6
MArcH 24, 2004

LETTERS

Every Day Isa
straight Day

A response to "Have a straight day”

By Tammy Waller

In response to the letter printed in the last issue about Pride
UNBC’s public awareness campaign, I would like to say that I appre-
ciate Friedrich’s concerns about people potentially being represented
as gay when in fact they may not be. All of us deserve to have our sex-
ual orientation respected in the public sphere. However, I cannot
agree with the tone or assumptions of Friedrich’s letter. The campaign
was intended to raise public awareness regarding the fact that
Someone You Know (Including Your Favourite Rock Star) just might
be gay. This is important because knowing gay people, and knowing
about gay people, is an important step in learning to accept and
respect them. Should Pride UNBC be prevented from spreading this
message simply because someone finds a factual error in the argu-
ment? Furthermore, the sentence “Have a straight day” has really
painful connotations of silence and oppression for gay people. Too
many people are in the closet; too many live with the fear of discrim-
ination because of their sexuality. As an openly gay person on cam-
pus, 1 am well aware that it is de facto Straight Day every day. The
question remains, though: Should it be that way at the expense of gay
people\’s right to speak out and be visible?

Photo By Marlon Francescini

Students recently enjoyed the sights and balloons at UNBC's career fair. They were also exposed to ideas for future

careers, such as the police booths that were featured. There were at least three different police booths at the festival. We

are not entirely sure why there were so many different versions of police booths, but they had uniforms with shiny buttons,
so we think it was okay.

By Laura N. Sapergia

Freedom of speech is an obviously impor>
tant tight for every human to have. It is a
right that seems so elementary in Canada
that many think we simply do not even have

to think about such issties. Although this~

may be the popular opinion, human rights
have, and continue to be, an issue, even here
at UNBC. I would like to comment on the
article “In Defense of UNBC and Free
Speech” from Over. The Edge (Vol. 10, Issue
12). This article was written in response to
another article, “I’m not a child, I’m an
object” (Vol. 10, Issue 10), “In. Defense...”
discusses three main peints, 1) UNBC has
guidelines to prevent discrimination on
campus, 2) No discrimination is taking
place on campus, and 3) If UNBC disallows
services to any group, UNBC is the discrim-

inating body. The author also points out fal-

lacy in the use of child pornography groups
as a comparison for Pro Life groups on cam-
pus and goes on to challenge the UNBC
community to prove that the PG Pro-Life
group was indeed harassing students.

The author, while bringing up some
important and valid ideas, has unfortunate-
ly missed a few significant points. Firstly,
though guidelines do exist in UNBC policy
literature against discrimination on campus,
if said policies are not being upheld by per-
sons involved in booking at conference ser-
vices, such policies are subsequently void of
any validity. This is the case at UNBC and
discrimination has indeed occurred on cam-

FREEDOM OF SPEECH DEBATE CONTINUES

Women Are People Too!

pus. The research done by the author was
useful and valid but not complete and as
such, makes the argument a false one.
Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms Constitution Act, Article 15. (1), it
is stated that “Every individual is equal
befpre and under the law. and has the right
to the.equal protection and equal benefit of
the law without discrimination and, in par-
ticylar, without discrimination based on
race, national or ethnic origin, colour, reli-
gion, sex, age or mental or physical disabili-
ty”. This being said, as part of our constitu-
tional right, we are all protected by law from
discrimination. Pro Life is an organization
that discriminates against women who have
chosen or are choosing to have an abortion.
Shame-based literature is used to inflict
women with guilt and remorse in an attempt
to influence choice against induced abor-
tion. By inferring this guilt and tyrannizing
women to give up their reproductive free-
dom, .Pro Life is discriminating against
women and therefore violating their rights.
Many people on campus were outraged at
the presence of Pro Life on campus and
found the propaganda used by the group
emotionally harmful. Responses like these
stem from “adverse effect discrimination”.
The Human Rights Commission of Canada
recognizes that “sometimes the only way to
tell whether there is discrimination is by
looking at the effects on groups of people”.
Though this form of discrimination is much
more subtle and may be harder to identify, it

is still against the law. _ The point is also
made by the author that if groups such as
Pro Life were in fact disallowed services, the
University itself would-be the discriminat-
ing party. The argument is now a matter of
tights. UNBC is a Pro Choice institution. As
such, the University must decide on behalf
of students, faculty, staff, and the Prince
George community what is in the best inter-
ests of said parties based on the University’s
values and goals. I would like to argue that
if UNBC’s policies were in fact being
upheld, the Pro Life group would not have
gained access to space on campus. As the
author of the article “I’m not a child, I’m an
object”, I would like to clarify the reasoning
for the comparison between propaganda
used by Pro Life groups and the displaying
of child pornography in the hallways of
UNBC. This comparison was simply made
to illustrate that the recent appearance of the
PG Pro-Life group on campus as both dis-
criminatory and harmful to many students
on campus. Representations of plastic fetus-
es, signs displaying the slogan “Abortion
Kills Children”, and balloons saying “I’m
Not a Choice I’m a Baby” were used the day
of the demonstration. The comparison was
used to illustrate that the propaganda used
by PG Pro Life is as harmful as seeing child
pornography displays. The example of
child pornography was perhaps an unlikely
and wrongful choice for such a comparison,
however it seemed that other groups would
have been more easily identified as discrim-

inatory.

Lastly, I would like to comment on the
author’s challenge to prove that PG Pro Life
was harassing students. The author need
only listen to a few of the countless testimo-
nials of harassment from the Gay of the
demonstration. Though it may not be tactful:
to comment on the sex of the author, it is
important to note that the author may not
have directly been harassed by the PG Pro
Life group because he is not the target audi-
ence for Pro Life propaganda. It may be a
bold statement but nonetheless it is an
important observation, one that should not
go without comment. It is unfortunate
that the author of “In Defense...” does not
see Pro Life as a discriminating group, it is
even more unfortunate that many other stu-
dents also share this view. Pro Life is a
group that devalues the lives, and disre-
gards the rights of women. By law these
women have the right to not be discriminat-
ed against. Allowing groups such as Pro
Life on campus is a demonstration of
UNBC’s apparent disregard for the rights of
its students. Iam personally embarrassed to
attend a school that allows groups to come
on campus and discriminate against me.

Sources:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/index.html# egalite
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/H-6/

http://www.chre-cedp.ca/