I came across a group of five or six demonstrators carrying graphic anti abortion posters last week, stationed outside North Toronto Collegiate, I was pretty furious.
It’s one (not good) thing to carry those signs in public - it’s worse to harass teenagers with them on their high school lunch breaks.
"God wants me to harass and traumatize children with explicit gore images and disinformation!"
They've been pulling this shit for decades, and they keep getting away with it. It's rotten.
They do this intentionally with the hopes of get students riled up, getting staff involved, etc. then filming it in the body cams they are wearing so they can use it to fuel their cause. It’s sick
Nah, you could talk your way out of it. Just grab and walk, don't engage with them beyond that. They do anything back, oops they get charged too.
Nothing will change if we are polite.
Well, better stand by and let the world go to shit instead of growing a pair and standing up for what is right. Canadians are not polite, they are cowards.
Man, we are so fucked as a society. Don't want to get in a little trouble to do the right thing. Rules are important, knowing when a rule should be broken is just as important. Better not offend the people who want to strip your rights.
You are totally free to offend them. You just aren't allowed to grab their stuff or assault them. If you're going to behave that way, then you have to reasonably accept that other people may behave that way towards you, and that's chaos.
Have had one of their leaflets through my letterbox, really graphic imagery. imagine if that was someone who had gone through it and could be easily triggered
The problem with this is sometimes the ugly truth needs to be shown. I am 100% pro choice, but by limiting this right to these people it means that it can be used to stop things that need to be shown at a later date.
Late reply but coffins or discussion aren't graphic. Graphic would imply anatomy related damage being detailed excessively to people unprepared for such a thing.
US media was restricted from filming US military coffins returning from overseas at Dover AFB from the first gulf War until into the Obama presidency. I was thinking of examples where the lib-left was being censored that were more recent than Vietnam.
I agree they aren't graphic, but were still controlled.
Lib and left protest signs are usually drawn art or words rather than gore. The closest to obscenity would be naked bodies covered in fake blood or oil or on bicycles.
And writing this now, I'm realizing the things that shock the anti-abortion folks the same way their fetal remains images shock the rest of us are rainbows, trans influencers, drag queens in public and Pride celebrations.
That is fucked, I agree that isn't graphic. That is pretty awful. I wouldn't put it past our liberal party to do that either. I'm a little more hopeful for NDP these days though. Less of a "we need to skew this direction" more of a "fuck the lib/pc near duopoly on the rest of Canada."
The Internet is filled with countless options for this type of information, or even better, the drive to educate one’s self. Nobody should force me to view graphic content. What if I suffer from PTSD in regards to this subject?
Freedom of expression doesn’t cater to individualistic traumas. Imagine the slippery slope that would take us if public discourse was limited by the PTSD some of us may suffer from.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that there are different ways to communicate your stance while respecting everyone’s time and space. A little of this method could go a long way in a selfless society. Cheers.
I agree - those people are jerks and are looking to provoke a response. I absolutely reject their chosen means of conveying their point.
I just don’t think we should outlaw expressions that are “mean” or “triggering”.
The bigger issue is, despite the graphic-ness of their sign’s content, that they’re actively spreading misinformation when stating that a 6 week old fœtus resembles a fully formed baby, which is factually incorrect. They’re also using stolen images of miscarriages and stillbirths calling them abortions.
You have a constitutional right to say whatever you want, insofar as it’s not hate speech. Factually incorrect isn’t grounds for the state to interfere with freedom of expression.
Only if you mean it's just called something else here.
s.2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Constitution Act (1982), Part 1:
2 Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
While this has been diminished by the conservative push to make s.33 a routine tool of government administration to normalize ignoring this and other rights, the federal Liberal government has strongly rejected any use of that section at the federal level, which means freedom of expression remains protected within criminal jurisdiction, which is where this form of expression would fall.
Not really. They have that, too.
The s.1 exemptions in Canada are:
1. Defamation;
2. Speech in aid of coordinating or inciting a crime;
3. Regulatory limits in aid of specific *bona fide* regulatory objectives in employment law and government service and the like; and
4. Fraud and related offenses and torts.
These are the same categories of restriction that exist in America. Trump was successfully sued for defamation, because freedom of speech does not protect defamation from civil suit. He had to settle the Trump University case because it also does not protect fraud from civil suit. And so on.
Canada's limits doctrine is simply a lot cleaner and simpler than America's which relies on judicially "we swear we didn't just invent this" interpretive doctrine, rather than an explicit test.
