Don't opt out: click here to learn more about our work.

The March For Life counter-protest was an exercise in futility

Modern protests are not short on passion, but lack substance

The March For Life counter-protest was an exercise in futility

It is a sad comment on the current state of political discourse that the police frequently have to separate groups of people with opposing ideas. The more important an issue, the more crucial it is that the truth – or something approximating the truth – be reached, and this can only be done through rational dialogue.

It is only through reasoned discourse that the complexities of political issues can be fully explored, and the points of contention ironed-out. If there is any hope at all of resolving some of the bitter disputes which populate our modern political landscape, it rests on the willingness of activists on both sides to control their emotions and use their higher faculties to argue their cases intelligently and, crucially, to consider that they might be wrong about some or all of what they believe. There may not be a path to compromise and conciliation on any particular topic, but if there is, it is through conversation, not conflict.

This calm, rational, self-aware truth-seeking is precisely what did not happen at Carr Hall on May 9, when pro-choice demonstrators converged to protest against anti-abortion workshops being held within. As The Varsity reported, police were called to the scene and guarded entrances while the protestors chanted outside.  

Whatever ideas were being discussed inside Carr Hall — correct or incorrect, laudable or dangerous — went unchallenged. No minds were changed on either side. Nothing was accomplished, and no progress was made.

Whether or not the police presence was necessary to prevent violence is unknown and beside the point; rather than putting forth an intelligent argument or rationally engaging with the ideas to which they were opposed, the protestors waved signs and chanted slogans. They made noise rather than sense. As a result, yet another abortion clash has come and gone, and we are no closer to agreement, compromise, or conciliation.

This is the dismal reality of modern political discourse: rather than advancing and defending ideas of their own, protestors instead try to drown out or shut down ideas they oppose. Of course they will say they are not “just opposed” to these — their reasoning is that the ideas are hateful, dangerous, or both and need to be suppressed.

The possibility that their own ideas may be considered hateful or dangerous by others, and that to determine which is which requires open, intelligent discourse, does not seem to cross their minds — neither does the idea that it may not be their place to decide, on behalf of Canadian civil society, which ideas may or may not be put forth for public consideration. Still farther from their minds is the possibility that, if these ideas are really so dangerous, and if they are so correct that they are justified in censoring them unilaterally, that it might be better — indeed crucial — to publicly engage with and dispatch them through rational argument, so that they might be publicly shown to be wrong.

Abortion rights are extraordinarily important, and the more they come under attack the more crucial it is that the people defending them come across as calm, rational, and well-informed, rather than aggressive and unreasonable. It is just as crucial that they focus their attention on winning the debate rather than shutting it down, for — as with all attempts to stifle free expression — it will not be suppressed, but merely driven underground, where those with whom they refuse to engage will have no opposition.

Simon Capobianco is a fourth-year student studying math and bioethics at Woodsworth College.

Anti-abortion, pro-choice protesters clash at Carr Hall

Toronto Police, Campus Police called to anti-abortion workshops

Anti-abortion, pro-choice protesters clash at Carr Hall

Following an anti-abortion March For Life rally at Queen’s Park this morning, protesters gathered at Carr Hall at St. Michael’s College (SMC) to attend workshops as pro-choice counterprotesters lined up outside the south entrance, held back by Toronto Police.

Campus Police officers were posted at the entrances as counter-protestors, who have since dispersed, chanted outside.

The anti-abortion workshops were hosted by the University of Toronto Students for Life (UTSFL) club, a Ulife recognized student group.

According to Elizabeth Church, University Spokesperson, Campus Police were on-site as “observers” while Toronto Police were attempting to escort anti-abortion protesters to Carr Hall.

On the use of university space for anti-abortion workshops, Church wrote to The Varsity in an email: “The University of Toronto is committed to free expression and open dialogue, even if that means controversial topics may arise. This includes the right to peaceful protest.”

