University of Alberta’s $17,500 security fee on pro-life event gags free speech

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I haven't a clue how much it would cost for security during an outdoor event such as this one, Bear. Maybe it is punitive, maybe not but the group was given the option of holding their demonstration in a more secure area. If they are that dedicated to the cause one might think that getting their message out took precedence over where it would be held.
Or other choices are like the pages just before the classifieds in print media.
 

Nick Danger

Council Member
Jul 21, 2013
1,798
461
83
Penticton, BC
Looked, can't find the word "demonstration" applied to the pro life group, in the article. Did find "educational display" though. That was obstructed by a "demonstration" the year prior.

Sorry if that confused you, "display" was the word used in the original article.

There's no doubt where your sympathies lie here, but if we don't really know exactly what security measures the University was contemplating it's hard to judge whether or not those charges were justified. The fact that security would be required though, goes without saying. It's hard not to see the "educational display" as being deliberately antagonistic, at its very roots the pro-life movement is an attempt to force one narrow view of religious morality on society as a whole. Given the passionate and rebellious nature of youth it would be naive not to expect some manner of backlash.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
I haven't a clue how much it would cost for security during an outdoor event such as this one, Bear. Maybe it is punitive, maybe not but the group was given the option of holding their demonstration in a more secure area. If they are that dedicated to the cause one might think that getting their message out took precedence over where it would be held.


What the University is saying is, You can either hide somewhere inside the buildings where we can control who see's and doesn't see your message, or you pay for "security" so that we can control who can see or not see your display.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Sorry if that confused you, "display" was the word used in the original article.
I wasn't confused by your trash journalism.

There's no doubt where your sympathies lie here
I really have to hear where you think my sympathies lay.

The fact that security would be required though, goes without saying. It's hard not to see the "educational display" as being deliberately antagonistic, at its very roots the pro-life movement is an attempt to force one narrow view of religious morality on society as a whole.
Do you blame rape victims too?

Given the passionate and rebellious nature of youth it would be naive not to expect some manner of backlash.
When my son was in high school he led a protest against the banning of the confederate flag. Without violence, destruction of private property, or any other cost.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Because those are the only type of people who feel life begins at conception.
More like they are the only group that naturally keeps their numbers from getting to large that others deem them to be a danger to mankind as a whole.
 

Nick Danger

Council Member
Jul 21, 2013
1,798
461
83
Penticton, BC
I get that you think the security charges are punitively large, but we really don't know how they got to that number do we? Free speech is one thing, but if one creates a hazard in exercising that right who should foot the bill in addressing that hazard?
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,615
7,093
113
Washington DC
I get that you think the security charges are punitively large, but we really don't know how they got to that number do we? Free speech is one thing, but if one creates a hazard in exercising that right who should foot the bill in addressing that hazard?
The government. Without discrimination. It's the price of freedom.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I get that you think the security charges are punitively large, but we really don't know how they got to that number do we? Free speech is one thing, but if one creates a hazard in exercising that right who should foot the bill in addressing that hazard?
What Tech said, and I'll add, the ones who create the hazard. Putting up a display isn't creating a hazard.

I don't think it's punitively large, I said it's punitive.

Do you blame rape victims too?