AUSA hates free speech

ŠĒ• NZ Herald

The leftists in charge of the AUSA hate free speech. They are trying to shut down a club and remove them from campus simply because they do not agree with them:

A free-speech battle is shaping up at Auckland University tomorrow over a move to boot out an anti-abortion group from university facilities.

ProLife Auckland, which claims more than 400 student members, faces disaffiliation from the students’ association after a complaint that it distributed a pamphlet containing “misleading health information”.

The students’ association is laying on a barbecue as an incentive to attract the required quorum of 200 students at a special general meeting to consider the motion in the university quad at 1pm tomorrow.

Association vice-president Dan Haines said the executive was not recommending disaffiliation but was just putting the motion to the meeting.

“People communicated to our women’s rights officers that it was an issue. It was the women’s rights officers who brought it up,” he said.

“Personally I think that maybe having a discussion is a good thing. It is a contentious club.”

They obfuscate by denying they are recommending disaffiliation…no club should ever have their right to be a club put up for a vote…perhaps someone moves that Princes Street Labour be dis¬†affiliated¬†and then see where that ends up. Universities are supposed to be the bastion of free speech and yet here we have jumped up little Stalinists decreeing who can and can’t belong.

  • Alloytoo

    Respectfully I disagree.

    An organisation which deliberately disseminates outdated and misleading information should face some sort of consequence. 

    • Bafacu

      ¬†In who’s opinion is the information outdated and misleading? So when does the Liarbor/Greens/NZFirst/Mana/Maori¬†organisations get the same treatment?¬†Let’s also apply this logic to the Unions shall we?

      See where this is heading???

      • Alloytoo

        The studies quoted date back to the 90′s apparently. (a common religious right wing tactic, along with quote-mining).

        And what is the “Same treatment?” define it in the context of these organisations?

        As for the unions, they too should face consequences if they mislead or lie to the public. Hasn’t this very blog waged a campaign (and rightly so) to remove wage protection from union dues.

        Indeed the City of Cape Town recently won a court case holding unions responsible for damages incurred why the union excercised it’s rights to free speech and protest.

        I’d like to see the city of Auckland recover similer damages from Penny “Dull” and her associates for the damages to Aotera Square.

        While I respect anyone’s right to protest and¬†speech, it shouldn’t be a free ride¬† at someone elses expense.

    • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

      No it doesn’t…you cannot have limits to free speech…if you don;t like what they say you mock it, or produce a counter argument. You never ban. That is what totalitarians do.

      • Alloytoo

        Are they really being “Banned”.

        Are their movements being monitored by security police, their correspondence being intercepted, the debate being erased from the public awareness?

        No.

        They are facing disassociation from people who disagree with their views, in very much the same way as you place a disclaimer on top of guest posts disassociating yourself from opinions that you disagree with.

        The right of disassociation is every bit as powerful as that of free speech.

      • jsrret

        yes alloytoo, ¬†they are being banned and you know that… once they get disaffiliated they will be banned from being a club at the university… so they will be banned from promoting their campaign within the university campus controlled by ausa

      • Alloytoo

        jsrret

        You are completely ignorant of what ‘banning’ in a totalitarian state really means.

    • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

      Ho about I ban your comments, even though they are respectful and it is my blog…I don’t think you’d like that.

      I don’t like racists, bigots, nazis, unionists or communists, but you will never see me call for their views to be silenced….I’d far rather let them speak so their silly ideas can be mocked.

      • Alloytoo

        It’s certainly within your rights to do so, it is your blog after all.

        My point is that the free speech has been had, and now they face potential consequences.

        Likewise if I shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre I would face consequences.

      • Guest

        if you shouted “fire” at a gun show you’d probably face some consequences too……

      • Random66

        Alloytoo if you shouted ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre and there was actually¬†a fire you would be telling the truth and perhaps save a life.¬† You fail to consider that perhaps the message of ProLife has merit and their ultimate purpose is ‘to save a life’ which most people¬†would applaud.¬† Any organization that would insist on silencing a voice that speaks out against killing babies (which effectively they are)¬†should hang their head in shame.¬† If you have the right to promote abortion then decency says you should allow others the right¬†to promote saving that life.

      • Alloytoo

        Random66

        I once suggested a simple solution to the Anti-Abortion brigade. That they devote all their efforts and finances to¬†caring every unwanted child, caring for every AIDS orphan, and ‘liberating’ every abused child.

        Only when they’ve done that they can worry about the unborn.

    • Grizz30

      I disagree with you. I may also disagree with their opinion. However if they wish to promote a point of view, then they should respectfully listen to criticism and counter argument. It would not be a university if certain opinions were banned and others put forward without challenge.

      • Alloytoo

        Banned disassociation.

    • Grizz30

      Maybe Hallocaust deniers should be banned too. Their incorrect and outdated opinion should never be given the opportunity of challenge. We all know the opposite is true and there is no place in a University to debate such matter of facts. Right.

      • Alloytoo

        I never said anything about banning.

        Indeed the whole freedom of speech debate is a red herring.

        The group may face disassociation, just as holocaust deniers face disassociation from reputable universities worldwide.

        Indeed many Universities disassociate themselves from the opinions of their staff.

