A Report from last night’s fiasco from the Ottawa Sun:
The Carleton University Student Association… argued that anti-abortion groups discriminate against women, but many disagreed. “I don’t see the reason for not allowing the (anti-abortion groups),” said political science student Laura Moulton, 20. “Everyone here has a right to their opinion and the school should not be stifling it.”
Poor Laura. She just doesn’t get it. This is Canada. There are no rights to free speech. They are only granted on a case by case basis, depending on whether you conform to the CUSA group think.
Katy McIntyre, vice-president of student services, pushed for the restrictions. She said an October academic debate on the subject upset some people when they were shown a graphic video of an abortion. “A lot of students were upset by the ideas brought up by the event,” said McIntyre. “
Oh. My. god. Katy was upset! Quick call in the military and place us all under marshall law. Can you imagine what goes for “higher education” today? No wonder our culture is being flushed down the toilet. When you have people like Ms. McIntyre using arguments like “it was upsetting” to stiffle free speech, then you might as well forget about genuine freedom. The holocaust and countless other atrocities were upsetting too, Katy, should we ban them too? Good grief. My 3 year-old can reason better than that.
Former society vice-president Joshua Prowse, 23, said the association was on a slippery slope. “As soon as free speech has to rely on the goodwill of one person, it is no longer a right,” said Prowse.
Hey, look it here. Not all students at Banana U. are into the groupthink. Hooray!
CUSA president Shawn Menard said the proposed restrictions would not ban religious or “anti-choice” groups from campus but it would deny them CUSA space and resources.
He denied that it would be an attack on free speech. “Preventing CUSA from being able to take positions on issues is the real attack on free speech,” Menard said.
Huh? What are you talking about, Shawn? You are the one trying to limit free speech. You can’t claim that because we are criticizing your restriction on our human rights is, in itself, an attack on free speech. No one is saying you can’t make a fool of yourself. You have every right to say whatever you want, but if your speech is trying to muzzle us, well, it can’t really be respectful of the principle you are trying to eliminate, can it?
Suzanne from Big Blue Wave attended last night’s farce also. I found this comment of hers very revealing:
However, President Shawn Menard told me that if the motion passes, so long as a club does not advocate criminalizing abortion, it can promote the following: * The dignity of the Unborn Child; * The theology of the Unborn Christ; * The legal protection of unborn victims of crime; * The equality of the unborn child, and Charter Rights for the unborn child; * The elimination of discrimination of the unborn child based on the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which prohibits discrimination based on birth status; * Encouraging others to love the unborn child; He also said at another time that it would be okay for a group to advocate the immorality of abortion, so long as it did not touch on the legality.
Uh, Shawn. Let me fill you in on a little bit of strategy. Allowing debate on the subject of the morality of abortion will EVENTUALLY lead to its overthrow. And that means of course, changing the law. Limiting discussion on the law but not abortion itself is completely futile from a tactical point of view. When we win the argument (and we will win eventually), how long do you think it will take before the law is changed? Laws follow the views and morality of a nation. Don’t know who was giving you that advise, Shawn, but it sure is dumb. Keep it up.