The UTSFL has an established relationship with SMC, having previously received funding from the St. Michael’s College Students’ Union, as well as hosted similar events there in previous years.

This story is developing, more to come.

Update (May 10, 12:39pm): This story has been updated to include comment U of T.

Letters to the Editor: Regarding pro-life demonstrations at U of T

Re: "Op-ed: Graphic anti-abortion protests have no place on campus"

Letters to the Editor: Regarding pro-life demonstrations at U of T

Re: pro-life demonstrations at U of T 

I was pleased to read in a recent op-ed that U of T Students for Life’s display of abortion victim photography is seen now as “commonplace on campus.” That is our goal. We aim to make the victims of abortion visible to everyone, and to make the case to everyone that human rights are for all human beings. We don’t “chant” or “heckle” or use disrespectful language. We present the scientific fact, taught in U of T’s own curriculum (e.g. CSB328H), that fertilization is the creation of a new, individual human being (see, and we make the ethical case through civil and respectful dialogue that human rights should start when the human being starts. We also volunteer weekly at a local charity to help people facing difficult pregnancies. Yes, pregnancy can involve incredibly difficult life circumstances. Is killing an innocent human being ever an ethical solution to difficult life circumstances?

Photos of abortion victims are shocking. Abortion decapitates, dismembers and disembowels an innocent human being. We show the photographic evidence of the injustice so we can end the killing, adopting the strategy of effective social reformers of the past, from the British abolitionists to the National Child Labour Committee to the civil rights movement. I’ve been reading Adam Hochschild’s Bury the Chains these past few weeks, about how the British abolitionists “plastered the country with slave ship diagrams” (p. 168) which left an “instantaneous impression of horror upon all who saw” them. (p. 156) The abolitionists realized “what a powerful weapon” (p. 155) they had because the visual evidence of the horrors of injustice was “unanswerable.” (p. 156) Is the same not true of the photos of abortion victims?

What answer shall our society give to the photos of children shredded to pieces by abortion? We show the photos because they are the strongest and most effective means we have to save children’s lives, and to spare women the trauma of abortion. As long as nearly 2,000 children are being killed by abortion every week in Canada, we will expose the inhumane reality of abortion every week on campus, until the photos are just records of the past.

— Blaise Alleyne, Education Coordinator for U of T Students for Life


Stifling debate and expression

I am writing in response to a recently published op-ed entitled “Graphic anti-abortion protests have no place on campus.” I felt it necessary to issue a response based on the values that an educational institution is supposed to uphold and embolden. I find this op-ed to be founded on arguments of illogicality and illiberalism.

I must start by saying that I do not agree with the position of the anti-abortion protesters nor do I agree with their methods.

However, this op-ed does not provide the reader an explicit solution to dealing with the possible harms, but instead it is marred by an attitude towards freedom of expression that looks to limit its scope to spare the feelings of some who feel distressed.

My encounter was one of civility, where these protesters politely talked with multiple students to exchange viewpoints and strive for a common ground. What I saw was exactly how people who fundamentally disagree should go about airing out their differences. In fact, a key point of the op-ed supports this.  A first-year student began chanting “pro-choice,” an exhibit of people utilizing their own expression to respectfully counter views they disagree with. That is how society should function.

Hearing and seeing offensive things is the price we pay for living in a free and open society. Unfortunately, this op-ed seems to believe that our freedoms also include the freedom not to be offended, distressed, or scared. Freedom of expression includes the ability to criticize, offend, and cause fear and thus anti-abortion protesters should be allowed to protest in whatever way they please.

Further, free speech includes the freedom to spread misinformation. The author is correct that these protesters can say things that bend the truth. However, that does not mean they have no place on campus. That means the onus is on everybody else to hold these people accountable by questioning their statements and finding out what is true.

The best tool to counter things that you disagree with is not banishment but debate. If we base what speech is considered “free” based on if it’s offensive, then no speech could ever be protected because offence is subjective. The author seems perfectly willing to offend those protesters by stating they have no place on campus and I can wholeheartedly say she should be completely allowed to do so, just as the anti-abortion protesters should.

