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?

[quote Energy4You]@JumperandJacket the difference is that those people just have their own opinions and don’t feel the need to ram it down the throat of other people. They get on about their own business. They might have a discussion with other people about it if the subject comes up.

Thé issue here is the fact those people life groups have a long history of being disruptive and threatening. I’m not sure that saying they are ok and allowed to wait until there is an obvious issue with them is appropriate tbh.
Because that means that, in the mean time, many women will have been made at the very least uncomfortable.[/quote]
But this is exactly my point. The thread is about the existence of pro-life groups. You’re talking about people being “disruptive and threatening”. These things are not the same. There are plenty of pro-life people and organisations who find the harassment and abuse as appalling as you and I do- it’s just that one doesn’t tend to hear so much about them, for obvious reasons.

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?

Absolutely. I’ve been on the receiving end of this and it is horrific. I’m the first to say that I’ve been judgmental in the past but my experience of having friends turn on me for expressing “a wrong view” really made me understand why freedom of speech and respect for a dissenting opinion is so very important.

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

Do you have the same opinion for those of us on ‘Team Terf’ (as Dave Chapelle would put it)?

@SusieBob

Not really.

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

Who gets to decide what is a harmful point of view? Surely a legally held view shouldn't be suppressed even though some people will disagree with it. What other perfectly legal things shouldn't be allowed?

I'm amazed you can't see the problem with it.

If pro-life groups are banned then pro-choice groups should be as well as should every other group that exits where anyone can hold the opposing view.

We need to allow different groups to express their views - just because some people don't agree doesn't mean we cancel them.

I think the groups should be allowed to meet and speak freely but that shouldnt extend to gathering and protesting in a way that's intimidating to others. Fine to have your own views as long as not forcing them on others.

Surely th

I'm pro-choice but I would think they should also be banned if their literature was all about telling people how they must have an abortion and bandying around made-up stats about how many people die in childbirth or that children born from unplanned pregnancies are more likely to have problem in life.

Also, pro-choice is not the opposite of these groups because it is genuinely about choice not pro-abortion so we don't need 'the other side' to provide a debate because pro-choice is not about pushing a specific agenda.

Those profiles indicate a position that can be counted easy enough. Give them a platform to allow the ridiculance of the arguments to be counteted. Don't make the debate about how hard done by they are by no platform. Face them up and win the argument. Don't make them some sort of free speech crusaders.

because pro-choice is not about pushing a specific agenda. I don’t think that’s right. To me Pro-choice is about saying it is ok to have an abortion if you feel that is right for you. How is that not a specific agenda?
I’m truly amazed that anyone should want to remove people’s right to freely express their opinion. That’s not “choice” it’s exactly the opposite.

We need to ensure that both sides of the debate are allowed a presence, and the same rules apply ie if one is allowed to distribute literature so is the other. In a democratic society with freespeech people are allowed to have that and neither side should be hurling abuse or intimate the other side.

@5zeds but that's not an agenda. Its giving all the options. Pushing an agenda means taking one option and putting this as more important than the rest of making it seem to be the only option. Agenda pushing and giving a choice are very different.

Face them up and win the* argument.*

This is the essence of free speech and should be applied to every topic that warrants discussion. No 'cancelling' of different views.

@theAntsareMyFriends tbf that’s what the “pro life” people would say: the “pro choice” side have just spun their death narrative using the smokescreen of “choice” to make it seem reasonable.

Both positions are valid: it’s largely about where - from a religious perspective - human life begins and should be treated as such. A perfectly reasonable topic for disagreement.

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

And what if someone decided that your views were 'hateful and harmful', even if you thought they were perfectly reasonable? Would you be fine with not being allowed to air your views?

Pro-life groups are not about debate though. They aren't suggesting adoption agencies or offering numbers of support groups for mothers they are pedalling the 'abortion is murder' line. Shock tactics and extremist views are hardly a good start for a sensible debate.

There are often abortion discussions on this very website, and some of the posters are anti-abortion. I welcome that discussion, otherwise its just an echo chamber.

Oppressive hate groups should not be allowed anywhere.

@Thefartingsofaofdenmarkstreet

There are often abortion discussions on this very website, and some of the posters are anti-abortion. I welcome that discussion, otherwise its just an echo chamber.

Yes why is Mumsnet the bastion of free speech in the UK and not universities? I mean, I really appreciate Mumsnet for this forum but …. It should really be the remit of universities. (I’m obviously referring to another topic and not this specific one)

It’s a wry dangerous road to go down deciding that certain opinions aren’t valid and therefore mustn’t be heard.
I am pro-choice and so would disagree with much of a pro-life argument. I probably have other opinions that wouldn’t be the majority view. So what we are all individuals. What is the worst thing that will happen if I hear an alternative opinion? I could rethink my own position, I might disagree with that opinion. The world isn’t going to end, I won’t feel ‘unsafe’, my life won’t be negatively impacted by hearing something that I disagree with. If you are secure in yourself and your views you will never feel threatened by hearing an alternative view.

@MultiStorey

So who is the oppressive hate group in this question, and who decides that?

Exactly!

Notice no one actually answers that question, it's just ignored because there's no good answer.

So, anyone who thinks these groups should be banned, who should get to decide this and how do we make sure that only the right people are listened to?

@Thefartingsofaofdenmarkstreet

There are often abortion discussions on this very website, and some of the posters are anti-abortion. I welcome that discussion, otherwise its just an echo chamber.

I know. The irony wanting students to not be allowed to debate, when they themselves are on a website that actively encourages it.

Ugh not "freedom of speech" again 😭

At the end of the day, some arguments and viewpoints are intellectually boring and easily debunkable by anyone with a brain and/or empathy centre and therefore are not worthy of debate at any mildly prestigious institution.

I'm not sure how I feel about "banning" groups unless they're blatant hate groups. But universities are under no obligation to platform unintelligent ideas in a formalised debate or presentation.

Do you think that only intelligent people should be allowed to voice their opinions, minatrina? Almost half the population is, by definition, of below average intelligence. Surely they have the same right to free speech as anyone else? As for going 'ugh' and using weeping emoticons at people talking about free speech... seriously?!