A friend whose opinions I respect was pretty enraged this week — and rightly so.

Her anger came from the kerfuffle that made its way to this week’s meeting of city council, the debate over a banner that flew over Tranquille Road and Victoria Street.

The message on the banner is pretty simple: One Life Can Make a Difference — Protect Human Life Week.

It’s a sentiment with which we can all agree in its global application but, because the banners come from a pro-life organization, that simple definition of human life takes on enormous political meaning.

My friend was angry because she’s one of those women who is strong enough in her own attitudes that a large piece of plastic hanging above traffic isn’t going to make much of a difference to her belief system.

The issue came forward after a letter from Allysa Gredling who, in her letter to council, raised many valid issues that society needs to look at and consider.

She writes about what she calls the war on women being waged by the Republican party in the U.S. — a viewpoint with which I agree — and about those ridiculous backbenchers in our own federal government who continue to try to push women back into the 1920s with their attempt to put restrictions on a woman’s right to an abortion.

Unfortunately, the letter to council is filled with footnotes, something I want to applaud, but find not only unnecessary, but which implies to me a belief Gredling thinks our councillors have been living in a cave and are unaware of the world in which they live.

The simple reality is this — the pro-life movement has as much right to express itself as does the women’s-choice side.

Our city administration refers to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in deciding what banners it can and cannot approve.

The second clause in that document, one that sets out the groundwork legally that helps define Canadians, is pretty clear:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association.

In my view, the pro-life movement has as much legal right to its views, which I believe to be wrong, as I do to hold my beliefs.

It is mind-boggling trying to determine what shred of logic lies behind Coun. Nelly Dever’s assertion the banner goes against the rights of women.

It does nothing to infringe on my rights or those of my friend; it’s offensive to me, but lots of things I see I find offensive.

It may conflict with Dever’s beliefs, but it does not have much more impact than that.

I find it more of an issue that Dever chose such an over-the-top nonsensical argument to defend her viewpoint.

Women like her, who appear to be intolerant of anything with which they don’t agree, are more offensive to me because they feel a need to impose their own viewpoints on everyone else.

I have pro-life friends. We agree to disagree, but they respect my right to hold my viewpoints and I respect theirs.

Coun. Pat Wallace perhaps spoke the clearest when she said she wasn’t interested in wasting any more time debating the issue.

She gets it.

People have the right to their own viewpoints and the right to disagree with others’ viewpoints.

The charter protects those rights.

When we start demanding people be muzzled, what does that make us?

Dale Bass is a reporter with Kamloops This Week.