To begin with I will state that I am unequivocally pro choice. I believe in the absolute right of a woman to decide wether or not she will carry a baby to term. I pose no moral judgements on the reproduction of another, just as I demand the same right for myself. It was with great joy that I read a ruling by the British Columbia supreme court reaffirming a limitation on those that protest outside of abortion clinics at the CBC.
Two men (big surprise) appealed the bubble law which mandates that protesters must stay out of a fifty meter radius of an abortion clinic. They are free too converge outside of that area to stage whatever protest that they would like. This ruling means that women will be able to enter abortion clinics without having to deal with people screaming baby killer at them, while shoving posters of aborted foetuses in their faces.
Those that have expressed concern for this decision claim that it limits free speech. I cannot understand how limiting where the speech may take place limits free speech. Outside of the bubble zone they are free to express their political positions. They are further free to write letters to the editors of any Canadian newspaper, write to their MP, or even the Prime Minister. This law does not squash dissent in any way shape or form, it simply allows women the right to have an abortion without being subject to harassment. A woman's right to choose is protected by the constitution, and as such she should be able to access that right unimpeded.
The free speech argument is just another strawman. In the following commentary on this article, it is quite clear that the issue is not about having the ability to express an opinion, rather it is about blocking access to abortions clinics.
Basically it means you have a two-tier system of justice. If you're a pro-lifer or an unborn baby in this society your rights mean nothing."
But, maybe those who have a 'legitimate' reason to have an abortion should cry foul of people who use abortion in response to a sleazy lifestyle instead against of those who speak out against abortion. Just a thought trying to get some common sense into all this.
We justify people's rights to kill an unborn child, then we turn around and cant figure out why more and more people seem to have no regard for life anymore.
in one fell swoop this judge has unilaterally undermined a fundamental individual right. A right which is supposedly protected under the constitution. What's the point of a constitution if one person can essentially create edicts. If that doesn't scare you I don't know what would. What I don't understand is why such a "bubble-zone" is required in the first place. As long as Spratt & Watson didn't deny a woman her right to have an abortion then there shouldn't be a problem. There's no reason why both fundamental individual rights can't coexist together without infringement.
It turns out that, in Canada, you only have the right to protest certain things.
If you wish to disrupt meetings of international leaders – even of political parties – all the while trashing McDonalds, destroying private property, assaulting the police, etc. etc. the courts give you carte blanche.
But if you wish to hold up a sign of what premature infanticide – ie. abortion – does to the preborn, well, that just can’t be allowed!
Anti-“abortion” protestors outside clinics present about as much of threat to women’s rights as do fish in the sea.
These pro birth factions don't seek the right of free speech they seek to make it as difficult as possible for a woman to exercise her constitutional rights. They use terms like murdering a baby, or engage in slut shaming, thus making their true purpose obvious. They are angry because the government will not allow them to assert control. This is about power and thankfully the supreme court has asserted theirs in the protection of women.