 1 -.jpg?1258607492)
UVic student group Youth Protecting Youth (YPY) was denied club funding for the third time in the past year at the UVic Students’ Society (UVSS) Board of Directors meeting on Nov. 16.
The pro-life group lost their funding back in the fall of 2008, when UVSS Clubs Council decided the club’s mandate fell against the UVSS’s pro-choice policy. Since then, the group has appealed the decision to the board repeatedly, but has met continuous opposition.
“[YPY] has been accused of promoting violence against women, harassing women, creating a hostile and intimidating environment for students on campus and has been called racist and anti-Semitic. We’ve been denied club funding because of these fabricated claims,” said YPY President Anastasia Pearse. “It is unacceptable that a student society, which all students are supposed to be a part of, openly discriminates against one group of students.”
Last February, YPY members once again took their appeal to Clubs Council, who ruled that the club should be granted funding again. However, the board overruled the decision. Since then, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) has found the board’s decision to be “an infringement of conscience, opinion and, ultimately, speech,” and formally asked the UVSS to reconsider.
At the Nov. 16 meeting, Director-at-Large Dylan Hardie brought forward a motion that could have restored YPY’s funding. But the board ruled that YPY would receive no funding, in a secret ballot vote that failed 10 to five, with two abstentions.
“To my knowledge, YPY has not done anything overly offensive [this year],” said Hardie. “This is not an ideology debate. Regardless of my views on the matter, that shouldn’t come into this. I think I voted wrong at the last meeting, and that’s why I brought this up.”
At the meeting, abortion rights activist Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada spoke about the importance of differentiating between free speech and funding.
“This isn’t the first time the BCCLA sided with YPY. Their perspective is freedom of speech at all costs, disregarding the rights and freedoms of women in the process,” said Arthur. “But the BCCLA is equating funding with freedom of speech, and it’s just not true. Funding is a privilege, not a right. [YPY] has all the rights of a club, just not the funding, so they have it good. The UVSS is actually being very generous.”
Arthur also mentioned how YPY’s most recent action, bringing to campus Stephanie Gray, the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, showcased YPY’s alliance with the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) and reflected poorly on the club’s intentions.
Still, Pearse believes the board’s decision is unfair and reminded those present at the meeting that YPY’s mandate doesn’t solely focus on abortion. They also raise awareness on issues of euthanasia and capital punishment, and have created a bursary for mothers facing pregnancies while in university. Mostly, Pearse says the group hopes to keep stimulating dialogue and awareness.
“Just because something is controversial does not mean we should censor it,” she said. “Almost 400 of those students who you want to protect came out to see the [Stephanie Gray] debate. They were not forced to come, nor were they made to stay.”
The Nov. 16 meeting saw a full gallery, with supporters from both YPY and Students For Choice out to speak to the board’s decision.
Discussions around the motion lasted for more than two hours and were emotionally charged, with both board and gallery members breaking into tears at times.
Two male pro-life members echoed apologies to women in the audience and the board for being forced to deal with these issues, but asked the board to acknowledge the importance of fairness in funding.
Some members suggested a compromise — funding with restrictions on fund usage — but were met with little support.
“I’m speaking from the standpoint of a women and from the hundreds of students who voted me in,” said Director-at-Large Christine Comrie. “If YPY had originally heard our complaints about the posters, fine. But they defend it. They said they don’t believe in the [Genocide Awareness Project] GAP, but then they brought her [Stephanie Gray]. They [align themselves with people who] say that women who have had an abortion could be clinically insane, and that is not ok. If I’ve had an abortion, I am not insane.”
To claim that freedom of speech is being upheld by allowing YPY club status but no funding is like claiming that certain people are free to enter a building through a locked door and not providing the key to unlock the door, but giving the key to everyone else. I guess technically those people are still free to enter the building, but they are being discriminated against by not being provided with a key. There is a double standard.
The abortion rights coalition representative is arguing that because the UVSS is not COMPLETELY denying free speech by removing club status, as has been done in the past, then denying club funding should be okay. Just because the UVSS are only partially restricting YPY's activities through denying funding, then it should be okay.
Partial or complete, it is still discrimination, no matter which way you look at it.
The UVSS is FUCKED!! No other way around it. Clubs council votes in favor of funding YPY, but the board votes against the funding. FUCK the UVSS, and FUCK UVic!
We need more people like Dylan Hardie in politics.
"A wise man changes his mind a fool never will."