The author is right to say that Doug Ford’s new free speech policy will embolden protesters. It will embolden all those who wish to speak their mind and have meaningful debate about a controversial issue. On this issue, seeing these images and hearing these ideas and countering them with opposing ideas is way to reach a common ground view. Censorship is the path to further polarization on both the pro-life and pro-choice sides.

I can offer multiple solutions to those who may feel threatened or distressed by the messages and methods used by these protesters. While the author merely advocates censorship, I would advise not looking at the images or just keep walking.

We must stop hoping and trying to get other people to change how they speak and express themselves just so it makes us feel better. Many people are against abortion and their goal is to stop the procedure from happening, so we need to accept that they are going to try their hardest to make that happen and if that is through fear, then so be it. The solution is offering an alternative viewpoint, one that people can more readily accept. Advocating for censoring these protesters is not liberalism or progressivism, it’s authoritarianism masquerading as justice.

— Nicholas Heinrich

Op-ed: Graphic anti-abortion protests have no place on campus

Anti-abortion groups’ use of shock tactics to convey their beliefs undermines women’s safety and erodes civil culture on campus

Op-ed: Graphic anti-abortion protests have no place on campus

As a Head Orientation Leader for Woodsworth College Orientation this year, I was tasked with welcoming incoming first-year students to university life. Equipped with a detailed logistics package, contingency plans for each activity, sunscreen, a water bottle, and an endless supply of temporary tattoos, I was both mentally and physically prepared for many of the challenges of the week. 

However, none of my training adequately prepared me for an encounter with anti-abortion protesters the day of the University of Toronto Students’ Union (UTSU) Tri-Campus Parade. Amid the chants of “Woody Woody Woody,” our beloved orientation cheer, the muffled voices of these protesters could be heard, and through the sea of forest green Woodsworth t-shirts, a gruesome poster claiming to depict a late-term abortion was visible. 

It was hardly my first interaction with an anti-abortion demonstration. I was reminded of my own first-year at U of T, when I had decided to go to Robarts Library for the first time, only to be met with graphic signage and chanting at the St. George Street and Harbord Street intersection. 

At the time, I was immediately taken aback by the fact that anti-abortion organizers would target a library early into the university semester with such graphic material. My university campus had become a minefield of distressing images, and I soon learned to follow UTSU Vice-President University Affairs Josh Grondin and other students on Twitter in order to know when anti-abortion protests were taking place and plan my routes to avoid them.

Despite my best efforts, I came face-to-face with the same vitriol a year later, outside the gates of Varsity Stadium during the annual Tri-Campus Parade. My concern then was not of my own comfort, but rather that of the first-year students I was now leading. I wondered how to contextualize the display, and how to explain to new students that these were, unfortunately, commonplace on campus but not endorsed by the university. 

While I tried to come up with some way of addressing the situation, a first-year student from behind me started to chant “pro-choice.” As more and more students joined the cheer, I witnessed that after less than a week on campus, first-year students were already asserting themselves against the display.  

As the Ontario government’s new policy requiring universities to protect free speech on campus comes into effect on January 1, the potential for anti-abortion organizers to target students intensifies. The government mandate requires Ontario universities to come up with policies that enforce free speech, excluding only speech that constitutes the legal definition of hate speech, or face funding cuts.

Anti-abortion groups at many universities have often been denied club status and funding due to their views, which may change when Ontario universities update their free speech policies. New, more lax free speech policies from universities may also embolden protesters.  

Using graphic imagery, misinformation, and misogynistic language, the presence of these groups on campus does not fall in line with the ideals of free expression and academic discourse that universities are meant to uphold. Instead, they take up space in order to intimidate and distress students going about their everyday lives. 

