Winnipeg Free Press > Latest News > Media outnumber protesters at Law Courts

Latest News

Winnipeg Free Press - ONLINE EDITION

Media outnumber protesters at Law Courts

By: Staff Writer

23/06/2009 9:37 AM | Comments: 28

Canadian Association for Free Expression supporters were at the Courthouse to observe a court case involving a young child. CAFE supporters (left) Margaret Feakes and (right) Gerry Neal stand outside the Manitoba Law Courts. They were not allowed in to the proceedings as the hearings are closed to the public.

Enlarge Image

Canadian Association for Free Expression supporters were at the Courthouse to observe a court case involving a young child. CAFE supporters (left) Margaret Feakes and (right) Gerry Neal stand outside the Manitoba Law Courts. They were not allowed in to the proceedings as the hearings are closed to the public. (KEN GIGLIOTTI / WINNIPEG FREE PRESS )

WINNIPEG -- Ten minutes after a planned protest by a white supremacist group outside the Law Courts Building this morning, media and opponents far outnumbered the three supremacists who showed up.

The supremacists are part of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, or CAFE. But just a handful of its supporters stood on the sidewalk on York Avenue prior to the trial over two Winnipeg children at the centre of a heated custody dispute.

Related Items

  1. Articles

CAFE supporter Gerry Neal said, "I support freedom of speech in Canada, I object to Child and Family Services taking away any children except in extreme cases of abuse."

The children were removed from their parents in 2008 after the girl showed up at her school with neo-Nazi markings on her body.

The custody trial resumes this morning.
 

  • Rate this Rate This Star Icon
  • This article has not yet been rated.

    • We want you to tell us what you think of our articles. If the story moves you, compels you to act or tells you something you didn’t know, mark it high. If you thought it was well written, do the same. If it doesn’t meet your standards, mark it accordingly.

    You can also register and/or login to the site and join the conversation by leaving a comment.

    Rate it yourself by rolling over the stars and clicking when you reach your desired rating. We want you to tell us what you think of our articles. If the story moves you, compels you to act or tells you something you didn’t know, mark it high.

28 Commentscomment icon

Dave, I will not simply move away because I'm offended. I will stand up against racism and hatred.

My advise to you would be get your facts straight before you spew off. You would appear more credible at least.

Dave, what you describe is called anarchy, not freedom.

If freedom is taken, then all who break the law should just "take" their freedom by refusing to submit to the consequences we have determined to be just? Prisoners should just "take" their freedom by storming the gate, killing the guards and fleeing?

Freedom is not, nor ever should be, absolute. You cannot simply do whatever it is you like and expect to get away with it by cloaking yourself in the flag of liberty.

It's not about paying fealty to the state: it's about knowing right from wrong, it's about knowing the limits.

Making a defenseless child, who has not the capacity to understand the message, become a poster-child for hate, and hence a target, is just wrong. It's astounding there are some here who simply cannot see that.

I gotta say Dave, your logic escapes me.

You say that freedom is not earned, and then quote the events in and around 1776. Ummm... Yes, the revolutionaries definetly EARNED their freedom.

Then you say that if people are free, they will use that freedom responsibly. Have you completely turned a blind eye to reality? Responsibility is created out of fear of losing freedom.

For example, look at children. They will constantly try to push their boundries, a small amount at a time. If they do something, and there are no consequences, they will take that to mean that they are allowed to do it. The lump that into freedom, and move on to the new boundry, and try to push that one. If there are negative consequences, then they determine if the consequences outweigh the benefits, and that is how they determine if that is an acceptable loss.

An example of this is a typical 16-18 year old who wants to borrow their parent's car. The parent then puts a limitation, "Be back by 10 o'clock." If they have no prior knowledge of the consequences, they will likely intentionally stay out a little bit later, let's say 10:30. The parent then makes the punishment that their child may not use the vehicle for a week, unless it is to run an errand.

The next time the child borrows the car, and wants to stay out later than the time they are instructed to come home, they have a decision to make. Essentially, it is, "If I lose my ability to use the car for a week, is there anything I will miss out on." If there is, they will be home on time.

