In Canada some groups are more equal than others

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm not telling a story.

Your posts on the subject qualify.

one is during the holocust memorial week, one is during CLUB WEEK.

So? Are you thus saying that the dead baby poster is allowed during Club Week or Pro-Life week (there is one)? I doubt that.

And universities are not entirely public.

I can't speak for Canada, but a Student Union in a US public university is considered a state actor. Mostly because they are funded by student tuition (and in most places you can't opt out of paying for it). In my undergrad public university there was a more equal standard. The Jewish groups couldn't put posters with dead Holocaust people up.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Is it a legal argument to say "well my friend Joe stole this car and didn't get busted, so I can too"?

It is certainly a legal argument to say it is legal for this group to show a certain thing so I can too.

You said something about strawmen? Unless you think it illegal for the Jewish group to put up their posters?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It is certainly a legal argument to say it is legal for this group to show a certain thing so I can too.

Who said it was legal for them to? Who said it was illegal for Obiwan's to?

You said something about strawmen? Unless you think it illegal for the Jewish group to put up their posters?

Speaking of strawman, I don't recall Obiwan saying anything about it being illegal. They were asked to take them down, doesn't mean they're illegal...just vulgar and vile.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who said it was legal for them to? Who said it was illegal for Obiwan's to?

I don't recall Obiwan saying anything about it being illegal. They were asked to take them down, doesn't mean they're illegal...just vulgar and vile.

If a Student Union is a state actor (like in most Unis in the US) then saying that a poster is not allowed is akin to claiming it illegal, if it is held up in court.

[Asher]

Just because it seems some people have missed it.

The lawsuit had nothing to do with the university, but with the student society. They passed a motion several years ago banning the display of graphic abortion pictures within the Student Union Building for any purposes.

The student society, with people elected by the student body, passed a motion banning the display of those pictures.

Now would somebody please explain to me why all of the supposedly-bright people in this thread are arguing about "legality" of this all? The student society, with an elected representitive body of the students, in a student society-owned facility, said the pictures were not to be permitted. They did it anyway.

How does this relate to Canada's policies?

[notyoueither]

In Alberta, universities are chartered by the provincial government. They are essentially their own municipalities. They sure as hell are not private property.

Students Unions are non-voluntary, fees collecting branches of the universities. They are also the smallest of the politcal ponds, where the worst of petty politics are practiced. The saying goes that there is no politics like small time politics. Or something.

I suspect the same is true across the country in most cases.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Now would somebody please explain to me why all of the supposedly-bright people in this thread are arguing about "legality" of this all? The student society, with an elected representitive body of the students, in a student society-owned facility, said the pictures were not to be permitted.

Because you moron a student society in a public university can be deemed to be a state actor in some legal systems .

Students Unions are non-voluntary, fees collecting branches of the universities. They are also the smallest of the politcal ponds, where the worst of petty politics are practiced. The saying goes that there is no politics like small time politics.

Thanks nye, that confirms my point. SUs are state actors and thus are acting discriminatorily to pro-life groups And it seems it was because of personal (group) animus. Unfortunetly you don't have our 1st Amendment .

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher
Just because it seems some people have missed it.

The lawsuit had nothing to do with the university, but with the student society. They passed a motion several years ago banning the display of graphic abortion pictures within the Student Union Building for any purposes.

The student society, with people elected by the student body, passed a motion banning the display of those pictures.

Now would somebody please explain to me why all of the supposedly-bright people in this thread are arguing about "legality" of this all? The student society, with an elected representitive body of the students, in a student society-owned facility, said the pictures were not to be permitted. They did it anyway.

How does this relate to Canada's policies?

I think what people are saying, Asher, is that what the students union did in that case was censorship in a pure form. It was suppression of a position from a quasi-governmental position. It was wrong.

I agree. If what the pro-lifers were trying to say, and show, was so distrubing, then maybe there might be something to their case.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because you moron a student society in a public university can be deemed to be a state actor in some legal systems .

That doesn't matter -- in a democratic process, the people decided they didn't want pictures of dead fetuses in their own buildings.

What I'm confused as is Obiwan is all for saying homosexual couples can't marry, but suddenly it's wrong when students don't want to see dead babies in their own buildings.

[notyoueither]

That doesn't matter -- in a democratic process, the people of Canada have decided that gays shall not marry.

What is your point?

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
That doesn't matter -- in a democratic process, the people of Canada have decided that gays shall not marry.

What is your point?

I think you have your numbers mixed up, look at the vote again.

The pro-gay marriage side won.

It's just a matter of time now. The courts and parliament have both agreed to it, the parliament refused to say marriage is only between a man and a woman.

[notyoueither]

Hasn't passed a final vote yet, son.

And if it does not, by your logic, you have nothing to cry about.

[Asher]

Back to the stool-worshipper's example:

A club on campus is full of people who love human stool. They want to share this opinion with others, and put lots of graphics photos up on their display. The Students Union passes a motion banning such things.

You guys are arguing this is illegal and they must be allowed to show it, right?

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Hasn't passed a final vote yet, son.

And if it does not, by your logic, you have nothing to cry about.

I have a right to a dissenting opinion, just as Obiwan does here.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That doesn't matter -- in a democratic process, the people decided they didn't want pictures of dead fetuses in their own buildings.

Because when the 'people' at that time and place decide an issue that is the final authority? I guess that means if the people voted tomorrow to silence the Conservatives in Canada from advancing their political beliefs it'd be ok because it was a democratic process?

There is a reason why the US and Canada aren't democracies. Because we decided there are certain rights that are so important that we don't want exceptions to it because the 'people' at that time decided to.