    • Neil

      So then let that be their downfall –

      “Remember that silence is sometimes the best answer.”- Dali Lama

      • Alloytoo

        “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. “Edmund Burke

    • DrCP

      Outdated? Misleading?
      BWAHAHAHHAHAHAA

      Respectfully, you’re uneducated.
      Consider this, most abortions in NZ are done at 8-12 weeks of pregnancy.
      After 60 days (8-9 weeks), all a child does is grow: 

      http://php.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Embryonic_Development 

      It is the pro-abortion LIARS like Christine Roke, Peter Stone and so on, who don’t want this information freely available. It is they and the “anonymous” objector who want free speech stifled and disseminate misleading info.

      • Alloytoo

        At 60 days the child should be breast feeding,

    • Christopher

      So from what I gather from what you are saying when an organisation or induvidual lies they should be shut down? So who decides what the truth is? Truth is often a subjective thing.

      It is far better that society suffers the occasional person exercising their freedom and saying something unpopular that offends people than shutting them up and stiffling debate. One day someone might have to say something important and they won’t be able to.

      Any sane and free society does not destroy freedom of speech.

      • Alloytoo

        You gathered wrong. Pay attention.

        There are (and always have been) consequences to abusing freedom of speech.

  • Phar Lap

    Since when does free speech have limits.Seems on the Auckland University Campus.Now that is just about the 8th wonder of the modern world. Ps the whole free speech question is now being debated on Newstalk ZB.

    • Phar Lap

      Just to clarify it all.It is the student union who are opposing it,now thats a revelation.Coincides with all the rhetoric and lies and Helen Kelly ,and Andrew Little and uncle toms,and all the marchers who haunt our nation from time to time,so they should if that is what turns them on. Yet a bastion of so called free speech AUT puts up the not on our patch sign   .FFS.

      • le sphincter

        private organisations kick out members they dont like all the time.
        If the  Auckland Club can do it , so can AUSA.

        The ‘right to free speech’ you refer to , only applies to the government shutting down dissenting voices.

        Collins  doesnt like Mallard and  Little   having free speech,  but she is doing it as  an individual.

  • Greg

    Unfortunately these so called educated people are tomorrows leaders.

  • tarkwin

    Even Margaret Mutu agrees with this one.

  • Margaret

    Load of BS that the pamphlet is all outdated: 
    http://prolife.org.nz/2012/07/doctor-from-nz-family-planning-association-confirms-accuracy-of-right-to-know-flyer/

    75% of sources from the 2000′s. The FPA were blatantly telling lies.¬†

    • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

      So refute their lies not demand their silence….or are you too cowardly?

      • Orange

        I believe Margaret was saying the pamphlet is not out of date and it is the family planning association that is telling porkies while demanding silence from the pro life group.
        I totally agree with whale for this thread. The ausa is not interested in how old the information is. When it was first published they would have disagreed then too. They don’t agree with it regardless of age and they want to silence views that differ from them, evidence be damned. The ausa and the fpa are indeed cowardly.

      • Margaret

        Maybe the AUSA should disaffiliate the FPA….¬†

    • Alloytoo

      Actually 50% are from the 90′s.

      Publication in 2000 means the study was conducted in the 90′s

  • Orange

    and Dan Haines sounds a right wally. Contentious? What about the club’s that run drunk naked spew competitions?

  • Rebecca

    I agree with WO that activist student politicians (Womens’ Rights Officers in this case) should not be allowed to stifle discussion to suit their own narrow agenda. It’s actually even worse than it appears: if you visit the WRO Facebook page, here’s what it says on April 5 2011: “In an effort to support the Women of the University of Auckland in
    whatever choices they choose to make to deal with their pregnancies we
    are starting up a new Pro-choice club here at Uni.” So the WRO themselves start a pro-choice club “to support the Women of the University of Auckland in whatever choices they choose to make” and now they try to close down the opposition. Seems to me that this must be contrary to the AUSA constitution that used to celebrate diversity and tolerance- where tolerance of course extending the same rights to others that you assign to yourself. Seems that one has been chucked out the Womenspace window.

    • Phar Lap

      ¬†Well they have, or are about to indict themselves in narrow mindness ,if it suits their agenda.Seems the truth is scaring the pants off them,or some people might say “knickers” to them.What ever has happened to the adage “live and let live” ,of course anywhere except on the AUT Campus. Seems,they want a monopoly on the right to deny ,their university associates.Maybe that type of separatism belongs in the jackboot mentality of Goebels,¬† Mengele or the Taleban.

  • Johnny T

    I always voted in student elections with the purpose that Feminazis not get elected, otherwise shit like this happens.

    Feminazis are amongst the most intolerant people you’ll ever find on this earth.

  • Owl

    excuse me for using the wrong thread and story to impose a thought. Just read Labours new selection policy for leader. The Unions have just taken over – here me out – junior members and poor can join by koha (basically it means a price of a hot dog). Now Unions get their 200,000 members to donate a hot dog (40% of vote) and Union affiliates get 20% – Total 60% – the Labour Party has just created the first Union Labour Leader selection on the price of a Hot Dog. Caucus now reports to the UNION – oh dear!

    • Allyson

      Precisely my wise friend.

      Now that Shearer’s Labour has gifted power to the sweaty sock brigade we
      will see them crucified by the Greens in both¬† public debate and future elections. Can’t wait for their policy announcements.

64%