Freedom of Speech - Carlton U. and Anti Abortion Extremists

[Saipan]

What is stake here, despite your repeating the contrary, is the how and the exact location of their display.

Isn't gay parade all over the city?

[CANADIEN]

Isn't gay parade all over the city?

Nope

[Saipan]

Must have been another Toronto

[CANADIEN]

Must have been another Toronto

I don't know... In the one I know, the gay parade is a fairly delimited part of downtown... Perhaps in yours it extends into Scarborough, North York, etobicoke...

[Saipan]

I don't know... In the one I know, the gay parade is a fairly delimited part of downtown... Perhaps in yours it extends into Scarborough, North York, etobicoke...

Could it be gays cannot walk more than 50 km a day?

[Molly]

So... if those graphic posters, as part of a student art show or hanging in the bookstore wouldn't pass obscenity laws, then they've got no grounds for complaint. Sounds like they are graphic enough for that to be the case.

[scribblet]

I highly doubt they would be allowed in a book store or any other public display. Factual isn't quite the word, graphic images showing a woman with a sword through her body, graphics of the Holocast, Obama with a Hitler moustache and so on are not 'factual', they simply intend to demean women and the millions of real people killed in the Holocaust.

They do cross a moral line as John Haas, the president of the U.S. National Catholic Bioethics Center, a pro-life activist for 30 years, said in the National Post the use of graphic images raises serious moral issues that no amount of revulsion to abortion can justify.

You really need to know what the GAP supporters really want, it's not just a ban on all abortion including rape and incest. They would also see oral contraceptives banned as they believe that the pill is really an 'abortifciant' and I don't mean the morning after pill as we know they are against that. Women are nothing to them they would send them back to the dark ages, bare foot and pregnant in the kitchen. Be very careful of whom you support and know their true intentions.

[guyser]

I would say the University and of Ottawa and its students association did everything they could to actively discourage her from speaking, and to encourage leftist protesters to come out and try to block that speech. Btw, I can't recall the last time a group of "rightist" protesters in Canada came out en masse and threatened to use violence to stop someone from speaking. Anyone have a cite?

Thank you for agreeing with me.

[grainfedprairieboy]

Freedom of Speech in Canada without exaggeration is an oxymoron and the universities that were once the Bastion of critical thinking have reverted into quasi religious institutions desperately guarding against heresy while demanding government act as defender of their established faith.

Freedom of Speech can only mean that YOU can advance an idea, belief or statement that I may vehemently object to yet have no authority or ability to invoke censor. Anything else, any other corrupted belief, any proviso that speech can be legitimately suppressed or censored because:

the interpreted intent of the author or speaker is to actually inflict harm;

the sensitivity of the topic may cause discomfort to some;

the legitimacy of the actual point is questionable;

the discussion itself is a threat to security;

that graphics or imagery are a threat to someones sensibilities;

that God must not be exposed to the transgressions of man;

that youth or the simple minded may be inappropriately influenced;

that the right could beabused such as advocating people to violence or yelling "fire" in a theatre;

makes a mockery of the very concept of advancing reflective judgment. It is unfathomably to me how anyone can earnestly believe they advocate freedom of speech or expression with the exception of - *fill in their pet peeve(s) here*.

[bloodyminded]

Freedom of Speech in Canada without exaggeration is an oxymoron and the universities that were once the Bastion of critical thinking have reverted into quasi religious institutions desperately guarding against heresy while demanding government act as defender of their established faith.

Freedom of Speech can only mean that YOU can advance an idea, belief or statement that I may vehemently object to yet have no authority or ability to invoke censor. Anything else, any other corrupted belief, any proviso that speech can be legitimately suppressed or censored because:

the interpreted intent of the author or speaker is to actually inflict harm;

the sensitivity of the topic may cause discomfort to some;

the legitimacy of the actual point is questionable;

the discussion itself is a threat to security;

that graphics or imagery are a threat to someones sensibilities;

that God must not be exposed to the transgressions of man;

that youth or the simple minded may be inappropriately influenced;

that the right could beabused such as advocating people to violence or yelling "fire" in a theatre;

makes a mockery of the very concept of advancing reflective judgment. It is unfathomably to me how anyone can earnestly believe they advocate freedom of speech or expression with the exception of - *fill in their pet peeve(s) here*.

I agree with you that Canada has some serious free speech issues.

However, are you suggesting that these once-upon-a-time "bastion of critical thinking," Canadian universities, did at one time regularly sport protests with this sort of imagery, but the practice has been lately discontinued? When was this?

[grainfedprairieboy]

the practice has been lately discontinued? When was this?

IMHO, the tide shifted in the 1980s when the ranks of University professors were populated by the then student demonstrators of the 60s and 70s. They so fervently subscribe to their dogma they feel more then justified in suppressing any dissent. Without their support Human Rights Commissions and other tacit tools used to try and control thought and beliefs would never be employed.

[Oleg Bach]

One should be able to utter or yell anything they want..There is one rule - no physical aggression - assualt or coercion should occure or be tolerated - as for real freedom of speech - I should be able to say what I please with out being threatened - For instance...If someone is a liar - I should be able to scream LIAR! - If I am tired of liberal tolerance of dishonourable persuits I should be able to say that I am tired of fags...feminist eccentric bitter old woman ...and money grubbing treachery filled lawyers.... I should also be allowed to voice my opinon regarding the pesky racist Jews and bum banging Arabs... I should be able to say that those that stick to political correctness should be jailed if not executed for making the world miserable...

