Choose Life status suspended
Club sent to Equity Committee by SSMU Council to revise constitution
SSMU Council voted 16 to 7 by secret ballot in favour of suspending Choose Life’s club status on Thursday.
Two separate motions were put forth to change the club’s status. The first resolution called for the club’s status to be revoked. After being defeated 11 to 12, a motion to suspend followed.
The students who put forth the two motions claimed that Choose Life had disseminated false health information and exposed students to graphic images associated with abortion and fetal life. Additionally, the students felt that past events hosted by the club had threatened safe space for students on campus, and violated SSMU policy.
On behalf of the authors who presented the resolution to revoke Choose Life’s status, Elaina Kaufman said, “Regardless of whether a formal promise was made, there had been a verbal agreement with SSMU Council and they still contravened the equity policy.”
In her rebuttal, Choose Life president Natalie Fohl addressed general questions and apologized for allowing some of her club’s guest speakers to distribute questionable information in the form of pamphlets in the past. She conceded that this was a serious issue and explained that the pro-life group Silent No More Awareness had provided the material in question at a Choose Life event in September. Included in the pamphlets were statements that linked breast and cervical cancer to abortions, which contradicts statistics from Health Canada.
Fohl also stated that she did not feel that the club had contravened McGill’s equity policy, explaining that the club’s mandate is to promote respect for human life and human rights from conception, defined as the moment of fertilization. Fohl quoted SSMU’s constitution and went on to describe fetuses as victims of oppression.
“The goal of our group is to promote the well-being of all persons, including those discriminated against based on age,” Fohl said.
Members of Choose Life contended that they were being treated differently than other clubs, but opponents argued that no other club has pushed the same boundaries. Last month, SSMU Council censured a Choose Life event called “Echoes of the Holocaust,” which featured Jose Ruba of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.
Before his talk was disrupted by protesters, Ruba attempted to parallel what he considers the dehumanization of fetuses with similar tactics used to justify genocide.
During council, Rebecca Dooley, VP (University Affairs), indicated that four complaints against Choose Life have been brought to the attention of the Student Equity Committee since it was granted club status last year. The motion to suspend incorporated a clause which would send the club for evaluation by the Equity Committee.
An amendment was added and stipulated that the club would meet with the Committee to develop a document that would allow for the expression of a pro-life viewpoint while remaining in line with the SSMU constitution and equity policy.
Dooley explained that this would be a long-term process that would start as soon as possible. “We’ve been the ones who have been on the receiving end of most of the student concerns surrounding Choose Life,” she said. “We have been dealing with it on all levels, and I think we are the ones who have the most in-depth understanding of the policies.”
Engineering Senator Daniel Keresteci questioned why the equity committee represented women, as less than half of students on campus are male.
In an email to The Daily, Kaufman wrote, “We felt that a lot of councillors listened to our arguments and the facts we presented. However, a couple councillors responded to our arguments by repeating that students should be able to express opinions, even though we had made it very clear that we are against specific actions – not opinions.”
Afterward, Fohl said she was disappointed with the process and outcome. She felt her club had not been treated fairly throughout the whole process and that the club’s right to free speech was being limited.
“I really don’t feel that if people properly understood what our position was that they would be saying what they said,” Fohl said. “It sounds good to say, ‘No, we’re not limiting free speech,’ but it really is saying, ‘You say what you want but only this way.’”
In spite of the motion, Fohl stated that she wouldn’t make any decisions without consulting the rest of the club.
“We will certainly sit down with the Equity Committee and see what their suggestions are but that doesn’t mean that we are necessarily going to accept everything,” Fohl said.
At Council, a resolution to ban the sale of “Red List” fish was also passed. An update on the spread of H1N1 in McGill residences was also discussed.
Student councillors endured a five-hour meeting Thursday evening.
Tags: This article has no tags
Comments
Jason wrote:
I believe Natalie Fohl is American who has little or no understanding of the issue of abortion in Canada and specifically in Quebec. This is an American stunt to force a conservative/religious social agenda on everyone.
Time to go back home Natalie and fight your battle on your own battle ground.
Nov 17, 2009 at 06:40 PM
Joanne wrote:
Finally, SSMU has taken some action on the propaganda Choose Life has been spewing. Woman's bodies are not political issues to be debated.
Nov 18, 2009 at 05:35 PM
guru Hoodoo wrote:
Jason: Do you have any evidence as to Ms Fohl's nationality, or are you betraying knee-jerk anti-Americanism? Either way, no matter her nationality, Ms Fohl is entitled to her opinion on Canada's abortion laws, and she is entitled to express it. On the other hand, the SSMU is not entitled to hold Choose Life to higher standards than they would other clubs because of her politics or her nationality (SPHR, various animal rights groups and QPIRG have all, in their day, used similarly confrontational tactics without similar sanctions).
