Will the CBC ever get it?

I received this email from the CBC yesterday. My response is below it.

---------------------

August 26, 2016

Dear Ms Maloney,

Thank you for your e-mail of July 23rd, addressed to Esther Enkin, CBC Ombudsman, drawing our attention to an interview on CBC News Network with Dr. Wendy Norman on July 6th about government restrictions placed on the dispensing of the RU-486 abortion pill. 

Since CBC News Network is my responsibility, Jennifer McGuire, General Manager and Editor in Chief of CBC News, asked me to reply.  

In your complaint about the interview by Heather Hiscox, you wrote that the segment was "another example of CBC abortion bias". You countered Dr. Norman's views that the restrictions are "unusual' and "bizarre", by saying that RU-486 is a "dangerous drug" and pointing to regulations in the United States making RU-486 available only in "certain healthcare settings, specifically clinics, medical offices and hospitals, by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber." 

I would argue that the interview was not presented as part of a debate as to whether the drug is safe for use in Canada.  Had it been, it would have been reasonable to hear from an opponent of the drug on that basis.  

The interview was, instead, focused on access to the recently approved drug.  In that context, it is my view that the coverage was fair and balanced.  

In the online story on this matter, it's pointed out that the Federation of Medical Regulatory Authorities of Canada wrote to Health Canada to express concerns about the rules and accessibility of RU-486 writing, "dispensing by physicians is not normal practice (and could be a conflict of interest) and has the potential to create additional barriers for patient access." 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ru-486-abortion-pill-canada-1.3665865 (July 6, 2016)

I would add that in the interview on CBC News Network, Dr. Norman herself explains why she used the words "unusual" and "bizarre" saying that "in Canada for many years the safety mechanisms for drugs have required pharmacists to dispense them" and she went on to use the example of methadone being dispensed by pharmacists rather than by physicians. 

Thank you again for your e-mail. I appreciate you taking the time to write with your views to CBC News Network. 

It is also my responsibility to tell you that if you are not satisfied with my response, you may wish to ask Esther Enkin, CBC Ombudsman, to review the matter. The Office of the Ombudsman, an independent and impartial body reporting directly to the President, is responsible for evaluating program compliance with the CBC's journalistic policies. The Ombudsman may be reached by mail at Box 500, Terminal A, Toronto, Ontario M5W 1E6, or by fax at (416) 205-2825, or by e-mail at ombudsman@cbc.ca.

​Yours sincerely,​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear CBC Ombudsman Esther Enkin,

I would like to make a complaint about what I believe is bias with the reporting of the story on RU-486 as detailed below.

(As an aside, Jennifer Harwood disagreed with me and noted that I could make an official complaint, as this is apparently her responsibility she stated. I find this surprising, since the last time I made a complaint of CBC bias on your RU-486 reporting, I was never told that my complaint was not with the Ombudsman, when I assumed that it was, since I had actually sent that complaint to the Ombudsman in the first place. I see this time, this fact was explicitly brought to my attention.)

Ms. Harwood says that the interview in question was not part of a debate. This is a disingenuous argument. To mention in a news article on anything relating to abortion--always a politically and emotionally charged subject that elicits huge controversy every time it is mentioned--and not provide commentary from the opposing viewpoint is biased. CBC knows this. When Dr. Norman stated that the restrictions are unusual and bizarre (and CBC reiterated these adjectives in their tweet on the show when they stated: "It's very strange." reproductive health expert reacts to "bizarre" restrictions on #RU486 home abortion pill @cbchh), it seems clear to me that the CBC should have asked someone else to please explain this "strange bizarre unusual" behaviour, since Dr. Norman in the seven minute interview couldn't explain it.

Would this not have possibly shed some light on the "strange bizarre unusual" behaviour to put additional restrictions on this drug?

In fact the CBC has rarely if ever discussed any of the many dangers of RU-486. Here is some information about the dangers of this drug for an upcoming interview:
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2015/02/ru-486-myth-1-drug-is-safe-and-effective.html
http://www.nps.org.au/publications/consumer/medicine-update/2013/mifepristone-misoprostol#sideeffects
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2015/02/ru-486-myth-2-private-way-to-end.html
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2015/01/more-reasons-why-ru-486-is-very-bad-idea.html

I suggest if the CBC would interview Dr. Renate Klein who wrote the book RU486: Misconceptions, Myths and Morals, to learn why this drug is dangerous and why this "strange bizarre unusual" behaviour to put additional restrictions on this drug are not actually "strange bizarre unusual" at all.

