The battle between freedom of expression and bodily autonomy.

“Affirming the dignity of the human person”

Reading this slogan, most people would not guess the level of controversial charge that it carries. However, this is the slogan of University of Toronto Students for Life (UTSFL), a UTSG-based pro-life group, that has been under intense scrutiny since it came to fruition as an anti-abortion entity on campus.

This criticism continues to escalate due to recent activities undertaken by the organization. During Orientation Week, the club carried out demonstrations with what has become their trademark of explicit signage depicting gruesome photographs of abortions. These demonstrations raise the controversial question as to whether or not this club, and other pro-life organizations, should be allowed to operate on campuses, and to what extent allowing or banning these clubs is a violation of a persons’ freedoms.

THE TENSION ON CAMPUS

The pro-life movement on campus has been characterized by a difficult relationship between pro-life groups and university student unions. To date, almost all of the major universities in Toronto have refused to allocate funding and/or acknowledge pro-life groups as clubs—including Ryerson, University of Ontario Institute of Technology and University of Toronto Mississauga. Of course, this has not been without strong objection from the pro-life community.

For example, in November of 2015, Students for Life Ryerson (SFLR), a pro-life group at Ryerson University, filed a lawsuit against the Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU) for discrimination and censorship because their request to be acknowledged as a club (and thus benefit from funding and campus space) was rejected. The RSU defended their decision to the SFLR by stating in an email that, “The Students’ Union as an organization provides services that promote pro-choice, pro-feminist and pro-survivor initiatives.”

In a similar fashion, the University of Toronto Mississauga Students’ Union (UTMSU) refused to renew the club status of the University of Mississau-ga Students for Life (UTM SFL) group for the 2015-2016 year. The Vice-President of the UTMSU commented that UTM SFL, which has been recognized by UTMSU in the past, was not recognized for the [2015-2016] school year due to their stance on abortion, in terms of being pro-life and using their platform to tell woman what they should do in those situations. In response to this denial of club status, UTM SFL filed a lawsuit in January of this year against the UTMSU for violating freedom of expression.

CENSORSHIP OR BODILY AUTONOMY?

Similar stories have arisen in universities across the country, from the University of Alberta to the University of Victoria. The essence of each is the same: pro-life groups fighting to freely express their views, and student unions refusing to allow the group to operate under the pretence of women’s rights. Thus, the strained relationship of pro-life clubs and the student unions against them is the battle between freedom of expression and restricting bodily autonomy.

If one is to support the pro-life movement, objectively speaking, they are against the right of a woman to govern her own body—however, if one is against the pro-life movement and their demonstrations, then they are indirectly against freedom of expression. This creates a network of complexity as to how one can navigate this situation.

Earlier this year, St. Michael’s College, a college rooted in Christian values, funded $1450 to Students for Life, raising the eyebrows of many individuals against the club. David Mulroney, President of the University of St. Michael’s College, defended this by saying that, “it is particularly important that all perspectives in the debate [of abortion] are allowed to be heard.” Perhaps the message projected by UTSFL evokes discomfort in a large audience by stating their perspective, but many other clubs do so as well, so what makes this one different from other controversial clubs?

Moreover, if a club projects their views in a way that makes individuals feel unsafe, in a mental or physical context, is it acceptable to violate freedom of expression? It is a difficult question to answer, as it becomes a war of opinions, and an irreconcilable debate. Ultimately, the presence of pro-life clubs on campus depends upon the willingness of opposing parties to negotiate and have a mutual compromise, if not compassion for how they express their views. There is no clean-cut solution to this issue. It rests in the hands of individ-uals to be informed of both sides of the argument along with their respective ethical considerations in order to come to a well-informed conclusion

Image courtesy of Ashlee Redmond