Quantcast
Anti-Abortionists on Campus Again - Page 6 - Beyond.ca - Car Forums
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 5 6
Results 101 to 117 of 117

Thread: Anti-Abortionists on Campus Again

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    planet earth.
    Posts
    532
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by mazdavirgin


    So if I gather this correctly you want to display images of the above in public? Pornography displayed in public is unlawful so clearly you can't make that leap. Arguably I wouldn't really have an issue with any of that content being displayed in public. Freedom of speech is more important to me than any temporary discomfort I may experience over some image. Why should I have the right to chose what you or anyone else can see? As long as no one is advocating violence against anyone else I don't really see the harm.
    don't know about you, but I wouldn't want my child to see graphic images of dead fetuses OR perverts putting their dicks in dead people's eye sockets.

    EDIT: but, i think such a demonstration might just make a point to these demonstrators. I didn't know it was illegal to display pronography in canada, but if that's true, then i'm sure I could find something equally offensive to this group that is legal to display. maybe graphic images of satanic rituals, desecration of christian images, etc. etc. etc. you do understand the point i'm trying to make, right?
    Last edited by nonlinear; 04-20-2010 at 01:44 PM.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    403
    My Ride
    Rev. Runner
    Posts
    17
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    With regards to children on campus, the pro-lifers setup their display right near the LRT station on campus a couple years back.

    Second closest building to the display? Daycare.
    Hell Bent on the Worst Kind of Infamy

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    758
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    It's because they generate the most complaints, and refuse to comply with any campus authority - be it the SU (which controls their club status) or the actual University Admin.

    I've been at the University my entire undergraduate, and the only 'disturbing' images I recall, and the only images that generated any substantial controversy, are those showcased by CPL (who, in reality, are just a tool of the center for bio-ethical reform... it's not like they came up with this idea on their own).

    People have been reprimanded in the past - what about the strippers in mac hall? They complied with requests after people were cheesed off.

    CPL turned this into an issue about "free speech" because they never had any intention of pursuing debate. They just wanted to piss people off (check), generate a freedom of speech controversy (check) and gain the support of other conservatives that don't like Canadian laws regarding freedom of speech (check - Levant and those goons were frothing at the mouth over this crap).

    Why would they do that? Maybe because Hallman's own church doesn't like her very much:

    “The project is misguided, it’s offensive and I don’t think one should be using this kind of means to achieve an end,” said Bishop Henry.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    179
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by nonlinear


    don't know about you, but I wouldn't want my child to see graphic images of dead fetuses OR perverts putting their dicks in dead people's eye sockets.

    EDIT: but, i think such a demonstration might just make a point to these demonstrators. I didn't know it was illegal to display pronography in canada, but if that's true, then i'm sure I could find something equally offensive to this group that is legal to display. maybe graphic images of satanic rituals, desecration of christian images, etc. etc. etc. you do understand the point i'm trying to make, right?
    Well if your child ever uses the internet I am sure they likely have already seen such things or worse. IIRC it's something like 7/10 kids have inadvertently stumbled upon graphic/pornographic images online. Should we censor the whole of the internet?

    I know what you are saying but there is no where in the freedom of speech legislation saying that we have the right not to be offended by what someone else is saying or showing. There is performance art payed for by your tax dollars of people smearing poop on religious icons. Should we outlaw this? I don't pretend to be a judge of what should be banned or not since it seems like a wonderful way to have a tyranny of the majority.

    Anyways the case at Berkeley doesn't apply to Canadian law since they don't have the same laws regarding Freedom of Speech or the Charter of Human Rights. There is legal precedent in Saskatchewan establishing University campuses that receive public funding as being considered public space for the reasons of freedom of speech.

    Frankly you might not like it but this is not black and white. The UofC is trying to throw just about any legal charge their way because they have not broken any laws or done anything illegal. This just smacks of bullying of selective groups by the UofC just because someone high up really doesn't like the message they are communicating.

