Is there freedom of speech at Auckland University?

July 17th, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

Prolife NZ has said:

Prolife New Zealand (PLNZ) is alarmed at the fact that Auckland student club, Prolife Auckland, is this week facing the possibility of disaffiliation simply for engaging in an act of freedom of expression at the Auckland University campus. …

In May this year Auckland University student club ProLife Auckland, in a peaceful and non-confrontational manner, distributed a one-page leaflet titled ‘Right to Know’.

The pamphlet advocated for the right of women to know the common health risks associated with and the alternatives available to them, so that they can make truly informed decisions when faced with an unplanned or crisis pregnancy. The campaign pamphlet was distributed by PLNZ clubs at universities across New Zealand and contained a link to a webpage with further information and resources.

On the basis of one single anonymous, unsubstantiated email allegation, claiming that the pamphlets contained ‘misleading health information’ and ‘lies about health procedures’, the called a Special General Meeting (SGM) to disaffiliate student club Prolife Auckland.

Not only was this allegation never properly investigated by the AUSA, and the AUSA deliberations regarding this matter conducted in secrecy, but Prolife Auckland were never even informed that an SGM had been called to disaffiliate them – they found this out by sheer chance a week after the decision had been made by the AUSA.

More importantly, the claims of ‘misleading health information’ still remain completely unproven, in fact the medical statements in the pamphlet are supported by reference footnotes to a number of reputable medical journals.

Since Prolife Auckland’s inception it has come up against unwarranted resistance and intimidation at the University of Auckland. This is in contrast to PLNZ’s other branches at Victoria, Canterbury and Massey University in Palmerston North, which have been permitted to peaceably contribute to the free exchange of ideas on campus without fear of reprisal – the cornerstone of academic freedom.

This attempt to ban ProLife Auckland and the complete disregard for natural justice in this case, only serves to further highlight the prejudice of an intolerant minority against the affiliation of pro-life clubs at the University of Auckland. Most alarmingly, it shows that certain members of the AUSA Executive are willing to deny students their human right to freedom of expression simply for peacefully expressing themselves on campus.

I am pro-choice, not pro-life (to use their term). If I was on campus and someone handed me a flyer informing me of the health risks of abortion, I would probably politely suggest they should procreate with themselves.

However I absolutely defend their right to not just hold their views, but to promote them. On a university campus especially, freedom of speech should be the paramount value.

AUSA should not be deciding if the pamphlets have “misleading health information” any more than they should decide if political party pamphlets are misleading. Would they disaffiliate (for example) Princes Street Labour if someone complained about one of their pamphlets. If material is misleading, there are a number of regulatory bodies that can be complained to. It is not a decision for a small group of student politicians.

I would comment to all AUSA members the words of :

“with regard to freedom of speech there are basically two positions: you defend it vigorously for views you hate, or you reject it and prefer Stalinist/fascist standards”

I hope that all those who disagree with the views of ProlifeNZ still defend their right to express their views and be able to operate on campus as an affiliated club.

Tags: , , ,

83 Responses to “Is there freedom of speech at Auckland University?”

  1. Lance (2,311 comments) says:

    Future Labour leaders in the making. Nuff to bring a tear of joy to the eyes of the control freaks in waiting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Manolo (12,643 comments) says:

    You’re allowed to speak as long as you agree with us, these petty tirants appear to be saying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    What does “disaffiliation” mean?

    Free speech does not imply the expectation that third parties will affiliate themselves with speech they disagree with. However, I’m not sure exactly what “affiliation” entails. Is one required to be affiliated with AUSA in order to express a point of view on campus? If so that would be the more pertinent concern.

    As an example, what if there was an organization that promoted racial supremacy. Surely that is a point of view that deserves protection like any other. Does AUSA have to affiliate with such an organization?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. alloytoo (338 comments) says:

    I’m sorry, the religious right need to face consequences as much as the daft left. Especially if they using other people’s money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. SalParadise (54 comments) says:

    I notice their website says “an affiliated club for students at Auckland University who embrace a secular pro-life philosophy”.

    A secular pro-life organisation is a first in my experience.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    What does “disaffiliation” mean?

    It seems that in this instance, if you are disaffiliated you can’t organise on campus, book rooms for meetings etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    A secular pro-life organisation is a first in my experience.

    Think you mean “atheist”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. dave (985 comments) says:

    I’d be most surprised if the pro life club was to be disaffiliated. I suspect AUSA announced the SGM because they didn’t know how else to deal with the complaint. It was simply the wrong approach. I`d also be surprised if the association put up someone to speak against the pro life group. I wouldnt be surprised, however, if many AUSA executive members voted for the status quo…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Chuck Bird (4,415 comments) says:

    “If material is misleading, there are a number of regulatory bodies that can be complained to.”

