[quote=valo403;1742647]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.[/quote]
I agree, it's never easy when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms/ Bill of Rights, gets involved.
That being said, this is from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2 (or at least the Charter I have in my textbook)
"A laws purpose can limit the right either through limiting the content or form of expression. Limits on content are where the meaning of the expression is specificaly forbidden by law. (Like with Keegstra) Limits on the form of expression are where the content is displayed in a manner that is forbidden by law."
Obviously the content is within the law, it is pefectly fine to be pro-life, or two be anti-abortion or whatever you want to call that camp. However the form of expression is graphic and under sections 180(part 2) of the Criminal code such a display is unlawful. Yeah it's not a serious offence and I don't think these people deserve serious punishment, but it is an offence and it is wrong.
To me this is what happened...
-Pro-Life protesters use graphic images (that in my opinoon are contextualy wrong the holocost /= abortion) these images disturb the student population.
-UofC officials ask protestors to turn their graphic images inward, students refuse and UofC goes to the police resulting in several arrests.
-Pro-Life rallies continue to display graphic images despite warnings, UofC renouces their student group status.
-Pro-Life protestors continue to ignore warnings/threst of UofC officials resulting in several other arrests.
Personaly, I think this particualr pro-life group is in the wrong. They have harrassed students, displayed graphic images, and refused to follow campus rules.
No I don't think that they should be censored, but I do think they have taken this too far and need to re-evaluate how they get their message across. It is not within their right to infringe upon the rights of others, maybe this is a problem because of the subject matter but it is still a problem, noone has told them (officialy) that they can't have their rallies, they have just been told not to display this images and as of this point have been to immature to tone down their images for the good of the student population. Constructive debate does not need this kind of attitude.
|