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Their club status was revoked because they broke university policy.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.

Mob Rule

Last Friday night, St. Mary's University (Halifax, Nova Scotia) pro-life club hosted pro-life speaker Jojo Ruba from the Canadian Center for Bioethical Reform. Just after his presentation began, a mob of angry abortion activists disrupted his lecture. You can see video footage from the event in the above video. (They enter about 1 minute in).

Mr. Ruba kept his cool and tried to dialogue with the mob, but instead of answering his questions, they fell back on chants like "not the church, not the state, women must decide their fate," "women's bodies, women's lives, women won't be terrorized" and "Pro-life men have got to go! When you get pregnant, let us know!" According to media coverage, (here, and here) it looks like campus security showed up half an hour after the protestors, followed by Halifax police. The protesters were told to disband or face possible charges or arrest. At this point, coverage of the incident becomes unclear (I'm piecing it together from about a dozen blog posts, and some of them contradict each other)- I'm not sure if the protestors did disband, or if they remained outside the presentation shouting their rhetoric, but we do know that the speaker was ordered off campus by St. Mary's officials. He went to a nearby Catholic Church and finished his presentation.

This is absolutely ridiculous- the presentation had all the appropriate permissions, and did nothing wrong, but it was thrown off campus because a mob didn't like what it had to say? Huh? How does that make any sense? It seems there were fears that the mob might turn violent- an e-mail allegedly circulated earlier that day to pro-abortion supporters said they had to do whatever was necessary to prevent the presentation from going forward- but that is no excuse for shutting down the presentation.

What is happening on universities across Canada? What is happening to free speech? Are we no longer going to even pretend to claim we have free speech, because that's what seems to be happening. If the presentation had permission to occur (which it did) why was it forced to leave? The protesters should have been arrested. I believe strongly that everyone has a right to present their opinion, but that does not include the right to act as part of a violent mob. Had those protesters sat down to hear the presentation and then asked questions, I would have no problem with their behavior. However, instead of being respectful and engaging in meaningful dialogue, they engaged in mob activity and tried to suppress someone else's right to express their own opinion.

I hope St. Mary's administration realizes what they did was wrong and apologizes for it. Not only did they censor a valid academic debate, they gave into the will of a mob which sets a dangerous precedent. They should apologize to Mr. Ruba and take action against the members of the mob. At the very least, they should invite Mr. Ruba back, and pay all his expenses to have him give his talk again- this time without interruptions.

A quote from Gandhi has been going around the campus pro-life world lately- I thought I'd share it with all of you. "First they ignore us, then they ridicule us, then they fight us, then we win."

Update: To see the rest of the presentation, go here.

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

Media Bias Hits Home

Apparently the media cheerleading for the left has hit campus newspapers as well. On Monday, the pro-life group at my university hosted a Silent No More Awareness Campaign. The group invited the campus paper, The Sheaf, to cover the story, which they did. You can read their article here.

*** IMPORTANT NOTE FROM BLOG AUTHOR: Before I go any further, I suppose I should make it clear that I am a member of the campus pro-life group, but I will do my best to give fair, unbiased coverage about the facts. Also note that this post is going to be something of a rant because I am seriously annoyed. My apologies in advance. ***

(See, at least I'm honest about my bias upfront. The rest of the media could learn something from that.)

Despite giving half a page to the story, the coverage of the actual presentation is one sentence. "They [Silent No More] have a group of women who have had abortions tell their stories and explain why they regret that decision." So, here is my (relatively) unbiased news coverage of the event.

On January 26, 2009 the U of S Students for Life (USSL) hosted a group called Silent No More on campus. This group spent the day with a table set up in the Arts Tunnel. The display featured large signs which read "I regret my abortion." A group of 6 women from Silent No More presented their personal story and experience of abortion at 12pm and 4pm that day in a classroom in the Arts building. These testimonies included the women giving the reason they had their abortion, the physical, mental and spiritual harm they suffered as a result of that abortion. Before the women began giving their testimony, the spokeswoman for the group outlined the history of Silent No More and its chief goals and aims; the most important being that women who suffer from Post Abortion Syndrome can find help. At the end of the presentation, the spokeswoman offered the names and contact information for groups that help women to heal from abortion. Several of the women who gave their story testified to the help they found at a retreat known as Rachel's Vineyard. Attendance at the 12pm presentation was approximately 12 individuals. At 4pm, upwards of 40 individuals filled the classroom to hear the presentation.

