Before I go any further, a caveat. I'm not a pro-lifer in the standard sense of the term. Although I am opposed to the act of abortion, it's for a variety of reasons that I'm not sure the core of the Pro-life movement necessarily focuses upon. That being said, I have a great amount of sympathy for the Pro-life side of things ( although I think you could select certain Pro-choice arguments that I would find merit in ), and disregarding my personal opinions, the following story is rather horrifying, by any standard.
From LifeSiteNews: Pro-Life Student Forced into Isolation on Day of Silent Witness by School Principal:
By Patrick B. Craine
WIARTON, Ontario, October 21, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 16-year-old high school student Jennifer Rankin fully intended to unite her voicelessness with that of the unborn as part of the annual Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity when she arrived at school yesterday, reports Bill Henry of Sun Media.
She was impeded, however, by her school principal, who stated that the right to free speech does not apply on school property and who forced Rankin to remain in isolation for the entire day as long as she participated in the event.During the annual Day of Silent Solidarity international campaign, which is organized by Stand True Ministries, students don red bands on their arms and red duct tape on their mouths, remaining silent while passing out fliers about the atrocity of abortion.
Rankin, 16, arrived at Peninsula Shores District School in Wiarton, Ontario yesterday morning, with the red tape over her mouth and with the simple word 'life' written upon it. She and her mother were stopped at the door, however, by school principal Patricia Cavan, while police cruisers stood nearby. Cavan initially told Rankin that she could not enter school property, but then consented to allowing her in the building, separated from other students.
"I was taken directly into a small room that was opposite the vice-principal's office and I was in there all day," Rankin told Sun Media. "I wasn't allowed to speak with or see any other students and students were not allowed to come and see me and I was isolated in that room for the entire day."
While Cavan had informed students in advance that their pro-life witness would not be allowed, Rankin insists that her Charter right to free expression was infringed. "I felt very discriminated by it," she said. "I don't think it was right at all what happened."
Cavan, who did not return a message left by LifeSiteNews.com, told Sun Media that the right to free speech does not apply on school property. "School property is not a public place," she said. "So while absolutely we support the right to free speech in a public space, that's not school property." She said that school policy prohibits the dissemination of one-sided information on religious, political, or other issues that are controversial.
Pastor Holley pointed out that the school does an annual 'Gay Pride' day "where everybody wears pink shirts," and that the school allows nude pictures on the wall to stand as 'art'. "My students have to go to school and deal with that," he said, "and as soon as they try to stand up for anything, it's like, well, just be quiet, go home. I don't think that's right."
21 comments:
Makes perfect sense to me. After all, free speech should only be permitted if a particular utterance supports a Progressive Cause, such as gay rights: surely that is plain to see? Fortunately this girl was stopped before she could spread her subversive ideas too far.
Ideally, however, we should get children to report parents with bad attitudes, so that appropriate re-education can be done, for their own good. This should ideally take place in remote parts of the country where counter-Progressive forces have no reach.
Can't be done, you say: I say it has, and will again.
This principal would certainly seem open to those ideas, that's for sure; if only in a minor form.
"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
Reasonable Limits as prescribed by law...(and I know this is Canada so you don't know the laws - not a lot of people here know them either). Two laws that would reasonably limit this young lady's right to freedom of expression are the Criminal Code of Canada and the Education Act for the province of Ontario. There are probably laws that deal with the work place environment that would also limit protesting on school grounds.
There was an incident at this same school last year that, at the very least, disrupted the school day. I'm sure people of aware of the potential for violence to break out whenever abortion is protested, or even discussed. Be aware that the age requirement for children to begin attending this particular school is 4 years old by the end of 2009. They need to be protected. Another right guaranteed by the charter.
And for the record,the principal has offered more than once to organize a debate on school grounds, allowing a safe opportunity for all students to learn more about this issue, allowing them their freedom of opinion (charter), where teachers and adults can help to keep anger in check.
