I noticed that CBC framed the story as a freedom of speech issue, both on their radio noon hour show in Ontario, as well as on the previous online story on this topic, called inappropriately (I think) "Carleton student council moves to halt abortion debate" as if this was an example of debate being shut down, and persecution. Where this also leapt out at me was the mention of university administration's news release at the very end of the story:

quote:

---

After the meeting, Carleton University issued a news release, stating the university "has always been committed to the free expression of ideas in an open and respectful way," and that groups that aren't recognized by CUSA will still have the opportunity to book space on campus that is not controlled by the student council.

---

Not only does this again represent this as a freedom of speech issue, but it also undermines the student council's position. So as long as a group isn't registered as a student group under CUSA, it is free to book space on campus to spread its message. At least they don't get student council money.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin_Laddle:
This is great news. Free speech does not include the right to advocate others be stripped of their own fundamental rights. The neo-cons have no ground on which to argue against this. This anti-woman, anti-choice mentality has no place in an institute of higher learning.

---

Absolutey correct, what was interesting, in the lead up top this decision was that they had a poll on the Carleton Student Union website asking people whether they felt they should fund or not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin_Laddle:
This is great news. Free speech does not include the right to advocate others be stripped of their own fundamental rights.

---

-----

This clearly is an issue that raises concerns about free speech. As much as we disagree with the opinions of pro-lifers, that isn't and shouldn't be an excuse to shut them up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the grey:

Free speech does include the right to advocate against the rights of others, fundamental or otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin_Laddle:

I respectfully disagree. No one has a "right" to take away the rights of others. That is essentially what the anti-choicers are advocating, and it's a crock of shit.

---

There's a difference between the right to take away the rights of others, and the right to speak freely about taking away the rights of others.

To use a more general example, I have the right to argue that we should get rid of the Charter entirely, or any of the individual rights that it protects. I don't because that isn't a position that I agree with, but the right of those who do hold that position to express it is still protected by freedom of speech.

quote:

---

Originally posted by uncle che:
I don't think this action is nearly enough. If these students don't understand that a woman has a right to control her own body then they should be thrown out of school. They obviously don't have the intellectual or moral capacity to function in a progressive environment, therefore the University should make this decision for them. I also feel that the laws need to be revisited to prosecute so-called "pro lifers" under hate crimes legislation. If a woman chooses to smoke and drink while pregnant or have an abortion it is her choice and nobody should be allowed to pass judgement on this. It's her body and her choice.

---

So the answer is : Where your dam condom !!!!!!!!!!.

Or at least make sure you have a good lawyer or get a Surrogate mother and make sure the contracts are legal.
This goes for both male and females.
Forget about "Love",it's all about the contract now.

[ 06 December 2006: Message edited by: Centerfield ]

[ 06 December 2006: Message edited by: Centerfield ]

On topic - I also hesitate on this one, despite being pro-choice and feeling very strongly about there being safe spaces for women. Universities are supposed to be places where the "big" moral and philosophical issues of the day should be allowed to be hashed out.

However...these are women's rights we're talking about. They wouldn't allow campus groups who argue against gay rights (well, then again, I'm not sure where groups like Campus Crusade for Christ stand on that), and they certainly wouldn't allow white supremacist groups to officially campaign on campus against certain rights for people of colour.

quote:

---

Originally posted by uncle che:
I don't think this action is nearly enough. If these students don't understand that a woman has a right to control her own body then they should be thrown out of school. They obviously don't have the intellectual or moral capacity to function in a progressive environment, therefore the University should make this decision for them. I also feel that the laws need to be revisited to prosecute so-called "pro lifers" under hate crimes legislation. If a woman chooses to smoke and drink while pregnant or have an abortion it is her choice and nobody should be allowed to pass judgement on this. It's her body and her choice.

---

I disagree. Anti-choicers' freedom of conscience enshrines their right to hold whatever neanderthal and anti-women beliefs they choose to. Where I think the line should be drawn, is the expression of beliefs that advocate stripping other people of their fundamental rights and security of the person. If an anti-choicer wishes to try and talk a woman out of an abortion, while repugnant, I don't think that should be categorized as hate speech. On the other hand, I would be supportive of banning such speech within the confines of a university (but again, anti-choicers do have the right to hold these beliefs, in all settings.) When it comes to outright advocation that women should be banned by law from obtaining abortions, that crosses the line into hate speech, and should not be legally protected in any settings, or more specifically tolerated by any university.

[ 06 December 2006: Message edited by: Kevin_Laddle ]

[ 06 December 2006: Message edited by: Kevin_Laddle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

On topic - I also hesitate on this one, despite being pro-choice and feeling very strongly about there being safe spaces for women. Universities are supposed to be places where the "big" moral and philosophical issues of the day should be allowed to be hashed out.

However...these are women's rights we're talking about. They wouldn't allow campus groups who argue against gay rights (well, then again, I'm not sure where groups like Campus Crusade for Christ stand on that), and they certainly wouldn't allow white supremacist groups to officially campaign on campus against certain rights for people of colour.

