to learn more about the protest, visit http://youthprotectingyouth.wordpress.com/

It is interesting that the YPY protesters were not so much advocating against abortion at this protest, but protesting that their right to speak fairly about issues they feel passionate about are unfairly being restricted. In contrast, the pro-choice people are free to share their passionately held beliefs without restriction. That was the content of THEIR protest. They made no case for why it is in any way appropriate to restrict YPY's speech. And, by the way, if the pro-choice people are so offended and harassed by the posters used by YPY, why were they putting themselves right in the view of these very posters?

It is wrong for the UVSS to decide that one club, because it advocates for an unpopular opinion, should be restricted in what it can say. As with any government, do we really trust the UVSS Board to be the arbiters of what is correct and appropriate speech? What happens when the next club wants to forward an unpopular opinion, say about Israel, the environment, immigrants, whatever? Should climate-change deniers be shut up as well, as the UVSS is a pro-environment organization? I would have thought that students at UVic - including the smart pro-choice women - would have enough intelligence and confidence to hear the message of YPY and then ignore it if they choose.

There's much greater harm in allowing the UVSS to control thought and speech than in allowing unpopular opinions to be heard. If a university cannot tolerate being a "marketplace of ideas" then I can't imagine that any other place would be able to entertain unpopular ideas that are held by some members of society. There's the downfall of democracy.

And, ironically, UVic just finished celebrating "banned books week". One comment from the Martlet article:

"You might be wondering why you’re still able to get your hands on these banned materials. Henderson explains that the bans are not usually governmental, but are rather initiated by organized groups targeting personally offensive books for physical removal from public schools, libraries and bookstores."

Government action is limited by the Charter. Not so for an authoritarian organized group such as the UVSS. Perhaps the UVSS will start banning books on campus that are pro-life?

Maybe it's time for a pro-life literature fair in the SUB...

I also want to add that the Board of Directors has decided to send this issue to the Organisational Development committee back in February. According to the UVSS website the OD committee hasn't met since in January, but according to others its Chair (Veronica Harrison) has been hosting secret meetings of OD not emailing all committee members on that committee.

The consequence, if this is true, is that she is stacking the committee with others until they are able to vote while not informing voting committee members who would provide opposing viewpoints any say on the committee because they don't know of these secret meetings.

So she better come clear and let people know whether they have occured or not. It would be disappointing if she was doing this. So far she has refused to comment on this, and so have others. What do they have to hide?

The UVSS BoD is quite simply violating YPY's legal rights.

Frankly, I hope the latter sues them for damages --then they would have the funding they have been denied.

I submit that this view of pro-life groups has probably been unfair for years. This would likely be borne out by a simple examination of just how much pro-life clubs have obtained in funding over the last couple of decades, in comparison to other campus groups. Indeed, if such research yielded evidence that such prejudice by the UVSS is institutionalized and systemic, it might result in higher damages and punitive costs.

As Democracy Now noted above, the reaction of the very people who claim to be so terribly upset by the pro-life activities seem to be be perfectly calm when they were outside the SUB. I would go so far to say that they look positively cheerful in the pictures above.

So where's the threat? I would say this to those who oppose YPY's rights to assembly, free speech and fair funding: If you find you are truly "threatened" by someone else having a different opinion, or the idea of engaging in a debate with a group whose idea you oppose so stressful --if you can't see that this is about civil rights-- you should ask yourself if you are ready to be in post-secondary education.

I dare you.

Pamela Grant

YPY's protest contained slogans including "Abortion ends human life" and "Some choices are wrong." These slogans may have been covered up by the word 'Censored,' but they were still clearly visible. These slogans call women who have abortions murderers and call for the re-criminalization of abortion. How is it okay for the UVSS to support these slogans? They are obviously harrassing to women who have had or may have abortions. I personally know women who find YPY's actions very harrassing.

Furthermore, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply to the UVSS. The UVSS is a private entity and does not have the power to deny YPY their freedom of speech. They simply have the power to either support or not support them and their actions through club status and benefits.

George,

How is the UVSS a private body? Why should they be exempt from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? The UVSS is the student society at a public university. I don't see how a group can be excluded from falling under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. By denying funding and status to YPY, the UVSS is subjecting members of YPY, who are students that pay exactly the same student fees as every other member of the student body on campus, to unequal treatment. Why should I be forced to pay my student fees to the UVSS if the club that I wish to be a part of is not allowed to have a voice on campus?

Jeremy,

The Charter is supposed to protect people in Canada from policies and actions by all levels of government. However, as of yet the Charter has not been used to regulate the actions of Universities and their student societies. You asked "Why should they be exempt from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?" My understanding is that the application of the Charter is decided by our judicial system. One reason I've heard from a number of sources for not applying the Charter to student societies is that they don't have the funding and infrastructure to handle following the Charter. Besides that I guess you'd have to check out judicial history to find out why Universities and their societies are exempt.

I believe that all groups should be allowed to have a voice on campus (minus hatespeech, which I'm not saying YPY is doing). I don't believe that the UVSS has to support groups with club status or benefits if it is shown through proper process (complaints, taken to BoD) that that voice is harassing a potion of the student body. Particularly if the harassment tries to restrict the rights some people, which YPY does by displaying slogans and posters that encourage the re-criminalization of abortion.

The statement "some choices are wrong" is a simple fact. Imagine a world where this statemente was false - where no choice could be considered "wrong" - it would be crazy! Also, I would point out that if you did truly believe the statement to be false, then you can't really say that YPY was "wrong" to make such statements in the first place.

The statement "abortion ends a human life" is also a fact. A human embryo or fetus is a distinct member of the human species. Abortion ends the life of this little human being. It might not be pleasant to think about, but it's true.