There, is it so hard to give an unbiased version of events? When you are putting the story on page 2, in the news section, I would expect it to be a news story, not an editorial. Of course papers are free to editorialize; in fact the editorial pages of newspapers tend to be my favorite pages, but you need to make it clear to others when you are editorializing and when you are setting out the facts of an event that happened.

*** IMPORTANT NOTE FROM BLOG AUTHOR: I will now begin to editorialize and do not claim to be unbiased in the following paragraphs ***

The rest of the Sheaf's article rehashes a story they ran a few weeks ago, and not surprisingly gets the facts wrong. For example they state that those who attended the noon presentation were either pro-choice women from the Women's Centre or "directly involved with Silent No More or related to the presenters." I was at the noon presentation, and my recollection is that there were 2 people from the USSL, 2 women not involved with Silent No More or the USSL, the daughter of one presenter, the 4 women from the Women's Centre, 2 people from the Sheaf and 3 other people I did not know, plus the 6 women involved in the presentation.

But, more to the point, why does who attended matter? And, if counting attendees was so important to the story, why did they not come back to the 4pm presentation; the one that occurred after classes were over for the day, and note that over 40 people attended, none of whom were involved in the presentation or related to those giving the presentation? Oh, I know, because that would take away from the spin they are trying to subtly put on the article.

They also manage to work in the fact that Silent No More is affiliated with Anglicans for Life. What purpose is served by noting that? I'm surprised actually that they didn't note that it is also affiliated with Priests for Life, which is, at least in the politically correct world a far more damning connection. Who cares who they are affiliated with unless you are trying to connect them with that radical and dangerous group known as Christians- After all, as everyone knows, all pro-lifers are motivated by religious ideals and couldn't possibly be speaking from a scientific or intellectual perspective.

And, the "fact" that annoys me most is the assertion that the USSL failed to attend a meeting set up on December 5. That makes the USSL look like they have something to hide now doesn't it. I agree it would merit publication, except for the fact that it isn't true. No meeting was set up for December 5 that the USSL had any knowledge of (and I have the e-mails to prove that statement if anyone cares to read them). While I may not be a lawyer yet, I did study the tort of libel in first year law. The Sheaf is getting awfully close with some of the stuff they are publishing. (I keep decrying the lack of practical hands on experience in law school; maybe I should take this on…)

I also find it interesting that a formal harassment complaint has been made against the USSL. Again, to my knowledge no one has made a formal complaint; in fact, just yesterday I was told on the record that no formal process had yet begun. Again, getting very close to libel.

My point in this rant, which may have escaped you due to it's length, is that once again the "free press" has proven itself to be neither unbiased nor too concerned with actually reporting the news. Spinning things to go your way is much more fun apparently. At least other papers have the excuse (such as it is) that they are trying to sell papers, and sensationalization sells. The Sheaf has no such excuse- all U of S students pay a fee that goes directly to The Sheaf, and the paper is freely distributed on campus. That's right- I'm paying to have this publication publish facts that they spin and outright lie about. Doesn't that just take the cake.

(I will likely be blogging more on this topic as it develops. Comment if you don't want to hear more, otherwise you will hear more.)

An Open Letter to Tolerance

My Dear Friend Tolerance:

I don't know where you have gone, but I'm asking, nay, begging you to please come back to this world. I fear something terrible must have happened to you because I know that you would never let such atrocities be committed in your name if you were able to speak out. Your name has been co-opted by your most evil cousin Intolerance. He is using your proud name to push down and aside all those laboring to share conservative values with the world. For example, if someone dares to suggest that killing children while they grow inside their mother's womb, Intolerance cries out your name and says those people are not Tolerating the different viewpoints this modern world needs to allow for. He also smacks down anyone who dares to suggest that perhaps all this "progress" is dangerous for the entire world. Many times these voices crying out for the unborn are timid, quiet voices, just gaining the courage to speak. And in your name Intolerance shouts them down and drowns them out.

