Lifting The Barrel ...

Just when you think you've found the bottom depths that humanity can descend to, someone lifts up the barrel and shows you what's squirming underneath.

Of particular note is a link to a conversation from a Quiverfull movement message board talking about Dr. Tiller's assassination last Sunday. (Do not follow that link unless you have a strong stomach for the kind of bilious rhetoric that gave Roeder the excuse he needed to justify killing someone)

However, they underscore my point for me from back here - namely that there is a collective responsibility from the ranks of the "pro-life" movement for Dr. Tiller's murder.

The flaccid "I condemn but ..." statements from the more publicly visible parts of the pro-life movement, and the utterly insane commentary on that message board serve as an indictment of a movement that has inspired others to kill in its name previously.

It is past time for the "Pro Life" movement to look at its own bloody rhetoric and imagery, and take stock of the implications of how they have argued their "righteous beliefs". If that is how they intend to continue to conduct themselves (and I include Calgary's own "Campus Pro Life" crowd in this), then it is high time that society hold these groups collectively responsible for inciting violence.

There is a fine line between civil disobedience and provoking murderous violence, and the collective "pro life" lobby has arguably stepped over it.

H/T JJ @ Unrepentant Old Hippie
and
Sabina at Hollow Hill

Oh, Boo Hoo!

I see that the University of Calgary decided to be consistent in their response to Campus Pro-Life's latest antics.

University security guards handed trespassing notices yesterday to the activists and collected their contact information.

I hope that the University lays further trespassing charges against these twits ... and bans them from campus permanently (and yes, that includes yanking their privileges as students).

Enough is enough.

Campus Pro-Life: Not Getting It

I see the snivelling little twits at Campus Pro-Life have repeated the mistake that they made last November.

Campus security officers have warned that members of Campus Pro-Life could face more trespassing charges, but that doesn't worry Leah Hallman, one of six people who has pleaded not guilty to trespassing charges stemming for setting up the display in November.

"If we view that our actions are just actions and that what we are doing is not wrong, then we should continue to conduct ourselves in the manner that we always have," Hallman said on Wednesday.

I'd love to know how much CCBR is paying to fund the legal bills that these students are racking up. We already know that they provide the signage to Campus Pro-Life, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if this same bunch are prodding Campus Pro-Life members to do more in the name of "free speech".

What they are doing is not "just" in any sense of the word. What they are doing is propagating an intellectually dishonest argument in the most inflammatory way possible. This isn't just, it's propaganda.

Brit Aberle, who held a pro-choice sign across from the anti-abortion display on Wednesday, said members of Campus Pro-Life have the right to voice their opinion but the way they do it crosses a line.

"They use really graphic images and appropriate the struggles of Jewish folks and the Rawandan genocide. I have talked to many Jewish and Rawandan people and they don't want their histories being used for this."

I hope the judge hearing their current case throws the book at this bunch. It's clear that they just don't get it.

So ... Where Are The Free Speech Advocates?

I'm finding it quite suspicious how silent the so-called advocates of 'Free Speech' are being over Ottawa Transit's decision not to allow Bus advertisements with atheist themes to be be run.

After the hue and cry over Campus Pro Life in Calgary, or perhaps Ezra LeRant's ongoing screeching, one might think that some of these people might speak out about this - which is really little different than what they've been complaining about in many respects.

Of course, if they were being honest with us, they'd admit that they really aren't about 'free speech' - they're about 'freedom of their speech', without regard to anybody else. This is the very crux of the matter that I have addressed in numerous articles on this blog - freedom of speech has limits and boundaries.

Learning Moments

University is about learning. Make no mistake about it - for those who choose to spend four or more years of their lives toiling away writing an endless stream of exams, term papers and assignments, University is a place where much is learned.

Not just in the classroom though. University is the place where many young men and women also learn to take responsibility for themselves and their actions. Whether it is the choice to attend a lecture (or not), or to work during the school year to pay for sundries like food, choices and trade-offs must be made. Sometimes, one gets it right; other times, well, it's a miss; and hopefully, the misses aren't too disastrous.

Such is the case today for Campus Pro Life.

They made their choices, and now the consequences are coming home to roost. They chose to be confrontational and uncompromising. Now they are facing consequences from all sides - the UofC itself has asked that trespass charges be laid; and the Student's Union has now voted to sanction the group as well.

I'm not feeling overly sympathetic to Campus Pro Life's position in this matter. Not because I disagree with their philosophy, but because they chose this path in the full knowledge that it could have serious implications for them.

They now collectively find themselves on the receiving end of quite a life lesson - I hope that they learn it well.

U of C Campus Pro Life Charged With Trespass

So, members of the U of C "Campus Pro Life" group have charged with trespassing.

To those of us who had our eyes open, this comes as no surprise. The U of C hinted quite loudly in November that this was a possibility...and rightly so - as the lands are University property.