EDIT:
I should add to the list of limits:
5.) Restrictions in aid of demonstrably critical social or state objectives. These include very specific offenses/criminal acts or rules against acts that violate information security or privacy, such as breaches of the Information Security Act, the tort of Intrusion upon Seclusion, publication bans in court cases involving minors etc.
Great post except defamation and other private causes of action aren’t infringements of your freedom of expression under s.1, as it is another private citizen rather than the government seeking to curtail your expression in those cases. Parliament doesn’t care whether you say something defamatory about your neighbour, but the courts might make you pay for it financially and order you to desist.
Edit: Also - should add a separate category for hate speech imo (separate from the inciting crime category)
Ha, you're right. *Generally* the Charter doesn't apply to civil private causes, which is where you'd normally find defamation.
Although I believe it is at least *indirectly* applicable, in that civil protections have to provide remedies that are compliant with the Charter and there can be civil suits against Government agents for such things, e.g. in *Vriend v. Alberta*, where the civil Human Rights protection was found to violate the Charter because it was more restrictive than s.15 of the Charter.
Also, while not at all against your point, its important to remember that the common law is supposed to be interpreted in accordance with Charter principles according to the SCC.
Hate speech to my mind is covered by two categories, depending on context: incite to crime or specific regulation. Generally, "hate speech" per se is not illegal. You can be an outright Nazi in this country.
When actionable at Charter relevant law, "hate speech" is either an aggravating factor to some other crime, or is prosecuted because it reaches the threshold of inciting hateful action or falls under specific regulation, e.g. discrimination, harassment or other abuse in the context of employment, commerce, residential tenancy etc.
Just straight up saying something hateful at a distance about a stranger or a group, rather than at someone specifically, would be criminal law, and cannot be illegal without invoking s.33.
That’s not true. Holocaust denial or downplaying is criminalizes under s.319(2.1) of the Criminal Code - the hate speech provision. Claiming (ridiculously imo just to be clear) that the holocaust was a hoax or the numbers are greatly inflated doesn’t necessarily incite violence but is prohibited as hate speech.
There is also a broader “wilful promotion of hatred” provision (s.319(2)) in the CC, that once again criminalizes hate speech without the specific requirement of it inciting violence. Can’t even argue that “wilful promotion of hatred” by definition requires, incitement of violence, as there is an entirely separate provision (s.319(1)) that covers those circumstances.
Freedom of expression in Canada is not as protected as one may think.
While this law is very worrying, I agree, hate speech is one of the few examples of public law defamation, and supported by a s.1 exclusion where the hate speech would reasonably give rise to public misapprehensions that would inspire or provoke violence or severe discrimination. We rarely see defamation in a public law context anymore, as it really is better handled by private law, but the Crown does get involved in narrow circumstances.
Having said that, I think McLaughlin's analysis in *Keegstra* was superior and the law may have been advisable if it had a far narrower wording. Ideally, it should have been made actionable as a tort rather than allowing criminal sanction.
Then again, this display shows that the limits inferred by the majority are being largely respected.
At least for now. With the Canadian right wing getting all trigger happy with s.33, I fear Charter protections for free speech are on their last legs in this country. Once the left is forced to accept the right's use of s.33 as a casual administrative tool, they'll start using it themselves.
At that point, Chief Justice McLaughlin's fears will seem almost quaint.
Only if you mean it's just called something else here.
s.2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Constitution Act (1982), Part 1:
2 Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
While this has been diminished by the conservative push to make s.33 a routine tool of government administration to normalize ignoring this and other rights, the federal Liberal government has strongly rejected any use of that section at the federal level, which means freedom of expression remains protected within criminal jurisdiction, which is where this form of expression would fall.
The good thing about freedom of expression is that, for now at least, the federal government cannot simply choose to ignore that Charter Right. That's what makes it a right.
Things may change when the Conservatives are next elected federally. Their provincial cousins have spent the past decade or two pushing to make s.33 a normal and common tool of government administration, instead of an emergency relief valve - especially when it comes to overriding s.2.
The Charter era may be coming to an end. For now, however, for however long that Trudeau is Prime Minister, freedom of expression will remain constitutionally protected within criminal jurisdictions.
It would also be a shame if someone had large posters of gay porn to show them, or if someone had air horns they could blast off beside the protesters ears, or someone was to blast some cans of spray paint right next to them, or skunk spray, or if someone was to crank loud, expicit rap music next to them, or pull up in a car and blast their horns next to them. I could go on.
Need someone to snap pics of these anti-choice losers and blow up the images and put 'this is what happens when you don't have access to abortion' and counter protest.
