Closed for debate
Pro-life student clubs are being shut out across the country
Harrison maintains that the students’ society is an independent body that had every right to deny YPY funding. And that’s exactly what Dixon hopes this case will change. He sees in the scuffle an opportunity to reverse a long-standing legal precedent set by the Supreme Court that universities are not subject to the same Charter of Rights and Freedoms strictures as government entities are. But a number of recent decisions suggests that the sands are shifting, and Dixon believes that, if tested in court, universities will be brought under the Charter. Since student union representatives sit on university governance boards, he hopes they will be seen as creatures intrinsic to the university, therefore also subject to the Charter.
Dixon will likely find a legal sparring partner in the UVic students’ society. In May last year, the Canadian Federation of Students—representing 500,000 students from 80 campuses—passed a motion encouraging members (including the UVic society) to deny resources and club status to “anti-choice organizations” and promising financial support should that result in legal action. But conflict over whether student unions have the right to shut down anti-abortion clubs has long simmered on campuses across the country. The student association at Capilano University was ordered to grant status to a pro-life club after the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal found pro-life students had been victims of discrimination. Student unions at McGill, Guelph, Lakehead, York, Carleton and other universities have also attempted to shut clubs down. And in 2008, the University of Calgary charged student members of a pro-life club with trespassing after they refused to remove graphic images from campus.
So far, Dixon hasn’t received any response to letters sent to the CFS, the UVic students’ society or the university itself, and he warns that the BCCLA doesn’t take kindly to being ignored. “My strong advice would be not to invite one of the most energetic, able and successful litigators in Canada to court,” he says, laughing and pointing out that the dispute boils down to $232. “Just write the cheque!”
Editor’s note: This post has been updated
page 1 page 2
As a UVic student and UVSS board member, here are a few clarifications to the situation:
Gray never actually made explicit comparisons of abortion to the holocaust during the debate–there were concerns she would, but nothing in her debate presentation actually made such a comparison. She did however, show a graphic video of the abortion procedure to the audience.
YPY was not denied status as a club, instead they were denied funding. They have access to all the the perks of a club–without the funding. That places us in a unique position in relation to most University Student Societies who have gone down the route of denigrating pro life clubs.
Finally, please note that I voted to fund YPY, so if you’re looking for someone to argue on this, it won’t be me. I just want to see some of the facts around this matter cleared up, because this article made quite a few factual errors.
Erin here. I just wanted to respond to Kelsey’s comment.
First, I believe that the article is more than clear that the dispute comes down to funding being denied, not club status. The article makes numerous references to funding and also notes that YPY was approved as a club by committee.
Secondly, the description of the event was based on two separate accounts.
Please email or comment if you believe there are further factual errors. I of course want to be as factual as possible.
I’m disappointed the Civil Liberties association is taking this on when there are far more worthy organizations that have been defunded by the federal government.
Honestly, no one has called for the anti-choice groups to have their right to freedom of expression under the Charter denied. Even if student unions were found to be bound under the Charter (which I doubt they will), they have not prohibited anyone from speaking; they have denied them money and free room bookings. These people can still send emails, create facebook groups, host events off-campus, raise money in other ways.
I feel this article tacitly endorses using student dollars to fund clubs that want to REMOVE the charter rights of others, namely the right of women to security of the person. That right was gained in R. v. Morgentaler, with the Supreme Court finally recognizing not allowing women the ability to control their reproduction represented a threat to their personal security. Student groups shouldn’t be funding organizations that want to strip other students of their constitutionally protected rights.
AMR is wrong in stating that student’s unions have not prohibited anyone from speaking. Search Youtube under pro-life McGill to find a very blatant example of what AMR asserts does not take place, taking place. And while abortion is no longer criminalised in this country, it is odd that simply talking about abortion is equated to stripping other students of “their rights”. There are any number of things in this country, that while not being illegal, stand to scrutiny. Censorship is the exercise here, and AMR is fooling no one.
Note to Erin Miller: You are lacking “Facts-” especially if you use David Foster as a source. Get some credibility, do some in-depth research, and hopefully present a comprehensive piece about this story. Your readers deserve it.
Also, mentioning the recent decision of the Supreme Court and UBC-O would give some good context… namely, that Student Unions have the right to choose whether or not to provide students money to clubs. UBC-o’s pro life group was denied club funding by their student union, -they appealed and took it all the way to the Supreme Court.. which upheld the ruling of the student union.