Dylan Hardie isn't much better than the nut jobs who voted to deny funding. A destructive fool makes important decisions without thinking about them before hand, or without the proper information. Dylan did harm with the ill informed decision he made, and wasn't able to correct that harm. Unfortunately, this is a very common trait of Dylan.
The BCCLA smackdown will soon begin.
I disagree with things YPY has to say, but I do think they should be given the equal footing to say it just as much as the other side. This is creating inequality here on campus by picking and choosing who gets funding and who doesn't based in the politics of the board in power, and that is dangerous for any civil and democratic dialogue.
Both sides should either get equal funding, or no funding... but both the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice sides on this debate should be treated equally. We must not let our political biases get in the way, we cannot let our religious views get in the way; politics and religion must be checked at the door as we neutrally decide to pass funding off to both groups.
Unfortunately here biases did get in the way, political interference got in the way. It is like the political morality police of the UVSS dictating what is right and what is wrong. People have brains, people can decide for themselves.
I think provide equal funding, and let the two sides have their debates... do not bring their debates into UVSS Board meetings. People have brains, guns are not being pointed at their heads, this is a university with mature people who can make decisions as they see fit.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall once summed up Voltaire's thoughts on freedom and expression as: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
So it is disappointing to see the UVSS has decided to pick and choose what is right and wrong. To strip funding, or even worse consider censorship, to those who disagree with the views of their almighty and all knowing, enlightened leadership.
Some may secretly be vying for Ahmadinejad's job.
I have a solution to this non-issue. I dare the YPY to take their smartest, most ingenious member, and have him or her have a debate about abortion rights with UVic professor, and biomedical ethics guru, Dr.Kluge, who is responsible for convincing the Canadian government in creating the current Canadian abortion laws (i.e. you can have an abortion up until you're in labour). If the YPY member is no less than absolutely demolished in this debate, I say give them the funding. Luckily for us non-YPY followers, there is no chance of that happening. You can have all the free speech you want, but please leave our money alone. Thanks.
Another step to taking away the right to speak. I can never remember any action like this from the right against the left. I guess it is their inclusiveness. We are included if we agree with them. I really think it is the thought process of the abortion issue. It is legal it is the law of the land and if I want to challenge that no matter how peacefully I am wrong. I have no opinion. If and when I come into big money, a lot will go to groups like YPY. They should not be denied funding angry bob
Imagine what would happen if members of YPY protested a pro-choice event the same way pro-choicers protested at YPY's debate.
All clubs are equal, some are just more equal than others, right?
The birth rate in Canada is about 1.5 babies per women. It takes 2.3 to maintain zero population growth. To you University Students who are graduating this is a dying population. Welcome to reality. Promoting abortion is also promoting the death of Canada. Wake Up! Promote life. When I see the money promoting pro choice it makes me wonder who is afraid of, "we the people and their babies".
@ the voice of reason: There are no abortion laws in Canada you fool. Maybe in university but not so bright.
I'm pro choice, when I choose to have intercourse I accept that there is a possibility that conception may happen. Pro-choicers are not really pro choice, they are anti-responsibility or anti-consequence.
Save the seals, kill the babies; that is the Canada we are now living in!
Actually don't bring the seal hunt up here. Though I support the Seal Hunt, I have many friends over in Newfoundland and Labrador and it is one thing they do to make some money.
The Harp Seals are not endangered and there is a government imposed quota each year. Harp Seals populate quite rapidly, so it is not as bad as PETA may make it sound.
Anyway, the main argument here is not abortion itself, but rather funding to both sides of this debate which have clubs.
So people should stop bringing the "abortion" debate into the picture, and instead focus on the allotment of funding to this club, like all other clubs.
To "the voice of reason", I say that once again the issue here is not abortion, so having a debate on whether abortion is right or wrong would provide no further headway into this issue, regardless of how fruitful it would be in continuing the discussion, which is all YPY really wants to do anyway. That is more than can be said for the Students for Choice club, who wish to drown out the debate and cease the discussion.
The issue here is the double standard being set by the UVSS directors, who feel the need to judge whether they think that a club is right or wrong according to their views, as if this has any bearing on whether the club should receive the same funding as every other club on campus.
@ Sigh and Kevin:
Really brave of you to disrespect Christine Comrie from behind a computer screen. Bravo.
Ditto George. I've given Comrie a piece of my mind more than once and plan to do so again. I am ashamed that she represents UVic.
So... it's pretty clear the current Martlet commenting system is broken beyond belief.
