U of C Abortion protests

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Would you be so flippant if this happened to a group you agreed with?

If it really matters, I am against abortion in all cases but those that are medically necessary, which includes situations where the mental heath of the mother is at stake.

These people agreed to something when they applied to use the space and violated it. Cry me a freaking river if they don't follow those rules and get smacked for it.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Would you consider it heavy-handed if the cops were handing out tickets to members of CFfGLTR (Communist Feminists for Gay/Lesbian/Transgendered Rights?

Absolutely, I would. Everyone has a right to express themselves, even unpopular opinions (depending on your perspective).

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by peter12

Absolutely, I would. Everyone has a right to express themselves, even unpopular opinions (depending on your perspective).

The issue here isn't freedom of expression, its trespassing. The protesters were asked to leave private property, they did not, so they are being charged.

If you invited me over to your home, and I started yelling at your other guests and showing them a bunch of photos that you found offensive, you could ask me to leave. If I refused, you could call the cops to remove me from your property, and I could get a trespassing charge. Now, would my right to free speech have been violated? Or would I have violated your rights by refusing to leave your property when asked?

I would agree with you 100% if they were protesting on public property, but the fact is that they were not. The University is well within its rights here.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

I would agree with you 100% if they were protesting on public property, but the fact is that they were not. The University is well within its rights here.

Even protesting on public property requires you to follow rules. I don't see the distinction other than the rules are a bit more strict if you are on private property.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

The issue here isn't freedom of expression, its trespassing. The protesters were asked to leave private property, they did not, so they are being charged.

If you invited me over to your home, and I started yelling at your other guests and showing them a bunch of photos that you found offensive, you could ask me to leave. If I refused, you could call the cops to remove me from your property, and I could get a trespassing charge. Now, would my right to free speech have been violated? Or would I have violated your rights by refusing to leave your property when asked?

I would agree with you 100% if they were protesting on public property, but the fact is that they were not. The University is well within its rights here.

This is an abrupt about face from the University's past actions regarding the group's protest. In the past, people walking past were given fair warning as well as fair advisement that the protests were protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Furthermore, Canadian jurisprudence and Charter case precedence clearly show that the Charter is expected to reside not only in the public sphere, but also in the private sphere.

The University is private property, in title only, for administrative purposes. In reality, it is a publicly funded institution which is supposed to be a free ground for the exchange of ideas.

This is politics. Pure and simple. The Pro-Life group became to much of a controversy so the University decided to take the easy way out.

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is politics. Pure and simple. The Pro-Life group became to much of a controversy so the University decided to take the easy way out.

I still don't have a problem with the university giving these people a dose of their own medicine.

I don't think this is the easy way out... that would have been ignoring the issue. This is the hard way, because now there is media and all that on the university, and then people who support the anti-abortionists are going to dislike the university. It's a win-lose situation for the university, and they're hoping the win is bigger than the loss.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is politics. Pure and simple. The Pro-Life group became to much of a controversy so the University decided to take the easy way out.

They made themselves too much of a controversy, and I think where they finally had to be put on a leash was when their protest turned into downright harassment of every passerby.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

I still don't have a problem with the university giving these people a dose of their own medicine.

I don't think this is the easy way out... that would have been ignoring the issue. This is the hard way, because now there is media and all that on the university, and then people who support the anti-abortionists are going to dislike the university. It's a win-lose situation for the university, and they're hoping the win is bigger than the loss.

I don't support the Genocide Awareness Project. I think it's stupid. Really, really stupid and quite offensive. However, these people have a right to say what they want to say. To be honest, what they are saying probably hurts their cause far more than it helps it.

The University has no right to decide what is a popular opinion and what isn't a popular opinion.

I will personally be withdrawing my support from the Alumni Association as a result. This is not proper behaviour for a free University.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Locke

They made themselves too much of a controversy, and I think where they finally had to be put on a leash was when their protest turned into downright harassment of every passerby.

Sorry, dude. It takes a lot to make me cry. Maybe you should wipe your tears and take a different route around the centre of campus.

I walked past that display for 4 years and I was never directly harassed once. They were always contained behind their fence.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is an abrupt about face from the University's past actions regarding the group's protest. In the past, people walking past were given fair warning as well as fair advisement that the protests were protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Furthermore, Canadian jurisprudence and Charter case precedence clearly show that the Charter is expected to reside not only in the public sphere, but also in the private sphere.

The University is private property, in title only, for administrative purposes. In reality, it is a publicly funded institution which is supposed to be a free ground for the exchange of ideas.

This is politics. Pure and simple. The Pro-Life group became to much of a controversy so the University decided to take the easy way out.

In the past they warned people that they are protecting their right to hold their protest in a civil manner. Obviously their event has progressed far beyond that as they tried to push the boundaries further and further.

The university will protect their right to hold a protest and debate the issue on its merits but they warned the pro-lifers that they would be cracking down on obscenity and harassment.

If I march into a calculus class and interrupt the prof to sell them on the virtues of the flying spaghetti monster by passing out pictures of mutilated kittens, do you think campus security would try to silence me? If I refused to obey and leave - is that a violation of my right to free speech and self expression? They're a public institution devoted to the free exchange of ideas, right? Right?!

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

In the past they warned people that they are protecting their right to hold their protest in a civil manner. Obviously their event has progressed far beyond that as they tried to push the boundaries further and further.