Question the police cars. Were they there to haul away the 16-year-old-law-abiding-year-book- and-prom-committee-member, who looks like she weighs less than 100lbs, or were they there to provide protection to the 16-year-old, and other innocent students, in case the situation became out of control?
I disagree that an institution paid for and staffed by the tax payers should be considered a public place and therefore have no restrictions. There are several examples in both countries of this. Army Bases, White House, Veterans Hospitals for you. Or am I mistaken and you do have the freedom to walk in and out of these places as you please?
A public school is not a public space.
Exactly right, Anonymous, you brave protector of human rights. As I said in the previous comment, take them away and lock them up for being counter-***Progressive***. After all, it is only for their own protection.
Then we need to take action to re-educate the beastly counter-progressive parents, also for their own protection: for all we know, they might be attacked on the street: we all know not that streets are not necessarily public places, especially the pavements?
Seems to me that you get some public places that are actually private, so let us call them "private public places".
Of course, we all know that laws and freedoms need only be protected in public places: after all, what I do in a private place is no concern of anybody else. If some misguided person wants to exercise free speech, good and well: just not in a private public place, God forbid!!
No I say good on you, Principal: All animals may be equal, but they can be equal in really public places like parks and highways, where they can offend no-one. Certainly not in public school!!
Next thing they would want freedom of speech at University, in Parliament or such sensitive places: I say never!!
As a student of literature, I think that qualifies as "irony", or what? Either that or being seriously sour-puss?
Yes, I do believe that qualifies as irony.
Anon: I think you raise a good point. The principal has to keep the welfare of her entire student body in mind. However, I think the way that she went about it was a bit...over-zealous. Furthermore, it gives those people who very well might have resorted to violence if faced with the abortion debate even more legitimacy in their thuggish tactics. It enables them.
I'm not saying that the principal should have stuck to a principal and gambled with the well-being of her students in the process. That's not really her job. But there had to be another way to approach this problem than the way that she did.
The student's picture and her story put her on the front page of the newspaper because she claimed "that her Charter right to free expression was infringed " This also gave her the support of the editor of that paper in a opinion piece a few days later, and another letter of support from the local MP a day after that. That's a lot of press coverage.
However, there are laws that reasonably limit this charter right and give the principal the right to say "not here, not now". If the student is going to rely on the charter, she cannot pick and choose which parts. Again, I'll remind you, a debate of this issue was offered, and as far as I know has been looked into further by all parties.
As for the pink shirts worn on Gay Pride Day, please go the website for the Ministry of Education
of Ontario and see that there is a direction from there to encourage events such as these to discourage homophobia.
I think you need to go the source of the information, The Owen Sound Sun Times. I see that your information is taken from Life Site News, which condensed only one article from the reporting paper. There is a follow up article and letters to the editor that provide more information.
I'll let you read up on this on your own time, but I will make something clear...
The mother of the student left her in that room, as a compromise between the mother, the principal and the student.
So those that are accusing the principal of child abuse should be ready to charge the mother with accessory to a crime.
Steven Roofer and William, I have no idea what you are saying. I am not a university graduate. I am a nobody. My name doesn't matter. I'm presenting facts that you can check if you so choose. So I will remain anonymous. However, I will take on a user name, so you will recognize me in future posts.
Now on a seriously angry note: the excuse for prohibiting the girl from making her statement, being not to provoke a violent response, must be the lamest excuse I have ever heard.
It would be a sad day if authorities were to limit any human right on that ground: that would be the end of any protest of any kind: imagine how easy it would then be to prohibit statements on gay rights, muslim rights, animal rights, anti-war sentiments, etc.
Let us face the obvious: the girl was muzzled, almost brutally, it seems, because the principal did not like the statement she made.
I cannot see how you can ever justify that by citing the fear of an "incident": I am sure the principal blushed when she had to think of something, and when that was all she could think of!!
Of course rights can and should be limited: but that limitation must be reasonably justifiable, not based on the lamest of excuses!!
