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?

Honestly surprised at how many would suppress a pro-life group. It’s not unsafe to hear opinions that differ from your own—this is how the trans lobby oppresses us.

If they harrass women who’ve had abortions or posted harassing or inflammatory material on a women’s pro-choice advocacy group centre, that’s a different matter altogether.

Of course the university is a private organisation and technically can enforce bans on groups. But they really shouldn’t if we as a society are committed to free speech (and it is slipping away thanks to the trans lobby and other woke activism)

Universities should ultimately be places that encourage free speech and freedom of assembly.

@SmallWaistFatFace

Don't force your pro-life bullshit onto potentially vulnerable women. These groups should be stopped. Telling women what they should do with there bodies. Shameful.

I agree.

Since when did pro life have the right to dictate what a woman does with her body.

Those saying we don’t have freedom of speech laws in the U.K., we do. It’s more restricted than in the USA though.

For now, we are a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights and have incorporated it into U.K. law via the Human Rights Act 1998.

Article 10 of the ECHR provides:

“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

1. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.“

Offensive views are protected but hate speech is not and the line between the two can be difficult to define but an overtly racist or homophobic society would almost definitely fall under the hate speech category.

There was the question of whether safe zones around abortion clinics might violate protestors’ Article 10 rights but as far as I know no case was ever taken and the safe zones were set up and recently renewed. In that situation the decision could probably be defended on the basis of the protection of the reputation and rights of others, as the women entering the clinic have their own Article 8 right to privacy.

I think on the other hand that a university would have difficulty restricting a society based purely on their views rather than their actions unless those views constituted hate speech, and then there is also the Equality Act 2010 and the fact that there cannot be discrimination on the basis of religious or philosophical belief (provided that belief is worthy of respect in a democratic society).

Universities have been found to be public authorities so both the human rights act and the Equality act apply to them. There has already been a case where a university student association refused affiliation to an anti abortion group and then backtracked based on legal arguments made regarding discrimination and human rights.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/abortion-pro-life-aberdeen-university-student-society-legal-action-baby-a8921986.html%3famp

Personally I’m pro choice and find the views expressed by anti abortion societies pretty disturbing, and can barely believe one man thinks it’s ok for him to speak for what women want (Robert does not believe any women really wants to have an abortion) and some of what they say is actually laughable such as “We do not want to cultivate a society in which women are forced to seek illegal abortions. We oppose all forms of abortion. Therefore, we oppose illegal abortions also.” However I will defend their right to say these things even though I find them offensive and illogical, as long as they are not directly harassing women. Having their society is one thing, campaigning outside an abortion clinic on the other hand should absolutely be restricted. Restriction on freedom of expression is a slippery slope and it is a fine line but in some ways I find it helpful that the anti abortion views are out there as we get to see how ridiculous the justifications are.

@MurielSpriggs

I don’t understand why so many MNers think this group should be banned. Why not just counter with argument or set up a pro-choice group to educate people?

Exactly this. If you don't believe that your pro-choice stance, or your gender ideology and your TWAW assertions can stand up to challenge from those who disagree then it doesn't say much for them.

If your presentation of these views tips over into behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress then you are commiting an offence, and that's a different matter.

I think, for a particular demographic (which I’m part of), being pro-choice is just seen as the default. So it’s easy to imagine that all pro-lifers are extremists who want to abuse women and blow up clinics, and as a result to assume that any pro-life group is an extremist group.

In fact, pro-life views are much more common than that and held by all sorts of people.

@Thekormachameleon

Pro life is not 'a fairly innocuous' ideology and has no right to a space where young women should feel safe

This idea of ‘safety’ needs to go. Ideas can be unsafe, the idea of a safe abortion was once an unsafe idea. Free speech is not just speech you like or agree with.

Pro life shouldn't even be a thing.
If you look at the history of it, it all came about by a couple of batshit men.

There are some things that should be taboo in society.
Like pro slavery
white supremacy

Those things are taboo for good reason.
anti abortion needs to be in those categories. There should have never been any laws banning abortions(controlling women's bodies). It was all started by a couple of batshit men.

Since when did pro life have the right to dictate what a woman does with her body

Pro-life does not have the right to dictate what a woman does with her body, but they do have the right to express their opinion, the campus should allow that.

That’s the point here.

Any protest group is fine.
But picketing is not fine.

And these groups stand around outside abortion clinics making people (women) uncomfortable and unhappy about going in.
I also had a job interview with Novartis many years ago and the animal rights protesters were yelling at everyone going in and out.

You can protest as much as you like but you don't get to stop people going about their lawful business.

I suspect that a Pregnancy Ethics group which restricted membership to only those who are, to the best if their knowledge, capable of getting pregnant, would be a very good thing. Including in their principles that all assertions made by propagandists from either side of the prolife/prochoice debate would be rigorously tested and misinformation would always be challenged. All young people need to learn how to distinguish between opinion, assertion and fact, and how to recognise and reject positions that are based on misinformation. How can they start to learn that if some positions are unsayable?

I agree that it’s nit unsafe to hear opinions that are different from yours.
When it’s a DW posts like the ones that have been linked, all very naive tbh, I can’t see the issue.

