National Campus Life Network

Last fall, we wrote about ‘the Pridgen Precedent’, or the ruling made by Madam Justice J. Strekaf in Pridgen v. University of Calgary.  John Carpay’s recent article gives a good refresher on the case.  This ruling was not about pro-life students or even abortion at all, but the ruling would, we wrote, set a positive precedent for our pro-life students.  Why?  Because the ruling stated that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms DOES, in fact, apply to universities.  And this means that the freedom of speech of students is protected on campus.

The University of Calgary appealed the decision but, last week, the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the ruling.

John Carpay, who is also the lawyer for the University of Calgary’s Campus Pro-Life group, wrote a column in the National Post regarding the decision.  He wrote:

If universities were private, they would not be engaging in “government action” so as to invite the Charter’s application. But when the University of Calgary obtains over $600 million from taxpayers each year by claiming to be a forum for free expression for all people and for all views, it forfeits its right to censor speech it dislikes. Holding the U of C to account, as this court ruling does, is good news for students and for taxpayers.

In particular, this precedent will help the students in Ontario and Alberta who have taken Carleton University and the University of Calgary to court in regard to the censorship of pro-life viewpoints. But that is a subject for another column.

This is certainly a victory for not just the Pridgens, but also for students nationwide.

Pro-Life Rally in Victoria to “Speak for Life.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

On May 10th, Pro-Life British Columbians from across the province will march to the Legislature in the 5th Annual March for Life in Victoria.  With the abortion issue receiving such prominent attention in the media lately, organizers expect a large turnout this year.  This year’s theme, “SPEAK UP FOR LIFE,” challenges all British Columbians to raise their voice for the protection of the lives of the unborn.

Recent news stories about gender selection abortion and designer babies, and the current Parliamentary Motion calling for a committee to review the Criminal Code’s definition of a human being, have all drawn much needed attention to this issue. “The attention these issues have received, and polling data results, clearly show that Canadians are concerned by the complete lack of restrictions on abortion,” said March for Life media spokesperson, Anastasia Pearse.

“Our intention here today is to peacefully and prayerfully bring attention to the victims of abortion in our province,” she added. “We want to raise awareness and ask people to think before they choose abortion. They need to know the facts and be fully informed of all of the risks before they make these life changing decisions.”

The March for Life is organized to be a celebration of lives saved as well as a commemoration of lives lost. In BC, despite a severe lack of transparency in abortion record keeping, it is estimated that over 14,000 abortions are performed every year. “As tax-paying citizens, our money is being used to fund these abortions,” states Pearse. “We are marching today to speak out against this atrocity, to speak up for those 14,000 British Columbians who never had the chance to speak for themselves. We cannot remain silent when so many lives are at stake.”

This year’s March for Life is part of a national day of marches across the country. The BC March is co-sponsored by the Knights of Columbus BC & Yukon State and Campaign Life Coalition British Columbia. The March begins at 2:00pm in Centennial Square.

For more information, contact:

Anastasia Pearse,

March for Life Media Relations

westerncanada@ncln.ca

604-365-3484

-30-

Tomorrow, tens of thousands of pro-lifers from across Canada will march for life, assembling at their provincial and national legislatures in protest of the injustice of abortion. NCLN and its students will be at many of these events.

There were over 15,000 gathered at last year’s National March for Life in Ottawa, and NCLN hopes to see even more at this year’s event. You can find the NCLN group on the right lawn – look for our banner or that of uOttawa Students for Life! After the March there are many other events to be involved in. NCLN is hosting our annual student dinner, which is SOLD OUT! If you didn’t get a ticket this year, don’t worry, there is always next year! Executive Director, Rebecca Richmond is also speaking to hundreds of students at the youth conference on Friday.

If you are unable to attend the National March, there are regional Marches across the country that may be closer to home for you. Visit Campaign Life Coalition to find out where the March for Life is taking place in your community.

NCLN will also have a presence in two other locations. Sara Hall, as the Maritime Campus Coordinator, will be in Halifax to speak at their March, and at the other end of the country, Anastasia, our Western Campus Coordinator, will be speaking to the crowds at the March for Life in Victoria, BC. If you can find us at any of these three locations come say “Hi” – we would love to meet you!

http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/index.php?p=Regional_marches

March 14, 2012: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Ontario students want abortion debate but abortion advocates unwilling to defend their position

Toronto, ON: This March, two Ontario university clubs are hosting abortion debates on campus, but pro-choicers have been unwilling to debate.  Despite contacting over 120 professors, feminist organizations, and abortion advocacy groups, Guelph Life Choice and McMaster Lifeline have been unable to find anyone willing to debate.  Pro-life students from McMaster and Guelph are now issuing a public challenge to pro-choice proponents (specifically professors, doctors, clinic workers, and advocates from pro-choice organizations), inviting them to defend their position on abortion and join in an open and respectful debate.