This issue is not unique to U of T, and a recent CBC news article detailed how across Canadian university campuses, anti-abortion groups are using distressing images to gain attention. Moreover, emergency pregnancy care centres located near or on university campuses are coming under fire for spreading misinformation. One pregnancy support centre was recently kicked out of the Acadia Student Union office building for reportedly telling patients that undergoing an abortion increases a women’s chances of developing breast cancer. 

Women’s health and well-being is disproportionately impacted by the spread of misinformation and demonstrations by anti-abortion groups, which admit to purposefully targeting these subjects. In an interview with the National Post, the Executive Director of the anti-abortion group National Campus Life Network, Ruth Shaw, claimed that of Canada’s 100,000 abortions annually, roughly half involve women aged 18 to 24, “which is why we focus so heavily on university campuses.” 

Women have been historically excluded from university, and even now are underrepresented in many fields. When anti-abortion groups target women as they pursue higher education, they perpetuate a campus culture that causes women to feel unsafe and excluded. For women, trans, or non-binary folks with experiences of miscarriages or unplanned pregnancies, these images are even more distressing. 

I am not asking that universities invoke censorship policies or attempt to enforce homogeny. As a Political Science student, everyday I encounter and grapple with views I don’t agree with from my professors and classmates, and I am better for it. But being exposed to offensive heckling and highly graphic imagery on my way to campus does not make me more informed, more intelligent, or more empathetic. Quite honestly, it just makes me feel sad, scared, and targeted. 

To be clear, I support students’ rights to freedom of expression and association, and I believe that religious and pro-life students should be able to form organizations. But there are ways for students to voice their opinions without jeopardizing the psychological well-being of their peers. Weapons divestment groups, for example, can get their point across without resorting to gruesome images of the effects of weapons. In fact, anti-abortion groups’ reliance on shock tactics only shows how little faith they have in the substance of their arguments. 

Although free speech is important, the flagrant spread of misinformation and offensive comparisons of abortion to the Holocaust and other tragedies by certain anti-abortion groups are clearly a threat to a civil campus culture. Graphic anti-abortion protests simply have no place on campus. 

Amelia Eaton is a second-year Political Science and Ethics, Society, and Law student at Woodsworth College. She is the Mental Health Director at the Woodsworth College Students’ Association.

Editor’s Note (September 20): A previous version of this op-ed stated that one of the anti-abortion organizers stole a Woodsworth College sign and used it to draw attention to the demonstration. An investigation into this statement raised questions about the accuracy of the claim. The person holding the Woodsworth sign was not an anti-abortion demonstrator, and video evidence suggests that they may have been using the sign to block graphic anti-abortion images.

Controversial clubs deserve funding too

Having an unpopular opinion shouldn’t mean being denied student union recognition

Controversial clubs deserve funding too

At the University of Toronto Students’ Union (UTSU) debate on March 21, the candidates for Vice-President Campus Life — Yolanda Alfaro of the Compass slate and Spencer Robertson, who ran as an independent — were asked about their positions on the UTSU funding clubs that are considered ‘controversial.’ The example given was Students for Life, a pro-life group known for its graphic signs and forthright, provocative campus demonstrations.

Alfaro, who was ultimately elected to the position, gave what seemed like a perfectly sensible response. She insisted that, if a decision were made to deny funding, that decision would not be about discriminating against people’s beliefs, but rather it would have more to do with student safety.

The funding of pro-life groups on campus is an issue that has been brought before the courts. Earlier this year, the University of Toronto Mississauga Students’ Union was in court facing a lawsuit by three members of UTM Students for Life. Similar suits were brought by pro-life groups at Durham College and the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, and a ‘men’s issues’ group at Ryerson University. Another lawsuit with a pro-life group was previously settled in favour of the Ryerson Students’ Union in 2016.

Even if the UTSU does not have a legal obligation to fund certain provocative, controversial, or unpopular clubs, it should adopt a policy that allows for a wide range of views to be supported as clubs on campus. This is the case even if those views are controversial or only held by a minority of students.

