U of C Abortion protests

[JohnnyFlame]

They should throw shoes as a protest. Nobody seems too upset with that.

[GGG]

It is ridiculus they were charged for having a protest on campus. All they do is put up billboards. If once those bill boards are up they start to intimidate people then campus security should step in. Free speech should be protected at all costs even if you disagree with the message.

As for the whole abotion debate i am pro-choice only because if you made it illegal it would still occur in a dangerous manner and education is the best solution to eliminate abortions from occuring.

I am staunchly opposed to abortion for any reason, I think I have some sympathy for victims of rape. Until we have a glut of babies ready to be adopted abortions are a extremly selfish behavior. 9 months for a childs life in a home that wants a child from a strictly utilitatarian stand point it seems like the decision is clear.

I also believe that men should have a right to abort. Not to kill the child but to renounce all legal and financiall responsibility for the child in a reasonalbe time of being informed. It is extremely sexist for a women to make a unilateral choice wether or not they want to be a parent when a man gets no such choice. So either allow men to have a say in abotion or allow men the same rights to opt out of being a parent

[ZedMan]

Campus security did step in and asked them to to re-arrange their protest so people could walk by without seeing the graphic posters. They refused. Free speech is not, and should not be, IMO, an invincible shield from consequence.

[Locke]

I notice that people who aren't on campus will defend their right to free speech, but those of us who actually have to walk past their display and deal with their BS are pretty happy that someone finally did something about it.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Locke

I notice that people who aren't on campus will defend their right to free speech, but those of us who actually have to walk past their display and deal with their BS are pretty happy that someone finally did something about it.

I was on campus and put up with it for four years and am on the fence. I agree that they should have free speech but the signs they always put up were completely over the top and out of line. If THAT'S the type of demonstration they want, I'm sure they can find a nice cozy spot behind closed doors in the basement of the engineering building to set up the billboards and then anyone who wants to view those types of images can go there to do it.

[Kipper is King]

Originally Posted by Locke

those of us who actually have to walk past their display and deal with their BS are pretty happy that someone finally did something about it.

You are speaking for yourself there, Locke. I do not feel the same way.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by ZedMan

Campus security did step in and asked them to to re-arrange their protest so people could walk by without seeing the graphic posters. They refused. Free speech is not, and should not be, IMO, an invincible shield from consequence.

Who has the right to dole out consequences? What the university did was absolutely illegal.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by peter12

Who has the right to dole out consequences? What the university did was absolutely illegal.

Is it? Here's my understanding of the situation and anyone more versed in law and the finer points of this story can correct me:

1) The pro-life group was essentially given a choice - take down or turn around the signs that are causing a disturbance or the university is asking you to leave
2) The pro-life group ignored the warning
3) They were asked to leave campus
4) They refused - this is now legally considered trespassing
5) They were charged with trespassing

Now - how is this illegal? Maybe I missed some of the story.

[enthused]

The university asked the pro-life group to turn their signs inward, so that people wouldn't be subjected to looking at disturbing pictures if they didn't want to. I don't think that was wrong of them to ask. People are curious creatures, if they see signs turned around and people making a big comotion in front of them, chances are they'll go take a look. At least then they made the choice. However having the pictures shoved in our faces and people screaming at us as we walked by... not appreciated.

While I think that pressing charges against the group is a bit extreme, they were given fair warning, and didn't comply. That's their own fault. Plus, I have very little sympathy for a group that is making the ridiculous claim that abortion is even remotely comparable to genocide and the Holocaust. Get real.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Is it? Here's my understanding of the situation and anyone more versed in law and the finer points of this story can correct me:

1) The pro-life group was essentially given a choice - take down the signs that are causing a disturbance or the university is asking you to leave
2) The pro-life group ignored the warning
3) They were asked to leave campus
4) They refused - this is now legally considered trespassing
5) They were charged with trespassing

Now - how is this illegal? Maybe I missed some of the story.

The university is a public facility and the individuals asked to leave were paying students.

We also have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2 guarantees the right to freedom of expression. In Canada, this right has only been restricted in the case of peddling illegal pornography (extreme S/M and child) and the spreading of anti-semitic hate speech, specifically in regards to the Keegstra case where this was taking place in a grade school.

