fbpx

Carleton Lifeline in the news

Carleton Lifeline will appear in court tomorrow as the University attempts to quash their lawsuit, claiming it is “frivolous”.  The press release can be viewed here.

LifeSiteNews.com covered this development in the story here.

Ruth Lobo, the former president of Carleton Lifeline, appearened on Sun News today to discuss the arrests and free speech on campus.   The video clip can be seen here.

 

Share Button

400 Protestors Expected at UBC’s Abortion Display

Press Release: Controversy Erupts at UBC

Bloody Abortion Signs Confront Students and Mob Responds
 
Vancouver, BC. On Thursday, March 10, a UBC student pro-life club, Lifeline, will re-open the abortion debate—-and it will be hard to ignore them.  The students will display eight 4×8-foot bloody images from the controversial Genocide Awareness Project (GAP: www.unmaskingchoice.ca/gap.html). The GAP graphically compares abortion to historical atrocities, such as the Holocaust, and his been met with resistance across North America.  In fact, a Facebook group (http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/event.php?eid=167649023284651&index=1) opposing Lifeline’s display at UBC reports over 400 people plan to protest the event.

GAP will be displayed from 10am to 2pm at the SUB Lower Plaza, by East Mall Road (close to University Boulevard).  Lifeline president Ania Kasprzak says she hopes UBC won’t allow protesters to censor her group’s display:
“UBC’s own policy on academic freedom supports our right to express ourselves through GAP,” stated Kasprzak.  She quoted their policy which states, “Behaviour that obstructs free and full discussion, not only of ideas that
are safe and accepted, but of those which may be unpopular or even
abhorrent, vitally threatens the integrity of the University’s forum. Such behaviour cannot be tolerated.” 

Kasprzak continued, “A university is the marketplace of ideas and we want to use that platform to show that abortion is an act of violence that kills a baby.  We know this exhibit is effective at changing peoples’ minds because they’ve told us that.” 

In a 2008 Globe and Mail interview, UBC President Dr. Stephen Toope lamented that “in Canada we have seen many examples of students trying to
shut down speakers with whom they disagree.” Dr. Toope asserted that “the
role of the university is to encourage tough questioning, and clear expressions of disagreement, but not the ‘silencing’ of alternative views.”

 But one of the opponent’s to GAP, Anna Wärje, doesn’t want Lifeline’s message to be seen.  She posted the following on the growing “Protest GAP” Facebook group: “UBC is requiring us [Students for Reproductive Rights (SRR)] to stay 30 feet from the display and not block or impede the display in any way. Last year, UBC tried to make SRR admin responsible for outside parties blocking the display, but I am not taking that sh** this year. There is nothing illegal about blocking that display, and only UBC students are susceptible to ‘university discipline.’ So…if you’re not a UBC student, don’t even pay attention to this bullsh**. Or if you’re a UBC student who doesn’t care about the university’s disapproval of your conduct.” 

It remains to be seen whether UBC will intervene to stop the planned censorship-through-physical-obstruction of Lifeline’s display.  In March of last year when abortion advocates blocked Lifeline’s display, UBC security did not directly remove the censures; instead, they called in the RCMP.  But a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89QICRBJ65o&feature=channel_video_title) shows police informing Lifeline’s opponents that they could continue to engage in this physical obstruction and suppress Lifeline’s speech. 

The GAP has been exhibited on or near campuses in BC, Alberta, Manitoba,
and Ontario.  Last October, Carleton Lifeline students were arrested when
they attempted to set the display up.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeJkBQn1-r8&feature=channel_video_title).

GAP first appeared in Canada at UBC in November 1999 and it was violently
attacked by 3 UBC student leaders of the Alma Mater Society. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv7OCW1G0-M&feature=channel_video_title).

For further information contact Ania Kasprzak, Lifeline president, 778-982-1117 (cell). 