    Here are some highlights from someone who did a legal analysis of the merits of the case:

    In R. v. Whatcott, a similar issue arose as to whether the Charter applied to a university in the context of anti-abortion expression. William Whatcott was convicted of littering under the University of Regina Traffic and Parking Bylaws when he placed anti-abortion pamphlets on a number of vehicles parked at the university. On appeal, he argued that the bylaw infringed his freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter. The preliminary question of whether the Charter applied was answered in the affirmative by Justice Ball of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench. According to Justice Ball, “the enactment of the Bylaw was a quintessentially governmental function” that “resulted in the appellant being charged, prosecuted, tried, convicted and penalized by the Provincial Court for distributing his pamphlets” (at para. 43). The University was exercising authority given to it by the University of Regina Act, R.S.S. 1978, c.U-5, and was acting akin to a municipality enforcing its bylaws. The bylaw was found to violate section 2(b) of the Charter, and the fact that it was a total ban on pamphlet distribution anywhere on campus meant that it was not justifiable as a reasonable limit under section 1 of the Charter, as it did not minimally impair the expression. Importantly, Justice Ball noted that a university campus is “a locale one would expect to facilitate and encourage free and open intellectual discussions” (at para. 47).
    http://ablawg.ca/2009/04/03/freedom-...oice-protests/

    PS: If you read the article it becomes quite clear that the trespassing charges would have likely never stood up in court.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    403
    My Ride
    Rev. Runner
    Posts
    17
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Bullying? UofC repeatedly asked them to do something, turn their posters inward. They repeatedly said no and whined to the media.
    Hell Bent on the Worst Kind of Infamy

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Calgary AB
    My Ride
    2013 FR-S
    Posts
    183
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    It's clear mazdavirgin is just ignoring everything we're trying to point out about them being allowed to display as long as they give a choice to others, so

    move along...

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    planet earth.
    Posts
    532
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    yea, i'm far too busy to keep arguing the same points over and over and over

    but i still think this is the University's best course of action:

    click for larger version
    » Click image for larger version

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    no longer has a spoiler
    Posts
    60
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Givin' them the coathanger.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    179
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Quiet10
    It's clear mazdavirgin is just ignoring everything we're trying to point out about them being allowed to display as long as they give a choice to others, so

    move along...
    Sigh... Freedom of speech does not imply that you can speak only when it doesn't offend someone. There is no legal basis for them to have to give anyone else a choice of seeing or not seeing the images since they don't fall under obscenities/pornography. You could stage a protest right in front of the abortion protesters where you would be ripping up the bible. You have that right to shock and so do they.

    Otherwise who is going to decide what needs to be moved into the censored area? You? It's not that complicated of a concept. If it is not illegal to display in public you are damn well within your rights to do so in public no matter if some institution tries to limit your freedom.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    planet earth.
    Posts
    532
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by mazdavirgin


    Sigh... Freedom of speech does not imply that you can speak only when it doesn't offend someone. There is no legal basis for them to have to give anyone else a choice of seeing or not seeing the images since they don't fall under obscenities/pornography. You could stage a protest right in front of the abortion protesters where you would be ripping up the bible. You have that right to shock and so do they.

    Otherwise who is going to decide what needs to be moved into the censored area? You? It's not that complicated of a concept. If it is not illegal to display in public you are damn well within your rights to do so in public no matter if some institution tries to limit your freedom.
    it's PRIVATE FUCKING PROPERTY dude. (and read more carefully next time you link a "legal analysis.")

  11. #111
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    758
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Were any of you guys around two summers ago when those old lunatics came on campus and left those anti-homosexual leaflets everywhere? At least one of those guys was apprehended by campus security and booted.

    Now, what was written on those sheets was targeting a specific group (ala Boissoin), but it was the trespassing issue that stuck.

    I never saw that get any sort of challenge regarding 'free speech'.

    I'm not allowed to stand up in the middle of lecture and hurl derogatory statements at classmates/instructors because it would violate the University Calendar and its non-academic misconduct policy:

    sec. 4.3 of the preamble: ... Any actions taken by Students to directly or
    indirectly jeopardize the orderly functioning of the institution will be
    handled through the policy articulated below...
    annnnd

    Minor Violations
    4.8 Depending on the specifics of the situation and upon review of the
    facts, a minor violation may be moved to a major violation.

    4.9 Minor violations are unacceptable actions by a University of Calgary
    Student or Student group that include, but are not limited to:

    a) excessive noise;
    b) engaging in communication toward an individual or group which
    may be considered harassing or offensive (including online
    communication);
    c) engaging in disruptive behaviour. Disruptive behaviour is that
    which disrupts or invades the rights of others
    ;
    d) damage or destruction of property (under $500.00);
    e) misuse of library or computer resources;
    f) any unauthorized entry or presence in a University building or on
    University grounds
    ;
    g) abusing or hindering the non-academic misconduct process;
    h) failure to complete a sanction for a violation of the Policy.

