Sunday, September 28, 2008



Canadian student body bans abortion critics

York university. We read:
"I, along with many other students at York who are ardent believers in free speech, recently found myself outraged by the York Federation of Students' (YFS) attempt to ban all pro-life/`anti-choice' groups on campus by denying them campus resources, space and funding. This policy disables these groups and silences them - amounting to a sort of de facto censorship on the part of the YFS.

Needless to say, this decision has precipitated what will soon be a firestorm of debate regarding abortion. However, this will only obscure what this issue is really about, namely freedom of speech. This is due to the fact that when all is said (or not said) and done, the long and the short of what the YFS is doing is telling students what they can and cannot say, as well as what they should and should not believe. This undermines the purpose of our university, which should be a bastion of free speech and an arena for fair and open debate.

Furthermore, it acts as an affront to both what and whom the student union is supposed to stand for. Historically, the student union was created to be an enabling body that existed to expand and protect the freedoms of students against suppression by the university administration and the government. Now, however, it seems unable to protect us even from itself.

While it is quite obvious that the YFS's methods of enforcing their position are questionable, their reasons for enacting such a policy are not only disagreeable from an ideological stance, but are also quite illogical and completely unsubstantiated. Take for instance the YFS's first argument that pro-life groups foster an unsafe environment on campus and should therefore not be allowed. In response I would ask: "What exactly about pro-life groups is making the campus unsafe?" Labelling them "unsafe" would imply that they are somehow "harming" students. So, what do pro-life groups do, precisely, that "harms" students? What does the YFS define as "harm?" None of these questions have been answered.

Source

The usual bigoted Leftist crap. A High Court appeal under the Canadian Charter of Rights would probably succeed but that would take big bucks.

7 comments:

  1. Anonymous9:08 AM

    Yes, a court fight would take big bucks and i'm sure the YFS knew that. But, it would be worth it! How typical of the so-called "lovers of total freedom" of the far-left. This is right out of the "Leftist Tactics 101" handbook. I'm sure these students can find groups who will be happy to give then legal help in this battle, which MUST be fought!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous1:10 AM

    "...this will only obscure what this issue is really about, namely freedom of speech."

    Unfortunately, this is not what the issue is about. It is about a segment of this country that condones the killing of unborn babies without any accountability. A nation that tolerates the killing of the innocent for convenience sake is doomed to fall.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous8:02 AM

    Your misuse of quotation marks left me confused.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous3:12 PM

    I suspect revealing that abortion was one of Margaret Sanger's methods for breeding the "undesirables" out of society, and making clear that her "undesirables" included blacks, Jews, and cripples would be a dynamite anti-abortion weapon in a debate. Just reveal the fact that it was a tool for expressly bigoted purposes, and I expect a whole lot of support would melt away, and supporting abortion would turn into something beyond the pale.

    ReplyDelete

Comments in Chinese or Russian will be deleted as I do not understand them. Spammers: Don't bother. Irrelevant comments will not be published