But pro life movements are often much more forceful. If these movements end up with banners on the university campus with ‘dead foetuses’, shout that anyone who have an abortion is a killer etc… then it IS frightening. It will be frightening and unsettling for many of the young women who have had, just had, are planning to an abortion and found it hard to do. None of them need the constant reminder that one day they made that choice and that they had to grapple with the ‘is it right?’

I suspect universities are trying to pre empt those much more vocal ‘expression of their views’ to be in campus. And actually I think that’s right. No one should make other people bad, uneasy, frightened, or guilty for having a different idea than someone else

It just seems like a bizarre thing to need a group for. Why? Both sides of the argument are rarely ever going to change their views based on debate. Someone else having an abortion does not affect you. It shouldn't matter if you personally would or wouldn't have one.
It's just a way to 'recruit' more people who agree and do what exactly? Talk about abortion, rile each other up and get people even more convinced that it's wrong? Or are they planning on going to drs offices, clinics etc and shouting abuse at those trying to get help? Or trying to force things to government to make abortion illegal?

I don't disagree with having groups for like minded individuals, I'm just sceptical about the reason for it or what they're hoping to achieve.

No they should not, it's nothing to do with free speech, but not allowing vulnerable women to be targeted in what should be a place of safety.

My experience of pro lifers is that they are never just raising awareness, but intent on forcing their views & therefore forced birth on other women & often in nasty ways. I still remember the nasty pro life memes my ex friend thought was okay to post all over Facebook & tag all of her friends in for best impact. She thought she was "just raising awareness" too, but it was nasty & I was really friggin angry at her for what she did.

Pressed post too soon. I meant to conclude the above with...

But the key issue is how much of this debate is dominated by those with no capacity to get pregnant themselves, wanting to control the reproductive decisions of those who can. They need to butt out of the conversation.

@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.

No they should not, it's nothing to do with free speech, but not allowing vulnerable women to be targeted in what should be a place of safety

A university should not be a place of safety. It’s a place to challenge your ideas and preconceptions. If you can’t handle it, maybe university isn’t for you.

That said, universities have largely failed to be places where ideas are challenged or debated these days. Plenty of women have been hounded off campus for ‘wrong-think’ and it’s shameful.

@SinoohXaenaHide

Pressed post too soon. I meant to conclude the above with...

But the key issue is how much of this debate is dominated by those with no capacity to get pregnant themselves, wanting to control the reproductive decisions of those who can. They need to butt out of the conversation.

Having experienced American campus life, you’d be surprised to know that the pro-life movement is primarily driven by Catholic women.

Maybe it’s different in the UK?

It just seems like a bizarre thing to need a group for. Why? Both sides of the argument are rarely ever going to change their views based on debate

I kind of feel the same way about veganism 😂

YANBU.

I am vehemently opposed to the pro-life point of view and I completely disagree with it. But I absolutely defend someone’s right to have that opinion. It is not wrong that such a group should exist who want to get together and discuss their views or, as often happens in a university setting, take part in debates.

If they were to then use that as a platform to abuse, harass or otherwise interfere with others’ behaviour then that is wrong and should be stopped. But that such groups have a tendency to such behaviour doesn’t mean a group shouldn’t exist in the first place.

And what on Earth is all this “I don’t feel safe”? When did we as a society generally, but particularly at a university (where, surely, the aim is to have ones mind expanded) decide that hearing an opinion we don’t like makes us feel so threatened? And rather than dealing with that feeling ourselves, we want it removed and silenced so we can live in a little protected bubble where we never have to hear a dissenting opinion?

I'm a bit on the fence regarding this. It used to be accepted that being homosexual is wrong, and I know it still is from the point of view of mainstream religions, but it's generally accepted by mainstream society that it's pretty barbaric to preach this and you wouldn't encourage someone to preach this at a university. I think it's similar with regards to abortion

@Mellowfruitfulnessy

I disagree. I think forced birthers should be educated in to why women would want/need an abortion and that their opinion isn’t needed as it isn’t their life to fuck with in the first place

Replace that with “gender critical” - why is it different?

Quite different really.. one is trying to protect women, create a safe space, keep women’s wards sex segregated etc etc and affects women as a whole

Pro-lifers only affect that one person. The woman who has to go through pregnancy and give birth to a child she didn’t want.

Yes, they should be allowed. I don't agree with them but free speech is vital. Universities should be places of debate, challenge and where all topics can be faced head on.

YANBU OP

Universities cannot argue they are inclusive and then exclude a very mainstream group (or non-mainstream, for that matter)

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.

When they just had a table with leaflets, I agreed. When they began to hang large posters of dismembered babies on lamp posts, chalk slogans on the ground and harangue my first years on the way to a feminist criticism seminar, I called security.

Quite different really.. one is trying to protect women, create a safe space, keep women’s wards sex segregated etc etc and affects women as a whole

One is trying to protect ALL women, create a safe space, keep women’s wards open for all women and affects all women regardless of their circumstances of birth.

It’s not different, it really isn’t. One just happens to be an opinion you agree with.

People really do believe unsafe ideas lead TW to kill themselves and think regulating speech is a matter of safety.

This should be strongly pushed back against.