Anti-Abortion in Red Square

It is illegal for a public university from censoring on public campus, unless it breaks free speech laws.

It is illegal for a public university from censoring on public campus, unless it breaks free speech laws.

As I understand, the university can say when/where folks pratice their "free speech" if something is a distruption to the function of the university.  As we've seen with the Genocide Awareness Project, WWU admins and students interested protecting freedom of hate speech don't find terrorizing students who've had abortions disruptive.  (And in the case of the GAP, targeting Native, Black, and Jewish students with triggering and violent images of lynching and genocide victims.)  If I've had an abortion, a painful and invasive procedure, how am I supposed to go to sit in class and learn after being demonized?

The link above is to an article I wrote about the Genocide Awareness Project a few years ago.  Before anyone accuses me of being a facist, I'm not opposed to free speech.  I am opposed to my university giving hate speech that targets marginalized students the loudest and most public voice of all.

Last year GAP was in Red Square, I also remember there being the opportunity to call up those in the higher eschelons of the university who (presumably) ok'd the decision to continue letting GAP displays function.  If the overwhelming majority of students find the displays disrupting their school day and their ability to concentrate or learn, then at what point does the university need to consider changing their policy towards GAP?  Last year I had a class bordering Red Square that was disrupted due to shouting going on around the display; even though the windows were closed, we could all clearly hear them and it was difficult to ignore it or tune it out.  Another smaller group had a response of putting on masks, dancing, and playing music across from the GAP display, I believe to try and distract from the display, and they were asked to leave by campus security.  It's not just the displays that are disruptive, but they cause disruptive behavior across campus as a response (I am not denouncing those groups who decide to respond to GAP, but rather want to point out that they appear because of GAP.  Also, I am not saying that every response group is disruptive; many are informative, but they do feel the need to respond to the bad analogies and shoving-down-your-throat posters because it disrupts their school day).  If GAP warrants that kind of response on a regular basis, it really isn't contributing to a healthy atmosphere.  (I noticed they also choose to come each year during Discovery Days, so potential students need to endure those images as well.)

I am not saying that we should not have freedom of speech on Western grounds, but rather that in public spaces, any university should uphold the policy that freedom of speech be respectful.  If groups are not respectful, the underlying message is unwittingly that that kind of behavior is allowed and perhaps encouraged - that respectful behavior does not have a place on that campus.  Since GAP has never shown themselves to be respectful of others and in fact aims their displays to incense and bother students, whether or not they are concerned with the pro-choice/pro-life debate, I think the campus should re-consider their stance on GAP's annual presence.  (If, of course, that is possible at all considering that it would be jumped upon as an anti-free-speech action.)

I brought this point up during the AS' recent censorship hearing as it relates to Western's "free speech" policy. Namely that various student organizations and petitioners have been trying for YEARS to rid the campus of the GAP and its annual demonstration, but that Western's response is always the same. In a nutshell:

"We do not endorse the message, but we will not act as stewards against their ability to express it."

As it should be, perhaps unfortunately. You can't encourage and administer said "free speech" while at the same time determining who has the right to access it, and when.

And frankly, as weary as I've gotten of the annual propaganda, I do respect the fact that the GAP even bothers to show up and try to deliver their message to what has to be one of the most hostile environments imaginable. They're perennially jeered at, insulted, abused and surrounded by a mob of angry students, and their display was physically attacked a couple years back. That they keep returning, knowing that they're likely to face that--and possibly worse--does deserve some measure of respect, personal politics wholly aside.

There is always a very strong reaction to these people. Maybe I'm just a little crazy, but if someone does something extreme in order to get a reaction and get a message across in such a distasteful way I'm not inclined to indulge them. I will ignore their message, their tactics, and them personally. I understand how strongly everyone on this campus feels about this issue, because I share that sentiment. But responding to them, with rational argument, raw hate, or physical violence only lends further justification for their mission. I am not in the business of making "martyrs" of them. They are willing to suffer for their cause, so I will give them nothing to suffer but silence. They want to give their message, I will let them speak all they want, as is their constitutional right. I will not directly defy them, but I will not allow them to succeed in inflaming passions and causing me to become what I oppose: a hater. Come on, people, we're supposed to be better than this. It's all well and good to fight for what you believe in, but don't let it bring out the worst in you. Beyond a certain point people can no longer be convinced of a different point of view, no matter how much you shout at them. At that point, you can either keep shouting or you can ignore them.

Bottom line is, they come here to stir people up, not for civil, rational discourse. I don't appreciate people trying to strongarm me like that. For them, a passionate, heated argument with a lot of rhetoric and profanity is a success, while being totally and utterly ignored would be unacceptable. So that's what I'm going for.

Sorry for the rambling.

Thanks snookr, it seems like you share my sentiments on this particular subject.  My first year at Western was last year and before the "Project" came to campus, I had already begun hearing rumors about it's extremely disgusting graphics it chooses to print into giant 4 foot by 4 foot posters (some 15 posters total) and display for everyone around campus to "digest" while they're coming out of Miller Market with their lunch in hands.

