Saint Mary's University Womens Centre

Here are some of the reasons the SMU Women’s Centre opposes SMUSA’s Decision to Ratify Students For Life

The Supreme Court dismantled the law against abortion in 1988 on the grounds that it violated women’s constitutional rights to security of the person, liberty, and freedom of conscience. The purpose of Students for Life is campaigning to take away women’s legal rights to access abortion services, and therefore their rights to security of the person, liberty, and freedom of conscience. International Human Rights documents, including the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the United Nations Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action also affirm the rights of women to be fully educated and have safe control over their reproduction. Campaigning to take away people’s human’s rights is not acceptable in any other context. By approving the society status of Students for Life, SMUSA is taking the sexist and oppressive stance that it is fine for students to violate women’s human rights on the grounds of allowing for freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech does not trump respecting basic human rights, or student’s rights to have a safe and harassment-free campus. Restricting anti-choice groups on campus is not an issue of freedom of speech or freedom of religion. The right to free speech is not absolute in Canada –there are specific limitations in effect to ensure that the right to free speech is not used as an excuse to inflict verbal harm upon another person or group. The right to freedom of speech was not designed to provide immunity to privileged persons in their efforts to oppress others. The Canadian Association of University Teachers concedes in their policy statement on Civil Liberties that “Today, we recognize that academic freedom can only be exercised when basic civil liberties are protected and respected” Furthermore, the fact that withholding club status from anti-choice groups is not a freedom of speech issue has held up in court. After Students For Life at UBC tried to challenge the withholding of club status, they complained to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal alleging their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion had been violated. The Tribunal refused to hear their case in both instances. In 2007, Students For Life tried to appeal the Tribunal’s decision at the B.C. Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court supported the Student Union’s decision to deny the group club status.

SMUSA does not need to support anti-choice groups just because it also supports groups (like the Women’s Centre) who take pro-choice stances to provide “balance” or to foster debate. Anti-choice groups do not foster debate, and instead take extremist views against women’s constitutionally supported rights. Pro-choice means taking a moderate stance that allows women to make their own decisions about abortion. Contrary to popular belief, pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion and does not need to be “balanced” by an extreme anti-abortion position. Pro-choice means that women have the freedom to make decisions about their reproduction that may or may not include abortion, according to their own life situation, culture, religious views, political opinions and personal beliefs.

The existence of pro-life groups on campus is harassing to women, particularly those who have had or support the right to have abortion. On other campuses, the activities of pro-life groups have been harassing, upsetting and emotional for many women, and have been known to incite violence. If SMUSA is serious about providing an “atmosphere of freedom, responsibility and mutual respect” (as outlined in the SMU Student Code of Conduct) pro-life groups cannot be sanctioned. The mere fact that these groups exist to remove women’s rights is an affront to many women. Furthermore, campus pro-life groups are well-known to demonize women who have abortions, making for unsafe and harassing environments for these students.They often use very public graphic visual displays that are hard for students to avoid when making their arguments. This does not foster an environment where women are given mutual respect, or where they are free from harassment. The anti-harassment statement that the Canadian Association of University Teachers states that “Harassment is any behaviour that demeans, humiliates or embarrasses a person, and that a reasonable person should have known would be unwelcome. It includes actions, comments or displays”. The activities of pro-life student groups clearly fall into this category. At UBC, a pro-life groups’ presentation was destroyed by students who felt personally harassed by this display, and dozens of students went to counselling services after seeing it. The images displayed by a student pro-life group at the University of Calgary were deemed so harassing and disturbing that the administration asked for a police investigation of the group, and charged seven members with trespassing. These are just a few of many examples that could be cited when looking at the ways pro-life groups have subjected women to harassment and have compromised the safety of students on Canadian campuses.

We do not have to imagine the kinds of activities Students For Life might engage in as a ratified group. The graphic presentation Echoes of the Holocaust which took place last year at SMU, and which has been widely denounced as hateful, sexist, racist and anti-Semitic, has already provided us with an example of the kinds of activities this group will plan. At other schools, the argument that student unions cannot prove that pro-life groups will use offensive imagery, arguments or presentations to make their case has been used as a justification for allowing the ratification of pro-life clubs. We do not need to make any such assumptions at SMU, as we have already seen the kinds of activities this group intends to engage in. The talk Echoes of the Holocaust compared abortion to pre-Civil Rights era lynchings and genocide, particularly the Holocaust, making the tacit comparison between women and Nazis and inciting hatred against women who have abortions and those that support them. This talk was upsetting for many women, and was spontaneously and passionately protested by women and their allies. Students were threatened with arrest after SMU Security and the police were called in. Allowing this group access to SMUSA’s resources through ratification will only allow Students For Life to engage in more such activities, and to incite further conflict and security concerns on the SMU campus.

Despite the known contentious nature of ratifying pro-life groups on Canadian campuses, SMUSA made no effort to engage the campus community or stakeholders in its decision-making process. In fact, the decision was made by one individual, SMUSA President Matt Anderson, without input from the SMUSA Board of Directors. Despite an earlier verbal agreement between the SMUSA General Manager, Society Coordinator, President and the SMU Women’s Centre, the major voice on campus regarding issues of reproduction justice, the Women’s Centre was not consulted nor informed about Students For Life application for ratification.

Student Unions at other Canadian Universities have been able to prevent pro-life groups from obtaining official society status, and have been vocal in standing strong in support of women’s rights. Guelph, Memorial, Lakehead and York Universities, as well as the Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario, have all come out in support of this view. This shows that it is possible for a student union to strongly support women’s rights. Furthermore, there have been attempts at other schools to de-ratify pro-life groups after seeing the aggressive nature of their activities and consequences of their campaigns on students. We urge SMUSA to take a cautionary approach to ratifying a pro-life society, rather than waiting to see the harmful outcomes of their activities. It is also worth noting that in circumstances where decisions to de-ratify groups have been challenged in court, Courts have sided with the Student Unions (see BC Supreme Court decision at UBC).