Bullies use bed sheets to oppress the rights of ideological minorities.

CBR brought the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) to the University of Tennessee at Knoxville (UTK), not just once, but twice, in the Spring semester!

UTK earned this exclusive double feature thanks to its unlawful interference with our free-speech rights and those of our student hosts, the UTK Pro-Life Collegians. Encouraged by virulent Trump Derangement Syndrome tactics in other parts of the country, a small group of students held up colorful fabric barriers to block our signs.

We insisted that these banners be removed, but UTK took a cue from other schools that nurture left-wing violence through institutional passivity. They allowed this childish and unlawful behavior to continue. As a result, the bullies thought they had won.

But not so fast! This ain’t our first rodeo, and we have many tools at our disposal.

Immediately, we brought out our hand-held Choice signs and stood in front of the bullies.

Next, we planned our return trip for later that semester. This is exactly what we did at the U at Buffalo in 2014. The Buffalo administration sided with the bullies, so we sued them for civil rights violations. After a year of trying to defend the indefensible, Buffalo got religion and restrained the law-breakers on our return trip.

We informed UTK of our intention to seek a legal remedy if they allowed their students to veto speech rights again.  That seemed to do the trick.

On our return trip, the fabric barriers were nowhere to be found.  According to rumor, UTK warned the bullies of disciplinary action if they erected their barriers. UTK officials even established a 20-ft buffer zone around the display and prevented any student from holding a sign within that buffer.

Yes, it was some trouble to stand up to bullies, but as Thomas Jefferson (or somebody) said, “Eternal vigilance is the price we pay for liberty.”

Thank you for standing up to bullies with your $upport!  And make no mistake, your $upport makes all of this possible.  Without you, the bullies win.  Click here and don’t let the bullies win!

Press Coverage:

• Pro-life display appears on Ped Walkway
• Roommates find way to hide pro-life display
• Pro-life display returns to Ped Walkway
• Letter to the Editor: Leave Pedestrian Walkway in peace

Uncensored. Bullies lose.

First Amendment in action at U of Rhode Island.

Eric Casey, a sophomore at the U of Rhode Island (URI), is circulating a petition to overturn the First Amendment at the University of Rhode Island (URI).  Story here.  To make matters worse, Mr. Casey identifies himself as a history major on his Facebook page.  YIKES!  I posted this online response:

Mr. Casey’s conception of the First Amendment is fundamentally flawed.  More about that, but we must first acknowledge that his petition is partly accurate. Abortion pictures are “highly disturbing” (his words). That’s because abortion is an act of violence that kills a baby.

Mr. Casey says that he doesn’t want to violate the free-speech rights of the College Republicans (CRs), yet his petition demands that URI prevent speech that he finds non-compliant with “the principles of respect and human dignity.”  Of course, he says nothing about those whose speech promotes the dismembering and killing helpless preborn children whose only crime is to be unwanted.  Would Mr. Casey sign a petition to remove that speech as well?

Do you see where this is going?  Once it is determined that non-compliant speech may be censored, then it becomes a matter of whose speech is non-compliant whose is not.  You can be certain that Mr. Casey will insist that people like himself be in control of whose speech may be disallowed and whose may be heard.  In this kind of environment, you can count on hearing the full range of political thought, from the far left to the extreme far left.  Fortunately, the First Amendment protects us from his kind of tyranny.

Our founders said that “all men are created,” that “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” and that “among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  The First Amendment doesn’t “give” us the liberty to speak freely, because that right was ours already; the First Amendment merely recognizes a right that is “unalienable” because of our status as human persons.  Whether you believe in a Creator or some kind of natural law, it is clear that the same foundational principle that protects our speech from arbitrary power also protects our lives.  Mr. Casey shouldn’t be so quick to give that up.

