By Wei Wu, Contributor

On Oct. 30, pro-life demonstrators stood by L.R. Wilson Hall carrying signs with images of aborted fetuses. It is not clear whether the demonstrators were students at McMaster, or whether they had connections to any existing clubs.

According to Michael Coutu, a student at McMaster, the demonstrators exposed passersby to their signs and distributed pamphlets, which contained graphic images of aborted fetuses. Coutu is concerned about whether the demonstrators received clearance to be on campus. 

“Although they were not particularly loud or disruptive, I still found the images and rhetoric being spread very concerning and ill-advised,” said Coutu. 

Students have raised their concerns online regarding the contrast between the Oct. 30 situation to the May 11 protest during May at Mac, in which student activists were ticketed for trespassing during a peaceful protest that criticized McMaster regarding a range of issues. One of the issues was sexual abuse within student organizations such as the Maroons. 

Initially, the May at Mac demonstrators did not provide identification when asked to do so by security and were asked to leave. However, some of these individuals returned and continued their demonstration later on, which resulted in them being ticketed for trespassing.

Mac Daily News released an update after May 11, stating that university security had been working with limited information at the time. According to this update, security had approached the May at Mac protestors because of complaints from community members about the protestors’ pamphlets, which included “unsubstantiated allegations” made against a named McMaster student. Still, the update referred to the method of ticketing as “regrettable and unfortunate”. The university stated they would take steps to rescind tickets and clear them from the students’ records. 

The juxtaposition between how the university approached the protests of May 11 and Oct. 30 — initially issuing trespassing tickets and charges for one group but not the other — raises questions regarding the limits of protesting on campus and the types of images that are allowed to be publicized on campus. 

In a statement on freedom of expression, McMaster University clearly states that it supports the freedom of expression of all its members, as well as freedom of association and peaceful assembly for all of its members. The university affirms that members of the McMaster community have the right to exchange ideas, challenge received wisdom, engage in respectful debate, discuss controversial issues and engage in peaceful protest. 

 So long as students do not infringe on the rights and freedoms of others, students are free to host and participate in demonstrations at McMaster. Members of the McMaster community are not required to obtain permission from the university administration in order to protest or demonstrate on campus.

 Although the demonstration on Oct. 30 touched upon a highly sensitive topic that some individuals may have found deeply disturbing, university policy protects the right to share their beliefs and engage in public discourse at McMaster.

 “Other images, even though we might not agree with them, we might not find them agreeable, would be allowed and permitted. That’s part of the freedoms of expression the university campus has,” said Gord Arbeau, McMaster’s Director of Communications, adding that he did not know about the pro-life demonstration.

McMaster maintains that it supports freedom of expression and peaceful protests on campus.

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

Randall Andrejciw
The Silhouette

Like many, I was shocked and disgusted when I saw the poster of a freshly aborted fetus that the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform displayed on the Lincoln Alexander Parkway during the evening rush hour on Sept. 17. The news that this group showed these pictures outside of Sherwood Secondary School on Sept. 25 – in view of a nearby elementary school – brought the same reaction. I suppose this means that the photos had their desired effect; it caused people to notice it and be shocked at the degree of violence that the fetus had suffered.

It is interesting, and somewhat backward, that this group and others use images of violent death to get their “pro-life” message across. Even within the pro-life community, the use of images of aborted fetuses has generated debate, some arguing that those images are the cold, dead truth. They say that pictures of death are the most effective way of communicating a pro-life message; that is, an abortion ban.

And herein lays the problem. The goal of the pro-life movement is not solely to ban abortion as it exists in our culture today, although the media would certainly have us believe that. The pro-life movement’s stated goal is to create a culture where human life, from conception to natural death, is recognized as the most fundamental human right and legally protected as such. Groups that use grisly images only confuse the message of the larger pro-life movement. They only put a negative spin on what should be a positive message.

But why is there so much emotional reaction to the pictures? After all, this is Canada, where the abortion debate was settled in 1988. The progressive side just bullies all opponents into submission and sometimes misleads the public in order to obtain their goal of a free and open society. If anything, photos of aborted fetuses should be shown by pro-choice groups as a trophy of their victory, to show what a progressive, open country they have singlehandedly shaped us into. Right?

I doubt it. Like it or not, the debate about abortion is far from settled. The emotional reactions inspired by the pictures of aborted fetuses at Sherwood and The Linc are a microcosm of Canadians’ feelings about abortion. An Ipsos Reid poll conducted in 2012 found that 62% of female respondents supported the introduction of a law that places limits on when a woman can have an abortion during her pregnancy. Dr. Henry Morgentaler saw “serious ethical problems” with late term abortions, saying that “we want to abort fetuses before they become babies.”  Justin Trudeau, whose father decriminalized abortion in Canada, tweeted “Now I’m getting guff from (abortion advocates) because I said I don’t like abortion. Does anyone who’s pro-choice, as I am, really LIKE abortion?”

Regardless of what position one takes, the abortion debate is one worth having. With every passing year, the decision to remove all abortion laws from Canada’s books appears more and more short-sighted and a reaction designed to placate pro-choice activists, who were more militant than their pro-life counterparts and got their way. The display of aborted fetuses, while ill-advised and not effective for pro-lifers, serves to stir up debate – a debate that many Canadians would prefer to be seen as settled, even though it is anything but.