    Can you name some please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. SalParadise (54 comments) says:

    @Scrubone

    No I definitely mean secular, as in “not connected with religious or spiritual matters”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. RRM (8,997 comments) says:

    Sorry I can’t follow the link on this machine. Does the pamphlet have a photo of a tiny dead aborted fetus? I bet it does. You don’t need to talk to your GP about these issues, just take our ideological propaganda instead!

    I find it hard to get upset about abuses of process, freedom of speech or balance issues when they happen to people pedalling this particular hobby horse. I know I should, but…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    scrubone (1,176) Says:
    July 17th, 2012 at 12:30 pm

    What does “disaffiliation” mean?

    It seems that in this instance, if you are disaffiliated you can’t organise on campus, book rooms for meetings etc.

    In that case I don’t really see this as much of a “free speech” issue. The right to express a point of view does not imply the right to access resources that are not your own in order to facilitate a campaign.

    Arguably a university should promote open discussion by making resources available to any group regardless of the content of their speech, but if this is to be the case then we should expect that resources would be made available to ANY group, even groups which advocate racial supremacy, religious hatred, or tolerance of paedophilia.

    Somehow I can’t imagine many people making a fuss if any of these groups were denied affiliation so the invoking of Noam Chomsky does seem somewhat shallow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    Ah, the sweet face of tolerance, reason, and acceptance!

    This used to be a free country.
    This used to be a great democracy.

    Well not any more, not with the roving gangs of the intolerance police making sure they replicate what the Nazis used to do.

    Democracy itself is unravelling at the seams, as these roving gangs from the tolerance brigade seek to bust up meeting after meeting.

    And above everything else, don’t you just love how very pro-choice these guys are!

    They foam at the mouth about how pro-choice they are, but this is nothing more than disingenuous rhetoric. They are not pro-choice at all.

    They certainly are not in favour of the unborn being able to choose life. And they clearly hate anyone who differs from them exercising their choice. What a pathetic bunch of hypocrites and frauds.

    These anti-choice fascists are simply getting so angry because their lies and double standards are being exposed here big time. They do not give a rip about choice. They are only about denying others choice. They are campus fascists pure and simple.

    Indeed, just how bizarre is all this?

    All over the Western world brave men and women like this, who simply wish to voice their concerns about the wellbeing of children and the state of the nation are being bullied and attacked by the pink mobsters, and many are having to pay quite a big price for this.

    And we are all paying a heavy price: the steady erosion of our freedoms is one obvious thing we are all paying. Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience are all under direct assault by the militants.

    Our freedoms are going down the gurgler fast.

    Does anyone care?

    Will anyone stand up against the new bullies and brownshirts?

    Or will we simply stand by and allow all of our freedoms to eventually be stamped out under the jackboots of the peace and love brigade?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. david (2,483 comments) says:

    RRM, presicesly what is wrong with a photo of a tiny aborted foetus? It is as legit as the fog produced by the pro-choice people who hide the reality of what is involved with all sorts of BS claims about rights (and no mention of responsibilities), about women being the sole arbiter (while ignoring the 50% genetic makeup provided by the father) and so on.

    Being a grumpy old bloke I am a fence-sitter about the abortion thing and see merit in arguments by both sides but shudder at the thought that any of my beautiful grandchildren might have been discarded because they were an inconvenient by-product of a moment’s pleasure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    Harriet,

    All over the Western world brave men and women like this, who simply wish to voice their concerns about the wellbeing of children and the state of the nation are being bullied and attacked by the pink mobsters, and many are having to pay quite a big price for this.

    Bullied and attacked? So far I’ve only seen mention of disaffiliation. What are you referring to and/or how does disaffiliation equate to “bullied and attacked”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. cha (3,541 comments) says:

    Nice post Harriet. Pity you had to steal it pretty much word for word.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Jimmy Smits (246 comments) says:

    I am pro-multiculturalism, not pro-white supremacy (to use their term). If I was on campus and someone handed me a flyer informing me of the health risks of niggers, I would probably politely suggest they should procreate with themselves.

    However I absolutely defend their right to not just hold their views, but to promote them. On a university campus especially, freedom of speech should be the paramount value.

    AUSA should not be deciding if the pamphlets have “misleading health information” any more than they should decide if political party pamphlets are misleading. Would they disaffiliate (for example) Princes Street Labour if someone complained about one of their pamphlets. If material is misleading, there are a number of regulatory bodies that can be complained to. It is not a decision for a small group of student politicians.

    I would comment to all AUSA members the words of Noam Chomsky:

    “with regard to freedom of speech there are basically two positions: you defend it vigorously for views you hate, or you reject it and prefer Stalinist/fascist standards”

    I hope that all those who disagree with the views of Pro white supremacy NZ still defend their right to express their views and be able to operate on campus as an affiliated club.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Fost (99 comments) says:

    @ Jimmy Smits

    As long as they do not advocate illegal activity they have the right to say what they want – you don’t have to listen to them/agree with them. Free speech to be FREE it comes with the need to allow those you disagree with to have their say. Ridicule is a far better weapon than censorship.

