The National Post of October 8, 2010 had the headline: “Do graphic anti-abortion posters cross a moral line?”
The article was raising questions about the use of graphic images by pro-life students at Carleton University. The article went on to state, “The incident raises serious questions about the use of horror and disturbing images as tools for protest and social change. Does one person’s right to free speech trump another person’s right to not be confronted by distasteful and disturbing images? Is it right, even moral, to use bodily remains to make a political point?” Oh really, this is the same National Post which states:
“Editor's note on graphic images from Haiti”
“Posted: January 15, 2010, 12:05 PM by Shane Dingman. Some readers may be offended by our use on the front page of Friday's print edition a picture showing the body of a victim of the Haitian earthquake, or by another picture inside showing piles of corpses in the streets of Port-au-Prince.
“We recognize that these pictures are disturbing. But we think that they are also a necessary — indeed, a central — part of telling this story completely. They communicate in a powerful manner the true horror of what has taken place in that country….”  (emphasis added)
The students at Carleton University were trying to show the “true horror” that is taking place in our country and others by showing the atrocities and slaughter committed by abortionists on the innocent victims who are exterminated by “choice.” Yet the National Post had the hypocrisy to talk about “crossing a moral line.” Surely, it is immoral to hide the evidence in any atrocity and any attempt to impose censorship on those who show the truth is surely hypocrisy.
I believe the hypocrisy of trying to make a case for censorship was alive and well in the National Post article of October 8, 2010. The writer of the article managed to find some “experts” who appeared to be in favor of censoring the graphic pictures of the slaughter of the voiceless innocents by abortion. I believe a more honest and truthful headline would have been, “Why does the media fail to show the slaughtered victims of abortion?” The article goes on to quote a “respected ethicist” who is against the showing of pictures of the atrocities. One would have thought that any “respected ethicist” would wish that the evidence be shown of the slaughter of the innocents.
The article then quotes, “John Haas, the president of the U.S. National Catholic Bioethics Center, a pro-life activist” who is quoted as saying, “…use of graphic images raises serious moral issues.” Somebody should tell Mr. Haas that the Catholic Church is full of graphic images of the crucified and bloodstained Jesus, nails driven through his hands and feet, blood pouring from his side and wearing a crown of thorns. Would Mr. Haas censor the atrocities committed on Jesus?
The article then quotes Tony Kerr, advertising program chair at the Ontario College of Art and Design in Toronto, who says this about the Carleton students using graphic images, “The students have chosen a low road…awareness is great, but does all this awareness save anyone? If I was their creative director I would tell them, ‘Awareness is not a business plan.’ ”
We are not talking “business plans” here, we are talking about the obscene business of killing by abortion. Still, one must say the writer of this article in the National Post managed to find “experts” who support the continued censoring of the slaughter of the innocents by abortion. The only other “expert” missing was Henry Morgentaler, Canada’s foremost abortionist and Order of Canada recipient, who I believe, would have concurred with the “ethicist”, the “pro-life activist”, and the “advertising program chair.”
Stephen J. Gray
October 14, 2010.
Note: See the innocents slaughtered by abortion at: http://www.AbortionNo.org