From the National Post:
Gilary Massa, vice-president external of the York Federation of Students, said student clubs will be free to discuss abortion in student space, as long as they do it "within a pro-choice realm," and that all clubs will be investigated to ensure compliance.
"You have to recognize that a woman has a choice over her own body," Ms. Massa said. "We think that these pro-life, these anti-choice groups, they're sexist in nature ... The way that they speak about women who decide to have abortions is demoralizing. They call them murderers, all of them do ... Is this an issue of free speech? No, this is an issue of women's rights."
The school's administration condemned the decision as contrary to its academic mission....
Ms. Massa said the new policy would not apply to religious groups that may be opposed to abortion on doctrinal grounds. Rather, it was focused on groups, whether student or external, "whose sole purpose is to provide the anti-choice side."
"What is happening is anti-choice groups coming on to campus under the guise of debates or through student clubs, to promote anti-choice sentiments, and then student unions responding to it, and then receiving very organized backlash ... A lot of these groups are funded and organized under a larger organization," Ms. Massa said ....
The situation at York came to a crisis in March, when a speaker ... came to debate abortion with a member of the school's Free-thinkers, Skeptics and Atheists club.
The York Federation of Students (YFS) executive, fearing the effects of gruesome imagery and hostile argument, hastily voted to cancel the event, which prompted the administration to publicly declare its support for free speech and provide an alternate venue....
Meanwhile, similar controversies are unfolding across Canada, with anti-abortion groups at Capilano College, the University of British Columbia-Okanagan, Lakehead University and Carleton University stripped of official club status and funding, at least once by fiat of a single member of student council. Some clubs have regained status, while others appealed their cases to human rights commissions.....
The Canadian Federation of Students has issued a resolution supporting such moves: "Be it resolved that member locals [of the CFS] that refuse to allow anti-choice organizations access to their resources and space be supported. And further, be it resolved that a pro-choice organization kit be created that may include materials such as a fact sheet, buttons, contact information for local pro-choice organizations and research on anti-choice organizations and the conservative think-tanks that fund them[.]" According to the story (which was published last week), the proposed York policy was to have been voted on this past weekend; Ms. Massa was "confident that it'll pass." For a view in support, see this letter from the student rights co-ordinator of the Continuing Education Students' Association of Ryerson, Toronto: "Anti-choice groups actively attack women's autonomy over their own bodies and lives. This is flagrant sexism. And sexism is not a mere 'thought crime' as the editorial asserts, but rather is a violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code because it is a serious and systemic problem that has consistently subjugated women all throughout history. I commend the YFS for upholding the rights of students on the York campus and women everywhere by taking a stand against sexism and hate speech."
Finally, from Michael Payton, a pro-choice student who participated in the debate mentioned above: "I think it's outrageous that they do this when students are away for the summer and when they can't really do anything about it .... This isn't the right of the student government to be deciding what students are allowed to hear.... When the YFS says they believe in free speech, they believe in free speech for them, for the positions they hold, not for freedom of speech for positions they disagree with."
I should note that the Canadian model of student government seems to be that a student union (in this instance, "Local 68, Canadian Federation of Students") is selected by the students, and apparently views itself as a private organization, much as unions are in America. But it exercises what in America would be seen as student government authority, controlling access to property provided by a public university.
Two years ago, much the same was done at Carleton University, also in Ontario. Thanks to Nicholas Nugent for the pointer.
UPDATE: Mark Steyn reports that Gilary Massa is a hijab-wearing Muslim woman, and a Google search (thanks to Bill Poser) suggests the same. This strikes me as odd, given that it appears that traditional Islam generally condemns abortion (some Islamic sites I checked seem to echo this). While some strands apparently do not brand early-term abortion a crime against Islamic law, they still condemn it as presumptively improper. Still, of course Ms. Massa is entitled to hold religious views that are contrary to those of mainstream traditional Islam (assuming I've correctly grasped the traditional Islamic view) and consistent with mainstream traditional Islam in other ways.
