Should this woman be habitually locked up?


JLM
#1
Ian Hunter: Adding cold insult to injustice | Full Comment | National Post

Aren't there more serious offenders who are not in our over crowded prisons? A couple of R.C.M.P. officers come to mind.
 
petros
#2
I don't understand what "habitually locked up" means. Yes there are and Harper will be opening new prisons and 4000 women will fill them so they gotta start somewhere.

If you get lonely you can talk to them. Just dial "1-800 Hello BC" and you'll find a lonely convict on the other end working as a slave.
 
Trotz
#3
Smart woman,
each time she is arrested she is sent to a low security prison; which in Canada, amounts to video games, free laundry, a warm cot, three meals a day, a gym, a library, access to a computer, et al. In other words, taxpayers money are used to prop up this pyscho and give her a better lifestyle than most lower-middle class families.


Too bad the Victorian days are long ago or otherwise we would just shove her into an old fashion mental asylum (not to be mistaken with contemporary asylums which are vacation homes)
 
earth_as_one
#4
Abortions are a legal medical procedure. People have a right to seek legal medical procedures in a way that is safe and harassment free. She knowingly breaks the law to harasses people over and over, which is why she has spent most of the last 20 years in prison. She could easily avoid prison by respecting the law. She can even protest if she likes as long as she respects the minimum distance requirement.

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but no one has the right to harass others who don't share your beliefs.

I suspect the reason why you seem to have a hard time understanding this woman's crime has to do with your beliefs regarding abortion. If she was harassing people seeking other types of legal medical procedures, like dialysis or blood transfusions, you might be less sympathetic.
 
JLM
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Abortions are a legal medical procedure. People have a right to seek legal medical procedures in a way that is safe and harassment free. She knowingly breaks the law to harasses people over and over, which is why she has spent most of the last 20 years in prison. she could easily avoid prison by respecting the law. She is entitled to her beliefs, but she has no right to try to impose her beliefs on others.

I suspect you seem to have a hard time understanding why harassing people seeking abortions is a crime is because of your own beliefs regarding abortion. If she was harassing people seeking other types of legal medical procedures, like dialysis or a blood transfusion, you might be less sympathetic.

No doubt.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

I don't understand what "habitually locked up" means. Yes there are and Harper will be opening new prisons and 4000 women will fill them so they gotta start somewhere.

If you get lonely you can talk to them. Just dial "1-800 Hello BC" and you'll find a lonely convict on the other end working as a slave.

How about on a frequent and on going basis?

Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Abortions are a legal medical procedure. People have a right to seek legal medical procedures in a way that is safe and harassment free. She knowingly breaks the law to harasses people over and over, which is why she has spent most of the last 20 years in prison. She could easily avoid prison by respecting the law. She can even protest if she likes as long as she respects the minimum distance requirement.

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but no one has the right to harass others who don't share your beliefs.

I suspect you seem to have a hard time understanding why harassing people seeking abortions is a crime is because of your own beliefs regarding abortion. If she was harassing people seeking other types of legal medical procedures, like dialysis or a blood transfusion, you might be less sympathetic.

I suppose in our system legality trumps morality.
 
lone wolf
#6
Powers that be in Ontario tend to be on the vindictive side anyhow....
 
karrie
#7
I am pro-life (do not mistake me with anti-abortion), but even I see why the law has no real tangible choice but to incarcerate someone who breaches the law regarding the 60ft 'bubble' that allows women access to legal medical treatment. Especially given the fact that it is a real, valid, medical need in some cases.
 
JLM
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

I am pro-life (do not mistake me with anti-abortion), but even I see why the law has no real tangible choice but to incarcerate someone who breaches the law regarding the 60ft 'bubble' that allows women access to legal medical treatment. Especially given the fact that it is a real, valid, medical need in some cases.

A fine or community service may be more appropriate.
 
karrie
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

A fine or community service may be more appropriate.

Which time? Presumably that's where they started. She clearly has no intent of stopping.
 
Trotz
#10
Community service sounds about right,
being trash she'll have no objections to picking up trash on the highway. Especially with drunk RCMP officers in British Columbia who have a tendency to run over people on the road, the Ontarians should make arrangements to send her to the west coast (after all we already take in their homeless and hipster youth, adding in crazy grandmothers wouldn't change a thing)
 
earth_as_one
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I suppose in our system legality trumps morality.

In a free society, the law must trump morality, because everyone has their own version of morality. Iran is an example of how screwed up things can get when the state tries to impose one version of morality on everyone.

I support this woman's right to choose not to have an abortion. I don't support her attempts to impose her morality on others.

