They are suing the "student union" - an organization, which is supposed to represent all students, which charges hefty fees for membership, (of which it allows no opt-out,) but which uses its usurped authority to silence students it disagrees with:
Pro-Life Students take Legal Action Against their Student Union
VICTORIA, B.C., May 3, 2010 ‑ Youth Protecting Youth (YPY), the University of Victoria pro‑life student’s club, today filed a petition in the BC Supreme Court initiating legal proceedings against the University of Victoria Students’ Society (UVSS).
The lawsuit seeks various court orders all to the effect that the UVSS has acted unlawfully in denying YPY club funding since September 2008, and recently upped the ante by refusing to ratify YPY as an official club for the Spring 2010 semester. In addition, the Clubs Policy has now been amended to specifically target pro‑life advocacy.
University of Victoria student, UVSS member, and YPY president, Anastasia Pearse commented:“We have watched pro‑life student groups throughout the province, and across the country, face the stifling and discriminatory decisions of Student Societies that deny them funding or club status.
Our aims are to promote choices that protect unborn human beings and their mothers from the harm of abortion. We should be granted equal opportunity to share our message.”
Or if the so called "Students' Society" can't tolerate pro-life views in their ranks, they should allow pro-life students to opt-out of union membership and organize their own union, that would have the same rights on campus as the "Students' Society". Then, the "Society" wouldn't be compelled to recognize a club that challenges their ideology and pro-life students won't be forced to pay membership dues to an organization that wouldn't allow them to express their views.
Imagine this hypothetical situation:
Several students at a Canadian university share a concern about the welfare of an endangered species of owl. They apply for club status with their local student's union in order to use the facilities that they all pay for through their dues. Though they meet the definition for club status, the union at first denies their request. Their reason? They cite their impression that the student body in general, and the union council in particular, doesn't care much about the threatened owl.
The student group persists, and receive some media coverage on the controversy. Confronted by accusations of bias and prejudice, the union finally backs down. They allow the club, but slap on several pages of restrictions to the club's activities. They are as follows:
1) The club may not advocate for any sort of government ban on owl-killing. "Students who enjoy hunting owls are concerned that a club supported by their dues may be trying to take away their rights", a union representative states.
2) Stringent restrictions are placed on the club with respect to publishing photographs. "We don't want them to be going around shaming or shocking students with graphic imagery," the union says, including any depiction of a dead owl as graphic imagery. "The way you present your views must be respectful."
I could imagine the outcry if a student union actually imposed such conditions on an "animal rights" club. But when it comes to fetal rights - unborn babies turn out to be less worthy of protection than animals and those students who speak up for those unborn babies become less equal than others.
No comments:
Post a Comment