“There’s been great student interest in having this debate,” states Hanna Barlow, President of the University of Guelph Life Choice.  “But everyone we’ve contacted to represent the pro-choice side has either rejected the invitation or simply ignored it.  It’s very disappointing.”

With the debate scheduled for the end of the month, Guelph Life Choice contacted the Student Help and Advocacy Centre (SHAC) from the student union for help finding a pro-choice advocate.  They declined, stating, “We do not believe that the sexual and reproductive rights of women is [sic] something that should be debated because we see ‘pro-choice’ as the only option. For us, reproductive rights are non-debatable.” (See full email text at: http://uofguelphlifechoice.ncln.ca/2012/03/14/email/)

“Unwillingness to debate is something we’ve seen before on other campuses,” states Rebecca Richmond, Executive Director for the National Campus Life Network, a national pro-life student organization.   “Despite accusations from pro-choicers that we’re closed minded and backwards, they are the ones who keep rejecting our offers to engage in dialogue.”

“Anyone who holds a belief on an issue must have evidence to back up their belief,” states Julia Bolzon, President of McMaster Lifeline.  “If pro-choicers are confident in their position, then they should be willing to defend it in a debate.  We hope pro-choicers will rise to the challenge.”

For more information or for those interested in representing the pro-choice side of the debate, contact:

Julia Bolzon – President McMaster Lifeline, 647 221 0912, jbolzon@gmail.com

Hanna Barlow – President Guelph Life Choice, 519 830 9072, hannabarlow@gmail.com

Rebecca Richmond – Executive Director, National Campus Life Network, 416 388 0461 director@ncln.ca

-30-

By Rebecca Richmond

The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) started a student project a few years ago called ‘Synergy’, or the Student and Youth Network for Reproductive Justice, and a post on their website caught my eye last week because the author made a number of points that I actually agreed with.  Surprising?  No, not really.

Consider that our two organizations, despite being on opposite sides of “reproductive justice” issues, exist for similar purposes. Both Synergy and NCLN exist to help network and support efforts across the country at the post-secondary level.  Naturally, both organizations believe strongly that the university environment is a critical place to promote our cause and both Tara Paterson, the article’s author, and I both emphasize the importance of being active on issues of injustice.

Tara, Synergy’s Student Network Coordinator and the Chair of the University of Victoria Students’ Society (not our favourite student union), points to the growing momentum of pro-life activities on university campuses (“hotbeds for anti-choice activities”) and the fact that, historically, activism on universities was a significant part of the pro-choice movement.  “The shift,” she writes, “from campus as a hub for pro-choice activity to one where anti-choice clubs monopolize a lot of student media and politics is worth noting.  We have a unique opportunity here to reclaim the campus as a site of political organizing for reproductive justice.”  So although I believe we are still far from “monopolizing” campuses, Tara and I both identify universities as critical ground to take in the fight for justice and human rights

Unfortunately, Tara failed to understand the purpose of some of the projects used on campus, such as those used by the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.  She also errs in her description of Carleton Lifeline’s lawsuit against the administration.  And I will not bother to address her laughable statement that, “the anti-choice lobby is a well-funded machine backed by right-wing bigwigs and the Catholic Church.” (But if anyone knows a right-wing bigwig with deep pockets and a hankering to support a worthy pro-life organization, please send them our way.)

But Tara is absolutely right to insist upon a pro-active stance when it comes to fighting injustice.  She calls pro-choice students to action.  As pro-lifers, we need to bear this in mind as well.  If our position on abortion is just that – simply a belief that abortion is wrong – then we will never end this atrocity in our country and we will never succeed in building a society that respects and affirms the value and dignity of every human life.  But if our respect for human life and our love of our fellow human beings flows into pro-life action, then consider the impact that would have!

And like Tara, we too should “grow our networks, hold events, share resources and otherwise inspire our campuses.”  We must continue and increase our activities.  Synergy may accuse us of ‘taking it upon ourselves to offend them’, but the reality is that abortion IS, itself, offensive because it takes the life of an innocent human being.   And while both Tara and I may share a passion for ‘justice’, we must root that justice in an objective morality that ensures that all human beings, regardless of their size, location, dependence or development, are given human rights.  Without this, Synergy’s call to action does not right an injustice, but, sadly deepens and perpetuates one.

