Get the feed!
Carleton students spark row over abortion policy
Read the article / show / issue that provoked me to write a letter and my response below that or go straight to my response
Date Posted on this Site
November 29, 2006
Publication
Ottawa Citizen
Publication Date
November 29, 2006
Published Content
By Pauline Tam
A freedom of speech debate has erupted at Carleton University over a student council proposal that would effectively shut down a campus group opposed to abortion.
The controversial recommendation would deny student association funding and other types of support for campus activities linked to "anti-choice purposes." It would also assert the association's position to "respect and affirm a woman's right to choose."
The proposed policy change is believed to be rare among student groups at Canadian universities and has sparked outrage from a fledgling anti-abortion group that charges the association with bias.
"They're supposed to be a fairly neutral student organization because they're representing all the students, but that has definitely proven not to be the case," said Sarah Fletcher, president of Carleton Lifeline.
"We think it's quite undemocratic. They're trying to take away our right to freedom of speech and expression."
The issue has mobilized students on all sides of the abortion debate and prompted a petition opposing the proposal.
"I think this is a dangerous and unproductive motion," said petition organizer Garnett Genuis, who has so far enlisted the support of 150 students.
"They're bringing this forward in the name of being pro-choice. Yet in the grand scheme of things, they're anti-choice. They're against people having the choice to express opinions, the choice to hear alternate perspectives. This is the grand irony."
The Catholic Civil Rights League has denounced the proposal, which has started circulating on blogs that are conservative and call themselves "pro-life."
Shawn Menard, president of Carleton's students association, defended the proposed changes, saying they will be debated and likely amended to protect free speech before being put to a vote next week.
Nonetheless, Mr. Menard left open the possibility that he and other council members could still take a clear stand on the issue. "We are a political association. We do make decisions politically around issues," he said.
The controversy began last month, after Carleton Lifeline organized a debate on campus that challenged whether elective abortion should be legal in Canada. The event attracted about 200 students, but prompted complaints from a campus women's group.
The students association responded by suggesting amendments to its anti-discrimination policy. Among other things, the recommended changes would refuse "resources, space, recognition or funding" to groups that promote "anti-choice."
One reason given for the proposed changes was that "anti-choice/pro-life groups or organizations compromise the personal safety and threaten the self-esteem of women who may contemplate abortion or have chosen to have an abortion."
The proposal also referred to the council's policies prohibiting harassment of, and discrimination against women. Given that "anti-choice groups aim to remove choice by making abortion illegal," their activities on campus would violate "a woman's right to life, liberty and security of the person," the motion stated.
While few Canadian universities have taken such a stand, Mr. Menard said there are precedents that prompted the council to act. He cited the example of the University of Victoria and Newfoundland's Memorial University, whose student unions have passed similar policies.
What's more, Mr. Menard added, a past student council at Carleton once denied access to an anti-abortion speaker who asked to appear in a building run by the students association. The intention, in refusing the speaker access, was to ensure that campus space controlled by students is a safe and non-threatening place for women, he said.
It's not the first time the students association has clashed with the 15 members of Carleton Lifeline. In September, the group applied to be an official club on campus, which would have given it a share of student council funding, as well as a place to meet and organize events.
But the group was denied club status, fuelling a perception that the students association is working to prevent an anti-abortion organization from forming on campus.
Student leaders reject the accusations, saying Carleton Lifeline simply missed the application deadline for club status. But Ms. Fletcher said her group was never told when the application would be approved.
My Response Letter
If the Carleton University Students' Association truly wanted "to respect and affirm a woman's right to choose", the association would not be seeking to silence a group that promotes one of the two abortion choices, namely for a woman to choose not to have an abortion and to keep her unborn child.
What's next? Will the association muzzle the Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights club, given that they advocate for "the end of Israeli colonialism", a choice that is unlikely to sit well with at least some Jewish students? Why stop there? Why not ban all of the fitness and sports clubs, which promote a lifestyle "choice" that is anathema to those students who prefer chips and pop for dinner?
Until the association can substantiate its claim that "pro-life groups or organizations compromise the safety and threaten the self-esteem of women" it has no basis for limiting students access to a group that cares deeply about women and their rights.
Jason Gennaro
Was my response published?
No
Did I get a response?
No