression. There is a strong difference. Bill whitcott and labarbra were arrested for not obeying an order to vacate the premises of university property. If he had stood on public property he would have been allowed to protest.
    The previous lawsuit the bill whitcott won was one that said he could demonstrate on University property specifically until he was asked to leave or could demonstrate he had permission from the university or a club of the students association. He did not have permission was asked to leave, he reused and they were arrested.
    Im alos hoping the reason he left was that CBSA revoked his visa.

  4. simon says

    “I am glad the US has not made the mistake of going down the road Canada has of trying to curtail free speech.”
    Where have you been for the last few years?
    Have you ever heard of a student being tased by police for disorder behavior in the US?
    He tried to ask a question when John Kerry gave a speech at the University of Florida, apparently without asking for permission first. He was tackled to the floor first before being tased. Canadian police seemed to be more gentle with Porno Pete.

  5. simon says

    Actually at that time all the right-wing talking heads said he should obey the police and did not defend his “freedom of speech”. They thought it was about law and order. Doesn’t that sound familiar?

  6. says

    The beauty of Canada’s hate-speech laws is that they are explicit, specific, and discerning. The only people whose speech falls under the categorization are unrepentant bigots whose speech exists *solely* to incite hatred and potential harm towards their chosen targeted minority groups.

    And only a complete effing moron would not understand this.

    The law is there for all to read, should one actually care to educate themselves with the specifics of it, rather than prove themselves an idiot by saying “that ain’t not freedom of speech! that’s a slippery slope!”

    Canada has a free-er press than the USA. You can also swear on primetime television without it being bleeped out, or without risking a fine.

    The hate speech legislations have existed for more than 20 years. And in the last 20 years Canada has seen an astonishing and inspiring move in social progress.

    Every time commenters in here criticize Canada’s hate speech laws they merely reveal that they haven’t read them and are about as intelligent as the jockstrap I’m almost wearing today.

    Buh Bye Porno Pete! Now run home and make up more lies about the truth of what went down. Lord knows you love breaking the ninth commandment as often as possible.

    Canada! :)

  7. says

    The truth is there are limits on freedom of speech anywhere. I can’t simply waltz onto a college campus in the U.S. and start making speeches or distributing propaganda anywhere I like. No one is given free rein to express their views anywhere, anytime in public.

    Canada has specific laws around hate speech, which Porno Pete should have been fully aware of after his border delay. Distributing propaganda on an institution’s property, when it violates that institution’s policies, is unacceptable in Canada. And his arrest was for trespassing after he was told to leave and refused.

    Of course Pete is probably happy for the arrest. It’s not like he was going to change Canadian minds on settled law. But now he can play victim with his fringe supporters–the only card he has left in North America.

  8. Bill says

    Actually, freedom of speech in the U.S. is being destroyed in any useful sense of the word by the ever increasing use of propaganda.

    Take, as example, the guy just arrested in Boston for leaving a “backpack” (actually, a knapsack) with a rice cooker inside during a commemoration of last year’s Boston Marathon. The guy who left it claimed among other things that he was a performing artist. His mom described him as bipolar.

    Meanwhile the news accounts, parroting the police, claimed the knapsack or rice cooker was “detonated”. Guys, you can’t “detonate” a rice cooker or knapsack because they are not explosives. You can blow them up with your own explosives or otherwise destroy them, which is apparently what happened. But “detonate” sounds like you are removing a threat whereas saying what you really did just in case doesn’t. Next we’ll have an appearance of the wizard Tim from Monty Python and the Holy Grail saying, “It’s a killer rice cooker.”

    There was no bomb hidden in the rice cooker or knapsack either.

  9. says

    Exactly, Ernie – he went with the *intention* of getting arrested, so he could come back to the USA, spin his tale into a Fox News worthy take on “Oppressive Homosexualist Liberal Extremists Are Going to TRample All Over Your God-Given Rights (to hate people and promote hate people).

    Make no mistake – getting arrested was part of his plan. For one night he got to have anal sex with the excuse that “hey! when in Rome/prison”, and then he gets to go home and say “Up there in Canadialand the homosexuals have won! They have WON! I was arrested just for free speech!” – which, of course, is a lie.

    won’t matter, though. He spins this lie, his feeble-minded followers freak out, and he makes money going around talking about it.

    lather, rinse, repeat.

  10. Rick says

    Come on, Ernie. We both know that if a gay group had been handing out pamphlets on the same campus attacking “Christians”, the university authorities would have done absolutely nothing about it. This is about enforcing political correctness. What would be really interesting would be to see what would happen if that same gay group started attacking Muslims–since Muslims are largely non-white and, by definitiion, non-Western.

