In Canada some groups are more equal than others

[Imran Siddiqui]

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?

If they allow another group to have posters including human feces, then yes.

[Asher]

It's not descrimination because they are pro-life, it's "discrimination" because their materials are graphic. If Obiwan has a real problem with how they allow holocaust pictures during holocaust memorials, he can take it up and get those removed as well (they would not be permitted at my uni, anyway).

But saying it's discrimination against pro-life people is a crock, it's discrimination against graphic pictures in public places. Which is entirely legal.

[notyoueither]

I think that Obi-wans group has a little more legitimacy than stool worshipers. But hey, if you have any luck recruiting and making it a serious example, then more power to you. And yes, if you could form such a group, and it was serious, then I would agree you would have a right to your place in the bowl... ermmm, I mean sun.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's not descrimination because they are pro-life, it's "discrimination" because their materials are graphic.

No, the 'graphic' explination is simply pretext for discrimination against pro-life groups. If they allow posters showing similar graphic scenes (dead human bodies), then making a special resolutioin banning one group from doing so is discriminatory.

To say it is discrimination against 'graphic pictures' is utterly ridiculous under these facts.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If they allow another group to have posters including human feces, then yes.

They probably wouldn't allow for it, had they had complaints.

People complained about the pictures here, then it was acted upon.

A lot of illegal things go on until somebody complains, that doesn't make the action legal.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, the 'graphic' explination is simply pretext for discrimination against pro-life groups. If they allow posters showing similar graphic scenes (dead human bodies), then making a special resolutioin banning one group from doing so is discriminatory.

To say it is discrimination against 'graphic pictures' is utterly ridiculous.

See my last post for why you're heading down the wrong path.

Are incredibly loud houseparties legal if nobody complains? Because Bill had a large houseparty that no one stopped, does this mean Ben can too?

[Imran Siddiqui]

They probably wouldn't allow for it, had they had complaints.

People complained about the pictures here, then it was acted upon.

You really believe the SU would force the Jewish groups to pull down the 'graphic' Holocaust posters? Do you even go to a university? A student union telling a Jewish group to take down Holocaust posters That was hilarious!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher
It's not descrimination because they are pro-life, it's "discrimination" because their materials are graphic. If Obiwan has a real problem with how they allow holocaust pictures during holocaust memorials, he can take it up and get those removed as well (they would not be permitted at my uni, anyway).

But saying it's discrimination against pro-life people is a crock, it's discrimination against graphic pictures in public places. Which is entirely legal.

When have we ever had a problem with graphic, non-sexual pictures in public places?

For christ's sakes, the police take road accident road shows around to the local schools. They have terminal cancer patients lecturing auditoriums full of school children. We have diseased hearts, and brain aneurisms in full, glorius colour on cigarette packs at every counter.

Holocaust photographs have been in many, appropriate places ever since I can remember.

Where is this graphic prohibition you are speaking of, and when did it sneak up on me?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You really believe the SU would force the Jewish groups to pull down the 'graphic' Holocaust posters? Do you even go to a university? A student union telling a Jewish group to take down Holocaust posters That was hilarious!

You yourself said they wouldn't be permitted at your university.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Where is this graphic prohibition you are speaking of, and when did it sneak up on me?

You're saying it would not be illegal for me to march around infront of an elementary school with signs depicting decapitated heads?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Are incredibly loud houseparties legal if nobody complains?

Seeing as how posters would probably have to be approved by the SU before being put up, I can't see how this situation applies.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Seeing as how posters would probably have to be approved by the SU before being put up, I can't see how this situation applies.

You can't make that assumption.

My SU never checked our club posters whatsoever.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You yourself said they wouldn't be permitted at your university.

I doubt Canada has anywhere near the PC of my undergrad university. Think a little (just a little) less than Berkley.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You can't make that assumption.

Why not? It is essential to your 'private' argument. If people can hang whatever posters they want, then it is definetly public.

Unless you want to backtrack on that?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher

You're saying it would not be illegal for me to march around infront of an elementary school with signs depicting decapitated heads?

If you had a legitimate reason for doing so, like preventing accidents, the powers that be would give you a medal. Most likely.

And last I remembered, a university campus was not an elementary school. Also, I recall Obi saying the SUs objection was not the graphic nature of the pictures, but the possibility of violence by others not of his group.

Silence the critic lest the audience assault him. Never mind that he be criticising something that may indeed need some criticising.