You may be wondering what if I can give you examples, but there are so many, I almost don't know where to start. However, today I learned exactly where I need to start. I need to start on a university campus in Saskatchewan. It may be small and insignificant in the grand order of things, but it is my campus and my home. At a University Student's Council meeting (a perfidious, dangerous place) a friend of Intolerance (who happens to work for one of Intolerance's chief disciples, the Woman's Center) got up to speak in your name. She asked the council to deny the campus pro-life group the right to host a Silent No More Awareness Campaign because such an event is "systemized harassment that should not be tolerated." In her mind, such an event displays a level of discrimination akin to intolerant White Supremacist groups. She then went on to accuse the pro-life group of refusing to show up at meetings to discuss previous harassment complaints for intolerant behavior. The worst part of all this my friend? It's that the pro-life group had no idea such a motion was even going to come before the Council, so they were not there to defend themselves. They had to find out when they read the campus newspaper. Such terrible allegations were printed for all the campus community to read, with the pro-life group given no change to respond.

Had they been given a chance, you can be assured they would have explained that first and foremost, a university campus is to be a tolerant place where different ideas and viewpoints can be discussed in a calm reasoned matter, without calling groups names and casting aspersions on their character. They then would have stated that they were aware of the complaints, and that they made every effort to set up a mutually agreeable meeting time, but that their e-mails were sometimes not responded to, and that as far as they know, no meeting was ever set, so how could they possibly have failed to show up? And finally, they would have said that they are guaranteed freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

You see where this is going don't you my friend? This group is being accused of intolerant behavior, when really, it is the people who are trying to shut them down that are intolerant. In their world, people with dissenting opinions have no place speaking out. Instead of dealing directly with the arguments, the forces that oppose them cry out in your name that these groups are intolerant, bigoted and even racist. What happened to the marketplace of ideas?

Oh Tolerance, I fear that until you return to claim your rightful place back, Intolerance will rule and dissenters will be shut down. Please come back soon; I realize now that growing up, I didn't realize how lucky I was to have you protecting me. I miss you.

Most sincerely yours,

Sarah, a Catholic Law Student

P.S.- When you come, please ask Honesty, Dignity and Respect to return with you. You have no idea how much we need all of you.

Of Broken Hearts and Shattered Dreams

This week in the tunnel (the place where campus clubs can set up displays) SHIP (the student health initiative program) set up its display on how to keep you life balanced while at school. This group does many laudable things including giving students tips on de-stressing, eating properly and cheaply, and staying fit. However, their biggest focus (from what I can see; I've never used their services) is on "sexual health" and that bothers me, especially since my tuition dollars go to fund this organization (and I have no choice but to pay these fees.)

The goal of their sexual health services is to keep university students healthy by teaching them "safe sex" methods, giving STD information and helping students find the "right contraception for you." Obviously as a Catholic I have serious moral issues with that, but that's not what I want to talk about with this post. I recently ran across this article talking about the "Hook-up Culture" on campuses. The premise of the article is that scientific evidence can demonstrate the severe psychological impact of "no-strings sex" on college age people. The article suggests that rising infidelity among young couples can be directly traced to the years of casual sex that occur for many people in the college years. From the article:

"There are many possible explanations for that shift, but the habits of heart cultivated by today's hook-up culture qualify as a leading culprit. It's hard to imagine better preparation for adultery than years of emotionally detached, random sexual couplings. And the "marriage-lite" solution embraced by growing numbers of cohabiting young couples -- many of whom are refugees from the hook-up culture and too skittish for marriage -- may exacerbate the problem, as the temporary mindset they learn in their live-in romances transfers to their marriages."