    If someone can arbitrarily decide who gets to say what, it is not free at all. While we are all happy when it is stuff we agree with, imagine if [insert opposite extremist position from your beliefs here] became the arbitrator of what was allowed?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. BlairM (2,266 comments) says:

    The AUSA is a private organisation with no obligation to affiliate anyone.

    The AUSA also has explicit policy supporting legal abortion in New Zealand.

    I think it is unwise for them to exclude certain points of view and include others if they want to be an inclusive student union which caters to as many students and points of view as possible. I think abortion is only dubiously an issue specific to students. But if they refuse to affiliate a pro life club that is the exercise of their free speech, not a negation of it.

    I would hope that they would remain affiliated in the same way that I hope the Boy Scouts of America find it in them to include gay people in their ranks. I think it would be a nice and noble thing for them to do, but there is nothing wrong with doing the opposite thing either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. DJP6-25 (1,236 comments) says:

    Socialists behaving true to form. Nothing new here.

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. F E Smith (3,275 comments) says:

    The threat of dis-affiliation is not an attack on free speech by the AUSA by preventing the speech they think is offensive, as much it is an attempted attack on free speech by the AUSA by punishing the people who promulgated it.

    The pro-life people still have a right and ability to exercise their right to free speech. However, the AUSA is saying that if it does not agree with your political position then it will prevent you from accessing services that other student groups with approved political beliefs are allowed to use.

    So, again, the AUSA is not preventing the pro-life group from exercising their right to free speech. The AUSA is simply attempting to punish the group for doing so.

    Why is it that the left (and this will be an attempt by lefties, no doubt about it) seem to be either a) so insecure in their own beliefs that they wish to prevent others from disagreeing with them publicly, or b) wannabe totalitarians (with the possibility of c) both)?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Aredhel777 (271 comments) says:

    “Sorry I can’t follow the link on this machine. Does the pamphlet have a photo of a tiny dead aborted fetus? I bet it does. You don’t need to talk to your GP about these issues, just take our ideological propaganda instead!”

    Who told you that? The entire contents of the pamphlet are available right here: http://prolife.org.nz/righttoknow/ . Perhaps you would like to identify precisely what part of this pamphlet you find so objectionable that Prolife Auckland be banned over it, rather than relying on misinformation about alleged depictions of aborted foetuses. And Prolife Auckland are the ones who are being accused of propagating misinformation lol….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Tautaioleua (266 comments) says:

    In the words of Noam Chomsky,

    IF WE DON’T BELIEVE IN FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION FOR PEOPLE WE DESPISE, WE DON’T BELIEVE IN IT AT ALL.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    There is as much humanity in the majority of aborted foetuses as there is in the snot in my handkerchief.

    Both are a collection of cells.

    A foetus is much a person as an acorn is an oak tree.

    Sorry, cannot take these dufusses seriously when real, live humans are being persecuted for standing up to the idiocies of the religious; while these “pro lifers” obsess over the contents of a pertrie dish, people like Sanal Edamaruku are under serious threat off loss of liberty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Aredhel777 (271 comments) says:

    Luke Mutton: the thing is, it’s not about what you think of abortion, it’s about whether you support free speech. There are a number of pro-choice people turning up to vote for the prolife club tomorrow because they are consistent liberals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Graeme Edgeler (3,222 comments) says:

    Tautaioleua: In the words of Noam Chomsky,

    IF WE DON’T BELIEVE IN FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION FOR PEOPLE WE DESPISE, WE DON’T BELIEVE IN IT AT ALL.

    If you don’t believe in freedom of association for the AUSA and its members, you don’t believe in it at all :-)
    Why should AUSA be forced to associate with a Pro-Life group, if they do not wish to association with such a group?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    Well that statement makes you an ignorant cock Luke Mutton. The reason why I say that is that I believe that is indicative of a lack of respect for children that has led to the child abuse epidemic. starting with Delcelia Wikita.
    Absolutely I believe that every time you say an aborted foetus has as much humanity as the snot in your hanky, you may as well be the one loading the child into the dryer.
    A foetus is not just a collection of cells after some point. It is a living entity. you DEMEANIING SON OF A BITCH.This doesn’t mean a foetus has a greater right to life than me, but I have respect for the process of life. You are not fit to comment and I dread the day you become a father you useless cunt. Because you may not be religious, but women are just cell incubators? Right?
    Rant over.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. F E Smith (3,275 comments) says:

    Graeme,

     Why should AUSA be forced to associate with a Pro-Life group, if they do not wish to association with such a group?

    because they are are services group that has a monopoly on the provision of the rooms and other opportunities/services that they provide.  If they did not have that monopoly, then your argument would be convincing.  So if the University of Auckland takes over the running of those services currently provided by the AUSA, no problem.

