Quote:
Originally Posted by FlameBaked
Wow did you miss the point of what I was saying... probably my fault though I was very wordy.
What is important isn't that Keegstra was found guilty or even that the cases are not simmilar. THE RESULT is the important part... as a result of Keegstra being found guilty the Supreme Court basicaly told Canada that freedom of expression is restricted by Canadian Law... infact the Justices very clearly stated that any act which infinges upon the criminal code specificaly the law against showing people graphic material like the posters at the UofC against their will is illigal.
I'm not saying the pro-life people are wrong, I'm saying what they are doing is wrong and unless they can find a new and legal way to express their message they should not be allowed to express the message.
|
Is the display of those images unlawful? I don't think so, and if there's a law that says it is I imagine it would be contrary to the charter as well. Keegstra doesn't hold that any expression that violates the law is subject to suppression, it may insinuate that in dicta, but the holding is focused on hate speech.
Speech that violates a valid law can likely be suppressed, but I don't see how that's the case here. The purported illegality isn't in what is being expressed, but rather in the chosen means and venue. Those are different things, and that's why Keegstra doesn't really apply. This is a forum of expression issue, not a content issue.