Obscenity on the streets of Kelowna.

[GordonH]

In Canada everyone has the freedom of choice, at the same time I don't have the right tell someone else what they should or should not do.
If asked I will give my personal opinion (one on one with Family or Friends not total strangers, & not on public forum with or about certain subjects i.e like this one), its up to other person to accept or reject that opinion.
With any decision/choices there are at least 2 sides to always weight out, in some cases consequences for ones choices.

[Fancy]

Let's not forget about this one:

A group opposed to abortion has lost a Charter of Rights challenge to have its ads displayed on the outside of Metro Vancouver buses after a B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled they could cause harm to women and children.

The South Coast B.C. Transportation Authority rejected the ads, saying the graphic display of fetuses and the message "Abortion Kills Children" left the impression that most abortions were performed after 16 weeks gestation.

The authority also argued the ad from The Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform was inaccurate, because Canadian law says life starts with a live birth.

In a ruling posted online Wednesday, Justice Peter Leask says the authority did violate the centre's freedom of expression rights by refusing the ads, but added the infringement was reasonable.

The judge says that the centre, which is based in Calgary and Brantford, Ont., was given a choice to submit a new advertisement to convey its moral opposition to abortion without using the images of fetuses to do so.

Leask says the ads had the potential to cause psychological harm to children and women because they compare women who have had abortions to "killers."

"I believe my finding is bolstered by the content found on the website 'endthekilling.ca,' which was referenced in the advertisement. There, one can find many images that are much more graphic than the one in the advertisement in question, including images of dismembered fetuses."

If the images of fetuses in the ads were not graphic, then the extreme content of the website made the transportation authority's decision reasonable, the ruling says.

"Therefore, I find that the respondent's decision to reject the petitioner's advertisement was neither unreasonable nor was it disproportionate," Leask concluded as he dismissed the application for judicial review.

https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/203809 ... s-on-buses

[GordonH]

Let's not forget about this one:

A group opposed to abortion has lost a Charter of Rights challenge to have its ads displayed on the outside of Metro Vancouver buses after a B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled they could cause harm to women and children.

The South Coast B.C. Transportation Authority rejected the ads, saying the graphic display of fetuses and the message "Abortion Kills Children" left the impression that most abortions were performed after 16 weeks gestation.

The authority also argued the ad from The Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform was inaccurate, because Canadian law says life starts with a live birth.

In a ruling posted online Wednesday, Justice Peter Leask says the authority did violate the centre's freedom of expression rights by refusing the ads, but added the infringement was reasonable.

The judge says that the centre, which is based in Calgary and Brantford, Ont., was given a choice to submit a new advertisement to convey its moral opposition to abortion without using the images of fetuses to do so.

Leask says the ads had the potential to cause psychological harm to children and women because they compare women who have had abortions to "killers."

"I believe my finding is bolstered by the content found on the website 'endthekilling.ca,' which was referenced in the advertisement. There, one can find many images that are much more graphic than the one in the advertisement in question, including images of dismembered fetuses."

If the images of fetuses in the ads were not graphic, then the extreme content of the website made the transportation authority's decision reasonable, the ruling says.

"Therefore, I find that the respondent's decision to reject the petitioner's advertisement was neither unreasonable nor was it disproportionate," Leask concluded as he dismissed the application for judicial review.

https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/203809 ... s-on-buses

Of course there is a big difference in placing and Ad on a public transit bus then a privately owned vehicle.

[Fancy]

Signs etc. have been in the media on private property that have been the subject of what is appropriate or not. Remains to be seen how this one will play out but there will be no surprise if there is graffiti involved.

[GordonH]

Signs etc. have been in the media on private property that have been the subject of what is appropriate or not. Remains to be seen how this one will play out but there will be no surprise if there is graffiti involved.

Yes, pro-life signs have been placed on billboards for many years & yes they have been vandalized, nothing new.
Vandalism happens almost daily somewhere within Central Okanagan.

[Fancy]

True - hard to tell sometimes if it is targeted or not. If the vehicle is hit, then I would say that's personal.

[youjustcomplain]

In Canada everyone has the freedom of choice, at the same time I don't have the right tell someone else what they should or should not do.

Ahh, but you do have the right to tell me what to do. That's just part of our freedom of speech. Short of hate speech or inciting a revolt, I believe you're free to say what you want. I'm also free to exercise my freedom of speech to tell you what I think of what you said to me. :)

[GordonH]

In Canada everyone has the freedom of choice, at the same time I don't have the right tell someone else what they should or should not do.

Ahh, but you do have the right to tell me what to do. That's just part of our freedom of speech. Short of hate speech or inciting a revolt, I believe you're free to say what you want. I'm also free to exercise my freedom of speech to tell you what I think of what you said to me. :)

Okay you can do whatever you want, for myself I will not. I've come across far to many self-righteous people (being kind) on this subject.

[MAPearce]

The truth hurts.
Perhaps those who are offended have guilty consciences?

*bleep*... Truth is something that pre lifers do not use .

Remember a few years back when they dropped pictures of a miscarried fetus they called aborted in the mail boxes of homes near KGH???

Out right liars.

[Jmfva]

The truth hurts.
Perhaps those who are offended have guilty consciences?

*bleep*... Truth is something that pre lifers do not use .

Remember a few years back when they dropped pictures of a miscarried fetus they called aborted in the mail boxes of homes near KGH???

Out right liars.

They prey on the uneducated...

[camdd]

Call it what you want, but it is still murder.

NO, it isn't murder! Murder is a legal term not applied to abortion no matter how many times you may try to convince the gullible, it isn't murder! Do you think calling women who have had to opt for abortions "murderers" might in some way be just a teensy bit what does cause some to feel the guilt you anti-abortion folks insist women feel? And then you want to run this truck thru town to convince us that you are about helping these guilty women deal with that guilt that you placed on them? Not real sophisticated thinking. Just leave women to make their own choices about their bodies please.

[JLives]

I'm ok with it. They have a right to speech and we have a right to tell them they're being jerks about it. It's a tiny vocal minority and it warms my heart to see how many community members think they are in the wrong. Anti-choicers are a dying breed. There will always be some but that's as far as it goes. Our human rights are safe and sound here in Canada.

What I am against is people like Chelsea Handler who has undergone multiple abortions because she has unprotected sex but doesn't feel any responsibility. That is taking control over your body to extremes.

Why are you against it? Or feel you have a right to be against it to begin with? It's her body and she is the one affected so she makes the decisions. She was 16 at the time and didn't want to ruin her life with a child. She's fine with her choice and that's all that should matter.

[LANDM]

You don't get to kill your baby just because it is convenient to you. You don't have the right to choose to take another human beings life

No, you don’t get to "kill your baby".
However, one *does* get to abort a fetus within appropriate parameters.

I’m not sure what you don’t get about that when you issue your absolutist statements.

[camdd]

Disgusting.

Freedom of speech? What happened to the ad the atheists put on the side of buses a few years back?

And the atheist adds were non graphic & expressed only the wish for people to be critical thinkers. I for one certainly approved.

[Ka-El]

People should be reminded - if he's not going to sack it, send him home to whack it.