In his petition, Mr. Casey demands that URI withhold funding from the CRs as one mechanism to regulate speech.  He should be aware that the University of Wisconsin (UW) recently earned the opportunity to pay $500,000 in legal fees because of similar viewpoint discrimination (www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/4328?).  At issue was discrimination in the allocation of student fees.

Back to the subject matter of the GAP display, I have a question for Mr. Casey: If abortion is such a great idea, why do pictures of it make you so angry?  And how can it be that showing a picture of a dead child is extreme (your word), but killing the child is not?

Our purpose is never to condemn anyone who has had an abortion. If you need healing from a past abortion or help with an unplanned pregnancy, visit www.OptionLine.org. For more information on abortion, www.AbortionNo.org.  For more on freedom of speech, www.theFire.org.

The "Art" of Abortion display at Artscape 2011 was visible to thousands.

This report from CBR Maryland Directors Kurt and Samantha Linnemann:

Artscape is the largest art festival in the country, bringing 350,000 people to Baltimore over a 3-day weekend.  We were strategically located in the center of the festival, where thousands upon thousands of people walked past our display.  In addition to 4 GAP signs and 3 hand-held “Choice” signs, we also displayed a banner that said, “The Art of Abortion, The Slaughter of The Innocent.”  All of the signs featured graphic pictures of abortion.  CBR volunteers handed out pro-life literature to passersby.

When we showed the signs, the Baltimore City Police threatened to arrest us.  We simply asked what we were going to be arrested for.  Knowing they had nothing to charge us with, they backed down.  Fifteen police officers stood by and watched our display go up and stay up for the following 3 hours.

Our photos precipitated many meaningful conversations.  But more importantly, thousands of young people, many of whom said they support abortion, were faced with the reality of what abortion does to an innocent human being.   Many were challenged to re-evaluate their pro-“choice” position.

Click here to view pictures from Artscape 2011 

The "Art" of Abortion at Artscape 2011 in Baltimore

Sex education isn’t the only thing Planned Parenthood (PP) gets wrong.  They also don’t know where our rights come from.

At a rally to support government funding of PP’s abortion business, Sen. Frank Lautenburg stated that pro-life advocates “don’t deserve the freedoms in the Constitution.”  But, being the generous sort of fellow he is, he would “give it to them anyway.”

Did you catch it?  To Sen. Lautenburg, Constitutional rights are granted by Government (i.e., himself and his cronies).  Some people don’t deserve them, and he knows who they are.  But because he’s such a good guy, he will consent to “give” those rights to pro-lifers.  For now, anyway.

Whatever Government “gives,” it can later withhold.  It can grant or deny rights to whomever it chooses.  Lautenberg claims, for himself and his cronies, the power to choose who gets rights and who doesn’t.

It reminds me of a conversation I had with a TV reporter at the University of Indiana.  He pointed to a US flag flying nearby and said that no matter what we believe, “that flag gives all of us the freedom to speak out.”

We’ll give the reporter a D for his civics grade.  Not quite as bad as Sen Lautenberg, who earned an F minus minus.  At least the reporter did not claim for himself the right to grant/deny the rights of others.  But he still didn’t know where our rights come from.  He, too, thought our rights come from Government.

Our founders knew better:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

See the difference?  The Founders recognized that rights come from our Creator.  Not Government.  Not Frank Lautenberg.  No man may take them away.  Governements are instituted by men, not to grant rights, but as an agent to secure rights already granted by “our Creator.”  Big difference.  Men in government are accountable not only to the people, but to the Creator, for the preservation of justice.  Lautenberg and other Alinskyites believe they are accountable to neither.

So, do you still want Government educating your children?

When CBR goes to school, we not only bring the truth of abortion, we also give a lesson on the First Amendment.  Here is an article that appeared in the aftermath of our visit to the University of West Florida.

The “free-speech” zones, as applied at many universities, is without question unConstitutional, because it restricts speech on 99% of the campus, without any compelling state interest in doing so.  “We like our speech bottled up where we can keep an eye on it” is not a compelling state interest.  Neither is, “We’ve always restricted speech to this location.”  What they are saying, in essence, is this: “We deny everybody’s First Amendment rights equally, so it’s OK.”  Needless to say, that would get the university laughed out of court if they were foolish enough to make that argument.

