I've read a few posts which address the issue of Free Speech, including two really good posts by Monica and George. As future teachers, questions about freedom are so important for our own pedagogy, and how we will explain or talk about hot button topics. Thanks for tackling this tough issue - it's got me thinking.
Of course we probably all believe in freedom; but we sometimes have competing freedoms...and we have to make a decision about whose freedom is valued more.
In democracies, the values held by a majority of the citizens constitute a norm, and our laws should reflect our norms. Of course our values, norms and laws continually change over time.
We make laws which restrict particular freedoms, if those freedoms conflict with our values. For example, Canadians have greater hand gun restrictions than the United States - we believe our society is safer by restricting this freedom.
In 1988 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled our abortion laws unconstitutional. The decision noted that a woman should not be forced to carry a foetus to term; the government should not be able to control a woman's reproduction - this would interfere with a woman's right to "security of the person".
Then in 1996, the BC government established a "bubble zone" around abortion clinics. The new law, "Access to abortion Services Act", confronts the issue of competing interests, or competing freedoms. Basically, it denies protesters their freedom of speech, within 10 metres of a doctor's office, 50 metres of a hospital or clinic, and 160 metres of a doctor's home.
When one person's freedom conflicts with the values of the majority, we restrict that freedom.
The law doesn't restrict freedom of speech, but only its occurrence in a particular place. A subsequent Supreme Court decision "indicated that time, place and manner restrictions are less offensive to freedom of expression values than are general bans on a particular kind of speech."
For a similar reason, it seems the University of Calgary has decided to restrict the pro-life group from displaying photos, including "pictures of a bloody aborted foetus alongside a vintage Holocaust photo of dead Jewish bodies".
We all love freedom . . . but sometimes we all can't get our freedoms. It's not perfect, but I'm not sure if the alternative would be an improvement. How much freedom is enough freedom?
Friday, December 5, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Well said! And puzzlingly thought provoking.
Leafletting a campus with pictures of aborted foetusses isn't really protesting, using a freedom of speech, so much as it merely tries to shock or frighten people into a certain way of thinking. It would be akin to covering a peace group's office with pictures from 9/11, saying "you don't want this do you?"
I really liked what you called competing freedoms! Good post John.
...actually, I think using pictures to present your argument is very effective; especially if it has an emotional impact.
ya, the main point I was trying to make rests on the issue of "competing freedoms" - allowing one group to express their freedom, may infringe on others' freedoms.
No one can deny pictures are effective, but are the use of them in this case legitimate?
I'm also concerned by the Supreme Jester's Court limiting where you can express your freedom. Its like saying you can be a Jew hating biggot but only in your home.
Think about how it can be applied to anti-SPP protests. You know those suits in the limos need to be protected so just ban protesting within 160 meters of their route and destinations. "We're not limiting their right to protest, but we're keeping everybody safe by castrating them." You dig?
Personally, I support the decision by the University of Calgary to censor the prolife images.
Different issues, call for different responses -- some are justified and some are not... but it is this murky gray area of competing freedoms that I find intriguing.
I particularly find the prolife issue interesting:
They complain that government laws and univeristy policies are restricting their freedom of expression . . .
yet, they wish to deny women their ultimate freedom; freedom to control their bodies and reproduction.
The prolife movement is not just about spreading ideas, it's about imposing laws and controlling others.
I completely understand the rational of the prolife belief system, and support their personal reproductive choices over their own bodies
But, I also believe it's morally wrong to impose their beliefs onto someone else's body; using the force of law to control the reproductive choices of women.
I support Freedom of expression, but it's really difficult for me to support everybody's freedom, especially those who seek to take away our freedom.
...It’s been a while since I checked the blog and it seems I’ve been missing out on an interesting and important discussion!
Jeremy said that “leafleting a campus with pictures of aborted foetuses isn’t really protesting, using a freedom of speech....” The Genocide Awareness Project (GAP), which is what the pro-life club at U of C were promoting, does not involve leafleting. Instead, the images are displayed on a large poster board and members of the group stand with the posters the whole time to enter into dialogue with any passersby who have problems with the images, questions, etc. Hence, the pictures don’t randomly pop up in the library in an isolated context; they are used in conjunction with people articulating verbally the views expressed visually through the images.
Moreover, the fact that GAP uses shocking visual images doesn’t mean that it is not using “freedom of speech.” As our literacy classes and the BC Ministry of Education say, “text” includes “oral, visual, or written language forms including electronic media. These varied forms of text are often used in combination with one another. The expanded definition of text acknowledges the diverse range of materials with which we interact and from which we construct meaning” (BC Language Arts IRP). “Reading” a visual text reveals assumptions and arguments that are inscribed in non-verbal ways; in this case, the “arguments” of the photos are that a) denying the personhood of a human being has historically resulted in genocide; b) if it is true that the fetus is a human person, then abortion is no less than genocide; and c) abortion is a fundamentally violent act against the life, integrity, and personhood of the unborn child. When combined with peaceful verbal communication between pro-lifers and proponents of abortion rights, these images are powerful communicative tools that address an important social issue. I can think of no better place for the use of such tools than at a university campus.
To quote the BC Supreme Court case which decided the bubble zone law, “the use of shock, the creation of distress and the triggering of conscience are not inherently of negative worth and are not necessarily to be discouraged. They are, in fact, often the very tools of conversation” (R v Lewis).
As a side note, the reason the University censored the group was not because it found the images to be offensive, but because it feared that violence would occur—even though a) the display has been run for years without any such violence occurring; and b) security personnel are on hand to ensure peaceful debate; and c) all members of GAP sign a statement condemning violence, and any violence that would occur would likely be against the pro-life group.
Thanks for your response – you’ve made some great points.
Although I haven’t done any extensive research into the incident at the University of Calgary, it seems reasonable to draw a connection between the “Bubble Zone” law and the restrictions imposed by the university.
In part, the "bubble zone" is designed to protect patients from psychological or potentially physical abuse. --- Likewise, the university’s censorship of graphic images serves to protect individuals from psychological violence – The university may not have explicitly expressed this point, but it seems to be a logical extension of arguments made for the “bubble zone”.
Abortion is a controversial issue for obvious reasons. Both prolifers and prochoicers may agree that abortion results in killing a life. That’s why it’s not an easy decision for many women, sometimes resulting in depression. --- But most Canadians do not equate abortion with murder, as the prolifers argue. There is definitely a line between providing information, and harassment.
There may be a student at the university, who recently had an abortion. If she unintentionally walks by the prolife information booth and sees a picture of a “bloody aborted foetus alongside a vintage Holocaust photo of dead Jewish bodies", how might this affect her? Should she have a right to be protected from such images? The image is telling her that she is not only a murderer, but an evil person – as evil and cruel as Hitler. Does this image represent an act of violence upon her?
Beyond the issue of violence, displaying such images will not likely reduce or eliminate abortions. It’s poor tactics. The images will further polarize the debate. Instead, prolifers should focus on supporting women --- sticking to a positive message about compassion and working to improve social conditions that help families; support social programs which help mothers and volunteer to assist new families with childcare or help at home.
Post a Comment