Excellent news: Anti-abortion groups may soon be banned from Canadian universities

[Tasaio]

York University student union calls for ban on anti-abortion groups

A similar policy, specifically to ban "anti-choice" groups at York, is to be voted on this weekend at the first board meeting of next year's YFS executive, which is composed largely of student politicians who are entering their third year on the five-member executive.

"I'm confident that it'll pass," Ms. Massa said.

Excellent news. Soon these anti-choice, pro-slavery activists will be forced to retreat to the States if they want to espouse their views.

Those who try to conceal their thinly-veiled mysogyny will be unsuccessful. Canada is a land that fully supports feminists and their control over their own bodies.

Long live Canada! Long live free Canadian women! Long live all women--freedom of abortion for all!

[fwellers]

Originally Posted by Tasaio

York University student union calls for ban on anti-abortion groups



Excellent news. Soon these anti-choice, pro-slavery activists will be forced to retreat to the States if they want to espouse their views.

Those who try to conceal their thinly-veiled mysogyny will be unsuccessful. Canada is a land that fully supports feminists and their control over their own bodies.

Long live Canada! Long live free Canadian women! Long live all women--freedom of abortion for all!

I believe in a woman's right to choose. I also believe in a fetus's right to live. However, I am not a woman, so I don't need to make that choice, and I don't wish to control other people's choices in that area.

That all being said, I also belive in FREE SPEECH. I guess you don't.

[Akashic_Librarian]

I actually also agree with free-speech fweller, ironically your getting mixed up. You see the original post is in support of free speech, and free action. Whilst I Support peoples freedom to choose to NOT agree with abortions, I do not in any way make excuses for their actions. They refuse to see the abyss of hate that their beliefs bring about, and they are indefatigably walking towards their own destruction by society, because these beliefs are primitive, based on religious fear. Thats not how a society advances, not at all.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

It sounds like the anti-abortion groups' right to free speech is being violated.

As much as I would like them to just shut-up, I support free speech for everyone. What's that quote by Hall, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

[Joeschmoe]

I agree, free speech must be defended especially when it is unpalatable.

[fwellers]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

I actually also agree with free-speech fweller, ironically your getting mixed up. You see the original post is in support of free speech, and free action. Whilst I Support peoples freedom to choose to NOT agree with abortions, I do not in any way make excuses for their actions. They refuse to see the abyss of hate that their beliefs bring about, and they are indefatigably walking towards their own destruction by society, because these beliefs are primitive, based on religious fear. Thats not how a society advances, not at all.

No, I think you are agreeing with the OP that you wish to deny free speech to the anti-abortion group.
It's a hard thing to deal with, when someone's speech goes against your grain so much, but that is when the ideal of free speech needs to be protected most.

Heck, we have nazi protests, kkk, etc... down here, and nobody want's to deal with their hate, but we let them blow their venom, because we don't want anyone to shut us up either.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

You see the original post is in support of free speech, and free action.

Howso? It seems to totally contradict the idea of free speech.

[PianoManGidley]

I agree with the free speech stance. I'm undecided on the issue of abortion, because I can see logic on both sides of the arguments. But even if someone is spewing the most hate-filled rhetoric, they should still be allowed to say it. After all, the more they share their true minds with the rest of the world, the more people will see them for who they truly are, right? :-P

My belief is that if you can censor one type of speech, you can censor another. Sooner or later, we all end up mute.

[Dave Kaminski]

Each group has the right to bitch and moan.

When the bitching and moaning is turned into laws that stop the freedom of others, there is a problem.

Free speech? Yes.

It's when the bad ideas get turned into reform - not when they're spewed out of the mouths of the less fortunate in terms of intelligence - that problems arise.

[PianoManGidley]

Originally Posted by Dave Kaminski

Each group has the right to bitch and moan.

When the bitching and moaning is turned into laws that stop the freedom of others, there is a problem.

Free speech? Yes.

It's when the bad ideas get turned into reform - not when they're spewed out of the mouths of the less fortunate in terms of intelligence - that problems arise.

I agree whole-heartedly here. It's the same with hate crimes. If Person A says something hateful and Person B goes out and acts on what Person A said, why should Person A be held responsible? In that vein, where does the line of responsibility end? Would the violent action of overzealous Fundamentalists today be blamed on the scriptures they were following? How would we prosecute someone like Jesus or Muhammad for their own "hate speech" which led to so many atrocities in their name?

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by PianoManGidley

How would we prosecute someone like Jesus or Muhammad for their own "hate speech" which led to so many atrocities in their name?

I don't know enough about Islam to really know the extent of Muhammad's teachings, but when did Jesus use any hate speech?

[Dave Kaminski]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

I don't know enough about Islam to really know the extent of Muhammad's teachings, but when did Jesus use any hate speech?

Yeah, I think you're trying to express an idea but referring to some unfounded facts here PMG.

I don't know that Muhammad or Jesus ever advocated any killing whatsoever. I believe, like me, they felt peace was the only way.

Killing an innocent in the Muslim religion is akin to killing all of humankind, I believe.

Not exactly sure how it got knocked all the way down to #6 on the scale of the 10 Commandments (come on Christian God, you could've done better than that, it should be like #2 at LEAST. Maybe Moses heard you backwards or something) but it's still on the TEN COMMANDMENTS.

