University - Free Speech - Restricted and discrimination for those that differ -

[Goober]

Yes I did, and yes it is. The technicality relating to free speech though, is that they haven't been silenced. Not funding a group does not equal silencing them. Silencing someone is an act, and the decision against funding a group is not an act that silences. An opinion or your voice is not dependent on money from the Student Union....

ETA: The legal team this group has could have revised the groups constitution for them easilly. That is what lawyers are good at...legalese is their native tongue.

It is when one group has funding and an opposing group does not - Either both receive funding or none do -

Cutting funding does in effect assist in restricting their ability to speak - publish freely -

They are also imposing their own beliefs by restricting the groups funding - How being Pro Abortion or Anti Abortion is Discrimination is something you should explain to me as I cannot grasp that concept.
CUSA is imposing their Political beliefs and forcing another Group to adapt to what they are morally opposed to. Now that is not only discrimination but harrassment of individuals and a group as they are being singled out. All they have to do is become Pro-Abortion -

On Monday, Carleton Lifeline, an anti-abortion group, was told by CUSA, the Carleton University Student Association, that it was in violation of CUSA’s anti-discrimination policy.

The letter noted that Carleton Lifeline believes in the “equal rights of the unborn and firmly believes that abortion is a moral and legal wrong,” wrote Khaldoon Buhnaq of CUSA.

Therefore, because of CUSA’s commitment to choice, Carleton Lifeline can no longer promote activities on campus or even lobby in any way that would go against a pro-choice position.

 

[Ariadne]

The students have collectively voted on how student clubs are funded, and presumably they also supported the "commitment to choice". Universities in Canada have very democratic elections and processes, so if that is what the students decided, then that is how it has to go. If this group wants "commitment to choice" removed from the club registry requirements, then that's where they have to start in order to be allowed to display ugly pictures of human cell division and tell others that their choice to have an abortion is morally and legally wrong. Somehow, I doubt the student population would like to see that change.

Telling women that the right to have an abortion is morally and legally wrong is a violation of rights, and is discriminatory as it targets women that want to make the choice.

 

[Tonington]

It is when one group has funding and an opposing group does not

Malarkey. Opposing group has nothing to do with it, being in compliance with the student union constitution does. That's all there is to it.

These things happen all the time, because rights exist in the real world, not just in the idealized world. Is Canada wrong for cutting funding to Hamas? Should they bring us to court?

They are also imposing their own beliefs by restricting the groups funding - How being Pro Abortion or Anti Abortion is Discrimination is something you should explain to me as I cannot grasp that concept.

They believe that pro-choice is immoral and illegal. That's very clearly against the CUSA policy: "actions such as any campaign, distribution, solicitation, lobbying, effort, display, event, etc. that seeks to limit or remove a woman’s right to choose her options in the case of pregnancy will not be supported"

I imagine they wouldn't support a group with a constitution that eschews Taliban policy either.

It's ridiculous to impose that the Student Union has to fund any group that students create.

 

[Ariadne]

Thanks for finding the clause that defends "commitment to choice".

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Telling women that the right to have an abortion is morally and legally wrong is a violation of rights...

I think you're confusing rights with something else, like the privileges of living in a modern free society, there's no right to have an abortion enshrined in the law. "The right to have an abortion is morally wrong" is a legitimate opinion, it doesn't violate anyone's rights to express it, there's no compulsion to agree. Claiming it's legally wrong is not a legitimate opinion, it's simply false, but still, saying so doesn't violate anyone's rights either. On the other hand, silencing someone who wants to express those opinions IS a violation of rights.

 

[Goober]

Malarkey. Opposing group has nothing to do with it, being in compliance with the student union constitution does. That's all there is to it.

These things happen all the time, because rights exist in the real world, not just in the idealized world. Is Canada wrong for cutting funding to Hamas? Should they bring us to court?

They believe that pro-choice is immoral and illegal. That's very clearly against the CUSA policy: "actions such as any campaign, distribution, solicitation, lobbying, effort, display, event, etc. that seeks to limit or remove a woman’s right to choose her options in the case of pregnancy will not be supported"

I imagine they wouldn't support a group with a constitution that eschews Taliban policy either.

It's ridiculous to impose that the Student Union has to fund any group that students create.

It is abominable for any group that is against Abortion to be denied their rights for Free Speech and restricted as such by the Students Union for any on Campus information session

Is book burning next

They are further more banned from any activities on Campus

Do you not see that restricting an opposing view, the manner in which it was done is an affront to Free Speech by forcing students to become Politically Correct -

Trouble in the Land of free Speech - Sarcasm is dripping from my comment

Carleton University Graduate Students? Association - Home

Free Speech as long as you support the Palestinians -Oh yes they Support the Jews - Except it is called Anti Apartheid Week - AKA - hate the Jew. Do your own searches and see how Jews are treated on this 1 campus, then realize it is not on occurring on this campus but many other - Free Speech is a farce for these that are so far Left and no other opinion will be allowed. Reminds me of dictatorships - Try and justify it in whatever manner you choose but that is exactly what it is. Suppression of the ability to freely express you opinion, whether it is based upon moral, religious or legal differences, complete suppression of a basic right. No more - No less than the complete suppression of Free Speech.