AND while I am on this rant....I am sick and tried of those that believe a human being is a piece of meet to be consumed by transplant teams ...stem cell researchers and those that do not understand that abortion has damaged the gene pool..THOSE that should have been born thirty years ago are not here -seems the evil of abortion only allowed the idiots to arrive and NOW we suffer because the landings of the intelligent were aborted...

There is no such thing as an anti-or pro - abortion extremist...ABORTION BY IT'S PLAIN NATURE IS AN EXTREME ACT.

[bloodyminded]

IMHO, the tide shifted in the 1980s when the ranks of University professors were populated by the then student demonstrators of the 60s and 70s. They so fervently subscribe to their dogma they feel more then justified in suppressing any dissent. Without their support Human Rights Commissions and other tacit tools used to try and control thought and beliefs would never be employed.

And again, I'm with you on the matter of the HRCs, who unfairly and irrationally made things temporarily difficult for Mark Steyn, among others. But I'm asking when there was greater critical thinking--and people protesting in the manner discussed on this thread, using that kind of imagery.

I don't believe it was occurring, before, say, the 1980s, any more than it is now.

[Evening Star]

I tend to lean towards civil libertarianism when it comes to freedom of expression but I do think this matter can be a bit more complex than you might be recognizing, Oleg. First, if universities are in fact private property, which seems to be the case, the university is within its rights to make rules about how its spaces can be used. Also, as I alluded to earlier, how far can freedom of expression extend, even on public property? Do we want to e.g. give corporations the freedom to express themselves by covering public space (say, the walls of schools and universities if we declare them to be public property) with advertising, even if as a result there is little space for anyone else to put up a poster? It's not hard for me to imagine that happening. And if that happened, would I be within my rights to freely express myself by covering up part of a giant Pepsi billboard with my poster? Or would I be infringing on Pepsi's freedom of expression? If GAP can freely express themselves with massive graphic posters on campus space, can a pro-life group freely express themselves by e.g. surrounding the GAP display and shouting through megaphones to the point where no one can hear the GAP representatives?

[Saipan]

Do we want to e.g. give corporations the freedom to express themselves by covering public space (say, the walls of schools and universities if we declare them to be public property) with advertising

Yes, as long as it's not a Christmas Nativity scene, which would infuriate Atheists and Moslems

[bloodyminded]

Yes, as long as it's not a Christmas Nativity scene, which would infuriate Atheists and Moslems

Actually, very, very few people could care less about a Nativity scene. It sure doesn't bother me.

The whole "controversy," the so-called "War on Christmas," is largely an invention of certain Christians suffering from a delusional victim complex.

[Evening Star]

pro-life group freely express themselves by e.g. surrounding the GAP display and shouting through megaphones to the point where no one can hear the GAP representatives?

"Pro-choice", sorry.

[GostHacked]

So my question was not answered before.

Is the university campus considered private or public property?

[Evening Star]

And bloodyminded is right. It's hard to see the bitching about the 'War on Christmas' as anything other than the petulance of Christians who resent that their particular faith no longer has the same hegemonic dominance it used to.

[guyser]

Is the university campus considered private or public property?

Kind of hard to say.

They were funded by public money but were granted some autonomy for tuition, admin and so on. From there they seem to have convinced themselves they are private for actions that occur on their grounds. Seems to have begun with York U.

There are very few truly private Uni's in Canada

[GostHacked]

Kind of hard to say.

They were funded by public money but were granted some autonomy for tuition, admin and so on. From there they seem to have convinced themselves they are private for actions that occur on their grounds. Seems to have begun with York U.

There are very few truly private Uni's in Canada

Because I think that has some bearing on the decision the University took. Because if it really is considered private property, then there really is no issue here at all.

[ToadBrother]

Because I think that has some bearing on the decision the University took. Because if it really is considered private property, then there really is no issue here at all.

And there's no issue here at all. Like any public facility, the administration does have some rights to control what goes on. Like I said to Mr. C, see how long your allowed to sit in a courtroom with banners like that.

[Evening Star]

I certainly don't think the 'left' is most guilty of restricting freedom of speech btw. Every protest or demonstration I attended had to operate within quite restricted boundaries and was supervised by police officers. No one seemed to think this was unreasonable and I definitely never heard conservatives complain about this. For an example of something that was truly restrictive, witness the use of 'free speech zones' under Bush in the US. (Or the treatment of G20 protesters in Toronto.)

Related to this issue:

http://educationlawblog.ca/tag/public-vs-private-property/

http://canadiandimension.com/articles/1901

Note that the protesters who were targeted at York, as described in the second article, were pro-Palestinian or anti-Bush protesters, not right-wingers.

[Evening Star]

The second article I linked elaborates on what guyser mentioned, on York's role in leading the trend towards universities seeing themselves as private institutions.

[grainfedprairieboy]

And again, I'm with you on the matter of the HRCs, who unfairly and irrationally made things temporarily difficult for Mark Steyn, among others. But I'm asking when there was greater critical thinking--and people protesting in the manner discussed on this thread, using that kind of imagery.

I don't believe it was occurring, before, say, the 1980s, any more than it is now.

I must disagree. It was during the 60s and 70s that the establishment was challenged on a social level like never before in our history. From issues such as racism, religious tolerance, gender equality, homosexuality etc etc etc. The Universities were the breeding grounds for social change and fostered an environment where the status quo could be challenged.

But the commitment to freedom of speech and expression that allowed people to protest that it is a woman's right to choose, even though at the time administrators likely disagreed with the protesters, has vanished and been replaced with such a rigid dogma that any challenge to the current establishment can have you suspended, fined or even jailed.

(And when I say jailed I am referring to people who might wear a T Shirt that articulates their opposition to abortion in a court mandated bubblezone)