NCLN’s Rebecca Richmond welcomed Ontario Civil Liberties Association paper on free speech being denied to pro-lifers.
The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) released a position paper commenting on “the evident statutory and institutional bias that exists in Ontario against the free-expression rights of pro-life campaigners.” Violations of these rights include “university-campus suppressions of student pro-life events, and an unconstitutional statute that explicitly targets pro-life expression in the public sphere.” In the aftermath of its publication, the OCLA “seeks to raise the concern that there is palpable institutional bias against pro-life advocates in Ontario and that this is harmful to society and substantively unjust towards members of the community.”
The OCLA concluded that pro-life advocates’ right to freedom of expression has been violated “through university-campus suppressions of student pro-life events, and an unconstitutional statute that explicitly targets pro-life expression in the public sphere.” The statute in question is section 65 of Ontario’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This section prevents individuals and organizations from accessing abortion-related statistics, such as the number of abortions performed in the province each year.
The OCLA noted that “the institutional bias of Ontario courts is such that judges are willing to entertain the loophole that ‘universities are not government’ in order to deny Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protections on campuses. Instead, legal authorities should “admit that a public university’s provisions of grounds and facilities for the purpose of educational and political expression is a ‘government activity’ that attracts Charter protection.”
Rebecca Richmond, executive director of the National Campus Life Network, welcomed the release of the paper. She told The Interim that “this has definitely been a longstanding problem on university campuses against pro-life clubs,” but NCLN “has not heard from the OCLA before.” However, they are familiar with the British Columbian equivalent. Although the BCCLA is pro-choice, “they advocated for pro-life students at the University of Victoria and put forth letters to student unions, encouraging them to respect the rights of pro-life clubs. We’re glad the Ontario association followed suit.”
Jonathon Van Maren, communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR), believes that “anyone who’s done (pro-life) activism has” experienced the systemic bias discussed in the OCLA paper. He told The Interim, “campuses are very hostile towards the pro-life view, to the point where many activists come in to the university environment pro-life and leave pro-choice.” He cited a personal incident at the University of Calgary. In 2010, Van Maren and other pro-life students were charged with multiple counts of trespassing after setting up a Genocide Awareness Project display. The students’ lawyer later advised them to continue their activism on campus.
Van Maren was surprised that the position paper was published. Despite civil liberties associations holding biases against pro-life advocates, he is beginning to observe “libertarians (getting) fed up by the idea that pro-lifers don’t have the right to speak.” He considers the release a positive development, and is glad to see “libertarians believing in liberty and real free speech.”
However, to some degree, the paper misses the point. Van Maren is frustrated by the idea that “pro-lifers are considered marginalized in academia.” “Pre-born children – more than pro-life advocates – are truly marginalized. Freedom of speech is most definitely needed, but having one’s arms pulled off in an abortion feels worse.”
Above all, the paper “indicates pro-lifers have a lot of work to do. We have to work much harder to change the culture.” That said, Van Maren said “it will be helpful legally. Judges will be able to recognize that pro-choice libertarians support us.”
Alissa Golob, executive director of Campaign Life Coalition Youth and coordinator of the No2Trudeau campaign with CCBR, said she is not surprised by the OCLA’s work. “It’s common sense,” she told The Interim. “Regardless of where you stand, you can see blatant biases against pro-lifers. They’re just being intellectually honest. I think it’s a good way to raise awareness and hopefully reach the right people to enact change on university campuses.”
Richmond said she hopes the publication, “will show Canadians that this issue concerns people beyond the pro-life community. Canadians need to take this issue seriously beyond the university campus. It will also serve as a reminder to student unions and university administrations: Canadians are watching their behaviour to ensure it respects their fundamental freedoms.”
