| There are two stupid T-shirts out there that represent perfectly the extremes of the abortion debate. The first, created by Planned Parenthood, says simply and proudly: I had an abortion. The second, created by the anti-abortion group Rock for Life, has an equally simple and bold message: Abortion is murder.
Here we have an important ethical issue being reduced to banal sloganeering and, in the case of the Rock for Life shirt, loaded moral accusation. Both messages fail to account for the complexities surrounding abortion. Enter the Campus Pro-Life group at the University of Calgary, a case study of this oversimplification in action.
I am not sure what goes through the heads of anti-abortion activists when they strive to inflame an already heated debate with tasteless shock tactics, but Campus Pro-Life has done a good job of it. The group recently cancelled a giant outdoor display – which would have featured 13 eight-by-four foot placards showing photos of aborted fetuses alongside images of genocide victims – because the university and Students’ Union, in a reasonable concession to this patently unreasonable group, gave the green light for the display outside MacEwan Hall, so long as the placards were facing inwards so that only those who wanted to participate in the display would see them.
This wasn’t good enough for Campus Pro-Life, so the group cancelled its display in a childish huff and is now talking about suing the university for infringing on its right to expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It’s important to understand that the university and SU worked hard to reach a compromise with Campus Pro-Life. The group had asked to use the entire south lawn; the university said they could use half the lawn. The group also asked for gating because they were afraid of people damaging their display; the university agreed to provide cattle gate fencing. (Last year, when Campus Pro-Life held an off-campus rally near the university, there were confrontational incidents.) The university even agreed to put a snow fence around the perimeter of the display and provide security personnel.
Campus Pro-Life got upset about this arrangement because not everyone would have seen the blood and guts, which is seemingly their primary goal. Campus Pro-Life’s vice-president, Drew Brown, defends his group’s shock tactics, saying the photos of aborted fetuses are "no worse than what you see on television." He says that in a culture saturated by media sensationalism, a subtler approach wouldn’t be effective.
"You almost have to be more in your face to get people’s attention," says Brown, adding that the group’s goal is to enter into dialogue about abortion with the university community.
After the group cancelled the display, the university and SU jointly issued a press release stating their position: "Campus Pro-Life does not wish to have a debate that respects positions on both sides of the issue, but rather to create a confrontation to generate media coverage."
"I don’t think (the Pro-Life display) is about discussion," says Joel Lockwood, vice-president of operations for the SU. "They’re pleased right now, because they’re making headlines."
One wonders why a group that supposedly wants to reduce the number of abortions so adamantly persists in self-defeating and inflammatory tactics. Really, it shows a fear of ideas and discussion. Anyone can put up big sensationalized placards to elicit gasps and headlines, but it’s the cheap and easy way out – it’s intellectual cowardice, and it doesn’t change many minds. (To their credit, Campus Pro-Life did hold a debate on abortion last year, but even there they showed a graphic video of an abortion being performed.)
Suppose an anti-war group insisted on using giant posters showing the mangled and bloodied corpses of American soldiers killed in Iraq to make a point. That, too, would make the news, but would outsiders take the group or its message seriously? Not likely. That kind of strategy is just not credible in an ethical discussion of any weight.
Campus Pro-Life is simply creating sad and pathetic theatre. The group’s attempt to cast itself as the poor, persecuted victim of institutional heavy-handedness is laughable as even now, threatened with the possibility of a lawsuit, the university and SU are still working to accommodate the group.
Lockwood says the SU "still wants to do the event," providing it happens "in a reasonable way." Roman Cooney, the university’s vice-president of external relations, says he’s expecting the display to go ahead.
"This is a place for debate," Cooney says. "The only question for us is, Can it be done in such a way to respect the people on campus who don't want to be part of the debate?"
But for Campus Pro-Life, that question is irrelevant. They want their "genocide awareness project" display to happen on their terms, with the graphic placards facing outwards, or else. "We will take legal measures if we don’t get (what we’re asking for)," Brown reiterates.
One last thing: this group calls itself "pro-life." I would challenge the group’s claim to that descriptor. How is the group bringing life to the university campus? It seems like they are more intent on attacking people with their views than with affirming life where it is found. A truly pro-life position would perhaps be more generous towards those with different perspectives, and seek to build bridges instead of widening chasms. |
Copyright ©2005 FFWD. All rights reserved.