Carleton University Graduate Students? Association - Campaigns & Advocacy>GSA Campaigns & Advocacy>Campaigns 2009-10

For more information on the Students Against Israeli Apartheid Divestment campaign please visit the SAIA website and watch the video below!

 

[Ariadne]

I think you're confusing rights with something else, like the privileges of living in a modern free society, there's no right to have an abortion enshrined in the law. "The right to have an abortion is morally wrong" is a legitimate opinion, it doesn't violate anyone's rights to express it, there's no compulsion to agree. Claiming it's legally wrong is not a legitimate opinion, it's simply false, but still, saying so doesn't violate anyone's rights either. On the other hand, silencing someone who wants to express those opinions IS a violation of rights.

The statement was that abortion was morally and legally wrong. The "legally wrong" is not a legitimate opinion, as it is false. Agreed. Saying that is "legally wrong" is problematic because uninformed, impressionable 18 year olds, away from home and attending University, could be influenced into believing that abortion is legally wrong. They could also be vulnerable to feeling unnecesarry guilt because they are led to believe that they will make, or have made, an immoral decision.

Does anyone actually believe that a woman undergoing an abortion is not already somewhat traumatized? Every single woman that considers the choice of abortion is making a very difficult, life changing decision. That much should be very obvious.

Are these women to be further subjected to propaganda that "abortion is morally and legally wrong?" Women that have undergone the procedure are most affected by the propaganda. Those that have never faced the decision view it as simply academic.

 

[Goober]

The statement was that abortion was morally and legally wrong. The "legally wrong" is not a legitimate opinion, as it is false. Agreed. Saying that is "legally wrong" is problematic because uninformed, impressionable 18 year olds, away from home and attending University, could be influenced into believing that abortion is legally wrong. They could also be vulnerable to feeling unnecesarry guilt because they are led to believe that they will make, or have made, an immoral decision.

The question as the Legally wrong is correct and incorrect at the same time. - Canada has no laws on Abortion - Outside of what has been defined by the SCOC - Court imposed rulings based upon no law that is on the books as they say.

They also believe that is morally wrong, as is their right and the right to freely express it. Not to be banned from public places. Which is exactly what has occurred at Carleton U - The U is for Uniformity of opinion - The U defines what U will believe and ascribe to. The U is publicly funded so i say screw the U - Withhold funding from the Union.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Your analysis is correct Ariadne, but there's no right for people to be protected from their own ignorance either. My point was that silencing the people spreading opinions we disagree with is not the right approach. You offer the counter arguments and opinions, and the truth (e.g. abortion is not illegal) if you have it: education, not suppression.

 

[Ariadne]

Individual provinces in Canada have laws on abortion governing at what stage an abortion is permitted.

Most likely, nearly everyone that has avoided an unwanted pregnancy at a time that it would create extreme hardship views abortion as morally wrong. It's easy to argue that it is morally wrong. The fact of the matter is that, in some instances, it is a necessary procedure. Therefore, it is discriminatory to isolate that group of people and identify their choices, actions, and difficult decisions as morally and legally wrong.

 

[Goober]

Individual provinces in Canada have laws on abortion governing at what stage an abortion is permitted.

Most likely, nearly everyone that has avoided an unwanted pregnancy at a time that it would create extreme hardship views abortion as morally wrong. It's easy to argue that it is morally wrong. The fact of the matter is that, in some instances, it is a necessary procedure. Therefore, it is discriminatory to isolate that group of people and identify their choices, actions, and difficult decisions as morally and legally wrong.

I disagree - What provinces and what links to show this please?

Abortions past the 25 week period are quite common in Canada.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Does anyone actually believe that a woman undergoing an abortion is not already somewhat traumatized? Every single woman that considers the choice of abortion is making a very difficult, life changing decision. That much should be very obvious.

No, it's not obvious. I know at least one woman who's had an abortion and as far as I could tell she viewed it as simply getting rid of an inconvenience that she didn't want to deal with at that point in her life. I concede she may have been dissembling, and if so she was very good at it, because it certainly didn't look to me (or her parents either) like the decision was difficult or traumatic.

 

[Ariadne]

Your analysis is correct Ariadne, but there's no right for people to be protected from their own ignorance either. My point was that silencing the people spreading opinions we disagree with is not the right approach. You offer the counter arguments and opinions, and the truth (e.g. abortion is not illegal) if you have it: education, not suppression.

I don't think the University has a problem with any group stating the belief that abortion is morally wrong. It's almost a no brainer to argue that abortion is morally wrong because, after establishing a gestational point at which life begins, any termination of that fetus is immoral. The problem is moreso with a group that makes a statement that is incorrect. Abortion is not legally wrong, therefore the information that this group promotes is false, misleading, and should not be tolerated.

