I fully support a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion because I believe in the right to choose. For that same reason, I also respect the right of pro-life groups to demonstrate against abortion in the places other clubs demonstrate.
However, the Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA) has undermined reciprocation of “the right to choose” (to be demonstrably pro-life), and a question in this year’s March 20-21 referendum sought to further entrench an already hypocritical discrimination policy.
Discriminating and “infringing on the right to choose” is exactly what CUSA is doing by denying legitimacy and funding to pro-life student groups.
On page 33 of CUSA’s policies, CUSA “affirms that 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. As such, no CUSA resources, space, recognition or funding will be allocated for the purpose of promoting these actions.”
That policy, filed, ironically, under “Discrimination on Campus Policy,” essentially says pro-life student groups are banned from maintaining any material presence on campus.
The implied accusation is that pro-life campus groups’ demonstrations somehow infringe on a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion, when they’re really only putting forth an argument — just like the activists who stage counter-demonstrations against the pro-life crowds.
We should all have the right to openly disagree. That’s healthy. But it isn’t always pretty.
This new referendum question, which sought to ban “events and displays that use inaccurate information and violent images to discourage women from exploring all options in the event of pregnancy from Carleton University campus,” has been framed by proponents as strictly a “campus safety” issue, particularly because at least one person fainted in 2010 after witnessing graphic images used by Carleton Lifeline’s demonstration.
While I defend the pro-life groups’ right to demonstrate, I don’t look forward to seeing doctored photos of fetuses when I cross the atrium, and non-graphic warnings should be posted in areas approaching the demonstration so people who want to can avoid it. It wouldn’t be unprecedented to take a different path a few times a year: like many students, I’ve already developed alternate routes to circumvent CUSA candidates’ own relentless solicitation and electioneering.
If other people want to exercise their rights by waving gruesome, inaccurate photos or insincere campaign propaganda, we reserve the right to respond or look away. I don’t need CUSA to decide for me what is “accurate information” or “violent imagery” because I can think for myself. Democratic involvement in the ban is superficial because CUSA ultimately ends up with the right of interpretation.
CUSA’s own constitution says it aims to create a social environment free from prejudice and defines prejudice as “any bias for or against any object or party resulting in any differential treatment.”
The aforementioned policy uses a thinly veiled reference to pro-life groups to more or less ban them from campus. This is discriminatory and prejudiced against the belief that abortions are wrong.
I don’t believe abortions are wrong, and I’m glad they’re legal, but I simply want to make sure we all have the right to openly disagree.
The American Civil Liberties Union, the first national organization to argue for abortion rights before the Supreme Court, says “the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive.” In a National Post article, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association pointed out that CUSA has “a duty to protect minority views.”
Pro-life groups can’t ban abortion for the same reason we can’t ban pro-life groups: because we should all have the right to choose and demonstrate our beliefs without the obstruction of discriminatory policies.
— Bardia Sinaee
third-year English