On its face, Alfaro’s response at the debate was the right one. She made the crucial distinction between groups that hold unpopular beliefs and groups that represent a threat to student safety. Groups that incite or threaten violence, or that have openly discriminatory or hateful agendas that target marginalized populations, should not get funding. The UTSU — and by extension, all students — should not be involved in sustaining those types of clubs on campus.

But when I reached out for Alfaro for comment, she blurred that distinction to the point of nonexistence. While she provided that her “stance is not quite directed towards controversial clubs, because not everyone would share the same idea of ‘controversial’ as me,” that caveat didn’t hold up. Of Students for Life, she said, “When demonstrations start happening on campus that can be triggering to folks who just want to feel safe walking to class, that’s where I disagree.”

Alfaro is implying that coming into contact with Students for Life can be damaging to students’ safety or wellbeing. Given that Students for Life poses no physical threat to safety, however, the source of concern stems from the group’s expression of its pro-life views, which are upsetting to many students.

Alfaro’s argument therefore blurs the crucial line between ‘controversial’ and ‘harmful,’ because it suggests that the articulation of a position itself can pose a threat to student safety if the view is offensive enough. While we need to be sensitive to the reality that some students may be adversely affected by a group like Students for Life, not recognizing or funding a group for that reason sets a dangerous precedent.

As long as the UTSU is in the business of supporting political and advocacy groups, being considered ‘controversial’ should not be a barrier to funding. First and foremost, there is the problem that Alfaro herself recognized: the UTSU should not be put in charge of deciding exactly what views students can handle being exposed to. Being the arbiter of political opinions on campus is beyond the VP’s job description, and giving the UTSU the ability to deny funding based on those opinions is incompatible with open discourse.

The perceived broad unpopularity of a group or the position it represents should not be a barrier to funding either. Even if the number of people who support Students for Life is dwarfed by the number of people who oppose it, that shouldn’t be a reason to deny the group funding. Broad support or interest is just not something we typically expect of our student clubs. There is already a minimum amount of popularity that a prospective club needs to have before it is recognized in the first place: the UTSU mandates that a club has a membership list of at least 30 people to qualify for even the minimum level of funding. Attracting interest that far exceeds the names on that list should simply not be a consideration as far as recognition or funding goes.

Finally, and most importantly, we ought to acknowledge that a diverse student body is bound to have a diverse set of beliefs, and that a wide variety of those beliefs ought to be given a platform even if many of us find some of those beliefs disagreeable.

It doesn’t help to pretend that abortion is no longer a contentious issue, either on campus or in Canadian society more broadly. Any issue so complex is bound to generate a huge array of differing views that goes way beyond the ‘pro-choice’ or ‘pro-life’ dichotomy. And we can see in politics that the question is still open, even if we would prefer it settled: leaders of major parties in both the upcoming provincial and federal elections are known to have pro-life views and voting records.

Open and equal discourse is constructive discourse, and constructive discourse is a goal worth striving for. This means protecting the distinction between ‘harmful’ and ‘controversial.’ Clubs that threaten the physical safety of students are one thing. But ‘controversial’ is in the eye of the beholder, and we should make sure that there is room on campus for disagreeable and unpopular views, as well as for the students and clubs that promote them.

Zach Rosen is a second-year student at Trinity College studying History and Philosophy. He is The Varsity’s Current Affairs Columnist.

St. Mike’s President criticizes new Canada Summer Jobs funding requirement

Blog post says requiring groups to support abortion rights “unacceptable to a Catholic university”

St. Mike’s President criticizes new Canada Summer Jobs funding requirement

University of St. Michael’s College (USMC) President David Mulroney has criticized the federal government’s cuts to Canada Summer Jobs funding for groups that oppose abortion rights.

