Judge Frowns on Poppy in Canadian Courtroom

*Godfather* · 12-20-2007, 06:15 PM

For those of you who don't know, we Canuck's, and some other nations I know of, wear poppies about two weeks before our Remembrance Day. Some people wear them before or after the day as well. It comes in large part as the result of a Canadian poet and WWI Medic's poem "In Flander's Fields" and they help signify the bloodshed of trench warfare. I know there have been some arguments about the significance of Holidays and days such as Memorial or Remembrance day, so maybe the entire idea of the poppy will be frowned on by some.... Never the less, I remember being given a poppy by a WWII vet and he told me he hoped I would never have to experience what they did. Reason enough for me to appreciate the poppy if they did...

And then there's this:
-----
TheStar.com - Ontario - Poppy inappropriate for witness, judge says
Poppy inappropriate for witness, judge says TheStar.com - Ontario - Poppy inappropriate for witness, judge says
December 12, 2007
Betsy Powell
Crime Reporter
While a judge in Kitchener doesn't think police officers should wear poppies when they come to testify in her courtroom, it doesn't appear to be part of a wider trend banning the Remembrance Day symbol.
According to a court transcript obtained by The Record of Waterloo Region, Ontario Court Justice Margaret Woolcott issued the warning to Const. Dan Haines on Oct. 31 when he appeared as a witness at an assault trial.
"However much you may think that's a totally acceptable symbol, and that is totally neutral, that might not be entirely the case for everybody who comes to court," Woolcott told the Waterloo regional police officer.
"It represents a symbol of support and I suspect that 99.999 per cent of us happily wear it outside the courtroom. You probably should not wear anything like that in court."
While she didn't insist Haines remove it that day, she told him she would in the future.
At Ontario Superior Court yesterday, no one could remember a judge there making such an order.
Sgt. Brian Thornton, a Toronto Police Service liaison officer who's been based at the 361 University Ave. courthouse for the last six years, said: "It's never been an issue here."
However, over at Old City Hall, one court security guard shrugged when asked if he'd ever heard about anyone being asked to remove a poppy.
"It's the judge's courtroom. He can do what he wants."
After the Oct. 31 proceeding, police and judicial representatives held a closed-door meeting and the issue has been resolved, Insp. Brian Larkin told the Record.
------

I didnt find this article myself... my Dad did, and as his father served with the Special Forces in WWII, and a cousin of ours is heading to Afghanistan in the near future, he was hopping mad.

Does anyone really think that if you lined up say, 100 immigrants, any would be offended by people wearing a poppy? Just a goofy story I thought

wIggy · 12-20-2007, 11:00 PM

Honestly, I feel that if just one of those 100 immigrants were offended, it would become an issue. At least that's the case in the US. The ACLU would snatch that case up so quickly that nobody would really know what happened. It seems the immigrant has more power here (the US) than the actual citizen does.

*Godfather* · 12-21-2007, 03:24 AM

The poppy is a gesture towards those who fought so that people could immigrate into a free country... Free Speech destroying a simple symbol of free speech?

The point I was hinting towards was political correctness gone going crazy yet again...Which I think you're saying too

An interesting political philosopher named John Rawls talks about how pluralist societies can co-exist, as does Habermas. They both agree that people need to not think simply about their own convictions, but come to an agreement that all can accept. Rawls talks about the Original Position, which is often related to Hobbes. You must think above your own narrow equilibrium and have reflective equilibrium to attempt to create the well ordered society. If the one small member of society objects one thing... can a pluralist society expect to last if it simply crumbles to that level instead of coming the the reasonable overlapping consensus. Probably not, and thus free and equal persons must conceptualize justice together.

Really what it boils down to is how we look at our human rights in both Canada and the US

We all have the right to freedom of speech and expression. But this limit ends where it steps on the freedom of others to have free speech and expression. The charge of this judge that the Poppy steps on the right to freedom of expression of others is backwards is it not? Telling someone that a simple flower on their lapel is wrong, in my own opinion, is what is actually oppressive. The way I see it (keeping in mind I'm frequently speaking too fast

) this judge should be feared, because she got the argument entirely backwards. In a shot at fairness, she seems to have backfired, as seen in the overwhelming outrage that followed this story

Then again it's her courtroom right... better not question Her Highness