April 2009
Should a public university, funded by taxpayers, be
able to censor controversial speech on campus? According to the University of
Calgary, the answer to this question is a resounding “yes.” In spite of its
stated mission to “seek truth and disseminate knowledge,” and in spite of
advertising itself as “a place of education and scholarly inquiry,” the
University of Calgary has charged some of its own students with “trespassing”
because they set up a pro-life display on their own campus this past November.
It wasn’t always so.
In 2006 and 2007, the University of Calgary erected signs stating that the
pro-life students’ large colour photographs of aborted fetuses were permitted
under the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of expression. On six separate
occasions, the pro-life campus club has erected its provocative display without
incident, using it to engage other students in debate.
But in 2008, the
University of Calgary wholly abandoned its commitment to free speech as a means
of pursuing truth, and demanded the pro-life students erect their signs “facing
inwards” — so that passers-by could not see the signs. While the university
described its demand as a “reasonable compromise,” the practical effect was akin
to total censorship.
Students ignored the
university’s threats of arrest, and even expulsion for “non-academic
misconduct,” and erected their controversial display again this past November.
Under the watchful eye of numerous media cameras, the university did not arrest
the students. But two months later, the university instructed Calgary police to
deliver summons to these same students — privately at their homes, with no
media present.
This aggressive
censorship flies in the face of the university’s raison d’etre, not to mention
the long-standing Canadian tradition of tolerance for the expression of all
views.
In cases dating back
to the 1930s, the Supreme Court of Canada has made it abundantly clear that the
purpose of freedom of expression is to protect minority beliefs which the
majority regard as wrong. The majority is not permitted to impose its perception
of “truth” or “public interest” by silencing the minority.
For example, in the
case of Edmonton Journal vs. Alberta, the Supreme Court of Canada declared it
“difficult to imagine a guaranteed right more important to a democratic society
than freedom of expression. Indeed, a democracy cannot exist without that
freedom to express new ideas and to put forward opinions … The concept of free
and uninhibited speech permeates all truly democratic societies and
institutions.”
The Canadian
tradition of tolerance extends to polemical speech that is considered extreme in
its context. Long before the Charter, the Supreme Court acquitted a Jehovah’s
Witness of seditious libel for distributing a pamphlet entitled “Quebec’s
Burning Hate for God and Christ and Freedom Is the Shame of All Canada,” which
contained offensive statements about Quebec society, the clergy and the courts.
Even if some listeners perceive it as hurtful, polemical speech plays a crucial
role in public debate.
Charter rights aside,
the University of Calgary holds itself up as a tolerant and open place of
inquiry. So, unless the university alerts the public of an official policy
against pro-life speech on campus, it cannot deny equal freedom of expression to
all of its students.
Moreover, the
university has expressed no qualms about other controversial large colour
displays, including ones showing the effects of torture on political dissidents
in China, the cruelty of animal testing and the consequences of spousal abuse.
It seems gory and disturbing displays on campus are fine–as long as they do not
convey a politically incorrect view on abortion.
The University of
Calgary receives over $500-million from taxpayers each year. If it does not
reacquaint itself with the ideals of tolerance, it may find taxpayers becoming
less tolerant of footing such a hefty bill to support an institution which so
blatantly disregards its own mission.
John Carpay is executive director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, and one of the lawyers acting for the Campus Pro-Life Club at the University of Calgary.
National Post, February 09, 2009.
Help us maintain freedom in teaching, research and scholarship by joining SAFS or making a donation.
