By Stephen Gray
On November 23, 1999 pro-life students� Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) display was destroyed, trashed and vandalized by three pro-abortion student leaders from the Alma Mater Society (AMS: student society at UBC). On September 16, 2002, the pro-life students finally got their day in court.
The court saw a video which showed the attackers- Erin Kaiser, Jon Chandler and Lesley Washington demolishing the pro-life students display. Mr. Chandler can also be seen making an obscene gesture. Ms. Kaiser and Mr. Chandler were members of the AMS External Commission and Ms. Washington was a student representative for the Faculty of Social Work; all positions were held with the AMS.
Appearing on the witness stand was Nathan Allen a director of the AMS and vice-president of External Affairs at the time of the attack. Mr. Allen can be seen on the video calmly smoking a cigarette, while watching the display being destroyed. Mr. Allen said in court that the GAP "images are harmful." He also admitted that an email had been sent to numerous people where the phrase "anti-choice bigots" was used. Mr. Allen was asked if he used the words in a newspaper interview: "Gap got what they deserved," but he replied, "I don�t remember..." Mr. Allen had difficulty with his memory a number of times.
Mr. Allen was asked about a motion that was made by representatives of the AMS to provide funding for a group called Students for Choice. Voting on this motion were Erin Kaiser and Jon Chandler, two of the vandals who, at a later date, destroyed the pro-life display. Ms. Kaiser and Mr. Chandler were members of Students for Choice and appeared to be in conflict by voting money to their own organization.
Also appearing on the witness stand was Mr. Bernie Peets General Manager of the AMS. Mr. Peets admitted that the AMS was a multi-million dollar operation and ran several businesses. When asked about the role of the Alma Mater Society�s External Commission, Mr. Peets said they "do grunt work." A truer phrase could not be spoken, when one sees Ms. Kaiser and Mr. Chandler of the External Commission doing "grunt work" destroying the pro-life display.
It is also worth noting that the AMS Council took no disciplinary action against its own leaders and did not condemn their actions. The Vancouver Sun in an Editorial of Feb 16, 2000, had this to say about the AMS "...the society�s failure to condemn the assault on freedom of expression is disappointing."
Not only that, but The Ubyssey Magazine of Nov. 26, 1999, page 7 said: "The AMS previously passed a motion opposing the presence of GAP in the SUB [Student Union Building], and worked to prevent it from coming to UBC at all." Clearly, the AMS has, and continues to, censor the pro-life club, Lifeline, from displaying GAP images in the SUB. This ban goes so far as to prevent small photographs of GAP displays and a video about the project.
Another interesting fact of this case which concerns free expression happened during the trial when there was some discussion about whether the GAP promotional video should be shown in court. This was the video that the AMS told Lifeline they could not show in the SUB. The AMS�s lawyer objected at first to the showing of this video. This made one wonder if there was any free expression left at all. If one cannot see what is being banned how can one make a judgement? The video was eventually shown the next day.
Another aspect of this case is the fact that the AMS�s lawyer will be paid out of compulsory student fees, yet the pro-life students whose fees help fund the AMS have to depend on the voluntary donations of supporters of free speech to take their case to court. One might call this a travesty -- your own money being used against you in the fight for justice.
In October 2002, the final arguments from both lawyers will be made and a decision on this case will follow in a number of months. It is worth noting that the Lifeline club at UBC is the only club that has severe restrictions on its freedom of expression. Who said universities were bastions of free speech and free expression? The university�s policy on academic freedom states that: "behaviour which obstructs free and full discussion, not only of ideas which are safe and accepted but of those which may be unpopular or even abhorrent, vitally threatens the integrity of the University�s forum. Such behaviour cannot be tolerated." Obviously on the evidence available the AMS violated the university�s free speech policy and the AMS is still censoring the pro-life students today.
Stephen Gray
email [email protected]
September 29, 2002.