Pro-aborts: “CBR so effective, only censorship and bully tactics can defeat them.”
We have many endorsements from college students, pro-life activists, political leaders, and others who have seen our work in action. But this piece amounts to the strongest endorsement we have ever gotten.
Freedom of (hate) speech: Confronting the rise of anti-choice activities on Canadian campuses was written by a pro-abortion activist in Canada who laments the effectiveness of our Canadian CBR affiliate. She is so frustrated by the effectiveness of our work, she believes only censorship and bully tactics can ensure our defeat.
The more sophisticated of our opponents know that any open admission of our effectiveness will only make our fundraising and recruiting efforts more effective. That is what makes the candor in this article so remarkable. Military intelligence officials who interrogate prisoners of war usually focus their questions on determining what their captors believe to be the most effective tactics being employed against them and why. Our abortion adversaries just volunteered that information and we didn’t even need to water-board them!
These on-campus battles are the new front line of pro-choice activism in Canada. But with anti-choicers setting the terms of debate, how can pro-choice activists respond? [Note their admission that CBR is setting the terms of the debate, which is exactly what we want to do.]
But one thing that they have been really effective at doing is coming up with messaging that affects the popular discourse, which I think is a really dangerous thing because it will eventually seep into the legislature and the courts. [Another admission that CBR is “really effective.” Note the recognition that our work on campus will transform culture.]
Anti-choice groups are using the free speech argument to win the public relations battle … [The author believes we are winning. That’s important, because winning is how the killing stops.]
These presentations and displays have provoked a pro-choice response in a way the activities of other anti-choice groups have not. [That’s because the activities of other pro-life groups, in the view of the author, are not effective and need not be countered.]
With anti-choicers setting the terms of debate, pro-choice advocates have had to grapple with the utility of confronting these groups head-on … [To this author, “confronting these groups head-on” means shouting us down and running us off the stage.]
A new generation of anti-choice groups is establishing a reputation for itself on Canadian campuses, with increasingly visible tactics that many pro-choice activists call discriminatory, harassing and hateful. [Note the significance of “harassing” and “hateful” labels, which could allow pro-life speech to be censored under Canadian law.]
The university administration is barraged with phone calls and emails calling for the event to be shut down on the grounds that it amounts to harassment and is offensive to women … Shortly after the event begins, a group of about 10 women and their allies enter the room, chanting and blocking the projector with the intent of disrupting the presentation. [The context of this passage is an explicit endorsement of censorship and bully tactics.]
… the CCBR legally constitute hate speech by inciting hatred towards those women who have or support the right to have abortions, and should thus be restricted in order to prevent the harassment of women. [Note the call for censorship.]
Unfortunately, it seems that the freedom of expression of protesters is not taken as seriously at McGill as hateful speech … [Note the dismay over lack of censorship.]
This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 12th, 2011 at 5:43 pm and is filed under Campus Debate (GAP). You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.