February 7, 2012: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

University of Victoria Pro-Life Club Censored Once Again

Victoria B.C.-The University of Victoria Student’s Society (UVSS) Board of Directors passed two motions to publicly censure the pro-life club on campus, Youth Protecting Youth (YPY) last night, February 6^th. The first motion was put forward in response to complaints stemming from an event the club held last November called “Choice” Chain and charged the students with violating the UVSS Harassment Policy. The second motion was passed in response to a poster the club put up on campus in October. As a result, YPY will be denied their ability to book public space on campus for their events and is forbidden to hold “Choice” Chain or other similar events. The club is also banned from putting up posters until a new policy is written by the UVSS to govern poster content. The board also ordered YPY to write a letter of apology to groups who were offended by the poster.

“Choice” Chain is a project developed by the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR) and consists of volunteers holding three by four foot signs with graphic images of first trimester aborted fetuses. The volunteers engage passers-by in dialogue about abortion. More information about the project can be found here: http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/projects/choicechain

“This is a disappointing development,” said Cameron Côté, YPY Vice-President and coordinator of the “Choice” Chain event. “People may have felt offended by the images but that in no way constitutes harassment. If you merely have to claim your feelings were hurt or you disliked someone’s message or way of expressing themselves to find that person guilty of harassment, freedom of speech ceases to exist. While we recognize that some people do not like our message, that doesn’t mean we should be censored.  ”

Campus Outreach Director for CCBR, Alanna Gomez, stated, “The charges of harassment have no grounds. There were no complaints made about the conduct of the students, because they acted respectfully and peacefully. The only complaints were based on the negative feelings people had because they didn’t like the pictures the students were holding. Just because someone doesn’t like a picture doesn’t mean they have been harassed, which is what the UVSS is trying to claim.”

The poster that resulted in the second motion was developed by National Campus Life Network (NCLN), and compares the current denial of legal personhood to the pre-born in Canada with similar treatment of other groups in the past. The poster can be viewed here: http://www.ncln.ca/resources/print-resources/person-poster/

“I thought the UVSS had moved past this type of discrimination and censorship since the settlement of YPY’s lawsuit in July 2010,” said Anastasia Pearse, former YPY president. Pearse currently works as the Western Campus Coordinator for NCLN. “Censorship of the abortion debate at a university is shameful and unacceptable.”

“YPY will not tolerate this ideological discrimination,” said Côté. “We must all demand that our   society be free of discrimination and censorship of minority or unpopular viewpoints. If there is a right not to be offended than we cannot have freedom of speech in this country or on campus.The legal killing of so many innocent human beings is a disturbing topic, but it is far too serious to suppress or ignore.”

###

For further information:

Cameron Côté (YPY Vice President) – 778-678-4275, youthprotectingyouth@gmail.com

Alanna Gomez (CCBR Campus Outreach Director) – 403-690-5217, acampbell@unmaskingchoice.ca

Anastasia Pearse (NCLN Western Coordinator) – 604-365-3484, westerncanada@ncln.ca

[Picture: Sara Hall (NCLN Maritime Campus Coordinator) and Stacy Anderson (NCLN board member) with Amanda Magee and other students from the new club shortly after receiving status at the Student Union Meeting.]

In December we informed you that the University of New Brunswick (Fredericton) Students for Life had their application for club status denied.  (For more information, the press release can be found on our website here).  Now, we have the pleasure of informing you that the club was ratified last night at a Student Council meeting and the club now enjoys status and funding.

Club President, Amanda Magee, was present along with several other club members at the meeting.  The club had re-submitted their application prior to the meeting and Amanda was given an opportunity to make a brief presentation to the Councillors.  She also fielded several questions from Councillors before a motion was made to recognize the club.

Shane Westin, the club’s Vice-President, quickly questioned the difference between ‘recognition’ and ‘ratification’.  It was explained that ratification gave the club both status and funding but recognition, which would apply to religious or political clubs, would mean they would not receive funding.  Given that the club is neither political nor religious in nature, Mr. Westin questioned the Councillor’s motion and, after consulting policy, the motion was amended and the club was ratified.

NCLN was there to meet with the pro-life students beforehand and attend the Student Union meeting.  We’re pleased that the Student Union finally granted the club the rights they were due and we look forward to working with UNB Students for Life as they plan and host events this winter.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Student Union applies double standard to pro-life students at the University of New Brunswick (Fredericton)

Dec. 19, 2011. Fredericton, New Brunswick:  Pro-life students at the University of New Brunswick’s (UNB) Fredericton campus were shocked last week to learn from their student newspaper, The Brunswickan, that their club would not be recognized by the Student Union due to a “lack of information”.

