Letter to the University of Queensland
Though we have never met in person, LeeAnne has been a dear friend and constant support for me and my family for almost a decade now. With her permission, I am sharing a letter she sent to the University of Queensland recently.
Dear Joshua Young,
I am writing from Washington State, in the U.S. I lived in Queensland, Brisbane and Mt. Isa for nearly three years in the 1970's. I have fond memories of my time there.
I have been made aware of the sad decision of the Student Union to discipline the Newman Society and to ban pregnancy support information that the Newman Society has to offer to all of the UQ students.
I am a woman who had an abortion - 38 years ago this past April. I am the mother, therefore of a dead child. If I had seen any literature about support during my pregnancy, I would be the mother of a child that would have been born alive, versus being burned to death by saline solution and then later ripped from my womb.
In the spirit of free speech, I would think that the Student Union body would see fit for all information on pregnancy to be not only welcomed, but encouraged. I pray that you will rethink your decision on banning supportive information. After all, isn't that what an institution of higher learning does - educates?
Your statement in The Australian ""I know the Newman Society thinks the union is being heavy handed, but the student union voted in 1993 for free, safe abortion on demand so all women have a genuine choice when faced with unwanted pregnancy," Mr. Young said." is strange to me. If a woman is permitted the right for a free "safe" (by the way, the baby ALWAYS dies in an abortion) abortion on demand, then why in the world can you not permit the information that there is support for those women who decide that even if they may have an unwanted pregnancy, they may want support to bring their child to life.
Give the women of the University of Queensland a GENUINE CHOICE, Mr. Young - do not deny them the right to have all the information they need to make a good decision regarding the life of the child they carry within them.
I look forward to hearing from you, Mr. Young.
Blessings - Lee Anne
9 comments:
Before you judge the union president in his actions, you may not know that the union president's hands are tied by the current rules of the union.
As the uq union is a voluntary association, all materials produced by student clubs affiliated to the union need to be approved by the union president. If the union president approves material that is against union policy as previously determined by referendum then the president can be summarily dismissed from office.
In this case the Newman Society put the union president in a very difficult position. They didn't seek the approval of the president for their materials before they distributed them. Then when the president told them that the material could not go out with the official sanction of the union because it contravened settled policy, they cried foul.
It seems that this entire exercise was a cynical publicity stunt on behalf of the Newman Society to gain publicity by flagrantly violating rules for union-affiliated clubs - which they were clearly aware of. The Newman Society know full well that they could have distributed materials on campus as "UQ Catholics" or whatever.
However, what they really wanted to do was cause trouble for the conservative union exec and get some publicity out of the whole exercise. If the Newman Society REALLY felt passionate about this issue, they would assemble the 1500 signatures required to hold a new referendum instead of trying to manipulate the union president into breaking the very rules that he has to keep!
Thomas - I have had a nice long Email from Joshua explaining what the newspapers did not explain, primarily that the Newman Society did not seek prior approval to disseminate pro-life materials.
Having read Joshua's letter and the fact that his hands are tied, I wrote back to him.
I do not think that the Newman Society had an alterior motive here - I believe that they were wrong in not getting prior approval...but in Joshua's words,
"The UQ Union is an incorporated organisation in which the President of the Union (myself) is financially and legally liable for all the actions undertaken by stakeholders within the Union. Under this organisation body are clubs and societies, of which the Newman Society is an affiliated club of the UQ Union. As prescribed in the Union's regulations that I have inherited this year (and these Union regulations were written when the UQ Union was controlled by Labor Left), all materials published for the distribution to the student body by clubs must first be approved by the Union President to ensure it adheres to Union policy. This is to ensure that no offensive or discriminative material is distributed that may result in the Union President getting sued. At no stage did the Newman Society seek or receive my approval for their campaign material."
What offensive or discriminative materials are the Newman Society guilty of disseminating?
Oh yes, I forgot - no one must speak out about the fact that there is another CHOICE and that CHOICE is called a BABY!
At a university level, one would think that all sides of an issue would be welcomed. At the very least, perhaps Joshua, if he is indeed convicted that life is important, could ask for another viewing of the situation, but alas, I do not think that will happen.
It is too bad that the university is so fearful of the truth of what abortion does -
I had another email from one of the students who said that the anti-choice people were not telling the whole truth.
The problem is - we are - abortion kills a human being and injures the mother and the father of that baby.
Thank you Thomas for your input.
As an affiliated club of long standing, this club knows FULL WELL that all club material must be approved by the Union President. This is a legal requirement as the Union is an unincorporated association and as such, the President is held to be PERSONALLY liable for all material produced by the union and its affiliates - ie. clubs and socs.
Every O Week the Newman Society gets all its materials approved by the union president. However, with regard to this occasion, this club specifically chose to NOT seek approval. Remember the Gospel of Matthew - “By their works, you shall know them.”
The clubs and socs committee (an elected body) of the union determined that your club failed to seek the approval of the president before this club distributed their materials. This rule applies to all club and societies - whether Christian, Muslim, atheist or socialist.
Claimed ignorance on this matter is disingenuous as this club continued to distribute this material AFTER they were asked to seek the president’s approval.
Just as the Catholic church has canonical laws and theologies within which its members operate, so too the union. Freedom of sppech cannot be absolute because then speech that deliberately seeks to stifle others would be tolerated. A line has to be drawn somewhere. If the Catholic Students Club don’t like the union’s policies, they are free to disaffiliate!
Not sure how much of your response was actually relevant to the issue but whatevs.
Noone wants more abortions to occur. Everyone wants fewer abortions to occur. If the Catholic Student's Society is really serious about reducing abortion, they would get active around issues of rape, poverty and accurate information about contraception.
