When did universities lose their way?

Kyle Curlew is a student at Queen's University. Curlew is of the opinion that Queen's pro-life group Queen's Alive, shouldn't be allowed to speak on campus:

"I’m not claiming that anti-abortion groups should be illegal, but I will say that Queen’s University, the AMS and the SGPS should have standing policy preventing them from speaking on campus."

Curlew defends his opinion, saying that this club is spreading "misinformation" and "shaming women" and "removing women's rights". But he doesn't bother providing any real evidence to back up his abortion rhetoric. It's a technique used frequently by the pro-abortions who think if they say something often enough, it will eventually become true.

All of this is based on misinformation and rhetoric of his own.

Here are a few samples of Curlew's own misinformation.

He says that:

"In 1995, the federal minister of health declared abortion to be a medical necessity covered by provincial healthcare."

Wrong.

According to the site The 1988 Morgentaler decision, (which does cite references) Curlew is incorrect:

"Some commentators who support full public funding of abortion have argued that the Canada Health Act (CHA) requires provincial governments to pay for all abortions. But that is an incorrect interpretation of the Canada Health Act. 

Under the “comprehensiveness” criterion of the CHA, provinces are required to pay for “medically necessary” services through their provincial health care insurance plans, but the CHA does not specify what those services are and leaves it up to the provinces to decide. If a province does not designate a procedure as being “medically necessary,” then that province is under no obligation to fund it through its health care insurance plan."

(Read more on this here: ARE PROVINCES REQUIRED TO PAY FOR ABORTIONS?)

Since it is up to the provinces what is, and what isn't deemed medically necessary, the federal minister of health has no jurisdiction in the matter.

Next Curlew says that:

"Abortion was declared a fundamental human right by the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights — this is a covenant that Canada has signed into."

False again.

The Covenant doesn't mention the word abortion, sexual rights, etc. Not once.

I did find this document called Right to sexual and reproductive health indivisible from other human rights - UN experts which is a commentary on the covenant, and was published just last week on the UN site. This UN committee is composed of 18 members, none of whom are from Canada. The committee has pronounced that abortion is a human right. But there is no indication that the original signatories of the covenant (including Canada) have signed onto this "rights" commentary. It appears to be opinion only.

The only example Curlew gives for his "argument" that the pro-life group is providing "misinformation" is this:

"For instance, in order to illustrate that the post-conception group of cells is an individual separate from the mother, Queen’s Alive twists scientific discourse. They assert that because the fetus has the potential to be a different sex from the mother, it can’t possibly be the same entity. This is their “scientific” justification for giving the group of cells individual personhood apart from the mother. Again, this is based on a sense of moral authority rather than science."

Does he really believe that the preborn child who has its own DNA, its own blood type, and its own sex, is not an entity separate and distinct from its mother? Because biologically speaking, the preborn child is clearly separate from its mother, meaning Queen's Alive is right.

Perhaps his best lines are saved for his closing paragraph.

"I’m very much aware that what I’m suggesting is radical — but a discussion needs to happen on the limits of free speech. Should the Queen’s community allow such willful shaming and misinformation to clog up tables in Mac-Corry?"

Curlew wants a discussion on the limits of free speech--just don't let the pro-life club speak on campus. The irony is not lost on us. Perhaps it is lost on Curlew.

It seems the traditional notion that universities are the bastion of deeper understanding, healthy debate, and exchanges of idea's should be only reserved for those with whom we agree.

You know, I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.