That said, abortion is a gray area, since the rights of a mother must be balanced with the rights of a child. In Canada, you can legally have an abortion right up until labor. I have a problem with that, because at some point a fetus should have rights too.

According to my morality, people should be able to get an abortion at any time during the first three months with little interference. After three months, the person should have to justify their abortion. During the last three months, the fetus has rights that must be respected and abortion can only be justified for serious medical reasons.

But I'm a guy, so I wouldn't presume to impose my morality on a pregnant woman...
 
JLM
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

Which time? Presumably that's where they started. She clearly has no intent of stopping.

She's probably not playing with a "full deck".
 
Colpy
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

In a free society, the law must trump morality, because everyone has their own version of morality. Iran is an example of how screwed up things can get when the state tries to impose one version of morality on everyone.

I support this woman's right to choose not to have an abortion. I don't support her attempts to impose her morality on others.

That said, abortion is a gray area, since the rights of a mother must be balanced with the rights of a child. In Canada, you can legally have an abortion right up until labor. I have a problem with that, because at some point a fetus should have rights too.

According to my morality, people should be able to get an abortion at any time during the first three months with little interference. After three months, the person should have to justify their abortion. During the last three months, the fetus has rights that must be respected and abortion can only be justified for serious medical reasons.

But I'm a guy, so I wouldn't presume to impose my morality on a pregnant woman...

Well, you know, I'm not a Muslim, so far be it from me to pass any moral judgement when the guy next door butchers his daughter for wearing a miniskirt.

Ludicrous argument.

Has the left EVER heard of freedom of speech, the right to peacefully assemble?

The lady does NOT "impose her morality on others" by speaking, by holding up signs, by protesting, and certainly not by praying.

Were she harassing passers-by, or blocking the entrance to the clinic, or throwing blood on clients, or anything that put her in anothers' personal space, you might have a point.

But she is not.

This country is increasingly becoming farcical.
Last edited by Colpy; Feb 14th, 2011 at 12:10 PM..
 
gerryh
#14
Holy crap. I agree with Colpy.
 
JLM
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Holy crap. I agree with Colpy.

Like you he's a very agreeable guy.
 
karrie
+1
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Well, you know, I'm not a Muslim, so far be it from me to pass any moral judgement when the guy next door butchers his daughter for wearing a miniskirt.

Ludicrous argument.

Has the left EVER heard of freedom of speech, the right to peacefully assemble?

The lady does NOT "impose her morality on others" by speaking, by holding up signs, by protesting, and certainly not by praying.

Were she harassing passers-by, or blocking the entrance to the clinic, or throwing blood on clients, or anything that put her in anothers' personal space, you might have a point.

But she is not.

This country is increasingly becoming farcical.

If you can explain to me why she HAS to do what she does from within the legally defined zone, rather than from outside of it, then I might perhaps buy into what you're saying. As it is, the law has given the women a zone of access to the clinics. There's no reason for this woman to be in that zone, plain and simple, when she can just as easily hold her sign and say her prayers from outside of it.
 
JLM
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

If you can explain to me why she HAS to do what she does from within the legally defined zone, rather than from outside of it, then I might perhaps buy into what you're saying. As it is, the law has given the women a zone of access to the clinics. There's no reason for this woman to be in that zone, plain and simple, when she can just as easily hold her sign and say her prayers from outside of it.

Good point. I still don't think she should be locked up (especially as prisons are overcrowded) while really dangerous people are still walking the streets.
 
Unforgiven
#18
Throw away the key!
 
karrie
#19
Without knowing a lot more about her, her actions, and the legal system's dealings with her, than this article provided, I can't really agree or disagree with you JLM, about where she should or shouldn't be or how they ought to handle her.
 
Colpy
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

If you can explain to me why she HAS to do what she does from within the legally defined zone, rather than from outside of it, then I might perhaps buy into what you're saying. As it is, the law has given the women a zone of access to the clinics. There's no reason for this woman to be in that zone, plain and simple, when she can just as easily hold her sign and say her prayers from outside of it.

Simple really....twenty meters isolates here from those she wishes to influence....it effectively silences her....unless she shows up with a megaphone.

As long as she does not interfere with clients, the women's "zone of access" is not affected.
 
karrie
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Simple really....twenty meters isolates here from those she wishes to influence....it effectively silences her....unless she shows up with a megaphone.

As long as she does not interfere with clients, the women's "zone of access" is not affected.

You're negating your own argument... you want her closer so that she can be heard, but you claim that she won't be interfering. Well guess what... being heard IS interfering.