---

Was the decision to muzzle the anti-choicers, or simply to deny them money and resources out of students' pockets to support their vile cause?

ETA: I say freedom of speech for the Ku Klux Klan, but not a penny of public funding for them.

[ 06 December 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I'm going to allow discussion about whether this is a free speech issue or not because that is what the debate is about at Carleton. But please remember that this IS the feminism forum, and posts advocating anti-choice points of view are not allowed. And also, please remember that this forum is primarily for feminists to discuss feminist issues.

---

[ 06 December 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Oh, I'm not sure. I was under the impression they were banning anti-choice activities from campus. I also agree that if it's just a matter of funding then there's no speech issue at all. That's what comes of not having read closely enough. Sorry about that.

[ 06 December 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]

---

Michelle:

quote:

---

After the meeting, Carleton University issued a news release, stating the university "has always been committed to the free expression of ideas in an open and respectful way," and that groups that aren't recognized by CUSA will still have the opportunity to book space on campus that is not controlled by the student council.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EmmaG:

It seems that it is just a funding/CUSA-controlled space issue. Therefore, it is not a freedom of speech issue.

---

I don't buy that logic. If it was just about whether CUSA should give them money for their events, I'd agree. But it's about whether they're allowed to be a recognized club. That means whether they're allowed to participate in club day type events, and whether they're allowed to use student controlled space.

I don't know what the situation is at Carleton (although I know they've had some difficulties on student space issues with the administration, including the former president of the university), but at some universities a lot of the spaces used by student groups are controlled by the student union.

My biggest concern is that CUSA is taking this position and defending themselves by saying they are a political organization. The problem I have with that is (as far as I can tell) all students are forced to pay student fees (I don't think there's a total opt out option). This is okay so long as you are allowed to participate fully or CUSA treats everyone relatively equally (ie. I'm not a fan of CUSA funding religious clubs, but I'm sure some of those religious clubs aren't happy that CUSA funds a GLBT Centre and the Womyn's Centre which is pro-choice). But once CUSA starts being exclusionary, and people aren't allowed to opt out, I get concerned.

I asked about whether I could volunteer at the Womyn's Centre and told that I couldn't unless I identified as a woman (which I don't). That was about 6 years ago and the policy may have changed. I was a little offended, but I let it go when the co-ordinator told me that if men volunteered it might make it look like women couldn't organize for themselves. Plus, even though their wasn't an inclusive feminist centre per se, I could express myself if I chose elsewhere on CUSA property if I wanted to.

Preventing people from expressing anti-choice views in CUSA space is slightly more troubling. People who are anti-choice are now funding a political organization that will not permit them from dissenting. It's as if the Tories told Canadians 'sorry, you can't protest our government's position on Parliament Hill. Yes, you pay for it, but you're not allowed to use it unless we set the terms of debate.'

I get very scared when freedom of expression is curbed this way. I always think of how I would feel if the shoe was on the other foot. What if CUSA was full of pro-lifers/anti-choicers who told students they couldn't use CUSA space to push for legalized abortions? I'd be outraged.

Unless a group is inciting violence or breaching hate laws, I think we need to give some leeway. And if we think promoting anti-choice views are hateful, we should concentrate on ammending the hate speech laws. Otherwise, I think as members of the university community we should engage in debate and tell these anti-choice campaigners why they're wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Will S:
My biggest concern is that CUSA is taking this position and defending themselves by saying they are a political organization. The problem I have with that is (as far as I can tell) all students are forced to pay student fees (I don't think there's a total opt out option). This is okay so long as you are allowed to participate fully or CUSA treats everyone relatively equally (ie. I'm not a fan of CUSA funding religious clubs, but I'm sure some of those religious clubs aren't happy that CUSA funds a GLBT Centre and the Womyn's Centre which is pro-choice). But once CUSA starts being exclusionary, and people aren't allowed to opt out, I get concerned.

---

I'm quite confident every student association in the country already would refuse to fund holocaust denial groups, white supremist groups, or neo-Nazi groups. I cannot recall you ever being concerned about these people being excluded. What you ought to be concerned about, is that there is a well-financed, organized, and determined movement within our society whose sole goal is to turn back the clock on the fundamental right's of women, and force them to be slaves to their own bodies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Will S:
I get very scared when freedom of expression is curbed this way. I always think of how I would feel if the shoe was on the other foot. What if CUSA was full of pro-lifers/anti-choicers who told students they couldn't use CUSA space to push for legalized abortions? I'd be outraged.

---

There is a key distinction here you fail to recognize; anti-choice groups goal is to destroy women's rights, and FORCE them to be slaves to their own bodies. Pro-choicers, on the other hand, take a hands off approach, and want to leave the decision regarding abortions to the women who may need one. The only way the analogy would work, is if the other side was advocating all women be forced to get abortions (in contrast to anti-abortion groups advocating NO women get abortions). Pro-choicers do not threaten to take away ANYONE's rights. Anti-choicers do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Will S:
Unless a group is inciting violence or breaching hate laws, I think we need to give some leeway. And if we think promoting anti-choice views are hateful, we should concentrate on ammending the hate speech laws. Otherwise, I think as members of the university community we should engage in debate and tell these anti-choice campaigners why they're wrong.

