Last winter I wrote three columns about the erosion of free speech in Canada.
That’s scary stuff for those who publish or write for a living. If we make one false step and say something that offends certain minorities, they might complain to the federal Human Rights Commission or a provincial counterpart. The commissions, though designed to protect minorities from discrimination, have insinuated themselves into a censorship role and closed off open discussion of various issues.
An email memo, recently circulated by the Central Students Association (CSA) to the University of Guelph community, points out a second problem with regard to free speech and censorship. It makes it clear that people within the university feel they have the right to restrict free speech to protect their own position. The tone of the communication harks back to times where those in power denied free speech, be they fascist, communist, or divine-right emperors.
The memo deals with the pro-life versus pro-choice debate. Generally speaking, the term pro-life refers to a religious or philosophical position that opposes abortion and supports the rights of the unborn child. They argue the unborn child as a human being has as much right to live as anybody else.
Pro-choice arguments say that a woman should have complete control over her fertility and the choice to continue or terminate a pregnancy. Unfortunately, the memo uses the term “anti-choice,” a derogatory expression used by pro-choice people to describe those who do not agree with them.
In March, a club known as Life Choice and accredited by the CSA, held a “Life Fair” which featured speakers and distributed information that promoted the pro-life view. That offended the “official” pro-choice position held by the board of directors of the CSA. In reaction they withdrew the accreditation of the offending group. I suppose that some of the speakers or literature might have gone overboard in their presentations, because that often happens in debates about issues that deeply concern people. But appropriate response when you disagree with others should mean you counter their arguments; you don’t use your power to cut them off from further discussion. The memo says, “The CSA board of directors voted unanimously to not grant Life Choice club status for the fall semester.”
The CSA supports its position by pointing out that organizations within York University and the University of Toronto have also “taken this stance.” I would have hoped that the students of the University of Guelph would see themselves as leaders, not followers.
Please understand, in this column, I have not argued for the pro-life or the pro-choice position (although I certainly have an opinion). I have pointed out that an organization within a university that should be a bastion of free speech has used a jackboot approach to stop discussion.
Such an attitude runs contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The writers of that document recognized a common human failing: we all have a tendency to quash the expression of ideas that oppose our own. With that in mind, the Charter proclaims, “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms … freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.”
Young people attend universities to grow intellectually and socially. That should include an understanding that shutting down those who disagree violates Canadian law and culture.
Just imagine what might happen to free speech if certain students of Guelph, York, and Toronto assume our country’s leadership.