March 10, 2004 —— FREEDOM OF SPEECH DEBATE CONTINUES ——— In Defense of UNBC and Free Speech By Aaron A. Allen lam writing this response to the anonymously written article “I’m not a child, I’m an object!” in the last issue of Over the Edge (V.10 Iss.10). I found the argument put forth in the article both faulty and insulting. I hope, if it is acceptable in form and length, that it is not too late to be published. Thanks for your consideration I am incredibly insulted by last issue’s anonymous article entitled; “Ym not a child, I’m an object!” The article appears to be yet anoth- er addition to the ongoing debate over whether or not Pro-Life booths or demonstrations should be allowed to take place on the UNBC campus. The author argues that UNBC has no guidelines pro- hibiting discriminatory groups from conference services. Further more, the author equates Pro-Life with discriminatory groups and likens them, in a hypothetical ges- ture, to those who would advocate and make public child pornogra- phy. This is an incredibly insulting and twisted sense of logic! Firstly, UNBC does have guide- lines to prevent discrimination and harassment. “Article 10” of the Use of Non-instructional Space For Meetings in UNBC’s policies and procedures states that: “All groups utilizing University facilities must comply with established University policies”. Included in these University polices are UNBC’s guidelines on Harassment & Discrimination. “Article 1” of Harassment & Discrimination details the broad yet succinct category of whom is protected; it seem to protect the rights of all possible staff and stu- dents of this University. For more information on what constitutes discrimination and harassment, the guidelines directs the reader to the Human Rights Code of British Columbia in which discrimination is described as “when an individ- ual person or group of people are denied opportunities and rights because of a personal characteristic such as race” or political and reli- gious belief, etc. Just because, as the author states, “PRO-LIFE is NOT an example of a group that advocates for diverse thought”, that does not mean they are dis- criminating against anyone at UNBC. By being present, Pro-Life advocates do not prohibit UNBC staff and students the right to express their supportive or contra- dictory opinion on the subject mat- ter nor is UNBC punishing stu- dents and staff for their opinions. Pro-Life demonstrations are also nothing like any hypothetical demonstration to advocate child pornography. Last time I checked, child pornography and the depic- tion of child pornography (whether in private or in public) is illegal in Canada. In contrast, pur- suing and advocating a pro-life lifestyle is legal. UNBC guidelines prohibit illegal activity, so the showcasing of child porn on cam- pus would surely be denied. There are no grounds to deny pro-life advocates unless they are hurling insults and abuse at staff and stu- dents as is defined by the Human Rights Code of British Columbia's definition of harassment. Prove to me Pro-Life booths on campus were harassing students. To insinuate that pro-life advo- cates should be banned from con- ference services is a complete hyp- ocritical response that goes against everything a progressive institu- tion such as UNBC is all about. Just because a group’s religious, sexual, or political opinions differs from your own does not mean they are discriminating against you. That is a flawed definition of discrimination. And just because a group participating in conference services is a minority or out of favour with current “progressive” ideology does not mean they should be forcibly silenced if you cannot prove they are either crimi- nal or abusive. To quote “Article 1.2” of UNBC’s Harassment & Discrimination policy: “Neither this policy, nor its definitions in particular, are to be applied in such a way as to detract from the right of faculty, staff and students to engage in the frank discussion of potentially controversial matters, such as age, race, politics,religion, sex and sexual orientation”[1]. Even if Pro-Life advocates obey all the guidelines and procedures for conducting conferences, were UNEC to deny Pro-Life advocates a voice then UNBC would be the discriminating party.The author’s argument is that Pro-Life demon- stration on campus is the same as allowing child pornography demonstrations. The author states: “I know what you're thinking, it’s not the same thing, but think about it.” Such a statement is a vague, generalized, and misleading argu- ment in terms of what constitutes prohibited discrimination, harass- ment and criminal activity at UNBC. The parallel between pro- life and child pornography is flawed at best, irrational, and igno- rant at worst. It is insulting not only to students and staff on either side of the debate and victims of child sex abuse but also to the very institution of UNBC for implying that UNBC is complacent when it comes to criminal expression! The author closes by stating: “Advocates for such groups [as Pro-Life] believe in one solution for all situations. In a real world, this is simply not realistic”. I agree, that it is not realistic. Controversial issues are complex and multifac- eted. Then why would the author try to pursue the same unrealistic argument that the author argues against? The author’s argument is equally unrealistic because the arguments do not reflect a clear, rational, and well-informed description of “a real world”. Instead, the author seems to sug- gest that we should deny the rights of free speech to others because the author does not agree with the opposing opinion. To me, it looks like the author is the real discriminator in this situa- tion. SOURCES Use of Non-Instruction Space for Nite Ca Eh eT Geiss: http:/ / www.unbc.ca/ policy / pdf /serv-ul.pdf Harassment&Discrimination: http: / /www.unbe.ca/ policy/ pdf /secu-h1.pdf Human Rights in _ British CO) lieth fa) Dye iliac http:/ / www.ag.gov.be.ca/ pro- grams/hrc/ publications /ProtectD iscrimination.pdf Response to “I’m Not a Child” By Noam mastah In response to whoever wrote the “I’m not a.child, I’m an object” piece in the Opinion section of the Feb 11th issue. I wanted to rant about the issue of Freedom of Expression but found someone who had already done a better job than I could possibly do: “Stalin was in favor of freedom of speech for those who agreed with him. So was Hitler, and Mao, and Suharto, and every other despot and mon- ster the human race has inflicted upon itself. But believing in real freedom of speech means defend- ing precisely those people whose ideas you disagree with. The more abhorrent you find someone’s views, the more important it is to remind yourself that freedom of speech means freedom of speech for everyone, or for no one.” I say we let Pro-Life people and Racists say whatever they want whenever they want to, it only makes them look bad. Photo by Marlon Francescini UNBC celebrates Black History Month with Traditional Dances such as the Warrior Dance, as performed in the Ivory Coast, as seen here. The Importance of Human Rights By Stephanie Wilson 2 On February 25th, the United Nations General Assembly approved Canadian Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour for the position of High Commissioner for Human Rights. While this in itself is very cool, Justice Arbour has already dedicated part of her legal career to the furthering of human rights and international justice, serving as the Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda between October 1996 and September 1999. This should be a source of national pride. I mean, us Canadians have a tendency to hold our claims about collectively loving human rights above other countries’ heads, but when one of our own is granted a prestigious position, it’s like...who cares? Love or hate the United Nations, one of our justices was selected over every other qualified person on the face of the Earth to lead the UN Commission on Human Rights. The least we can do is show a little support.