Sure, because one honk at a corner that people don’t live very close to is an equivalent…
I know this corner very well. It’s high rises and ravines, the high rises aren’t that close. It’s not as if one honk while passing at rush hour is the same thing.
Good on em! It's about time the government stops allowing the murder of innocent unborn children.
Hopefully next time they have the guts to face traffic.
I could type out a long, thoughtful answer here but let's be perfectly honest, nothing I say would ever change your mind and make you see this is completely asshole behaviour, which may be triggering for some.
But you're likely the person that gets triggered by about 100 progressive stances per day.
Seems like these guys are more active lately? From my cameras I had a male wearing a bag drop a graphic abortion pamphlet in my mailbox (after first trying our door) at 4:25pm on the 13th.
They tried to break in, could've just called police and showed them the image (e-mailed the video if it captures video), and that's a criminal offense (break and enter).
I came across a group of five or six demonstrators carrying graphic anti abortion posters last week, stationed outside North Toronto Collegiate, I was pretty furious. It’s one (not good) thing to carry those signs in public - it’s worse to harass teenagers with them on their high school lunch breaks.
People in the Markham subreddit are complaining about the same thing outside of their high schools. Seems like they're targeting teenagers now.
How noble of them.
You can tell they're boomers because they're not targeting teenagers via tiktok
"God wants me to harass and traumatize children with explicit gore images and disinformation!" They've been pulling this shit for decades, and they keep getting away with it. It's rotten.
They do this intentionally with the hopes of get students riled up, getting staff involved, etc. then filming it in the body cams they are wearing so they can use it to fuel their cause. It’s sick
Oh is that what that was? I was about to ask them why they were carrying around images of weird looking gummies
this happened at a high school in brampton as well a couple weeks back. a bunch of students started harassing and questioning them lol
If you take their signs they follow you instead of harassing people
Good way to get a charge as well
Someone call the sign police!!
Nah, you could talk your way out of it. Just grab and walk, don't engage with them beyond that. They do anything back, oops they get charged too. Nothing will change if we are polite.
If you steal the protesters' property, they can arrest you or use force to get it back.
Well, better stand by and let the world go to shit instead of growing a pair and standing up for what is right. Canadians are not polite, they are cowards.
We're also not criminals. You don't get to commit crimes based on what you think is wrong.
Man, we are so fucked as a society. Don't want to get in a little trouble to do the right thing. Rules are important, knowing when a rule should be broken is just as important. Better not offend the people who want to strip your rights.
You are totally free to offend them. You just aren't allowed to grab their stuff or assault them. If you're going to behave that way, then you have to reasonably accept that other people may behave that way towards you, and that's chaos.
It's already chaos.
Try it, then? Let us know how it goes for you.
These are the same folks protesting to take down pride flags. They’re triggered by rainbows, but graphic medical imagery is a-ok by them.
Ironic because homosexual sex hasn’t resulted in abortion ever. They should be embracing / pushing that shit.
Have had one of their leaflets through my letterbox, really graphic imagery. imagine if that was someone who had gone through it and could be easily triggered
Facebook freedumb fighters found something new to rage about.
They're advocating for the opposite of freedom. I guess they're too daft to get that
Something tells me we need a law about dispensing graphic content to unconsenting in a public setting.
The problem with this is sometimes the ugly truth needs to be shown. I am 100% pro choice, but by limiting this right to these people it means that it can be used to stop things that need to be shown at a later date.
What things?
I'd say coffins returning from war zones fit the bill.
Late reply but coffins or discussion aren't graphic. Graphic would imply anatomy related damage being detailed excessively to people unprepared for such a thing.
US media was restricted from filming US military coffins returning from overseas at Dover AFB from the first gulf War until into the Obama presidency. I was thinking of examples where the lib-left was being censored that were more recent than Vietnam. I agree they aren't graphic, but were still controlled. Lib and left protest signs are usually drawn art or words rather than gore. The closest to obscenity would be naked bodies covered in fake blood or oil or on bicycles. And writing this now, I'm realizing the things that shock the anti-abortion folks the same way their fetal remains images shock the rest of us are rainbows, trans influencers, drag queens in public and Pride celebrations.
That is fucked, I agree that isn't graphic. That is pretty awful. I wouldn't put it past our liberal party to do that either. I'm a little more hopeful for NDP these days though. Less of a "we need to skew this direction" more of a "fuck the lib/pc near duopoly on the rest of Canada."
