The Right To Protest
Comparing abortion to genocide? Using the Holocaust as a metaphor for abortion? Well, that, in and of itself is rather deplorable. Taking such liberties with the dread history of European Jewry under Nazi German occupation speaks volumes about the gross ignorance of those who make those comparisons. It appears beyond their understanding that in doing so they trivialize one of the most horribly signal events of modern history.
The truth is they are so despicably invested in their sense of moral outrage that society does largely accept the need for women to make their own personal choices over whether or not they will bear a child, when they are not prepared to do so for a myriad of reasons, that they have no compunction about using the memory of the Holocaust for their very own society-condemning purposes.
They are moral philistines, utterly bankrupt in their intentions and abuse of historical memory.
So it's really hard to feel even the remotest sympathy for university students who are so heavily invested in their campaign to shock through the use of horrific graphic images on huge posters they had intended to place within a heavily-travelled square in the centre of Carleton University. They may have a right to indulge in their free speech enterprise, but others have a right not to be confronted by nastily-conceived, manipulative images.
Carleton's administration made a reasonable enough attempt to accommodate the anti-abortion student activists by offering a less public venue where they could erect their posters and hand out their literature. Asking at the same time that the posters themselves be faced inward, toward each other, so as not to offend those for whom their presence would represent an unwanted and offensive indignity.
Carleton Lifeline, the anti-abortion group resident at the university insists on its right to present their Genocide Awareness Project. Where images of aborted fetuses are paired with graphic images of the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide. The activists rejected outright the university's offer to make space available to them inside a campus building.
"No one is stopping them from expressing their view on the issue of abortion or not permitting them to erect the display. We're just saying, 'If you're going to do it, you need to do it here in this room so that people have a choice if they wanted to see the images.' It's a bit of an artificial debate to suggest this is a free-speech issue." Carleton spokesman
"When there's content that may be graphic, it's not uncommon to have that in a place where people can choose whether or not they wanted to see it." Sensible and logical. But the Genocide Awareness Project has an agenda, a controversial one that has made news on university campuses across the country.
It is about freedom of speech, yes. But the issue is also about the right of an academic institution, Carleton University, to assess and determine where it will reasonably permit students and their special interests to portray their offensive material. The anti-abortion activists were given an opportunity that they chose not to accept.
Like abortion itself, it's a matter of choice.
The truth is they are so despicably invested in their sense of moral outrage that society does largely accept the need for women to make their own personal choices over whether or not they will bear a child, when they are not prepared to do so for a myriad of reasons, that they have no compunction about using the memory of the Holocaust for their very own society-condemning purposes.
They are moral philistines, utterly bankrupt in their intentions and abuse of historical memory.
So it's really hard to feel even the remotest sympathy for university students who are so heavily invested in their campaign to shock through the use of horrific graphic images on huge posters they had intended to place within a heavily-travelled square in the centre of Carleton University. They may have a right to indulge in their free speech enterprise, but others have a right not to be confronted by nastily-conceived, manipulative images.
Carleton's administration made a reasonable enough attempt to accommodate the anti-abortion student activists by offering a less public venue where they could erect their posters and hand out their literature. Asking at the same time that the posters themselves be faced inward, toward each other, so as not to offend those for whom their presence would represent an unwanted and offensive indignity.
Carleton Lifeline, the anti-abortion group resident at the university insists on its right to present their Genocide Awareness Project. Where images of aborted fetuses are paired with graphic images of the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide. The activists rejected outright the university's offer to make space available to them inside a campus building.
"No one is stopping them from expressing their view on the issue of abortion or not permitting them to erect the display. We're just saying, 'If you're going to do it, you need to do it here in this room so that people have a choice if they wanted to see the images.' It's a bit of an artificial debate to suggest this is a free-speech issue." Carleton spokesman
"When there's content that may be graphic, it's not uncommon to have that in a place where people can choose whether or not they wanted to see it." Sensible and logical. But the Genocide Awareness Project has an agenda, a controversial one that has made news on university campuses across the country.
It is about freedom of speech, yes. But the issue is also about the right of an academic institution, Carleton University, to assess and determine where it will reasonably permit students and their special interests to portray their offensive material. The anti-abortion activists were given an opportunity that they chose not to accept.
Like abortion itself, it's a matter of choice.
Labels: Canada, Human Relations, Ottawa
posted by Pieface @ 6:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home