I look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Ontario government wants suggestions for open government

The Ontario government tells use that they want to hear our ideas on their "Open Government" consultations.

"Submit your idea for the open government consultation 

We want to implement new open government commitments that help make Ontario more open, transparent and collaborative. We need your help. 

Your ideas could be used to:

• improve access to government-held information
• strengthen accountability and transparency
• increase public participation in government decision-making
• expand the use of technology to make life easier for people

For inspiration, check out commitments from other governments around the world.

Read the submission criteria below and submit your idea by August 26, 2016. 

We will report back on what we heard during this consultation throughout the summer and fall of 2016."

I will try and not let my extreme cynicism on this topic colour what I have to say next. Okay I lied.

I have absolutely no faith that the government of Ontario will heed anything we say on their decision to hide abortion information from the taxpayers of Ontario.

That being said, I think we should still give them our comments. We get so little opportunity in Ontario to participate in democracy (other than elections) that every opportunity we get to tell them how they could actually become open, transparent and accountable (because clearly they are not at the moment), we should seize on. If enough people did this maybe things would change. Probably not. But maybe.

So I hope you will fill out their survey. Comments must submitted by tomorrow, Friday August 26.

Here are a few ideas for you based on my own experience dealing with both the federal and provincial (ontario) access to information laws in Canada.

One of my points below is about fees for freedom of information requests that I do in Ontario (FOIs) and access to information requests I do federally (ATIPs). Both the province and the feds can charge for the work involved in providing information access requests. But my experience has been that Ontario is more apt to charge those fees than the feds are. 

All information requests (both for Ontario and federally) require a $5 up front fee and I have no problem with that, it's the subsequent processing fees that can be hundreds of dollars which make them prohibitive for the average person. Newspapers make access requests all the time, but they would have budgets for that, regular citizens do not. So it becomes very difficult to do information access requests when you are expected to fork out (In some cases) hundreds of dollars.

Access to information quidelines are always supposed to default to making information easily available in a timely manner. The practice though, is that there are so many exceptions, this rarely happens. There are limits defined as to how long you should have to wait, usually 30 days. But you almost never get the information in that time. Because of the numerous escape clauses they write into the access to information laws, they can always quote some section of the act, and tell you this is why there is a delay. I've waited up to a year at times for information and even longer.

Anyway below is what I will be submitting to their survey. This would would go a long way to making the Ontario government actually being open, transparent and accountable. Because I can assure you. They are not open, accountable or transparent now. 

• The government's decision to exclude abortion information from the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FIPPA) should be rescinded. This change affects all access to abortion information, even when there is no identifiable personal information like hospital names, doctor names or patient names. There is no privacy concerns at all with making this data available. This change was made to FIPPA without public consultation, and without debate in the legislature. This fact goes against the very goal of this survey which is about open, transparent and accountable government. The Information and Privacy Commissioner said in 2000, in regards to a similar situation, where an organization was refused abortion information by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care said: "In my view, to deny access to generalized, non-identifying statistics regarding an important public policy issue such as the provision of abortion services would have the effect of hindering citizens' ability to participate meaningfully in the democratic process and undermine the government's accountability to the public."
• When government asks for input (like this survey), the results of the input itself should be made public.
• Don't charge excessive fees for Freedom of Information requests. The $5 initial fee should be all that is required for an FOI. 
• Access to information held by government departments should be provided in a timely manner. The practice currently is that there are so many exceptions to the time limit (usually 30 days), that this rarely happens. One almost never gets the information in that time and one usually has to wait months to get it.
• When a citizen writes a letter to the premier or to a Minister, responses should a) be prompt and not take months, and b) should answer the questions asked, and not obfuscate and or write form letter responses. I have dozens of examples where my questions were never answered. Ministers and the premier should be accountable to the electorate, and not only by saying the words that they are accountable, open and transparent, but they should actually be open, transparent and accountable.

A final quote from Kathleen Wynne, Premier of Ontario:

"Our Open Government initiative will help create the transparent, accessible government the people of Ontario deserve. This is part of our vision for One Ontario, where every voice counts."

I hope you will also fill out their survey. Because you absolutely do deserve an open transparent government.

Ontario government wants suggestions for open government

The Ontario government tells use that they want to hear our ideas on their "Open Government" consultations.

"Submit your idea for the open government consultation 

We want to implement new open government commitments that help make Ontario more open, transparent and collaborative. We need your help. 