And by the way, you know very well what I mean in my ironic outbursts above: Hitler's excuse to remove Jews from society initially was exactly what yours is, being to protect them from violence and threats from non-Jews. Communist and Fascist regimes have used similar arguments to justify all kinds of atrocities.
The point is, there is no democracy if you can decide what I can or cannot say (or think, for that matter).
So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
PRECEDENT
http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2144980
"Police were on standby at the school Monday morning in part because of a larger pro-life protest last year on the same day that sparked heated battles between students who held different views on the topic. Students, including Rankin, were warned days in advance that a one-sided protest would not be permitted on school property. "
http://www.showthetruth.ca/media/mdclp14.pdf (Kincardine News - Abortion Protest - same school board)
"...the way the demonstrators
chose to get their point across. He said they were unruly,
charging onto school property and refusing to leave, despite the
fact schools are considered private property. He said he was
forced to call police, who pushed the group back to the road.
But even the police presence didn’t keep protestors away from
the students..."
This story from another perspective...
http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2148816
"While witnessing this event, I personally observed a group of 15 - 20 students gathering right inside of the high school entrance doors, and I for one am very happy that Pat Cavan chose to defuse that situation by removing Jennifer Rankin from the general student population. Large crowds and heated debates like abortion, do not bring out the best in people and the threat of a verbal or physical altercation was inevitable. This also protected Jennifer Rankin from attacks by her fellow students, who would feel justified with confronting Jennifer Rankin, for wearing labels at school that may conflict with their personal beliefs or life experiences."
Action required by principal...
Education Act
Duties of principal
265. (1) It is the duty of a principal of a school...
(a) to maintain proper order and discipline in the school;
care of pupils and property
(j) to give assiduous attention to the health and comfort of the pupils
(m) subject to an appeal to the board, to refuse to admit to the school or classroom a person whose presence in the school or classroom would in the principal’s judgment be detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of the pupils;...
Ontario Law...
Tresspass to property act
1.(2) A school board has all the rights and duties of an occupier in respect of its school sites as defined in the Education Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 1 (2).
Didn't say I was stupid, just don't have much in the way of a higher education. So, no, didn't have a clue.
It would be great if the principal could control the actions and reactions of every child so that she didn't have to limit a situation such as this, but she can't.
If this student, instead of protesting abortion, had been wearing t-shirt celebrating her right to have an abortion and passing information about where to go to obtain this procedure etc. I would expect the principal to act in the same manner and I would be defending those actions with these very same arguments.
I understand your argument - however, my protest remains largely the same.
You may well be right, and the principal did act in the greater interest of her student body as a whole. Indeed, by all accounts that was her job to do.
However, that does not mean that the result of that act was satisfactory. I still don't have to like what she did.
No, you don't have to like it.
But please make me understand why.
I'm not playing around. I don't want to this to turn this debate into a contest to see who can create the wittiest insult. I honestly believe that the principal was in the right.
In Ontario, my daughter has the right to walk to school in sneakers, a cute pair of capris, and absolutely nothing on top. As soon as she steps onto school property she has to make sure her tank top has straps that are at least two finger widths wide, or she must cover up. Is this a charter right infringement?
If a child attends school wearing a t-shirt depicting a consensual sexual activity by a married, heterosexual couple, the t-shirt must be covered up. Is that a charter right infringement?
Can't eat in class.
Can't swear.
Can't throw snowballs at recess.
Must sit at an assigned desk.
What are these?
The student was told numerous times over the course of a year that this protest was not allowed because it was against school policy. Did she ask her principal what policy? Did she contact the board to ask why such a policy was in place? Did she go online to the BWDSB website, where all policies are posted, and look there? Did she contact her trustee? Did she contact a lawyer?
I don't know if she did or not.
