Anti-choice groups at the U of M

18 posts / 0 new

Fri, 2013-09-27 20:16

genstrike

You know, I really need to stop saying "things can't possible get any stupider at the U of M"

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/anger-over-anti-abortion-pics-224...

Quote:
A pro-life exhibit on the University of Manitoba grounds that uses graphic photos to equate abortion with lynching, the Holocaust and genocide in Rwanda has drawn protests from some students who want the display shut down.

"They're completely graphic and disgusting," Ashley James, a 23-year-old interior design student, said of the photos, which are part of a exhibit by the Genocide Awareness Project. "It's infringing on my ability to focus and learn, which is what I'm here for."

As of Monday afternoon, the administration -- which approved the exhibit sponsored by a campus group called the U of M Students for a Culture of Life -- confirmed it had received "more than two" complaints about the pro-life display.

Fri, 2013-09-27 20:22

genstrike

I have to say, I'm a little conflicted here.

I find the politics of these groups abhorrent to say the least, in that they are aiming to take away women's rights. I think there is an argument to be made that this group is engaging in harassment. And, anti-choice people are dangerous.

However, I'm reluctant to actually support a ban on their group.

I think they need to be confronted, I'm just not sure administrative sanctions is the way to go because it sets a scary precedent and gives UMSU/Admin more power to quash student organizing that they're uncomfortable with. Case in point: The only student group to be banned by UMSU in recent history is an anti-racist, anti-apartheid organization.

Fri, 2013-09-27 21:15

Unionist

I empathize with your dilemma. It's a tough one. And I agree with your conclusion, about setting precedents which are only intended to be used against us.

Trust the students. They'll either ignore, or they'll get organized and confront. Good training for what they'll be facing the rest of their lives. There's no administrative way out.

Now back in my day...

Fri, 2013-09-27 21:26

Catchfire

Previously on babble.

I don't share your position that this dilemma is "tough" at all.

Fri, 2013-09-27 21:52

Unionist

Catchfire wrote:

Previously on babble.

I don't share your position that this dilemma is "tough" at all.

Yeah, I remember that conversation well. My views haven't changed.

But the issue here is slightly different.

There (as I recall), it was whether we should respect the right to "free speech" of the anti-choice misogynists. I believe we should not. We should use whatever nonviolent means are available to chase them away from wherever decent folks gather.

Here, the question (as I see it) is whether one should support or lobby for an administrative ban on a group for their woman-hating propaganda (presumably when it falls short of infringing on current laws, such as hate speech).

That is a dilemma - and especially at the University of Manitoba, where Students Against Israeli Apartheid was recently the subject of a frenzied attack in the student union council leading to withdrawal of its recognized club status (genstrike will correct me if I got the terminology wrong, but I think that's what happened).

I have more confidence in mass organization and action to deal with creeps like these (and that would go for racists, homophobes, etc.) than in legal or administrative sanctions - for the same reason that genstrike basically gave.

Sun, 2013-09-29 12:47

The Analyst The Analyst's picture

Speaking of activist responses

Fetus Fetishists are having a rally to defund abortion in Manitoba. So there's a

MANITOBA DEFUND ABORTION COUNTER RALLY FOR CHOICE!

Mon, 2013-09-30 09:11

abnormal

Unionist wrote:
There (as I recall), it was whether we should respect the right to "free speech" of the anti-choice misogynists. I believe we should not.

What happens when the tables are turned and someone decides to use that logic against something you believe in?

To be clear, I'm completely in favour of freedom of choice but just concerned about the ramifications of restricting freedom of speech simply because we disagree with someone's position. I'm not aware of any law that says we have a right not to be offended.

Mon, 2013-09-30 09:43

Unionist

abnormal wrote:

Unionist wrote:
There (as I recall), it was whether we should respect the right to "free speech" of the anti-choice misogynists. I believe we should not.

What happens when the tables are turned and someone decides to use that logic against something you believe in?

To be clear, I'm completely in favour of freedom of choice but just concerned about the ramifications of restricting freedom of speech simply because we disagree with someone's position. I'm not aware of any law that says we have a right not to be offended.

Clearly you have misunderstood my views - totally - and have decided that you will erect a straw statue that is simpler to knock down.

