Is there freedom of speech at Auckland University?
July 17th, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David FarrarProlife 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 abortion 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 AUSA 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 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 ProlifeNZ still defend their right to express their views and be able to operate on campus as an affiliated club.
Related posts:
- Does AUSA believe in freedom of speech?
- A victory for free speech
- Well done Auckland students
- Dom Post on free speech
July 17th, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Future Labour leaders in the making. Nuff to bring a tear of joy to the eyes of the control freaks in waiting.
Vote:July 17th, 2012 at 12:07 pm
You’re allowed to speak as long as you agree with us, these petty tirants appear to be saying.
Vote:July 17th, 2012 at 12:14 pm
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:July 17th, 2012 at 12:19 pm
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:July 17th, 2012 at 12:21 pm
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: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.
Vote:July 17th, 2012 at 12:31 pm
A secular pro-life organisation is a first in my experience.
Think you mean “atheist”.
Vote:July 17th, 2012 at 12:32 pm
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:July 17th, 2012 at 12:38 pm
“If material is misleading, there are a number of regulatory bodies that can be complained to.”
Can you name some please.
Vote:July 17th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
@Scrubone
No I definitely mean secular, as in “not connected with religious or spiritual matters”
Vote:July 17th, 2012 at 12:40 pm
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:July 17th, 2012 at 12:46 pm
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:July 17th, 2012 at 1:39 pm
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:July 17th, 2012 at 1:40 pm
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:July 17th, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Harriet,
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:July 17th, 2012 at 1:50 pm
Nice post Harriet. Pity you had to steal it pretty much word for word.
Vote:July 17th, 2012 at 2:30 pm
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:July 17th, 2012 at 2:38 pm
@ 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:July 17th, 2012 at 2:45 pm
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:July 17th, 2012 at 2:53 pm
Socialists behaving true to form. Nothing new here.
cheers
David Prosser
Vote:July 17th, 2012 at 3:00 pm
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:July 17th, 2012 at 3:34 pm
“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:July 17th, 2012 at 3:40 pm
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:July 17th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
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:July 17th, 2012 at 3:49 pm
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:July 17th, 2012 at 3:50 pm
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
Vote:Why should AUSA be forced to associate with a Pro-Life group, if they do not wish to association with such a group?
July 17th, 2012 at 4:11 pm
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.
Vote: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.
July 17th, 2012 at 4:17 pm
Graeme,
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:July 17th, 2012 at 4:38 pm
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:July 17th, 2012 at 4:44 pm
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:July 17th, 2012 at 4:50 pm
Monique Watson,
What point is that precisely?
…as is a tree, or a goat, or an insect. What makes the human foetus special?
Vote: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?
Vote:July 17th, 2012 at 4:55 pm
@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:July 17th, 2012 at 5:03 pm
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:July 17th, 2012 at 5:06 pm
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:July 17th, 2012 at 5:08 pm
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:July 17th, 2012 at 5:10 pm
Aredhel777,
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:July 17th, 2012 at 5:14 pm
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:July 17th, 2012 at 5:16 pm
That’s a good point Weihana, I agree completely with David.
Vote: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.
July 17th, 2012 at 5:17 pm
“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:July 17th, 2012 at 5:18 pm
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.
Vote: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.
July 17th, 2012 at 5:20 pm
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:July 17th, 2012 at 5:20 pm
just assume my attempt to correct the typos in that comment was completed in time
Vote:July 17th, 2012 at 5:21 pm
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:July 17th, 2012 at 5:27 pm
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:July 17th, 2012 at 5:27 pm
Some commenters here must be living on a different planet where handing out information about abortion is equated with racism, facism etc.
Vote: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?
July 17th, 2012 at 5:29 pm
If they get all the information in the first place andy
Vote:July 17th, 2012 at 5:31 pm
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: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.
Vote: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.
July 17th, 2012 at 6:27 pm
You left off:
5. Racism
Vote:6. Sexism
7. Slavery
8. Other things the Bible supports but are no longer relevant to modern society
July 17th, 2012 at 6:28 pm
“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:July 17th, 2012 at 6:39 pm
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?
Vote:Your above sentence is a perfect description of the Progressive Left.
July 17th, 2012 at 7:13 pm
The bible( Old Testament) supports Israel .Israel is relevant to modern society.
Discuss rationally without frothing over your keyboard.
Vote:July 17th, 2012 at 7:25 pm
@Jimmy
You’re either not too bright, drunk or both.
Vote:By the way, what the hell has the Bible got anything to do with what I wrote?
July 17th, 2012 at 7:37 pm
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 –
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.
ANd –
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:July 17th, 2012 at 7:38 pm
O A
Vote:Watch out ,the froth is about to fly.
July 17th, 2012 at 7:47 pm
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:July 17th, 2012 at 8:07 pm
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:July 17th, 2012 at 8:22 pm
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:July 17th, 2012 at 8:26 pm
@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.
Vote: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.
July 17th, 2012 at 8:27 pm
The problem is the AUSA prefer Stalinist/fascist standards.
Vote:July 17th, 2012 at 8:35 pm
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:July 17th, 2012 at 8:43 pm
@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:July 17th, 2012 at 8:48 pm
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:July 17th, 2012 at 8:50 pm
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:July 17th, 2012 at 9:06 pm
This is very relevant even if the rest of us aren’t listening .
This is the training ground for tomorrows leftist MPs.
Vote:July 18th, 2012 at 9:36 am
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
Vote: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.
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.
Vote:July 18th, 2012 at 10:54 am
alloytoo – Oh that’s top reasoning there. Now back to your crayons.
Vote:July 18th, 2012 at 10:57 am
“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.”
Vote:Such a mature response….I really would expect something more witty from DPF. Well, then again….
July 18th, 2012 at 11:03 am
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:July 18th, 2012 at 11:17 am
Back to Helen Clark – I’m right -you’re wrong – so I am right as always !
Vote: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
July 18th, 2012 at 11:57 am
@ 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:July 18th, 2012 at 11:59 am
@ Krazykiwi
That’s no reasoning from you apparently.
Vote:July 18th, 2012 at 12:43 pm
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:July 18th, 2012 at 4:12 pm
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:July 18th, 2012 at 4:23 pm
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:July 18th, 2012 at 4:30 pm
@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:July 18th, 2012 at 7:13 pm
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:July 18th, 2012 at 7:25 pm
Aredhel777 – that’s a great result. Well done.
Vote:July 18th, 2012 at 7:27 pm
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:July 18th, 2012 at 7:32 pm
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:July 18th, 2012 at 7:38 pm
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: