By Wei Wu, Contributor
On Oct. 30, pro-life demonstrators stood by L.R. Wilson Hall carrying signs with images of aborted fetuses. It is not clear whether the demonstrators were students at McMaster, or whether they had connections to any existing clubs.
According to Michael Coutu, a student at McMaster, the demonstrators exposed passersby to their signs and distributed pamphlets, which contained graphic images of aborted fetuses. Coutu is concerned about whether the demonstrators received clearance to be on campus.
“Although they were not particularly loud or disruptive, I still found the images and rhetoric being spread very concerning and ill-advised,” said Coutu.
Students have raised their concerns online regarding the contrast between the Oct. 30 situation to the May 11 protest during May at Mac, in which student activists were ticketed for trespassing during a peaceful protest that criticized McMaster regarding a range of issues. One of the issues was sexual abuse within student organizations such as the Maroons.
Initially, the May at Mac demonstrators did not provide identification when asked to do so by security and were asked to leave. However, some of these individuals returned and continued their demonstration later on, which resulted in them being ticketed for trespassing.
Mac Daily News released an update after May 11, stating that university security had been working with limited information at the time. According to this update, security had approached the May at Mac protestors because of complaints from community members about the protestors’ pamphlets, which included “unsubstantiated allegations” made against a named McMaster student. Still, the update referred to the method of ticketing as “regrettable and unfortunate”. The university stated they would take steps to rescind tickets and clear them from the students’ records.
The juxtaposition between how the university approached the protests of May 11 and Oct. 30 — initially issuing trespassing tickets and charges for one group but not the other — raises questions regarding the limits of protesting on campus and the types of images that are allowed to be publicized on campus.
In a statement on freedom of expression, McMaster University clearly states that it supports the freedom of expression of all its members, as well as freedom of association and peaceful assembly for all of its members. The university affirms that members of the McMaster community have the right to exchange ideas, challenge received wisdom, engage in respectful debate, discuss controversial issues and engage in peaceful protest.
So long as students do not infringe on the rights and freedoms of others, students are free to host and participate in demonstrations at McMaster. Members of the McMaster community are not required to obtain permission from the university administration in order to protest or demonstrate on campus.
Although the demonstration on Oct. 30 touched upon a highly sensitive topic that some individuals may have found deeply disturbing, university policy protects the right to share their beliefs and engage in public discourse at McMaster.
“Other images, even though we might not agree with them, we might not find them agreeable, would be allowed and permitted. That’s part of the freedoms of expression the university campus has,” said Gord Arbeau, McMaster’s Director of Communications, adding that he did not know about the pro-life demonstration.
McMaster maintains that it supports freedom of expression and peaceful protests on campus.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
The McMaster Students Union recognizes over 350 clubs. According to the MSU Clubs page, the purpose of these clubs is to “provide an insightful and meaningful contribution to the McMaster and Hamilton community.”
Being a MSU recognized club affords certain privileges including being eligible for funding from the MSU. This funding comes directly from the MSU organizational fee, a $130.26 fee that all full-time undergraduate students pay. Within this fee, $8.02 are collected per student to support MSU clubs.
As students are paying for the operations of these clubs, the MSU has a responsibility to ensure that these clubs are not deliberately sharing and promoting misinformation that can be harmful to students.
McMaster Lifeline is the pro-life group on campus. Their mission statement is “to advocate with loving care the legal rights and social support of pregnant women and their unborn children.”
While the presence of a pro-life group on campus is already cause for controversy, the issue at hand is not solely the groups’ existence but that they use student space and resources to share information that is factually incorrect.
The group can often be found at a table in the McMaster University Student Centre, a privilege of being a MSU club, spreading scientifically false information on abortions and reproductive health. In addition to misinformation, the group is known for distributing graphic and potentially triggering images.
Groups like McMaster Lifeline should not be given a platform by the MSU to disseminate false information about individuals’ health.
Namely, the group fails to state that abortions are safe, medical procedures that are fully legal in Canada. Instead, they spread the false rhetoric that “abortions are never medically necessary”, which is simply a lie.
In fact, any student-run group on campus does not really have the credentials to provide healthcare information or advice to students. Abortion is a serious topic that should be discussed with a healthcare professional who can provide factual, non-judgemental information, not with students who some of which have “no experience engaging with people on the topic.”
The MSU should be cautious in ratifying clubs that provide this type of information, as the results can be extremely harmful to students.
With over 350 clubs, it can be difficult for the MSU to ensure that operations of each of their clubs are aligned with the core goal of supporting students. However, that is not an excuse for allowing this behaviour to occur.
Multiple students have on many occasions voiced their concerns against these clubs’ actions. The MSU failing to take action blatantly goes against their responsibility towards their student constituents.
The MSU Clubs Operating Policy states that the MSU “will not attempt to censor, control or interfere with any existing MSU club on the basis of its philosophy, beliefs, interests or opinions expressed until these lead to activities which are illegal or which infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others”.
Due to this policy, on March 22, pro-choice students who were protesting McMaster Lifeline’s table in MUSC were removed and not allowed to distribute pro-choice pamphlets. A claimed “victory for free speech on campus” by the MSU only served to help promote the misinformation on campus.
While the actions of McMaster Lifeline may not be illegal, they certainly are harmful to students and may actually be violating the Clubs Judicial Policy, stated under the MSU Clubs Operating Policy.
Specifically, their actions may be considered to “unnecessarily cause a significant nuisance for an individual or group” (5.1.1.3), have “conduct unbecoming of an MSU club” (5.1.2.7) and most importantly, actions that “unnecessarily jeopardize the safety or security of any person or property” (5.1.3.3).
If the MSU truly wishes to provide a meaningful contribution to the McMaster and Hamilton community, it can begin with properly investigating clubs that may be found guilty of any offences described by the Clubs Judicial Policy. Only then can they truly ensure that their clubs support and protect McMaster students.
If students do wish to learn about their options with respect to their reproductive health, the Student Wellness Centre offers birth control counselling. If a student wishes to speak in a more informal setting, the MSU Student Health Education Centre offers relevant literature, referrals and peer support.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
The pro-life club on campus claims that it aims to “inspire students at McMaster to think honestly about ethical issues in order to make informed judgements for themselves.” Yet, some of their posters are clearly directed at people with uteruses and the ability to get pregnant who would ever consider an abortion, as well as the idea of bodily autonomy. These sorts of displays go against their club’s mission statement to provide an avenue to make ‘‘informed decisions’’ for themselves.
The recent events have sparked debate on the extent of freedom of speech at Mac and whether we should allow groups that attack women’s rights to express their view in the ways that they do.
Philosophical discussion around personhood is fine, but direct emotional attacks on women which could prove even more damaging for people who have undergone abortions, go beyond the academic nature the club claims to embrace. The club recently organized an event featuring a speaker from the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, an organization responsible for putting up gruesome signs on highways and funding “pro-life trucks” with images of aborted fetuses.
Who the club chooses to associate itself with tells us something about the intentions of their advocacy. The CCBR has constantly attacked the notion of ‘‘choice,’’ even claiming that “pro-choice is no choice.”
Pro-life organizations in Canada hide behind free speech to justify putting signs on bridges and holding them up on sidewalks. It might be hard to tell them to get out of public spaces and to stop harassing women with their signs, but whether this is the case on a university campus is another question.
To be clear, I’m not advocating for the silencing of these groups, or for their ability to do and say whatever they want. Our discourse around the freedom of expression around these issues has to be unpacked before any judgements are made.
Freedom of speech isn’t an absolute right in Canada. It says so in Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The government can put into place laws that limit freedom of speech as long as these limits are deemed justified and reasonable. And it’s the Supreme Court of Canada that decides what these vague words really mean. Laws against hate propaganda and defamation are some examples that the Supreme Court has deemed to be reasonable limits to the freedom of expression of Canadians.
The phrase “freedom of speech” is thrown around every time someone questions whether certain groups or people should be allowed to express their view openly even if it causes harm to someone else. The simplest form of this argument goes: what would we be as a democratic society if we didn’t allow people to voice their opinions?
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, a legal advocacy group for constitutional rights in Canada, has represented a number of pro-life clubs who have sued their schools for not allowing controversial anti-choice posters to be put up. The JCCF puts out a ranking of universities and student unions based on freedom of speech every year. This year McMaster scored a B in policy and a D in practice, and the McMaster Students Union scored a C in policy and a D in practice. These scores should not be taken at face value. In reading the report issued by the JCCF, it becomes clear that this organization sees freedom of expression as an unlimited right. It condemns McMaster and the MSU for standing by anti-discriminatory policies put in place to create a safe environment, and claims that this indicates MSU’s lack of commitment to free speech.
But it is this sort of thinking that makes the lines between free speech and hateful or harmful speech hard to draw. According to the JCCF, any consideration for hate speech takes away from an institution’s free speech. Is this really the case? The JCCF uses the example of the MSU not allowing a club to put up a poster they thought had questionable information. Does the MSU’s decision in this case say anything about their commitment to free speech, or does it say something about their commitment to not misinform the student body and maintain a comfortable environment?
A similar argument can be made for the infamous “Immigration Watch Canada” group. The organization sends out offensive flyers attacking immigrant communities mostly of Southeast Asian origin. They gave out flyers at York University last year and around Brampton over the summer.
Although none of these posters are explicitly pushing a white supremacist message, they are xenophobic, racist and hateful. Yet, the organization is still allowed to exist in Canada. Why? The argument can be made that it is their right under ‘‘freedom of speech’’ to express this view. Yet, any reasonable person will agree that there is something ethically questionable about this statement. The right of immigrants and visible minorities to not have hateful messages spread about their communities should trump Immigration Watch Canada’s right to express their views.
So what do we value more: a group’s ability to express itself with the aim to take away someone’s rights, or creating a safe space that promotes discussion but censors harassment?
[adrotate banner="6"]
On Nov. 6, pro-choice protestors disrupted a session hosted by McMaster Lifeline, a pro-life club on campus.
The talk, titled “Abortion: Reproductive or Human Rights?” invited Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform representative Maaike Rosendal to present a scientific case for the pro-life perspective. However, before the presentation began, pro-choice protestors interrupted the session with various prepared dialogues, ranging from comments on abortion in animals to unrelated facts.
Rafaella Shammas, president of McMaster Lifeline, expressed her disappointment in a statement to The Silhouette.
“The purpose of the event was to raise awareness about the humanity of the pre-born and the inhumane nature of abortion... while we expected some opposition at the presentation, we were disappointed that many of those who call themselves pro-choice seemed to have no problem with taking the choices of others away,” she said.
Protestors also brought cowbells and harassed attendees with silly string, many of whom were pro-choice advocates. Campus police initially arrived half an hour after the event start time, but left after being ignored by the protestors. Although several protestors dispersed before the police returned, the most disruptive individuals were escorted out around an hour after the presentation had been scheduled to begin.
“We are certainly aware that the issues we bring to light on campus are often sensitive and even controversial, but we believe that a university, the so-called marketplace of ideas, is where we ought to be able to engage each other on important topics such as abortion,” Shammas said.
Hannah Zou, a third-year Health Sciences student and pro-choice supporter, attended the event after having had previous discussions with Shammas at their table in the Student Centre.
“They really wanted to see the other side without being attacked, and still have their point of view listened to,” said Zou.
“At first, there was a full room of people, and I thought, ‘oh gosh, I’m going to be overwhelmed by all these pro-life people,’ but there were a lot of protesters there,” she continued. “There was a [pro-choice] poster next to me, and I thought, ‘hey, people are actually open to come to these presentations and see what the other side is about, and I was really proud of that.”
As a pro-choice supporter, Zou expressed her frustration with the protestors when she was trying to listen.
“It kind of pissed me off,” she said. “We’re trying to have a discussion, because that’s how you solve problems; what they did, I don’t think it did anything whatsoever for their cause.”
The presentation was eventually able to continue, and both Zou and Shammas said it was a respectful discussion among the remaining audience members. However, as the second of two protests that day, the question remains as to what students are and aren’t allowed to do.
Cathy O’Donnell, Senior Manager and Staff Sergeant with McMaster Security Services, explained the protocol.
“Our approach is always to have free speech, for both sides. But we also want people to be able to speak their own opinions without being interrupted,” she said.
“[When] it’s disruptive to the other group or disrespectful to the other group, then we really need to start looking at students’ rights and conduct for community living, to make sure we can all live in the same area.”
[adrotate banner="6"]
By: Amber Faith Miller
To begin, you should know that I'm a third year student studying English and Theatre and Film. While I enjoy my program for the most part, some of my classes make me feel uncomfortable.
In mandatory film classes, I've been assaulted by disgusting images without warning. I had no way to protect myself from visual and emotional disturbances brought on by razor blades and guttural screaming. What would possess a professor to actually force students to experience this? My professors use these films as examples of contemporary art. In other words, I have to sit through the good or bad gruesome scenes for the sake of higher learning. I'm sure you could think of a time when an idea, image or activity in class made you feel uneasy. How do we deal with course content that we don't like but cannot avoid?
Sometimes, when faced with an image or idea that they don't like, some people choose to protest, and that's good. The great thing about university is that varying opinions can coexist peacefully, and even interact respectfully.
How does one engage in productive discourse with an argument that they don't approve of? It starts with acknowledging the person before judging their opinion. Imagine how dignified our debates would be if we actually listened to understand our opponent, instead of cutting them down while trying to have the last word. We are losing our ability to debate with friends, and our ability to stay friends with people whose ideas differ from our own.
"What do you think about abortion?" I genuinely want to know. It's okay if your opinion differs from mine; the important thing is that we respect each other, while holding firm to our core values.
This past Thursday Oct. 9, McMaster Lifeline's information table was set up in hopes of sparking a good conversation. Pro-choice advocates began to protest at the table beside us, which generated even more buzz. We engaged passers-by in interesting discussions focused on basic biology and human rights. Unfortunately, not all the protesters were willing to engage in any discussion about abortion. Instead, they summed up their views in four-word phrases and had some choice words to speak about the pro-lifers next to them, including the phrase "f--- these people."
"They have fetuses!" You probably don't hear this phrase very often, unless you're a medical student. As a group advocating for human rights, we show plastic models of humans in their earliest stages of development, from blastocyst to embryo to fetus. These 3D models by no means depict a gruesome image, but are a tool for learning how the pre-born develop in the uterus over the span of nine months.
If any of the pro-choice protestors wanted to know where we got these models, we gladly would have told them. Yet, they refused to speak with us, or even look at the images they were protesting. This makes me wonder whether these protestors wished to teach us or shame us.
You may disagree with some or all of the things I said in this article, but thank you for reading it regardless. I heard once that "everyone [in Canada] has the freedom of speech, but that doesn't give one the right to be heard." Expression of opinions and active listening are invaluable tools for expanding our horizons as students, and making our campus a true medium for free speech.
Randall Andrejciw
The Silhouette
Like many, I was shocked and disgusted when I saw the poster of a freshly aborted fetus that the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform displayed on the Lincoln Alexander Parkway during the evening rush hour on Sept. 17. The news that this group showed these pictures outside of Sherwood Secondary School on Sept. 25 – in view of a nearby elementary school – brought the same reaction. I suppose this means that the photos had their desired effect; it caused people to notice it and be shocked at the degree of violence that the fetus had suffered.
It is interesting, and somewhat backward, that this group and others use images of violent death to get their “pro-life” message across. Even within the pro-life community, the use of images of aborted fetuses has generated debate, some arguing that those images are the cold, dead truth. They say that pictures of death are the most effective way of communicating a pro-life message; that is, an abortion ban.
And herein lays the problem. The goal of the pro-life movement is not solely to ban abortion as it exists in our culture today, although the media would certainly have us believe that. The pro-life movement’s stated goal is to create a culture where human life, from conception to natural death, is recognized as the most fundamental human right and legally protected as such. Groups that use grisly images only confuse the message of the larger pro-life movement. They only put a negative spin on what should be a positive message.
But why is there so much emotional reaction to the pictures? After all, this is Canada, where the abortion debate was settled in 1988. The progressive side just bullies all opponents into submission and sometimes misleads the public in order to obtain their goal of a free and open society. If anything, photos of aborted fetuses should be shown by pro-choice groups as a trophy of their victory, to show what a progressive, open country they have singlehandedly shaped us into. Right?
I doubt it. Like it or not, the debate about abortion is far from settled. The emotional reactions inspired by the pictures of aborted fetuses at Sherwood and The Linc are a microcosm of Canadians’ feelings about abortion. An Ipsos Reid poll conducted in 2012 found that 62% of female respondents supported the introduction of a law that places limits on when a woman can have an abortion during her pregnancy. Dr. Henry Morgentaler saw “serious ethical problems” with late term abortions, saying that “we want to abort fetuses before they become babies.” Justin Trudeau, whose father decriminalized abortion in Canada, tweeted “Now I’m getting guff from (abortion advocates) because I said I don’t like abortion. Does anyone who’s pro-choice, as I am, really LIKE abortion?”
Regardless of what position one takes, the abortion debate is one worth having. With every passing year, the decision to remove all abortion laws from Canada’s books appears more and more short-sighted and a reaction designed to placate pro-choice activists, who were more militant than their pro-life counterparts and got their way. The display of aborted fetuses, while ill-advised and not effective for pro-lifers, serves to stir up debate – a debate that many Canadians would prefer to be seen as settled, even though it is anything but.
