A student group suing Aberdeen University for discriminating against pro-lifers has been granted affiliation by the Aberdeen University Students’ Association (AUSA) after a legal challenge and months of abuse, intimidation, and delays.
AUSA refused affiliation to Aberdeen Life Ethics Society (ALES) in October 2018 on the grounds that ALES’ pro-life position directly contravened AUSA’s pro-choice policy.
AUSA’s pro-choice policy, adopted in November 2017, directs AUSA “to campaign against” groups that offer pro-life advice and to give “no funding, facilitation, or platform” to pro-life associations.
Insisting that “fundamentally access to abortion is an issue of bodily autonomy,” AUSA’s policy calls upon the student union to “oppose the unreasonable display of pro-life material within campus and at AUSA events.” The policy does not offer any explanation of what AUSA deems to be “unreasonable.”
After a year of obstructing by Aberdeen University and AUSA, delaying and rejecting ALES’ application for affiliation, the Christian Legal Centre (CLC) filed a lawsuit against AUSA in Aberdeen Sheriff’s Court in April, alleging unlawful discrimination and violation of rights protected by UK law.
Roger Kiska, acting for CLC, argued that the University had violated its statutory obligation to guarantee freedom of religion or belief under provisions of the Equality Act 2010 (UK) and the Human Rights Act 1998.
Section 10 of the Equality Act treats “religion” or “philosophical belief” as a “protected characteristic” and the European Court of Human Rights has specifically ruled that opposition to abortion falls within the category of belief guaranteed by Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Describing AUSA’s no-platforming policy as “a naked show of aggression to any viewpoint that dissents from their pro-abortion worldview,” CLC argued that the Students’ Association was part-funded by student tuition fees, “creating a direct financial interest whereby the discriminatory application of policies to reject legitimate societies from AUSA affiliation becomes all the more egregious.”
In a sudden U-turn following the court filing, AUSA suspended its pro-abortion policy, prompting ALES to re-apply for affiliation. That application was accepted and affiliation was offered to ALES on May 14.
Earlier, pro-lifers led by PhD ethics candidate Alex Mason were booed and abused at AUSA’s Annual General Meeting when they attempted to democratically repeal AUSA’s pro-choice discriminatory policy.
During an earlier hustings, a female student Sabbatical Officer gave Mason the finger and told him to “F**k off” because he did not have a womb and called security to remove him. Over 100 students voted to uphold the discriminatory policy.
Attacking the pro-lifers, a pro-choice student posted on Facebook:
On @AbdnStudents Twitter feed a student wrote:
Another student using the Twitter handle @Aandtheuniverse posted:
On Facebook, student Andrea Hernandez wrote that Alex Mason was “white, cis, male and the most entitled idiot I’ve ever come across. Of course he would not understand what it is like to be an oppressed minority and of course he is from America and his privilege prevents him from being anything other than entitled.”
When pro-lifers asked the University to intervene on behalf of their application for affiliation, senior management delayed their response despite the University’s commitment to resolve complaints within 20 days. They also did not inform the pro-lifers about the reason for the delay as required by Section 3.6 of the University’s Complaints Handling Procedure (CHP).
Two months later, the University’s Academic Services department told the pro-lifers that they had declined to get involved and suggested that ALES should go back to AUSA for redress.
Aberdeen University’s Religion and Belief policy and its statement on ethics and diversity states that it is “committed to providing a learning, working and social environment in which the rights and dignity of all its members are respected, and which is free from discrimination, prejudice, intimidation and all forms of harassment and bullying.”
Writing in The Gaudie, the Aberdeen student newspaper, Mason called the no-platforming policy “a prime example of censorship” pointing out how “the pro-life ethic, specifically as it relates to opposing abortion” was one of the most-heavily censored viewpoints on university campuses.
“The various efforts by students’ associations to prohibit, restrict or even de-ratify pro-life societies have been well-documented at universities around the UK including Strathclyde, Cardiff, Dundee, Oxford, Glasgow, Newcastle, Stirling, Liverpool, Edinburgh, Warwick, Cambridge, and Manchester. But this kind of censorship isn’t limited to other campuses. It’s happening here at Aberdeen, too,” wrote Mason, who is from Virginia.
The University’s Catholic Society and Christian Union have supported ALES in their pro-life campus activism. Over 60 % of ALES students are Catholic, while 40 % are Evangelical.
The case is part of a disturbing trend across over 100 UK universities where 48% of universities have implemented speech codes and policies which limit religious expression. At least 108 universities in the UK have censored free speech through direct action or over-regulation.
In March, Glasgow University agreed to grant affiliation to Glasgow Students for Life following a legal challenge when their application was similarly rejected.
Unaffiliated student groups have limited access to campus facilities and funding and cannot advertise or recruit new members at Freshers’ Fairs.
(Originally published in Church Militant.
This is good news, and there’s an important principle here.
Christians sometimes have a confused and defeatist attitude to how they should defend themselves and their faith against the onslaught of aggressive opposition forces. They mistakenly believe that ‘turn the other cheek’ must apply in all circumstances; in fact acceptance of individual suffering is an individual response to an individual circumstance.
Where good laws offer fair defence for oneself and others against unjust treatment, use of such laws by Christians actually reinforces their validity and so is a service to others who may need the benefits such laws provide. Thus, not to use them for mistaken belief that we Christians must seek to suffer for our faith goes pretty directly against Jesus’ own words that we must be wise as serpents and harmless a doves. Laws are a God-given construction for human living: we should be concerned that good laws are enacted and we should always be ready to use them when necessary.
Of course the abortion issue is about as black and white as it gets: not to defend human beings at their most vulnerable is to be complicit in their destruction. For Christians this has to be a no-brainer: we dare not assume any point in a pregnancy before which a human life does not exist. On rational grounds alone, to assume that point and get it wrong is far too serious a possibility for us to risk it.
And surely the darkness in the hearts of those poor young women at Aberdeen University who wrote those shocking comments is more than enough to make clear the evil forces which are at work over this issue. And this means that we Christians at least should be very clear about the kind of indoctrination that has intended and succeeded in captivating the minds of a generation of girls under the banner of feminism. These young women need releasing from the bondage of their minds and souls quite as much as tiny human beings need saving from the abortionist threat.
Some of the thoughts of the anonymous pro-choice student deserve an answer. She claims that she doesn`t care if its a human or not. That simply shows her hypocrisy and refusal to accept the truth or even to be convinced, that the unborn is a different human being. No, its not her body. Even if it was a part of her body, she wouldn`t have the right to extract her own kidney, liver, lung, etc, without a reason, just because its “her body”. So, the unborn child wouldn`t be by any means a part of her body and that claim falls out completely. The real right to choose, once and for all, should be done before pregnancy. It should be to decide if she wants to get pregnant or not, in the first place. After that, there is no possible choice, because its impossible to have a morally acceptable choice between abortion and life.