Joanne: While I concede that basic human rights are not something that is negotiable, how far they extend, and under what circumstances, is always a matter for discussion and debate. If Ms Fohl believes - as a woman - that she should not have the right to an abortion, that is her right. It is also her right to say so. And is her right to say that her opinion should be made law.
I have never understood why pro-choice people at McGill - despite being, in my view, in the right - are so afraid of Choose Life. If you believe you are right, you shouldn't be afraid of taking the opportunity to prove it. If your opponent is wrong, you shouldn't be afraid of addressing their arguments - their best ones, their worst ones, their deliberately mendacious ones.
The inaccurate cancer statistics are perfect example of this: in distributing this information, they proved themselves incompetent, or liars, or both. They discredited themselves. Rather than use this to embarrass them, their opponents use it to try and shut them down. It's a missed opportunity, and it makes pro-choicers look like the bullies they claim Choose Life to be (not to mention, the Daily has to run an average of three "errata" items every issue. And yet, sadly, they continue on as before).
Nov 18, 2009 at 06:33 PM
John wrote:
Nobody was actually harassed by Choose Life bringing in a speaker.
Rubio spoke in a classroom and if you didnt want to go you didnt have to go. Pro abortion activists stormed into the room and harassed the speaker until he stopped talking. Pro choicers are becoming very anti free speech, trying to shut down any debate in Canada. At the march for life in ottawa this year, pro choicers screamed at young girls marching in the protest and getting in their face. In the USA, a pro life protester was shot dead while holding an anti abortion sign in Michigan in september. In France just this week, hundreds of pro choice activists taunted and screamed at pro life youth who were praying infront of a church with rosaries. They even threw eggs at them and called them dirty catholics.
Nov 18, 2009 at 09:06 PM
John wrote:
I strongly urge people to listen to pro lifers on a couple of issues. 1) Ron Fitzsimmons from NARAL, a major pro abortion rights group, has admitted that most partial birth abortions were not done for health reasons. Just google the name "ron fitzsimmons" 2) There is some evidence for the abortion and breast cancer link and everyone agrees that women who carry a baby to full term have a lower cancer risk. Im not sure if the evidence for the cancer link is solid BUT google "abortion and premature births" and you will see solid evidence from pro choice sources that abortion DOES increase risk of later premature births by up to 70%.
3) There is now evidence from New Zealand that is peer reviewed and untainted that says there is a link to depression as well.
Nov 18, 2009 at 09:12 PM
Kelsey wrote:
and then there's the fact that abortion laws have very little to do with how many women actually have some type of abortion, but everything to do with the safety of the procedures. Anti-abortion laws don't "save" cute little unborn babies, they hurt women.
but that's beside the point: its obviously hypocritical to condemn these protesters on the basis that they were infringing on Ruba's right to free expression. Do the protesters themselves not have the same right? and are it not within their own rights to expect a university where lies, fear, and hate will not be directed at them??
Nov 18, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Bill wrote:
Nathalie is obfuscating on CJAD with that idiot host.
She's not mentioning that they handed out false health information.
As for comparing abortion rights with genocide....well Godwin's Law anyone?
Nov 19, 2009 at 11:28 AM
guru Hoodoo wrote:
Kelsey: There's that old saw that the right to swing my fist stops at your face: the protesters right to free speech stops when it actively interferes with someone else's, which it clearly did in this case, and in fact was designed to do nothing else. It would be indefensible if it were done in a classroom, or during a meeting of the knitting club, and it was indefensible in this case.
And as to whether you have the right to a university where "lies, fear and hate" are directed at you: probably, but first you need to demonstrate that the lies, fear and hate are real, and actually harmful to you, as opposed to just unpleasant for you to hear. Just characterising your opponent's views as "hateful" isn't sufficient.
Bill: You realize "Godwin's law" expresses a statistical probability of something happening, not a comment on the intrinsic value or validity of the event, right?
Nov 19, 2009 at 01:36 PM
Eli wrote:
Jason's ad-hominem attack on Nathalie is disgusting and is aimed at silencing her and others who would consider defending similar views. Do people like this actually exist in Montreal and at McGill? I always thought us to be a group of intelligent, if passionate, debaters who are always more than happy to head down to Gerts for a beer after any rhetorical spar.
Choose Life is a club with many members from the McGill community. Your vicious attack on Nathalie says more about you than about her or about the views she chooses to express along with fellow McGill students.
I won't even comment on Jason's self-righteous and egoistical anti-American stereotyping.
"Time to go back home Natalie and fight your battle on your own battle ground." Nathalie, please ignore Jason's paternalistic veiled threat. Keep fighting for what you believe in.
"This is an American stunt to force a conservative/religious social agenda on everyone." Attempted persuasion through arguments is not "force"...
Lastly, Jason's point about this being a foreign issue is simply wrong. There are life-long Montrealers such as myself who care about this issue.
Jason, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Nov 19, 2009 at 04:43 PM
Mike Wales wrote:
I finally found an intelligent Internet commenter. A first. Thank you, guru.
Nov 20, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Post a Comment