    Surely if a group meets the criteria then the AUSA, as an organisation that claims to represent students at the University of Auckland, should accept them as affiliates.  Any person who does not wish to be associated with the pro-life group could then dis-affiliate or resign from the AUSA.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Graeme Edgeler (3,222 comments) says:

    So if the University of Auckland takes over the running of those services currently provided by the AUSA, no problem.

    The problem is the university, not AUSA.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    F E Smith,

    Why the distinction between AUSA and the university? In either case wouldn’t they have the same monopoly on resources within the university?

    I believe access to university resources should have no regard for the content of an association’s speech because a university should foster open discussion without prejudice or favour. But I find it hard to believe many of those here who are up in arms would also be up in arms if it was the “I hate niggers” association or the “Man-boy love” association that was being discriminated against. I expect we would have a variety of reasons why that speech crosses the line, all of which would ultimately constitute a thinly veiled argument in support of censorship for speech that was highly disagreeable.

    It’s easy to quote Chomsky, it’s a little bit harder to defend the worst forms of speech. Pro-life speech is hardly anywhere near the worst forms of speech, and is indeed considered by most to be a point of view that is arguable, whether or not one ultimately agrees with the speech.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    Monique Watson,

    A foetus is not just a collection of cells after some point…

    What point is that precisely?

    It is a living entity…

    …as is a tree, or a goat, or an insect. What makes the human foetus special?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    WOW! Monique. Rant much?

    Sorry if my fatherhood offends you, but you see, I am the father of 2, grandfather of 4 and step grandfather of a further 2, and I love them all. I guess that must make me a cunt, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    @Aredhel777

    No, this is not about free Speech ™.

    It is about a tactic imported from the US religious right wing to scream their free speech is being trampled on whenever they are challenged.

    This mob of liars and lunatics are quite free to speak and to spread their lies and their bile, and I will not stand in theur way. Nor will I simply bend over and take one for the team, I will challenge them at any and every opportunity for their lies, their deceit and their hatred of women and sex.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Aredhel777 (271 comments) says:

    Well mate, I am a woman, not a woman-hater, and I participated in handing out the flier in question. In fact, the majority of us who handed out those fliers *were* women. We’re not anti-women, we love the women and the children both. I think it’s worth pointing out the irony of the fact that *you* on the other hand are male.

    But regardless, the Bill of Rights Act 1990 states that “everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.” Additionally, it states that “everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference.” You don’t really have a leg to stand on mate. Our rights to freedom of belief and of expression are being infringed by banning this club.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    I guess that must make me a cunt, right?

    No, suggesting that a human being is not a human in order to strip that human of their rights puts you in a much worse category.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    No I definitely mean secular, as in “not connected with religious or spiritual matters”

    Ah “connected”.

    So what you really means is “doesn’t contain people with religious beliefs worth a damn.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    Aredhel777,

    …the Bill of Rights Act 1990 states…

    …Our rights to freedom of belief and of expression are being infringed by banning this club…

    Is disaffiliation equivalent to banning? Surely the right to free expression does not mean that a private organization must help facilitate your speech.

    I think Universities should foster environments where any idea can be expressed. But if they don’t, does that constitute a violation of one’s rights?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Graeme Edgeler (3,222 comments) says:

    I think Universities should foster environments where any idea can be expressed. But if they don’t, does that constitute a violation of one’s rights?

    Public University’s with state monopolies? Yes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Diziet Sma (109 comments) says:

    That’s a good point Weihana, I agree completely with David.
    There’s plenty of ‘free speech’ forums on the internet where you can easily find anonymous cowards claiming such extreme views as you point out. It’s still the same though, you can engage about their desperate nonsense or move on. They’re just fucking words really. All ideas should be openly debated especially in a University! ‘Pro-life’ is a good example of something that deserves laughing out of town – openly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Aredhel777 (271 comments) says:

    “Is disaffiliation equivalent to banning? Surely the right to free expression does not mean that a private organization must help facilitate your speech.

    I think Universities should foster environments where any idea can be expressed. But if they don’t, does that constitute a violation of one’s rights?”

    Ah, that old chestnut. Affiliation with the student union allows clubs to book rooms, have a stall on campus O-week, put up posters and access union funds (not that Prolife Auckland has ever seen a dime from the student union, all we get is discrimination and abuse.) Removing those privileges purely because you disagree with the club severely restricts their freedom of speech.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    Ha ha. That is the second time in as many day’s I’ve gotten steamed enough to drop the c bomb across blogs. I must have a low threshold. And a fuckin’ foul mouth.
    However. A foetus is not just a collection of cells. At eight weeks they have arms and legs.
    That, “just a collection of cells”, argument chills me to the bone because it’s only applicable in the early days. Not weeks, but days.
    The “cells”, argument is degrading to women who have had terminations because their baby was deformed or their own life was at risk. Tell these women, their babies were just a collection of cells.
    As for the right wing contingent, it’s a poor woman who couldn’t stand up for her right to one of these shits. If she can’t stand up for the right to have, or not to have children then a womb is wasted on her.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. kowtow (6,730 comments) says:

    monique and aredhel

    for what it’s worth….good on you and well said.

