Letter to Alan Borovoy of Canadian Civil Liberties Association
The following is a
letter I sent on February 12, 2009 to Alan
Borovoy, General
Counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA). There was
no
response to the letter. (I have made minor
edits and corrections, and added clarifications for a public audience.)
- Joyce Arthur
February 12, 2009
Dear Mr. Borovoy,
I've read your
position
on
anti-choice clubs being denied club status and funding by student union
groups
(in a letter
you sent to the Canadian Federation of Students). I disagree with
your analysis
on a number of levels.
This is not
fundamentally a freedom
of speech issue. Anti-choice groups are not being banned or censored.
They are
free to disseminate their views, organize, hold events, etc., just
simply
not on the student union's dime. With limited resources, student unions
have
every right to limit disbursement of funds. Recently, some anti-choice
students
were charged with trespassing at the University of Calgary.
In that case,
the anti-choice students had been asked to arrange their display so
people
would not be forced to look at it (the right of free speech does not
include
the right to a captive audience), in order to mitigate the safety risk.
The
anti-choice students had themselves told the university their display
would
"likely trigger violence". They were only charged with trespassing
after refusing to do anything to mitigate the admitted safety risk.
Ensuring public
safety
in the face
of anticipated violence becomes a higher value than freedom of speech
in
certain circumstances. I'm sure you're familiar with Section 1 of the
Charter,
which allows some infringement of rights to protect other rights. For
example,
even though the BCCLA has come out against BC's bubble zone law (the Access to Abortion Services Act) based
on free speech principles, the BC Court of Appeal found that the Act
justifiably limited the protesters' right to free speech (only in that
particular place and manner) in order to protect women's right to
access a
necessary health service. This was perceived as a higher competing
value, and
the protesters’ freedom of speech was only minimally impaired. So the
BCCLA was
wrong, and now the CCLA is also wrong, since public safety is surely at
least
as high a priority as accessing necessary medical services.
After reading your
position, I
believe the real issue is that you are unclear on the pro-choice
position and
the importance of legal abortion access to women's basic human rights.
For
example, you state: "The arguments against abortion engage the vexing
issue of when life and/or personhood begins and the balance between the
protection of such 'persons' and the autonomy of women." But
these
are NOT the key issues in the abortion debate at all, the first is
irrelevant
and the second is logically impossible. Women need and have abortions
anyway,
and when life begins or what the moral status of the fetus is, does not
generally enter into a woman's abortion decision. Second, you can't
have two
beings enjoying rights in the same body, so it's impossible to
"balance" rights. The woman must retain 100% of her rights, and the
fetus none, otherwise women's established constitutional rights are
compromised. Fetuses are not legal persons deserving of rights anyway;
legal
precedent is quite clear on this. For more details on these positions,
please
see my article The
Fetus Focus Fallacy.
You argue that any
organization
advocating the enactment of laws could take away some peoples' rights.
But all
the examples you give are not fundamental constitutional rights, so
they are not
relevant to the abortion debate. Women need safe and legal abortion to
protect their lives, health, and liberty, which makes it a fundamental
right. Further, since only women
need abortion,
laws
restricting abortion amount to discrimination against women (because
the
restrictions apply only to women). That's why these laws are unjust and
should
be struck down as unconstitutional in democratic countries, at least
those that
guarantee women's equality. This is explained in more detail in my
article here: Canada
does not need an abortion law.
You also
state: "As for
the comparison with the Ku Klux Klan, it is simply
inappropriate. ...
Suffice it to acknowledge that anti-abortion organizations are not
remotely
similar to the KKK." This gives the impression that you have
never encountered a rationale for the comparison, leading you to
dismiss
it out of hand. I believe this analogy first came up in the 1990's,
when the
campaign of violence and terror against abortion providers was at its
height. I
refer you to a few articles that will give you some background on this,
and
which advance the KKK/anti-abortion comparison:
Although the
violence
has abated
quite a bit since the 1990's, it's important not to forget this very
recent
history, and to remember that anti-choice terrorism still happens and
is still
greatly feared by clinics and doctors. I strongly believe all
anti-choice
groups bear some complicity in this terrorism because of their
inflammatory
language and harassing tactics. Much of what anti-choice groups
do,
including the university groups with their GAP displays, is a form of
harassment against women and/or providers. I also believe it's hate
speech
against women, a kind of "emotional terrorism" if you will. But since
women are not a protected group under Canada's hate propaganda
laws, I
realize it's not illegal. Perhaps that's why GAP displays are generally
allowed
at universities. Because of their hateful and inflammatory nature and
the
resulting safety risk, however, universities have every right to put
limits on
how the displays can be shown.
Finally, here is a
link
to a
speech I gave at the University
of Victoria in
2005, in
support of a vote by the student council to not give an anti-choice
group club
status. This explains a human-rights rationale for the argument that
anti-choice groups
should not have the right to host events or displays at a university at
all, at
least not with the support or permission of the administration or
student
council. The viewpoints promoted by anti-choice groups are
anti-democratic,
anti-human rights, sexist, and discriminatory. Their events and
propaganda amount
to hate propaganda against women and minorities (such as in GAP
displays), and can
even constitute harassment of women. Most universities and student
councils/unions have policies against discrimination and harassment, so
they
have no obligation to extend freedom of speech, let alone funding and
logistical support, to anti-choice groups.
Even if you don't
agree
with the
points of view I have presented, I hope you will at least have a better
understanding of WHY the universities and pro-choice students have
reacted the
way they have, and that this is not strictly speaking an issue of
freedom of
speech as you have described it, but primarily a safety and human
rights issue.
Insofar as it does involve freedom of speech, Section 1 of our Charter
would
likely allow the limitations as reasonable—IF the Charter even
applied to
universities, which it apparently doesn't—certainly not to student
councils and
unions at least.
Thank you very
much for
your time.
Joyce Arthur
Coordinator
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada
www.arcc-cdac.ca