---

The expression of anti-choice opinions is by definition inciting violence, and a form of hate speech. The anti-choice movement's goal is for women who have abortions to be arrested, and thrown in jail. Needless to say, this is a form of violence, and thus they have no right to advocate for such a disgusting view point.

[ 06 December 2006: Message edited by: Kevin_Laddle ]

quote:

---

I'm quite confident every student association in the country already would refuse to fund holocaust denial groups, white supremist groups, or neo-Nazi groups. I cannot recall you ever being concerned about these people being excluded. What you ought to be concerned about, is that there is a well-financed, organized, and determined movement within our society whose sole goal is to turn back the clock on the fundamental right's of women, and force them to be slaves to their own bodies.

---

Kevin, I'm sorry but do I know you or do you know me? You can't recall me being concerned? Do you read minds? At any rate, I am concerned about this lobby, but (and correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not a legal expert), advocating to take away rights (although stupid) is not illegal or hate speech. Inciting violence against women who choose to have an abortion would be criminal and covered, but simply advocating a stupid position isn't hate speech according to law. We allow it because it acts as a saftey valve to let people express themselves instead of going underground and becoming radical and potentially dangerous.

quote:

---

Oh, poor you. "Offended" because you weren't allowed to do volunteer work at some place 6 years ago. I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of women in this country who are denied employment or fair wages, and thus forced to live in poverty, all because of their gender can relate to your oh so dire straits.

---

Listen, I'm not comparing being denied the ability to volunteer is in any way equal to institutional discrimination that women face every day. I am saying that I find it odd to exclude people from participation in something based on their sex or gender.

quote:

---

There is a key distinction here you fail to recognize; anti-choice groups goal is to destroy women's rights, and FORCE them to be slaves to their own bodies. Pro-choicers, on the other hand, take a hands off approach, and want to leave the decision regarding abortions to the women who may need one. The only way the analogy would work, is if the other side was advocating all women be forced to get abortions (in contrast to anti-abortion groups advocating NO women get abortions). Pro-choicers do not threaten to take away ANYONE's rights. Anti-choicers do.

---

Yes, I agree, except CUSA wants to prevent a certain type of right (freedom of expression) by a group which has no option but to continue to fund a political organization that they must belong to (if they wish to remain undergraduate students at Carleton).

quote:

---

The expression of anti-choice opinions is by definition inciting violence, and a form of hate speech. The anti-choice movement's goal is for women who have abortions to be arrested, and thrown in jail. Needless to say, this is a form of violence, and thus they have no right to advocate for such a disgusting view point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Will S:
Kevin, I'm sorry but do I know you or do you know me? You can't recall me being concerned? Do you read minds?

---

Obviously I don't know you. My point was merely that I cannot imagine you would have the same difficulty with CUSA's actions if the group in question were instead holocaust deniers, white supremists, or neo-Nazis. Thus, I cannot understand why you are concerned with them deciding not to support another group that stands for a dispicable ideology, the anti-choice movement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Will S:
Yes, I agree, except CUSA wants to prevent a certain type of right (freedom of expression) by a group which has no option but to continue to fund a political organization that they must belong to (if they wish to remain undergraduate students at Carleton).

---

But surely you agree that all rights must have reasonable limitations placed upon them? No right is absolute. Any right we have extends only so far as it does not intrude upon the rights of others. And abusing free speech to advocate that others be stripped of their own fundamental rights, and thrown in jail, crosses this line. Thus, anti-choicers have no ground to stand on when they claim they have some right to advocate women be stripped of their own fundamental rights.

[ 06 December 2006: Message edited by: Kevin_Laddle ]

quote:

---

But surely you agree that all rights must have reasonable limitations placed upon them? No right is absolute. Any right we have extends only so far as it does not intrude upon the rights of others.

---

Yes, but are we intruding upon the right of these groups to express themselves? I'm not sure. I think it's very difficult to find the appropriate balance here. Using a right to advocate taking the rights of others away is a head-scratcher.

I think the biggest problem I have with this debate is the inability for people who hold anti-choice views (which as I've said, I completely disagree with) to opt out of CUSA if they can't protest it. If CUSA were to pass a motion saying "We support fundamentally a woman's right to choose and have complete control over her body," I'd think it would be great. I'm sure many (most) students would agree, and the one who didn't could say (rather foolishly) that they don't support it. The problem is that CUSA is removing this ability without allowing students the choice of not belonging to it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I'm going to allow discussion about whether this is a free speech issue or not because that is what the debate is about at Carleton. But please remember that this IS the feminism forum, and posts advocating anti-choice points of view are not allowed. And also, please remember that this forum is primarily for feminists to discuss feminist issues.

