Should this woman be habitually locked up?

[karrie]

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]

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]

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

 

[Colpy]

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.

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

Exactly....

What's next?

 

[karrie]

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.

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]

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:

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]

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]

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]

I agree with Karrie:

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]

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.

 

[gerryh]

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.

So, a woman devoting her life to trying to prevent women from murdering their unborn children is the same as a parent who WOULD murder their child for dressing inappropriately? You really are one screwed up individual.

 

[earth_as_one]

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

That might be the way you see abortion according to your sense or morality.

According to the law, which trumps your sense of morality, an unborn child isn't a person yet, so abortion even out of a sense of vanity isn't murder.

If you don't like the law, then the legal approach is to fight to change the law. But don't try to illegally impose your sense of morality on others who don't share your sense of morality. Otherwise you'll join this woman in prison.

 

[Unforgiven]

So, a woman devoting her life to trying to prevent women from murdering their unborn children is the same as a parent who WOULD murder their child for dressing inappropriately? You really are one screwed up individual.

Some people shoot and kill doctors using that very justification. Saying it's murder when it isn't, only fuels the fire and prevents any real discussion on the subject. We could be talking about ending late term abortions for other than medical reasons or limiting repeated abortions for those using it as birth control. But we can't because of the absolute polarization that "You're a murderer that is killing a child" brings to the table.

Do we bother with ending the rhetoric or continue to scream without listening?

 

[earth_as_one]

So, a woman devoting her life to trying to prevent women from murdering their unborn children is the same as a parent who WOULD murder their child for dressing inappropriately? You really are one screwed up individual.

I never wrote that murder and harassment are the same thing. Read what I wrote!

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.

Murder and harassment are both illegal. Yes the severity of the crime and the penalties are different. But in both situations, the root cause of the crimes is one person breaking the law to impose their sense of morality on someone else. That's my point. I'm not suggesting that murder and harassment should be treated the same.

 

[gerryh]

Some people shoot and kill doctors using that very justification. Saying it's murder when it isn't, only fuels the fire and prevents any real discussion on the subject. We could be talking about ending late term abortions for other than medical reasons or limiting repeated abortions for those using it as birth control. But we can't because of the absolute polarization that "You're a murderer that is killing a child" brings to the table.

Do we bother with ending the rhetoric or continue to scream without listening?

So, you're now equating with her demonstration with some nut job murdering people? You want to use a comparable comparison, then equate the nut job that murders abortion doctors with the nutjobs that kill baby's for their own personal selfish reasons. No different than the mother or father that kills their kids after they are born.

 

[JLM]

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.

Colpy has you beat on that point Karrie. "Being heard" is just part of "freedom of speech".

I guess we are getting into the "dangerous territory" of discussing the abortion issue (which some of our opinions are well known on this forum) . In this case I feel the woman is being incarcerated as a "criminal" for what amounts to break a by law. BUT I also realize what to do with her? is a big problem. An even bigger problem is she is costing us $100 thousand or so a year keeping her locked up (in comfort). Maybe THAT is the problem. Maybe 30 days of black bread and water and hard labour will show her the error of her ways. While I certainly don't condemn ALL aborions I don't feel her "crime" is any more serious than some of the abortions.

 

[Colpy]

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


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?

Actually, yes I do.

I think the sheltering of world leaders from the population has gone to ludicrous lengths.

And I think our governments have far overstepped their bounds doing it....starting with the APEC conference back in the 90s.

unfortunately, the protesters at things like the G20 are often subverted by the violent idiots in their midst..........IMHO, a security perimeter that allowed people in after cursory checks for weapons etc would be the right thing to do.

If you can do it at a rock concert......

Oh, and when people start smashing windows and burning police cars??? The police should start breaking heads.

 

[Cliffy]

Oh, and when people start smashing windows and burning police cars??? The police should start breaking heads.

Actually, it was undercover cops doing the smashing and burning to justify the overkill on the security and so they could get away with smashing heads. Kinda blows your argument but law and order types don't let facts get in their way.

 

[Colpy]

Actually, it was undercover cops doing the smashing and burning to justify the overkill on the security and so they could get away with smashing heads. Kinda blows your argument but law and order types don't let facts get in their way.

Baloney.

Your fantasies are not reality.

First of all, they broke very few heads, and the places where they DID break heads were (inexcusably) the places were the protests were reasonably quiet.

Secondly, I guess you think the guys arrested after the protests from video evidence have been secretly paid off by the cops???

Give it a break.

 

[Cliffy]

Baloney.

Your fantasies are not reality.

First of all, they broke very few heads, and the places where they DID break heads were (inexcusably) the places were the protests were reasonably quiet.

Secondly, I guess you think the guys arrested after the protests from video evidence have been secretly paid off by the cops???

Give it a break.

I have a problem shutting up when you and others spew BS. It was shown conclusively that the cops perpetrated the smashing and burning in Quebec and Toronto. It was on TV... it must be true.