 | |
| Street Poster in Ottawa - appropriate for public square? |
Sharing the space
Sharing the space
The May 2010 Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Newsletter can now be found at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/Newsletters/Newsletter108(May2010)(RGB).pdf Bill C-384 was soundly defeated by a vote of 228 to 59. Check how the Members of Parliament voted at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/HowTheyVoted.pdf On June 5, 2010, we are co-hosting the US/Canda Push-Back Seminar at the Radisson Gateway Hotel at the Seattle/Tacoma Airport. The overwhelming defeat of Bill C-384 proved that we can Push-Back the euthanasia lobby in the US and Canada and convince people that euthanasia and assisted suicide are a dangerous public policy. Register for the Seminar at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/2010SeminarFlyer(RGB)(LetterFormat).pdf The Schindler family are being attacked by a Florida television station and Michael Schiavo. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is standing in solidarity with the Schindler family. My blog comments: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2010/05/att...
"We don't tell women who fear being attacked that they shouldn't walk their neighbourhood streets."
ReplyDeleteOh, yes we do!!!
"Passersby such as mothers with strollers have a right to enjoy public streets without confronting, to their sudden surprise, sexually explicit promotional posters."
A "right?" Sexually "explicit?" And what makes mothers with strollers more important than everyone else? What about the rights of the rest of the community to enjoy the poster without having some crazed lunatic ripping down their choice of art/advertising? She was the only one who objected to it -- what gives her the right to impose her standards over theirs?
And what was sexually "explicit" about it, anyway? The poster, as described, might have been suggestive -- although one would obviously have to be aware that the practise of discipline can be sexually stimulating to some people -- but hardly "explicit." If genitalia are not prominently on display and being employed in a sexual manner, it is not explicit. Otherwise, we will have to continually monitor advertising for socks and shoes, underwear of all kinds, and earlobes, necks, backs, and countless other body parts and clothing. Because I guarantee you, if it exists in our world, someone has a sexual fetish for it!
I find this picture offensive and particularly so if it can be viewed by children. Disgusting.
ReplyDelete