However, she went ahead and violated school policy and went ahead with her protest, She knew from the previous year, that although she would remain silent and non-confrontational, the protest itself causes a situation that is difficult for the principal and teachers to manage. As a 16 year old girl, she probably doesn't understand how easily something like this can get out of control. But, as someone who has obviously been researching abortion protests, she maybe should know better.
The student was allowed to remain at school even though school policy stated that she should have been suspended for her actions. This portion of the policy, I think, is taken directly from the Education Act.
She could have made her stand, accepted the suspension as a small price to pay for such a worthy cause, and spent the remainder of the day protesting silently on the sidewalk just outside the boundaries of school property, or at any other public place. She could have gone to school and sacrificed her lunch hour to step off of school property to hold her silent protest on the sidewalk. She could have gone to her pastor for support. She could have gone home and prayed.
I don't know why she and her mother chose the isolated room. Maybe because she'll be applying to post-secondary institutions and didn't want her school record to indicate she'd been suspended. Maybe because it was really cold and rainy that day. Maybe her mother didn't want her protesting outside the safety of the school. I don't know.
If the principal had stuck to the policy and said 'No compromise, leave the school' there would not have been the reaction that we are seeing now.
Please explain to me why you disagree with the actions of the principal.
No, you're right. The principal acted as she had to. I don't deny that - I probably wrote too hastily based upon my limited understanding of the facts. I don't deny that either.
However, I think what I'm trying to say is that this situation is still an unfortunate one - and that the bindings of the school 'law' may be wrapped a little too tightly. That's all.
And the reason that I say that is, no matter what the student's reasoning may have been, she still ended up in the principal's office because of her decision to protest in the manner that she did. Safety could be cited, and perhaps that is reason enough. But I still think that, when 'safety' is cited, all manner of things can be excused. Safety isn't a good enough litmus test.
Thank you, Walker.
Safety, I think, is the reason for the policy in the first place. The principal's actions were due to the student violating school policy for the second time.
The principal, being the administrator of the school, does have to take the blame. But beyond that, she could have been more pro-active in dealing with this problem. She also had over a year to consider the situation.
I don't know if she referred the student to the policy on the website, or asked the school board to make a statement to clarify the policy, or asked the student and her family to sit down and discuss the reasoning for the policy. She could have organized a debate of the issue, instead of waiting for the students to ask for it.
For that she is partially to blame for this issue getting so far out of hand.
But the student has to share the blame. She disregarded school policy and disrespected the authority of the principal, and while I realize that her beliefs have a higher authority figure, that should not allow her to act as she did.
So the responsibility for this situation should be shared among many people - the principal, the board, the parents, and the student. The only reason I don't think it should be shared equally is because she is still only a child.
Thanks again, for helping me to understand this situation from another perspective. I chose your website because I wanted to correct some of the misinformation out there, and you clearly stated that you were not a 'pro-lifer' in regards to this issue. I didn't feel that a pro-life website would discuss anything further than the statement that abortion is murder.
I may still pursue this locally now, and your comments will certainly help me decide my course of action.
My apologies for being snippy for a bit there. I realize that people have to be on guard when a new poster comes into the picture.
I read the Hitler/Jew reference on another website and now it makes much more sense. I'm learning.
I'll try and leave you alone now - but I won't guarantee that.
It was my pleasure; it's good to have somebody to keep me on my toes, and you helped me to see things from a different angle, which was good for me.
Stop by anytime. We at Heartless and Brainless are happy to have you!
Oh - and believe me, I've been snippy in the past, too. It happens; nothing to worry about :)
Oh, whoops - as regards your earlier comment, I think I agree with what you're saying. The principal could have prepared for this in a better, more pro-active fashion.
But at the same time, the student could have familiarised herself with the rules of her school better as well, and could have tried to find other, more innovative ways of holding her protest.
Maybe it's just best to say that this whole scenario has been unfortunate, for a number of reasons, and leave it at that :)
I agree we should leave it at that, but there is one further aspect that needs comment. I live in South Africa, which is known for the prevalence of violent crime. Yet here you can protest about anything, quite safely, vitually at any time: in fact the right to protest and to demonstrate is built into our bill of Rights.