-30-

Share Button

LifeCanada Supports Carleton Lifeline

Our friends at LifeCanada just sent out the following press release:

 

LifeCanada/VieCanada

310 – 376 Churchill Ave. N.

Ottawa, ON  K1Z 5C3

Tel: 1-866-780-5433 Fax: 613-722-2201

lifecanada@bellnet.ca

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 23, 2011

LifeCanada supports freedom of speech for campus pro-life groups

Carleton Lifeline, a pro-life student group at Carleton University, announced today that it is suing the University over discriminatory treatment following the arrest of some of its members this past fall. LifeCanada, a national organization educating on the value of human life, supports the group’s legal challenge and their right to freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but undemocratic actions in recent years against pro-life organizations demonstrate an effort to suppress any and all opposition to abortion in this country.

“It is shocking that the truth cannot be expressed in this country, especially when it is through a peaceful demonstration at a post-secondary institution,” said LifeCanada president, Monica Roddis. “LifeCanada experienced a similar suppression of facts in our 2008 media campaign about abortion and the law. It is unconscionable that peaceful and law-abiding citizens are not allowed to express their views simply because a handful of individuals don’t approve of what they have to say. LifeCanada fully supports Carleton Lifeline in this legal challenge for their democratic right to freedom of speech.”

In 2008, LifeCanada launched a nation-wide media campaign promoting awareness of the lack of legal restrictions on abortion in Canada. The campaign ads depicted a pregnant woman and the words, “Have We Gone Too Far? 9 Months: The Length of Time Abortion is Legal in Canada. www.AbortioninCanada.ca.” Shortly after the campaign launch, Advertising Standards Canada (ASC), a self-regulatory body overseeing the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards, deemed the ads “deceptive”.  An unnamed Appeal Panel made a final, closed decision and the ads have not been displayed on public property since. The ASC claimed the ads were ‘false’ and ‘deceptive’ despite the fact that abortion IS fully legal for the full gestation of a pregnancy in Canada.

– 30 –

Contact: Monica Roddis, President, 604-853-7985

Share Button

Press Release: Carleton Lifeline Sues Carleton University

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: PRO-LIFE CLUB SUES CARLETON UNIVERSITY

Carleton Lifeline Seeks Restitution

Carleton Lifeline, the pro-life club at Carleton University, has sued the University and its administration for the discriminatory treatment they have been subjected to during the 2010-2011 academic school year.

“We believe that the behaviour of the University is actionable. We have suffered discrimination and intimidation, we have been arrested and threatened and we are seeking restitution”, said Ruth Lobo, President of Carleton Lifeline. “The University’s discriminatory actions are shocking, to say the least. We want to ensure, through law, that this behaviour is not repeated at Carleton University ever again.”

Lifeline is asking the Court to declare that Carleton University and its administration have breached their own internal policies regarding freedom of expression, academic freedom and discrimination. As such, Lifeline is also requesting that the University is ordered to comply with these internal policies.

On October 4, 2010, Carleton University had members of Lifeline handcuffed, arrested, charged and fined with trespassing for attempting to display an exhibit that the University administration deemed disturbing and offensive due to the graphic images  it used. In November 2010, Carleton University’s administration provided Lifeline with an ultimatum  regarding the expression of their opinions and threatened further arrests.

“Carleton University has allowed other exhibits using graphic images on campus” commented Albertos Polizogopoulos, Carleton Lifeline’s lawyer. “Clearly the University opposes Lifeline’s message and not its medium. This is censorship and viewpoint discrimination and violates Carleton University’s internal policies.”

To view a copy of the Statement of Claim, please visit www.carletonlifeline.wordpress.com.

For more information, please call Carleton Lifeline at 613-600-4791 or Lifeline’s lawyer Albertos Polizogopoulos at 613 -241-2701 Ext: 243

Share Button

University of Toronto Students for Life: Why Pro-Lifers “Still Exist”

This post was written for University of Toronto Students for Life by Blaise Alleyne. It does not necessarily represent the views of NCLN.

