Unsafe Conditions at Wilfrid Laurier University

Dangerous act.

It is apparently no longer enough that it is okay to get an abortion on demand, and it is not enough to get it paid by tax dollars. It is even now, at Wilfrid Laurier University, not permitted to commemorate or lament the dead children in any way. It is unacceptable to mourn, or to remember them as human.

This year, Laurier LifeLink was not permitted to put pink and blue flags on the quad, one for every ten abortions annually in Canada, for a day’s commemoration. This, according to the Student’s Union, “created an unsafe environment for all students.”

This is more than a bit Orwellian. What might have created an unsafe environment is pro-abortion protesters assaulting the display or members of LifeLink, as they did the previous year. But if someone is assaulted, you do not usually charge the victim, but the one committing the assault.

Firstly, this is an open admission of guilt by the pro-abortion students and administration. If they really believed the babies were not human, the commemoration would not bother them. At worst, it would strike them as funny. Instead, it makes them almost hysterical. And, if they thought their actions could be morally justified by argument, they would welcome debate.

Writing in "HerCampus," a student complained that the flag display "failed to account for the wellness of those affected by abortions." This is indeed ironic. That is just what the demonstration was there to do.

"Regardless of your beliefs, it is immoral to shame someone for the decisions they have made, and this exhibit was just that – a stunt to shame the approximately 10,000 women who have faced the pain of having an abortion."

Well, no, it was not. That is her guilty conscience speaking. They were just flags. Case rested.

Nor would it have been immoral to shame those who have had abortions, if the exhibit had chosen to do that. We regularly shame people when we believe they have done something wrong. Do you not think thieves or murderers are shamed by being sentenced? After all, it is a decision they have made. We ought to respect it, then.

In the meantime, this sort of censorship is not compatible with peace and good order. Government exists to protect our rights. If the authorities will not defend our rights, or enforce them, but instead themselves repeatedly violate them, they have lost all legitimacy. There is, in effect, no functioning government

Another Battle of Berkeley is soon to take place. The Campus Republicans of Berkeley invited Anne Coulter to speak on April 27. After imposing all sorts of arbitrary conditions, which she accepted, the Berkeley administration nevertheless decided to cancel the event. Yes, it would be another riot. But not by Anne Coulter or her audience: as with WLU, the university is siding with those who are behaving badly instead of the victims. On the best possible interpretation, this is colossal moral cowardice and irresponsibility. It disqualifies them from leadership.

Forcing the victims to take matters into their own hands. Forcing them to organize on their own behalf.

Under pressure of public backlash, Berkeley tried to reinvite Coulter for a different place and date. But she is having none of it, for several reasons. In all probability, she wants the confrontation to take place. As I said, the right now smells blood, and they are starting to enjoy the fight. She says she is going to come anyway, at the original time, and we’ll see what happens.

I have a guess.

It’s going to be a lot more “unsafe” than putting up pink flags in the quad.