In a blog post published on February 1 titled “Catholic Social Teaching: A pre-Lenten Reflection,” Mulroney wrote, “Canada’s federal government seems intent on making support for its pro-abortion policies a litmus test for entry into the public square. The latest affront is the requirement that institutions applying for funding under the Canada Summer Jobs Grant program attest that their core beliefs align with government policies that include support for abortion.”

The Canada Summer Jobs Grant program provides wage subsidies to help employ secondary and post-secondary students throughout the summer. The program welcomes applicants from small businesses, non-profit employers, public sector, and faith-based employers, according to Employment and Social Development Canada.

Employment Minister Patty Hajdu released a statement in April 2017 saying that anti-abortion groups would no longer receive funding in constituencies represented by Liberal MPs. Hajdu’s statement followed a report published by the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada that detailed the extent to which federal funding was going toward anti-abortion groups. MPs determine where funding goes in their constituency, including the Canada Summer Jobs grant.

After Hajdu’s statement, the federal government added a mandatory attestation that applicants of the grant in all constituencies must sign. “Both the job and the organization’s core mandate respect individual human rights in Canada… These include reproductive rights and the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.”

Mulroney praised the strong reaction from faith groups, including USMC Chancellor Thomas Collins who, during a meeting of multi-faith leaders at St. Benedict’s Catholic Church on January 25, highlighted the value of faith-based organizations in their contributions to their communities through summer jobs. The Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto could see as many 150 summer jobs affected by the new attestation requirement.

According to Mulroney, USMC hasn’t used the Canada Summer Jobs program since 2015, and he remarked that given the new requirement to sign the attestation, it “will almost certainly not be able to use it in the future.”

“The government’s suggested work-around, that institutions simply assume that the requirement for attestation doesn’t apply to them, is unacceptable to a Catholic university on a number of counts,” wrote Mulroney. “First, this sends a terrible message to our students, whom we daily counsel to live their values to the fullest. Second, holding our noses and signing makes us both complicit and foolish, particularly if we comfort ourselves that this is a rare and not-to-be repeated assault on our values. There is a pattern developing here.”

During a town hall in Winnipeg on January 31, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was asked about the summer jobs funding issue. “There are certain groups that are specifically dedicated to fighting abortion rights for women and rights for LGBT communities and that is wrong,” said Trudeau. “That is certainly not something the federal government should be funding: to roll back the clock on women’s rights.”

Anti-abortion group faces off in court against UTMSU over club recognition

Court also hears cases against UOIT, Durham College, Ryerson students’ unions

Anti-abortion group faces off in court against UTMSU over club recognition

Three lawsuits involving student clubs suing students’ unions, alleging they were improperly denied funding, were heard by Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Perell on January 24 at Osgoode Hall. The eight-hour-long hearing included the suit against the University of Toronto Mississauga Students’ Union (UTMSU) by three members of UTM Students for Life (UTMSFL).

UTMSFL is an anti-abortion student group that filed a suit against the UTMSU in January 2016. Diane Zettel, Cameron Grant, and Chad Hagel are the three UTMSFL members listed as the applicants of the lawsuit.

The court simultaneously held hearings for two similar lawsuits. Speak for the Weak, another anti-abortion group at Durham College and the University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT), is suing the Student Association of Durham College and UOIT, while the Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU) faces a suit from members of the Ryerson Men’s Issues Awareness Society.

Marty Moore is the lawyer representing the three clubs and is a staff lawyer with the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), a non-profit advocacy organization tasked with “defend[ing] the constitutional freedoms of Canadians through litigation and education,” according to its mission statement. It has also represented Trinity Western University in its lawsuit against the Law Society of Upper Canada.

The UTMSU and RSU are being jointly represented by Alexi Wood and Jennifer Saville of St. Lawrence Barristers LLP. Woods and Saville previously represented the RSU in Grant v. Ryerson Students’ Union, 2015, another case involving a anti-abortion student club denied recognition from its student union. The judge sided with the RSU in that case.