I've been on a university campus for the last 6 years and I can attest to the hook-up culture that permeates college life. From what I've seen in law, and from what I've heard from friends in other professional colleges (med, vet med, etc) that hook-up culture gets worse the longer you spend at university. It also seems to be correlated with the amount of alcohol consumed- the more you drink, the more casual sex you have. I fear for my generation every time I attend a law school event. It's a small college, and on Monday gossiping about who hooked up with who is the thing to do. I've also seen the physical and mental harm this behavior causes. Friends nurse broken hearts when they find out their boyfriend cheated on them Friday night because they were here and he got drunk and didn't realize what he was doing. I've seen friends cry because they guy they hooked up with never called them back and ignores them whenever they try to talk to him. I have no idea what the long term effect of this will be on their psyche, but as the article says "emerging consensus among experts that today's anything-goes campus sexual mores carry lasting consequences we only have begun to understand. And those consequences extend well beyond unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases." I don't want that to be true for my friends, but I think it might be.

And yet, as this article mentions at the very bottom, there is hope. Some of my generation are rebelling against this culture of hook-up sex and booty calls by creating campus groups that pledge chastity. The founders and members of those groups are decidedly countercultural, but they bring great hope and joy to me. I don't want to see my friends and family ruin their lives and marriages because society tells them that casual sex is harmless fun. In some ways, the rebels of my generation are formed directly out of the rebels of my parents generation (the sexual revolution generation). We have seen the results of the free-love ways of our parents, and we don't like them. Many grew up with parents who fought then finally divorced, or parents who committed adultery or parents who just weren't there. Consciously or unconsciously we've recognized that sex for the sake of sex doesn't make you happy, and so we refuse to buy into society's "safe sex" message. And just as we have to fight the pro-life revolution and be witnesses and examples, we need to do the same in our personal lives.

I thank God that we have that chance, and I pray we will be successful, for our sake and the sake of our children.

Updates

Thought I would give you updates on the current status of pro-life groups on university campuses that have been facing different challenges.

University of Calgary

As I reported here, the U of C was threatening to arrest or expel members of Campus Pro-Life (CPL) who erected the GAP (Genocide Awareness project) at the U of C. Despite those threats, the brave members of CPL went on with the GAP display on Wednesday and Thursday of this week. Even though the U of C had Calgary Police on hand on Wednesday, the display stayed peaceful and the U of C, despite all their bluster, didn't do anything either day. This may not be the end of the story though- CPL has been advised that the U of C might proceed with some civil action.

I would like to commend the students who took this brave stand and stood up for the unborn. They faced possible arrest or the end of their academic careers, but they still stood up for what was right. I congratulate them all.

I would also like to congratulate the Calgary media, especially the Calgary Sun and Calgary Herald, who recognized that the U of C's actions were wrong because they attempted to deny the free speech right that all Canadians should have. Both the Sun and the Herald ran editorials and columns about the situation. Neither paper endorsed the pro-life agenda, and several columnists wrote against it, but the papers recognized that the students have the right to express their opinion, and that is a start in the right direction.

At the end of the two days, CPL ran its GAP display. Some students protested with their own signage about human rights abuses in China (I'm not sure how that relates?) and heated discussions could be heard. That's what should be happening on a university campus. Hopefully this will be the end of it, and the university administration will take no further action, but if they do, CPL's members can at least know that they've done the right thing.

University of Guelph

The news from U of Guelph is not a positive. If you remember, I posted here about Guelph Life Choice being denied club status. The decision was supposed to be made yesterday by the Central Student's Association (CSA) but they, once again, refused to make a decision (reported here). Instead, they are setting up an "unbiased tribunal" (yeah I bet- sorry I will stop editorializing) to make the decision. However, while the terms of reference for the tribunal are put together (by the end of December) and the members of the tribunal are picked (in January) Life Choice has been granted interim club status, and it sounds like they have big plans between now and then. My prayers are with them in this endeavor, and I hope that by some miracle an independent, unbiased tribunal is chosen. If not, they will face a long, uphill legal battle, but in the end I think they will win. Not only is right on their side, but in this case, the law is as well. The sooner the CSA recognizes that, the better for everyone involved.

(picture courtesy of Lifesite news)

More on the Death of Free Speech

Canadian campuses are at it again. This time it's Queens University in Kingston, ON. In a creative twist on taking away the right to free speech, Queen's has hired "student facilitators" who will act as conversation cops on campus. Their job is to step into any conversation they overhear that they deem offensive, racist or bigoted.

What?

Yeah, that's right; students at Queen's can no longer have conversations without fear of conversation cops. Any conversation you have might be eavesdropped on, and someone can jump in to "educate" you if they feel you are speaking in an offensive manner.

