12/07/2006

Disturbing Trends: Don't Talk About It

Recently, the Carleton University Student's Association passed a motion banning all pro-life organizations. If you want to be a pro-life group, do not expect to receive student union money and do not meet on campus at Carleton. The incident that prompted this motion was nothing extreme. A pro-life group was not shooting campus nurses performing abortions. They were not staging sit-ins at an on-campus abortion clinic. They were not distributing fliers of any type.
All they wanted to do was have a debate on abortion.
An on-campus women's group decided that a debate constituted discrimination against women and their choice to have an abortion.
Please read that sentence again.
A debate constituted discrimination.
There was no injury inflicted, no harassment, no protests. One group on campus wanted to debate.
A debate constituted discrimination.
Today, the motion to reopen the debate on same-sex marriage was voted down. Parliament, having passed a law through the most unethical of means, in its almighty wisdom decided that Canadians want to move on to another subject. Same-sex marriage is a right. To bring such a serious subject up for debate or discussion in the House again constitutes discrimination.
Again, a debate constitutes discrimination.
It would appear that "rights" and "choice" are becoming two very dangerous words. They have more power to silence the masses than any two words should have.
If a debate within a university is considered discrimination, if a debate within the House of Commons is considered discrimination, as Canadians we should be concerned not only about the quality of education being delivered in this country but also about the future direction our country may take. If debates regarding serious issues with moral implications are no longer socially acceptable for fear of "discrimination" (and I use that word lightly), then the ability to objectively question anything will disappear. Objective facts no longer have any relevance to a discussion because there simply will be no discussion. Freedom of speech will no longer have any meaning because no one will be talking about anything of significance. Instead, the will of an elite group will be imposed on all. Superstition and misinformation will abound.
Moral issues, and especially the positions people take on moral issues, will always cause divisions of some sort. It is unrealistic to expect everyone to agree. However, to silence discussion on a moral issue because one group uses the word "discrimination" is unwise. Moral issues always have some social impact. Despite what some will claim, it is not possible to abstract a person from their moral, ethical and religious beliefs. They all affect how a person behaves as an individual and within society. As such, any issue that has a moral aspect must be properly discussed and examined. The society as a whole, not just its lawmakers, should carefully consider what future impact a moral (or, in this case immoral) behaviour will have.
The unfortunate thing about immoral behaviours is that they lend themselves to slippery slopes. Without help, people do not naturally tend to become less depraved; instead they only become more depraved. Negative behaviours are more quickly assimilated and mimicked than positive ones. This is especially true with children.
Historically, enforced silence has never been a good thing. With the recent decisions of Carleton University Student's Association and the House of Commons, it is my fear that we may be voluntarily progressing towards it. Self-censure on issues that are so important is bad enough. Neither of these cases qualify as self-censure however. The order "Don't talk about it" has been given. What is worse is that the media, whose job it is to expose such serious issues, is over-joyed to be moving on! This is especially true with the same sex marriage debate.
It is now more important than ever that we keep ourselves fully informed of social issues. We must also keep our children informed. Where debates are silenced, enforced acceptance and indoctrination quickly follow. This is not a problem only for Christians; it is a problem for anyone who may have a differing view than what is socially accepted. We must learn how to tackle tough issues without fear. We must effectively spot group think and stand up for what we believe.
Most of all, we must not back down when the words "rights," "choice," and "discrimination" are inappropriately used.

7 comments:

Fraser Macdonald said...

That is absolutely disgusting. Someone should find out the person who decided this and get the bloggingtories to email them en masse.

Brian Lemon said...

Rootie
As always I celebrate your piece, but will offer something I got in an interview on CBC yesterday. According to the CUSA spokesperson, the university will offer recognition of and support to "right to life" groups on campus.
But will not support "anti-choice" groups.
To them, and frankly to me (a pretty hard nosed anti-abortionist) this is a fairly reasonable position.
Student organizations will be able to lobby students on the negative effects of abortion and options.
Without a law for or against abortion in Canada, I don't know that there is any better middle ground.
The fault lies with governments who refuse to challenge Parliament, voters and the SCOC on whether abortion is legal or not.

Ruth said...

The motion that the Carleton Student University Association voted on read as follows: "CUSA further 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."
It is certainly debatable that the practical application will mean that pro-life groups will remain as is in light of the fact a debate was what sparked the whole problem. Also, the pro-life side is frequently misrepresented as anti-choice by pro-abortionists.
I hope you are correct and pro-life groups will not be forced to shut down, but I definitely have my doubts.

Anonymous said...

this was a free vote in the House of Commons.

Your side lost, big time!

It is over. All over.

Same sex marriage is here to stay.

William E. Demers said...

For those who are very pro-life, they are consequently anti-choice for the reason that the killing of unborn children turns them off. They have every right to speak out against this. Carleton is disgustingly one-sided and Liberal like all Canadian university campuses (although they take it to the extreme). Pitiful. I hope the pro-life group makes a legal issue out of this because it's about time conservatives took people to court for discriminating against them.

William E. Demers said...

what idiot posted that about the vote today? i guess he/she doesn't know how to read. it's like all the jerks who post comments on the globe and mail website and make fools of themselves for not having read the article.

James Love said...

I'm anti-choice when it comes to a lot of things. I don't think people should be allowed the choice to neglect their kids. I don't think women should be allowed to kill their children, with after they are born or before. If being anti-choice is discriminatory against women too bad, pro-choice are discriminatory against pre-born human beings. Discrimination labeling is just propaganda.

Listed on BlogsCanada Blogarama - The Blog Directory Powered by Blogger FeedBurner Blogging Tories
Southern Ontario Conservatives