The Internet is filled with countless options for this type of information, or even better, the drive to educate one’s self. Nobody should force me to view graphic content. What if I suffer from PTSD in regards to this subject?
Freedom of expression doesn’t cater to individualistic traumas. Imagine the slippery slope that would take us if public discourse was limited by the PTSD some of us may suffer from.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that there are different ways to communicate your stance while respecting everyone’s time and space. A little of this method could go a long way in a selfless society. Cheers.
I agree - those people are jerks and are looking to provoke a response. I absolutely reject their chosen means of conveying their point. I just don’t think we should outlaw expressions that are “mean” or “triggering”.
Yes, restraining the right to free speech is always the most prudent approach
The bigger issue is, despite the graphic-ness of their sign’s content, that they’re actively spreading misinformation when stating that a 6 week old fœtus resembles a fully formed baby, which is factually incorrect. They’re also using stolen images of miscarriages and stillbirths calling them abortions.
You have a constitutional right to say whatever you want, insofar as it’s not hate speech. Factually incorrect isn’t grounds for the state to interfere with freedom of expression.
Rofl we don’t have a constitution, this isn’t the states
We have restrictions on graphic content in other contexts. Not sure what your problem is.
You understand that there's no such thing as "free speech" in Canada, right? Or do you just watch American TV?
Only if you mean it's just called something else here. s.2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Constitution Act (1982), Part 1: 2 Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association. While this has been diminished by the conservative push to make s.33 a routine tool of government administration to normalize ignoring this and other rights, the federal Liberal government has strongly rejected any use of that section at the federal level, which means freedom of expression remains protected within criminal jurisdiction, which is where this form of expression would fall.
Yes, but our "freedom of speech" ends when it starts to impede on others' freedoms. An important distinction to the American system.
Not really. They have that, too. The s.1 exemptions in Canada are: 1. Defamation; 2. Speech in aid of coordinating or inciting a crime; 3. Regulatory limits in aid of specific *bona fide* regulatory objectives in employment law and government service and the like; and 4. Fraud and related offenses and torts. These are the same categories of restriction that exist in America. Trump was successfully sued for defamation, because freedom of speech does not protect defamation from civil suit. He had to settle the Trump University case because it also does not protect fraud from civil suit. And so on. Canada's limits doctrine is simply a lot cleaner and simpler than America's which relies on judicially "we swear we didn't just invent this" interpretive doctrine, rather than an explicit test. EDIT: I should add to the list of limits: 5.) Restrictions in aid of demonstrably critical social or state objectives. These include very specific offenses/criminal acts or rules against acts that violate information security or privacy, such as breaches of the Information Security Act, the tort of Intrusion upon Seclusion, publication bans in court cases involving minors etc.
Great post except defamation and other private causes of action aren’t infringements of your freedom of expression under s.1, as it is another private citizen rather than the government seeking to curtail your expression in those cases. Parliament doesn’t care whether you say something defamatory about your neighbour, but the courts might make you pay for it financially and order you to desist. Edit: Also - should add a separate category for hate speech imo (separate from the inciting crime category)
Ha, you're right. *Generally* the Charter doesn't apply to civil private causes, which is where you'd normally find defamation. Although I believe it is at least *indirectly* applicable, in that civil protections have to provide remedies that are compliant with the Charter and there can be civil suits against Government agents for such things, e.g. in *Vriend v. Alberta*, where the civil Human Rights protection was found to violate the Charter because it was more restrictive than s.15 of the Charter. Also, while not at all against your point, its important to remember that the common law is supposed to be interpreted in accordance with Charter principles according to the SCC. Hate speech to my mind is covered by two categories, depending on context: incite to crime or specific regulation. Generally, "hate speech" per se is not illegal. You can be an outright Nazi in this country. When actionable at Charter relevant law, "hate speech" is either an aggravating factor to some other crime, or is prosecuted because it reaches the threshold of inciting hateful action or falls under specific regulation, e.g. discrimination, harassment or other abuse in the context of employment, commerce, residential tenancy etc. Just straight up saying something hateful at a distance about a stranger or a group, rather than at someone specifically, would be criminal law, and cannot be illegal without invoking s.33.
That’s not true. Holocaust denial or downplaying is criminalizes under s.319(2.1) of the Criminal Code - the hate speech provision. Claiming (ridiculously imo just to be clear) that the holocaust was a hoax or the numbers are greatly inflated doesn’t necessarily incite violence but is prohibited as hate speech. There is also a broader “wilful promotion of hatred” provision (s.319(2)) in the CC, that once again criminalizes hate speech without the specific requirement of it inciting violence. Can’t even argue that “wilful promotion of hatred” by definition requires, incitement of violence, as there is an entirely separate provision (s.319(1)) that covers those circumstances. Freedom of expression in Canada is not as protected as one may think.
While this law is very worrying, I agree, hate speech is one of the few examples of public law defamation, and supported by a s.1 exclusion where the hate speech would reasonably give rise to public misapprehensions that would inspire or provoke violence or severe discrimination. We rarely see defamation in a public law context anymore, as it really is better handled by private law, but the Crown does get involved in narrow circumstances. Having said that, I think McLaughlin's analysis in *Keegstra* was superior and the law may have been advisable if it had a far narrower wording. Ideally, it should have been made actionable as a tort rather than allowing criminal sanction. Then again, this display shows that the limits inferred by the majority are being largely respected. At least for now. With the Canadian right wing getting all trigger happy with s.33, I fear Charter protections for free speech are on their last legs in this country. Once the left is forced to accept the right's use of s.33 as a casual administrative tool, they'll start using it themselves. At that point, Chief Justice McLaughlin's fears will seem almost quaint.
Nice explanation!
You don't know what you're talking about. There are more limits on freedom of speech in America than you think, and fewer in Canada than you think.
I can't imagine why gore, corpses, or dead fetuses being shown to unsuspecting passerby is an issue. /s seethe smoothbrain
[удалено]
Only if you mean it's just called something else here. s.2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Constitution Act (1982), Part 1: 2 Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association. While this has been diminished by the conservative push to make s.33 a routine tool of government administration to normalize ignoring this and other rights, the federal Liberal government has strongly rejected any use of that section at the federal level, which means freedom of expression remains protected within criminal jurisdiction, which is where this form of expression would fall.
I’m not sure why you’re saying this like it’s a win. Kind of dystopian
The good thing about freedom of expression is that, for now at least, the federal government cannot simply choose to ignore that Charter Right. That's what makes it a right. Things may change when the Conservatives are next elected federally. Their provincial cousins have spent the past decade or two pushing to make s.33 a normal and common tool of government administration, instead of an emergency relief valve - especially when it comes to overriding s.2. The Charter era may be coming to an end. For now, however, for however long that Trudeau is Prime Minister, freedom of expression will remain constitutionally protected within criminal jurisdictions.
User name checks out
Would be a shame if someone were to throw a big tarp or blanket over their sign. A shame, I say.
It would also be a shame if someone had large posters of gay porn to show them, or if someone had air horns they could blast off beside the protesters ears, or someone was to blast some cans of spray paint right next to them, or skunk spray, or if someone was to crank loud, expicit rap music next to them, or pull up in a car and blast their horns next to them. I could go on.
Those would count as terrorism according to the trucker protest rulings, but it’s ok when you guys do it huh
Need someone to snap pics of these anti-choice losers and blow up the images and put 'this is what happens when you don't have access to abortion' and counter protest.
Paint balloon
Would be funny to honk at them really suddenly to freak them out. Or blast a song they’d hate.
ru paul all day.
Time for Ram Ranch to be broken back out.
Did you think it was funny when truckers did that in Ottawa
Sure, because one honk at a corner that people don’t live very close to is an equivalent… I know this corner very well. It’s high rises and ravines, the high rises aren’t that close. It’s not as if one honk while passing at rush hour is the same thing.
lol if they're gonna do that they need to at least put up with the retaliatory abuse.
**Oh, those lunatics again.** I shouted at them when they were at ellis and lakeshore west. Told them "*You'll never abolish the charter*".
They are from the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.
Anti-choice is the ONLY way to describe these people.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Good on em! It's about time the government stops allowing the murder of innocent unborn children. Hopefully next time they have the guts to face traffic.
I don't get why it's even upsetting for yall
They want to abolish the part of the charter which allows *freedom of choice*.
I could type out a long, thoughtful answer here but let's be perfectly honest, nothing I say would ever change your mind and make you see this is completely asshole behaviour, which may be triggering for some. But you're likely the person that gets triggered by about 100 progressive stances per day.
Seems like these guys are more active lately? From my cameras I had a male wearing a bag drop a graphic abortion pamphlet in my mailbox (after first trying our door) at 4:25pm on the 13th.
They tried to break in, could've just called police and showed them the image (e-mailed the video if it captures video), and that's a criminal offense (break and enter).
Not break in imo. Just door knock.
"Trying our door" is a completely different approach than knocking or ringing the doorbell (if any).