The Auckland University Students Assn provides a moment worthy of a Tui billboard this morning; the Herald reports (with our emphasis added):
A free-speech battle is shaping up at Auckland University tomorrow over a move to boot out an anti-abortion group from university facilities.ProLife Auckland, which claims more than 400 student members, faces disaffiliation from the students' association after a complaint that it distributed a pamphlet containing "misleading health information".The students' association is laying on a barbecue as an incentive to attract the required quorum of 200 students at a special general meeting to consider the motion in the university quad at 1pm tomorrow.Association vice-president Dan Haines said the executive was not recommending disaffiliation but was just putting the motion to the meeting."People communicated to our women's rights officers that it was an issue. It was the women's rights officers who brought it up," he said."Personally I think that maybe having a discussion is a good thing. It is a contentious club."
If the AUSA really ISN'T intent on disaffiliating ProLife Auckland, why is the association even holding a meeting, stumping up for a BBQ for 200 people, and waging a publicity campaign against ProLife which attempts to defend AUSA's move to stifle freedom of expression on the campus?
There is clearly an agenda behind the attempt to disaffiliate ProLife Auckland. If the AUSA was serious about representing EVERY student on the Auckland campus, they would subscribe to the words attributed to Voltaire:
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
4 comments:
What Voltaire actually said at the condemnation of Helvétius's De l'esprit was not what you quoted, but "What a fuss about an omelette!"
What you've quoted is a misreading of Tallentyre's story about the occasion.
That way you can avoid being accused of outdated hearsay just like these pro-lifers with their brochures.
Free speech and the basic right to hold a dissenting POV is only supported by the socialist left when it is of benefit to them.
When that is inapplicable they revert to 'we know best' and in the unlikely event that fails then it is "here is your coolaid just drink it".
I have never been involved in abortion or the debate but as one who fell to an unplanned pregnancy, todays enlightened attitudes being more accepting we might have gone a different path.
If I had to stand and be counted I would be Pro Choice.
At emergency response training last night a bunch of 17 somethings were discussing rooting and who was with 'a bun in her oven' and they asked me "what do you think old timer, I replied take precautions, attempt to be respectful and if shit happens don't walk away, it is your responsibility, not mine.
I think they expected something more disapproving, but the sun rises the tides ebb and flow, they did not discover sex they just are the victims of casualisation of relationships, it is only rooting isn't it.
Sad.
You'll note Sgollur that I used the phrase "they would subscribe to the words attributed to Voltaire"; I am well aware that there is debate about the origin of the statement. But that does not detract from truth of the statement.
And as for my own views on the subject, check out the disclaimer at the foot of my earlier post on the issue; I'm certainly not a ProLifer:
http://keepingstock.blogspot.co.nz/2012/07/free-speech-but-on-their-terms.html
AUSA state they are neutral with no agenda at all.
Perhaps they can't explain why then in 1997 they refused to allow a student pro life group Students Organised to Uphold Life (SOUL) to affiliate to the student union. This refusal was campaigned for by the editor of AUSA’s own magazine who falsely accused the president of SOUL Waikato of harassing women.
Perhaps they can also explain why in 2001 when a SOUL group tried again to affiliate they refused to allow it to proceed to the vote and called for a second meeting.
Then again in 2001 when SOUL again attempted to affiliate AUSA refused to allow them affiliate.
Perhaps AUSA can explain why when pro-life Auckland tried to affiliate a couple of years ago they were told that AUSA had a policy not allowing pro-life students to affiliate. Again pointing to unsubstantiated claims of harassment from years earlier.
Then when pro-life NZ got the policy removed and did finally affiliate two years ago, we get AUSA calling for them to be disaffiliated claiming on the basis of an anonymous compliant that no one has been allowed to investigate that harassment has occurred.
The fact is this has been going on for over a decade, AUSA have a clear pattern of behaviour.
Post a Comment