U of C Abortion protests

[FlameBaked]

I'm just going to jump into the middle of this here with a thought.

In 1990 (a year after I was born) a Mr. Keegstra, a teacher, made several raceist comments in the classroom. The Supreme Court of Canada was forced to weigh the importance of freedom of speach against the offence of wilfully promoting hatred.

It was a very high profile case and I'm sure the older members of CP might remember it... obviously I only know about it through my studies, and as such have no emotional opinion on the case itself.

Now as I'm sure maby of you know freedom of speech is highly emphasised in the Charter of Rights and Freedom, which is impotant as I believe a society free of cencorship is a benchmark of a truly free society (not the only benchmark just a big one). However despite this, many sections, including section 1, 2, 15 (which pertain the the topic) leave room for the restriction on the freedoms of individuals as they pertain to the rights and freedoms of others.

In the case I mentioned above, Mr. Keegstra was convicted, sections 318 and 319 of Canada's criminal code and section 13 of the Human Rights Act all make provision for promoting hate. It was found that Mr. Keegstra's freedom of speech did not give him the freedom to promote hate towards others. The court also made sure to emphasize, that the freedom of expression may not superscede other offences, including obscenity and many others. This decision put a very real and in my opionion very fair limit on ones freedom of expression.

How does this relate to the UofC Pro-Life group. I think most students believe in the free exchange and debate of ideas... however it is when a particular group of people refuse to exchange idea within the rules that problems such as the one at the UofC arise. It is apparant the this group refuses to "play nice" and the graphic images they choose to exhibit are no differant then the hate mongoring Mr. Keegstra.

It is my opinion that should these studants refuse to incite meaningful debate withing the Charter of Rights they should be banned from the UofC. I do not go to school to see these images, and while I don't care on a personal level, I can see how such images are disturbing and could easily upset someone who is not as detached as myself.

It is a sad day for the world when these people think their blatently offencive message is doing anything to grow the conciousness of the academic world... realy all the pro-lifers have ever done is depress me.

That being said, if the group does agree to play by the rules they deserve the funding of any student group... and the UofVic is wrong to limit the pro-life side of this debate... I hope the UofC can show these students what they have done is unacceptable without being forced to withdraw their support for a veried and important school enviroment.

*don't make fun of my spelling, I'm a physics student*

[Bobblehead]

Apparently I'm an "older member of CP" now. *sigh*

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by alltherage

When you pay tuition to come to my front lawn, and when you actually pay to come live on site at my house, then please feel free to give'er.

Universities are not private property... that's the major loophole in this whole legal dispute.

Actually, I work for a company that deals with property zoning.

The U of C campus is zoned as Private Commercial property.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by FlameBaked

I'm just going to jump into the middle of this here with a thought.

In 1990 (a year after I was born) a Mr. Keegstra, a teacher, made several raceist comments in the classroom. The Supreme Court of Canada was forced to weigh the importance of freedom of speach against the offence of wilfully promoting hatred.

It was a very high profile case and I'm sure the older members of CP might remember it... obviously I only know about it through my studies, and as such have no emotional opinion on the case itself.

Now as I'm sure maby of you know freedom of speech is highly emphasised in the Charter of Rights and Freedom, which is impotant as I believe a society free of cencorship is a benchmark of a truly free society (not the only benchmark just a big one). However despite this, many sections, including section 1, 2, 15 (which pertain the the topic) leave room for the restriction on the freedoms of individuals as they pertain to the rights and freedoms of others.

In the case I mentioned above, Mr. Keegstra was convicted, sections 318 and 319 of Canada's criminal code and section 13 of the Human Rights Act all make provision for promoting hate. It was found that Mr. Keegstra's freedom of speech did not give him the freedom to promote hate towards others. The court also made sure to emphasize, that the freedom of expression may not superscede other offences, including obscenity and many others. This decision put a very real and in my opionion very fair limit on ones freedom of expression.

How does this relate to the UofC Pro-Life group. I think most students believe in the free exchange and debate of ideas... however it is when a particular group of people refuse to exchange idea within the rules that problems such as the one at the UofC arise. It is apparant the this group refuses to "play nice" and the graphic images they choose to exhibit are no differant then the hate mongoring Mr. Keegstra.

It is my opinion that should these studants refuse to incite meaningful debate withing the Charter of Rights they should be banned from the UofC. I do not go to school to see these images, and while I don't care on a personal level, I can see how such images are disturbing and could easily upset someone who is not as detached as myself.

It is a sad day for the world when these people think their blatently offencive message is doing anything to grow the conciousness of the academic world... realy all the pro-lifers have ever done is depress me.

That being said, if the group does agree to play by the rules they deserve the funding of any student group... and the UofVic is wrong to limit the pro-life side of this debate... I hope the UofC can show these students what they have done is unacceptable without being forced to withdraw their support for a veried and important school enviroment.

*don't make fun of my spelling, I'm a physics student*

The Keegstra decision was a close decision. In fact, many Charter experts believe that the minority position of Judge McLachlin was originally written as the majority judgement. Keegstra was charged under Canada's Criminal Code for hate speech. Something very contentious, as in Canada we have rarely charged anyone for hate speech. Dickson, the then Chief Justice, made the argument that since Keegstra was a school teacher and indeed punished his students for arguing counter to his position was a significant detriment to the student's education.

The cases are not even close to being the same.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Actually, I work for a company that deals with property zoning.

The U of C campus is zoned as Private Commercial property.