---

As for the anti-choicers being able to opt out of the student union, because they do not agree with the student union not giving funding to them, please think about that a little more WillS. Because it's ridiculous to even hold such a premise. Not only for the above reasons but because it's not as if they would not be using the Student Union services and their spaces for other things. If they opt out, then they would have no entitlement for any use of space,or participating in any other activity/service or any other utilization of space.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin_Laddle:
This is great news. Free speech does not include the right to advocate others be stripped of their own fundamental rights.

---

1) This is a free speech issue.
2) This isn't a hate speech issue.
3) What do we mean by "rights".
4) The "right" to abortion in Canada.
5) Speech against "rights".

=====
Speech:

I think it's crystal clear that this is a speech (/belief / opinion / etc) issue. If CUSU was subject to the Charter their policy would clearly breach section 2(b), and require justification under secion 1. But CUSU isn't subject to the Charter and so we're talking in abstract terms.

Even though CUSU isn't subject to the Charter I think it's helpful to look at what the Supreme Court has said about free speech and hate speech. In Keegstra the court found that the criminal prohibition against hate speech did breach section 2(b). However, it went on to (narrowly, on a 4:3 decision) find that the breach was justified under section 1.

=====
Hate Speech:

When it comes to hate speech it's also important to recognize that the term is narrowly defined. It doesn't mean speech that we hate.

Section 319 of the Criminal Code creates offences where someone "incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace" or "wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group". Section 318 (banning advocacy of genocide) defines says that "“identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation".

Arguing against rights isn't hate speech. Arguing against equal rights isn't hate speech. Arguing against same sex marriage isn't hate speech. Arguing that abortion should be illegal isn't hate speech.

At the same time, there are many circumstances in which making those arguments would amount to hate speech. But that's the manner in which the opinion is expressed, or a matter of expressing a different opinion altogether.

=====
Rights:

I'd also note that saying arguing against the rights of others is hate speech / arguing against the rights of others shouldn't be allowed is a really problematic argument.

First, because it isn't at all clear whether it's a concern about "rights" in general (I have a right to do anything the government has told me I can't), Charter rights in particular (free speech, etc), internationally recognized rights (such as the right to education), or an abstract sense of what rights should exist even if they aren't recognized.

Second, because Canadian's tend to associate "rights" with the Charter. The Charter is a limited document in terms of rights.

=====
Abortion:

Even after the Morgentaler decision, the Charter does not guarantee a right to abortion in the manner in which that "right" (in the government not currently stopping it sense) is currently available in Canada. It was a complicated 5:2 decision with 3 separate concurring decisions forming the majority. All 5 judges in the majority, while striking down the particular mechanisms Parliament had created, recognized that protecting the foetus was a legitimate government purpose.

=====
Speech Against Rights:

Given the four different meanings of "rights" that I've noted above, I think it's pretty clear that we have to leave room for speech against rights.

Take the example of property rights -- they aren't protected by the Canadian constitution, but are protected by the American constitution. If speech against rights isn't protected does that mean it would be okay to stop Americans from speaking against property rights, or to stop Canadians speaking against property rights?

Even more specifically, the Charter includes a lot of very specific rights in the criminal justice system. Just because there is a recognized right to a jury, does that mean it would be okay to prohibit people from arguing that the jury system is a dumb method of running trials and should be eliminated?

quote:

---

As for the anti-choicers being able to opt out of the student union, because they do not agree with the student union not giving funding to them, please think about that a little more WillS. Because it's ridiculous to even hold such a premise. Not only for the above reasons but because it's not as if they would not be using the Student Union services and their spaces for other things. If they opt out, then they would have no entitlement for any use of space,or participating in any other activity/service or any other utilization of space.

---

You'd be surprised at the number of Carleton students who don't even know what CUSA is. It's relatively easy to go to Carleton and not use CUSA space or CUSA services. With the exception of walking through the University Centre to get to Tim Horton's or the food court. I think it would be easy enough to have a sticker on your student card that shows if you're a paid up member or not. If students opt out, if they wished to take part in CUSA activities they would have to pay for them or if CUSA wanted an all or nothing aproach, they could deny them entrance. Personally I think a number of students wouldn't mind setting up another student association that wasn't so political.

They are assuming that the hate speech laws are a reasonable and necessary response to extreme forms of speech. That issue is far from settled.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Will S:
If CUSA was non-political, or at least permitted dissent in this case, I could understand a non-opt out policy. But not only are all students forced to belong to an overtly political organization, it now seems the organization is curtailing their rights to dissent.

---

Student unions exist to advocate on behalf of their students, and to provide services to their students. Opting out shouldn't be allowed just because the organization adopts a position that some people disagree with. It's very similar to not being able to opt out of a union in a workplace.

