Free Speech

Pro-life Student Silenced in Canadian School

Our neighbors to the north have given us another excellent foreshadowing of what the near future of political correctness run amuck holds for us.

It seems that a pro-life student, wishing to engage in a SILENT protest against abortion was put in isolation and segregated from the rest of the student body.  The student, Jennifer Rankin, was joining in the pro-life "Silent Day of Solidarity" campaign, which involved wearing red tape over her mouth and a red armband.  The point of the protest was to be able to respond with a pro-life answer when people would ask why she is protesting.

From Life News:

...a school principal alerted police and met Rankin and her mother at the entrance where she told them that the protest is not welcome at the school. Ultimately, school officials allowed Rankin into the building but kept her in isolation away from other students.

"I was taken directly into a small room that was opposite the vice-principal's office and I was in there all day," Rankin told the Petersborough Examiner newspaper. "I wasn't allowed to speak with or see any other students and students were not allowed to come and see me and I was isolated in that room for the entire day."

Keep in mind that one of the "nice" things about Canada and some European countries is that, for good or ill, they seem to be a harbinger of what's heading our way.

Again, political correctness run amuck.

 

Filed under: 

Why I Oppose President O

Why do I oppose Obama?

1. As a Christian, I am distressed by Mr. Obama's dedication toward championing abortion, at any term! Mr. Obama refused to sign a bill that would give medical assistance to babies who survived botched abortions, without this bill they simply suffered until they expired. I believe, when people engage in sex, they should understand the risk, STD's and pregnancy to name a couple. You are not forced to have sex, and abortion should not be a convenient birth control method.

2. As a fairly logical and informed American, I understand that terrorist do not want to be friends, they despise our culture and more importantly their countries are in such turmoil, they need a common enemy to bond them. Mr. Obama has done many things to appease them, and they only see that as weakness, and thus still attack us. Due to the President's newly adopted rules of engagement, soldiers are dying out there, and that is heartbreaking.

Pro-life students charged with trespassing on their own campus

Normally, when one thinks of trespassing, you think of someone illegally being somewhere they have no right to be, or where they just don't belong.  You don't think of college students being in a public area on their own campus.

It turns out the you can get charged with trespassing at the University of Calgary if you set up a pro-life display - even if you're a student.  Six such students have been charged with trespassing after the University initially approved their display, then seemingly changed course after administrators didn't like the graphic nature of the display.  In other words, the difference between trespassing and not trespassing is the nature of your views.

From Lifenews:

Tennessee school censors references to God in students' art

A Tennessee elementary school is censoring the words "In God We Trust" and "God Bless the USA" on student made posters in its hallway.  The school leaership claims the offending language was covered up because it included the word "God", and as a result was in violation of existing school board policy.

Diversity as the "new" Fairness Doctrine?

It's become quite clear now what Obama and the Democrat's strategy was (and is) on the Fairness Doctrine - turn down the volume and deny that's what you really want, while you work to repackage it under a new name.

The "New" Fairness Doctrine?

So what name will the new version of "fairness" operate under?  Diversity.  Or "diversity of ownership", if you prefer.

Just last week, the Senate passed an amendment sponsored by SC Senator Jim DeMint that would prohibit the FCC from reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine, while at the same time approving an amendment by IL Democrat Dick Durbin that would instruct the FCC to promote policies that foster more "minority ownership" in broadcasting.  (Of course the House hasn't weighed in on this yet)

ATHEISTS OR ANTITHEISTS? WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? WHICH HAS AN AGENDA? WHY?

As a member of the "civilized" society we live in, I cannot feel any worries about genuine atheists because it is their right to believe or not to believe. Yet, ANTITHEISTS use the euphemism of ATHEISM.

ANTI means: antagonistic, defiant, opposing, enemy of, hostile, belligerant, destructive, violent, furious, etc. etc. etc.

And narrowing the definition of ANTITHEISTS we reach the buttomline: THE ANTICHRIST ACTIVISTS and their DECEPTIVE AGENDA.

Let's dare to think by ourselves. It's not against the Law of the Land yet and I refuse to be "politically correct".

Fairness Doctrine Version 2.0

We've all heard about the possibility of the federal government getting involved in controlling the airwaves and dictating exactly what kind of speech can be broadcast and to exactly what degree, by way of the Fairness Doctrine. To the greatest degree, most of the press has been given to this movement's efforts to regulate the airwaves on television and the radio to ensure that 'equal time' is given to 'both sides' of every issue.

But, as is pointed out by Jeff Poor of The Business & Media Institute, those efforts to dictate content could even go so far as controlling the messages embodied within websites of various causes, as well!

Syndicate content