Intro from Holly: I would like to clarify the fact that this protest was a last resort measure taken on our part in a deliberate effort to have the talk shut down. A small group of us among the much larger group of protesters that were present made a decision to take an active role in protecting women from this type of harassment and assault on campus, after the university administration failed to do so.Harassment? Assault? Wait a minute, did someone forced this Taylor gal to attend a pro-life presentation? After all, it's not like all those "Chinese buffet" classes in "world religions" which some provinces have made mandatory for all students, including religious ones. Taylor had all the freedom to simply boycott the presentation. And, if what she says is right, if the majority of women find pro-life views so intimidating, then she wouldn't have any problem convincing others to do the same; to leave the auditorium or to boycott the event altogether and let the speaker do his presentation in front of empty benches. (How long would he have lasted?)(Source)
But apparently, not only Taylor didn't believe in her ability to convince others not to show up to the presentation. Moreover, the mere fact that someone out there on the campus is saying something she doesn't agree with, was enough to make her furious:
We were not willing to engage in debate within the context in question- to do so would be to legitimize his presence and presentation, and we maintain our position that a university institution is not the appropriate forum for encouraging discrimination and hate.In plain English - this Taylor gal believes that her opinion is the only right opinion on the subject and that's non-debatable. Anyone who thinks otherwise shouldn't even be allowed to open his mouth if Taylor is around, because her excellence, the self-appointed Kommissar of SMU, regards that as "discrimination and hate". And she can even quote a vague paragraph from the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act which, she believes, equates presumably "hate" speech to discrimination.
The interview itself displays quite similar attitude of the pro-abortion camp: Taylor is sure that Jojo Ruba should have never been allowed to the campus in the first place, that just being there made him wrong. So Taylor insists that everything she and her fellow jackboots did to stop his presentation and to remove him from campus was therefore justified.
It's worth reading, just so you can see the contempt for free speech and others' opinion which Taylor & Co express; just to see how pathetic and logically unsound their arguments are and how insecure they feel when it comes to an actual argument on fetal rights. It looks like the only way for the pro-aborts to win a debate is not to allow the debate to happen. So Taylor & Co would come up with whatever excuses they could think of, even with the most absurd ones, just to avoid discussing the actual question of whether or not an unborn baby is a person:
I do not view "protests as the superior choice". I also do not view debate as the superior choice, especially not within the context of such gross power imbalances. Jose Ruba is part of a massive organization, with much money and much support behind him. The theatre in Burke was not a safe space- how can you expect women who have had an abortion, or anyone for that matter, to sit through violent, traumatizing imagery- deliberately designed to exploit women's vulnerabilities, and then engage in a meaningful debate? It is an unreasonable request to make.Yeah, right! Massive organization with a lot of money... (Darn, there must be years worth of pay checks waiting for me in some secret headquarters!) As if all those hundreds of millions in government handouts were going to Life Canada and the Real Women of Canada, not to the SOW and plenty of other feminist "anti-hate" organizations. And as if it wasn't the pro-aborts paying the homeless in Halifax to shout and heckle the pro-life protesters, because there's just no other way for them to challenge the pro-life message in the public square...