Both of these guys were all pro peace and have had much hate expressed in their name that they never spoke themselves. I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure.

[fwellers]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

I don't know enough about Islam to really know the extent of Muhammad's teachings, but when did Jesus use any hate speech?

I remember a line that said something like (those who don't hate their own mother and father and brother and sister, can't follow me ).

I know he probably never even said that, it's just how it got translated, and what was meant wasn't hate really, but just thought I'd throw it out there because it was so suitable as a response to your post.

Seriously though, the most hate I would subscribe to his supposed words were when he spoke about the attrocities that would befall those who treated Israel poorly, and to the unbelievers. That is pretty hateful to tell people that where they are going, there will be gnashing of teeth, and that sodom and gomorrah will be better off than they will be, and oh a host of other terrible things. Revelation ( the last book ) is pretty hateful IMO.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by fwellers

I remember a line that said something like (those who don't hate their own mother and father and brother and sister, can't follow me ).

Yeah, that's not really hate speech by the definition I have heard. In essence he was simply saying that you have to put him first.

Originally Posted by fwellers

Seriously though, the most hate I would subscribe to his supposed words were when he spoke about the attrocities that would befall those who treated Israel poorly, and to the unbelievers. That is pretty hateful to tell people that where they are going, there will be gnashing of teeth, and that sodom and gomorrah will be better off than they will be, and oh a host of other terrible things. Revelation ( the last book ) is pretty hateful IMO.

Ok, I've never been a big fan of Revelation so in all honesty it was never on my Bible reading list. But were those Jesus' words? I think all of the red letters in the Bible were about peace and love and compassion and humility. I mean, Jesus had some really good ideas. I don't think he deserves the reproach. It's what the church has done/said and the killing and terribleness done in his name (that he never advocated) that should receive it.

[Dave Kaminski]

Yeah man, please, for the benefit of the community, find some links or quotes, or retract your comments, as they still seem unfounded to me.

Please don't put words in the mouth of someone who is too dead to explain or confirm them. (yeah yeah Jesus is or isn't dead whatever..)

[Syr]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

I don't know enough about Islam to really know the extent of Muhammad's teachings, but when did Jesus use any hate speech?

I'm not really sure on how to intepret Luke 19, but 19:27 of said book is a bit discomforting.
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

Edit, cruelty in the four gospels, including things presented as spoken by Jesus.
SAB, Cruelty in Matthew
SAB, Cruelty in Mark
SAB, Cruelty in Luke
SAB, Cruelty in John

If this god really was his father: like father, like son, what spiteful, egocentric bastards.


Back on topic: altough I disagree with "pro-life" evangelists, I believe they have a right to express themselves. Besides that how that student body handled things was pretty far from ethical in my opinion.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Syr

I'm not really sure on how to intepret Luke 19, but 19:27 of said book is a bit discomforting.
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

Thanks for pointing that out, Syr. I will look it up.

ETA: Ok, so Luke 19 (the portion leading up to that verse) is the Prable of the Minas. It's meant to illustrate for the disciples how they should use the gifts they have been given. In addition, it seems to be an alegory of the kingdom of God on earth. Jesus in this case would be the nobleman who travels to a distant land to secure his kingdom and is met with resistance in the form of people saying they don't want him as their king. His assertion at the end is meant to reflect final judgement. In any case, I don't believe that Jesus ever advocates us doing any killing. If anything he tells us to leave judgement to him. The greatest commandment is to love God and second is to love your neighbor.

Romans 12:19

Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.

I don't think this passage qualifies as hate speech. Nor do I think it in any way calls for people to use violence against each other.

[fwellers]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

Yeah, that's not really hate speech by the definition I have heard. In essence he was simply saying that you have to put him first.



Ok, I've never been a big fan of Revelation so in all honesty it was never on my Bible reading list. But were those Jesus' words? I think all of the red letters in the Bible were about peace and love and compassion and humility. I mean, Jesus had some really good ideas. I don't think he deserves the reproach. It's what the church has done/said and the killing and terribleness done in his name (that he never advocated) that should receive it.

Well, most of the hateful plagues that happen to people in revelation are attributed to him. And he did say in revelation that only certain people who do right, ( in his talk to the seven churches ), will be put in the book of life. The rest would not.

But, if you want more proof, here are a couple:
In matthew 5:22
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

and matthew 29:30
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.


chapter 10:28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law

chapter 11:
23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

I'll leave you with verse 13. Of course there are more, but how hateful is this ?

40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[PianoManGidley]

You all I think are missing the point: The point I was trying to make is that people can, will, and have interpreted speech--hate speech or otherwise--as incentive to perform hate crimes or other such violent acts. And when this occurs, the influential speech often comes into the limelight to take a lot of the blame. This, I think, is wrong, because it's NOT the fault of the hate-speaker if the hate-actor lashed out in some violent way (unless of course they are the same person). So I was trying to make it clear that we're punishing hate-speakers who are still alive yet do next to nothing to ban recorded speech of a similar nature (or at least of a similar influence) from people who are no longer alive. It's a double standard, and should cease.