What the university has done is a violation of these students freedom of expression. I will never be donating to my alma mater ever again as a consequence of the university's actions. It's that simple.

University is a place of ideas. We are there to challenge ourselves, make ourselves feel uncomfortable and hopefully, take some steps towards some fundamental truths. It's not a place where you try to avoid as much offense as possible.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by peter12

The university is a public facility and the individuals asked to leave were paying students.

We also have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2 guarantees the right to freedom of expression. In Canada, this right has only been restricted in the case of peddling illegal pornography (extreme S/M and child) and the spreading of anti-semitic hate speech, specifically in regards to the Keegstra case where this was taking place in a grade school.

What the university has done is a violation of these students freedom of expression. I will never be donating to my alma mater ever again as a consequence of the university's actions. It's that simple.

University is a place of ideas. We are there to challenge ourselves, make ourselves feel uncomfortable and hopefully, take some steps towards some fundamental truths. It's not a place where you try to avoid as much offense as possible.

now - correct me if i'm wrong but isn't the university partially publicly funded but considered autonomous from any sort of direct government control and therefore private when it comes to defining how its property will be used?

edit: also - aren't there some limits to free speech based on some sort of public obscenity laws?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

now - correct me if i'm wrong but isn't the university partially publicly funded but considered autonomous from any sort of direct government control and therefore private when it comes to defining how its property will be used?

It may very well be true, in a sense, but the university receives over 3/4 of its funding from taxpayers and really only is private in the sense that it has administration control over the grounds. Not too sure that this trespassing order will stand up in court. If this goes to court, it's very possible that this goes all the way up to the SCC.

[ok, ok,....I get it]

I believe the Uni, is "treated" as private property. I suspect the title to the land is held by the University. So in short, if they do not want this persons on their land they can be banned. Much in the same way places like Chinook, Market Mall, et al. can ban you from their land.

I would be interested to know about the title to the land the U of C occupies, maybe a lawyer on here could comment.

[pepper24]

I agree with freedom of speech unless it's different from my viewpoint.

[Textcritic]

I just stumbled into this, so forgive me for that, at least.

I am curious to know what was offensive about the "offensive images"? Is it the fact that a medical procedure is often extremely messy and horrible unpleasant and disturbing to view? Or is it that the subject of the images are victims of a horrible crime?

[Kipper is King]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I am curious to know what was offensive about the "offensive images"? Is it the fact that a medical procedure is often extremely messy and horrible unpleasant and disturbing to view? Or is it that the subject of the images are victims of a horrible crime?

I think people are bothered to see that killing babies isn't pretty. I am shocked! I thought it was all rainbows and unicorns!

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

I think people are bothered to see that killing babies isn't pretty. I am shocked! I thought it was all rainbows and unicorns!

To be fair it's a fine line whether it's 'technically' a baby yet or not during the stages of abortion and currently abortion is legal. I am sure pro-choice and pro-life have different stances.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

I think people are bothered to see that killing babies isn't pretty. I am shocked! I thought it was all rainbows and unicorns!

not babies, fetuses.... feti?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

I think people are bothered to see that killing babies isn't pretty. I am shocked! I thought it was all rainbows and unicorns!

So, you would go with the latter? Personally, I find both the viewing of surgical procedures and committing of graphic slaughter to be offensive. My point in this is that those who find the images objectionable are equally outraged by the implication that pro-lifers attach to them. Abortion is not the same as "killing babies", and this is regardless of whether or not you feel the practice is immoral.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I just stumbled into this, so forgive me for that, at least.

I am curious to know what was offensive about the "offensive images"? Is it the fact that a medical procedure is often extremely messy and horrible unpleasant and disturbing to view? Or is it that the subject of the images are victims of a horrible crime?

Hanging Jews, hacked up African kids ... you know ... standard pro-life protest images. I don't really have a problem with the showing of fetuses, but I do have a problem when they show unrelated graphic imagery just to get attention.

Much like my attitude towards Peta, protests that focus on shock value just make me disagree with them even more.