All of that said, I don't believe in calling women who have had abortions murderers. Neither, to my knowledge, does anyone in YPY. The circumsances and misleading information (sure, it's just a mass of tissue or a clump of cells - but a mass of tissue or clump of cells comprising a whole organism of the human species. Just like I'm a mass of tissue. I'm a clump of cells. So are you) lead me to believe that "murder" is the wrong label for this choice on the part of the woman.

I believe in judging actions, not people. I believe that the action of abortion is wrong because it kills a human being. I believe that we as a society bear responsibility for this injustice, whether we have been actively involved in it, or have simply been enablers through our passivity.

Catherine,

I agree that the slogan "some choices are wrong" is a valid statement on its own, but we can't ignore the context in which it's shown. Choice is a key word in discussion on abortion (hence pro-choice and anti-choice). To place the slogan "some choices are wrong" right beside "abortion ends human life" implies that the choice to have an abortion is wrong because it ends human life. To choose to end a human life other than your own is generally considered murder.

I'm teaching Orwell's "Animal Farm" in a high school in China right now, and I'd like to thank the UVSS for providing me a real-life example of how freedom of expression is being suppressed in Canada.

My students were shocked to hear that many of the universities they will be attending next year--universities which bill themselves as examples of Canada's tolerance--actively suppress dissident voices.

So much for Canada's moral superiority.

George, part of the goal of the pro-life movement is to imply that abortion is wrong because it ends a human life. The fact is, both "some choices are wrong" and "abortion ends a human life" are factually true statements. Banning true statements because some people don't want to hear them, or some people might be upset, goes completely against freedom of speech.

YPY has its own private funding through local (and non-local) pro-life and religious organizations. Why would I want to fund people who are already being funded by groups I fundamentally, morally, and spiritually disagree with? To me, this has nothing to do with free-speech. Would the UVSS fund a group called 'Women are Potential Murderers Unless They Absolve Their Reproductive Rights Club'? I think not. Why are the Youth Protecting Youth not protecting my basic human rights to choose when I reproduce?

A,

Your question about funding may help you understand why so many pro-life students find it difficult to be a member of the UVSS. UVic students who are pro-life have been obliged to fund groups we disagree with on a moral and intellectual level for years. We fight for UVSS neutrality for the sake of respecting all views.

In answer to your last question, YPY is entirely in support of you choosing when to reproduce. What we take issue with is when people decide to kill what they have reproduced. What is reproduction? To produce something like to the original, is it not? Like reproduces like: human beings reproduce human beings. When human sperm and human egg meet, a new human being with its own unique DNA is reproduced. And the most basic of human rights is the right to life.

We are not arguing against your right to reproduce when you want to reproduce, but against your right to deny another human being's right to life. If you don't want to reproduce, don't engage in activity that will lead to reproduction — it's your choice.

Universities have traditionally been beacons of light (or truth) in providing not only education but forums for open discussion for the thinkers of tomorrow-- not so with UVIC anymore. One more university that has found free speech to be annoying and stamped it out arbitrarily. (Thus turned off the lights.) actually it only took several (rehearsed) young hysterics to say they were offended by a particular club for their various emotional (therefore conveniently not debatable) reasons. I wonder if EVERY club on campus is as vulnerable as that. Could I get the fencing club to shut down because it looks aggressive? Or a scrabble club shut down because I have scars of losing games??? Ad nauseum... Welcome to the University of Victoria; founded in the '60's and already slamming the door shut on certain people and ideas. And the sound will reverberate across BC and the country. So why did it take only a few people to close down YPY? (And which clubs do those people belong to?)UVIC has socialist clubs and even a communist club I believe. But it finds it offensive that the YPY club is outrageous enough to debate abortion and have a budget that rents a room once a month. All it took was a few young women claiming they are protecting themselves and potentially upset women who might go mental to even know such things are talked about. (Yet they seem to have stronger constitutions than that since they used their actual bodies and signs to illegally block a legitimate speaker who was invited to the campus.) Only so much debate can be allowed, after all @ UVIC for this is turning into a feeble university with a limited vision or understanding of what free speech is. Universities usually pride themselves on throwing off the shackles of opinion from society at large and supposedly supplying a safe place where ideas can be explored. There have been notable exceptions to this universal rule, for instance when a dictatorship takes over countries; then the regime tries to either covertly or overtly wrestle free speech from universities--perhaps by decree or perhaps by intimidation. either way is excellent to prevent people from expressing opposing points ofview and having only ONE view prevail-- the politically correct one. One place and time that comes to min is Nazi Germany- debate about abortion was not tolerated. In fact, Hitler had 300 med students executed (a dry run for the gas chambers,) that had banded together in solidarity to oppose abortion. They were killed because they refused to end the lives of unborn children. It was a repugnant idea still in society at large, as, at this point in the 20th century only the communist Soviet Union had legalized abortion. The stigma therefore that will be attached to this university as an institution that closes down free speech is, dictatorship. A university begins to have credibility problems when a student association becomes a blunt weapon wielded by whomever is willing to use force to oppress a group of students. Wielding this power to pound certain groups out of existence (or become self-proclaimed "punisher") should make the university admin take serious notice-after all, this is bullying. this is when some intervening becomes necessary, otherwise bullying becomes the mode of operation in the foreseeable future. This is not a concentration camp (there should be an orientation for new students to explain the role of a university at the beginning of the year) so therefore it is the least appropriate place for stamping out free speech. Theoretically students could come forward and say they have emotional problems with ANY club! What emotional blackmail!! And mere students cannot afford lawyers to reverse the damage, so the bullies win! This is a huge blot on this university (and perhaps will make it a laughing stock for outsiders) that will not go away until justice prevails... in short, free speech!