I always find it amusing when groups choose this type of tactic to approach a controversial topic.  Forget film, prose, or art (slaughtered embryo's, crucified jesus, and pro-genocide images are not art to me), the best method they come up with to convince me that abortion is NOT right is to flash enormous pictures where 90% of the area is colored red.  Give me something I can really digest please.

Like I said, they're not here for rational discourse. They don't think they can effectively get their point across with information alone, like pamphlets or a powerpoint presentation. Their tactics are to use graphic visual imagery to appeal to the basest emotions in us, particularly fear and revulsion. I'm of the opinion that anyone who stoops to appealing to the worst in humanity to make their case (as certain political elements like to employ fear) is desperate, dishonorable and thoroughly reprehensible. This is juvenile. You may as well just say that your argument isn't good enough to appeal to people on a rational level. Why else would you try to manipulate people's negative emotions? I just don't like it.

Well said.  I hate when folks (especially politicians concerning their positions of influence and power) appeal to the worst qualities in our species.  And I would almost hold my tounge from wishing they'd never come here again just so I don't appear to be promoting censorship.  That is not what I stand for.  But, they're twisted views on the pro-life argument ought to be presented just so I can have the freedom to voice my own opinion in public speaking.  However, our university DOES ALLOW them to come on campus.  They allow them to show up day and occupy almost half of red square (from the "halo" that's created by people trying to avoid the display and walk around the fountain).  A past issue comes to mind when I think about the GAP... the "Women of Western" Calendar.  Is the feminist argument more important on campus than the pro-choice argument?

It isn't exactly speech is it?

I understand why the university allows it.  I also don't object to people having the views they have.

Recognize that they are adamantly holding to their beliefs.  In that, there is something to be admired.  They are willing to put themselves out there to face abuse and derision in order to defend their belief.

However that admiration is short lived when you realize that they aren't really there to engage in dialogue.  It isn't a discussion about where life begins, as all life begins somewhere.  I'm sure they eat seeds that grow to healthy plants, I'm sure that most have no issue with killing cattle for food.  Heck, the sperm, the egg, and skin cells I scrape off my arm are alive.  What they're really at odds with is 'ensoulment' -- their idea of when the 'meat' has a soul.  This argument isn't one of a scientific nature.  It isn't open dialogue, it isn't academic debate, it isn't honest in it's presentation.

They use Webster's very loose definition of genocide - "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" as a blanket justification for equating abortion to the holocaust, simply by categorizing fetuses (their own inclusion mind you) as a political group.  It is also impossible to discuss this equation on it's logical merits, pro-choice supporters don't advocate destroying all fetuses everywhere, that 'political group' requires an organizational ability that fetuses just don't have, etc.  Again we come back to the obvious answer that it isn't a scientific or rational discussion so much as it is an ideological one.

It's a complex issue, they should have the right to profess their beliefs in a manner that suits them, so long as it isn't harming anyone else.  Really, that's the crux of it.  By allowing them open air presentation of the (intentionally) offensive images, they are essentially forcing people to view it, without really giving anyone a choice in the matter.  I can go somewhere else, but I should not have to, I cannot unsee what I have already seen, nor can I really just ignore it as if it weren't there.

Would another organizations or individuals be allowed to display graphic images of actual rape speak out against rape?  Or graphic depictions of murder to speak out against (true) genocide?  Would I be allowed to walk around red square naked (trust me you don't want that) to protest the wearing of unnecessary clothing?  Or display pictures of child pornography to protest against it?  I don't think so, at least not the unsolicited, very public manner in which this group is allowed.

They present the images to 'shock' people.  They maximize exposure and presentation of images of 'late term' for more effect.  To force you to identify with the fetuses.  It does shock, but it's really more of a backfire.  Those who oppose it become more adamant because of their method.  Those who desire honest discourse, are met with poor facts and opinion, and most of their responses are scripted.  It's counter to any real discussion on the issue, since both sides are incensed (one largely by their ideological beliefs, and the other by theirs -- fueled in part by their offense at the images used).  I have engaged them multiple times and I don't find their 'facts' particularly compelling, but then, I really didn't expect them to be, so that might be my own bias at work.

My personal feelings aside, the University should take a measured approach to dealing with this.  My suggestion would be to take away it's open air presentation, place them behind curtains, or in a room with appropriate warnings BEFORE presenting the images to people.  This allows them to freely express ideas, without forcing everyone else to digest their objectionable material in Red Square.

I read in the AS Review that Western for Life is not bringing back the Genocide Awareness Project this year because their coordinator Rachel Johnson "belives this particular approach has been ineffective and has turned many away from their cause."

... than people who believe they have an infallible definition of morality.

I think it's important that these demonstrations give appropriate warning, I understand free speech and everything, however, when a propaganda campaign can possibly bring out post traumatic stress in those who have experienced abortion or have had them, it should be posed as a threat to public health. There are such things as propaganda terrorism, such as the Army of God who verbally abuse and terrorize young women outside of clinics and through their phone lines, even the most radical of them have attempted murder before because they feel it's justified "the mother took the life of the baby/an eye for an eye..." Which is utterly rediculous if you ask me. I believe these displays are a less intense version of what is propaganda terrorism. From participants' comments it seems they are not here to engage in dialogue (I have used an approach of ignoring them), so if they're not here to induce shock and disgust in non-believers and followers in radical canons of the pro-life movement, I would be surprised. I see these actions similar to those of La Roush's conservative Christian fundamentalism and Bible Joe's radical signs. Eventually the GAP will cause someone so much trauma that Western will be forced to face what the project is truly here for. Not to force their views on us, to either create a dangerous radical following or to cause pain in thosewho have experienced the trauma that is abortion.

