Comparing abortion to genocide

Hugh Freaking DillonHugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
edited September 2013 in A Moving Train
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/anger-over-anti-abortion-pics-224980342.html


A pro-life exhibit on the University of Manitoba grounds that uses graphic photos to equate abortion with lynching, the Holocaust and genocide in Rwanda has drawn protests from some students who want the display shut down.

"They're completely graphic and disgusting," Ashley James, a 23-year-old interior design student, said of the photos, which are part of a exhibit by the Genocide Awareness Project. "It's infringing on my ability to focus and learn, which is what I'm here for."

As of Monday afternoon, the administration -- which approved the exhibit sponsored by a campus group called the U of M Students for a Culture of Life -- confirmed it had received "more than two" complaints about the pro-life display.

James wants the display, scheduled to run until Wednesday, shut down immediately, despite the administration's approval. "We're looking for some loopholes because it's completely inappropriate," she said.

“'They're completely graphic and disgusting'

-- U of M student Ashley James
The Genocide Awareness Project, which regularly tours such exhibits on Canadian and American campuses, has been in operation since the late 1990s.

University of Manitoba Students Union president Al Turnbull said he favours freedom of speech, but questioned both the graphic and literal nature of comparing abortion to genocide and lynching. "When does it become hate speech?" Turnbull asked.

Josh Morry, a U of M law student, said the exhibit is pushing the boundaries of the debate.

"I believe the manner they're going about it... is offensive," Morry said. "It's dangerous to be throwing such powerful words around on campus. Comparing people who support abortion to Holocaust supporters... is quite extreme."

Morry cited UMSU policy that says any exhibit likely to undermine dignity and self-respect of students is not allowed on campus.

"University is a place you should be learning, not calling each other Nazis," Morry said.

Turnbull said UMSU had received 20 complaints about the exhibit as of Monday afternoon. U of M spokesman John Danakas said the university's human resources department had received "a few" complaints and "we'll be taking those very seriously."

Danakas said the administration, in granting the exhibit request "from a legitimate student group," had to balance the right of free speech with the potential of harassment of students on either side of the abortion debate. "This is one of those instances where that's a challenging balance to keep," he said, adding, "We're monitoring the situation very carefully."

Cara Ginter, vice-president of the Students for a Culture of Life, said there were few confrontations on Monday, as a smattering of students protested just outside the fence. Ginter said one male student began screaming at her, yelling about health concerns for women seeking abortions.

"We don't mind if people counter-protest us as long as they treat us respectfully," said Ginter, a history major. "That's perfectly fine. We understand it's an emotional issue. We just want to be treated the way we treat others."

Ginter acknowledged the graphic photos of the Holocaust and genocide are "absolutely terrible. What we're saying is unborn children are human beings. We're just looking at other times in history where personhood was denied (by ruling powers). We're not saying it's exactly the same. Every injustice is different. But if you're human, you should have human rights.

"If we don't say anything, what does it make us?" Ginter added. "We can't be bystanders to the slaughter. We'll be here rain and shine. We'll keep doing what we're doing."
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • So lead us into a discussion, Hugh.

    Where are you at with this?
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • dignindignin Posts: 9,336
    I consider myself "pro"-abortion.

    That being said I think people have become too sensitive to these things. Let them have their stupid exhibits and protests, it's their right. It's my right to call them ridiculous too. Here in Calgary they have strung banners across overpasses on major roads with giant pictures of aborted fetuses, which have upset many of my friends. It think it's in bad taste but it's their right. If anything I think it hurts their cause.

    I've also seen pictures of aborted fetuses on the sides of large work trucks driving around town like they were advertisements. Just a little strange......but hey, that's to be expected when you live in the bible belt.
  • So lead us into a discussion, Hugh.

    Where are you at with this?

    I think it's fairly provocative to say the least comparing abortion to genocide or lynching. But as with all provocative statements, it gets people talking, which is exactly the goal these people are trying to achieve.