We also have to consider the rights of women that have undergone an abortion or who are considering choosing to have an abortion. They are a small, unidentifiable group of women that made a decision out of necessity, and who may have had to alter their belief system in order to make that choice. This group includes people that mourn that decision throughout their lives. They too have rights.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I...after establishing a gestational point at which life begins, any termination of that fetus is immoral.

Not necessarily. Almost all societies throughout history have accepted that there are certain conditions under which it's permissible to take a human life. The issue is the details of "what are they?"

Abortion is not legally wrong, therefore the information that this group promotes is false, misleading, and should not be tolerated.

No, it should be corrected. Institutionalizing intolerance is a dangerous precedent.

We also have to consider the rights of women that have undergone an abortion or who are considering choosing to have an abortion. They are a small, unidentifiable group of women that made a decision out of necessity, and who may have had to alter their belief system in order to make that choice. This group includes people that mourn that decision throughout their lives. They too have rights.

They do not have the right to be relieved of responsibility for the consequences of the choices they've made.

 

[Ariadne]

I disagree - What provinces and what links to show this please?

Abortions past the 25 week period are quite common in Canada.

I couldn't find links that were not associated with prolife, and I didn't look at that information. I do recall a woman from Ontario, perhaps 15 years ago, who traveled to the US to have an abortion. The story was that the husband was abusive and she did not want to have a child with an abusive man - as it would give him control over her for the duration of the child's life. It was an international story because Canada refused to allow the woman an abortion because it was late term - 24 weeks, but the US permitted late term abortion.

Not necessarily. Almost all societies throughout history have accepted that there are certain conditions under which it's permissible to take a human life. The issue is the details of "what are they?" No, it should be corrected. Institutionalizing intolerance is a dangerous precedent.

They do not have the right to be relieved of responsibility for the consequences of the choices they've made.

It is necessary to establish a point at which life begins in order to establish that abortion is morally wrong. If life begins at birth, then it is not morally wrong to terminate an unwanted pregnancy at any time prior to birth. If life begins with a heartbeat, then it is morally wrong to terminate the pregnancy after maybe 6 or 8 weeks. Prolife and abortion advocates alike agree that at a certain gestational point it is entirely wrong to terminate a pregnancy. The only question is when life begins, and when abortion constitutes a termination of life versus the elimination of unwanted cell division.

If it is acceptable to publish propaganda stating that it is legally wrong to have an abortion, then we would have to accept that it is acceptable to publish other legally incorrect facts. For example, if this group can publicly state that abortion is legally wrong, then I should be able to state that drinking is legally wrong, that spitting is legally wrong, that lying is legally wrong, and so on. It's not true, so I should not have the right to establish credibility and receive funding to promote false information.

 

[Colpy]

Technically they weren't silenced...the Student Association told them to redraft their club Constitution to one which satisfies the existing Constitution that governs the Student Union activities. The Student Union isn't required to give money to any group that wants to meet on campus either. Not funding a club is not the same thing as silencing people's opinions.

Baloney.....according to the article.....

Therefore, because of CUSA’s commitment to choice, Carleton Lifeline can no longer promote activities on campus or even lobby in any way that would go against a pro-choice position.

Read more: Carleton student association bans anti-abortion club​

That is suppression of free speech.

 

[taxslave]

No, one group says it's ok to murder an unborn child for whatever selfish reasons a "woman" may have and the other says that there are other options beyond murder.




gee.....I wonder how oit would have gone over if a "gay support group" had been shut down because they made some hetro's "uncomfortable".

It is not a child until it is born and living on its own. All you are doing is parroting your church line, which is OK amongst yourselves but you do not have the right to force this view on others. It is solely up to the woman if she wants to have an abortion or not.

 

[Ariadne]

Let people live their lives without being subjected to other people's negative opinions about their decisions.

Abortion is a legal right and is considered to be morally wrong by most, depending on the gestational age at which abortion is performed.

Universities should not fund groups that promote propaganda and other false statements such as: "abortion is legally wrong."

If this group wanted to promote their cause on a downtown street corner, the rules may be different. On a University, there are additional considerations as it is an educational institution; every club financed on campus should relate to University Student Union decisions and line up with curriculum. For some reason, the University's position is "commitment to choice". Good for them - as that permits the most rights for the most people (not to say that fetuses can't vote ... but). Everyone has every option available to them and no option is deemed illegal or immoral.

 

[JLM]

It is not a child until it is born and living on its own. All you are doing is parroting your church line, which is OK amongst yourselves but you do not have the right to force this view on others. It is solely up to the woman if she wants to have an abortion or not.

I have to admit to being with Gerry on this one. For one reason only- the subject of the decision doesn't have a say.

 

[DurkaDurka]

They should be allowed to say what they think needs to be said, censorship & hate crime tribunals reek.