Legal questions             

While defending the clubs, Moore spoke of the close relationship between student unions and the publicly funded universities to which they are attached.

“If the University of Toronto Students’ Union decided to adopt the Bahá’í Faith and expressly made it a part of its documents in accordance to its letters patent, I think we would understand that its relationship with the publicly funded institution would begin to have to jeopardy there,” argued Moore. “The reality is that public institutions and the common law, which applies to public institutions, should take into account the fundamental values that apply on that campus.”

“[These are] not the arguments that I’m putting forward today, but I do recognize that that is one of the possible approaches that a court could take,” said Moore. He cited Rakowski v. Malagerio, 2007, a case also presided over by Perell, in which it was decided courts had the authority to intervene in student union policies.

Saville told the judge that student unions are private corporations, regardless of the fact that they operate on public university campuses, citing the Grant v. Ryerson Students’ Union case, where the judge ruled that student unions aren’t subject to public law. Wood expanded on this, adding that all UTMSU members, including those involved in the UTMSFL, had the right to vote on or run for the UTMSU Board of Directors and shape the union’s policies if they disagreed with them.

Perell responded, “There are some things where democracy is not the answer. Hitler got elected, with due process.”

UTMSFL’s case

Moore forewent any allegations of ideological bias; the crux of his submission was the allegation that the three unions went against their own policies and bylaws.

The UTMSFL members allege that the UTMSU informed them that the club would not be granted official club status due to its anti-abortion stance. In his submission, Moore told the judge that the UTMSU subsequently changed its reasoning and attempted to deny the club for technical violations. It is alleged that the UTMSU told the club, which only had three executive members, that it needed four executives in order to qualify for official club status and that it had to amend its constitution to be compliant with the UTMSU’s requirements and elect a fourth executive at a general meeting.

“[Then-UTMSU Vice-President Campus Life Russ Adade] kept on coming up with new requirements, including, at the end, ‘I have to be present at your meeting when you vote.’ The applicants said, ‘Fine, come to our meeting. We’ll do a re-vote. We’ll re-enact our constitutional amendments,’” Moore told the judge.

The applicants also allege that Adade brought five people who were not members of UTMSFL to attend the meeting and vote against the election of the fourth executive.

Wood pointed out that in cross-examination, Adade denied allegations of stacking the deck at that meeting and actually tried his best to help UTMSFL meet the UTSMU’s requirements to qualify for clubs funding.

“We have an affidavit from Mr. Adade, who says he doesn’t do that, and we asked him on cross and he denied it on cross. He said that these members attended on their own,” Wood told the judge. “They had come to him, they had talked to him about [UTMSFL] and he said, ‘If you have issues with [UTMSFL], go to the meeting on the 23rd and talk to [UTMSFL] there.’”

Wood also told the judge that UTMSU-recognized clubs are required to be open to all UTMSU members and that all UTMSU members can therefore vote in the club elections. The only exception, Wood said, is if the club lays out different voting rights in its constitution. “[UTMSFL] did not put into their constitution any restrictions on who could vote,” she continued.

According to Wood, Adade sent an email to UTMSFL after the general meeting, explaining the next steps and expressing willingness to continue working with the club to get its club status approved. The student union board then received an email from Moore saying that UTMSFL was commencing legal proceedings.

It is unknown when the court will reach a decision, although the decision for Grant v. Ryerson Students’ Union came out nearly 10 months after the hearing.

Crack down on harassment, not protest

The ban on abortion facility protests, though well-intentioned, violates fundamental rights

Crack down on harassment, not protest

Last week, Attorney General of Ontario Yasir Naqvi announced the Safe Access to Abortion Services Act — a bill that, if passed, would no longer permit anti-abortion protests within a certain distance of abortion clinics, the homes of abortion providers, or pharmacies that sell pregnancy-terminating medications. The bill — partly motivated by an incident earlier in the year outside an abortion clinic in Ottawa, wherein a woman was spit on — would prevent any anti-abortion demonstrations within 50 metres of these facilities. The buffer zone could be expanded to up to 150 metres by ministerial order.