Your ideas could be used to:

• improve access to government-held information
• strengthen accountability and transparency
• increase public participation in government decision-making
• expand the use of technology to make life easier for people

For inspiration, check out commitments from other governments around the world.

Read the submission criteria below and submit your idea by August 26, 2016. 

We will report back on what we heard during this consultation throughout the summer and fall of 2016."

I will try and not let my extreme cynicism on this topic colour what I have to say next. Okay I lied.

I have absolutely no faith that the government of Ontario will heed anything we say on their decision to hide abortion information from the taxpayers of Ontario.

That being said, I think we should still give them our comments. We get so little opportunity in Ontario to participate in democracy (other than elections) that every opportunity we get to tell them how they could actually become open, transparent and accountable (because clearly they are not at the moment), we should seize on. If enough people did this maybe things would change. Probably not. But maybe.

So I hope you will fill out their survey. Comments must submitted by tomorrow, Friday August 26.

Here are a few ideas for you based on my own experience dealing with both the federal and provincial (ontario) access to information laws in Canada.

One of my points below is about fees for freedom of information requests that I do in Ontario (FOIs) and access to information requests I do federally (ATIPs). Both the province and the feds can charge for the work involved in providing information access requests. But my experience has been that Ontario is more apt to charge those fees than the feds are. 

All information requests (both for Ontario and federally) require a $5 up front fee and I have no problem with that, it's the subsequent processing fees that can be hundreds of dollars which make them prohibitive for the average person. Newspapers make access requests all the time, but they would have budgets for that, regular citizens do not. So it becomes very difficult to do information access requests when you are expected to fork out (In some cases) hundreds of dollars.

Access to information quidelines are always supposed to default to making information easily available in a timely manner. The practice though, is that there are so many exceptions, this rarely happens. There are limits defined as to how long you should have to wait, usually 30 days. But you almost never get the information in that time. Because of the numerous escape clauses they write into the access to information laws, they can always quote some section of the act, and tell you this is why there is a delay. I've waited up to a year at times for information and even longer.

Anyway below is what I will be submitting to their survey. This would would go a long way to making the Ontario government actually being open, transparent and accountable. Because I can assure you. They are not open, accountable or transparent now. 

• The government's decision to exclude abortion information from the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FIPPA) should be rescinded. This change affects all access to abortion information, even when there is no identifiable personal information like hospital names, doctor names or patient names. There is no privacy concerns at all with making this data available. This change was made to FIPPA without public consultation, and without debate in the legislature. This fact goes against the very goal of this survey which is about open, transparent and accountable government. The Information and Privacy Commissioner said in 2000, in regards to a similar situation, where an organization was refused abortion information by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care said: "In my view, to deny access to generalized, non-identifying statistics regarding an important public policy issue such as the provision of abortion services would have the effect of hindering citizens' ability to participate meaningfully in the democratic process and undermine the government's accountability to the public."
• When government asks for input (like this survey), the results of the input itself should be made public.
• Don't charge excessive fees for Freedom of Information requests. The $5 initial fee should be all that is required for an FOI. 
• Access to information held by government departments should be provided in a timely manner. The practice currently is that there are so many exceptions to the time limit (usually 30 days), that this rarely happens. One almost never gets the information in that time and one usually has to wait months to get it.
• When a citizen writes a letter to the premier or to a Minister, responses should a) be prompt and not take months, and b) should answer the questions asked, and not obfuscate and or write form letter responses. I have dozens of examples where my questions were never answered. Ministers and the premier should be accountable to the electorate, and not only by saying the words that they are accountable, open and transparent, but they should actually be open, transparent and accountable.

A final quote from Kathleen Wynne, Premier of Ontario:

"Our Open Government initiative will help create the transparent, accessible government the people of Ontario deserve. This is part of our vision for One Ontario, where every voice counts."

I hope you will also fill out their survey. Because you absolutely do deserve an open transparent government.

How can we discuss abortion when we don't have data?

If you Google "how many abortions are done in Ontario each year?" the first link that comes up is a four page chart by pro-abortion Joyce Arthur.

So what does this chart reveal? It reveals there is a lot we don't know about Canadian abortion statistics in general, and Ontario abortion statistics in particular. Of course we already knew this right?

What is interesting about Arthur's charts is that she makes a lot of assumptions about the rate of abortion in Ontario. Which is fair; I always have to do the same. Because when you try and discuss anything without accurate data, you have to make assumptions--you have no choice.