Zoning has nothing to do with the private v. public distinctions regarding ability to prevent expression.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by valo403

Zoning has nothing to do with the private v. public distinctions regarding ability to prevent expression.

Source?

[valo403]

As Peter said, Keegstra is a hate speech case. There's nothing in this case that appears to resemble hate speech, therefore there is very little that the Keegstra decision has to do with this case.

If you're looking for a seminal case is this realm take a look at Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Canada. http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/expressi...th_canada.html

[valo403]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Source?

See my post above. You can zone something as whatever you want, it's not at all legally controlling as to the ability to prevent expression on the premises.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by valo403

See my post above. You can zone something as whatever you want, it's not at all legally controlling as to the ability to prevent expression on the premises.

Your post fails to cite a situation where a University campus has been designated as Public Property by the Supreme Court, or otherwise.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Your post fails to cite a situation where a University campus has been designated as Public Property by the Supreme Court, or otherwise.

I'm not going to do legal research for you. I cited you a case that was a unanimous decision that an airport is public property for the purpose of freedom of expression, I don't think the analogy is all that much of a stretch. I don't even know if this situation has come before the Court as of yet, which is why I said previously that the result could differ here. The only point I made to you is that the zoning label is not at all controlling, the case I cited demonstrates that, unless you think that Dorval airport is zoned as public.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm not going to do legal research for you. I cited you a case that was a unanimous decision that an airport is public property for the purpose of freedom of expression, I don't think the analogy is all that much of a stretch. I don't even know if this situation has come before the Court as of yet, which is why I said previously that the result could differ here. The only point I made to you is that the zoning label is not at all controlling, the case I cited demonstrates that, unless you think that Dorval airport is zoned as public.

You cited it without a link, and the onus is on you to do the research.

If you make a statement, you should be prepared to back it up.

Conjecture is not proof.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

You cited it without a link, and the onus is on you to do the research.

If you make a statement, you should be prepared to back it up.

Conjecture is not proof.

Ummm, there's a link right there, not sure how you missed it. If you look at it, you'd see I have backed up my argument.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

You cited it without a link, and the onus is on you to do the research.

If you make a statement, you should be prepared to back it up.

Conjecture is not proof.

Just from a cursory look at the link, he's got you.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by valo403

Ummm, there's a link right there, not sure how you missed it. If you look at it, you'd see I have backed up my argument.

No I read all that, but you have yet to show me anything in regards to post secondary institutions. I find it a stretch to believe a ruling at an airport certifies precedent for a university.

[REDVAN]

Well, I walked by this today. My notes:

Most of the people inside the rings were men. Although I believe that guys have a stake and a right to have an opinion, a woman's opinion weighs more heavily with me on this issue. I'm a guy, and I am pro-choice. If my girl was pregnant, however, we would probably keep the child, no matter how large of trouble it would be. It would still be safe for her to keep it, and so on. I guess I would be a moderate pro-choice, just like most people in the world. On the flip-side, I'll bet there are moderate pro-lifers (who wouldn't want abortions for themselves or their loved ones, and only think people who do are wrong, not actively tell them they are dirty sinners).

The photos are disgusting. But they don't make me violently ill or anything. I chose to look at them. They are the same as always, likening abortion to the holocaust.

Otherwise, it's status quo as far as I know. The problem with making a big deal out of nothing, is that it doesn't get people talking anymore. We're not discussing the issue anymore, all we are discussing is the attention whore pro-lifers. I'm sorry to use such strong language, but since the last display was taken down, I haven't heard anything about the actual abortion issue, and only bitching and moaning.

The free speach argument is moot and invalid. I don't want to go over it again, but this really is not a free speach issue. It's an issue about what the pro-lifers want to interpret free speach as.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

No I read all that, but you have yet to show me anything in regards to post secondary institutions. I find it a stretch to believe a ruling at an airport certifies precedent for a university.

Okay, whatever you say.

As I said, the considerations are different, so the analysis could quite easily come out differently. The only point I'm making to you is that zoning labels are not a determining factor.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by valo403

Okay, whatever you say.

As I said, the considerations are different, so the analysis could quite easily come out differently. The only point I'm making to you is that zoning labels are not a determining factor.

Yes, but in this case the ownership of the airport was firmly established as the government:

When a person claims that his freedom of expression was infringed while he was trying to express himself in a place owned by the government

It is to my understanding that the government does not own universities, only subsidizes them, and they are typically 'owned' by either a) the faculty or b) the board of trustees as a non-profit private organization.

So if the government does not hold the land title, then the next arguable state for establishing the land is what it is zoned as.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Yes, but in this case the ownership of the airport was firmly established as the government:



It is to my understanding that the government does not own universities, only subsidizes them, and they are typically 'owned' by either a) the faculty or b) the board of trustees as a non-profit private organization.

So if the government does not hold the land title, then the next arguable state for establishing the land is what it is zoned as.

Regardless, the university's case is on far shakier grounds that I thought it was. University's are essentially public as they are part of the government's monopoly on subsidized education.

[FlameBaked]

Originally Posted by peter12

The Keegstra decision was a close decision. In fact, many Charter experts believe that the minority position of Judge McLachlin was originally written as the majority judgement. Keegstra was charged under Canada's Criminal Code for hate speech. Something very contentious, as in Canada we have rarely charged anyone for hate speech. Dickson, the then Chief Justice, made the argument that since Keegstra was a school teacher and indeed punished his students for arguing counter to his position was a significant detriment to the student's education.

The cases are not even close to being the same.

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.

[valo403]

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.