After we explain the First Amendment to the most university attorneys, they generally accept our legal reasoning.  Of course, the fact that we are ready and willing to take our case to court, if necessary, also helps them see the light.

Here’s what we say in our standard notification letter to each university to which we take our GAP project:

… pursuant to well-settled law, CBR enjoys an undisputed First Amendment right to conduct educational presentations in any public forum.  “[A] principal purpose of traditional public fora is the free exchange of ideas,” Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 800 (1985), and other purposes include “assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions,” Hague v. Committee for Ind. Organization, 307 U.S. 496, 515 (1939).   A college or university is “peculiarly the ‘marketplace of ideas.’”  Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 180 (1972).   While we do not accept the proposition that free speech can be limited to designated areas, there is no serious doubt that “free speech” areas on your campus are public fora in which CBR’s rights cannot be limited unless certain standards are met.

The standard for content-based restrictions on speech is that any such regulation must be necessary to serve a compelling state interest and be narrowly drawn to achieve that end.  Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 321 (1988).  Furthermore, such regulations “must be subjected to the most exacting scrutiny.”  Id.  Only speech such as obscenity, defamation, and fighting words has been found to meet that standard.  See, e.g., R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 383 (1992).  Your client will have no such “compelling” interests as to CBR’s speech.

The standard for content-neutral restrictions on speech is that any such regulations must be “narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.”  Perry Ed. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educator’s Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983) (emphasis added).  The University undoubtedly has “significant interests” in speech on public property.  Those interests are safety and traffic flow on streets and sidewalks and the opportunity for students to access educational services without substantial interference.  Cf. Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 277 (1981).

It is axiomatic, however, that the First Amendment is especially protective of speech which is offensive.  In fact, offensive speech is the only speech which requires protection.  See, e.g., Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 134-35 (1992) (speech cannot be “punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob”); Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 21 (1971) (viewers who dislike a message have a responsibility to “avoid further bombardment of their sensibilities simply by averting their eyes”); Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949) (free speech “may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger”).  Therefore, the possibility that CBR’s photos or literature or remarks might offend passersby has no legal significance and cannot properly be used as a basis for restricting that speech.

As noted above, CBR is prepared to accept reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on its expressive activity and will make reasonable efforts to ensure that their conduct does not negatively affect legitimate interests of the university.  But CBR will not accept unreasonable restrictions.  An example of an unreasonable restriction would be any attempt by the university to minimize controversy by relegating CBR’s display to some obscure campus location.

Expanding on my previous post (and, lest you think Mark Levin was exaggerating), I wanted to call your attention to Michael Barone’s column (“The coming liberal thugocracy“) that appeared in the Washington Times in October 2008.

Barone forsaw the very kind of thuggish behavior that is proudly on display this election cycle.  The Family Research Council is reporting on it’s website:

Now we see thugocracy arriving in full form this election season. This past weekend President Obama said that campaign ads pointing out the voting records of Members of Congress who supported his policies were financed possibly by “foreign-owned corporations,” which is an accusation that even the New York Times found false.

Members of Congress are getting into the act as well by trying to silence any organizations that seek to expose their voting records. At least one of the targets of FRC Action PAC’s humorous “Get Government Off Our Backs” ad (CBS News and their online viewers declared the spot the “hottest ad of the week!”) has been calling television stations to stop the ads from airing. Congressman John Boccieri’s (D-Ohio) campaign called the ad misleading but after reviewing his voting record, the station quickly agreed the ad was truthful.

(Click here for more …)

Here’s the Get Government Off Our Backs ad:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XQNU0Fuj4g

You may know some of this story, which relates to the current election cycle.  But the story is even more important for pro-lifers because it is part of a broader strategy to undermine First Amendment protections for political speech.

