University - Free Speech - Restricted and discrimination for those that differ -
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
Twenty years ago, it took six weeks to verify that there was a pregnancy via blood test. A heartbeat could be heard at eight weeks gestation. It was assumed that there was no heartbeat prior to eight weeks, meaning that for many pro-commitment to choice groups, abortion was nothing more than the termination of cell division. With medical developments, there have been drastic changes. A heartbeat can be heard at six weeks, and pregnancy can be verified within 72 hours. It's most likely that a fetus has a heartbeat from conception ... much like puppies are either alive or dead at conception - meaning a heartbeat.
Today, an understanding of the situation could be interpretted as an expectation that a woman would be encouraged to verify that she is not pregnant within three days in the event the test could be positive. Would three days after conception be acceptable as a termination of fetus gestational period work for prolifers? Or ... would the prolifers say that it is best not to have an accidental pregnancy because regardless of the circumstances, a woman is required to see every pregnancy through for the rest of her life? Would three days be long enough for women to make this very important life altering decision?
Today, an understanding of the situation could be interpretted as an expectation that a woman would be encouraged to verify that she is not pregnant within three days in the event the test could be positive. Would three days after conception be acceptable as a termination of fetus gestational period work for prolifers? Or ... would the prolifers say that it is best not to have an accidental pregnancy because regardless of the circumstances, a woman is required to see every pregnancy through for the rest of her life? Would three days be long enough for women to make this very important life altering decision?
GASP, you mean a paper might have printed something that isn't quite true? I'm shocked, and appalled...
Yes, well according to the letter the Student Union sent, what actually happens now is :
So, the group can do all they could before, except they won't get money from the Student union, and they aren't permitted to use the Student Union Building, or any other space given to the Student Union.
Everyone raise your hand if you've actually taken part in Judiciary or Constitutional committees at a university...I have. Anyone else?
Everyone raise your hand if you've actually taken part in Judiciary or Constitutional committees at a university...I have. Anyone else?
A few points.
You can repeat it until the cows come home, their rights aren't being denied. You don't have the right to stand on my lawn and chant or pass out pamphlets to passers by. CUSA is like a land owner, and they have a Constitution. If groups can't respect that, then they shouldn't complain.
Where is it written, in any of the correspondence between CUSA and Campus Life that Campus Life cannot have an information session anywhere on campus?
Last, let's test your model here of how rights work. How do you feel about immigrants who come here, and try to have our laws changed, rather than conform to them? Are you supportive of any and all changes, or do you think they should operate within the bounds dictated by our existing Constitutional law?
I agree, Tonnington. There are very few places other than universities where discussion is as free and held to scrutiny.
I mean, there's certainly silos that form. And we're young adults, open to new ideas, some more than others...for some they become entrenched without much reinforcing needed...
But it seems to me that sometimes with memes like this that they're repeated so often that it doesn't even matter what the context is, people will chalk it up to the same old thing they've heard for years.
It was frustrating to see that in class mates, and it's frustrating to see it now outside of school too.
Inertia...institutional, societal, constitutional!
CUSA is Not I repeat Not a Landowner - They are a Tenant - On public property I should add.
CUSA Also is in receipt of Public Funds
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.
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"
Ah the so called Immigrant Trap - The ever Popular and always makes its debut in these types of threads - The always asked - The Immigrant Question - The flare or the fire up question that can upset many people -
I also disagree that there was an uproar in some Legions regarding Sikhs wearing a Turban within a Legion -- Some disagreed and other agreed they had that right No headdress allowed was the tradition as it is in all Military Messes. As they served, fought and died wearing their religious headdress, ergo they are allowed to wear their Turbans - I am now proud of the fact that an RCMP officer - as Traditional as you can get that is known world wide for their distinctive head gear - can now wear a Turban and perform the Duties he/she is obligated to do as Police Officers
That is one of the most positive sign of Multi-Culturalism that you can find in this country - And it was brought about by the Regulations being challenged p to the SCOC if I recall correctly.
As to operating within the bounds of an existing Constitution - You are in error and I would say massively - A Constitution is a Living Document that changes sometimes in small ways and other changes are dramatic if you follow the changes within canadian law since the Charter became Law.
So if the group you are mentioning is in conflict they have numerous options that are guaranteed under -Free Speech - The right to assemble peacefully
The right to challenge thru the Courts and the various Human Rights Committees in Canada
The Right in many cases to have their case at least reviewed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission
Next - As they are proscribed fromm expressing their opinion freely on Public Property by an organization that recives Public Funds I see that in the next year or 2 at the most a legal challenge on this very issue.
Lastly -Your Point
Everyone raise your hand if you've actually taken part in Judiciary or Constitutional committees at a university...I have. Anyone else?
The above statement proves nothing except that you were there. It does not in any way impart that you have or have not gained any knowledge as to the rights of Free Speech. No more - No Less than that - And it is not in any way meant to be insulting - It is how I look at it.
Your post would be far more coherent with quotation tags, Goober.
The structure of every university, in Canada (as far as I know), is that the student association holds the exclusive right to create student-led clubs and associations. If student-led clubs or associations do not abide by the terms and conditions set by the student association, then they risk having their status as an official organisation revoked. Nowhere does our constitution say that students are guaranteed funding for their activities and protests; funding clubs is a discretionary prerogative of the student association (CUSA, in this case). The student association is under no legal obligation to recognise, nor fund, nor provide spaces for this oganisation.
The structure of every university, in Canada (as far as I know), is that the student association holds the exclusive right to create student-led clubs and associations. If student-led clubs or associations do not abide by the terms and conditions set by the student association, then they risk having their status as an official organisation revoked. Nowhere does our constitution say that students are guaranteed funding for their activities and protests; funding clubs is a discretionary prerogative of the student association (CUSA, in this case). The student association is under no legal obligation to recognise, nor fund, nor provide spaces for this oganisation.