Boges Posted August 5, 2011 Report Share Posted August 5, 2011 (edited) Regardless of your opinions of abortion, this story should make you sick. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/linda-gibbons-arrested-for-silent-witness-outside-toronto-abortion-mill/ TORONTO, August 4, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - LifeSiteNews reporter and managing director Steve Jalsevac was live-blogging and taking photos from the Morgentaler abortion mill on Hillsdale Ave in Toronto this morning as pro-life activist Linda Gibbons was arrested. Gibbons has spent 8 of the last 14 years in jail for breaking a 1994 ‘temporary’ court injunction which forbids pro-life presence outside various abortion centers in Toronto. Gibbons arrived at the Morgentaler abortion mill this morning shortly before 9am and was arrested just after 11am. As is her normal practice Gibbons paced back and forth silently in front of the mill carrying a sign with a live baby’s photo reading: “Why Mom When I have so much Love to Give”. She attempted to speak to several women entering the centre to offer them aid to carry their pregnancies to term. Six police officers took part in the arrest, including the sheriff and his deputy who ordered the arrest after Gibbons did not respond to their requests to obey the injunction and leave the area. Gibbons was read the injunction and led to the squad car peacefully. While in years past she sat immobile causing officers to carry her to the vehicle, the 69-year-old grandmother walked with them this morning. In a country where people on the left protest on the drop of a hat, sometimes violently, this lady quietly protests what she believes is the evil of abortion, and she's labelled a criminal. It's actually offensive to all my sensibilities. If she was screaming at people going into these clinics and threatening them, well that's one thing. But she just stands there with a sign and she's been in jail more than some murderers in this country. This kind of travesty defies all forms of logic. Edited August 5, 2011 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 In a country where people on the left protest on the drop of a hat, sometimes violently, this lady quietly protests what she believes is the evil of abortion, and she's labelled a criminal. They can't protest in protester-free zones - and most likely there was such a "buffer zone" around this clinic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted August 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 They can't protest in protester-free zones - and most likely there was such a "buffer zone" around this clinic. Because of a "temporary" injunction. I thought this was a free country though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 Because of a "temporary" injunction. I thought this was a free country though. She is free to protest across the street. Not in front of the clinic. So you thought correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 Because of a "temporary" injunction. I thought this was a free country though. Of course it's not completely "free;" your hate laws are another example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 Of course it's not completely "free;" your hate laws are another example. Im free to hate whoever or whatever I want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 Im free to hate whoever or whatever I want. Yep. You're just not free to express all of that hate any way you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 Yep. You're just not free to express all of that hate any way you want.Actually, that comes with a caveat: you are free to express any kind of hatred for whites, christians, hetrosexuals and males. What you are not allowed to do is say bad things about any certified "victim" group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 Yep. You're just not free to express all of that hate any way you want. ah yes. There are limitations. I cannot attempt to inspire hatred in others. What an effin shame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 Actually, that comes with a caveat: you are free to express any kind of hatred for whites, christians, hetrosexuals and males. What you are not allowed to do is say bad things about any certified "victim" group. Where do I get this certification? I want one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 Where do I get this certification? I want one. If you're a white heterosexual male, you can't get one (except by changing one or more of those basic attributes). Otherwise, you're automatically "certified". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 If you're a white heterosexual male, you can't get one (except by changing one or more of those basic attributes). Otherwise, you're automatically "certified". Oh i'm sure I can get one, you did! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 The last paragraph of the link explains that others were protesting legally outside the 170 metre limit. Linda Gibbons seems intent on being arrested, for publicity for the cause I suppose? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 (edited) Actually, that comes with a caveat: you are free to express any kind of hatred for whites, christians, hetrosexuals and males. What you are not allowed to do is say bad things about any certified "victim" group. Actually religion and thus Christians are protected. As the dominant group with most of the power in this country, white hetero males are not. But when we bring the revolution to your gates, you will then be freed to access the Human rights council. I promise. Edited August 6, 2011 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 As the dominant group with most of the power in this country, white hetero males are not. So apparently it's ok to incite hate against them ....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 Actually religion and thus Christians are protected. As the dominant group with most of the power in this country, white hetero males are not. How much power does this guy have? It is not "groups" that have power, it is individuals. There are plenty of Asians, Blacks, and others that are successful and have "power" and "dominance" and need no protection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 So apparently it's ok to incite hate against them ....... I'm not in favour of inciting hatred against any people or person nor even animals though there are some insects I feel we could do without. TimG made the point that white hetero males are not protected by law in Canada and at this point he's right: There haven't been any successful cases yet. WHM's hold a bigger share of the wealth, power and jobs than their numbers warrant as they are in fact a minority of the population. Doesn't mean some of them aren't having a hard go of it. Is it BECAUSE they are WHM's? Not proven yet to my knowledge. It's true some opportunities are denied to individuals because it's necessary to reapportion wealth/jobs/power to match demographics or job requirements (languages, cultural understanding, etc. It may yet be successfully argued in court, but not yet. Racial, cultural and gender biases have long favoured WHM's. It's an issue in flux. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 How much power does this guy have? It is not "groups" that have power, it is individuals. There are plenty of Asians, Blacks, and others that are successful and have "power" and "dominance" and need no protection. No he has no power, not even over himself. But on average, white males do hold the bulk of political and economic clout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 (edited) I'm not in favour of inciting hatred against any people or person nor even animals though there are some insects I feel we could do without. TimG made the point that white hetero males are not protected by law in Canada He made the point that they aren't protected by your hate law. and at this point he's right: There haven't been any successful cases yet. WHM's hold a bigger share of the wealth, power and jobs than their numbers warrant as they are in fact a minority of the population. So it's ok to incite hatered against them because of it? That's protected under free speech laws? That was my point. Seems to me if a country is going to restrict free speech by hate laws, it best apply to all citizens. Doesn't mean some of them aren't having a hard go of it. Is it BECAUSE they are WHM's? Not proven yet to my knowledge. Hate laws aren't about "having a hard go of it." But I'm guessing not all members of the "protected group" are having a hard time of it because of their association with said "group." Not by a long shot. It's true some opportunities are denied to individuals because it's necessary to reapportion wealth/jobs/power to match demographics or job requirements (languages, cultural understanding, etc. It may yet be successfully argued in court, but not yet. You're talking affirmative action here, which is a different matter than hate laws. This topic has to do with free speech - the fact that Gibbons can't demonstrate within x number of feet of the abortion clinic - and the question was asked 'is this not a free country?' - and I brought up your hate law as another example of restrictions on free speech. It was then brought up that it doesn't apply to white hetero males. I think if a nation is going to protect some people from speech that incites hatred, it best protect all in the same way. Yet it's apparently ok to incite hatred against white hetero males. TimG was correct. Racial, cultural and gender biases have long favoured WHM's. It's an issue in flux. Again, I don't see why that should exclude white hetero males from hate laws. If speech is going to be restricted in such a way in a democratic nation, it should protect all citizens equally. Also, it should be recognized that there are minorities that "hate" whites because they are white just - as their are whites who hate minorities because they are said minority. One is not more 'ok' than the other. Edited August 6, 2011 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 Again, I don't see why that should exclude white hetero males from hate laws. If speech is going to be restricted in such a way in a democratic nation, it should protect all citizens equally. Also, it should be recognized that there are minorities that "hate" whites because they are white just - as their are whites who hate minorities because they are said minority. One is not more 'ok' than the other. They're not excluded and why you would believe they are is beyond me. Criminal Code of Canada - Hate Propaganda “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 They're not excluded and why you would believe they are is beyond me. Well golly gee .... I'm not the only one reading it that way, am I? Why you would single me out is beyond me. (Not really - I'm really not surprised in the least ). If the law pertains to everyone, why would they make a list of who it applies to? why would "identifiable group" be specified? Somehow I don't think white hetero men were what the lawmakers had in mind when specifying "identifiable group." In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. I think most people would assume "color" refers to "visible minority." I don't think "whites" are "distinguished by color." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 I don't think "whites" are "distinguished by color." Why? Because "white" implies an absence of colour? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 Why? Because "white" implies an absence of colour? Obviously I was speaking in regards to the context of the law. Hence the quotes - which usually means one is not speaking 'generally.' Hope this clarification helps prevent the further dumbing down of this discussion in that direction ............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 (edited) Well golly gee .... I'm not the only one reading it that way, am I? Why you would single me out is beyond me. (Not really - I'm really not surprised in the least). Because yours was the last post in the thread before I replied. If the law pertains to everyone, why would they make a list of who it applies to? why would "identifiable group" be specified? Because publicly communicating or expressing a hatred for everyone, and wishing everyone would die, does not constitute "genocide" nor "hatred against an identifiable group." Somehow I don't think white hetero men were what the lawmakers had in mind when pecifying "identifiable group." Somehow I don't think you can know that. The law reads as it is and it includes "white hetero men" no matter what you think. In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. I think most people would assume "color" refers to "visible minority." I don't think "whites" are "distinguished by color." So basic English comprehension is a problem for you is it? Please note the use of commas in the definition of "identifiable group." Edited August 6, 2011 by Shwa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 The last paragraph of the link explains that others were protesting legally outside the 170 metre limit. Linda Gibbons seems intent on being arrested, for publicity for the cause I suppose? She certainly does. Every cause needs martyrs, right? -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.