    My, oh my, would the political correctness police have a heck of a time deciding what to do in that instance.

    As I said, a slippery, dangerous slope that I am sure the rest of the Western world will avoid, for obvious reasons, with Canada remaining alone in its misguidedness.

  11. says

    @Rick, I’m not sure what pamphlets a gay group would be passing out to attack Christians (how about a real example of this instead of your fantasies), but if it were graphic anti-Christian propaganda I imagine they would also be asked to leave. And if a gay group pulled such a stunt at Liberty University in the U.S. you can bet they’d be escorted off campus. Like I said, completely free speech anywhere anytime is a myth.

    Canada is one of the most respected countries on earth–if that’s misguided, well, it’s working pretty well.

    Interesting, though, that you think Porno Pete should have no limitations on his free expression but people kissing in church is beyond outlandish. Your slip is showing again …

  12. Will says

    Anyone who says this is wrong is ignorant of history. Back in the ‘olden days’ gays would have been hanged for less than what these people are doing and there was no big public outcry to say hey! These people have a point!

    Times have changed. You hate, you have no public pulpit. You hate someone? We don’t listen. These people are desperate for attention. Guess what. Here in Canada we don’t let people hate on others for any reason.

  13. lee says

    Interesting commentary from those in the US regarding us (Canadians) view on free speech. If I were to call you an expletive and you should die because you are one (no need to say what one those were – could be anything) then that is a hate speech. I am getting really tired of how the religious (un)right in the US is spreading such hatred around the world…reign them in guys before they come after you for being one of those!

  14. simon says

    “As I said, a slippery, dangerous slope that I am sure the rest of the Western world will avoid, for obvious reasons, with Canada remaining alone in its misguidedness.”
    Probably you don’t regard UK as part of the “Western World”. They have very strict laws regarding hate speech.

  15. Darrell says

    I just hope the door hit him on the way out! (Back to the Republic of the United Wingnuts of America) He broke the law of trespassing was warned numerous times and tried to come across as persecuted. This is why Canada is a haven for peaceful, tolerant, polite, welcoming people we do not let nutbags warp things around to gain a moronic, bigoted following. Like this moron. Good Riddance.

  16. ThomT says

    LaBarbera went to Canada knowing their law. He was stopped at the border and advised of the their law. And he moved forward with his hate speech intentionally to get arrested and cast himself as a martyr and victim. If ever the term “ugly American” was to be applied certainly LaBarbera would be a worthy.

  17. says

    He also got supremely butthurt at the massive walk-out during his “presentation” which left him with an audience of only TWELVE.

    Sorry, dude. Progressive Canadians have won. And no, that’s not just LGBT people. It’s the millions of non-LGBT people who happen to have functioning hearts and minds. :)

  18. anon says

    Pistol Pete no doubt went to Canada to prove he was a martyr to the cause (why not Saudi Arabia?–because that involves real risks of course). He can now use that as a money maker back in the US. Mission Accomplished.

    You can’t go to a debate or a court and argue that Canadian free speech laws are great because they restrict people from spewing hate while US speech laws are bad because you can’t swear on TV (this is a licensing restriction–not a free speech restriction, btw), or because a protester got arrested at a campaign stop. The US has allowed a lot of bad law “enforcement activities” to intrude on free speech while the laws remain more or less the same. In fact, recent Supreme Court decisions have been very pro-speech–including many you probably haven’t heard of. The laws in Canada and the UK, on the other had, are literally de jure, meaning the restrictions are on the books, and they are content based–which is a big no-no here in the US. Restriction in the US are activity based. Also, there is no prepublication censorship in the US while this is possible in the UK and somewhat possible in Canada. This is also a big no-no.

    You can be a good country despite having bad laws, and you can be a bad country despite having good laws, but no one should have to rely on the former and live with the latter.

    As I’ve pointed out before. The US used to use the post office to block the sending of any “pro-gay” publications through the mail, including letters. This was done to uphold “public decency” and block “obscenity”. So, now that gays can fully express themselves without fear of arrest from the postal police (they exist), it’s not a good idea to espouse using the same tactics on others.

  19. says

    Thank you again, Anon, for showing that detection of nuance and understanding are things you don’t possess. Stay in America, plz :)

    What you “pointed out before” has no bearing whatsoever on the explicit and specific designations of what constitutes hate speech in Canada. And none of us canucks who understand this, nor our american brothers and sisters who *also* understand this, need to apologize for being smarter than you.

    You have successfully been whipped by the US culture of fear into being a brainless moron. Kudos!

Leave A Reply