Samantha Dellapina, staff writer for The UTSC Messenger, wrote an opinion piece a few weeks ago entitled “Pro-lifers still exist?

Sometimes, it’s hard to know where to begin, so I’ll just tackle it line by line.

Legalized abortion and a woman’s right to choose is a topic that has been under fire by religious-based organizations for years.

Religion is the focus in the opening sentence, yet watch how little it has to do with the topic of the article, and who’s bringing it up when it’s mentioned. Nevermind the fact that most campus pro-life groups — the primary subjects of her article — aren’t religious organizations.

Perhaps it used to be the popular opinion that abortions should remain illegal, but it also used to be a popular opinion to keep slavery alive in the United States.

Comparing a push to make slavery illegal with a push to make abortion legal? This betrays incredible intellectual dishonesty, or an incredible void of historical knowledge. If anything, the comparison between abortion and slavery weakens the pro-choice stance. The stronger comparison is between those who sought to outlaw slavery and those who seek to outlaw abortion.

Slavery was justified by denying the personhood of slaves, as abortion is justified by denying the personhood of pre-born human beings. Through all of the legal and political challenges, it was this denial of personhood that upheld the institutions and legality of slavery for so many decades in the United States. (“In the eyes of the law…the slave is not a person.” -Virginia Supreme Court decision, 1858)

In the case of slavery in the United States, human beings were denied personhood because of the colour of their skin or their racial background. In the case of abortion, human beings are denied personhood because of their size, or location, etc.

In both cases, dehumanizing rhetoric serves to justify dehumanizing treatment. The n-word wasn’t just offensive, but it was dehumanizing language that serves to support slavery or other civil rights atrocities by attacking the humanity of the African American. We don’t commonly use cold, scientific terms to describe human beings after they are born, but before birth, pro-choice advocates stick to terms like fetus, embryo, blastocyst to dehumanize pre-born children.

This dehumanizing rhetoric and denial of personhood is a common denominator to the worst human rights abuses, and especially to slavery and abortion. To take a subsection of the human population and say that these are human beings but not persons is the very formula of a human rights abuse.

I could go on, but Dellapina’s article gets more absurd (and we’re only two sentences in!).

What is right and what is wrong is subject to the individual, as opinions will always vary, which is why Canada has legalized abortion.

Moral relativism as a defence of abortion is not surprising, but as a defence of slavery? Moral relativism didn’t and couldn’t abolish slavery. (“No one is forcing you to own a slave, but you have no right to impose your morality on others and prevent them from owning slaves if they want to!”) Slavery was abolished because the abolitionists made an objective, moral argument. It didn’t matter that some Southerners believed slavery was okay. The abolitionists said it was objectively wrong — wrong in the North, wrong in the South. They challenged the legality of slavery with moral arguments, in defence of the humanity of those whom society, the courts, the government would deny personhood.

If what is right and wrong is subject to the individual, we have no right to make slavery illegal. The comparison of abortion to slavery does not bode well for a pro-choice argument which relies on moral relativism to succeed.

Samantha, if Canada legalized abortion because “what is right and what is wrong is subject to the individual,” and “opinions will always vary,” then why shouldn’t Canada legalize slavery?

This allows individuals to make their own personal and private choices in the matter, without having a law make it for them.

Just like the law denied individual slave owners to make their own personal choices about their own property. But we created laws to deny them that right because we recognized that slaves should not be treated as property, but as persons. Abortion is not a personal or private choice either — it involves denying the personhood of another human being and ending an innocent life.

What pro-lifer’s need to understand is simple: what happens in my womb has nothing to do with them.

What abolitionists need to understand is simple: what happens on my plantation has nothing to do with them.

The property arguments of slave owners only worked for so long. It’s ironic that Dellapina would employ a property-based argument right after comparing abortion to slavery.

I had almost begun to believe the debate had retreated into the background, with more important topics taking the forefront, like the war in Afghanistan, global warming, cholera in Haiti, or Sarah Palin’s new reality television show. It appears however, that in Universities across the globe, pro-lifer’s still exist!

