The Carleton Five

I support them. If you care about freedom of expression you should too. Here's a good article that expresses why we should all be behind these young people even if we have some qualms--many in the pro-life movement do--about the Genocide Awareness Project as a tactic. (I personally have had reservations but after having seen a presentation where the pictures were put into context, I have fewer objections.)

Here's an excerpt from a piece by Troy media legal columnist John Carpay:

Carleton asserts that “the students were in no way denied the opportunity to express their views or to mount their exhibit.” But Carleton expressly refused to allow the pro-lifers to use the same well-travelled location on campus (Tory Quad) which other Carleton students are allowed to use to express their views. This past August, Carleton official David Sterritt told pro-life students that they could not set up their display outdoors because “the Genocide Awareness Project uses promotional materials which are disturbing and offensive to some.” Carleton offered the pro-lifers an inconspicuous indoor space (Porter Hall) which has no walk-through traffic.

Equal rights for all

Would Carleton deny a prominent place on campus to gay or Muslim students, just because some people might find their speech offensive? If other groups wanted to use disturbing photos to expose the injustice of spousal assault, genocide in Darfur, cruelty to animals, or impaired driving, would Carleton limit those groups to an out-of-the-way place?

The Carleton pro-life students could have accepted the university’s discriminatory offer to allow them to set up their display where few would see it. But like Rosa Parks rejecting a second-class bus ride, these students defied the university’s attempt to appoint itself the arbiter of which views are acceptable enough to be proclaimed openly, and which views can only be expressed in a back room. As one of the arrested students, Nicholas McLeod, explained it: “The point of a protest is for people to see it. Limiting an exhibit to an inside room is like telling Martin Luther King that he couldn’t march through white neighbourhoods.”