NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

Oxford calls off abortion debate, cites “security concerns”

by | Nov 18, 2014

 

By Dave Andrusko

Oxford Students for Life

Oxford Students for Life

Mark Twain once said, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”

Earlier today, we re-posted a terrific story by Maaike Rosendal, “The True Face of the Movement: Pro-Choice is No Choice.”

If you read of the blatant intolerance exhibited by “pro-choicers,” you’d have to disagree with Twain. The unwillingness to allow pro-lifers to speak, to attempt to intimidate and disrupt us, is exactly what those of us of a certain age (old) remember of the 1970s and 1980s.

This unwillingness to tolerate dissident opinion can be almost amusing. Pro-abortion feminists went to DEFCON1 when TIME magazine included “feminist” as a choice of words to kick off the Island in 2015. They, of course, won, not by the strength of their argument but by the stridency of their assault.

Lacking a spine, TIME couldn’t apologize fast enough or promise strongly enough that the offending staffer would be sent to a re-education camp. (The latter is an exaggeration….I hope. See nrlc.cc/1vmStNs)

But a resurgence of “muzzling” pro-lifers—or even pro-choicers who deviate ever so slightly—is becoming alarmingly common. As Rosendal illustrate, a particular hotbed of intolerance are campuses. Here’s another example.

The Huffington Post UK’s Lucy Sherriff just posted a story under the headline, “Oxford Abortion Debate Cancelled Due To ‘Security Concerns’ Over Planned Protest.”

The debate was due to be held at Christ Church college. The debate was to tackle the motion: “This House Believes Britain’s Abortion Culture Hurts Us All.” There would be pro and con speakers.

Sherriff quote from the student paper “the Cherwell.” Evidently the president of Oxford sent an email explaining why Oxford Students for Life were denied permission to host the debate. It was because there “was insufficient time between today and tomorrow to address some concerns they had about the meeting arising from potential security and welfare issue.” Hmmm, a wonder who that’s an allusion to?

Sherriff quoted the Women’s Campaign society which said, “By only giving a platform to these men, OSFL are participating in a culture where reproductive rights are limited and policed by people who will never experience needing an abortion. The event description seems to suggest that increased access to abortion contributes to a ‘culture’ of ‘[treating] human life carelessly’. Framing the debate in these pro-life terms denies people autonomy over the choices they make regarding their own bodies.”

Unrepentant, OSFL posted on Facebook at 3:15 pm [East Coast Time], “Five questions our opponents have to answer,” including whether the real reason for putting off the debate was “ideological.”

They also pointedly asked “Why have WomCam [Women’s Campaign] deleted the following statement from their Facebook page?”

We also support those within Christ Church who are working to stop the event going ahead. However, if it does, we encourage everyone who can to go along to the disruptive protest.

We will talk more tomorrow about the rising tide of “pro-choice” intolerance.

If you haven’t read Rosendal, please go here.

Categories: Pro-Lifers