• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ontario makes it illegal to protest outside and near abortion clinics

joG said:
Demonstratiin of political will and opinion is Harassment? I guess, if you had a bad conscience, you might begin to feel that way.
Click to expand...

Stalking, preventing people from obtaining a service, and verbal harassment is indeed harassment and this bill makes it easier to persecute that.
 
Carjosse said:
So harassment should just be allowed to continue?
Click to expand...

The problem I see is they are assuming all forms of protest are harassment and banning everyone's ability to speak freely on that assumption. Why not enforce anti-harasment laws instead of banning protest within areas people should be allowed to freely speak? I feel it's likely also an indirect attack at people who agree with the pro-life agenda and hints of fascism.

Hatuey said:
Lol, watching people who never leave the US tell the world that Canada of all places is becoming backwards makes me glad to be an expat.
Click to expand...

I guess it's a good thing I've been to Canada about 8-9 times visiting close friends then. I love Canada, I really do. But it when it comes to social policy they seem to be getting it wrong more often than right recently.
 
digsbe said:
Disgusting abuse of freedoms. Canada is becoming such a backwards place.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree with you on this. Someone's right to flap his hands in the air ends where my nose begins.
 
danarhea said:
I strongly disagree with you on this. Someone's right to flap his hands in the air ends where my nose begins.
Click to expand...

The problem is they banned the ability to open one's mouth, not flapping hands or hitting people. In the US this would be fascist government overreach aimed at silencing a political view the government doesn't like veiled behind some excuse regarding harassment, etc. It reeks of Jim Crow-esque policies. That's a stark difference in my opinion. It's like banning inner-city protests as they tend to get violent with police scuffles (especially in regards to police/race issues). Do you think it's fair to assume all protesters who congregate in such an area are all breaking the law, so you preemptively make all forms of protest illegal? To my knowledge it's likely already illegal to harass or hit people in protests there.
 
Carjosse said:
I saw this CBC article on the front page of Reddit today: (And for reference 50 metres is ~164 feet and 150 metres is about ~492 feet.)


It passed almost unanimously with the exception of one independent. It seems all three parties agree that it is necessary to protect abortion clinics, their patients, staff, and doctors as pro-life protesters often harass and stalk them. It seems Brown is trying very hard to make sure he and his party cannot be painted as SoCons.

The penalties for violating these new restrictions are:


A pro-life group has decided to challenge this in court on free speech grounds but is very much expected to lose, as they always do.

I support this measure to protect those involved as it has presented issues in the past, but figured it would make an interesting discussion on protecting controversial people and services as well as free speech.

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT ABORTION ITSELF
Click to expand...

So much for free speech.
 
americanwoman said:
I think this is good news. I dealt with people harassing me repeatedly when I used to go to planned parenthood. I think people have the right to protest but when they cross the line and harass you and get in your face and try and interfere with something that is none of their business or concern then some of those rights should get taken away.
Click to expand...

Some serious irony there.
 
Carjosse said:
Stalking, preventing people from obtaining a service, and verbal harassment is indeed harassment and this bill makes it easier to persecute that.
Click to expand...

Persecute may be an apt typo.
As is conceded above, the law specifically targets people with a different opinion on the subject.
 
Zyphlin said:
Youre damn right. This is about freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom to protest. More power to Canada if they want this, but I'd fight it vocally here in the US despite finding such protesters to generally be obnoxious toolbags. This is why I'm a big supporter of the notion that I don't want the US to be like "the rest of the west" or anything else; I like choice and diverse options and means of thought and governance.

If yhreats of violence occur, they should be dealt with. If stalking occurs, it should be dealt with. If harsssment occurs, it should be dealt with. But peaceful protest on public property that is not causing a legitimate imminent threat or disruption to the public is not something I'd support barring.
Click to expand...

This just allows harassment to be more easily persecuted, they made the line very specific instead of leaving it vague and then having to prove it in court. Take the example I read on Reddit, in the UK distracted driving was already illegal but they still made using a cellphone in hand while driving illegal, because it made it a lot easier to persecute.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Persecute may be an apt typo.
As is conceded above, the law specifically targets people with a different opinion on the subject.
Click to expand...