    But I think it dimishes the plight of those affected by the events abortion is being compared to, which I personally feel is in poor taste at best. People can't just go out and make outrageous statements just to get a reaction and expect to be taken seriously or to not expect a backlash from the public.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • dignin wrote:
    I consider myself "pro"-abortion.

    That being said I think people have become too sensitive to these things. Let them have their stupid exhibits and protests, it's their right. It's my right to call them ridiculous too. Here in Calgary they have strung banners across overpasses on major roads with giant pictures of aborted fetuses, which have upset many of my friends. It think it's in bad taste but it's their right. If anything I think it hurts their cause.

    I've also seen pictures of aborted fetuses on the sides of large work trucks driving around town like they were advertisements. Just a little strange......but hey, that's to be expected when you live in the bible belt.

    I don't have an issue with those types of advertisements in theory as long as it keeps to the issue, not dragging other issues in with it.

    although, I wouldn't be all that thrilled if my 4 or 7 year old daughters asked me what that picture was. that's not a topic for someone of that age. put those ads in private places that are 18+.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • people do the craziest things just to try and tell other people what to do.
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    i'm ok with this exhibit ... shielding people from other people's viewpoints serves no greater purpose ...
  • polaris_x wrote:
    i'm ok with this exhibit ... shielding people from other people's viewpoints serves no greater purpose ...

    but in a public setting? I'm not fond of my daughter being subjected to that without my approval (kinda like nasty images on tv that I won't let her watch at her age).
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    but in a public setting? I'm not fond of my daughter being subjected to that without my approval (kinda like nasty images on tv that I won't let her watch at her age).

    well ... if it's not in a public setting how are we to know how people feel? ... if i want to show the world the horrors of war on innocent children ... it's gonna have to be graphic ... if we accept those images - we have to accept others from people of differing viewpoints ...

    i understand the concern however, in order for people to bridge differences - everything has to be on the table ... so, we can at least have open discussions based on a collective understanding ...

    it's the achilles of free speech ...
  • polaris_x wrote:
    i'm ok with this exhibit ... shielding people from other people's viewpoints serves no greater purpose ...

    It's over the top. I'm all for free speech, but this isn't really free speech. It's a stretch- to say the least- comparing an accepted medical procedure with the Rwandan genocide and the Holocaust.

    For those opposed to abortion, I am all for you speaking your cause and promoting the awareness necessary to educate some who might not be aware of some of the details they might need to know or understand when determining where they should stand on the position.

    If you need the Rwanda experience to heighten sensitivity and 'make your case'... then maybe your case isn't that strong?
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    It's over the top. I'm all for free speech, but this isn't really free speech. It's a stretch- to say the least- comparing an accepted medical procedure with the Rwandan genocide and the Holocaust.

    For those opposed to abortion, I am all for you speaking your cause and promoting the awareness necessary to educate some who might not be aware of some of the details they might need to know or understand when determining where they should stand on the position.

    If you need the Rwanda experience to heighten sensitivity and 'make your case'... then maybe your case isn't that strong?

    well ... that's the rub with free speech ... and i think this association (which i disagree with) is fair on their part ... these associations often get massaged a certain way to paint a specific viewpoint that isn't necessarily the sentiment that was meant ...

    the spokesperson for this exhibit said that they aren't calling people who have abortions nazis ... just that it represented a time when a populace's voice was not heard ...

    again - i am pro choice but i do believe in free speech and with that - you have to be prepared to accept speech that one doesn't agree with ...
  • polaris_x wrote:
    It's over the top. I'm all for free speech, but this isn't really free speech. It's a stretch- to say the least- comparing an accepted medical procedure with the Rwandan genocide and the Holocaust.

    For those opposed to abortion, I am all for you speaking your cause and promoting the awareness necessary to educate some who might not be aware of some of the details they might need to know or understand when determining where they should stand on the position.

    If you need the Rwanda experience to heighten sensitivity and 'make your case'... then maybe your case isn't that strong?

    well ... that's the rub with free speech ... and i think this association (which i disagree with) is fair on their part ... these associations often get massaged a certain way to paint a specific viewpoint that isn't necessarily the sentiment that was meant ...

    the spokesperson for this exhibit said that they aren't calling people who have abortions nazis ... just that it represented a time when a populace's voice was not heard ...

    again - i am pro choice but i do believe in free speech and with that - you have to be prepared to accept speech that one doesn't agree with ...

