The Case of the Purloined Backbone

The York University student union, among others, has proven that it lacks the personal, as well as intellectual courage to face a group opposing abortion. A meeting all but secret held after the majority of the student body left for the summer, the failure to secure the opinion of the student politick at large and the utterly infantile reasons for disallowing pro-life groups advantages the student union affords other groups points to a clear and undeserved bias.

Personally, I don’t think any special-interest group has a place on campus. A post-secondary institution is a place, ostensibly, for higher-learning, not for youthful malcontents alienating the rest of the student body over white males using whales to cut down trees, or whatever the hell it is people are mad at these days. That being said, free debate does have a place on campus and should not be stifled by special-interest groups or a radical professor, a throwback from the ‘60’s (and what a grand failure that era was).

To decipher the reasons for York University’s student union’s decision is to wade through tired old mantras (apparently, the student union also voted out originality). If their contention that the abortion debate was long resolved and pointless and that they were doing the student body a favour by shutting out one of the groups involved, their words gave them away.
The word “anti-choice” has been used deliberately, as if being opposed to abortion for any reason is somehow impinging on the rights of women. The word “sexist” is thrown into the mix in order to cement the belief that opposition to abortion equals misogyny. People holding a pro-abortion opinion (this word I use deliberately for people do support it) use certain words (as those who hold pro-life opinions do) in order to shade how pro-lifers are seen. If pro-lifers are radicals who have no place in modern society then it is easy to discount their views. If a pro-lifer is an Everyman, then his opinions hold more sway. How can you disbelieve the guy next door whose lawn-mower you’ve borrowed, or the woman whose son goes to school with your son, or a vegan whose eco-friendly word-view can be wedged into a pro-life ethic that is both biodegradable and not tested on animals? If the issue itself isn’t meat enough (no offence to vegetarians wherever they may be), then the debater must be impeachable. York University has done quite the job to not only brush this issue under the rug but forget who populates pro-life groups (i.e.- Margaret Fung) or the current opinion of abortion in the country, and who holds those opinions. Hardly sexist.

On top of this, the student union waited until everyone had left for the summer to make its irrational decision. It did not gauge- or care- that others, regardless of their opinions on the issue, may support free debate on any topic, including the one Miss Gilary Massa (she also thinks Israel is an apartheid state) thinks is closed to all future discussion- discussion which can only concern women. See here.

"I think it's outrageous that they do this when students are away for the
summer and when they can't really do anything about it," said Michael Payton, a
York student who argued the pro-choice side of the March debate. "This isn't the
right of the student government to be deciding what students are allowed to
hear."

Though Miss Massa claims support, it is clear from this quote that she does not have it. Yes, she doesn't want a well-rounded debate on the abortion issue, as free speech does not apply there. She is shocked, however, that referring to Israel as an apartheid state would be verboten:

In a letter to McMaster's provost and the Students Union Executive, Ms. Massa
said she was shocked and dismayed to hear that the administration and McMaster
Students Union had banned the use of the phrase "Israeli Apartheid" on
campus.
The letter called for the ban on the phrase to be rescinded "in
accordance with a basic commitment to freedom of expression and organization in
the democratic context of the public university."
The letter added, "This strange and unprecedented ban is a blatant violation of democratic freedoms of speech and dissent, and an attack on students' right to organize. It is the position of the YFS and GSA [Graduate Students] that universities are sites where discussions and debates about difficult geopolitical questions should be promoted, not stifled. International controversy about use of the phrase
'Israeli Apartheid' cannot be resolved through repression, but through ongoing
intellectual exchange."

Miss Massa can have it both ways. I'm surprised she wouldn't support the banning of any words. That's what she has done in York University.

This ignorance and arrogance will not appear only once. It stands to reason that if one group can be banned, so too can any group. Will Miss Massa and the rest of the student union tire of a Jewish group, or an environmental group? Maybe not- at least not publicly.

It would be bad relations if they did.