Friday, March 12, 2010

Fletch Auckland University Students Association Against Free Speech

Just picking up on a post here by Brendan Malone over at Semper Vita.
It seems that if you're a group of students at Auckland University wanting to start an official on-campus pro-life group, you'll be practically stymied by the fact that you'll only have a chance to apply to start the group ONCE A YEAR at the AGM, whereas anyone who wants to start any other type of group, such as Kinks On Campus (a club for sexually deviant practices such as sadism, polygamy, etc) which currently operates at Auckland University, can apply at the weekly meetings.
Apparently it has been written into the books since 2002.

SHAME ON YOU Auckland University! Other universities around the country have pro-life groups, no problem.

9 comment(s):

big news said...

Hey its no big deal, the AGM is in a few weeks, the group concerned should approach the student assn and do a motion at the AGM and I'm sure it will get support from the student assn.

I.M Fletcher said...

OK, but what if the AGM had been six months from now? Why the one-rule-for-all except this group? It's a tactic that could have come from the Helen Clark playbook.

big news said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
big news said...

Just wondering... have any of these pro life groups and bloggers looked at teh AUSA constitution lately?

Matt said...

big news

AUSA has refused to allow pro life groups to form an an official club repeatedly in the past. In 1998 they refused to allow a group to acess the club facilities avalible to all students. In 2002 they called two meetings to dicuss the issue the outcome of which was that pro lifers were not allowed to form an official club and have acess to club services. The same thing happened in 2009, and the President told me AUSA has since changed its rules to ensure pro life groups cannot form official clubs or have access to the club services they pay for.

No other club that I know of has been treated in this fashion.

I.M Fletcher said...

And of course, if it was the scared cow of a homosexual club being denied, there would be loud protests by the gay lobbyists and we'd see the story on Close Up tonight. Because it's pro-lifers the media wouldn't even care.

PC liberals are only really liberal when it concerns things they don't mind. When it comes to something religious that they disagree with, they show their true Socialist stripes and that's when the censorship kicks in.

ZenTiger said...

Edward, I think socialism does indeed mean different things to different people. If taken as an answer to capitalism, then we are focusing on the economic perspective, which invariably had their roots in Marxism.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you talk about the New Testament - it's more an issue of egalitarianism than socialism. Jesus was not a socialist.

I think a lot of Western Socialists were perhaps driven by that spirit of egalitarianism, looking for a third way.

If all socialist liberal types thought as you did, with regard to protection of basic freedoms, I might have to start calling them "enlightened socialists", although I'm inclined to think your upholding of freedom simply means you've earned the "liberal" portion of your label, and socialism doesn't enter into it. :-)

Maybe we need small l liberals, plus capitalism modified by Christian values instead? :-)

I.M Fletcher said...

The reporting is not wrong. According to the latest post by Semper Vita on the issue, the policy has been found online in the AUSA Admin Policy Book, and states in Section 34 of that document (on referendums), Ref 1/02 (right at the bottom of the page)

“THAT groups with the main intention of advancing a pro-life agenda should only be affiliated by referendum or general meeting.”

Edward said...

Yes I do suppose you're right about different interpretations. I just notice that what I will call the Americanised interpretation is a bit harsh and a tad confused. As for me, while I do consider myself socialist in most senses of the word, first and foremost I consider myself a staunch secularist. The rights of freedom of religion and opinion are fundamental, and while I personally am not religious I would defend those rights so long as no one is being hurt or discriminated against.
btw I think if capitalism were to be modified by what I see as a more egalitarian structure of New Testament literature, all the better! :)

Well in that case I am definately disappointed by the AUSA approach. If it is treating such groups in a discriminatory fashion, all they do is create an atmosphere of 'anti' which does nothing to further debate and steps upon basic rights. While you certainly wouldn't find me in any 'pro-life' group to be honest, I still think they have a right to hold their opinions. It is afterall an important discussion to have.

Anyway, it's always interesting to see what 'the other side' has to say. On this, i'm inclined to side with you guys I think. Cheers.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.