Has Dellapina not been following Canadian politics? Or campuses? Has she searched the web? There was just a vote in the Canadian parliament on a bill to explicitly outlaw coerced abortion (the vote was after the article was published, but the bill was tabled months ago), the Liberal Party was freaking out earlier this year over the Harper government’s approach to exclude abortion from its maternal health initiative, the “biggest-ever” March for Life took place this past year on Parliament Hill with an estimated 15,000 participants, and pro-life campus clubs have consistently received media attention in their freedom of expression battles with university administrations and student unions across the country, with support of organizations like the BC Civil Liberties Association.

It can be helpful sometimes, as a writer, to make the reader feel smarter than you, but not to give the reader the impression that your head is firmly buried in the sand. Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt here and assume it was a poorly executed joke.

On October 4, 2010, five pro-life students were arrested after attempting to set up an exhibit within the heavily populated Tory Quad of Carleton University…

Ah, right, the peaceful demonstrators who were hand-cuffed and hauled away in a police van for trespassing on their own publicly-funded university campus.

… After watching the arrest on YouTube it is clear the group was looking for confrontation when they were given many chances to simply move their display. Perhaps they took the arrests as a way to publicize their anti-abortion argument, and in a way, it has worked, because here I am writing about it. Though how much it has worked in their favour has yet to be seen.

Watch the video yourself. There’s a big difference between not backing down when you’re being bullied and denied freedom of expression, and “looking for” confrontation.

Carleton Lifeline was not looking for confrontation with the administration, and certainly didn’t expect the police to be called in to arrest them for peacefully demonstrating on their own campus. But they weren’t willing to let the administration intimidate them into silence (or “protesting indoors only” — which is practically the same). They were willing to risk confrontation with the administration and stand up for their rights (and the rights of others), but they didn’t go looking for the police.

About a month after the arrests, CUSA made another huge stride in silencing LifeLine, by completely denying the group status and funding. The decision to cut the club comes directly from Khaldoon A. Bushnaq, Vice-President of Internal Affairs for CUSA, explaining that the club’s constitution is in violation of CUSA’s Discrimination on Campus Policy, which supports a “woman’s right to choose.” Enraged, Ruth Lobo—president of LifeLine—said, “I will never get over the shock that there is a discrimination policy that allows them to discriminate against us.” No Lobo, there is a discrimination policy in place to prevent you from discriminating against women.

The CUSA discrimination policy says that people and groups with a particular political view — that abortion is in any way unacceptable at any time — are denied privileges that other students have, while still being forced to pay dues to the student union. That sounds like discrimination to me. Holding up GAP signs may challenge or offend, but it doesn’t actually exclude anyone from anything.

I recommend reading Carleton Lifeline’s first response to CUSA on this issue [PDF]. Aside from having a discrimination policy that discriminates against pro-life students, they didn’t even follow their own procedures outlined in their own constitution. If this isn’t resolved within the university, it’s likely to be resolved in a courtroom [PDF].

The revoking of the club’s status has caused a stir within Pro-Lifer’s across North America, who are using it as a platform to argue for their equal rights. Not surprisingly, the Catholic Civil Rights League has condemned CUSA’s move “as a violation of freedom of expression.” A Christian faith-based website, Wintery Knight, has outwardly called CUSA “left wing fascists.”

Ah, the only mentioned of religion aside from the opening of the article. But, Dellapina seems to suggest that the only concern is coming from fringe groups or “religious-based organizations.” A quick web search finds the following articles which, at the very least, take the freedom of expression issue seriously:

It’s hard to tell if Dellapina is pretending that only “religious-based organizations” are concerned about the freedom of expression issue, or if she simply didn’t search the web. Also, last I checked, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association didn’t report to the Vatican.

Perhaps LifeLine should have seen this coming and kept their little display contained in Porter Hall.