Read the story here

Has anyone ever heard of the Charter and the right to freedom of expression? Oh right, I forgot, it only applies if you are on the politically correct side of the debate. Otherwise, the so called "tolerant" won't tolerate a thing you say. If someone uncomfortable with being called out, the administration thinks that's a good thing, because that forces them to think about what they are saying.

So, I'm wondering a couple of things. First, what happens to Catholic students or students of other religious faiths who believe that, oh, let's say homosexual marriage is wrong and make a statement to that effect? If the conversation cops hear, they get to interfere? What about the right to free speech? What about the right to freedom of religion? Second, what about pro-life students. Does this mean pro-life conversation can be shut down because it is offensive? What kind of university is Queens trying to be? Obviously not one that believes in an open and honest dialogue on issues affecting the world at large.

Apparently we are trying to create an atmosphere of "inclusivity." Well, I don't know about you, but I certainly don't feel like it will be an inclusive atmosphere if I have to look over my shoulder every time I have a conversation with friends.

It's disgusting that this can occur in a public institution. I invite everyone to contact Queens and express their disgust at this policy.

I just don't know what else to say. What's happening Canada? Why is no one speaking out about this? Who's standing on guard for thee?

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.

Pro-life Campus Groups

UPDATE (Oct 31 3:20pm): I just received an e-mail saying the same thing has happened at the University of Victoria. See here for the story. If you would like to contact them to express your displeasure, here's the information:

UVic Students' Society
University of Victoria
PO Box 3035 STN CSC
Victoria, BC V8W 3P
Ph: (250) 472-4317
Fax: (250) 472-4851
alma@uvic.ca

It's happening again. University campuses, which are supposed to be bastions of free speech, are attempting to silence opinions that they don't agree with. On 21 October 2008 the University of Guelph's Central Student Association (CSA) refused to allow Guelph's pro-life club, Life Choice campus club status. See here for the original story. Yesterday, after almost 5h of debate, the CSA put the motion over for another week. Not only did they not make a decision, the CSA felt the atmosphere in the room was "unsafe" and moved its members to an in-camera session to finish the debate.

Life Choice was denied club status on the basis of last year's "Life Fair." It was alleged that "people had been harassed physically and handed offensive literature at the Life Fair." However, the life fair was last March, and the club was never made aware of complaints- at least, not until the CSA yanked their club status. See here for info on last night's meeting.

I encourage everyone to write to the CSA and express your feelings at this denial of free speech.

Central Student Association
Room 274, University Centre
University of Guelph
Guelph, Ontario
N1G 2W1
phone: 519-824-4120 ext. 56748
email: csatalk@uoguelph.ca

The pro-lifers at Guelph are facing the same battle that many other campuses have fought- McGill, York, Carleton and Capilano to name just a few. Always, the allegations are the same- essentially that the club's very existence offends the student union's rules around women's fundamental right to make their own choices. This is garbage, and we all know it. Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives every Canadian the right to free speech. These clubs are simply exercising their right to free speech and association- a right that was upheld (shockingly) by the BC Human Rights Tribunal. While a Human Rights Tribunal carries no precedential value, a quasi-judicial body has upheld the right of pro-life clubs to exist on university campuses. And yet, despite that, University Student Unions feel they have the right to muzzle free speech on their campuses. That is wrong.

The expression of pro-life views is not hate speech.

The expression of pro-life views is not intolerance.

The expression of pro-life views does not violate women's rights.

The expression of pro-life views merely gives the unborn a voice. Isn't giving a voice to the vulnerable an action that should be supported?

Abortion is not a legal right in Canada, no matter what anyone argues. It is a practice that has absolutely NO laws governing it; one way or the other. Speech around abortion can never violate the law because there is no law. Thankfully my pro-life group has never had to face a challenge to its club status, but my prayers are with Guelph Life Choice's members and all people who advocate for those who cannot advocate for themselves.

All of us have a duty to speak out whenever free speech is muzzled, because if we don't, one day it we will be muzzled, and there will be no one there to save us. Please take a few minutes to contact the CSA and local Guelph papers. If we don't speak, who will?