I was under the impression that Canada was a much more civilized and safe place, and in fact people do emigrate from here to Canada to escape violence and crime.
My impression is obviously wrong. Police mobilized at a school for fear of violence during a pro-life protest? All kinds of rules at school to prevent violence between students? A protesting (girl) student having to be protected against dangerous, violent co-students?
I wonder if we are not better of here. In South Africa the police and school authorities would have acted against any person who threatened violence against any protester: not the other way round.
Well, you have cleared my mind of one more myth: thanks for that.
OK, I really want to leave it at that. This is tiring. I have a new-found-complete-and-absolute respect for writers, columnists and bloggers.
Steven,
I think you'll appreciate this piece more than I ever could. I assume it was written in regards to the protesting expected, and maybe some that has already happened, in the Vancouver area because of the world focus on the 2010 Olympics.
http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/boundaries+protest/2182112/story.html
I don't know if the last paragraph can be applied to this situation or not.
"The charter provides the opportunity for protest. The Criminal Code provides the boundaries. Decency dictates being respectful."
Focusing solely on the actions of the student, I don't think she showed any respect at all - for the law, for school policy, for her principal, her teachers, her fellow students or her friends.
Protests are allowed. But there are reasonable limits. If the school was considered a completely public place, pedophiles, drug dealers and cult recruiters would be free to come and go as they please. A pro-life protest, a pro-choice rally, a campaign to legalize marijuana, an anti-gay demonstration, and a petition to recognize polygamy would all be allowed - one right after the other or all at the same time. We can't assume that the 'facts' presented during these events would be true.
How could the teachers effectively teach if this were the case? How could a student concentrate on a mid-term exam when all he can think about is that Auntie Sue is a murderer, or that Simon and Joe, his co-habitating neighbours, are guilty of sodomy and going to hell and was he gay because he accepted their help when his bike needed a new chain?
Yes students need to hear all points of views and opinions. But on school property the event where these are heard must be controlled to a degree. Discussions in class - yes. Debate organized for a specified time and place, with knowledgeable people to ensure that that the facts are true - yes. Talking it over amongst friends in the hall when walking between classes - yes. A highly visible, even if silent, protest against a woman’s right to a legal procedure, where pamphlets being handed out stop just short of accusing those who have undergone this procedure murderers, with tape across the mouth as an effective symbol of the 'voices that cannot be heard' that could also be seen as a method to discourage discussion or debate – no.
I've been thinking about the police cars - again. Last year, the protesting students entered the school in violation of school policy and against the instructions of principal - a woman maybe not much bigger than the protesting girl. I haven't seen her.
This year maybe it was a case of 'fool me once...fool me twice...'
The students last year did not respect her authority, and she is probably not allowed to physically stop them herself, so this year, not knowing how many students would actually show up to protest, because more than that single girl were planning to, she had the foresight to request the assistance of the police to enforce school policy. So there is another possible reason. Maybe they were not going to haul away the girl, but they would have used as much force as necessary to keep her, and any other student violating school policy, out of the school.
So in part the policy that disallows this protest might be to reduce the chances of it becoming a mob-like scene that can turn to violence, as well as to maintain an environment where students can concentrate and learn without more than the usual teenage confusion muddling their brain. And I'm sure there are other reasons as well.
I have been very lucky, living where I do, and maybe I do take too much for granted. But while I don't compare the actions of this student to the actions of those zealots who kill doctors, nurses and volunteers at abortion clinics, I fear that her complete disregard for the laws and the rules because of her conviction to follow a higher authority is too close for comfort.
Hmmm - that's a good point. I agree with the Pro-Life cause, but I also agree that some members can go too far, sometimes. In a way I sort of feel sorry for the police officers who have to get involved sometimes - I'm sure that's not why they get into the job, you know?
But yes - perhaps we should leave it at that :)
Post a Comment