I won't get into why I disagree with Arthur's assumptions, as I've already done that many times before, but right now, that isn't the point. Right now the point is that if you're trying to have a meaningful conversation about anything, never mind about something with as many political, social, and financial repercussions as abortion--well it's all kind of ridiculous, isn't it?

How can she and I even talk about the data and what it means, when we don't even have the data?

In fact, in Arthur's four page analysis, she devotes quite a bit of space to the assumptions she makes about Canada's statistics, including Ontario's abortion numbers based on my freedom of information requests for 2010, the last year we have decent Ontario abortion data. And she has to make assumptions. We all do, because our data is hidden at the whim of a government who did it for political reasons. A non-accountable, non-transparent, non-open government.

As a pro-life person, how can I meaningfully refute Joyce Arthur's assertions that abortions in Ontario are going down when I can't see the data? If someone out there in google land searches for Ontario abortion numbers in Ontario, they may think rates are going up, or that abortion rates are going down, depending on whose information they read. 

If abortions are really going down, or if they're really going up, and we know which, there would be no need to speculate or assume. All of us could then meaningfully comment on the facts we see, and then we could meaningfully discuss the implications of that reality.

This is why our Charter case is so very important.

If I was still able to get abortion information through freedom of information requests (based on OHIP billings), I would be able to tell you AND the pro-abortions the following facts about abortions in Ontario:

• How many abortions are done in doctor's offices
• How many medical abortions there are
• How many fetal reductions there are
• The total number of all clinic abortions
• Gestational age (weeks) of abortions done in clinics
• Gestational age (weeks) for the large "unknown" figure for hospital abortions
• Information on the method of abortion for clinic data
• The costs of abortion to the citizens of Ontario

And then I could meaningfully comment on the implications of these facts. Now I am only left guessing. And so is Joyce Arthur. 

When open and transparent government isn't

This is the best line I've read since I started my quest to get abortion statistics from the secretive Ontario government, who subsequently decided to hide that information.

“Our goal is to build Ontario up. That starts with leading an open and transparent government that is accountable to the people it serves. By making this legislation a priority, our government is moving forward with our commitment to lead the most open and transparent government in Canada.”

And it gets better. Who headed up this so-called "open and transparent" government initiative until just recently? Why none other than Deb-has-all-the answers-Matthews. Yes the very Deb Matthews who continually refused to answer my many questions to her about why she decided to hide abortion information in the first place. One and the same. I am not kidding.

Fixed toes would not be hidden under FIPPA

So this is what I don't understand. Why does Ontario health insurance pay to kill an unborn baby, but won't pay for a medically necessary operation on my toe? It cost me $900 to have an ingrown toenail surgically fixed. Luckily I have private insurance that will help with part of the cost.

Now we're not talking about cosmetic surgery here. And yes is was elective if you consider I could continue not having my toe fixed and put up with the pain every time I put on my shoe like I have for the past year. Sure you could call that elective surgery. If you must.

But if I were to have an abortion, well that would be fully funded. I could have one any time I want. And I could have as many abortions as I want too. None of them (or nearly none of them), medically necessary, all paid for courtesy of OHIP. Or should I say, courtesy the Ontario taxpayer.

And you know what else bugs me? If OHIP did cover the cost to fix my toe, well then, I would be able to find out how many Ontario toes are fixed each year, and how much those toes cost the taxpayer. I would simply do a freedom of information request. But I can't get the same information about abortions.

How's that for open, transparent and accountable government?

Government censorship of abortion imagery is wrong

I have problems with this petition to protest displaying graphic abortion images e-485 (Public protests):

"Petition to the Government of Canada 

Whereas:

• Groups have been gathering in peaceful protest against abortion showing graphic imagery;

• The sight of such imagery is being exposed to nonconsenting individuals and children;

• Imagery may be triggering for persons who have suffered trauma and loss involving pregnancy, infancy, childbirth, etc.., including but not limited to: miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, abortion, domestic violence, and fleeing a country involved in war.

We, the undersigned, Citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the Government of Canada to please intervene and create law setting out the limitations as to what imagery and content can be used in a protest or similar demonstration that is subject to public viewing."

1) The Government of Canada would violate our charter right of freedom of expression if they outlawed these graphic pictures.

2) The graphic images show the truth about abortion. Asking the government to make showing the truth illegal would lead us down a road we don't want to travel. Outlawing the truth is dangerous.

