Quote:
Originally Posted by FlameBaked
Actualy speech is a right under the Charter as part of the Freedom of Expression. The Justices made it unlawful to breach the criminal code while claiming to be exercising Freedom of Expression, in the case of Keegstra that was hate mongering, in this case it is displaying extremely graphic images in public...
Again the fact that the Keegstra case has nothing to do with what is happening at the UofC does not mean that the results of his case do not have an affect on the UofC's case against this group.
The Justices made sure that the Keegstra case demonstrated how the limit to the freedom of expression is in place ensure that the law can protect people from crimes that can be construed as freedom of expression. Specifiacly the Justices used examples of hate mongering, child pornography, and graphic or innaporpriate immages.
I'm certain that the protest at the UofC breech bolded section, which makes me certain that it is against the law. I'm also certain that the pro-life message deserves to be herd, and if the protestors agree to stay within the law I will be certain that they deserve funding as a student group.
The Keegstra case is not simmilar to this case... but the results of the case on the constitution are important to this case. It's realy as simple as you can't go around exposing people to extremely graphic content, it's wrong and it is a breech of the Constitution.
|
Sorry, but I really don't see this as a content case. If that's how it's argued in court I'd expect a pretty massive failure.
I'm not arguing that Keegstra doesn't stand for the limitation of freedom of expression, I just don't think that such a limitation would prevent the displays in this case. Unless I'm mistaken, and if so please let me know, the images being displayed are not dissimilar to those you'd see in an explicit documentary on the holocaust or Rwandan genocide. I don't think these are the types of images that were intended to be suppressed.
I see this as a situation where the forum is simply not open for such displays. The Dorval case indicates that access will be allowed to a pretty wide extent, but the Court is typically pretty protective of the learning environment. Protests that disrupt the ability for schools to function as such are likely to be unprotected, at least in the particular forum.
Having said all that it's obviously not a clear cut issue, which is typically the case in this area.