Toby Harnden of the London Daily Telegraph has written an opinion piece entitled, “Epitaph for Barack Obama’s Democrats: ‘Is that the best you can do?'”

Here’s the video of Bob Schieffer asking that question of David Axelrod:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdhP2gqBs28

You might want to watch this response by Charles Krauthammer.

As pro-lifers, we must look at this in the broader context, which is the all-out assault our right to speak on political matters.  Obama and his band of Alinsky-ites are trying to permanently strip us of this right in order to gain and keep political power for themselves.  They have been restrained by two recent Supreme Court decisions (Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission), but only by narrow 5-4 majorities on the Court.  [Just a reminder: elections matter.]

Mark Levin exposes the hypocrisy of these people in this analysis that is worthy of your consideration.

It should be noted that despite the suppression of freedom in places like North Korea, Canada, Iran, etc., pro-lifers in freedom-loving countries like the United States and Russia have routinely displayed GAP without government interference.

The university said that while the students could not display their signs in The Tory Quad, a busy outdoor location on campus, it welcomed them to erect their signs in Porter Hall, an indoor room.

Ruth Lobo, president of Carleton Lifeline responded: “They are trying to sound reasonable by providing an alternate location, but what they aren’t saying is that Porter Hall is a closed room that few students pass by or even know where it is,” she said.

Club vice-president James Shaw added, “Telling us we can protest but in a back room no one goes to, is like telling black people they are welcome to ride the bus as long as they sit at the back.”

The university has reportedly been saying that student groups aren’t typically allowed to have displays in the Quad. Lobo asked, “If the Quad isn’t bookable, why advertise it as bookable space for student groups? More importantly, the university has never communicated to us that this is its reason for denying us the space. We’re only hearing about it through media who call us for a response.”

Refusing to tolerate censorship, the students proceeded to walk to Tory Quad with their signs. Part-way to their destination, they were stopped by authorities, eventually amounting to at least 3 campus security personnel and at least 9 police officers. Four Carleton students were eventually handcuffed and arrested by Ottawa police and charged with trespass.

Shaw commented, “I find it disgusting that Ottawa police allowed themselves to be hired as thugs to do the university’s dirty work. Shame on them for participating in Carleton’s censorship of its tuition-paying students.”

For more information contact Ruth Lobo or James Shaw at 613-600-4791 (cell).

Please pray that God will protect and deliver these brave students.

Note: Here at PloC, we don’t ask you to get arrested. We only ask you to give $10 a month.  If 1,000 people give $10 a month, we can grow from 6 GAPs a year to 20 GAPs a year.

Other stories at Life Site News,  National Post, Canada NewsWire, Vancouver Sun, Vancouver Sun, Maclean’s on Campus, and National Post.

GAP at a Canadian university

Please pray for these brave students.  When it comes to freedoms that we take for granted, some Canadian universities are degenerating into Third World dictatorships.  The University of Calgary has already made it.  Here’s a press release from CBR Canada.

Students Risk More Penalties from University of Calgary for Defying Censorship

CALGARY – Despite warnings from the University of Calgary administration, members of the Campus Pro-Life (CPL) student group found guilty of “Non-Academic Misconduct” for having set up a pro-life display on campus this past April are once again displaying the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) on the U of C campus.

The controversial display compares abortion to past historical atrocities, such as the Rwandan genocide and the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. The display is scheduled to be set up between the MacEwan Student Centre and Science B buildings today (September 27th) and tomorrow (September 28th).

“The images are difficult to look at; admittedly, we don’t like looking at them either, but the images are only upsetting because abortion is upsetting,” stated CPL President Alanna Campbell.

After the display was previously exhibited last April, members of the group were charged and found guilty of a ‘Major Violation’ under Section 4.10 of the University of Calgary’s Non-Academic Misconduct Policy for “failure to comply with a Campus Security officer or University official in legitimate pursuit of his/her duties” by refusing to turn their display inward. Other major violations in this category include sexual assault, the use of explosives and firearms, and selling illegal drugs.