3) It is hypocritical to wish to outlaw showing what an abortion actually is while at the same time condoning abortion's legality to dismember decapitate and disembowel the child in the first place. Maybe we should outlaw the action, instead of outlawing the depiction of that action.

Bone fide pro-lifer runs for Conservative leadership

Well good pro-life news for a change. An actual practicing pro-lifer will run for the federal Conservative leadership, Brad Trost.

Unlike some who we thought were pro-life like Stephen Harper, Tim Hudak, Patrick Brown and others, Brad will apparently stick to his social conservative roots.

Very good news.

Justin Trudeau pick up the damn phone

It's a well known fact the Prime Minister Justin Trudeau doesn't care about unborn Canadian children. It's also a well known fact that he won't let the Liberal party have pro-life MPs.

Now we learn that there are four born children who he doesn't seem to care about either.

Here is Alison Azer's story:

"My ex-husband, Saren Azer, abducted our four Canadian-born children in August 2015 after taking them on what was to be a two-week holiday in Europe. I had tried to block the trip. But the Canadian courts overruled my mother's instincts and allowed the children to travel abroad with him. He never brought them home. 

Within days of the abduction, Interpol issued a "wanted person" Red Notice for Saren and a "missing persons" Yellow Notice for my children. But they're not missing anymore. We know where they are. Saren has illegally taken them back to the country where he was born, Iran. The Canadian government knows this too. 

In the early days of the abduction, I believed in the Canadian system. I believed that our police, our judiciary, our elected officials, wouldn't abandon Canada's youngest and most vulnerable. I was sure they'd take forceful action to locate my children and demand their return. How naive I was. 

What I have learned from talking to others who have endured similar ordeals is that governments need to intervene at the highest level. Iran wants international legitimacy and to be taken seriously. Canada has great credibility. It's time to use it. 

What Prime Minister Trudeau needs to do is to pick up the phone call President Hassan Rouhani. 

Mr. Trudeau, you can bring my children home. Please get personally involved and use the power of your office to save the lives of Sharvahn, Rojevahn, Dersim and Meitan. And though it matters much less, in saving their lives, you will also save mine. Please make the call."

You can sign Alison's petition and her letter to Justin Trudeau at her site, asking Trudeau to bring her children home.

I wonder. Are there any Canadian children that Trudeau does care about? Pre-born or post-born, it doesn't seem to matter to Canada's feminist prime Minister.

But he sure likes selfies.

CBC and its obvious bias on RU-486

Typical that the CBC keeps complaining about how RU-486 will be dispensed. They keep finding doctors who complain about the rules of the drug, which by the way, are there in the first place because this drug is so dangerous. And if you go to the CBC link above, you'll find more links to even more CBC articles, also complaining about RU-486.

Is it not at all possible for them to find even one doctor out there who thinks that RU-486 is not good for women? Because I'm pretty sure they're out there. Maybe they should do their job properly and find a few of those doctors who will tell the CBC of all the different risks this drug poses to women.

CBC, have you made any effort at all to do this? No? I thought so.

Catholics cannot support a pro-abortion politician

Speaking of pro-abortion politicians, listen to what Fr. Mark Goring has to say in this short (two minute) video:

"As a Catholic you cannot support or vote for a politician who is pro-abortion. By voting for such a politician, they share the responsibility of the death of these unborn children. The blood of these unborn children is on your hands if you vote for and support an aggressively pro-abortion politician..."

Let's see...Justin Trudeau...Thomas Mulcair...Hillary Clinton...to name but a few.

Hiding abortion information = unaccountable government

This story is interesting. For a couple of reasons: Mount Sinai Hospital’s refusal to eliminate one fetus from twin pregnancy triggers human rights battle

First of all, the story is about a woman who was refused an abortion on one of the two unborn twins she was carrying. Also known as a fetal reduction. Because she was refused, she hired lawyer Amir Attaran to file a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and family status. The woman wanted to see the policy of Mt. Sinai hospital:

"In an odd twist to the story, a recently prepared written policy on the issue — replacing the unwritten one followed at the time of the woman’s pregnancy last year — indicates the hospital has indeed reversed its position [on refusing the abortion].

"The policy — obtained by Attaran under Freedom of Information laws after hospital lawyers refused to divulge it — says elective fetal reduction is “ethically complex and divides many people,” but that patient autonomy should be given primacy in the area."

My radar immediately went up. How could Attaran obtain the policy from the hospital--a policy that is clearly about abortion--when all abortion related information in Ontario is excluded by the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act? So I checked with Mr. Attaran, and he confirmed for me that he did indeed obtain the information through an access to information request.