    Interesting trend on kb ,the religious and particularly anything to do with a combination of America and religious right ,what ever that is, are not entitled to the same rights as ,well who else?

    These people really are totalitarians and dangerous and the language of luke muttonhead is frankly disturbing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Graeme Edgeler (3,222 comments) says:

    just assume my attempt to correct the typos in that comment was completed in time :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Michael Mckee (1,091 comments) says:

    What rubbish so many of you speak.

    I read this earlier on the web and it was clear this was an bullying attack against the pro life group.

    1. All of AUSA should resign right now for acting against a student group with no reason but political/ideological bias.
    2. The University of Auckland should take away AUSA’s rights/priviledges to control/allocate resources if they don’t.

    http://prolife.org.nz/2012/07/doctor-from-nz-family-planning-association-confirms-accuracy-of-right-to-know-flyer/
    The information they want to promulgate isn’t being given to women so that they can make an informed choice.

    It seems to me that the medical woman Dr. Christine Roke from the family planning org tried to diss the information as old and outdated, because she and the other medics aren’t properly informing the women as they should be according to best practice and legislation.

    That in itself should be brought before the Medical Council and the health and disability commissioner for sanctions against them.
    After all they make a big thing of their medical expertise.

    One could say the same about their programs for STD’s and condom use too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    Yes monique and aredhel, well done. We should remember that describing what happens to a foetus when it is aborted are the grotesque lies, deceipt and hatred of lunatics, while actually doing these things is a victory of choice. Such is the modern moral compass on spin cycle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    Some commenters here must be living on a different planet where handing out information about abortion is equated with racism, facism etc.
    Are you guys for real?
    Do you really think women aren’t smart enough and too feeble to make up their own mind and need protection from certain kinds of information?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Michael Mckee (1,091 comments) says:

    If they get all the information in the first place andy

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    This mob of liars and lunatics are quite free to speak and to spread their lies and their bile,..

    I didn’t realise this was about the NZ Labour Party, but then again the tactics are very similar to the behaviour of the NZL

    Anyway, great rant Monique like it. The Lukes blather on about free speech but they are really the type when they hear something they don’t like they try and shut it down… very much like AUSA me thinks

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    Once upon a time Universities were places where ideas were exchanged and debated and different points of view were not only tolerated but people were actively encouraged to question dogma.
    No longer.
    Not only are students (and lecturers) discouraged from expressing an opinion (even those based on facts) they are harassed and smeared and some are even subjected to disciplinary hearings.
    Certain subjects are out of bounds, cannot be discussed and no deviation from the ‘official’ line is tolerated.
    1. Israel
    2. Abortion
    3. AGW
    4. Homosexuality
    Are just some of the subjects where no dissent is tolerated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Jimmy Smits (246 comments) says:

    Other_Andy (1,869) Says:
    July 17th, 2012 at 5:51 pm

    Once upon a time Universities were places where ideas were exchanged and debated and different points of view were not only tolerated but people were actively encouraged to question dogma.
    No longer.
    Not only are students (and lecturers) discouraged from expressing an opinion (even those based on facts) they are harassed and smeared and some are even subjected to disciplinary hearings.
    Certain subjects are out of bounds, cannot be discussed and no deviation from the ‘official’ line is tolerated.
    1. Israel
    2. Abortion
    3. AGW
    4. Homosexuality
    Are just some of the subjects where no dissent is tolerated.

    You left off:

    5. Racism
    6. Sexism
    7. Slavery
    8. Other things the Bible supports but are no longer relevant to modern society

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Aredhel777 (271 comments) says:

    “You left off:

    5. Racism
    6. Sexism
    7. Slavery
    8. Other things the Bible supports but are no longer relevant to modern society”

    Yeah, now we’re completely offtopic. Your bizarre claim that the Bible supports sexism, slavery etc etc has nothing to do with freedom of speech for Prolife Auckland.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Fletch (5,727 comments) says:

    This mob of liars and lunatics are quite free to speak and to spread their lies and their bile, and I will not stand in theur way. Nor will I simply bend over and take one for the team, I will challenge them at any and every opportunity for their lies, their deceit and their hatred of women and sex.

    Luke, you sure you know who you’re talking about?
    Your above sentence is a perfect description of the Progressive Left.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. kowtow (6,730 comments) says:

    The bible( Old Testament) supports Israel .Israel is relevant to modern society.