Well what do you call what the government in a law case? All this law does is protect people involved with these clinics by creating specific guidelines for harassment. It is a lot easier to prove someone was harassing a doctor by protesting within 50m of them than using the vague law about harassment. It is also removes any question form enforcement as what is unlawful is defined specifically.
 
digsbe said:
The problem I see is they are assuming all forms of protest are harassment and banning everyone's ability to speak freely on that assumption. Why not enforce anti-harasment laws instead of banning protest within areas people should be allowed to freely speak? I feel it's likely also an indirect attack at people who agree with the pro-life agenda and hints of fascism.



I guess it's a good thing I've been to Canada about 8-9 times visiting close friends then. I love Canada, I really do. But it when it comes to social policy they seem to be getting it wrong more often than right recently.
Click to expand...

That is literally what this law does, it allows better enforcement and persecution of harassment laws by removing the vagueness involved. They are free to protest it but they must do it away from the clinic and staff's homes. Like I said in the OP it has support from every party and was almost unanimous bar one vote, clearly it has both political and public support and will soon have judicial support as well unlike the US we believe that rights are not absolute. Just because you have a right to free speech does not mean you can harass and stalk other people.
 
digsbe said:
The problem is they banned the ability to open one's mouth, not flapping hands or hitting people. In the US this would be fascist government overreach aimed at silencing a political view the government doesn't like veiled behind some excuse regarding harassment, etc. It reeks of Jim Crow-esque policies. That's a stark difference in my opinion. It's like banning inner-city protests as they tend to get violent with police scuffles (especially in regards to police/race issues). Do you think it's fair to assume all protesters who congregate in such an area are all breaking the law, so you preemptively make all forms of protest illegal? To my knowledge it's likely already illegal to harass or hit people in protests there.
Click to expand...

You have to look at the history of people claiming to use their right to free speech at abortion clinics. When people abuse that right on a consistent basis, they lose it. Along with rights come responsibilities. And, of course, too many people forget about the responsibilities part. Let me ask you a question. Did you support Bush setting up "free speech zones" which were far away from where he was appearing or speaking? He did that because people liked to throw eggs and toilet paper at him. Would you be supporting their first amendment rights too? Simply put, harassing those who are trying to get abortions is not free speech.
 
Carjosse said:
I saw this CBC article on the front page of Reddit today: (And for reference 50 metres is ~164 feet and 150 metres is about ~492 feet.)


It passed almost unanimously with the exception of one independent. It seems all three parties agree that it is necessary to protect abortion clinics, their patients, staff, and doctors as pro-life protesters often harass and stalk them. It seems Brown is trying very hard to make sure he and his party cannot be painted as SoCons.

The penalties for violating these new restrictions are:


A pro-life group has decided to challenge this in court on free speech grounds but is very much expected to lose, as they always do.

I support this measure to protect those involved as it has presented issues in the past, but figured it would make an interesting discussion on protecting controversial people and services as well as free speech.

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT ABORTION ITSELF
Click to expand...

I don't know what goes on in canada but even as a prolifer who is active in protesting, knowledge awareness and counseling I can see how this could have easily come to pass. I have seem some super ignorant people (not actually part of my pro life groups and we would NEVER accept them) who harass insult, block etc. All those things that are counter productive and some of them are illegal, there's just a grey area that they get away with.
 
digsbe said:
Disgusting abuse of freedoms. Canada is becoming such a backwards place.
Click to expand...

digsbe said:
The problem I see is they are assuming all forms of protest are harassment and banning everyone's ability to speak freely on that assumption. Why not enforce anti-harasment laws instead of banning protest within areas people should be allowed to freely speak? I feel it's likely also an indirect attack at people who agree with the pro-life agenda and hints of fascism.



I guess it's a good thing I've been to Canada about 8-9 times visiting close friends then. I love Canada, I really do. But it when it comes to social policy they seem to be getting it wrong more often than right recently.
Click to expand...

digsbe said:
The problem is they banned the ability to open one's mouth, not flapping hands or hitting people. In the US this would be fascist government overreach aimed at silencing a political view the government doesn't like veiled behind some excuse regarding harassment, etc. It reeks of Jim Crow-esque policies. That's a stark difference in my opinion. It's like banning inner-city protests as they tend to get violent with police scuffles (especially in regards to police/race issues). Do you think it's fair to assume all protesters who congregate in such an area are all breaking the law, so you preemptively make all forms of protest illegal? To my knowledge it's likely already illegal to harass or hit people in protests there.
Click to expand...