    ... not to mention speech that borders on ridiculous.

    I hear what you are saying, but universities of all places should have some filter with regards to what they permit on their campus and what they do not. I'm sure groups wishing to stage offensive, racial exhibits would not be permitted to do so. Yet this group was permitted to spread their gospel in questionable fashion?

    Who decides what is free speech and what isn't? We seem to know what is acceptable and what isn't... so I come from the frame of mind that someone never exercised better judgement in this particular case- or else they had an opinion on the matter and was biased with regards to the content.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • Ginter acknowledged the graphic photos of the Holocaust and genocide are "absolutely terrible. What we're saying is unborn children are human beings. We're just looking at other times in history where personhood was denied (by ruling powers). We're not saying it's exactly the same

    the underlined part is contradictory to at least one of the posters. one of them says "if this is wrong, then what makes this right?". That's a DIRECT comparison, meaning their point is that they are equal situations, which is FALSE.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    ... not to mention speech that borders on ridiculous.

    I hear what you are saying, but universities of all places should have some filter with regards to what they permit on their campus and what they do not. I'm sure groups wishing to stage offensive, racial exhibits would not be permitted to do so. Yet this group was permitted to spread their gospel in questionable fashion?

    Who decides what is free speech and what isn't? We seem to know what is acceptable and what isn't... so I come from the frame of mind that someone never exercised better judgement in this particular case- or else they had an opinion on the matter and was biased with regards to the content.

    honestly ... i think a university is absolutely the best place for this ... it's where we are supposed to be the most open-minded ... where our thoughts and beliefs should be questioned ...

    the whole thing is very subjective ... we can't let our own personal biases determine what is acceptable or not ...

    i have absolutely no personal problem with a pro-life person as long as they don't interfere with my rights ... i also feel that if i give people with varying opinions than me the level of respect i want ... then it will be reciprocated ... ultimately resulting in likely a differing of opinions but at least a respectful difference ...
  • polaris_x wrote:
    ... not to mention speech that borders on ridiculous.

    I hear what you are saying, but universities of all places should have some filter with regards to what they permit on their campus and what they do not. I'm sure groups wishing to stage offensive, racial exhibits would not be permitted to do so. Yet this group was permitted to spread their gospel in questionable fashion?

    Who decides what is free speech and what isn't? We seem to know what is acceptable and what isn't... so I come from the frame of mind that someone never exercised better judgement in this particular case- or else they had an opinion on the matter and was biased with regards to the content.

    honestly ... i think a university is absolutely the best place for this ... it's where we are supposed to be the most open-minded ... where our thoughts and beliefs should be questioned ...

    the whole thing is very subjective ... we can't let our own personal biases determine what is acceptable or not ...

    i have absolutely no personal problem with a pro-life person as long as they don't interfere with my rights ... i also feel that if i give people with varying opinions than me the level of respect i want ... then it will be reciprocated ... ultimately resulting in likely a differing of opinions but at least a respectful difference ...

    I realize the place a university has in society with regards to the promotion of free thinking. I'm saying that 'gibberish' should not be tolerated simply because free speech allows for it. Listeners have rights too and in this particular case, many listeners have said that what they are hearing is offensive. We don't allow hate groups to display controversial exhibits just because we have this notion of 'free speech'.

    Hugh was correct in an earlier thread when he stated that Canadians will rarely make the effort to voice their displeasure if it was going to amount to an argument or something similar. When 20+ students make formal complaints, it's safe to say that something wasn't right with the exhibit.