“The whole situation has been incredibly frustrating,” says Amanda Magee, the President of UNB Students for Life.  “We have given the Student Union information.  We have offered to be present to answer questions.”

UNB Students for Life applied for club status in October, not anticipating any issues given that a pro-life club is active at the UNB Saint John campus and had also existed at the Fredericton campus only a few years previous.  When their contact on council, Andrew Martel, requested additional information from the club, they replied, ensuring that the information would be received before the next Council meeting on November 20th.  Despite this, Andrew Martel stated at the meeting, according to the Nov. 20th minutes, that he did not receive any information from the club.

“We’ve had to rely on the student newspaper and the minutes of the meetings to piece things together,” adds Magee.  “And the Dec. 4th minutes still aren’t available so we’re not entirely sure what happened.”

What is clear is that the pro-life nature of the club has some Councillors concerned.  Some Councillors said that club would be “contentious” and “inviting debate”.  Others, such as Jordan Thompson, the President of the Council, stated that, “the Student Union is not the moral police. As long as the clubs and societies are functioning with certain conduct, it is not our prerogative to judge them on our certain beliefs.”

“It’s a double standard,” comments Rebecca Richmond, Executive Director of National Campus Life Network.  “Simply browse through the listing of clubs on campus and you’ll find clubs with controversial positions.  The Council has asked for additional information; what they need is information concerning what the role of a student union is and is not.  Determining which views are accepted and which are discriminated against is not part of their mandate.”

UNB Students for Life will be addressing the issue at the next Council meeting in January.

“We have a right to be on campus,” asserts Magee.  “Issues like abortion should be discussed and debated.  Resources on positive alternatives should be promoted.  All we want is the same rights as other clubs so we can do these things on campus.”

For more information, contact Amanda Magee, UNB Students for Life President, 506 852 4399.

For additional comment, contact Rebecca Richmond, Executive Director of National Campus Life Network, 416 388 0461 (office), 416 388 0461 (cell).

National Campus Life Network is a national pro-life organization that exists to educate, network and support pro-life post-secondary students across Canada.

-30-

Further Information

Prepared December 18^th, 2011

• Oct. 14^th: University of New Brunswick (Fredericton) Students for Life submitted their application for club status to the Student Union. The application complied with the clubs and societies policy.
• Nov. 6^th: Student Union council members begin deliberations on whether or not to grant status to the club (Minutes are available online at http://www.unbsu.ca/content/240480 Discussions concerning the club begin on page 15).
• Concerned that the club could be “controversial”, “touchy” and “negative”, the council resolved to ask for additional information and defer the decision until the next meeting.
• Nov. 14^th: The club receives a request for additional information from Andrew Martel and replied on Nov. 18^th.
• Nov. 20^th: Student Union councillors resume debate concerning the club (see minutes at http://www.unbsu.ca/content/240480, starting on pg 14).
  • Andrew Martel, the Vice-President Finance and Operations, stated that he contacted the club for more information and did not hear back from them.
  • Councillors raised objections to the club as it would be a “single issue” club with “political will or intention” (Councillor Gormal-Asal, pg 14), “contentious” and “inviting debate” (Gorman-Asal, pg 15), and potentially disseminating “misinformation” for the pregnancy centre (Glenwright, pg 15).  Other council members stated that the student union should not be a “morality police” (Chamberlain-Boyle, pg 14, and Thompson, pg 15).
  • The issue was deferred until more information about the club was presented.
• Nov. 23^rd: An article in The Brunswickan reports on the debate.  http://thebruns.ca/articles/49984 This is the first the club has heard of the situation.
• Nov. 24^th: The club emailed Andrew Martel, expressing their concern with the manner in which their application was being debated and including additional information on the club. A meeting with the Student Union was requested.
• Nov. 28^th:  Andrew Martel responded by email.  He stated he would provide the responses to the Council that Sunday and suggested that the club attend the meeting so as to answer questions.  The club immediately replied, requesting information on how to find the meeting.  A follow-up email was also sent shortly thereafter, but no answer was received.  As such, no members of the club attended the meeting.
• December 4^th student union meeting. (Minutes for the Dec. 4^th meeting are not yet online.)
• Dec. 5^th: Andrew Martel contacted the club by email, requesting further information on what groups and centres the club would be referring students to for help with unplanned pregnancies or post-abortion counselling. The club replied on the same day with additional details and links to the centres’ websites.
• Dec. 7^th: An article in The Brunswickan reported that the club had been denied status at the Dec. 4 meeting, citing “insufficient information from the club.”  In the article, Andrew Martel stated that if more information from the club is received, he will bring it forward.  The information that is needed  is “where the resources are coming from and where they will be directing students.”  http://thebruns.ca/articles/50519
• Dec. 14^th: An email is received from Andrew Martel, informing the group that their information was submitted too late for the last meeting (although additional information had been provided on Nov. 28^th, a week before the Dec. 4^th meeting).  He will bring forward information from the Dec. 5^th email at a January meeting.