(As an aside, I contacted the hospital myself six days ago and asked them how this could happen. The hospital never responded to me.)

Second, so why was a lawyer able to get information, when I, a pro-life person, would not be able to get the same information? Because you may recall that I can no longer obtain access to abortion information from hospitals/government in Ontario. I don't know if Mr. Attaran is pro-choice or not, but I'm pretty sure the woman who hired him is pro-choice (clue: she had an abortion).

Third, this is a good example of pro-choice people also wanting to hold their hospitals/government to being open, transparent and accountable. Just like pro-life people want their hospitals/government to be open, transparent and accountable.

(Mind you if this woman and her lawyer were refused the information, I'm pretty sure the media would have been falling all over themselves with this story in a much broader way. After all, she was refused an abortion--the horror.)

Finally, guess how many fetal reductions there were in 2010? Seventy seven (77). Guess how many fetal reductions were done in 2011? We don't know. How many were done in 2012? We don't know. How many were done in 2013? We don't know. How many were done in 2014? We don't know. How many were done in 2015? We don't know.

Have fetal reductions gone up? Have they gone down? We have no idea. That's what happens when we allow our government to hide abortion information from us. Well, from some of us anyway.

Yasir Naqvi - Don't force doctors to participate in assisted suicide

From the Coalition for Health CARE And Conscience:

"As you know, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) is continuing to demand that doctors who conscientiously object to assisted suicide refer patients seeking to end their lives to other physicians who will provide the procedure. No other jurisdiction or country that has legalized assisted suicide requires doctors to perform or refer. 

Currently, three physician groups who are members of our coalition are challenging this approach by the college in court.  However the Attorney General of Ontario, Yasir Naqvi, has intervened in this case on the side of the CPSO. 

We need to let Yasir Naqvi know that Ontario voters want their doctor’s conscience rights protected." 

Click here to write to Attorney General Yasir Naqvi and tell him to support conscience rights.

Another student union discriminates against pro-life clubs

University student unions act in a cowardly way when it comes to pro-life clubs on campuses. They are also grossly intolerant of those who don't share their "pro-choice" opinions. They are also discriminatory. Not very nice adjectives for young people at a place of higher learning.

NEWS RELEASE: Students at Brandon University Sue their Student Union after Club Banned from Campus

Brandon, MB: Pro-life students at Brandon University have filed a lawsuit after having their club status withdrawn by their student union in November without warning. The Brandon University Student Union alleged that the pro-life stance made some students feel “uncomfortable” and “intimidated” them. The union also argued that the club’s beliefs were contrary to the Canadian Federation of Students’ official pro-choice stance, and that the club itself was redundant because other campus groups (the LGBTQ Collective and the Women’s Collective) addressed the issue of abortion.

The club is not unfamiliar with censorship, as this is not the first time they have had to resort to legal aid in order to regain their official club status. “Our student union claims to serve students and support them in their efforts to share their passions and advocate for various causes,” states Catherine Dubois, president of Brandon University Students for Life, “However, over the past 4 years our club has been repeatedly censored and denied these opportunities offered to every other student. We are tired and frustrated with being treated in such a discriminatory manner.”

“It is unacceptable that a student on a university campus should have to resort to a court challenge to ensure they can enjoy the same freedoms as their peers on campus,” states Anastasia Pearse, Executive Director of National Campus Life Network, an organization dedicated to supporting post-secondary pro-life students, “It is disconcerting that campuses in our country are choosing to censor controversial issues rather than allow for open dialogue and debate.”

Currently, four other lawsuits initiated by pro-life student clubs are working their way through courts across the country. This is the highest number of lawsuits regarding campus free speech issues to be filed by pro-life clubs within a one-year period. The other universities include Ryerson University, the University of Toronto Mississauga, the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, and the University of Alberta.

“Abortion is an issue that personally affects women of the university age,” states Pearse, “we believe that women deserve to know everything about this procedure, even if the information makes people feel uncomfortable. Universities should not be afraid to accommodate opposing views on important and even controversial issues. With over 250 abortions occurring every day in Canada, this is a conversation that students ought to be having.”

For further information:

Anastasia Pearse
Executive Director, National Campus Life Network
director@ncln.ca
604-365-3484

Catherine Dubois, Brandon University Students for Life
204-570-1710 or duboiscm52@brandonu.ca

–33–

National Campus Life Network