Why is this? It's because they fear losing freedom at a time that they desire it, not simply because they have the freedom.

Of course, this all depends on the authority having jurisdiction imposing penalties.

This is about the children and what these parents did to them. Freedom of speech is irrelevant here. This is a CFS issue not a human rights issue. It's common sense. Parents should be raising kids to be productive, helpful, caring members of society, or else we'll be seeing more crime and violence from all peoples. I do not believe in race. It was a conspiracy designed for early scientists and colonists to feel superior. Check your heads if you use that word.

@Anonymous "Freedom to be wrong, freedom to be ridiculous". That's just a ridiculous statement. What about my freedom to live in a decent society, with decent people?"

You don't have a right not to be offended. If you're offended, move away. My right to voice my opinion requires protection, your "right" to live with decent people is not a basic human right. Remember what occurred in Germany in the 1930's.


@KBT "Freedom is not given, it is earned. It is earned by obeying the law. It is earned by continuing to exercise freedom responsibly. It is earned by not being so daft as to think that stopping for a beer is a legitimate excuse for almost missing a parent-teacher meeting!"

Freedom is TAKEN. Tyranny is the rule, and freedom is the exception. In 1776, do you think the revolutionaries EARNED their freedom? Time to brush up on your history. It is not earned by offering fealty to the state. Exercising freedom responsibly? Give me a break. The Son of Liberty is Responsibility. When a man is free, he will be responsible.

I guess all the people that agree with the "right" of the state to limit the ability of people to communicate ideas are just too cowardly to debate those with opposing ideas and defeat them with logic and reasoning.

You all make me proud to be a Canadian. Land of the "Right to Not Be Offended", home of the intellectually bankrupt. O Canada!

I stand firmly behind my belief that parents need to set the example for their children, even if they don't necessarily agree with that example. The parents in this case shouldn't be given the opportunity to pollute a child's mind. They shouldn't have the right to have children, frankly.

I don't want to live in a society were we condone this kind of hatred, and am proud that our justice system is brave enough to take a stand against it.

"Freedom to be wrong, freedom to be ridiculous". That's just a ridiculous statement. What about my freedom to live in a decent society, with decent people?

Where is the line drawn? The line is drawn when you inscribe hateful comments and Nazi symbols on a child.

This case is less a test case for freedom of speech and much more a case about abuse of a child. Freedom of speech does not mean that anyone is compelled to broadcast or convey your message, certainly not a child who has not yet formed the capacity to weigh such messages on her own.

And if anybody thinks that freedom of speech equals freedom to teach children to kill anyone who is different -- THAT is scary!

Freedom is not given, it is earned. It is earned by obeying the law. It is earned by continuing to exercise freedom responsibly. It is earned by not being so daft as to think that stopping for a beer is a legitimate excuse for almost missing a parent-teacher meeting!

takman_777 - well put.

As for " move to the United States " as one writer put it, hatred of Americans is a form of racism (or culteralism) and makes you no better than any other racist.

If anyone believe's that the goverment should control our freedom of speech, I suggest you read Orwell's 1984.

I would be tempted to agree with you on that one Manitoba Party. I would question any organization that espoused hatred as a virtue.

In my opinion....not that anyone asked for it! I support freedom of speech, however not when it promotes racism and hatred. Don't we have enough of this already? Don't take your ignorance and hide behind a shield of "it's our right...freedom of speech!" That's just crap! Go and find a group that moves us forward not 20 steps back.
And as far as the children go...not that I agree with painting anything on your child's body but for crying out loud people, let your child decide when they reach an age of fully understanding, decide if they want to promote their beliefs in this manner. I think that if you love your children and you know that you are a minority in your beliefs that you are putting your child at risk of being attacked or targeted for violence. Shame on them for that! Peace out!

View all Comments

The comment period for this story has ended.

letters

Make text: Larger | Smaller

Special coverage

Poll

Would you pay more to supersize your garbage bin?

View Results