At our student council meeting this week, one alumnus came back to talk. He said that he was at Carleton 25 years ago, in a different climate, when there was debate about whether pro-choice groups should be allowed.

quote:

---

But surely you agree that all rights must have reasonable limitations placed upon them? No right is absolute. Any right we have extends only so far as it does not intrude upon the rights of others. And abusing free speech to advocate that others be stripped of their own fundamental rights, and thrown in jail, crosses this line. Thus, anti-choicers have no ground to stand on when they claim they have some right to advocate women be stripped of their own fundamental rights.

---

[ 07 December 2006: Message edited by: prowsej ]

quote:

---

Under this reasoning, we should ban the Catholic Church because it is not pro-choice.

---

Okay.

If you want to mess with people's rights you should be prepared for them to one day turn on you and mess with yours.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
Prolifers can make a decision with how they spend their money too, they can find a new school that believes in a tiered system for human rights.

---

Please note that any examples provided are not my beliefs, but rather examples usign the first person so as not to convolude my comments.

1) This motion was not about freedom of speach, it was against discrimination. Debates/discussions on the issues continue to be acceptable, however, actions/events/etc that seek to intimidate/harass/shut down (re: suppress the freedom of speech)women's voice/rights on the abortion issue are not aloud. So, I can say that I am pro-life, but I cannot say that you having an abortion makes you a murderer. Same way I could say that I don't am opposed to non-segregation, but I cannot say that blacks should die.

2) There are numerous services on campus that provide information relating to all 3 pregnancy options. When a group actively suppresses one option, an option that is stamped in law in Canada, they are attempting to suppress the freedom of speech of others. They are saying that you cannot hold a belief or speak to an option. If I am going to be attached for saying I will have an abortion if I get pregnant, and if the only segment of the population able to make that decision is women, then 1) my freedom of speech is being curtailed, and 2) i am being discriminated against on a gender basis.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:

This is not a free speech issue. They aren't being silenced. The just aren't being funded. They aren't entitled to funding. Like any group, the Student Union is deciding how they want to spend their money. Prolifers can make a decision with how they spend their money too, they can find a new school that believes in a tiered system for human rights.

---

It isn't just about funding. It's about whether or not they're allowed to have a "club" on campus.

If it was about a prolife club seeking money to host an event, it would be a different issue. That isn't what it's about. It's about whether the club even gets recognition as existing at all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by revolushuneyz:
This motion was not about freedom of speach, it was against discrimination. Debates/discussions on the issues continue to be acceptable, however, actions/events/etc that seek to intimidate/harass/shut down (re: suppress the freedom of speech)women's voice/rights on the abortion issue are not aloud. So, I can say that I am pro-life, but I cannot say that you having an abortion makes you a murderer. Same way I could say that I don't am opposed to non-segregation, but I cannot say that blacks should die.

---

quote:

---

The policy doesn't target pro-life groups that "intimidate / harass / shut down women's voices / rights on the abortion issue". The policy targets all pro-life groups. It aims to restrict groups that take a position in the very debate / discussion that you say is acceptable.

---

Are you positive about this? I think pro-life groups are permitted as long as they don't advocate the position that all abortions should be illegal. If they just go on with their 'choose life' that's still fine. However, there was controversy earlier this year when a pro-life club, among others, didn't get funding because they missed a meeting. Some people thought they purposefully weren't told, but there were other groups that almost missed the meeting too that weren't involved in the abortion debate.

This is why it's such a tricky topic. I don't support intimidation or coercion, but preventing a group from setting up a table in the student lounge and saying 'we think abortion should be illegal' probably doesn't count as intimidation or coercion (unless they cross the line).

I find it amazing that this has become such a big issue this year. In all my years at Carleton, I can only remember one or two events that drew attention to this debate. There was a group not affiliated with the school that put up those horrible signs comparing abortion to the Holocaust at the school's entrance (off school property) and one speaker who spoke about she was the product of rape and she was happy her mom kept her and encouraged others in that position to do the same thing (and as someone who's been sexually abused, I would have loved to have a few choice words with her so I could tell her that keeping the product of rape might not be spectacular for your state of mind!).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Will S:

Are you positive about this? I think pro-life groups are permitted as long as they don't advocate the position that all abortions should be illegal.

[...]

This is why it's such a tricky topic. I don't support intimidation or coercion, but preventing a group from setting up a table in the student lounge and saying 'we think abortion should be illegal' probably doesn't count as intimidation or coercion (unless they cross the line).

[...]

But that was about it. It's surprising this has got so much traction this year.

---

Your first statement matches my point. Having an opinion that abortion should be illegal and expressing that opinion is not "intimidating / harassing / shutting down women's voices / rights on the abortion issue".

Prohibiting a group from setting up such a table may not be "intimidation or coercion" (although it could be the latter). But it is even more clear that a group setting up such a table isn't itself "intimidation or coercion".

quote:

---

It isn't just about funding. It's about whether or not they're allowed to have a "club" on campus.

---

Others here believe that the label of "hate speech" should be used broadly to condemn the expression of views they disagree with. They include views on the opposite side of contentious political debates as "hate speech".

