I, along with many other students at York who are ardent believers in free speech, recently found myself outraged by the York Federation of Students’ (YFS) attempt to ban all pro-life/‘anti-choice’ groups on campus by denying them campus resources, space and funding. This policy disables these groups and silences them – amounting to a sort of de facto censorship on the part of the YFS. Needless to say, this decision has precipitated what will soon be a firestorm of debate regarding abortion. However, this will only obscure what this issue is really about, namely freedom of speech. This is due to the fact that when all is said (or not said) and done, the long and the short of what the YFS is doing is telling students what they can and cannot say, as well as what they should and should not believe. This undermines the purpose of our university, which should be a bastion of free speech and an arena for fair and open debate. Furthermore, it acts as an affront to both what and whom the student union is supposed to stand for. Historically, the student union was created to be an enabling body that existed to expand and protect the freedoms of students against suppression by the university administration and the government. Now, however, it seems unable to protect us even from itself.

While it is quite obvious that the YFS’s methods of enforcing their position are questionable, their reasons for enacting such a policy are not only disagreeable from an ideological stance, but are also quite illogical and completely unsubstantiated. Take for instance the YFS’s first argument that pro-life groups foster an unsafe environment on campus and should therefore not be allowed. In response I would ask: “What exactly about pro-life groups is making the campus unsafe?” Labelling them “unsafe” would imply that they are somehow “harming” students. So, what do pro-life groups do, precisely, that “harms” students? What does the YFS define as “harm?” None of these questions have been answered. If their definition of “harm” includes offending some students who harbour beliefs and opinions different than those of pro-life groups, then the YFS may have a case. However, offending or upsetting someone is hardly “harming” them and differences of opinion and the debate surrounding these differences is a normal part of university life.

On the other hand, if they are trying to argue that pro-life groups are actually physically or mentally maiming students – literally “harming” them – then I would challenge the YFS to provide an example of a specific instance where this has ever occurred on campus. And, if they can provide a few examples, I would ask them why they feel the behaviours of the perpetrators of a single crime are representative of an entire group. The only idea the YFS could try to back up would be the notion that pro-life groups offend or annoy a significant
portion of the student body, or perhaps even foster a “regressive” political atmosphere at York. Of course, these things are far from illegal, and their decision to outright censor differences of opinion and ban coverage of the issue is undeniably a hell of a lot more politically regressive. Their second argument, that pro-life groups perpetuate hate speech, I find to be a gross over-exaggeration. Wikipedia defines hate speech as: “Speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance.” Taking this definition into account,

it is completely illogical to ban all pro-life groups on the grounds of perpetuating hate speech for one simple reason: by banning all pro-life groups on campus, the YFS is effectively accusing all pro-life groups on campus of perpetuating hate speech with no exception. This goes beyond simply citing a few isolated examples of hate speech, and to substantiate such a claim is pretty much impossible. It would make more sense to deal with instances of hate speech perpetrated by pro-life groups on a case-by-case basis, as any other instance of hate speech on campus would be dealt with. If a pro-life group utters hate speech on campus, perhaps the individual group (or members within the group) should get disciplined, banned from campus and/or have other routes of legal action taken against them in accordance with Canada’s laws regarding hate speech.

As an aside, I find it quite ironic that under the definition of hate speech, the YFS itself is technically perpetuating hate speech by advocating for prejudicial treatment of pro-life groups due to their moral and political beliefs – but I’m sure they’ve already conveniently overlooked this fact. I feel frustrated that I have to go to such lengths defending a freedom as fundamental as the freedom of speech on a campus as academically enriched as York’s. I also feel somewhat stupefied by the fact that I am effectively writing in support of the pro-life and conservative Christian groups on campus, which, as a vehemently pro-choice liberal, makes me feel more than a tinge of self-betrayal. However, when dichotomous groups like Campus for Christ and Freethinkers, Skeptics, and Atheists at York (FreeSAY) are joining together to accomplish the same ends, it becomes quite evident that the issue at stake does not concern abortion, but freedom of speech, and that freedom of speech is a non-partisan issue. This is because we all like having our opinions, but in order to maintain the right to think and say whatever we want, we must allow others to think and say whatever it is they want. This trade-off is absolutely vital; as Rosa Luxemburg said, “Freedom of speech is meaningless unless it means the freedom of the one who thinks differently.” This is true,even if, as in my case, we’re offended by the opinions of those we disagree with. I would rather have opinions shoved in my face than tape over my mouth any day.