    Discuss rationally without frothing over your keyboard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    @Jimmy

    You’re either not too bright, drunk or both.
    By the way, what the hell has the Bible got anything to do with what I wrote?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Fletch (5,727 comments) says:

    5. Racism

    Like Jesus talking to the Samaritan woman? which just wasn’t seemly in those times because she was Samaritan for one, and a woman for the other, but Jesus does anyway. So, no racism or sexism there.
    6. Sexism

    I will quote from Dave Armstrong for that accusation –

    The Bible I read has Paul stating that there is no male or female in Christ. Husbands are to honor their wives and love them like Christ loved the Church (i.e., He died for us). The Bible I read shows women with great courage, being at the crucifixion, while all the male disciples except for John, were a bunch of wimps and cowards, and fled in terror (Peter having denied that he even knew Christ). Mary Magdalene was the first to see the risen Christ, and several women were in the forefront of that event, too, while the men were slow to believe. Jesus saved a woman from being stoned for adultery, on the grounds that her sin was not — in the final analysis — greater than anyone else’s. Even Rahab the harlot is honored, because she helped the Israelite spies. Jesus greatly honored the woman who wiped His feet with her tears and rebuked his male host.

    Mary the mother of Jesus is, in fact, the very highest of all God’s creatures: far higher than any man. We Catholics believe she is sinless and immaculate (preserved from original sin from the moment of her conception; Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, actually believed the same thing, too). She is so exalted that Catholics are falsely accused of worshiping her all the time (we venerate her, which is essentially a high honor, but not worship). I am working on a book about Mary this very day. Catholics believe that God even channels the grace of salvation through Mary. Many other women are treated with great dignity and honor (e.g., Judith, Esther).

    “Liberated” women have really come a long way recently, haven’t they? They learned to smoke like men, and started dying of lung cancer at the same rate that men died. Real liberation there. Now they have accepted men’s selfish lies about abortion and have learned to slaughter their own offspring before they can even get out of the womb, and call that outrage a “choice” and a “right.” Real progress there too.

    The Bible, in elevating marriage to a lifelong commitment and a sacrament, protected women from much abuse. But now we have gone beyond all that. Now we are liberated and see women as sex objects and mere playthings that can be jettisoned if they are too old or undesirable. That is what our wonderful sexual revolution has brought us. Generally, it is women who suffer to a much greater extent economically after divorce (along with children). We know that; there is no question about it. It is the “puritanical” Christians who are in the forefront of the fight against pornography: the very thing that promotes these views. But the secular society thinks pornography is great: everyone has a right to indulge in it. Anyone who protests is a prude and opposed to “free speech.”

    I’ll take the biblical and Christian view of women any day, thank you.

    Me too!

    7. Slavery

    “Slavery” as practised in the U.S has little to do with how it was practised in the ANE (Ancient Near East), and indeed, in the Bible.

    “Scholars do not agree on a definition of “slavery.” The term has been used at various times for a wide range of institutions, including plantation slavery, forced labor, the drudgery of factories and sweatshops, child labor, semivoluntary prostitution, bride-price marriage, child adoption for payment, and paid-for surrogate motherhood. Somewhere within this range, the literal meaning of “slavery” shifts into metaphorical meaning, but it is not entirely clear at what point. A similar problem arises when we look at other cultures. The reason is that the term “Slavery” is evocative rather than analytical, calling to mind a loose bundle of diagnostic features. These features are mainly derived from the most recent direct Western experience with slavery, that of the southern United States, the Caribbean, and Latin America. The present Western image of slavery has been haphazardly constructed out of the representations of that experience in nineteenth-century abolitionist literature, and later novels, textbooks, and films…From a global cross-cultural and historical perspective, however, New World slavery was a unique conjunction of features…In brief, most varieties of slavery did not exhibit the three elements that were dominant in the New World: slaves as property and commodities; their use exclusively as labor; and their lack of freedom…” [NS:ECA:4:1190f]

    ANd –

    The definitive work on ANE law today is the 2 volume work [HI:HANEL] (History of Ancient Near Eastern Law). This work (by 22 scholars) surveys every legal document from the ANE (by period) and includes sections on slavery. A smattering of quotes will indicate this for-the-poor instead of for-the-rich purpose for most of ANE slavery:

    § “Most slaves owned by Assyrians in Assur and in Anatolia seem to have been (originally) debt slaves–free persons sold into slavery by a parent, a husband, an elder sister, or by themselves.” (1.449)

    § “Sales of wives, children, relatives, or oneself, due to financial duress, are a recurrent feature of the Nuzi socio-economic scene…A somewhat different case is that of male and female foreigners, called hapiru (immigrants) who gave themselves in slavery to private individuals or the palace administration. Poverty was the cause of these agreements…” (1.585)

