Big week in pro-life politics on campus

UNB ratifies pro-lifers as Carleton considers ban

There was good news and bad news this week for pro-life groups on Canadian campuses.

The University of New Brunswick Student Union has ratified the Students for Life Club, reports The Brunswickan. Amanda Magee, club president, told council that her group wants to have an open debate about abortion. They will provide information booths, but will not be seek out women directly.

Meanwhile, the Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA) has decided it will let the following referendum question stand in the next general election: “Are you in favor of banning groups such as Lifeline, the Genocide Awareness Project, Campaign for Life Coalition and other organizations that use inaccurate information and violent images to discourage women from exploring all options in the event of pregnancy from Carleton University?”

Pro-life groups have been controversial at the Ottawa school. The club Carleton Lifeline was decertified by CUSA after five pro-life students were arrested on campus for attempting to erect a graphic display in 2010 called the Genocide Awareness Project, which showed pictures of fetuses.

Brandon Wallingford, the CUSA Arts and Social Sciences Councillor, was quoted in a press release by Carleton Lifeline yesterday saying that the referendum question infringes on freedom of speech. “It is disturbing that there are those who wish to ban opposing points of view instead of engaging in the type of mature discussion that universities used to be famous for,” he said.




Browse

Big week in pro-life politics on campus

  1. This is not a “free-speech” issue. Freedom of speech does not require that anyone provide a forum for another’s speech.

  2. Freedom of speech exists in Canada only if the speech is politically correct.

  3. No one is in favour of abortion. Our society is divided between those who wish women to be able to have the procedure if necessary, and those who would ban it more or less completely if they could.

    Personally, I am in favour of allowing women to have this legal choice because I believe banning abortion will only lead to illicit procedures. It is rather like the war on drugs. Drugs are banned so they go underground. I would dearly like to ban the manufacture of cigarettes but I know someone would produce them illegally. There are behaviours we might like to prohibit but the physical and moral cost of doing so would be too great.

    I also believe that women should be able to make a difficult choice without harassment from those who disapprove of the procedure and who believe it is their right to make sure those seeking abortion know all the details. They arrogantly assume these people are ignorant of the procedure and its results.

    • >>> I also believe that women should be able to make a difficult choice without harassment from those who disapprove of the procedure <<<

      Translation: I want to shut up people who oppose abortion. They have no right to speak.

  4. I am not “THE” CUSA Arts and Social Sciences Councilor, I am one of 7 who are from that faculty, who are all members of the council made up of 34 members 6 of whom are executives and of which 2 seats are vacant.

    Yours,
    Brandon Wallingford
    CUSA Arts & Social Sciences Councilor

  5. @John McAdams That is an ENTIRELY inaccurate and ignorant translation. Paul was in no way saying that anti-abortion advocates could not speak. There is a difference between reasonable speech and promotion of ideas, and legitimate harassment where judging words are yelled outside abortion clinics from mouths and signs and pictures of fetuses (which, by the way, are not depictions of typical abortions) are thrust in their faces.

    That said, I’m not necessary comfortable with the banning of the groups unless supporting them means that students are accosted by anti-abortion protesters on a day-to-day basis, which I don’t think is the case.

Sign in to comment.