Freedom of speech: protecting minority rights
10/21/09
Some people feel that due to the explosive nature of the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate it should no longer be touched by the Phoenix Newspaper or UBC-O in general. Due to the offensive materials being distributed by a Pro-Life group in which they compared women who have undergone abortions to Nazis engaging in genocide they were shut down. A lengthy legal battle and a student vote to determine if Pro-Life groups should be allowed to vote ensued. While democratic, I find the vote disturbing. When has it ever been right for a majority to be allowed to decide which minorities are allowed to have a voice? Why does one group’s harmful actions necessitate the right for a whole side of a debate to be silenced forever? Though this one group went over the line, it doesn’t seem right to vote all future Pro-Life debate from the campus despite a majority student vote.
Silencing a group is not eliminating them, and despite its unpopularity, there are still students on this campus who are Pro-Life, and they have a right to their opinion. I have been informed by some that they would never admit to being so on campus, because of the hostile nature of academia to this viewpoint. While some celebrate this fact, I find it sad. Why would we be happy about marginalizing a group of people? Whereas one could not push the Pro-Choice debate on campus in the past, now one cannot disagree with them today? Can we really consider this an advancement in academia?
As a supposed place of critical thinking and intellectual debate I am disappointed by the University’s willingness to silence debate. Some have compared allowing the Pro-Life movement a voice on campus to opening the doors to hate croups such as the Klu Klux Clan. I find this argument extremely offensive and ironic. Comparing the Pro-Life movement to the Klu Klux Clan is shockingly similar to the UBC-O Pro-Life group’s comparison of women who have had abortions to that of Nazi genocide, in that it is too hyperbolic. Was that very type of argument the reason the Pro-Life group was banned in the first place for spreading hate propaganda? Why is this now acceptable?
The Pro-Life/ Pro-Choice debate is alive and well in Kelowna both on and off campus, and due to its ongoing relevance we need to allow both sides of the debate a voice. People of the Pro-Life persuasion are often demonized on campus. Many believe that they do not deserve a right to speak. Unfortunately the University is not a safe place for some people, despite all of the slogans about inclusion and acceptance. Apparently, this inclusion is only for those who share the most popular ideologies. People of religious and/or Pro-Life persuasion are often mocked and belittled in academia and that is very disrespectful of their ability to critically analyze and decide what they believe. If a person does not share your views on a topic, it is disrespectful and wrong to accuse them of not properly analyzing the situation, or of being unintelligent or “backwards.” To do so is to disempower them and negate their agency, and that is wrong.
Though perhaps not the case with Kelowna in general, on this campus Pro-Life and religious persons are the minority, and therefore we have an ethical duty to protect their rights, whether or not you agree with their opinions. That is the nature of the freedom of speech, that all sides can express their views without being threatened. How will we ever get anywhere is we do not learn how to respect those who hold different beliefs from us? If we continue to disrespect and silence people due to their differing opinions we are just continuing the negative cycles of disrespect, and might makes right. These cycles need to change.
Add a comment
Comments published on this website are the opinion of the commenter and not the Phoenix Newspaper. The Phoenix reserves the right to withdraw submissions from publication for any reason. Any reason could be material deemed to be sexist, racist, homophobic, or of poor taste or quality.