    § “Most of the recorded cases of entry of free persons into slavery [in Emar] are by reason of debt or famine or both…A common practice was for a financier to pay off the various creditors in return for the debtor becoming his slave.” (1.664f)

    § “On the other hand, mention is made of free people who are sold into slavery as a result of the famine conditions and the critical economic situation of the populations [Canaan]. Sons and daughters are sold for provisions…” (1.741)

    § “The most frequently mentioned method of enslavement [Neo-Sumerian, UR III] was sale of children by their parents. Most are women, evidently widows, selling a daughter; in one instance a mother and grandmother sell a boy…There are also examples of self sale. All these case clearly arose from poverty; it is not stated, however, whether debt was specifically at issue.” (1.199)

    So, in OT times, people used to sell themselves into ‘slavery’ to pay off debts etc, and parents used to sell children as well. It’s not the same as American slavery, but more akin to being a servant. Read the whole thing if you’re interested.

    http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. kowtow (6,730 comments) says:

    O A
    Watch out ,the froth is about to fly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. kowtow (6,730 comments) says:

    Bigots are obsessed about slavery as practised by whites or in the bible.

    Nearly every ancient and some not so ancient societies practised it. So what relevance has it to the west today?

    It allows bigots to slag off the west and Christians (never Muslims though)It’s in the Koran too!So spread your bile boys in the interests of the equality and multiculturalism you embrace.

    They never talk of the role of contemporary slavery and who is involved.And never give credit to the white Christians who ended it or the Royal navy who ruled the seas and enforced the ban as best they could once Parliament finally made it’s mind up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. enjiner (15 comments) says:

    A lot of comments here are asking if AUSA would act in this way if a group was promoting racial supremacy. I’d like to point out that when I was at Auckland University a couple of years ago, there were a number of groups that were quite positive about justifying a brutal racially-motivated assault that took place at the Engineering faculty in the 70s. (It was referred to as ‘culturally’ rather ‘racially’ motivated but I think that’s just splitting hairs). There was even an article in Craccum about it (with a “it wasn’t so bad, they were just defending their culture” slant).

    With that in mind, I think the idea that AUSA would respond like this to racial supremacism can be discounted. And it is a deeply bizarre attitude that consider pro-life advocacy (whatever side of the fence you’re on) to be *worse* than racism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. F E Smith (3,275 comments) says:

    Graeme and Weihana,

    I may have missed something here- this is the actions of the Student Association we are talking about, right? Not the university itself? Or are they the same thing?

    Weihana,

    Nope, your example doesn’t work with me. If the ‘i hate n****rs club’ and the ‘man-boy love club’ that were being discriminated against then I would still criticise the AUSA for the discrimnation. If somebody wants to put their name to such awful ideas then I have no issue with that whatsoever, and I will support their right to advocate their position. I will oppose it utterly and will not associate with any of the members, but that is me exercising my freedom of speech and freedom of association, rather than punishing them because I don’t like what they are saying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    @enjiner

    “Racism” is now a meaningless accusation. In short it is used by activists for race-baiting and to close any discussion they don’t like.
    The real meaning is now lost in polit-babble and liber-gibberish.
    They’ve even reversed MLK’s statement.
    Racists are now those who judge people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
    Same with sexism.
    Giving women information so they have the opportunity to make an informed decission = sexism
    According to some of the commenters above, women can’t handle information and they cannot de trusted to make an informed decission.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Mark (496 comments) says:

    The problem is the AUSA prefer Stalinist/fascist standards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. nasska (9,556 comments) says:

    It seems that no one has gone back to the real basics. Why the hell does AUSA have to be involved in supporting any “clubs” be they general interest groups, religious societies or political organisations? If a few like minded people want to get together to discuss foetuses or football let them get on with it & use their own money & resources while they’re at it.

    That way no students are advantaged nor disadvantaged & the AUSA can slip further into the total irrelevancy it richly deserves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    @nasska

    “Why the hell does AUSA have to be involved in supporting any “clubs”…….”

    But nasska, if they are not involved, how are they supposed to control those groups and make sure they don’t deviate from the socialist acceptable groupthink?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. nasska (9,556 comments) says:

    Other_Andy

    And that my friend is the discussion we should have been having. There is no need or purpose served by the involvement of the AUSA except to tell the gullible what they are allowed to think & speak freely about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Johnboy (13,425 comments) says:

    Even if there is freedom of speech at Auckland University if none of us are listening, or in fact give a toss, did it really happen?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. kowtow (6,730 comments) says:

    This is very relevant even if the rest of us aren’t listening .

    This is the training ground for tomorrows leftist MPs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Mark (1,302 comments) says:

    I am pro life. I find the 16000 abortions in NZ unbelievably sad. That said I do agree with DPF that freedom of expression is an important principle to uphold.

