To think universities should allow “pro-life” groups?

[Mellowfruitfulnessy]

There’s been a few incidents in the news of universities saying that “pro life” groups should be banned because they make women in campus feel “unsafe”.

There was a protest in Exeter today and there’s been similar rumblings elsewhere.

This seems odd to me: it’s fairly standard teaching in Catholicism and the students in the group largely seem to be Christian / non-UK students. Unis are saying these groups are not “inclusive” but if mainstream religious thinking isn’t allowed, isn’t this excluding free speech? Is it really making women feel “unsafe”?

AIBU to say that pro life groups should be allowed on campuses as part of free speech/thinking/religious freedom?

@Potteringshed

If they have the right to express their opinions, do I have the right to express my opinion to them that they are cunts?

As long as we are allowed to say this, all fine by me. But we know that isn’t possible with the #nodebate crowd. And the #nodebate crowd takes advantage of this freedom whilst denying women the same.

So called freedom of speech has ended up with all GC women should die on a fire as they are witches. If you don’t agree, you should also die on a fire as you are a witch sympathiser.

@SusieBob

The university has every right to not allow a group to advertise, recruit and campaign on their campus.

Just like you and I have the right to do so on our property.

And that's before you get to the fact that pro-lifers are a bunch of mysoginistic, extremist fuckwits.

The university has an ideological commitment to free speech and that’s what this post is addressing.

Sure they can limit speech on campus. But should they? The university should be a place where ideas are debated and challenged.

The TRA lobby has been all too effective in undermining free speech on campus.

Of course. Their views are just as valid as anyone else.

No. Because they seek to control other people's choices. It's not like the pro-life lobby will provide childcare at a later date. So no, they really shouldn't be allowed to put pressure on people and make them feel even worse about really difficult decisions.

Back when I was at college pro-life groups were allowed to exhibit on campus. In my view they abused the freedom of speech they were given. In particular they had large exhibition boards with pictures of aborted foetuses. With slogans such as "this is what you are thinking about doing". They also offered counselling services which were a thinly veiled way of pressurising women into not having abortions. In current times, Pro-Life Groups often harass women outside of abortion clinics. Such activity causes clear distress to a large group of women and should not be allowed.

I fully support the rights of catholic women to hold anti abortion views - being pro life isn't a problem and of course if you don't want an abortion don't have one.

The pro life propaganda will still be being circulated to young women who haven't yet made up their mind on the issue, even in the absence of an official pro-life group the leaflets will be there on campus somewhere. Light, air and oxygen is needed to expose the misinformation (eg pictures of almost-full-term babies mislabled) - repugnant views need to be challenged and young women need to see them being successfully challenged and disarmed. If pro-life views can't be expressed publicly then some young women will still be vulnerable to being indocrinated in a more private context and never get to hear the counter-arguments.

I am sure that catholic women will argue their case forcefully and I support their right to do so if they stick to verifiable facts. I just think "no womb, no opinion" and the pictures of anti-abortion protests I have seen certainly have plenty of men present.

Haven't RTFT, I'm on my way to work.

I work at a university. A couple of years ago a conference room in my building was hired for an event and one charity attending provided information on safe and legal termination for women (I'm in NI and so a termination meant travelling at the time).

The student pro life club picketed our building with the usual graphic posters. I was pregnant at the time as were several of my colleagues, and we had to pass this every time we entered and exited the building.

The student clubs are governed by the university, and the university also has responsibilities to me as my employer. Fortunately the university agreed and asked us to get photographic evidence as they were trying to stop this behaviour.

Pro life groups very rarely behave in a reasonable fashion and if that gets them banned I won't lose sleep over it. (And yes I feel the same about so-called rad fem and GC groups.)

The university has every right to not allow a group to advertise, recruit and campaign on their campus.

Just like you and I have the right to do so on our property.

Please read up on the statutory duty of universities to allow freedom of speech within the law on their premises.

It really depends what you mean. If you mean groups of Catholics gathering together who all happen to be pro life then of course that should be allowed.

If you mean groups that plot and plan to target women seeking medical services then no of course not.

^^
This really

What posters aren't getting, is that if we take away people's right to express views which are abhorrent (and these views ARE abhorrent to me), what's to stop the banning of you expressing views which you firmly believe in, which others dislike?