But of course they don't because it is all just a media stunt. With a Grain of Salt, are you active around the issues of rape, poverty and contraception education as abortion prophylatics?
With a Grain of Salt, are you active around the issues of rape, poverty and contraception education as abortion prophylatics?
Well, no I'm not. Why? Because every single study ever done on them shows that increase in these things actually corresponds to an INCREASE the rate of abortions.
Thomas, your post is so full of invalid pressupositions and gaping holes in logic that I would be spoiled for choice should I wish to engage you on the matter of abortion. I don't wish to, there are posts enough on my blog about the fallacies of your arguments.
You completely avoid the matter of free speech, probably because you are arguing specifically against it.
Since my original post is a deliberate contrast between the myth that universities, particularly student unions, have a reputation for semading the right of minority groups to put forth their views and be heard, the irony of gagging a significant minority on the basis of a majority vote is biting.
The responses to this post are ample demonstration of my point. I disagree with your feeble blustering attempts to justify the tyrany of one position on the spurious grounds of a 'majority' decision a decade ago, I feel strongly that your arguments might lead people in dangerous directions if they were at all convincing and yet ... I happily allow these same comments remain posted on my blog, and all others like them (with the exception of obscene language, spam and soemthing not legally permitted) because I ACTUALLY believe in freedom of speech. I don't just play at it.
The student union can hide behind red tape, rules, majority decisions but they are still choosing to enforce a tyrany against a legitimate point of view. I hope they have better arguments in mind than yours in order to sleep at night.
So,Thomas, what you are writing is that ALL materials distributed in the University of Queensland must be authorized by the Union President.
WOW! What power that position must hold.
Who would have thought that showing a photo of a pregnant woman and support for the woman and baby would cause such a stink at the University of Queensland?
I believe that hiding behind the DEMAND that ALL materials must be approved by one entity is not only scary but not a well thought out idea.
For instance, if the Union President had seen the support materials and he had approved them, would the anti-life people have come after him and demanded that he retract his support?
I had one of the women from the university write to me and tell me that the 'anti-choice' people were not giving all the information needed to women who were pregnant.
That does not ring true for one minute with me - for if a woman asks me, and I am a virulent ANTI ABORTION person - about abortion, I will be more than happy to explain the complications surrounding abortion not to mention the death of a human being.
Now, Thomas, if you want to debate whether it is good for one person, ONE, to have all the authority at a campus as large as the University of Queensland, then let us converse.
To quote you "Freedom of sppech cannot be absolute because then speech that deliberately seeks to stifle others would be tolerated. A line has to be drawn somewhere."
My dear Thomas - re read your words...you are stiffling the freedom of me, as a pro-life person to speak out. You are not for the rights of freedom of speech...you are for the rights of freedom of speech for some. That is call a dictatorship, and last time I looked Australia was not under one and its universities of all places, should not be, either.
I said --> 'With a Grain of Salt, are you active around the issues of rape, poverty and contraception education as abortion prophylatics?'
"Well, no I'm not. Why? Because every single study ever done on them shows that increase in these things actually corresponds to an INCREASE the rate of abortions."
With a grain of salt, that response of yours is appalling. All of us should be against rape, poverty and ignorance. Certainly Pope Benedict has spoken VERY strongly on these issues and on the evils of rampant capitalism.
If you look at epidemiological studies correlating abortion to various social factors you find that longitudinally abortion is declining in western countries - primarily due to access to contraceptives. The only countries where abortion is increasing is actually primarily catholic countries like Ireland and Portugal which SURPRISINGLY have reported DECREASED rates of abortion since it has recently been legalised.
Additionally, go on Medline (the bibliographical resource for peer-reviewed medical literature) and look up epidemiological studies on abortion causation as reported to medical staff in termination clinics. SURPRISINGLY over 25% of abortions on average (pooled systematically) are the result of rape - whether committed by a spouse, boyfriend or stranger. And yes, husbands do rape wives.
I am truly shocked and saddened by your response but I am glad that it is now in the public realm in order to serve as an ideological orientation from which your other views can be measured.
Chimakuni,
Please do not be patronising.
Please feel free to consult the union's constitution and regulations on it's website. As you can plainly see, my comment is entirely correct. The President is the publisher and authoriser of all materials produced by the union and its affiliates. All materials must carry the words - "authorised by the Union President".
The Catholic Students' society are free to disaffiliate from the union if they do not support its policies. The Catholic Students society are free to distribute any materials they like, they just cannot do so with the official approval of the union. Why would they want its approval anyway?!!!
It's all just a cynical publicity exercise.
With a grain of salt, that response of yours is appalling. All of us should be against rape, poverty and ignorance
My response was clearly directed att he false connection of contraception and prophylactics as preventative of rapes and abortion. As I pointed out (referring to studies rather than UN propaganda) every study I have seen of the use of condoms and contraceptives showd at least NO decline in rates of sexual abuse, diseases and abortions.
Of course I am against rape and so on, hence I will never promote measures which contribute to the objectification of men or women.
Nor will I allow your attempts at smoke screening the issue to distract from the disgraceful and shameful 1984 style oppression of opinions contrary to your own on the spurious grounds of a decade old majority vote.
Nor will I shy away from the possibility of it being a stunt to draw publicity to the case (I don't claim to know the motives of the people involved as you do). EVEN IF it is, there is no shame in using a test case to attract publicity to a shameful practice of dictatorial oppression against a legitimate and peaceful expression. Ghandi, Martin Luther King and man many more have made 'publicity stunts' of many kinds to draw attention to injustice.
You deserve to be named and shamed across the world, and you have been.
Post a Comment