Abortion for some, miniature Canadian flags for others!

Predictably, I've received quite a bit of feedback on the abortion post, so much so that I felt it necessary to respond in a second post - in particular to this. So let's break it down, first from my comments section:

If CUSA is going to take student's money to fund groups they should give it to all groups regardless of the view they are putting forward.

So... if NAMBLA wanted funds from CUSA, it should get them? I don't think so. Sorry, but there are only a limited amount of funds to go around, and considering those funds come from students' tuition, I think students should have at least some say in where they go.

Im really quite shocked that you see nothing wrong with this.

I disagree with the principle of taking student levies and giving them to political groups in the first place. If I'm paying for an education, I want an education, not advocacy for causes I don't agree with. So I consider this issue quite secondary to that, hence why I can't get too up in arms about it. Any scaling back of this kind of advocacy funding is fine by me.

Im sure the far lefties in these groups are just salivating at the thought of cutting off pro-Israel student groups.

As would be their right, but they would certainly have a fun time dealing with the fallout.

Clear Grit, show me an example of this happening anywhere else the other way around and you may have half a point.

I already did; the University of Toronto doesn't use student levies to fund its on-campus gay group, which by the way isn't even a political advocacy group, but a support group.

However, I would've thought it wiser for the school to simply say "we want no part of the debate" and stop sending money to groups on EITHER side.

As would I, and as stated above, this is my position. As I also stated, I don't agree with this position 100%. But my objection to it is not with regards to the money, but with regards to barring the groups from council-managed spaces. I do disagree with that, and would go so far as to say it quite possibly breaches a Charter right. But money is a different issue; governing bodies must have a right to decide where their money will be spent. My point is that
a) It's not a big deal, and
b) It's their right to do so

And now from those lovable Toronto Tories (TT), who I feel I must point out, just to show how fair-minded they really are, the other day declared marriage dead:

"baby murder" vs. "anti-choice" is just moving away from the real debate.

I think it's a far more accurate reflection of the views of both sides, actually. I do realize that anti-abortion advocates truly do believe that babies are being killed. I'm also confident that in most cases they're wrong (calling what is aborted a "baby" at any stage before sometime in the second trimester is quite a stretch to make scientifically). But I do understand where they're coming from. Why, then, can they not understand that women honestly feel threatened by what they are pushing, and do consider it a serious breach of their rights to be told what they can and cannot do with their own body? But I suppose this is a side-issue.

I support a choice for women wholeheartedly, but I equally support the right of others to hold a contrary position.

I can't say I disagree with this, but does supporting free speech mean one must also support giving money to groups who hold views which, if implemented into law, have already been determined contrary to the Charter of Rights? Again, as far as the money goes, there is no reason why a student association should not be allowed to withold funding from any group to whom it feels a majority of students would be uncomfortable giving their money. CUSA went too far - let me repeat that, CUSA went too far - by refusing to allow these groups even a voice on campus. But they are under no obligation to support groups financially with whom they disagree.

CUSA is committing the same, although on a less drastic scale, crimes against human rights that radical islamists do.

For someone who complained so vociferously about Bill Graham making an apt reference to Goebbels with regard to propaganda techniques, blowing it up, twisting it, and making it seem as if Graham had called the Tories "Nazis" when he did no such thing (Goebbels is famous for being one of the most effective propagandists who ever lived; the fact that he was a Nazi is merely incidental in this case) TT is certainly showing quite a willingness to make his own comparisons to murderous regimes. Only in this case, instead of referencing them with regard to propaganda techniques (as Graham did), TT is actually accusing the Carleton student government of human rights abuses comparable to those of the Taliban. Classy.

Now, as for my earlier question about the Liberal bloggers and their response to this.

That's unfair. I've had two very committed Liberals disagree with me on my blog over this issue.

I will use the example of Clear Grit. He calls himself a former Progressive Conservative who quit after the merger. Well, I can't say I'm going to shed a tear over losing this ignorant and intolerant Liberal.

In my comments section, TT extended an invitation to me to address his posting on this issue. When he did so, I assumed that he wasn't going to resort to personal attacks. I guess I was expecting too much.

His argument is that since "Conservatives are the ones who like taking away funding from minority groups", they shouldn't mind this happening.

This is a gross, utter and complete distortion of what I actually said. For those of you who are interested in the truth, and not in TT's attempt to make me look stupid, this is what I actually said:

"[I]t is usually conservatives who are opposed to taking money from the unwilling and giving it to the demanding."

Is this not an accurate reflection of what conservatives, in general, believe? Opposing the levying of taxes intended to be spent on others?

But wait a minute, who is really being intolerant here? Do we really need to review again the importance of free speech, and how ridiculous this is? If I were the Liblogs webmaster, I'd try hard to disassociate with this kid who is a bit out of touch with reality. I don't usually think that Liberal supporters are that radical, just arrogant.

Yes, TT then has the temerity to suggest that I be removed from Liblogs over this. This, amazingly, in the middle of a rant about the value of free speech. Honestly, I hope they ask Cherniak to do this. I really do. This just shows how out to lunch these nutjobs really are.

Clear Grit's IQ: -1

And mature, too.

Not every Liberal has it wrong. Kyle from Northern Liberal did what I expected rational Liberals would, and agreed with what I've said here. Glad to see we have some worthy opposition out there.

And finally, we have the post's delicious conclusion. After ranting and raving about tolerating other points of view, we have this stunningly, embarassingly hypocritical statement: that the only "worthy opposition" is an opposition which doesn't oppose at all. How telling.