I always feel like that's a bit of a straw man argument. As a society we have never allowed people to permit any views to be expressed. We've always had boundaries and limitations on which political views are acceptable in public space - that's why we don't permit Holocaust deniers, for example, to have a stand at a university to politely debate whether or not the Holocaust was real. Everyone here will have boundaries - topics they aren't comfortable being brought into public space for various reasons.

Banning pro life groups is just making a subjective judgement call, as is made every day, that places pro lifers on the other side of that line.

@GrinchTastic

The university has every right to not allow a group to advertise, recruit and campaign on their campus.

Just like you and I have the right to do so on our property.

Please read up on the statutory duty of universities to allow freedom of speech within the law on their premises.

Honestly, I don't care.

I've seen enough of these arseholes to know they shouldn't be given a breath of airtime.

I think it's important that racism, homophobia and pro life stance are all discussed. We need to educate people and challenge their views or prove them false, and that's difficult without discussion.

But there need to be both sides and it needs to be proper debate. There shouldn't be intimidating or bullying behaviour, picketing, groups harassing people etc. Discussion is vital but it needs to be done in a responsible way.

People who “don’t care” about free speech are pretty abhorrent.

YANBU. I'm fed up with hearing people say they feel 'unsafe' when they mean they don't like somebody's opinion. Feeling unsafe because someone is making threats against you or inciting violence is totally understandable.

Nobody has a right never to be offended or never to hear an opinion they disagree with.

Honestly, I don't care.

Ok, but what you posted was opinion, not fact. Universities do have a statutory duty under the 1986 Act to allow freedom of speech within the law.

And it’s pretty clear from this thread that the government’s new Freedom of Speech Bill is sorely needed.

A lot of people are comparing this with anti-gay sentiment or (just above) Holocaust denial - but these are hate crimes or against the law.

An anti-abortion stance is neither of these things. It is a valid stance. Behaviours cited as unacceptable are again harassment under the law.

But we are just talking about a right to gather and discuss issues.

Well that just brings us around to the topical debate as to whether misogyny should be a hate crime, as anti abortion protests are misogynistic.

But protests within the law are not a crime, so “hate crime” wouldn’t apply even if misogyny was included as a hate crime.

There are plenty of anti-abortion women - most catholics for a start. I don’t think claiming that the position is a hate crime is helpful.

I always feel like that's a bit of a straw man argument. As a society we have never allowed people to permit any views to be expressed. We've always had boundaries and limitations on which political views are acceptable in public space - that's why we don't permit Holocaust deniers, for example, to have a stand at a university to politely debate whether or not the Holocaust was real

Re: Holocaust denial. I think pro-Palestinian groups are a better example of this, particularly in the US. They are full of anti-Semitic people and they are known to harass pro-Israel groups. Both groups are trying to present a political point of advocacy to the student community.

You do have to control their antisocial behaviours, not ban the group itself.

Many mainstream Muslim societies at university will worship with sexes segregated and preach that homosexuality is wrong they do not get bannedsome extreme ones do that encourage violence but not for just saying they believe homosexuality is wrong.it is not just catholic pro life groups that believe abortionists mostly wrong disagreeing with a groups world view is not a good enough reason for banning their right to free speech

@SusieBob

I've seen enough of these arseholes to know they shouldn't be given a breath of airtime.

And what if people with more power than you decide that you're the arsehole and shouldn't be given a breath of airtime next?

Can you not see that preventing certain people you don't agree with from speaking is the beginning of the slippery slope of not allowing other people to speak and that it may include you?

It's not really OK, no.

It'd be fine to have, say, a 'pro life pride' march, mothers who decided to go ahead with having unwanted children marching to show their pride in their decision.

It's not OK for people [especially men] to lecture other women on what they should be doing with their bodies and lives.

To have a “choice” it is necessary to hear more than one view.

[quote ShrillSiren]@SusieBob

I've seen enough of these arseholes to know they shouldn't be given a breath of airtime.

And what if people with more power than you decide that you're the arsehole and shouldn't be given a breath of airtime next?

Can you not see that preventing certain people you don't agree with from speaking is the beginning of the slippery slope of not allowing other people to speak and that it may include you?[/quote]
Not really.

I have not problem with society preventing people from openly publicising incredibly hateful and harmful points of view.

Pro-lifers are arseholes whose opinions cause untold misery and thousands of deaths each year. Why should we tolerate that?