I do not "respect" the rights of anti-human propagandists - of racists, homophobes, misogynists... I will mobilize people to drown them out, make them unwelcome, ridicule them, insult them, whatever it takes to expose their brutality. I will not say, "oh, I disagree with your desire to enslave women, but please, come in, here's a podium, do let's debate!"

However, as I have patiently explained, except when criminality is involved (hate speech as defined in the criminal code or similar incitement to violence) or other commonly recognized statutory restrictions (libel etc.), I don't favour legal or administrative sanctions on expression.

So why are you going on about a "right not to be offended"? Thinking of some other argument you had with some other person some other time in some other place, perhaps?

Your method of debate offends me (mildly). But I won't be lobbying for any legal or administrative sanctions against you.

Mon, 2013-09-30 09:53

Francesca Allan

Unionist, with respect, I think the fact that you put "free speech" in quotes is kind of telling. The concept of free speech, as you know, can be fraught and, as you point out, there are legitimate exceptions. However, the principle is fundamental to a free society, or at least any free society that I'd want to live in. I run across this all the time in the psychiatric rights movement. E. Fuller Torrey of the (forced) Treatment Advocacy Center just did a spiel on 60 minutes that vilified the mentally ill. I don't want to shut him down; I want equal air time for the truth. I don't agree with the anti-choicers but I try to understand why they hold their views. And, as I've said in a related thread, I don't think "misogynist" is accurate. The only reason they want to restrict women is that it's women who get pregnant. If it was men, they'd be the equivalent term for male-haters which I can't think of at the moment.

Mon, 2013-09-30 10:20

#10

Unionist

[thread drift]

Ok, Francesca, I don't need to use the term "misogynist". Maybe they think they love women - so much so that women have been graced by God to bear children, whether they wish to or not, and thereby avert a Holocaust which dwarfs all previous ones.

I believe, too, that the Pope loves queer folks, as long as they don't actually do, you know, queer things. So His Holiness is not a homophobe in the strict sense. He isn't the least bit scared of them.

And you know why you can't think of the equivalent term for "male-haters" at the moment? It's because males aren't victims of discrimination and subordination and marginalization and job ghettoization and underpayment and overexploitation and sexual assault by mere virtue of their gender. That's why, even when someone does manage to come up with the word "misanthrope", it's ambiguous - it usually means hatred of humanity in general.

[/thread drift]

So - to get back to my point - I wish the students of the University of Manitoba swift and complete success in driving this vicious propaganda off campus - without violence, without begging the administration to enforce rules that the students themselves are too irresolute to enforce through the beauty and power of mass action and mobilization.

Mon, 2013-09-30 10:29

#11

Francesca Allan

Oops, will try again.

Mon, 2013-09-30 10:33

#12

Francesca Allan

Unionist wrote:
Maybe they think they love women - so much so that women have been graced by God to bear children

This seems parallel to the hyper-pro-choicers, those that believe a pregnant woman can drink alcohol or smoke crack because, you know, it's ... [drumroll] ... her body, her choice.

Quote:
And you know why you can't think of the equivalent term for "male-haters" at the moment?

Yeah, not enough coffee.

Quote:
It's because males aren't victims of discrimination and subordination and marginalization and job ghettoization and underpayment and overexploitation and sexual assault by mere virtue of their gender.

Unionist, I'm a woman. You don't need to explain why it can be difficult. It's also difficult to be a man (as most divorcing males find out in family court). I don't see any point in arguing who's more of a victim.

Mon, 2013-09-30 10:40

#13

6079_Smith_W

There was a sort of similar situation at the U of Winnipeg back in the 80s, though it involved an outside party. They had rented out a gymnasium to Bob Larsen.

The school had a policy against groups with a homophobic agenda, so there were many who considered this a breach of policy.

I won't get into the fine details of what happened there - though seeing the faithful on their knees pleading to god to cast out demons, and punks putting on their best show to egg them on was quite entertaining.

In the end, a great crowd simply stormed the stage and prevented him from speaking, though he tried to come out, ringed by a cordon of bodyguards.

Watching it, or more accurately being in the thick of it, because I was on the stage, I felt pretty torn about shutting someone down by force. On the other hand, he never should have been rented the space in the first place. There are plenty of churches and other venues that would welcome him.

