In a move that's deja vu all over again, another university pro-life group has been banned in Canada. Violating freedom of speech, the university concocted a story to have a pro-life group banned from campus, while claiming to take no position on abortion.
This happened at McGill University. A group of pro-life students had gathered in a room. They compared abortion to a holocaust. If one believes life begins at conception and millions of babies are being killed through abortion, then this is indeed accurate. In any event, this was not public, but private and people were totally free to join. The meeting was stormed by pro-abortion protesters. Ironically, it wasn't the protestors who stormed the peaceful meeting who got in trouble, but the group who was having the meeting. Ironic, but not unexpected. Whatever happened to freedom of speech?
Check out the biased CBC article below:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2009/11/18/montreal-ssmu-pro-life-choose-life.html?ref=rss&loomia_si=t0:a16:g4:r3:c0:b28951690#socialcomments
They weren't banned. They were told to stop spreading their hateful message on University property, which is something the university has a right to do and isn't a violation of free speech.
ReplyDeleteStop lying to your readers and start telling the facts like they are.
The group was suspended, and can no longer use university property and will no longer receive funding from council. This is just another way of saying they are banned, at least for the time being.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing hateful about this situation is the way the pro-abortion people "stormed" a pro-life meeting.
The group are free to have their meetings off campus, the university just didn't want to have that sort of thing happening on their campus nor did they want their money to go towards supporting it. Which is quite reasonable considering that there was complaints about the group from other students who "felt harassed, that they felt that their safety has come into question and that they felt personally attacked". The group obviously didn't respect the students who filed these complaints. Also, handing out "distributing graphic anti-abortion literature" is no way to get your message across and still be respected. Apparently there were also "several pamphlets that contain questionable statistics from questionable sources". I guess sticking to the real facts just isn't a good enough way to get their message across.
ReplyDeleteAll things considered, it sounds like the group was just asking to get banned regardless of the message that they were promoting.
The article was also very vague on what it meant when it stated "pro-choice students stormed the gathering.", it could've been anything really. From several students who respectfully went to the meeting asking them to take it off campus, to several rouge students who went in and made it impossible to conduct the meeting.
Also, I like how you felt the need to change "pro-choice" to "pro-abortion" at the end of your comment, stay classy!
So you're saying the University is allowing them to have their meetings off campus? Well, how generous of them! How exactly does the university have any jurisdiction outside the university anyway? That's like saying the guy down the street is "allowing" me to have a picnic on my own property. It doesn't even make sense. The University is not the king of the whole country. How does that statement even make any sense whatsoever?
ReplyDeleteAlso, these pro-choice students weren't personally attacked, they weren't harassed, or anything else. They FELT harrased. How can you feel harassed? Obviously that's just another way of saying the group opposed abortion which made them uncomfortable. Either you are harrased or you're not, you can't just claim to "feel" harassed.
What are these questionable statistics, and what questionable sources? They're not wrong, not false, just "questionable". Who's questioning them? Even if these weren't 100% true, since when is that a criterium for expelling a group from campus? They're not an academic group. They're just a group of like-minded individuals. This is just an example of bias.
About the pro-choice students "storming" the meeting. I'm sorry, but unless the writer of article has no knowledge of English, there's no way he was talking about respectfully asking them to take it off campus. Respectfully asking for something is not "storming" and calling it storming would be completely wrong and the opposite of the true meaning. It would be like saying Person A yelled at Person B, but what really happened is he whispered. Give me a break. It seems the only REAL source of harasment is coming from the pro-choice group.
Pro-abortion is a more accurate word to describe the pro-choice side. Pro-choice are people who advocate having legal abortion in a country. Choice is simply a very vague word, and used for the purpose of confusion. For example, people who support guns are called pro-gun, they wouldn't be called "pro-choice". "You can choose to have a gun or not". Pro-choice is extremely vague and can apply to absolutely anything. They are not in favour of a choice in any area. They are specifically in favour of legal abortion, so they are pro-abortion. Pro-abortion obviously doesn't mean they would demand that everyone who gets pregnant have an abortion. They are simply in favour of the concept of abortion if people want to use it. If someone said they wanted the option to have slaves, they wouldn't be called pro-choice, they would be called pro-slavery. Pro-abortion sounds bad because people don't like abortion, but "choice" sounds so much nicer.
You're taking the first bit totally out of context. -1 for you.
ReplyDeleteYes, FELT. Your whole argument there is just total non-sense and you know it. -1 for you.
Definition of questionable: Problematic; open to doubt or challenge; Of dubious respectability or morality. -1 for you.
There are several meanings to the word "storming", and in this case the one you want to fit probably doesn't. Also, when you use the term "pro-choice group" I hope you're doing so loosely, because I strongly doubt that there was a pro-choice group in this university in the same sense that there was a pro-life group. -1 for you.
As for your last argument. I'm pro me, and other forms of life, being alive, but I'm also pro women having a choice in regards what to do to their body. So can I use the term "pro-life" to describe myself, or not? See the flaw in your argument? -1 for you.
Also, please address the rest of my argument which you conventionality omitted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUTPhZmkIDI
ReplyDelete