Of course, over at Wingnut Central, this is a horrible affront:

Leah Hallman, president of CPL, stated today in an interview with LifeSiteNews that the students were "shocked" when they received the court summons, but added that "we did have an idea that it was coming."

"We're disappointed in the university," she said. Hallman said that CPS expects that six students in total will receive the summons, but that the summons have only been gradually coming in over the past week and a half.

Since 2006, the GAP, which includes large color photographs of abortion and compares abortion to other past genocides, has been set up on campus six times without incident. In 2006 and 2007, the University had protected the club’s right to put up the display under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Without incident? Hmmm...I doubt it. So I went over to the Gauntlet's website to see what had been reported in the student newspaper, and did a quick archive search to see what the response was to past Campus Pro Life poster campaigns.

Sure enough, it's been contentious in the past as well - and far from "without incident":

2005 - General objections to linking the Holocaust to Abortion - gee, big surprise there.

2005 - Editorial objecting to the presentation

2005 - Pulls the plug on their campaign because of restrictions

2005 (Spring) Campus Pro-Life Runs Afoul of Campus Security

2006 - Campus Pro Life whining about negotiations with University Administration

2007 - Pro-Life demonstration met with counter protesters

... and we all know what happened in 2008.

Without incident? I think not.

Reality here is that there is a learning moment to be applied. These people need to learn to respect the fact that the University is responsible for the lands of its campus. People who wish to raise controversial, or even spurious, campaigns can expect to be held responsible for their actions...including what they do on University property.

Act in a civil and mutually respectful manner, and you're far more likely to get a receptive audience.

Free Speech is not an Absolute Right

Following up on yesterday's post about an anti-abortion group at the University of Calgary's fight with University administration, I hear this morning on CBC the meme about how a Charter Right is being abrogated.

Well, that would almost be true - except that CPL's campaign happens to take place on University property. There are some 20,000 students on that campus, plus faculty and staff. The University has to be scrupulously careful about the rights of all of those 20,000 odd denizens of Campus.

If, for example, the student GLBT organization on campus, GLASS, were to put up a campaign of 4' x 8' signage that featured graphic homosexual erotica as its primary imagery, I can only imagine that the CPL organization's members would be at the forefront screaming about how inappropriate and offensive GLASS's campaign is. ... and they'd be quite right.

We already have a pretty good idea what CPL wants to put up, and it is in the same category.

Yes, to a point, they are protected under S2b. of the Charter which reads:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

But, just as the example I mentioned above would be considered 'over the line', so are the tactics of many in the so-called "pro life" lobby. The University has always reserved the right to limit student protests that are offensive or otherwise infringe upon the rights of others - including the right to go from point to point on campus without feeling like you have to 'run the gauntlet' - which is certainly how I've felt when I've had to go past CPL's displays before.

I applaud CPL's members for having ideals and speaking out for them. Now it's time that they learned how to speak their piece in a manner that is respectful of the other citizens of the University community.

Hyperbolize Much?

So, the University of Calgary won't permit a student 'pro life' organization to display their signage on campus.

Of course, the wingnuts (including the students) are busy squawking about the evil empire's censorship of them.

However, the university is justifying its censorship of the pro-life display because of anonymous complaints, and claims that the display could provoke violent reactions. However, there have been no such incidents on the previous five occasions the display has been shown on campus.

"Banning an event because of the possibility of someone else being violent towards it, is like telling women they are not allowed to walk on campus at night because of the possibility they may be sexually assaulted," stated Leah Halllman, president of CPL.

Well, one can discuss and debate a well reasoned position. Unfortunately, this particular little "campaign" is about comparing abortion to genocide - with large, excessively graphic images is hardly a reasoned position. Claiming that abortion is a form of genocide is hyperbole in the extreme to begin with - almost to the point of being histrionics.

Reinforcing the point with large, graphic images is simply offensive. Abortion is a surgical procedure, and the human body is a surprisingly messy creation to start with. Most people would cringe at the aftermath of any surgery - including oral surgery to remove wisdom teeth. Why would we be surprised that the remains of a surgical procedure are anything but messy?

I would argue that CPL needs to rethink its campaign. If a movie promoter put out images as graphic as that for their latest splatter flick, nobody would post them. What makes them think that anybody wants to look at large, excessively graphic images for their campaign?

It wasn't that long ago that I happened to be on the U of C's campus when CPL had their signage up - it was beyond revolting at the time. The broader community on campus simply stayed away from the area. (and yes, the signage was big enough that it wouldn't be hard for someone to hide around it - making the area a hazard for students passing through in the evening hours) Is CPL willing to pay for the additional costs that the University would incur to have extra security around those signs - especially in off hours? I doubt it.

Lastly, the University has every right to insist on student campaigns having a certain level of decorum about them, as well as a certain level of respect for others on campus. CPL is not demonstrating anything close to that level of respect, nor have they ever done so in the past.

CPL's cries of "censorship" are ridiculous hyperbole, just like the "abortion is genocide" meme. You might try coming up with a civilized position that can be debated - nobody wants to "debate" with screaming loons.