Their “little” display? That Dellapina feels deserves her attention, in Scarborough, two months after it happened in Ottawa? It’s just pettiness seeping through here.

It was only in April of this year, that the University of Calgary notified eight members of the Campus Pro-Life student group that they have been found guilty of a major violation under the Non-Academics Misconduct Policy… The CPL President, Alanna Campbell, has told the press that she would “rather be expelled as a principled person than graduate a coward.” The Messenger presses Campbell to continue to challenge the verdict in hopes that she will discover the imbalance in her life’s priorities.

If only the University of Calgary were so confident. They’ve already lost a big case on the question of whether the Charter applies on campus — a case that they’re appealing, because it spells disaster for their conflict with Calgary Pro-Life. But even the University of Calgary, for all it’s done to intimidate pro-life students, hasn’t had them dragged off campus in handcuffs.

… The Canadian Government closed the books on the debate over a woman’s legal right to abortion in 1988, when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in R. v. Morgentaler that the existing laws were unconstitutional and therefore struck them down.

That’s… not exactly true. I’m not sure Dellapina understands the difference between the legislative (Parliament) / executive (Prime Minister, Cabinet, Government Departments, Civil Service) branches of government, and the judiciary (the Supreme Court of Canada, in this case).

The Supreme Court of Canada struck down the existing laws as unconstitutional, due to the “manifest unfairness” of an awkward administrative procedure involving committee approval required by the old law. Parliament attempted to pass a new law, but it was defeated in the Senate in a tie vote. No subsequent government has revisited the situation as of yet.

In other words, no one closed any books on any debate. The Supreme Court did not determine that any law on abortion was unconstitutional, but that the old law was unconstitutional. Parliament has attempted to pass a new law, and could try again, but has been unwilling or unable to do so successfully, and thus, Canada is one of only a few nations with no legal restrictions on abortion. It’s an absence of a law, a void — but no one has “closed the books.”

Today in Canada, Medicare covers the costs and the law requires clinics to be funded across provinces.

Right after trotting out the old “debate is closed” line, Dellapina reminds her readers that abortion is publicly-funded with taxpayer dollars… meaning, it’s absolutely a legitimate subject of public, political debate.

What strikes me most about LifeLine, Students for Life, and Campus Pro-Life, is that they intend to take away a legal right in a country that is supposed to represent liberal culture. The desire to remove this fundamental right from women seems equal to taking away their right to vote, or freedom of religion, and then where does it end? All I can say is… don’t you have a paper to write or an exam to study for?

It’s so odd to open the article with an invocation of the fight against slavery, and then to make arguments like this.

First, women were denied a right to vote because they weren’t considered persons under the law — same as slaves, same as the unborn. To equate “freedom to kill your unborn child” with “freedom of religion” is utterly ignoring the second person affected by in the act of abortion. No one is threatening anyone’s right to cast a ballot, because casting a ballot doesn’t involve dismembering an innocent human being.

Second, it’s not a legal right, but an absence of any legal barrier. There is no positive affirmation of some legal right to an abortion in Canada, nevermind as a “fundamental right.” There’s only a lack of any legal obstacles.

Third, Dellapina invokes liberalism right after she brushed aside freedom of expression issues that are on the radar of civil liberties associations across the country and applauded the “huge strides in silencing” political views she disagrees with. Last I checked, freedom of expression was a fundamental right in a true liberal democracy.

The University of Toronto has yet to lay down its own law against its own pro-life club…

Erm… which law would that be?

The club failed to respond to The Messenger regarding the recent events at Carleton University, among other questions, but fortunately for us they have a website.

Yes, we did. Sorry. Seeing the final product of Dellapina’s article, I can only imagine how our words might have been twisted, but, honestly, there was no deliberate attempt to avoid comment. We honestly missed the email until recently, well after the article was published. We were busy, you know, writing papers and studying for exams. Our mistake, but not an intentional snub.