Here's what should happen: Create a registration system while also letting people post as "Anonymous."
You know I don't really know Comrie at all, but for the most part I disagree with her politics for the most part. The only thing I may agree with her on is environmental issues, but that is at best. She made comments during the military ban vote that pretty much said students don't know so she had to make the decision for them. Well later students voted against her silly military ban.
Those comments she made are what turned me off about her politically. I could never vote for someone who pretty much calls the students she is supposed to represent dumb, and march around with a sense of great self-importance. I don't like that, it turns me off for voting for that person.
However, I do think some of the attacks here have went over the line. Oh well, too each their own I suppose. People should always been held accountable for their actions. Whether it is Comrie over her comments back then, or the anonymous people here trashing her.
I know that this is the comments of a university newspaper, and people post anonymously, and it's you know, the internet, so people will say things they hopefully wouldn't say to people in person, but seriously?
I am pro-life. That means I believe in the intrinsic value, dignity, personhood, and right to life of all human beings. The fact that I include human beings who are not yet born in my definition of persons is something many people disagree with, and unfortunately, is the cause of what I see as blatant discrimination against myself and others who hold this view at UVic.
That said, believing in the intrinsic value and dignity of all people also means I believe in the value and dignity of Christine Comrie, and all the other board members and various students who oppose YPY. I may disagree with their opinions and object to their actions, but I don't think that gives me leave to make personal attacks. By all means, lets say that we disagree with some of the choices they make, and with the reasons given for those choices, but insulting them for who they are (or in the case of these comments, just making offensive comments about them at random), doesn't help the situation in any way, and doesn't respect them as they deserve.
For example, I disagree with Christine Comrie's suggestion (talking about the actual article now) that pro-life people believe that women who have had an abortion are clinically insane. I don't think I know anyone who thinks this, probably because it's just obviously false. There is the issue of women who suffer depression or regret after an abortion. This is not insanity. There are those who say that negative emotional effects of abortion don't exists, but the fact remains, there are women (certainly not all women who've had abortions, but some), who regret their abortions and suffer depression, nightmares, etc. afterwards. This is not the reason I think abortion is wrong - the mother's emotional state doesn't determine whether or not the unborn is a person. I do believe, however, that women should be told that this is a possible side affect of abortion. It's a pity that informed consent is subject to political correctness.
I was fairly left wing when I was younger, but seeing how these student councils abuse their power its made me see that the right wingers were right about how people abuse power.
I now consider myself a right winger.
what about the responsibility of free speech? i do not defend your right to say things that promote hate, are harassing or intimidating - which many of these posts are.
Stephanie Gray and her antics do not belong at UVic and I do not want my money funding her harassing and intimidating, hate-mongering and racist views and speeches. How many shots does YPY get at funding when they continue to use unacceptable 'campaign' materials? Perhaps if they were truly pro-life and not anti-abortion (anti-legal medical procedure) they would get funding. Why aren't they promoting safer sex to avoid 'untimely' pregnancies?
Trish, I fail to see how the pro-life viewpoint promotes hate, harrassment and intimidation. I also fail to see how Stephanie Gray's comments could possibly be interpreted as racist and hate-mongering. And just so you know, nowhere in YPY's mandate is there anything saying that the club is trying to re-criminalize abortion. Could you define what would make YPY "truly pro-life"?
I bet I'd dislike every single YPY member. But this is petty. At least the YPY tries to represent its membership. When will the UVSS realize that their ONLY real value is to provide the student body with framework and funding for clubs. The second they start dicking around with clubs it means they are really affecting their community.
UVSS, wake up, you don't cater to anyone! Let the clubs cater to your members, they do a better job.
Also stop being such bloody fascists. Who cares if people have opinions you deem bigotted, the rest of campus has a bad opinion of the UVSS, you don't see them denying you funding.
I am not familiar with abortion laws but as an earlier comment stated that you can have an abortion up to labour. i really hope that is not true seems a little late.
To clarify for Erik: There is no law prohibiting abortion any time during the pregnancy, right up until the instant before the child is born. But you've struck a great point, Erik. Most people agree that an abortion that late in pregnancy is too late and should not be morally acceptable. But why is that? What is different about the unborn child at this moment compared to 10 minutes, or 10 days, or 10 weeks, or 6 months earlier in the pregnancy? Why is abortion acceptable early in the pregnancy, but not late? It all points back to whether or not people truly believe that the unborn child is a human being.
The Martlet also reserves the right to use comments in the newspaper.