What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

It took the University of Calgary Students Union just 10 minutes today to remove official club status from the U of C Pro-life Club. They removed the status in a "hearing" on the club's future today. (See story here) Their reason? The club violated university policy.

Hold on.

This is the group that hosted a Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) last November. Last week 3 members of the club were charged with trespass for that display. Note that- they were charged, not convicted. In Canada, that is a huge difference. In Canada, the Charter guarantees that you are innocent until proven guilty.

The members of Campus Pro-life have not been convicted of anything. The U of C administration has so far refused to tell the club what policy they have violated. The Student's Union has also refused tell them what policy was violated.

Ok, let's look at this.

Their club status was revoked because they broke university policy.

The university has not told them what policy they broke.

The only action taken against them is a charge of trespass which has yet to be proven.

As far as I can see, club status was only removed because the Student's Union has decided they are guilty of trespass.

That is a violation of their s. 11(d) Charter right to be innocent until proven guilty.

Huh.

Way to go U of C Student's Union! Thank you for violating your student's rights when you should have been helping them. If the situation was opposite and the university had charges laid against members of the Women's Center for showing graphic pictures of what happens to women who try to self abort, would the Student's Union be pulling their status? I doubt it. I'm sure they would be fighting for them not hanging them out to dry.

And I haven't even gotten into the apparent conflict of interest by the chairman of the hearing who served for three years as the head of the feminist organization that opposes the Campus Pro-life. I hope the club appeals the ruling as high as they can, because if they ever get out of the university and to a real court, this decision will be thrown out so fast your head will spin. The obvious bias in this case is mind boggling, and unfortunately all too prevalent on university campuses in Canada. God help us all.

Freedom isn’t Free

And I was worried about attacks on my pro-life club! If you remember, I blogged (here and here) about the controversy at the University of Calgary when their pro-life club decided to hold a GAP (Genocide Awareness Project). Well, today 3 members of the club were served with summons to appear in court to speak to the charge of trespass.

That's right; the U of C has formally charged 3 of their students with the crime of trespass. 3 others are expecting to be charged. Read the story here or here. I have a few questions, so here they are in no particular order.

1. How can students who've paid their tuition and been invited to attend the university be trespassing? (Oh right, because they don't like their opinion)
   
   
2. Why do all of the headlines on this story use anti-choice instead of pro-life (especially when the club is called prolife)? (Oh wait, I know because we've all bought the semantic arguments)
   
   
3. Where does a public institution, funded with tax dollars, get off claiming that the University is not a public institution? (Seriously, study some 1^st year Constitutional Law people)
   
   
4. Why did the U of C take 2 months to lay charges? (I have no snarky comment to make here- I would genuinely like to know)
   
   
5. Is the U of C charging them because they truly believed they trespassed illegally or because they don't like the message- would they charge Falun Gong protestors? (I think we all know the answer to that one)
   

I spent all day following this story and reading people's responses to it. The negative responses all seem to argue one of the following things:

1. They assume the club is religiously based and criticize the club for "pushing their beliefs on others"- This is a silly argument and demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the part of the person arguing. They are assuming that because the club members are pro-life, they are also religious. While the members might be religious, it does not change the scientific and intellectual nature of their arguments. Calling them religious and dismissing them is an ad hominum (personal) attack and ignores the merits of their arguments.
   
   
2. They take exception to comparing abortion to the Holocaust or Rwanda- again, they misunderstand the point of the protest. Abortion is compared to genocide because it IS genocide. Pro-lifers believe that life begins at conception. That means that every abortion is a murder, and that systematic, government funded abortion is genocide.
   
   
3. They complain about the graphic nature of the images- Yes, the images are graphic. I hate seeing them, and almost inevitably cry after seeing a number of them. But that reaction doesn't mean showing the pictures is wrong. Historically, disturbing graphic images are almost always the impetus that drives change. For example, it was the diagram showing how crammed into the hold of a ship slaves were that drove the first abolitionists to act. It was images of black people being shot with high pressure fire hoses, and the pictures of Emmett Till's beaten and broken body that gave Rosa Parks and other civil rights activists the courage to act. It was the pictures of thin, emaciated Jews in concentration camps after liberation by Allies that made people truly believe genocide had occurred. At the time all these pictures were shown they were called graphic, and denounced in the same way that GAP is denounced. That doesn't make it wrong, it makes it important. Especially today, we live in a very visual culture. Pictures can change hearts and minds. After all, a "picture is worth a thousand words."
   
