University reverses pro-life ban.

Ottawa -- The Carleton University Student Association (CUSA) passed a motion on January 9, 2006 to grant club status to the pro-life Lifeline group, notwithstanding its previous motion on December 5, 2006 to ban the group. The club's approval passed 31-1. The earlier motion, which had passed by a vote of 25-5 (with one abstention and one member absent) and remains in place, reads, "CUSA ... affirms that actions such as campaigns, distributions, solicitations, lobbying efforts, displays, events, etc., that seek to limit or remove a woman's options in the event of pregnancy will not be supported (Ottawa Citizen, Dec. 6, 2006)."

CUSA's ban of opposition to abortion was triggered by Lifeline's sponsoring of a debate on abortion held October 30, 2006, that was attended by 200 students (Atlantic Catholic, Dec. 23, 2006). There were also complaints from some students about the graphic imagery used in certain pro-life materials, and about alleged intimidation of those favouring abortion. CUSA then decided to refuse "resources, space, recognition or funding" to groups that promoted "anti-choice" views, saying such groups "compromised the personal safety and threatened the self-esteem of women who may contemplate abortion or have chosen to have an abortion."

The Carleton administration had then issued a press release emphasizing the commitment of the University to freedom of expression; respecting CUSA's independent decision-making process; declaring that the University is not bound by the views of the student association; and affirming that student groups, whether recognized by CUSA or not, would continue to be able to book space for meetings in accordance with Carleton's existing policies. At least one alumnus had informed Carleton that he would stop donations to the University if CUSA's motion passed, because it was wrong to silence debate at the University on either side of the issue.

Lifeline had pointed out that its rights to freedom of speech under the Charter were being violated. The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada had offered its legal assistance if it sought to press a human rights complaint. But Martha Jackman, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Ottawa, had questioned whether a Charter claim would hold any weight, since the breach of a Charter right must involve an entity which is part of the government; such a claim would first need to be established that Carleton is a delegate of the government (Nat. Post, Dec. 7, 2006). While Prof. Jackman, a lesbian activist, noted that CUSA and a group like Lifeline have competing equality interests, she said that it would not be a radical position on the part of the student government to advocate women's equality rights over freedom of expression for an anti-abortion group. (Note: Even in Canada, there is no 'right' to kill the pre-born.)

How CUSA will reconcile its motions both banning and approving Lifeline is still to be determined. Meanwhile, there has been no resolution of a similar ban of pro-life clubs by the University of British Columbia's student union (LiFeSiteNews Nov. 24, Dec. 6, Dec. 7 2006; Jan. 10, 2007).