Your definition of hate speech as any speech that "advocate[s] that others be stripped of their own fundamental rights" is fundamentally wrong and inappropriate. That isn't what hate speech means. It amounts to using the label of "hate speech" to supress views and opinions that you disagree with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by spatrioter:
CUSA should not be obligated to fund groups whose main objective is to infringe on other students' rights. This was a democratic decision made by representatives democratically elected by the student body at Carleton. Shouldn't students be entitled to have a say in how their union dues are spent?

---

The framing of this issue by the media as a “freedom of speech” issue is yet another way to ignore the many systemic ways that women are oppressed in this society. Have you ever noticed that no issue is accepted as an oppression of women issue? It’s always painted as something else.

On December 6th we remember that each case of violence against women is not simply the action of a crazed mad-man as the media loves to paint it, but rather an all too familiar pattern that repeats itself again and again because it originates in a system.

I have encountered anti-choice activists on my campus who are simply misogynistic. One actually argued that a woman has no right to abort a fetus because it could be a male child.

Women are oppressed when people try to revoke their fundamental rights.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the grey:
Absolutely. But without recognition will the club be able to participate in club days to sign up members? Will it be able to put up posters to advertise its events? Will it be able to meet in student controlled space? That's what this is about, not just the token amount of funding that clubs receive.

---

Student controlled space is most often paid for by students. Student union events are paid for from student union dues. It would simply be anti-democratic to say that students shouldn't then have the right to defend the resources they own and paid for from a group that attacks women's rights - a contradiction of the student union's mission.

quote:

---

Originally posted by revolushuneyz:
A friend on mine said it beautifully at the meeting: if this were about race or sexual orientation, the debate would not occurr, it would be clear. When will discrimination against women (and women's rights in general) stop being optional!

---

Exactly, and why should a Students Union fund and give "tacit" approval of a group whose main goal is to abolish women's right's.

Today, I was in Northern BC's Capital, and there was a lone anti-abortion protestor carrying an anti-abortion placard across the street from the hospital. Was this a woman of child bearing years? Or even a woman or girl? Nope, it was a close to retirement age, filthy (literally clothes hair etc) male.

quote:

---

Originally posted by spatrioter:
In any area where a student union has jurisdiction, it has the right to withhold service to groups whose only purpose is to attack the rights of certain students.

[...]

Would you also force CUSA to fund and allocate its resources to groups whose purpose is to criminalize homosexuality?

---

I'm not disputing that CUSA has the right to do it. I'm saying that CUSA shouldn't do it.

Would I recognize that the issue was a free speech issue? Yes. Would it be reasonable to limit that speech? Possibly, even probably. Is it comparable to this situation? Not at all.

A position on criminalizing being gay is comparable to a position on criminalizing being black, or comparable to a position on criminalizing being a woman.

Expressing a position that abortion should be illegal is akin to expressing a position that same-sex marriage should be illegal. It's wrong, but it's still protected speech.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the grey:
Would I recognize that the issue was a free speech issue? Yes.

---

quote:

---

Expressing a position that abortion should be illegal is akin to expressing a position that same-sex marriage should be illegal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by spatrioter:
That's one of the most generous definitions of free speech I've seen. Do you think any group on campus that is not funded by CUSA is having their 'free speech' restricted?

---

No. I couldn't care less about funding. But a student group that is denied status, and students that are denied access to student space based on the content of their political views are having their "free speech" restricted.

quote:

---

Originally posted by spatrioter:
I think that's where you and I differ. Speaking as a queer, I know that speech against same sex marriage, bigoted as it is, poses no basic threat to the right to control my own body. Anti-choice groups want to throw people in jail for making decisions about their own bodies; that is why it's similar to campaigning for the criminalization of homosexuality. And CUSA has no obligation to fund any campaign to restrict any student's right to control their body. In fact, I'd say it has a duty not to fund these groups.

---

Again, I'm not talking about CUSA's obligations. I'm talking about what CUSA should or shouldn't do. CUSA's legally entitled to refuse to recognize any club it disagrees with. I'm saying that it shouldn't do that.

But fine, let's limit discussion to campaigns to restrict students' rights to control their own bodies. How about campaigns to oppose assisted suicide? Or campaigns to support the current drug laws? Or campaigns opposing the Chaoulli decision on private health insurance in Quebec? All of those impact students' rights to control their own bodies too.

In constitutional terms, Canadians only have the right to "life, liberty and security of the person" to the extent they aren't "deprived thereof in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice" and subject to "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". Control over one's body triggers one's liberty and security of the person interests.

quote:

---

University says it is "Not Bound by" Student Union Decision and will Allocate Space to Pro-Life Students
lifesite.net

University Director of Communications Doug Wotherspoon told LifeSiteNews.com that in terms of space allocation CUSA's decision would not amount to much.

Wotherspoon [said] CUSA "has access to a small amount of space in comparison to the space available to student clubs and groups across campus." The CUSA motion, he said, restricted only "the space that they have authority over."