Update:  Media Coverage of the Situation

LifeSiteNews.com:  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/u-new-brunswick-student-union-denies-club-status-to-pro-life-students

Pro-Woman Pro-Life: http://www.prowomanprolife.org/2011/12/19/bumpy-beginnings/

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is collecting petitions in regards to the upcoming court case that seeks to reject Canada’s protections against assisted suicide.

For more information on the Carter case and the threat is poses, please see the following article written by Will Johnston, MD, Margaret Dore, JD, and Alex Schadenberg.

From the EPC’s website:

Last year, Canada’s parliament rejected Bill C-384, a bill to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide, by a vote of 228 to 59. After losing the political battle, the suicide lobby is bringing their demand for legalized killing to the courts.

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association has challenged the Attorney General of Canada to discard Canada’s protections from euthanasia and assisted suicide. In Carter v. Canada, the BCCLA has asked the court to legalize “the administration of medication or other treatment that intentionally brings about a patient’s death by the act of a medical practitioner.” If accepted by the courts, this definition would clearly legalize euthanasia.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition provides this petition to enable all people in Canada to speak out in opposition to the attempt to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide through the courts. We strongly encourage you to print this petition (both sides) and have it signed by friends, family and members of your community.

To print the petition (in English or French) or sign it online, please click here to visit their website.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Student Trespass Charges Withdrawn in Carleton University Free Expression Case

OTTAWA, ON. November 1, 2011- Trespassing charges that were filed against members of Carleton Lifeline, the pro-life student club at Carleton University, were withdrawn by the Crown yesterday.

On October 4, 2010, members of Carleton Lifeline, a pro-life club at Carleton University, were arrested for attempting to peacefully display the Genocide Awareness Project, an exhibit which compares abortion to other forms of genocide. The University deemed the Genocide Awareness Project to be “offensive” and directed the Ottawa Police Service to arrest and charge four Carleton University tuition-paying students and a Queen’s University student with trespassing. The charges were scheduled to proceed to trial today and tomorrow (November 2nd, 2011).

The Crown stated that the basis for withdrawing the trespass charges is that the issues dealing with the relationship between a university and its students was already being dealt with in Lobo et al. v. Carleton University et al., the civil action brought by two Carleton Lifeline members, Ruth (Lobo) Shaw and John McLeod, against Carleton University and members of its administration.

In July, the Ontario Superior Court heard a motion brought by Carleton University which sought to strike Carleton Lifeline’s Statement of Claim, the document initiating the lawsuit. Had the university been successful, this would have ended the suit. In a split decision, Justice Toscano Roccamo ordered that the action could continue but ordered Carleton Lifeline to make several amendments to its Statement of Claim.

In a subsequent decision regarding costs of the motion to strike, Justice Toscano Roccamo ordered the students to pay Carleton University’s legal costs in the amount of $18,400.87 plus applicable taxes. Carleton University had asked that the students pay $21, 467.68 in legal fees.

“We are pleased that the Crown has decided to withdraw these unjust charges” said Ruth (Lobo) Shaw, former president of Carleton Lifeline. “We have always maintained that we had the right to exhibit the Genocide Awareness Project on campus and that our arrest was unlawful. The withdrawal of these unjust charges is confirmation of that fact.”

Despite the withdrawal of the charges, the civil action against Carleton University is ongoing. “Although we no longer need to defend ourselves against the trespassing charges, a lot of work still needs to be done to move our lawsuit against Carleton University along and to clarify the legal rights of students to campus free speech and expression,” said John McLeod, current president of Carleton Lifeline.

To support Carleton Lifeline’s Defense Fund, please visit www.carletonlifeline.wordpress.com.

For further information, please visit www.carletonlifeline.wordpress.com or contact Carleton Lifeline’s Legal Counsel, Albertos Polizogopoulos at (613) 241-2701.

-30-