The guilty verdict was “a formal written warning” that if the students “fail to comply with directives of Campus Security staff in the future” it will “result in more severe sanctions,” wrote Acting Associate Vice-Provost Meghan Houghton, who was the sole decision-maker in the guilty verdict. More severe sanctions can include the possibility of expulsion. The University’s Appeal Board refused to hear the students’ appeal, and members of the student group will appeal the guilty verdict to the Board of Governors.

“This will be the tenth display of GAP on campus. We have always found that this display has a large capacity for healing, educating, and raising awareness,” said CPL Vice-President Cameron Wilson. “That makes this display, without a shadow of doubt, worth the cost that the university seeks to exact from us individually.”

The group has displayed its Genocide Awareness Project on the University of Calgary grounds, without incident, nine times since 2006. In 2006 and 2007, during the first four Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) campus displays, the University defended the students’ right to expression under the Charter, but in 2008 the University reversed its policy without explanation.

In 2009, the University charged six students with trespassing in relation to the display, but the Crown Prosecutor stayed these charges prior to a trial scheduled for November of 2009. Since then, members of Campus Pro-Life have been threatened with Non-Academic Misconduct upon each display, and the University has found eight students guilty of Non-Academic Misconduct.

“We believe in the effectiveness of the display and we believe in our right to display it. For these reasons, we will not give in to intimidation and will challenge all attempts at censorship. We are proceeding now just as we have in the past,” stated Peter Csillag, CPL Vice-President.

For further information, contact Club President Alanna Campbell at (403) 690-5217, Vice-President (External) Cameron Wilson at (403) 668-9624, Vice-President (Internal) Peter Csillag at (403) 465-1777, or lawyer John Carpay at (403) 619-8014.

Andy Stephenson and Kathryn Sloane of Worthing, West Sussex, display CBR abortion photo.

Andy Stephenson and Kathryn Sloane of CBR UK were arrested for displaying an abortion photo outside a publicly-funded abortion clinic in Brighton, England. The story (link here) appeared in the London Telegraph, along with this photo (right).  This is the first time a major British newspaper (with a global readership, we might add) has published a photo of a first-trimester abortion. It is sure to be seen by hundreds of thousands of people all over the world.

The richest element of the story is not only the fact that the complainants who called the police were the abortion clinic staff, but also that these abortionists were “concerned” that aborting mothers “… entering the clinic felt traumatised and upset” by photos which showed them what the clinic was about to do to their babies!  They make this incriminating admission without a hint of ironic awareness.

Even more paradoxically, Ann Furedi, the abortion clinic director “… said she fully supported the right of pro-life activists to demonstrate against abortion clinics” but only so long as they don’t show mothers the evil atrocities Ms. Furedi is committing inside the clinic.  She condones a pro-life presence which allows aborting mothers to feel good about what they are about to do but condemns “… actions that are designed to distress people who are accessing legal, medical services.”  Abortion can only thrive in secrecy because secrecy allows everyone to pretend that the baby isn’t really a baby and abortion isn’t really a vicious act of violence.

Anybody who has done street pro-life work very long has encountered the police.  The overwhelming number of police officers do a great job, but there are some who really like to throw their weight around.  Others are confused about your rights.  And, as this video makes clear, there are some police officers who will lie and tamper with evidence to cover up their own misconduct.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE8Xom38Rd8

For your own protection, we recommend you audio-record all of your public activities and, where possible, videotape.  It is your right to do this.  It creates an indisputable record of what you did and didn’t do.  It also discourages people from assaulting you on the street.

