8 comments on “UVIC Student Society has temper tantrum, sorry, sings kumbaya and then strips rights away from pro-life club

  1. Pingback: What has happened to pollute “progressive” in Progressive Conservative? | CRUX OF THE MATTER ►

  2. I can just picture all these frothing mouthed idiots stomping their little footies and banging their empty little heads on the floor.

  3. I find it interesting how many people like to use the “spoiled/overindulged child going to school on mommy and daddy’s dime” metaphor when discussing university students. I for one have had to finance my own education, and if you take a look at the amount of student debt in Canada (over $20 billion all-told) a lot of other students have as well.

    Have you ever had the opportunity to be on campus during one of Youth Protecting Youth’s demonstrations? You want to have a conversation about “good parental upbringing [being the] exception, rather than the rule”?

    And while we’re at it, how does your labelling of UVSS members expressing their concerns as “children” having “temper tantrums” fall within the rubric of “debate using the tools of logic and reason”? I have to ask, were you actually at the UVSS meeting on Monday? You look a little old to be an undergrad student…

    • The analogy stands. Perhaps you might want to look up the word “irony” in a dictionary to see why we have painted it thus. Meanwhile, perhaps you might like to be educated on why censorship should not be allowed on a university campus, nor should free speech be banned before you seek to defend the soft fascism occurring at UVIC. A good article on why is should not be ignored can be found at: http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/blog/2012/02/08/canadas-soft-fascism

      Yes…I have been present at many pro-life demonstrations at various University campuses…and the usual hissy fits, and I do mean hissy fits, come from the so-called “pro-choice” students who demonstrate that this debate is never about “choice” but all about advancing the cause of abortion.

      • I just want to say from the get go: I have no illusions that I will be able to change your way of thinking on this matter, but I appreciate you allowing me to post my opposing opinions.

        You may see your analogy as ironic, but I think we both know that it is simply incredibly belittling. I think you would do well to look up the definition of an “ad hominem” argument. I’m not promoting or opposing the actions of the UVSS, but I do take exception to your ridiculous framing of the participants, and the situation at large.

        It’s spurious at best to suggest that “pro-choice” students are “all about advancing the cause of abortion.” Choice is about doing something or not. So-called “pro-life” advocates are not being forced to have abortions by the pro-choice agenda, but the “pro-life” agenda is clearly about stopping people from regulating their own lives and their own bodies; from making their own choices. You want to talk about fascism?

        I completely agree that free speech should be allowed on university campuses, but why should one group be allowed to disrupt the lives of other students? Regardless of whether they are using language and images that can been deemed offensive by others. I cannot think of any other group that engages in such disruptive public actions on campus. Most chose to utilize one of the many classrooms or lecture halls and invite people to come and take part or not. Other groups don’t go out of their way to disrupt other students, without even knowing whether or not they share their opinions or not.

        The actions of YPY (and I would suggest the majority of “pro-life” groups) does not fall under the notion of (to use your own words once again) “debate [or even discourse] using the tools of logic and reason.”

      • I appreciate your view. However, if in fact the unborn child is just that, a child yet to be born, then your concern is hardly valid. If the photographs are so disruptive or horrible, then why tolerate the procedure itself? This is nothing to do with “choice” if all you will allow is the advancement of is material that presents termination as a valid option…no, a human right.

        Free speech is only free when you will allow someone to present something that you may strongly disagree with, yet recognize that they have a right to present their views.

        In this case, the students happen to hold to the scientific view that no bar mitzvah happens in the womb to someone translate a fetus into a human being. It is merely a stage in the growth and development of all human beings…and as such the basic fundamental human right to life must be advanced.

        There is no human right not to be offended…although some of the students on university campuses seem to think there is. And the analogy of a group of soviet students cheerfully taking away the constitutional rights of another group of students is highly comparative and accurate. Although you may not think so….history begs to differ.

  4. Querro Forgani: You are spot on.

    “Most chose to utilize one of the many classrooms or lecture halls and invite people to come and take part or not. Other groups don’t go out of their way to disrupt other students, without even knowing whether or not they share their opinions or not”.

    This is exactly the issue. I have no issue with pro-life demonstrations taking place on campus, in fact I think it is important to have both sides of ANY issue represented. However, I do take issue with being forced to view graphic imagery, while being videotaped without my permission. I find it surprising that this issue of videotaping students without their consent hasn’t been brought up more while debating the actions of YPY.

    I also take issue with this argument that “harassment is not a feeling” or “being offended does not equal harassment”. Harassment by definition is a subjective experience. I agree that being offended alone does not always equate harassment. However, harassment can not have occurred WITHOUT the victim having experienced negative emotions as a result of the actions of another. No one feels harassed by something, or someone, that didn’t offend them.

    It is clear that the intentions of radical groups such as YPY is to create an environment of hostility, and evoke an emotional reaction. This is an organization that thrives on the negative attention they receive — and they are very good at getting it. To simply say the intention behind something like the Choice Chain is to create discourse about “life issues” is naive, and dishonest. In order to have a meaningful, and respectful exchange of ideas, one must have an environment in which all parties feel respected. An emotionally driven, hostile environment doesn’t spark meaningful debate, it only sparks anger, hurt and hate.

    Freedom of speech comes up time and time again on this issue. We are not debating free speech. No one is saying this organization doesn’t have the right to their opinions. What is being contested is whether or not this event violated University and UVSS policies. The University, just like any employer, is allowed to have policies in place to protect its students and employees. In BC, the law says that smoking is permitted outdoors, so long as it is not done within 3 meters of an entry way. The University has made a policy that is more stringent than that, they say that for the protection of students and staff, smoking must be done outside of Ring Road. Does this mean that the rights of smokers are being violated? Of course not.

    I respect the passion your members have on this issue. I do not respect your methods of expressing it.

    • “Freedom of speech comes up time and time again on this issue. We are not debating free speech. No one is saying this organization doesn’t have the right to their opinions.”


      “Niggers are allowed to think they should be free, I just don’t want to hear about it. Same with commies. Dirty commies. Keep your commie propaganda to yourself. What? Suppression? I’m not suppressing anything, they’re free to be commies all they want, they just aren’t allowed to tell me about it, it offends me.”

      Thank you for proving that one side of this issue has no clue what they’re talking about.

      If you want to talk about “creating a hostile environment” how about one where your every attempt to speak is met with derision and hatred, where people campaign to destroy your very existence?

      I was at that open forum to debate the shut down of YPY. The choice group were like ANIMALS. YPY couldn’t even talk over all the hissing and booing.

      I weep for the future of Canada. SOPA may be dead, but it’s counterpart is well and alive in the minds of our coming generations.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s