Hi ChildofMary-do you have "senior-itis yet? Congrats on graduation!
Anyways, I agree that the message needs to be out there—and it blows my mind that there would be this suppression of speech/thought in a university in the western world. To an extent education on the topic is helpful - we learn about the effects (besides the obvious primary effect of death on the child) on the mother - the wounding of the mother, the depression, the increased incidences of breast cancer, future miscarriages, etc… We learn more and more about how quickly the baby develops in the womb. These are all important to know. But I believe we learn most about being pro-life in our day to day. You visit an expecting couple and they have a sonagram photo on their refrigerator. 99.9% of us either know someone who is about to give birth or who has died. There are euphemisms for both of those events, but everyone knows the truth behind what is going on in each. It’s ingrained in us. Part of life. A 2-year old child can recognize a pregnant woman and knows what is going on. She’s not carrying a watermelon in there! So, while getting shut out of the universities isn’t a great thing, that isn’t where it is most effective to get the message across anyways (in my opinion) and there are some fringe benefits that come along with being repressed by academia when you are clearly the holder of the truth!
I hate to say this, but the off-topic discussion was on-topic. The precedent of the Government banning certain ideas and speech, and banning certain political parties – however repulsive those ideas, words, and political parties may be – lay the groundwork for banning **other **groups, ideas and speech.
Yesterday they banned the Nazi party and forbade anyone to deny the Holocaust.
They puinished newspapers for saying some Indian children actually like boarding schools. They forbade sermons saying homosexual acts are sinful.
No you are wrong. The fact that your last post and Freshman’s post prior to Robert’s warning is proof of that. You want to start a thread about whether the Government (a University is not an elected Government) then by all means.
I am inclined to think that a group of students who are pro life wish to form an OFFICIAL Pro Life university association. If I am not mistaken, why they do this is so that they can use University resources (halls, money for printing, etc.). The normal procedure for this I think, is to apply or petition the Student Council for this and at this point they reject it. After an appeal or not, the Student Council then passes a resolution to ban said groups.
The Student Council has been given certain authority by the Administration of the University to enact such laws.
I can’t vouch for any of the above but that is my best guess answer.
Then how do they have the power to** ban** anything?
From another thread on this subject:
Catholicism - A Hate Crime in Canada?
“If one, because of one’s sincerely held moral beliefs, whether it be Jew, Muslim, Christian, Catholic, opposes the idea of same-sex marriage in Canada, is that considered ‘hate’?”
The question was not rhetorical. Nor was it theoretical. Fr. Alphonse de Valk, a Basilian priest and pro-life activist known throughout Canada for his orthodoxy, is currently being investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) — a quasi-judicial investigative body with the power of the Canadian government behind it. The CHRC is using section 13 of Canada’s Human Rights Act to investigate the priest. This is a section under which no defendant has ever won once the allegation has gone to tribunal — the next stage of the process.
Most defendants end up paying thousands of dollars in fines and compensation. This is in addition to various court costs. Moreover, defendants are responsible for their own legal defense. In contrast, the commission provides free legal assistance to the complainant.
Additionally, a message posted to a popular Catholic internet forum has reportedly made its way before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. The alleged poster, who is an American writing from America, was commenting on an article written by Mark Steyn — a Canadian author who now lives in New Hampshire. The tribunal accepted this posting as evidence that Steyn promoted “hatred”. While the website is never mentioned by name in news reports - referred to only as “a Catholic website” — a source at the tribunal told me, off-the-record, that the website was Catholic Answers.
While the claim is unconfirmed as of this writing, the controversial Mark Steyn article, over which the British Columbia hearing is being held, was posted to the Catholic Answers message forum. Moreoever, popular Jewish-Canadian blogger Ezra Levant, who is blogging live from the hearing, and who is the subject of his own human rights commission complaint, published a description of the unnamed Catholic forum. Several details match, including the screen names of two participants to the Catholic Answers forum discussion of Steyn’s article.
Imagine that! Canada’s human rights tribunals are now attempting to prosecute a case against an American resident, based upon what an American citizen allegedly posted to a mainstream American Catholic website. What passes for mainstream Catholic discussion in America is now the basis for a hate complaint in Canada.
Praise the Lord that i am graduating now, and that i no longer have to put up with the bull&*^% that goes on here! Facism in the name of “human rights” and “civil liberties” is very well and healthy on campus. Everything is a woman’s rights issue, we even have a whole program of study in it!
Things are getting ridiculous, and they won’t stop. It’s almost pointless to try.