The issue is not the legality, but the morality of it. Particularly since liberals like to hold themselves up as paragons of free-speech and conservatives as stifler of it.
For the grown-ups, there's the Human Rights thought police.
Hard to see lefties passing up such a useful and seemingly benign tool. Who, after all, wants "hate"?
There are both legal and moral issues. In particular, my point about McKinney was in response to Eugene's paragraph about the status of student unions in Canada.
I am a liberal and I am a paragon of free speech. For the record, I am both pro-choice and pro-Israel, and I object in the strongest possible terms to the censorship at York in particular and to censorship of any kind in general, including so-called "hate speech" laws.
and
would be hilarious if they weren't real.
I sympathize in that 20-22 year olds are given some kind of authority here and there is an understandable - though regrettable - impulse to prohibit some of the often gruesome images that pro-choice groups use, especially since Ms. Massa no doubt truly believes it is all about free speech.
But she also obviously has no idea what she's talking about. Aside from the kinds of first amendment questions we'd be asking in the U.S., I question why this student government group has the authority to do this at all.
At least in America, women are not any more likely than men to be pro-choice; in fact, the pro-life side has quite a few women. (IIRC, EV found a study by a group, affiliated with Princeton?, that revealed that about 51% of women have pro-life beliefs - abortion ought only be legal in the cases of rape or incest, or in threats to the life or health of the mother. Men, from other polls, are less likely to hold those beliefs.)
There is also a feminist argument to be made with the fact that abortion on demand results in sex-selective abortions, even in the West.
Anyway - appalling censorship. If Hillary or Obama wins the Presidency, I'm not running away to Canada.
The right to free speech does not mean that you can propose ideas that violate government standards or ideals.
But the gist of the article is what happens to the human race when abortion becomes an everyday occurrence. Scary.
As for our little Eva Braun in the article, she fails to get the one basic, all-important fact: freedom of speech wasn't made for those who shout, "I'm for Mom, the Flag, and apple pie!" Freedom of speech is specifically intended to allow ideas that one disagrees with to be discussed. Missy Massa needs to be sent back for a civics re-education class.
By a lefty?
Surprising absolutely nobody.
http://www.yfs.ca/index.php?section_id=117.
She is wearing hijab, but she does not cover her face. She's very pretty: too bad she has such ugly thoughts.
She is wearing hijab,
For some reason this makes the whole thing even more weird.
No doubt if she gets her way, the social fabric will be spread around the heads of all the infidel women at York.
No doubt if she gets her way, the social fabric will be spread around the heads of all the infidel women at York.
Richard, I was going to join Elliot and Oren in decrying this stupidity, but rather than risk embarrassing you I'll keep it to myself. :)
Those who have been around for a while, and aren't using their memory hole properly, will recall a number of liberal women in Iran donning hijabs in the 1970s as a protest against the Shah. No word on whether they are happy with the government that replaced him, although my bet is that they blame the United States and Israel for everything.
The resemblance is so astonishingly striking that it is difficult to believe that it is a coincidence. Rather, it suggests that today's pro-choice people have very carefully and admiringly studied the works of John Calhoun and other pro-slavery advocates, consciously copying their arguments and tactics. One can only speculate as to why. These very arguments kept slavery safe, effective, and legal for more than two generations and instrumental in discrediting and bringing the force of law against the cause of abolitionism.
Perhaps today's advocates of abortion are right to put their faith in John Calhoun, and to belief that the arguments and tactics that kept slavery in business in the 19th century are likely to keep abortion in business today.
Whether their effectiveness is the same, no-one can deny the similarity of their logic. They are, after all, the same arguments, virtually word for word. If they were valid then, surely they are valid today. And if by any chance they weren't valid arguments back then, then maybe...
http://web.utk.edu/~mfitzge1/docs/374/RAP1837.pdf
The resemblance between the way Calhoun described the abolitionist movement's motives and characteristics, and the way the pro-life movement is characterized in contemporary pro-abortion rhetoric, is positively astonishing, too uncannily close to be coincidence.