As for this, I'm also torn, because I know that these groups have no problem pushing to the limit of regulations and beyond, and there is unlikely to be any real dialogue. I think the most telling thing here will be how the students and school DO decide to deal with it.

Mon, 2013-09-30 12:14

#14

abnormal

Unionist wrote:
I do not "respect" the rights of anti-human propagandists - of racists, homophobes, misogynists... I will mobilize people to drown them out, make them unwelcome, ridicule them, insult them, whatever it takes to expose their brutality. I will not say, "oh, I disagree with your desire to enslave women, but please, come in, here's a podium, do let's debate!"

However, as I have patiently explained, except when criminality is involved (hate speech as defined in the criminal code or similar incitement to violence) or other commonly recognized statutory restrictions (libel etc.), I don't favour legal or administrative sanctions on expression.

Those two statements are inconsistent. Either you believe in free speech (with your caveat regarding criminality) or you don't.

Otherwise you're saying that you believe in "free speech" unless you disagree with it (which is where my comment about a "right not to be offended" comes from).

Mon, 2013-09-30 12:28

#15

Unionist

abnormal wrote:
Either you believe in free speech (with your caveat regarding criminality) or you don't.

Go to work tomorrow and tell your fellow workers that Jews are responsible for the recession. Express your view to female colleagues that those who have had abortions should be imprisoned for life as murderers. Don't forget to make funny jokes about your wheelchair-bound colleague.

Then, on your way out the door, explain to your employer that "either you believe in free speech or you don't".

Let me know what reply you get.

I believe in free speech. I also believe in my right to drown you out, ostracize you, ridicule you, and say very rude things about you, dismiss you from employment, expel you from school, and ask you to leave my apartment-warming party, if and when you exercise your "right" in anti-human ways.

There's another inconsistent statement for you!

Mon, 2013-09-30 22:38

#16

genstrike

I think the other tactical question here is if we are playing into their hands. It seems to me like anti-choice groups across the country have a strategy where to gain attention, they pull ridiculous bullshit like this "Genocide Awareness Project," wait for student unions or administrations to move against them, then take them to court. This gives them a lot of attention and puts them at the forefront of free speech debates on Canadian campuses.

If that is their strategy, perhaps our response should be something other than playing into their hands and setting the stage for a legal battle. Of course, I also don't really care if my student union gets sued - in some ways, UMSU getting sued by a student group, even assholes like these, would be just desserts for their ban on SAIA.

I'm fully supportive of confronting these jerkwads - picket them, disrupt their events, drown them out, whatever - I'm just not sure admin/UMSU sanction is the way to go. Maybe if they were clearly shown to be consistently violating the University's Respectful Work and Learning Environment (RWLE) policy, I'd be more comfortable with this sort of action (the other thing is, political views and activity is a protected category under the Manitoba human rights code and thus the RWLE, so it would have to be clearly shown that they go beyond acceptable politicial discussion and into harassment and discrimination - especially harassment based on gender). After all, SAIA was banned in spite of never violating the RWLE policy - even though their activities were closely monitored by not only the office which enforces the RWLE, but also pro-apartheid activists looking for any excuse to make a complaint (they finally found a body - UMSU council - which was too lazy to investigate and took their bullshit claims at face value).

Tue, 2013-10-01 00:56

#17

Catchfire

If students band together and tell administration they don't want these exhibits on their campus, I don't see how that is an "administrative" vs. "people power" type binary. Usually what happens is feminist, social justice and other activist groups have to stand quietly and picket a much more prominent and well-funded billboard exhibit protected by security.

I've supported every campaign at every campus I've worked or attended to remove these fuckers from the grounds. It's despicable, and no grandstanding about "free speech" or "precedent" has ever changed my mind. No one ever wonders about the "precedent" set by allowing these despicable people on campus in the first place.

Tue, 2013-10-01 10:37

#18

6079_Smith_W

I think we can assume there will be plenty of people trying to remove them from campus, and prevent them from returning next year. The question is who they might have in favour, and of course, those who do take the position that it is a matter of freedom. Seems to me the real work will start once they pack up and go.

I also notice the writer didn't verify that woman's claim that counter-protesters were yelling at her and being unruly, and there is no comment from the women's centre.

"It's disgusting and I can't study" isn't really much of an argument. From her sign, I can only assume she said some other things which were not quoted.