If an officer tells us to stop recording, we comply.  When approached by officers, we tell them that we are wearing audio recording devices and are recording the conversation.  If a video recorder is operating, we tell him that, too.  If he tells us to turn them off, we reply, “Officer, I will comply with your demand, but I need to ask you by what law or regulation you are compelling me to turn it off.”  Whatever he answers, we turn it off.  If he tells us to leave, we leave.  There will be plenty of time later to bring a civil rights action against the police/city, and it’s better to be a plaintiff in a civil rights action than a defendant in a criminal complaint.

By the way, we save ourselves a whole lot of trouble by formally notifying the police when we are planning to conduct operations within their jurisdiction.  This gives the chiefs a chance to check us out and tell the street cops to leave us alone.

My letter to the Knoxville News Sentinel has been published:

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/aug/17/letters-democrats-attacking-first-amendment/

Lots of comments already.  I’ve responded to some of them.  Please leave your own comments on the KNS website (if appropriate to the topic), and also below (to tell me what a smart guy I am)!

Follow CBR / Pro Life on Campus on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

Check out this video of Christians in Dearborn, Michigan.  These are police officers actually shutting down the distribution of Christian literature on public streets.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Smw9QuH1xkA

These Christians did everything right.  A few points:

1. They are clearly acting within their First-Amendment rights.  I’ll spare you all the court citations.
2. They were filming everything until they were told to stop.  Pro-lifers should always bring at least one video camera; but we recommend at least two.  Video evidence will deter the police (or anyone else) from lying about the facts later.  If you end up in court, almost anyone who gives testimony in court, including police officers, will describe the events in a way that puts himself in the best light.  Video evidence will be critically important to authenticate your story.  The camera don’t lie.
3. These guys obeyed the authorities in every respect.  It is much, much better to be a plaintiff in a civil action than a defendant in a criminal action.
4. As I understand it, the Thomas More Law Center will be representing the Americans in bringing legal action against Dearborn and their Police Department.  The Thomas More Law Center has done great work for CBR over the years.
5. Usually, our encounters with police are trouble-free.  The overwhelming majority of police officers are good people, but as activists, we have to be aware that (a) sometimes police officers are acting under orders from superiors who are frightened, ignorant of the law, and/or corrupt, and (b) there are some police officers who take pleasure in ordering people around just because they can.  The best policy is to always obey the authorities and sue later.  Over and over again, the courts have upheld our right to display abortion photos in public places.
6. Where possible, we notify the police ahead of time before any of our activities.  It’s not legally required, but it gives the civil authorities time to educate themselves on (a) our right to engage in First-Amendment activities and (b) our commitment and ability to defend our rights in court.

More at:

1. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=169353
2. http://www.youtube.com/user/Acts17Apologetics
3. http://www.abnsat.com/abnnew/

Please let me know what you think!  Please comment below.

Here is a story on internet censorship in Australia.  As it turns out, Austrailians are pursuing a policy that blocks not only porn websites, but also websites with “objectionable” political material.  Among those are CBR’s website and another website that features CBR’s abortion photos.

WARNING: this TV news story includes graphic depictions of porn websites that you wouldn’t see on American TV.  You can miss the porn images and see the part of the story that deals with CBR’s website and abortion images by going to the 31:45-to-34:30 segment of the story.  For the story, click here.

Some observations:

1. Abortion advocates know they can’t defend abortion in any population which has seen abortion.  So, they will simply ensure that the public doesn’t see it.
2. We should always be suspicious of government power.  Christians and pro-lifers offer unpopular messages, and there are many among us who would use the power of government to block those messages.  (Alinsky-ites like Obama, Reid, and Pelosi would stop at nothing to advance their agenda; if you doubt it, read Chapter 2 of their handbook, Rules for Radicals.)
3. Exercising raw bureaucratic power in Australia, they censored pro-life websites without even letting the pro-lifers know, much less giving them a chance to appeal.  (The Dems want to turn your health care, the internet, talk radio, etc. over to bureaucrats just like this.)
4. Note the anger directed at the pro-life campaigner: rocks being thrown, posters being torn down, etc.  People will always get more angry at us for showing the pictures of dead children than angry at the abortion doctors for killing the children.  That’s why we always videotape our pro-life activities and encourage you to do the same.
5. Mr. Grace’s campaign posters urged defense of unborn children but used photos of born children.  The whole problem is that the public doesn’t believe that killing an unborn child is the moral equivalent of killing a born child.  His campaign posters stated conclusions about abortion but the photos used on those posters did not prove the facts which support and even compel those conclusions.  We of course appreciate his use of abortion images on his website.

