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.

[Asher]

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

Where does it say you need a "legitimate reason" for doing so? Who determines is?

How is this not squealching his all-important free-speech if we do not let him parade around with pictures of decapitated head?

Don't you see the problem with this direction? A line has to be a drawn somewhere. You guys draw it in a different place than I do.

I don't think pictures of dead fetuses, or holocaust pictures, are "legitimate" for a club week display. I don't think they have a good reason to display those pictures on such a display.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't think pictures of dead fetuses, or holocaust pictures, are "legitimate" for a club week display.

You can ban both or allow both, but you can't allow one and disallow the other or else you are discriminating against one.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
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?

This argument doesn't make much sense. Because the SU doesn't have the time and resources to check all posters clubs are putting up for clubs week doesn't magically make it public.

They probably rely on a complaint system -- things are fine til someone complains. It's far more economical...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You can ban both or allow both, but you can't allow one and disallow the other or else you are discriminating against one.

But this is all based on the assumption that the SU doesn't work on a slack "it's fine until someone complains" basis.

Hell, these are lazy college students we're talking about.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher

Where does it say you need a "legitimate reason" for doing so? Who determines is?

How is this not squealching his all-important free-speech if we do not let him parade around with pictures of decapitated head?

Don't you see the problem with this direction? A line has to be a drawn somewhere. You guys draw it in a different place than I do.

I don't think pictures of dead fetuses, or holocaust pictures, are "legitimate" for a club week display. I don't think they have a good reason to display those pictures on such a display.

Well... I don't recall there being a law against any sort of picture in Canada. Aside from those of children in sex acts, or pubilc displays of nudity. Hey we're still prudes in some ways.

But other pictures? Not a chance. March with whatever the hell you want to in front of the local elementary school. Nothing anyone can do to stop you. Most likely.

So, the point is, that inside the law, you or I are free to display any pictures we want to. And well we should be.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because the SU doesn't have the time and resources to check all posters clubs are putting up for clubs week doesn't magically make it public.

This doesn't make sense. You are telling me that the Jewish groups are hiding their posters in super secret places? Come on, Student Unions know what posters are being hung, because for one, they walk around the building and can see the posters. People are going to try to put them in the most heavily traversed area.

Are you telling me the SU doesn't have janitors?! Or janitors don't go everywhere? Yeah, right. If it truely is a private area, then the janitor would throw away all posters which are in non-specified areas (or don't have approved stamps on them).

The argument that they don't have the 'time' to check posters is absurd. The only way they could probably avoid seeing them is if they deliberately had their eyes closed.

Private areas do not allow posters to be hung on their walls without their consent.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But this is all based on the assumption that the SU doesn't work on a slack "it's fine until someone complains" basis.

Saying it is valid until someone complains is tacit acceptance of the poster. After all you did use the term 'valid'.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
This doesn't make sense. You are telling me that the Jewish groups are hiding their posters in super secret places?

I'm telling you the SU doesn't care unless someone complains.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Saying it is valid until someone complains is tacit acceptance of the poster. After all you did use the term 'valid'.

True, but if Obiwan complained about their posters next time it came around, and then they refused to remove it, he'd have a case.

But not until they refuse to remove it upon complaint like they did to his.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But not until they refuse to remove it upon complaint like they did to his.

Nope. If they allow a poster in full view to show the same things that pro-life posters do, then they are being discriminatory. I bet they weren't hidden when the SU made the discriminatory resolution. And I bet that the pro-life group brought up the Holocaust posters during the debate about banning pro-life 'graphic' posters.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

The ad says: Kill homosexuals = no homosexuals. It's advocating genocide.

What bull. The ad says the Bible = no homosexuals, and I bet that was his intention, not advocation of genocide.

Look at the ad. It doesn't say the bible = no homosexuals.
It says Leviticus 20:13 = no homosexuals
Leviticus 20:13 = "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Therefore, the ad says
Homosexuals must be put to death = no homosexuals.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Look at the ad. It doesn't say the bible = no homosexuals.
It says Leviticus 20:13 = no homosexuals
Leviticus 20:13 = "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Of course ignore the other cites listed in the ad .

Only someone very anti that stance would take it to mean that death = no homosexuals. Frankly that argument is one of the most silly I've ever heard in my life.

The ad says Bible = no homosexuals. It is so incredibly obvious.

[Tingkai]

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 .

Thanks nye, that confirms my point. SUs are state actors and thus are acting discriminatorily to pro-life groups

I'm pretty sure universities would not be considered "state actors" in Canada. Univesities operate independently of government (except for funding). They are incorporated entities, at least in Ontario.

EDIT: I mean that universities are free to set specific policies and the government does not get involved in day-to-day decisions. Funding meaning subsidies.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Univesities operate independently of government (except for funding).

Basically the same in the US. Yet we consider them state actors.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

I'm telling you the SU doesn't care unless someone complains.

This is flagrant bullshit. From this and your other comments I am convinced you don't, and have never, attended a university, or if you did, you have had your head inserted into your backside for the entire time.

Everyone knows that student unions are almost all run by what most people call "left leaning" groups. I have attended and taught at a couple of universities for over a decade now and only once has there been a right wing student union executive (and that was a first in NZ - it didn't last long: they were so spectacularly incompetent they got thrown out).

Those who end up getting voted in (usually with a pathetically low turnout) are almost always malcontents whose sole aim is to get everyone else at the university to submit to their political will. While these people will pay lip service to those with opposing views, in practice they will do all that is within their power to suppress them.

If you attended a university you would know that there are four things which no one may even be mildly critical of for any reason without provoking a storm of hate and reprisals. These are: blacks; homosexuals; women/the feminist movement; and Jews.

These are protected species on campus (although perversely Israel bashing is permitted and even encouraged in some quarters). It doesn't matter what you actually did or what you actually said, if you are labelled an enemy by these people, they will do their best to make your life a misery. I've seen it happen numerous times.

It is wrong and Obi-wan and his friends are from the sound of it probably the objects of wrongful discrimination, but there isn't much one can do about it, short of abolishing the student union and student politics - since whoever's on top will tend to behave badly. I actually favour this last option, since I can't remember anything good coming out of student politics that wasn't adequately encouraged by some other organisation.