What on gods green earth are you talking about. Just about nothing you said is true and laws like this already exist to a lesser degree in america.CUt back on the theatrics I'm prolife and belong to two different groups and have zero issues with this law and see why its probably needed. SOME groups go way to far.
 
Carjosse said:
That is literally what this law does, it allows better enforcement and persecution of harassment laws by removing the vagueness involved. They are free to protest it but they must do it away from the clinic and staff's homes. Like I said in the OP it has support from every party and was almost unanimous bar one vote, clearly it has both political and public support and will soon have judicial support as well unlike the US we believe that rights are not absolute. Just because you have a right to free speech does not mean you can harass and stalk other people.
Click to expand...

If this is the case, why is it not applied to all protests?
 
Nap said:
If this is the case, why is it not applied to all protests?
Click to expand...

Probably because they want to place restrictions on protests as narrowly as possible and only target where it almost always crosses the line to harassment, which would be the case of anti-abortion protesters.
 
danarhea said:
Did you support Bush setting up "free speech zones" which were far away from where he was appearing or speaking?
Click to expand...

That's an interesting question and comparison Dana.

So, can we expect you to state that this is an anti-free speech, like you did with that situation? I mean, you're demanding consistency on something from Digsbe that you don't show yourself, right?
 
Last edited:
Nap said:
If this is the case, why is it not applied to all protests?
Click to expand...

Because the government felt it was needed in this specific case, as it happens a lot. Like PETA doesn't stalk leather crafters back to their homes on a regular basis.
 
prometeus said:
How is that different from the protest zones set up say during political party conventions?
Click to expand...
You mean the zones that are never upheld in court? Those zones?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Probably because they want to place restrictions on protests as narrowly as possible
Click to expand...
LOL! The law creates 17 acre buffer zones!!

They quite clearly were *not* aiming for "narrowly as possible".
 
Carjosse said:
Because the government felt it was needed in this specific case, as it happens a lot. Like PETA doesn't stalk leather crafters back to their homes on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

One would think there are already laws on the book covering these issues. Why single out abortion opponents?
 
Carjosse said:
Well what do you call what the government in a law case? All this law does is protect people involved with these clinics by creating specific guidelines for harassment. It is a lot easier to prove someone was harassing a doctor by protesting within 50m of them than using the vague law about harassment. It is also removes any question form enforcement as what is unlawful is defined specifically.
Click to expand...

Well yes. Protesting abortion is being defined as harassment.
 
danarhea said:
You have to look at the history of people claiming to use their right to free speech at abortion clinics. When people abuse that right on a consistent basis, they lose it. Along with rights come responsibilities. And, of course, too many people forget about the responsibilities part. Let me ask you a question. Did you support Bush setting up "free speech zones" which were far away from where he was appearing or speaking? He did that because people liked to throw eggs and toilet paper at him. Would you be supporting their first amendment rights too? Simply put, harassing those who are trying to get abortions is not free speech.
Click to expand...

Ok-- so Canadians, in general, can lose certain rights when the government decides that Canadians, in general, abuse that right.
So can a female abortion protester can lose that right to protest abortion, even if she has not abused that right, but because others may have.
So in Canada, can she also lose her abortion rights because the government determines that women, in general, have abused that right?
 
americanwoman said:
The image that comes to my mind would be having to bail my husband out of jail. :lol: I had to physically pull him away sometimes so I know he would be pissed if they followed us home.
Click to expand...

Being followed from work is the same reason I keep a glock under my driver seat, not to mention the knife in my boot, and belt clip.
 
joG said:
What do you think the Chinese would do, if you demonstrated at one of their concentration camps? You'd wish you'd have chosen an abortion clinic in Ontario.
Click to expand...

Uhh... huh?

I mean... what?


Ummm...
 
Oborosen said:
Being followed from work is the same reason I keep a glock under my driver seat, not to mention the knife in my boot, and belt clip.
Click to expand...

Somebody follows you and you immediately think knifing them and shooting them?

Pretty sure you should never be around a gun... unfortunately you do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom