The Battle to Defend Life on University Campuses
By Karen Young

Over the past several months, pro-life university students on several Canadian campuses have been denied official status as pro-life clubs.. 
           
The pro-life club at the University of British Columbia’s Okanagan campus was denied club status when the Student’s Association decided to allow the student body to vote on the question.  Unfortunately, the pro-life group was denied any way of advertising the vote, as only groups with club status can put up posters, hand out pamphlets and promote events on campus.    
           
In Ontario, Carleton University’s pro-life club, Carleton Lifeline, applied for club status in September.  In order to receive club status members of the applying group must attend a certification meeting in September.  Each of the groups that applied for club status were sent an e-mail informing them of the certification, except Lifeline.  As a result, members of Lifeline attended a Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA) council meeting on October 26, 2006 to appeal for club status and were denied.  At the end of the meeting, members of Lifeline were assured they were not denied club status because of their ‘ideological differences’ and were encouraged to reapply in January. 
           
Since then, however, CUSA’s Vice-President Katy McIntyre has introduced a motion that if passed would make it  impossible for Lifeline to be approved.  The motion to  amend the Carleton Campus Policy on Discrimination would resolve that: “1) CUSA and CUSA Inc. respect and affirm a woman’s right to choose. 2) No CUSA resources, space, recognition or funding be allocated for anti-choice purposes.”  The motion also states that groups with a pro-life mandate “compromise the personal safety and threaten the self esteem of women who may contemplate abortion or have chosen to have an abortion.”
           
According to Katy McIntrye, she tabled the motion as a result of complaints she received from the Womyn’s Centre after a debate on abortion between Jojo Ruba from the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform and Tracy Davidson, director of Planned Parenthood Ottawa and Jeanette Doucet, Canadians for Choice, was held on campus.   Over 200 people attended the debate and both sides had equal opportunity to present their sides of the abortion issue. 
           
Interestingly, the Executive Coordinator of CUSA, James Pratt, sent off an e-mail requesting help from Joyce Arthur, president of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (which eventually forwarded its way into the LifeCanada office).  At the beginning of his e-mail James states that “Lifeline Ottawa hosted an event on campus that was typical anti-choice fearmongering and intimidation … since the tabling of the motion, the anti-choice forces have engaged in a widespread harassment and intimidation campaign.  We’ve been bombarded with emails from across the continent, veiled threatening messages left on our answering machines and a disinformation campaign about religious rights.” 
           
In his e-mail to Joyce, James also incorrectly states that Ottawa Lifeline applied for club status only after the debate on campus, when in fact they had applied at least a month and a half before the debate took place.
           
So what is at stake …
           
In an article published in the National Post, Sarah Fletcher, the President of Carleton Lifeline is quoted as saying she “fears the motion will pass, denying her group’s members fair representation by the body elected to represent them. ‘[CUSA is] taking a pro-choice stand and if you disagree with them, then you don’t have the right to express your view within their space … the student council is supposed to be representative of all the students at Carleton.  To assume that all the students agree with the pro-life ideology is ignorant.’”
           
In the same National Post article, Randall Hansen, a political science professor at the University of Toronto talks about the intolerance inherent in the passage of such a motion.  Randall is quoted as saying “It strikes me, though I am thoroughly pro-choice myself, as an absolutely ludicrous proposal.  The university is the one environment where a range of views should be tolerated.”  Randall also comments that “it is common … for groups claiming to support free speech to be ‘brutally intolerant of anyone who doesn’t support their views.’”
           
Those in favour of CUSA’s motion, including many of the council members, do not see it as limiting or denying anyone’s freedom of speech.  In an article in Ottawa Citizen on December 1, 2006, Melissa Mancini makes a very good argument.  She says that while CUSA claims it is not trying to stifle debate she doesn’t “see how this could possibly be true.  Yes, students are still allowed to assemble at other places on campus that are not CUSA space, but if these groups are not allowed to stand on the same platforms with the same opportunities as pro-choice groups, then the debate no longer exists.”  
           
Online polls conducted by both a local talk radio show in Ottawa, CFRA, and Carleton’s student newspaper, the Charlatan, found most people in support of the pro-life group.  CFRA, asked listeners the following question: “Should Carleton University's students association restrict the activities of a pro-life group on campus?”  76.6% of those who voted replied no because it is “an issue of freedom of speech.”
           
The question now is, will CUSA listen to the voices of the majority and vote against the motion or will they enshrine their own pro-choice bias into the very fabric of their policies?

                      *                                                         *                                                          *

On December 5, 2006, CUSA voted in favour of a revised motion.  The new motion stated that the student association would not support “actions such as campaigns, distributions, solicitations, lobbying efforts, displays, events, etc. that seek to limit or remove a woman’s options in the event of pregnancy.”
           
The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) has offered to represent Lifeline if they launch a Human Rights Complaint.   EFC may also take action against CUSA to prevent them from implementing their new policy. 

Karen Young is the Office Manager of LifeCanada.