    Major Violations
    4.10 Major Violations are actions by a University of Calgary Student or
    Student group which endanger the safety and/or security of another
    individual or the University of Calgary community, or that contravene
    municipal, provincial or federal law. Major violations include, but are
    not limited to:

    a) contravening the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Act and/or the
    University Alcohol Policy;
    b) possessing, using, exchanging, manufacturing or selling illegal
    drugs;
    c) possessing, storing, using or misusing any firearm, weapon,
    hazardous material or explosive substance;
    d) damage or destruction of property (over $500.00)
    e) failure to comply with the direction of a Campus Security Officer
    or University official in the legitimate pursuit of his/her duties
    ;
    f) hazing;
    g) sexual assault or sexual misconduct;

    h) fraud, including misuse of Student ID card or furnishing false
    information;
    i) vandalism, tampering, defacing or damaging property that is not
    one’s own;
    j) stealing or possessing property that is not one’s own without
    permission of the owner;
    k) engaging in disruptive behaviour that involves substantial
    disorder and/or disruption to the operation of the University
    ;
    l) engaging in physical actions which may be considered to
    endanger the safety of, be considered intimidating by, and/or be
    considered physically abusive by the victim;
    m) engaging in intimidating, threatening and/or offensive verbal or
    non-verbal behaviour or communication toward an individual or
    group;
    n) tampering with fire and/or emergency equipment;
    o) setting unauthorized fire(s);
    p) unauthorized use of University facilities and/or equipment;
    q) trespassing or attempting to fraudulently gain entry on University
    property
    ;
    r) publicly displaying and/or making pornographic material available
    anywhere on the University campus;
    s) failing to follow prescribed risk management procedures;
    Don't like those rules? Then go study somewhere else. I can't disrupt your learning with my freedom of speech, and you can't disrupt mine. Case closed.

  12. #112
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    179
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by nonlinear


    it's PRIVATE FUCKING PROPERTY dude. (and read more carefully next time you link a "legal analysis.&quot
    I am pretty sure it is explicitly stated that private property does not mean that you don't have freedom of speech on said property. The Charter of Rights transcends private ownership. Not to mention them being private is not as cut and dry as you would like to put it since they are funded with tax payer dollars.

    Again you can't make rules or bylaws that contravene the Charter of Rights. So no you can't legislate no gay marriage etc... Same applies to the university and it's rules
    Last edited by mazdavirgin; 04-21-2010 at 04:25 PM.

  13. #113
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    planet earth.
    Posts
    532
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by mazdavirgin


    I am pretty sure it is explicitly stated that private property does not mean that you don't have freedom of speech on said property. The Charter of Rights transcends private ownership.

    Again you can't make rules or bylaws that contravene the Charter of Rights. So no you can't legislate no gay marriage etc... Same applies to the university and it's rules
    this isn't about free speech, it's about tresspassing on private property

  14. #114
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    2010 frontier pro-4x
    Posts
    565
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Originally posted by mazdavirgin


    I am pretty sure it is explicitly stated that private property does not mean that you don't have freedom of speech on said property. The Charter of Rights transcends private ownership. Not to mention them being private is not as cut and dry as you would like to put it since they are funded with tax payer dollars.

    Again you can't make rules or bylaws that contravene the Charter of Rights. So no you can't legislate no gay marriage etc... Same applies to the university and it's rules
    Even if your following the charter of rights you still have to be within the laws of society. Bascially by your definition I could walk into a high voltage sub station and start telling a story to whomever is working, but because I have "freedom of speech" in our charter of rights it would be perfectly acceptable.......right

    If the property owner of anything deems you a tresspesser your gone, simple as that.

  15. #115
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Calgary / AB
    Posts
    55
    Rep Power
    0

  16. #116
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    YYC
    Posts
    797
    Rep Power
    22

    Default


    Only a warning? Weeeaaaaaakkkkkk

  17. #117
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Calgary / AB
    Posts
    55
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    So what are Canadians going to do about the theo-CONS?

    Does anyone know who this Conservative MP is?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWH14...layer_embedded

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 5 6

Similar Threads

  1. Anti-Abortionists still banned?

    By Nusc in forum Campus Chat
    Replies: 44
    Latest Threads: 03-30-2009, 01:30 AM
  2. Anti-abortionists at the UofC...

    By Super_Geo in forum Campus Chat
    Replies: 41
    Latest Threads: 04-09-2008, 12:36 AM
  3. Anyone here from U of L (calgary campus)?

    By 2.2vtec in forum Campus Chat
    Replies: 1
    Latest Threads: 09-14-2003, 02:54 PM
  4. U Of L Calgary Campus Help

    By 2.2vtec in forum Campus Chat
    Replies: 3
    Latest Threads: 09-02-2003, 08:51 AM
  5. ATTN: All UofL on campus students!

    By Wildcat in forum Campus Chat
    Replies: 3
    Latest Threads: 08-26-2003, 12:55 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •