Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Pro-Life group tossed by University of Guelph's Student Association... without ANY warning

In a stunning and unannounced attack on freedom of speech, the University of Guelph's Campus Students Association tried to secretly revoke club status last week for Life Choice, the campus pro-life group. Without any prior notification, the CSA brought forward a motion to revoke Life Choice's official club status last week.

Unfortunately for the pro-abortion members of the CSA, their undemocratic actions have not gone unnoticed... and their inappropriate actions have even been called out by the Student paper, the Ontarian.
Regardless of opinion on whether or not Life Choice is in the wrong with the Life Fair or the CSA made the right decision in not approving their club status, the way things were done were out of line.

Members of Life Choice didn't know that any of this was going down. They were not contacted prior to last Wednesday's Board meeting to be made aware that their club status was in question. They were not formally informed that there was an issue to begin with. They were not invited to the meeting to state their case. They were essentially not given an ounce of chance. It wasn't until Friday that CSA Finance and Human Resources Commissioner sent the group an email to tell them they no longer had CSA club status.

While it can be speculated that the CSA was limiting free speech by not accrediting Life Choice, it can definitely be said that the CSA was in fact limiting free speech by not allowing Life Choice to speak prior to this vote. Even if the CSA was not going to give Life Choice the chance to talk, the group should have been informed of the business that questioned the life of their club. This conduct was simply unfair and anti-democratic on the part of the student government.
To read the CSA's letter to the student body, check here.

Anyway, even the Editors of the Guelph Mercury are chiming in on this issue... and it's not in favour of the CSA's decision:
U of G association made a bad choice
October 27, 2008
The Guelph Mercury

For an ostensibly "pro-choice" entity, the Central Student Association at the University of Guelph has made an incredibly ill-advised choice in pulling the accreditation of a campus anti-abortion club.

Life Choice to set to appeal the decision Wednesday before the student association's board of directors. This will provide the association the chance to save face, do the proper thing and return the club's student group status.

The revocation of Life Choice's accreditation flows from a "Life Fair" the club held on campus last spring where anti-abortion -- or as the club would obviously prefer, "pro-life" -- speakers addressed the audience, and signs and images that are all too familiar to those who are acquainted with this particular point of view were displayed.

In the minds of the board of governors of the student association -- the governing body for clubs such as Life Choice -- the presentation evidently conflicted with sections of the association's policy manual, which on the matter of birth control, family planning and abortion is decidedly "pro-choice."

Strangely, in addressing the "fundamental right of all women to control their bodies," the policy maintains that it favours "freedom of choice (in) choosing one's stance in the matter of abortion."

Through its action, the student association's board has signalled that "freedom of choice" in this instance is limited to just one side of the extremely controversial debate about abortion -- and that's not the anti-abortion side.

Another section of the policy that board members may have thought they were protecting is one stating "women have the right to an educational environment free of advertisements, entertainment, programming and/or materials which promote violence against women, sexual stereotyping and discrimination."

Can a presentation that contains graphic imagery in a campaign that in essence is designed to outlaw abortion in this country be construed as "violence against women"?

It only can be so construed by devaluing such reprehensible societal scourges as physical and sexual violence and assaults against women and children.

The decertification of the Life Choice club comes down to another issue of freedom, and that, of course, is freedom of speech.

Universities, of all institutions in society, must be forums for debate and the free flow of ideas, however contentious and controversial. Since the late 1960s, there has been a narrowing of opinions on far too many North American and European campuses, and the narrowing in large part has come from so-called liberal or progressive elements at these institutions.

The most appropriate action for those who oppose a particular point of view is to engage and challenge those who advocate such positions in open dialogue and debate.

Silencing those with whom you disagree, particularly at the university level, is an affront to freedom of expression and academic freedom
A friend of mine will be attending the appeal on Wednesday, so stay tuned for more.

Labels: , ,


  • At Mon. Oct. 27, 07:06:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    These are the same fascists who demand that women have a voice in any law that effects their bodies, yet deny that voice to others. This is the same socialist morons who demand that society pay the whole tab for their socal engineering courses. These are the same trough-feeders who will seek employment with some government funded agency because they can't deal with the real world. This is the same left-wing scum that has infested out universities from administrators to professors to professional students.
    If the Tories want to avoid running a deficit I say cancel all university funding.

  • At Mon. Oct. 27, 08:11:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger hunter said…

    No, no, no, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of abortionists to kill babies, oops, I mean freedom of choice are only allowed if you agree with the radical female position.

  • At Mon. Oct. 27, 08:46:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Jonathan D. Strong said…

    The group would quite clearly have a case to make in court under the Procedural Fairness doctrine. Such an administrative decision entitles them, in my opinion, to a hearing at the very least.

  • At Mon. Oct. 27, 11:01:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Tory@York said…

    Guess they took their cue from the YFS (York Federation of Students). So far, theyve gotten away with it, so I guess Guelph thought they could too.

  • At Mon. Oct. 27, 11:09:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Guelph First said…

    isn't this the same group that would not allow the Canadian Forces to participate in career day on campus?

  • At Tue. Oct. 28, 12:26:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Soccermom said…

    Shame on them.

  • At Tue. Oct. 28, 09:49:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Robert McClelland said…

    In a stunning and unannounced attack on freedom of speech

    I didn't see anything that led me to believe anyone was denied their right to free speech. Do pro-lifers have some mysterious affliction that renders them mute if they don't have an official club on campus?

  • At Fri. Oct. 31, 10:33:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "I didn't see anything that led me to believe anyone was denied their right to free speech"

    You don't see? (no kidding) or comprehend because you have your head so far up your backside.
    Let's take away the pro-abortion, gay, feminist, bi-gender clubs and see who's tolerant when there silenced. Pro-lifers are not afflicted but leftist cretins and mini-marxists are. They will slander, smear and attack anybody who does not agree with them and then try to silence them. Leave your un-sightful remarks elsewhere you've lost the argument.


Post a Comment

<< Home