Why Freedom of Speech Applies to the Pro-Life Argument

On November 16, at the University of Victoria, a large controversy developed around the virtue of protecting the freedom of speech for groups with opinions that are counter to the “majority” of the student body. Youth Protecting Youth (YPY), a pro-life student organization at the University of Victoria, advocates for the implementation of laws in Canada to “prevent late-term abortions, prohibit sex-selective abortions, and, protect pre-born victims of crime.” YPY is at the center of this controversy at the University of Victoria for planting 10,000 flags in the ground of the quad in the middle of campus, each marking 10 victims of abortion in Canada which totals to around 100,000 annually. YPY should have the right to put on this event and engage in discussions with other students about these issues.

In 1988, Canada relinquished its prior abortion laws so Parliament could create new laws. This never occurred. YPY’s argument is that since there is no abortion law in Canada, unlike nearly every other western country, Canada ought to implement clear legislation regulating abortion and Canadians need to take part in the discussion. To a non-Canadian, this probably seems like a reasonable argument, which, though a sensitive topic, seems worthy of debate. This unfortunately isn’t the case for many Canadians.

With the implementation of controversial bills such as Bill C51 and Bill C16, I have noticed Canadians slowly begin to lose track of what free speech is and why it is so valuable in a country that should hold liberties in the highest regard. With this, I was not surprised when there was a meltdown on social media about how a group like YPY could host such a display. The group was accused of being “rooted in misogyny” and “anti-women.” The event was called “violent speech.” However, the hundreds of outraged comments couldn’t be just about a bunch of flags, right?

Let me be clear on my beliefs on this topic. I am unequivocally for free-speech and I am pro-life. I took part in the display, and had many conversations with people who were interested in the event. However, I do not think that the display deserved the level of outrage, nor the poorly written political media pieces, that it received. This display was a perfect example of how to facilitate discussion effectively and respectfully, in line with free expression. The images used in the display were tasteful, being simple colored flags, and the outreach of the club was predicated entirely upon promoting intellectual discourse and facilitating discussions with students. This is where the disconnect is between the protestors of the display, and those from all sides, who took part in the discussion.

Those making the argument that the display “shouldn’t be allowed” and that it “wasn’t free speech,” had no interest in taking part in the conversation. They simply wanted to label the display with derogatory terms in a desperate attempt to silence dissidence from the cultural paradigm. This is not how it should be. University campuses should be hubs of intellectual discourse, places where the most crucial and controversial issues are debated and openly discussed. This discourse is significantly more relevant if there is a human life at stake, which I would argue there is. The situation would be different if YPY was going around screaming at people for being pro-life, but this wasn’t the case. They had a table at their display, and respectfully discussed ideas with those who wanted to.

I understand that Students For Liberty, and libertarians in general, are a diverse group, consisting of people with highly varying opinions on the topic of abortion. However, I think that we all can agree that these topics deserve discussion. I understand that some people dislike abortion victim photography, but can anyone truly take issue with a field full of flags, with the goal of the display being an open discussion?

Freedom of speech exists so that anyone can state their opinion on any topic, and be able to take part in a discussion of principles or ideas. This is not to say that people should be forced to listen, but should we ever support the censorship of a group based solely on their alleged opinions, especially when the display is peaceful? No. We should argue with our wits and partake in a battle of ideas, not censor those with whom we disagree. We ought to remember that these issues are highly individualistic in nature, and that we shouldn’t take part in the group-labelling undertaken by many of our time. Every idea deserves a chance to be debated on the university stage, whose foundation is freedom of speech itself.

This piece solely expresses the opinion of the author and not necessarily the organization as a whole. Students For Liberty is committed to facilitating a broad dialogue for liberty, representing a variety of opinions. If you’re a student interested in presenting your perspective on this blog, visit our guest submissions page. Like what you read here? You can sign up for a weekly digest of the SFL blog and subscribe for a weekly update on SFL’s events, leadership programs, and resources.