    I cannot believe that AUSA cannot cope with the
    Concept that a university of all places is a forum for ideas. When I was at AU which was a
    few years ago the AUSA was argumentative but hardly dictatorial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. alloytoo (338 comments) says:

    @mark – “I am pro life. I find the 16000 abortions in NZ unbelievably sad.”

    That’s great Mark.

    I personally find undernourished, battered and HIV positive children with low life expectancies unbelievably sad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    alloytoo – Oh that’s top reasoning there. Now back to your crayons.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Seán (396 comments) says:

    “I am pro-choice, not pro-life (to use their term). “
    A-ha, like you are ‘pro-choice’ (to use their term), as opposed to ‘pro-abortion’…..

    “If I was on campus and someone handed me a flyer informing me of the health risks of abortion, I would probably politely suggest they should procreate with themselves.”
    Such a mature response….I really would expect something more witty from DPF. Well, then again….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. kowtow (6,730 comments) says:

    alloytoo

    if you’re so worried about undernourished,battered and HIV children with low life expetancies then you should book a ticket to former Rhodesia and do something about it where it is a problem…..

    meanwhile back in Aotearoa are you suggesting that the consequences of shit decisions made by a tiny minority of irresponsible adults be the basis for abortion on demand for the whole population?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Paulus (2,299 comments) says:

    Back to Helen Clark – I’m right -you’re wrong – so I am right as always !
    Freedom is what I say it is – right Heather – right, nobody will argue against me either, if you say so.
    Auckland University Students Union- pathetic

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. alloytoo (338 comments) says:

    @ Kowtow

    And yet we are bombarded with reports telling us how many children live below the poverty line in New Zealand.

    None the less you appear to be perfectly willing to bulldoze a woman’s reproductive rights.

    Perhaps the unwilling parents and the state should be sending you the bill for food housing and education.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. alloytoo (338 comments) says:

    @ Krazykiwi

    That’s no reasoning from you apparently.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. kowtow (6,730 comments) says:

    allyoops

    NZ poverty line…..yep that’s relative ,not absolute poverty.

    “Unwilling parents” send me a bill for their incompetence,fecklessness and irresponsiblity? Spoken like a true socialist.And the state does send me the fucking bill,it’s called income tax!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Mark (1,302 comments) says:

    alloytoo (17) Says:
    July 18th, 2012 at 10:45 am
    @mark – “I am pro life. I find the 16000 abortions in NZ unbelievably sad.”

    That’s great Mark.

    I personally find undernourished, battered and HIV positive children with low life expectancies unbelievably sad.

    alloytoo the 16000 aborted children fit into your description here I assume.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Mark (1,302 comments) says:

    Luke Mutton (15) Says:
    July 17th, 2012 at 4:52 pm
    WOW! Monique. Rant much?

    Sorry if my fatherhood offends you, but you see, I am the father of 2, grandfather of 4 and step grandfather of a further 2, and I love them all. I guess that must make me a cunt, right?

    Luke, I am pleased and guess that your children and grandchildren are thrilled that your wife’s and children’s snotty hankerchiefs were given the opportunity to become children and grandchildren. I doubt that your a cnut as Monique so eloquently put it, in fact I expect your a nice bloke at heart, but the comment that lead to her rant was cnutish, but in a debate about freedom of speech you have every right to put your view.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Mark (1,302 comments) says:

    @alloytoo “None the less you appear to be perfectly willing to bulldoze a woman’s reproductive rights”.

    One suspects kowtow is putting up a hand for the child’s rights. It becomes argument about the inconvenience of parenthood versus the life of a child.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Aredhel777 (271 comments) says:

    Prolife Auckland won by a landslide. 227-125. Even after the AUSA held a barbeque to get people to come along, all they could muster was a handful of embittered feminazis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    Aredhel777 – that’s a great result. Well done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. nasska (9,556 comments) says:

    The 227-125 is a heartening victory for the rights of the Auckland University students to hold whatever views they wish & speak their minds. I dare say that a few social engineers will be licking their wounds tonight.

    I hope that the “pro life” brigade accept that the results mean a majority of those who voted believe in freedom of speech & don’t interpret this as support to curtail women’s right to choose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    allytoo – Why should I bother? Ah well… your faux assertion that 16000 abortions has led to 16000 fewer “undernourished, battered and HIV positive children with low life expectancies” is mind numbingly stupid, and must put square of centre in a cohort of intellectual pygmies. But there you go. I’ve spelt it out for you. 

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Aredhel777 (271 comments) says:

    Actually Nasska, the majority of the people who voted for the prolife group were from the various Christian groups across campus. Besides them, there were a minority of conscientious and consistent liberals who showed up because of the freedom of speech thing (major props to them) and a few Muslims. But you are quite right that this was not a vote to decide whether women should have the right to choose or not. The results might have looked very different.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.