This idea has undeniably noble motives. It is crucial that women can access abortion services without being subjected to intimidation or harassment. There’s no question that being subjected to protesters may make a difficult situation even more difficult. However, disallowing all protests, without discriminating between those that are intimidating and those that are peaceful, is not the way forward.

The problem with this type of legislation is that it does not distinguish between protest that becomes violent and protest that remains civil. Although the government has every right, and indeed a strong responsibility, to protect women from harassment, the right to free assembly prohibits it from protecting women from protest itself.

No matter how unpopular a view may be, there should always be room within the law to express that view in a peaceful, non-intimidating, and non-harassing demonstration. There must be a legal basis for a citizen to stand in the public square with a sign or a placard or a chant and demonstrate peacefully. The despicable acts of a handful of fanatics do not justify collapsing this foundational democratic principle.

It is true that pro-life demonstrations can still be held outside the prescribed distance from abortion clinics and pharmacies. However, it doesn’t follow from this that the right to protest has not been seriously infringed: the right to protest needs to entail the right to protest effectively.

The last few months have seen several high-profile protests, including the Women’s March in the wake of Donald Trump’s inauguration and the protests against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. Disruption of the institutions being protested was a central objective of these popular movements. The Women’s March blocked major streets and public spaces in numerous cities and towns worldwide. At Standing Rock, some protesters literally tied themselves to construction equipment, making their physical bodies an obstacle to the project they opposed.

Protesters need the capacity to disrupt and disturb. It would not have been right to relegate these protests to other locations, constraining them to where they would do the least damage and robbing them of their capacity for impact. Disruptiveness, as long as there is no violence, is not justification for stifling protest. Without the capacity to meaningfully disrupt, a protest has almost no purpose at all.

That being said, even without outright harassment, the presence of the protesters, from the perspective of a woman seeking an abortion, can make an already difficult situation even harder. Many women who get abortions are likely already subjected to an unjust amount of shame and fear, and there are enough obstacles preventing them from getting the care they may need. This is an undoubtedly important point. According to Sandeep Prasad, Executive Director of the pro-choice advocacy group Action Canada for Sexual Health & Rights, “Supporting reproductive rights requires governments to recognize the intersecting barriers individuals face when trying to access health care.” Prasad is right. We need to be sensitive to the challenges that women already face when trying to access reproductive care, and we need to be careful not to add another.

However, the possibility that a protest may prevent women from getting an abortion cannot be a reason to prevent a protest from taking place. We can’t prevent a protest because that protest is peacefully achieving its objective. As wrong as the ideology behind the protest may be, the fact that it might successfully do so cannot be a reason to make it illegal; the right to protest needs to apply equally to all points of view.

There is no ‘right to protest insofar as the government supports your position.’ There is no ‘right to protest as long as your protest doesn’t actually make a difference.’ The right to protest needs to be blind to content, ideology, and perspective. Fundamental rights don’t have normative qualifiers.

Women should not be harassed by protesters, and we should make sure that laws prohibiting harassment and intimidation effectively prevent that from happening. But the right to peaceful demonstration is sacred, and it cannot be forestalled because it might work, regardless of how destructive that result may be.

And that right cuts both ways. Pro-choice and women’s rights advocacy groups can provide women the support they need by lobbying for public information campaigns about reproductive health, pushing for more expansive sex education, and making contraception free and accessible. Just because people have the right to protest abortion doesn’t mean we can’t, or shouldn’t, openly oppose their point of view.

Measures should be taken to protect women from harassment and intimidation by protesters. It seems only sensible that this issue should be addressed by tightening existent laws against harassment and intimidation by protesters, or creating new ones, rather than by infringing the right to protest.

Zach Rosen is a second-year student at Trinity College studying History and Philosophy. He is The Varsity’s Current Affairs Columnist.