These demonstrations have been around for years, i understand, and i have seen them the past two years. It seems to me that they have every right to hold their position against abortion. I fully and completely understand their rationale for not agreeing with abortion, but i feel that they could convey their thoughts and opinions in a much more successful way. No posters would be a good start. If they had boards that had facts in print accompanied by pictures of happy adoptive families or something of that sort i think their opinions and thoughts may be given more of a chance. On the opposite side of the issue, anti-war demonstrators will stand around with posters of bloody, dead soldiers and I would bet that this would be accepted by generally everybody on Western campus. What i am trying to say is that it depends on who is protesting what. Most people wouldnt admit it but that is how i see it working on this campus. That being said, Western is not exactly the best place to express your non-liberal ideas. I have noticed that most demonstrations that are not in line with the general liberal views of the university tend to get a lot of flak, which is funny to me because this university prides itself on its ability to accept all sorts of people. Basically, i am saying anybody who has the courage to come out here and voice an opinion they know will not be accepted should be respected, but i think that they should definately put some thought into how they would like to express their personal opinions before they come and make too big of a scene.

That is definitely true, but it makes sense. Most people won't protest against a protest that they agree with no matter what methods are used. While the health factors and post traumatic stress disorder are important reasons to stop graphic anti-abortion protests most people complain about the protests because they don't agree with them.

If you censor demonstrators too much than they will lose all power. If the demonstration isn't intusive than no one who doesn't already agree with it will be affected by it. But that's exactly what the people who don't agree with it want.

Interesting that the university won't turn away GAP from demonstrating but will turn away some certain rap/hip-hop artists.  ZING!

Anyways, the best course of action is to just ignore them.  They're seeking attention and the only way to counter it is to not give them any.

I feel that Red Square is much akin to the perfume department in a major department store. Sometimes you can walk through and your're fine, but other times you find yourself in evasive maenuvers to avoid the sniper fire. Today I gave some randome guy a big hug in red square. He said, "it couldn't hurt." I'm inclined to agree. However, I currently have a small stockpile of bibles I have been (tounge in cheek) passing off to a close "born again" friend as "fuel for your fire" (as in "fire of passion" yet also as a pun for a physical "fire for warmth"). I seem to get handed a new one at least once a month...

I find that most of the snipers are harmless, and I wade by them best as I can. There are the few that get to me though, and that would be GAP and other religious groups. Over and over I find myself attacked by their propagand aimed at making me feel inferrior for not sharing their beliefs. WWU wouldn't tolerate Neo-Nazi groups making a stink would they? Uncouth as it may be to drag in the NSDAP into the mix, the idea that I get to see the homeless crusader for god telling me my world views are in disorder really gets me feeling confused to the point of such demonstrations. Freedoms of expression and speech are important, but freedom to be treated equal is also a biggie. Maybe the answer is to fight fire with fire and hold similar shows of narrowminded beligerance for opposing views? Where does that leave us though? No, I think a better location for all demonstrations needs to be established. Maybe inside some hall or empty classroom? There should be more of those soon enough. We can put these somewhere in the VU maybe. Thereby, having nestled these demonstrations to a seperate location, only those who are interested in risking the audio/visual propaganda are forced to endure it. Me, I'd like to just get my day done in peace.Your results may varry.

There are ways in which individulas should bring up the subject, and shar their ideas/beliefs.  The whole time I've been here at Western, it seemed like every year the posters kept on getting bigger and bigger; which shoved those images even more down people's throats.  When people would come appose their message, THEY would be reprimanded because there was never an intent to bring about different views, only their own; which ultimately is how there waqs vandalism, harsh words shared from both sides of the later built fence and so on.  If such a group were to come back again, even though the University doesn't want to put themselves as supporting anything in this case, they should make an effort to bring different views in the same space. It is not only civil, but also respectful to those who feel that having a one sided message with those grusome images makes them feel marginalized and unwelcomed in this campus.

I think holding up dead bloody solider pictures would actually have an impact on the number of US military veterans at school. Why is it ok to make a veterans PTSD worst?  Not everyone at the school is against war. I am an Anthropology student that is interesting in studying war and doing something about war crimes, but I am not totally against it. I know this was about abortion, but it made me angry that someone would thank it's ok to hold up pictures of dead soliders in Red Square.

The 'honcho' at the GAP that I was handed off to because his lackeys couldn't answer my questions told me that nothing short of making abortion illegal would stop it because it is (and I'm quoting) "Just like if I left a million dollars on the gymnasium floor. Someone is going to take it."

So apparently to the GAP people aborting a fetus is much akin to getting a million dollars.

I wish I was making that up.