U of C Abortion protests

[FlameBaked]

Originally Posted by valo403

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.

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.

[valo403]

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.

[peter12]

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.

Look, little guy, your words didn't bother me, just your novel and naive interpretation of the Keegstra case. Keegstra was convicted of hate speech under the Criminal Code. Seeing as how you haven't even read the judgement, I'm going to guess that you don't know that the Keegstra case essentially revolved around the issue of Canadian multiculturalism and a society's response to overt anti-Semiticism.

Once again, your analysis totally misses the point.

[flip]

Can't we just all agree that asshats like these people are the reason abortion should be legal.

In fact morons like this are the reason that you should need a license to have kids.

[FlameBaked]

[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.

[FlameBaked]

Originally Posted by flip

Can't we just all agree that asshats like these people are the reason abortion should be legal

I think we can agree this group has a fair share of asshats, but I'm sure there we're just as many pro-choice asshats stokeing the fire...

Differance is the pro-choice asshats don't have pictures of the Rawanda genocide taken completely out of context.

[flip]

Originally Posted by FlameBaked

I think we can agree this group has a fair share of asshats, but I'm sure there we're just as many pro-choice asshats stokeing the fire...

Differance is the pro-choice asshats don't have pictures of the Rawanda genocide taken completely out of context.

I'm definitely one of those asshats. I called those people so many expletives I'd be banned 20 times over if I repeated them here.

The difference is I didn't hold any protest. You get in my face and make an ass of yourself and I'm going to get angry.

They showed the University and its students no respect, so they deserve none.

[FlameBaked]

Originally Posted by flip

I'm definitely one of those asshats. I called those people so many expletives I'd be banned 20 times over if I repeated them here.

The difference is I didn't hold any protest. You get in my face and make an ass of yourself and I'm going to get angry.

They showed the University and its students no respect, so they deserve none.

Ha, I'm impressed you even went to the rally, I know I can be an asshat so I just avoided the whole thing by skipping a few days of school.

I agree if someone gets into your face or if you feel insaulted by someone you mightas well stand up to them, I try my best not to start yelling, but I find IT MAKES THINGS SOUND MORE IMPORTANT .

Dead on, though, my biggest problem is the lack of respect and forthought these students showed for the rest of us and for the facility. Had they simply been protesting abortion I would have disagreed with them, but by breaking the rules, harrasing students, and then feeling like they are the ones who have been wronged... well that's a soup that does not go down well senor, not a good soup at all.

[Kipper is King]

Originally Posted by flip

Can't we just all agree that asshats like these people are the reason abortion should be legal.
In fact morons like this are the reason that you should need a license to have kids.

Hey Flip, you're sounding like quite an asshat yourself. Name calling is not effective arguing.

Yes, there are extremists on both sides of the issue whose trying to upset others. But there are level headed people who calmly can discuss issues and rationalize an opinion.

[flip]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

Hey Flip, you're sounding like quite an asshat yourself. Name calling is not effective arguing.

Yes, there are extremists on both sides of the issue whose trying to upset others. But there are level headed people who calmly can discuss issues and rationalize an opinion.

Yeah and we're talking about the extremists.

Next time try and keep up with the discussion before you start calling other posters names.

[Rathji]

I considered walking up to the barricade and telling them the joke about the difference between a truckload of babies and a truckload of bowling balls.

I think it would have been worth it to get punched in the face over it, however I am not that ballsy IRL.

[flip]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I considered walking up to the barricade and telling them the joke about the difference between a truckload of babies and a truckload of bowling balls.

I think it would have been worth it to get punched in the face over it, however I am not that ballsy IRL.

I totally will but I don't know the punchline.

[Kipper is King]

Originally Posted by flip

Yeah and we're talking about the extremists.

Next time try and keep up with the discussion before you start calling other posters names.

I have, and I think you've taken up painting with a big brush. Your comment, which I was replying to was blatantly against anyone who is pro-life. I was trying to point out that not all pro-life minded people are "asshats".

I know you are saying that since they are arguably breaking the law in this case, but your comment put down all pro-life minded people, which I think is uncalled for.

[flip]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

I have, and I think you've taken up painting with a big brush. Your comment, which I was replying to was blatantly against anyone who is pro-life. I was trying to point out that not all pro-life minded people are "asshats".

Since we're on the internet typing extra slow won't work so I'll just have to request that you read a little slower.

READ THE THREAD TITLE!!!!!! Then read every page of this thread!!!!

We are talking about a bunch of asshat extremists from the U of C. If you want to have a general pro choice vs pro life discussion start a new thread. That isn't what this is about.

In fact how about I break down my original post for you:

Originally Posted by flip

Can't we just all agree that asshats like these people are the reason abortion should be legal.

See where it says THESE PEOPLE? Can you see that? Ok so this is a thread about the U of C abortion protests. THESE PEOPLE are, you guessed it (or maybe not), the U of C abortion protest people!! OMFG really? Yes! Those very same people that we've been talking about for 17 pages that put up offensive signage that equates beating up a five year old to abortions, and genocide to abortion, and the holocost to abortion. The very same people (that'd be the U of C abortion people since I'm guessing you aren't following) that have been harrassing U of C students in the general courtyard for years! I've been at the U for 6 years and I've seen them almost every year, and every year the are abusive and derogatory to anyone who doesn't agree with them.

[Kipper is King]

That was what I stated pages ago Mr. "read the whole thread".http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...&postcount=296

We are having a misunderstanding, though.
I will shy away from that- you're right that it might seem like I taking the thread in a different direction.That was not my intent. I was just telling you to not make generalizations.

[alltherage]

Touchy subject eh?

[Kipper is King]

Originally Posted by alltherage

Touchy subject eh?

Just a touch.

[flip]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

That was what I stated pages ago Mr. "read the whole thread".http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...&postcount=296

We are having a misunderstanding, though.
I will shy away from that- you're right that it might seem like I taking the thread in a different direction.That was not my intent. I was just telling you to not make generalizations.

Yeah sorry that's me flipping out again.

I figured what you were getting at. And I understand this can be a touchy subject.

I guess I could have avoided all this by just saying: Don't worry I'm only talking about a select few people at the U of C that have been quite offensive over the last several years. I have nothing against pro life people in general.

I totally understand this is one of those topics that gets people's blood boiling pretty quick, including me, and my blood boils pretty quick at the best of times.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

Just a touch.

If I ran the world, there would be no abortions. But I realize I live with 6 billion people who don't necesarily share my view, and they all think their ideal is better than mine.

So goes the world, but in this case for some people it's murder involved. That's why it's something their passionate about. It's why they've resorted to these signs, nothing phases us. How many human fetuses have been murdered because of our shiney packaged new lives with zero consequences? I just think abortions are hideously abused in our culture and not reserved for that critical situation like a rape or a fatal pregnancy related problem.

It pisses me off actually, but again, everyone has a view and mine's not going to please everyone. You might see it as a life wrecker, I see it as a baby.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by flip

I totally will but I don't know the punchline.

you can unload the truckload of dead babies with a pitchfork.

I <3 dead baby jokes.