This past Remembrance Day, the group staged a protest downtown…

I guess it wasn’t clear from the website, but for the record, the protest was on Wed Nov 10 — the videos went up the next day.

… I was able to breathe easy watching the video posted on the Students for Life website once I could hear the overpowering voices of pro-choice students silencing the pro-lifer’s.

Our megaphone-wielding friends shouting slogans from the 70s certainly aren’t surprised to find pro-life opposition on campus, since that was the probably the 15th or so public pro-life demonstration I’ve participated in since beginning my studies on the St. George campus in 2005.

As much as I oppose the pro-life opinion, believe it is backwards and should have no place in politics, I still believe everyone has a right to have an opinion.

That’s kind of her, not to question are right to… uh… think for ourselves?

Though, within the walls of a University, I do not believe there should be any room for these opinions.

Spoken like a true supporter of liberalism and academic freedom.

Keep them in your house, talk about them over a beer, join a pro-life group that isn’t affiliated with an educational institution, have a baby when you get pregnant, but get off my campus!

Hey, kind of like don’t ask, don’t tell, but for your political opponents!

The Messenger wants to know what YOU think. Email your opinions to utscmessenger@gmail.com with the subject: ABORTION.

Email us! Because the debate is over, and you should keep your opinions to yourself!

Samantha, I’m sorry we didn’t answer your request for comments earlier. Maybe we’ll take up the questions in another post soon. You said in your email to us, “I think your voice is important regarding this issue.” I’d like to think you meant that (and not just when we keep our opinions to ourselves). But if our voice is important on this issue, why are you so eager to applaud the efforts to silence the voices of Carleton and U of C pro-life students? If you were really a supporter of authentic liberal democracy, and of universities and academic freedom, you wouldn’t be applauding the silencing of people with whom you disagree.

If you take an honest look at abortion in light of slavery, I think you might understand our perspective a just little bit more. The debate clearly is far from over, as evidenced by your article, as evidence by events at Carleton, as evidenced by events on Parliament Hill. As confused as it may be, I think your voice is important in the debate too, and I certainly wouldn’t applaud anyone seeking to silence you. As a supporter of a true liberal culture, you may want to reconsider rooting for those who seek to silence expression with which they disagree.

As long as innocent human beings are denied personhood, dehumanized and killed, pro-lifers will exist. As long as pro-choicers seek to silence any dissent on the issue, pro-lifers will take a stand — on this campus, and across the country.


Read the comments at the University of Toronto Students for Life website.

PRESS RELEASE: New Threats and Intimidation by Carleton University Administration

November 30, 2010. For Immediate Release:

NEW THREATS AND INTIMIDATION BY CARLETON UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION

Pro-Life Students Threatened With Disciplinary Action and Arrest

OTTAWA.  On October 27, Carleton Administration threatened pro-life students with charges of non-academic misconduct when they stood with hand-held signs of aborted fetuses on their campus. See video here: http://www.carletonlifeline.wordpress.com

The University subsequently sent the students’ club, Carleton Lifeline, correspondence threatening them with arrest and disciplinary action.  They said these could be consequences if the students did not comply with a strict set of rules which only applied to them; these provisions surround a designated zone created for Lifeline where few students travel in the winter, where they are not able to offer pamphlets or initiate conversations with students, and not being permitted to move if protestors block the signs.

“This act of ‘compromise’ on the part of the University is nothing more than an intimidation tactic limiting our expression on campus,” said club president Ruth Lobo, a Human Rights Major.  “The definition of discrimination is differential treatment and that is what Lifeline is receiving.”

The university is no stranger to graphic images.  In the past month, Holocaust imagery was displayed as part of an Awareness Campaign. Further, Animal Rights activists have also been seen on campus multiple times erecting large, graphic displays in the busiest parts of campus showing slaughtered animals with slogans such as “SHAME ON YOU.” Neither of these events were surrounded by warning signs or held in ‘restricted’ areas.