As an example he spoke of "The galleria that we have, which is the main location for student clubs and societies to set up." He noted, "a third of that space is managed by the Carleton University Students Association; two thirds of that space is managed by the University."

"As a matter of course, largely over these types of issues," he said, "the university makes space available to students both individuals and student groups whether they are recognized or not by CUSA or any other student organization." He added that "for the most part that space is provided free of charge."

---

There goes that theory.

[ 08 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:

There goes that theory.

[ 08 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the grey:

It certainly addresses the primary concerns. It's a shame to say that I hope CUSA doesn't succeed in getting control over student space on campus.

---

quote:

---

The anti-choicers attempts to intimidate women and force the hand of CUSA is the real assualt on freedom of speech.

---

quote:

---

Student controlled space is most often paid for by students. Student union events are paid for from student union dues. It would simply be anti-democratic to say that students shouldn't then have the right to defend the resources they own and paid for from a group that attacks women's rights - a contradiction of the student union's mission.

---

quote:

---

This motion affects anti-choice clubs which want to peacefully and respectfully

---

Excuse me? Can you tell me what is peacful and respectful about attacking my rights?

And can you explain your acceptance of the double standard that is blatantly obvious here. If this was an issue of race or sexuality we wouldn't be having this conversation nor would Carleton. Please explain why we don't tolerate attacks on the right of some but women are fair game.

And spare me the free speech argument. It's bullshit. The student union isn't the Government of this country. They don't have to provide a form for people interested in taking away my rights.

If the police where rounding them up down at the Peace Tower we'd have a free speech issue. Wonder why they aren't down there lobby the Governement?

Free speech is about being able to speak out against authority and opression, the spirit of it is not to force your will and thoughts on fellow citizens. Free speech isn't a get out jail free card to allow people to attack the rights of other citizens.

quote:

---

Originally posted by prowsej:
This motion affects anti-choice clubs which want to peacefully and respectfully hand out information in, say, our coffee house or other student gathering places.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:

Excuse me? Can you tell me what is peacful and respectful about attacking my rights?

And can you explain your acceptance of the double standard that is blatantly obvious here. If this was an issue of race or sexuality we wouldn't be having this conversation nor would Carleton. Please explain why we don't tolerate attacks on the right of some but women are fair game.

---

Free speech isn't determined by the content of the speech, it's determined in spite of that content. That includes being able to argue against the rights of other people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the grey:
I think the difference between putting up a poster that just says "abortion should be illegal" and threatening or hitting women outside a clinic is clear to most people.

---

No one siad it wasn't. On the other hand, I think the difference between advocating a race of people be enslaved or an ethnic group put to death, and advocating that women be thrown in jail for exercising their rights is a lot less clear. All are hate speech in my opinion, and people abuse freedom of speech by using it as a shield for cover of their hate-mongering.

[ 08 December 2006: Message edited by: Kevin_Laddle ]

quote:

---

If you don't understand the difference between people making those arguments peacefully and respectfully and people making their point with violence, intimidation and thuggery I'm not sure how best to explain it to you. I think the difference between putting up a poster that just says "abortion should be illegal" and threatening or hitting women outside a clinic is clear to most people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Will S:
In all my years at Carleton, I can only remember one or two events that drew attention to this debate. There was a group not affiliated with the school that put up those horrible signs comparing abortion to the Holocaust at the school's entrance (off school property) and one speaker who spoke about she was the product of rape and she was happy her mom kept her and encouraged others in that position to do the same thing (and as someone who's been sexually abused, I would have loved to have a few choice words with her so I could tell her that keeping the product of rape might not be spectacular for your state of mind!).

---

Yes, I'm sure she would've appreciated you telling her that her mother's state of mind would've been better if she had never existed. Seriously, what is wrong with a girl who was nearly aborted, speaking out and encouraging others to not have an abortion. Freedom of speech and freedom to choose go hand and hand. As long as she respects other women's choices, but she's talking about the consequences of choices. In her case, she wouldn't have existed.

That said, the Carleton SU can do what it likes with its property and the student fees it has a right to charge. It is not the government of this country. Students can choose a different school, run for SU on a different platform if they disagree.

[ 08 December 2006: Message edited by: EmmaG ]

quote:

---

Yes, I'm sure she would've appreciated you telling her that her mother's state of mind would've been better if she had never existed. Seriously, what is wrong with a girl who was nearly aborted, speaking out and encouraging others to not have an abortion. Freedom of speech and freedom to choose go hand and hand. As long as she respects other women's choices, but she's talking about the consequences of choices. In her case, she wouldn't have existed.