Here’s the latest on our brave U of Calgary students who have now been found “guilty” of exercising their rights of free speech, while being denied the right of legal representation.  Depriving people their right of free speech, threatening to deny them the education for which they have qualified, and denying them legal representation (due process) is contemptable behavior by government officials that would be disallowed by any American court; but Canada is a country with the same contempt for disfavored speech that is commonly found in countries ruled by Asian Communist regimes.  Freedom-loving people all over the globe should be encouraged and inspired by these students.

In America, CBR defends the rights of students to conduct pro-life activities on campus, but we can’t do it without your help.  Please help us keep this from happening in America by supporting our work (click here).

Here’s the press release from the Canadian CBR:

CALGARY – The University of Calgary has notified eight members of the Campus Pro-Life (CPL) student group that they have been found guilty of a major violation under the Non-Academic Misconduct Policy regarding a pro-life display held last month. The verdict comes one week after the students each attended individual, closed-door hearings with an Associate Vice-Provost during which legal representatives were disallowed.
The verdict is “a formal written warning” that if the students “fail to comply with directives of Campus Security staff in the future” it will “result in more severe sanctions,” said Acting Associate Vice-Provost Meghan Houghton, who was the sole decision-maker in the guilty verdict.
“We are going to challenge this verdict,” stated Alanna Campbell, CPL President. “We did not break a single University bylaw or regulation and so we will defend ourselves accordingly. We will also not cease exercising our rights to free speech just because they’re threatening us.
I’d rather be expelled as a principled person than graduate a coward.”
Last month, after having set up a pro-life display on campus for the ninth time since 2006, members of the group were notified that they were being charged with a ‘Major Violation’ under Section 4.10 of the University of Calgary’s Non-Academic Misconduct Policy for “failure to comply with a Campus Security officer or University official in legitimate pursuit of his/her duties” when asked to turn their signs inward or leave campus.
In Houghton’s decision, she referenced the university’s demand that the students failed to comply with: “Signs that welcomed viewers and signs that identified your group as an anti-abortion display could remain outward facing but signs with the actual content of your display… must face away from walkways… or any other areas in which persons on campus would have little choice but to look at your display.”
“That’s blatant content-based discrimination,” said Peter Csillag, CPL Vice-President (Internal). “Why weren’t abortion advocates, or Falun Gong supporters, forced to place their messages inwards when they protested on campus? You can’t have debate if everyone is pointed inwards on themselves. As far as I’m concerned, this verdict against us pro-lifers is not legitimate, and it reveals U of C to be an institute of censorship and double standards—not of higher learning.”
In 2006 and 2007, during the first four displays of the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) on campus, the University defended the students’ right to expression under the Charter, but in 2008 the University reversed its policy without explanation.
“This recent hearing and result is just another step in a long history of intimidation and censorship and if they think we’ll step down as the result of it then they’re sorely mistaken,” stated Cameron Wilson, CPL Vice-President (External).

If you are a pro-life student or pro-life group in America who is being denied equal access to your campus, its grounds, its facilities, etc. based on the content of your message, please contact us at CBR.  We can help you assess your situation and arrange for legal help, if needed.  Always obey the directives of your campus administration and police, because it is better to be a plaintiff in a civil rights action than to have to defend yourself against a trespassing charge.  But contact us immediately so that we begin the process of asserting your First-Amendment rights.

Please help us defend the rights of American students by supporting our work (click here).