    Shock people all you want with graphic photos and gory stories to promote a position you might hold, but comparing your cause to other, very noteworthy and tragic causes when they are not really comparable, is inappropriate and unnacceptable in my mind. By comparing abortion to genocide (moving up the ladder of inference), you are asserting that the values those opposed to you have are those that Nazis and Hutu extremists possessed. To those that are 'pro choice'... I would contend that they would find this highly offensive and as such, university officials should not have supported such a display.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • polaris_x wrote:

    honestly ... i think a university is absolutely the best place for this ... it's where we are supposed to be the most open-minded ... where our thoughts and beliefs should be questioned ...

    the whole thing is very subjective ... we can't let our own personal biases determine what is acceptable or not ...

    i have absolutely no personal problem with a pro-life person as long as they don't interfere with my rights ... i also feel that if i give people with varying opinions than me the level of respect i want ... then it will be reciprocated ... ultimately resulting in likely a differing of opinions but at least a respectful difference ...

    I have no issue with a pro life person either. My issue is with two things and two things only:

    1) demeaning the plight of the victims of the atrocities abortion is being compared to
    2) children seeing these images in a public setting.

    believe it or not, there are children on university campuses all the time; family visiting students, faculty, etc. do you think it's ok for kids to see these images?
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • They didn't really want to rock the boat and use the Jew as an example of genocide?

    The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08

  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    not sure what else to say ... obviously i'm in the minority here ... all i will say is that free speech is a two-way street ... what if this exhibit was about the atrocities of war!? ... would we shield people from those exhibits?
  • polaris_x wrote:
    not sure what else to say ... obviously i'm in the minority here ... all i will say is that free speech is a two-way street ... what if this exhibit was about the atrocities of war!? ... would we shield people from those exhibits?

    If this exhibit was about the atrocities of war... then the exhibit would be targeting war and crimes committed within it. People would understand that to document war, you need to display war.

    This exhibit was about abortions and these people used weak parallels to promote their cause. Why did they stop with genocide? Given they call abortion murder, why didn't they splash crime scene photos from serial murderers? As much as displaying some poor, mutilated victim's remains on a poster to raise awareness for abortions would be questionable... this would make more sense to me than comparing the abortion issue to the plight of the Tutsi people in Rwanda and all the variables that led to that brutal historical incident.

    People get what you are saying Polaris and you don't need to qualify yourself. I guess some- well, myself anyways- think people take advantage of their liberties sometimes. When they do... I feel comfortable calling them on it without shrugging my shoulders and accepting it because that's the way it is.

    Keep your opinion- it has been well stated.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    If this exhibit was about the atrocities of war... then the exhibit would be targeting war and crimes committed within it. People would understand that to document war, you need to display war.

    This exhibit was about abortions and these people used weak parallels to promote their cause. Why did they stop with genocide? Given they call abortion murder, why didn't they splash crime scene photos from serial murderers? As much as displaying some poor, mutilated victim's remains on a poster to raise awareness for abortions would be questionable... this would make more sense to me than comparing the abortion issue to the plight of the Tutsi people in Rwanda and all the variables that led to that brutal historical incident.

    People get what you are saying Polaris and you don't need to qualify yourself. I guess some- well, myself anyways- think people take advantage of their liberties sometimes. When they do... I feel comfortable calling them on it without shrugging my shoulders and accepting it because that's the way it is.

    Keep your opinion- it has been well stated.

    ya ... my point on the images of war was more for Hugh who was saying that children would see those pictures ...

    and to the pro-life people - i think many of them believe the atrocities to be similar in a way ... again - whether we agree with that or not is secondary to this: if we censor these people ... who else are we gonna censor? ... and what if something we believe in passionately gets treated the same way? ... are we all better for it?
  • polaris_x wrote:
    not sure what else to say ... obviously i'm in the minority here ... all i will say is that free speech is a two-way street ... what if this exhibit was about the atrocities of war!? ... would we shield people from those exhibits?

    yes, free speech is a two way street. I'm not saying we should censor anyone. I just think the comparison is insulting to those who abortion is being compared to. they have obviously done this so as to provoke discussion and get noticed. and that's a cheap way, and ineffective I might add, of trying to get people to take your message seriously. so I think they are shooting themselves in the foot.

    kinda like if I put up a display of myself begging for money for Pearl Jam tickets, saying it's the same as people on the street begging for money for food.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
Sign In or Register to comment.