---

I agree. She can say what she wants. However, so can I. I wouldn't want a constant reminder of rape or abuse in my life. Others might decide they'd be okay with it. If I was the product of rape or abuse, I'd respect my mom's choice to keep me, but if she decided not to, it's not like I would be here to shake a finger at her. Ultimately it wouldn't have affected me. Either I'd be here or I wouldn't. She, on the other hand, has to live with her choice (whatever it was) for the rest of her life. I'm a man, so it's not like I could have gotten preganant. But as a victim of abuse, I would have liked to remind her that as much as she and her mom have a great life, there's a possibility other children in the same situation could grow up to be resented if their mother hasn't come to terms with what happened.

quote:

---

Originally posted by EmmaG:

Yes, I'm sure she would've appreciated you telling her that her mother's state of mind would've been better if she had never existed. Seriously, what is wrong with a girl who was nearly aborted, speaking out and encouraging others to not have an abortion.

---

quote:

---

Oh bullshit. Why do you feel the need to act as an apologist for these anti-choice thugs.
"Peaceful and respecful" anti-choicers is truly an oxymoron; how the fuck do you "peacefully and respectfully" advocate that a traditionally repressed group within society be stripped of their rights

---

I think that I can "peacefully and respectfully" tell people that Canada needs stronger environmental laws and that those who egregiously break them could be put in jail - even historically oppressed people like natives. Opponents would decry me for stripping people of their rights (e.g. to culture, property).

I think that I can "peacefully and respectfully" tell pharmacists that they should be compelled to dispense birth control and the morning after pill, even if this violates their religious convictions (they have said I'm stripping them of their right to freedom of conscience).

I think that I can "peacefully and respectfully" tell parents that are no circumstances should they be able to genitally mutilate their children - violating rights to privacy (e.g. via checks in the Netherlands), etc.

I feel that if I want to be an ethical person, I can't be hypocritical. And there are lots of situations where I think that people should be stripped of their rights and possibly thrown in jail. That's why I am not willing to silence the anti-choice mongrels who want to strip women of their rights and throw them in jail. But oh, will I ever disagree with them and point out why and where they are hamrful, hurtful, and stupid.

I don't want to support these groups, either. I'm not going to defend them if CUSA's motion only denies them funding. But I will defend them to the extent that the motion might silence them. Because the best way to defeat the anti-choice arguemnt is to engage it and show just how wrong it is. It's not that we need to prevent "impressionable young people being brainwashed into believing this sheer stupidity." People need to have the best pro-choice arguments in their mind, not just a general pro-choice feeling in their hearts.

[ 09 December 2006: Message edited by: prowsej ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin_Laddle:

What is wrong with this is that the situation you described is not based in reality. A human being cannot be "nearly aborted", as abortions take place prior to birth, thus prior to when we existed. To suggest otherwise implies that you have some metaphysical form of existance before you are actually born. Is it accurate to suggest that the sperms that my dad carried before I was born were me, and thus thousands of my siblings were murdered every time he jerked off? Of course not, that would be the most idiotic thing imaginable. Yet you are buying into the same propaganda idiocy peddled by the anti-choice hate-mongers. It's a good thing they are getting banned from Carleton. The last thing we need is impressionable young people being brainwashed into believing this sheer stupidity.

---

I'm hesitant to reply, because I don't believe abortion should be illegal and that women should be locked up for having them, but I know I will be painted as an anti-choice anti-feminist. I'm fine with CUSA's decision to block funding, as long as it's only about funding. They can fund what they want and students can elect different representatives to fund different things if they want. (most student voter turnout rates are abysmally low anyways, so I doubt many students will be mobilized one way or another).

But, Kevin, obviously your father's sperm wasn't you, but once it fertilized your mother's egg it was the first stages of you. A baby just doesn't suddenly exist at birth. Comparing a man "jerking off" and releasing sperm to a growing zygote, embryo and
fetus is a ridiculous denial of the facts of life and where you came from. To be pro-choice you have to be able to recognize biological truths and admit that yes abortion does kill a beating heart. If the heart wasn't beating, an abortion wouldn't be necessary because the fetus would already be naturally miscarried; you would be told that at an ultrasound.

When I meet someone who has extreme "pro-life", throw women in jail who access abortions,etc type views, I want to be able explain why stopping that beating heart is legally justified and is a woman's right. Because that life isn't an independant life and can't survive outside of the woman's body and she has a right to control her own body. She can decide, based on all the facts available to her, what is right for her.

1) What if this was a ban against a club which, instead of advocating against the right to abortion, advocated against the right to assisted suicide? If arguing against the right of a woman to control her own body and end her own pregnancy is considered "hate speech", then I wonder if arguing against the right of a woman to control her own body and end her own life is also considered "hate speech"?

Anti-choice groups refuse to recognize ALL three options available, thus negating freedom of speech (or belief). If someone could intelligently explain to me how denying the existence of one legal option is expressing free speech...please do so.

In addition, free speech in Canada has always been limited to speech that does not perpetuate hate or dicscrimination based on specific criteria. This is why we have a charter of rights and freedoms, this is why we have so many laws on the matter.

I certainly don't see anti-choice rhetoric as an example of "hate speech". It's repugnant and shouldn't be funded by a student program, but I think it's a bit ridiculous to take the whole "hate speech" thing so far.