Freedom of speech and freedom of audience are not the same thing. You are not guaranteed the right to get into women's faces to have your opinion heard.
 
lone wolf
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

You're negating your own argument... you want her closer so that she can be heard, but you claim that she won't be interfering. Well guess what... being heard IS interfering.

Freedom of speech and freedom of audience are not the same thing. You are not guaranteed the right to get into women's faces to have your opinion heard.

Ever been through an OPSEU picket line - where they are permitted to delay public use of whichever road upon which they choose to picket?
 
gerryh
+2
#23  Top Rated Post
yup, you can object to the murder of children from the comfort of your home only.
 
Colpy
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

You're negating your own argument... you want her closer so that she can be heard, but you claim that she won't be interfering. Well guess what... being heard IS interfering.

Freedom of speech and freedom of audience are not the same thing. You are not guaranteed the right to get into women's faces to have your opinion heard.

Oh come on!

By that logic, the government would be perfectly correct to pass a law restricting my speech to my bathroom........or not permitting me to project outside of my house by any means any politically incorrect view.

Freedom of speech and freedom of audience are EXACTLY the same thing.

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

yup, you can object to the murder of children from the comfort of your home only.

Exactly....

What's next?
 
karrie
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

yup, you can object to the murder of children from the comfort of your home only.

That's pure bull and you know it. She just has to be a few more meters away.

Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Oh come on!

By that logic, the government would be perfectly correct to pass a law restricting my speech to my bathroom........or not permitting me to project outside of my house by any means any politically incorrect view.

Freedom of speech and freedom of audience are EXACTLY the same thing.

So you object to the putting up of fences outside of, say, the G8 and setting up protest zones? Limiting where people can and can't picket, and how long they can hold traffic for when they do, etc.? Or does your fury over legal restrictions on where you can protest only apply when you support the speech?
 
earth_as_one
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Well, you know, I'm not a Muslim, so far be it from me to pass any moral judgement when the guy next door butchers his daughter for wearing a miniskirt.

Ludicrous argument.

Has the left EVER heard of freedom of speech, the right to peacefully assemble?

The lady does NOT "impose her morality on others" by speaking, by holding up signs, by protesting, and certainly not by praying.

Were she harassing passers-by, or blocking the entrance to the clinic, or throwing blood on clients, or anything that put her in anothers' personal space, you might have a point.

But she is not.

This country is increasingly becoming farcical.

You'll have to quote where I said a parent can murder their daughter because they have a morality issue with the way she dresses. I never said that and your argument is an example of a straw man:

Quote:

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

In fact, your example supports my argument that no one has the right to impose their morality on someone else and that the law must trump morality.

1) You completely ignore the right of the daughter to live her life according to their sense of morality. Parents can try to influence their children, but ultimately if the daughter wants to screw every guy with an erection, there is little the parents can do about it, once she reaches the legal age of consent.

2) Murder is illegal, and the law trumps morality.

Another example would be a husband finding his wife having sex with another man. Sure I can understand why he would upset. According to many people's sense of morality, he would be justified murdering both of them. Again, the law trumps one person's sense of morality. Another husband with a completely different sense of morality, might join them... In which case he wouldn't be breaking any laws, even though some people might find his sense of morality less offensive than murder.
 
Unforgiven
#27
Of course we all know why there has to be a 60 foot safety zone don't we. Abide your religion but don't shove it down my throat.
 
gerryh
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post


2) Murder is illegal,


Obviously only in certain instances. As in it is perfectly all right for a woman to murder her unborn child for vanity alone.
 
earth_as_one
#29
I agree with Karrie:
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

You're negating your own argument... you want her closer so that she can be heard, but you claim that she won't be interfering. Well guess what... being heard IS interfering.

Freedom of speech and freedom of audience are not the same thing. You are not guaranteed the right to get into women's faces to have your opinion heard.

The law says protesters have no right to interfere with people seeking an abortion. The woman in question keeps breaking this law, so she's keeps going to jail. If she wants to stop going to jail, all she has to do is stop breaking the law. I understand that her sense of morality causes her to break the law. She has more in common with the parents who would murder their daughter before allowing her to leave the house dressed inappropriately, than law abiding citizens who understands the limits of their own sense of morality.
 
TenPenny
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Obviously only in certain instances. As in it is perfectly all right for a woman to murder her unborn child for vanity alone.

You can't murder someone who isn't born.
 

Similar Threads

0
locked in rrsp
by brnathan | Feb 23rd, 2008
7
1 Wrench + 1 locked door = BnE
by jeckgo | Mar 5th, 2006
0
Thread locked
by Karlin | Nov 7th, 2005
no new posts