These campaigns did not result in non-academic misconduct threats or arrest-threats like the anti-abortion signs did.  Arrest threats turned into actual arrests on October 4 when those same Carleton students were arrested for attempting to display the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) in the quad of the University. While GAP is a stationary exhibit consisting of 4×8-foot signs comparing abortion to the Holocaust, the most recent activity of Carleton Lifeline didn’t require a space booking and involved hand-held signs showing aborted fetuses with the word “Choice?”

James Shaw, Vice-President of Lifeline, questioned the University’s conduct asking, “Are students now being required to book standing space on campus? The University is taking a ‘Big Brother’ approach in their relationship with Lifeline. Frankly, we find this behavior more akin to 1984 than to the 21st Century.”


The following timeline summarizes the club’s 2-month-long controversy:


Oct. 4: Four Carleton students arrested for attempting to display the Genocide Awareness Project


Oct. 27: Carleton Lifeline begins a hand-held, mobile project called “Choice” Chain. View video: http://www.carletonlifeline.wordpress.com


Nov. 11: Carleton Lifeline receives official notice of revoked club status from the Student Association (CUSA)


Nov. 12: Carleton Lifeline has a closed meeting with Carleton Administration


Nov. 15: Carleton Lifeline Legal Counsel responds to Student Association


Nov. 18: Carleton Lifeline receives official “Exhibit Zone” Proposal and threatening letter from Carleton Administration


Nov. 19: Carleton Lifeline pursues internal appeal processes with Student Association as well as a judicial review.


Nov. 29: Carleton Lifeline told by Student Association that Legal Counsel cannot represent them at internal appeal meeting.


Nov. 29: Carleton Lifeline Legal Counsel responds to threatening letter from Carleton Administration


For further information, contact Carleton Lifeline at (613) 600-4791, or Carleton Lifeline’s Legal Counsel, Albertos Polizogopoulos at (613) 241-2701.



-30-


Share Button

Youth Protecting Youth: Carleton Lifeline Aftermath

This post was written for Youth Protecting Youth by ypyinfoofficer. It does not necessarily represent the views of NCLN.

Earlier in the term, we reported on an event at Carleton University, in which 5 students were arrested for trespassing while attempting a peaceful pro-life display on campus. That post can be found here. Since then, a number of further events have occurred as a result. The club had it’s club status and funding revoked by the Carleton University Students Association (CUSA), resulting from a disagreement over statements in the club’s Constitution. A series of letters have been sent back and forth between the CUSA and Carleton Lifeline, which can be found at the Carleton Lifeline blog. Most recently, Carleton Lifeline has threatened to take legal action against the CUSA regarding the de-certification of Carleton Lifeline and the manner in which it was done. A press release regarding this matter can be found here. Youth Protecting Youth stands in solidarity with Carleton Lifeline and will continue to oppose discrimination based on political and ideological values.


Read the comments at the Youth Protecting Youth website.

Press Release: CUSA Maintains Legitimacy of their Discriminating Policy and their Procedures

November 19th, 2010; FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CUSA MAINTAINS LEGITIMACY OF THEIR DISCRIMINATING POLICY AND THEIR PROCEDURES

OTTAWA – Despite the deposit of a motion to challenge CUSA’s policy banning pro-life clubs, the Student Association maintains the legitimacy of the policy and the manner in which Carleton Lifeline was refused recertification.

In response to a letter from Lifeline’s Legal Council letter of November 15, 2010, Khaldoon Bushnak, VP Internal, wrote to inform Lifeline on November 18th, 2010,  that CUSA maintains the validity of the policy banning pro life clubs and the way in which the Association refused to grant Carleton Lifeline recertification. In response, Carleton Lifeline has threatened legal action against Carleton University’s Student Association.

Read exchange here: www.carletonlifeline.wordpress.com

For further information, contact Carleton Lifeline at (613) 600-4791, or Carleton Lifeline’s Legal Counsel, Albertos Polizogopoulos at (613) 241-2701.

Share Button