CALGARY, April 9, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Two weeks after the University of Calgary defended a presentation by controversial American conservative Ann Coulter by touting its status as a haven for free speech, the university has threatened a group of pro-life students with arrest and sanctions for expressing their views on abortion.So, what about other groups that stage controversial presentations? Does the same rule, which requires controversial displays to be turned inwards, apply to let's say a homosexual club and its presentations? Or is this something that applies exclusively to pro-lifers?
On Thursday, Campus Pro-life, the University of Calgary’s pro-life club, set up a pro-life display on campus - the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP).
Last year, the university charged the pro-life students with trespassing for erecting the same display, which has been displayed on campus peacefully and without incident twice per year since 2006. The crown prosecutors withdrew the charges prior to trial, however.
But in an e-mail sent to the students' lawyer Thursday, the university against stated that it “requires that Campus Pro-Life turn the Genocide Awareness Project signs inward so that the University community does not have to view them," and threatened the students with sanctions for non-academic misconduct.
Somehow, I believe it's the latter. After all, if there was actually a by-law on the books that forbade controversial presentations - the university authorities wouldn't need to resort to trespassing charges, they could merely quote the by-law to prove their point. And yet, that's exactly what they've never done.
And here's another similar story from another part of the country: the so called "student society" of the McGill university, out of great kindness, has agreed to reinstate the club status of the pro-life group Choose Life. With plenty of strings attached:
In particular, the document stipulates that "Choose Life will not advocate or lobby for the criminalization of abortion through the use of SSMU resources."Paraphrasing the old saying about the Model T Ford, sure, you can have a pro-life group on campus. As long as it doesn't speak up against abortion.
"It's really important that resources from student fees are allocated in a way that reflects our policies, constitution, and ethical practices," said VP University Affairs Rebecca Dooley. "However, if a group wants to take a position, we cannot prevent them from taking that position as long as they are not using our resources to do so."
And, if the "student society" is that concerned about its members' fees (now, that's a rare occasion,) then what about the pro-life students? Don't they too pay membership dues? If they are forced to be members of this Komsomol-like organization, (simply because it's mandatory for all full-time students,) then don't they have the right to have at least some of their own money directed towards a campaign that they support? So what right does the so called "student society" have to single them out and impose gag rules?
"At some level this is a double standard," Cernek said. "Other groups on campus use displays of graphic images in open, public spaces to further their points. Not even that anyone [from Choose Life] had an overwhelming desire at this moment to mount one of these displays. We just thought that we should have the right to."In other words - forget about any more Genocide Awareness Project presentations on McGill campus. Because you see, when it comes to free speech in our universities, pro-life students are less equal than others.
Olle, however, emphasized that in this situation the Equity Committee was acting as a regulator.
...
Cernek said he is hopeful that this appendix will help strengthen relations between SSMU and Choose Life next year.
No comments:
Post a Comment