The university will protect their right to hold a protest and debate the issue on its merits but they warned the pro-lifers that they would be cracking down on obscenity and harassment.

If I march into a calculus class and interrupt the prof to sell them on the virtues of the flying spaghetti monster by passing out pictures of mutilated kittens, do you think campus security would try to silence me? If I refused to obey and leave - is that a violation of my right to free speech and self expression? They're a public institution devoted to the free exchange of ideas, right? Right?!

Well, the display certainly hasn't changed one bit in the 5 years that I have seen it. In fact, it has actually been constrained more appropriately. Remember when it was right on the steps where people walked onto campus from the train station? Remember when it was right by Mac Hall?

Give me a break. Your correlations are terrible.

There is a proper time for protest and expression. The middle of the campus green, in the middle of the day, with appropriate warning signs is a proper place for a demonstration.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by peter12

Give me a break. Your correlations are terrible.

There is a proper time for protest and expression. The middle of the campus green, in the middle of the day, with appropriate warning signs is a proper place for a demonstration.

Some people don't agree that is an "anything goes" situation...
There are rules there as well - maybe slightly more lenient, but rules none the less.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Some people don't agree that is an "anything goes" situation...
There are rules there as well - maybe slightly more lenient, but rules none the less.

It honestly doesn't matter if some people don't agree. We live in a liberal democracy with a constitution that guarantees the right to freedom of expression. We have this to protect the opinions of people from people like who who think it is a good idea to put a stamp over their mouth.

It doesn't matter if you do or don't agree with them. I don't agree with them I think they are idiots, but they have a right to stand on a soapbox like everyone else.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by peter12

It honestly doesn't matter if some people don't agree. We live in a liberal democracy with a constitution that guarantees the right to freedom of expression. We have this to protect the opinions of people from people like who who think it is a good idea to put a stamp over their mouth.

It doesn't matter if you do or don't agree with them. I don't agree with them I think they are idiots, but they have a right to stand on a soapbox like everyone else.

How would you feel about the KKK holding a rally on the front lawn of Mac Hall complete with graphic images and harassing and threatening certain students? Would you protect their right to free speech and sharing their ideas so adamantly?

[mykalberta]

Every group has a right to free speech, but not to put whatever they want on a poster IMO.

I support a womens right to choose so long as the state doesnt have to pay for it. People IMO need to be responsible for their own actions.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by peter12

It honestly doesn't matter if some people don't agree. We live in a liberal democracy with a constitution that guarantees the right to freedom of expression. We have this to protect the opinions of people from people like who who think it is a good idea to put a stamp over their mouth.

It doesn't matter if you do or don't agree with them. I don't agree with them I think they are idiots, but they have a right to stand on a soapbox like everyone else.

You have the right to freedom of expression within the bounds of the law. You cannot libel, slander, or violate someone else's freedoms by exercising your freedoms.

They violated the rules that the University set forth when they allowed them to protest, the University removed the consent and told them to cease. When they refused to cease, the University charged them with trespassing.

How is this confusing?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

How would you feel about the KKK holding a rally on the front lawn of Mac Hall complete with graphic images and harassing and threatening certain students? Would you protect their right to free speech and sharing their ideas so adamantly?

Yes, I would. As long as they weren't directly threatening or inciting violence against other individuals.

I have never, ever seen the pro-life demonstration threaten anybody.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Rathji

You have the right to freedom of expression within the bounds of the law. You cannot libel, slander, or violate someone else's freedoms by exercising your freedoms.

They violated the rules that the University set forth when they allowed them to protest, the University removed the consent and told them to cease. When they refused to cease, the University charged them with trespassing.

How is this confusing?

How does this apply to the pro-life demonstration? You don't have the right to be protected from being offended.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

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.

I think that hate-speech legislation isn't limited to the anti-semetic genre.

And this free speech 'right' has other limits as well. For example do I have the right to set up a noisy protest outside an exam room? No? Why not?

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is an abrupt about face from the University's past actions regarding the group's protest. In the past, people walking past were given fair warning as well as fair advisement that the protests were protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Their past actions are irrelevant. They have the right to change their minds if they wish. If they now see it as something they don't want happening on their property, they're allowed to ask the students to leave.

Originally Posted by peter12

Furthermore, Canadian jurisprudence and Charter case precedence clearly show that the Charter is expected to reside not only in the public sphere, but also in the private sphere.

Again, the University is not trampling on anyone's right to free speech here. The University's rights were being violated by the students who refused to leave the property when asked. They are by no means telling the students they can't say or think what they wish, they're just saying they have to do it elsewhere.

Originally Posted by peter12

The University is private property, in title only, for administrative purposes. In reality, it is a publicly funded institution which is supposed to be a free ground for the exchange of ideas.

It's a partially publicly funded institution, but that doesn't matter. When it comes to property, title is all that matters. If someone else paid for your house, but its your name on the title, then you have all the rights associated with that property, including the right to ask people to leave it. Yes, sure a University is supposed to be for the exchange of ideas, but if a small group of people is offending or harassing or in anyway behaving inappropriately, then they can be removed. Since its the University's property, they get to make that determination -- not you, nor I, nor anyone else.

Originally Posted by peter12

This is politics. Pure and simple. The Pro-Life group became to much of a controversy so the University decided to take the easy way out.

In your opinion. I'm not concerned with opinions here only facts. And the facts here are clear.