   
4. They also argue that all the students had to do was turn the signs inward and the U of C would have allowed them to be displayed- This argument ignores the fact that the request by the university amounts to discrimination. The U of C Pro-life club is a club like every other club, and yet no other club is forced to turn their displays inward. Why should the U of C club submit to discrimination?
   
   
5. The other argument is that the students were warned they would be charged with trespass- That cannot be denied. But the students aren't complaining that they were charged; they are complaining that people are trying to censor them. Censorship is wrong. The students knew exactly what they were getting themselves into and they did it anyway because they knew what they were doing was right. Instead of condemning them, we should be congratulating them for their courage. People who stand up for liberty against tyranny should be hailed as heroes. Where would we be if the suffragettes had refused to speak out? If the abolitionists had been cowed by slave owner's threats? If civil rights activists had agreed jail was too high a price to pay? The world would be a much different place.
   

The U of C students were not violent; they merely put up some signs outside. Those pictures showed graphic images- of that there can be no doubt, but these students deserve our praise. Not only have they brought attention to abortion (which people try to ignore if they can) but they have brought attention to lack of tolerance at Canadian Universities. Freedom isn't free people. It comes at a cost, as these young Canadians are showing us all. God Bless them.

They will all be in my prayers; and I hope in yours too. But beyond prayers, please take a minute to right a polite, respectful letter to the U of C. Contact information is below. Send a copy of your letter to the two Calgary papers- the Sun and the Herald.

Dr. Harvey P. Weingarten, President
Administration Building, Room 100
University of Calgary
2500 University Drive NW
Calgary, AB T2N 1N4
Phone: (403) 220-5460
Fax: (403) 289-6800
Email: president@ucalgary.ca

The Death of Free Speech in Canada

A few weeks ago, I blogged about the problem of university campuses denying pro-life groups club status. Today's post is about a new twist on the denial of free speech on university campuses. The University of Calgary is threatening to arrest or sanction members of the Campus Pro-Life (CPL) group next week when they bring GAP (Genocide Awareness Project) to the U of C. GAP is a graphic visual display comparing abortion to other genocides around the world by showing pictures of aborted children, and pictures of other genocides around the world. The U of C says that CPL can only display the GAP boards if they face them inward so no one can see them unless they choose to walk into the circle. Read the full story here. However, the U of C doesn't make any other group turn its display boards inward. Several local media outlets have picked up this story, including the Calgary Herald who wrote an editorial on the issue.

The U of C is denying the members of CPL their Charter right to freely express their opinion. CPL has done the GAP project before, but it has always been a peaceful display. That hasn't stopped the U of C from claiming that the display might insight violence, and that is reason enough to shut it down. University campuses are supposed to be a bastion of free speech, but if my 6 years on campus has taught me anything, it's that free speech is only allowed if it is speech that the campus administrators approve of. If they don't approve, it's no longer free speech, it's hate speech. And, shocking, that's exactly what the U of C is claiming.

If the U of C is truly pro-choice (not pro-abortion) then they should have no problem with a display that shows the consequences of abortion. However, you and I both know that pro-choice really means pro-abortion in the world today, but pro-choice is a less charged term than pro-abortion. It's as though they do not trust the students, faculty and staff of the U of C to actually evaluate the issue of abortion. What are they afraid of if people see this display? Yes, it is graphic, but the truth often is. The U of C is a public institution, funded by taxpayer dollars. As such, they are bound by the Charter, and their students have the right to free speech that they do not have the right to censor.

I want to congratulate all the members of CPL who believe so much in the duty to protect the unborn that they are willing to face arrest and possible academic sanctions. That is a courageous action, and an action that will increasingly need to be taken if campuses continue down the path of denying free speech. May God Bless them and give them the strength they need next week to stand up for free speech, and more importantly the unborn.