Do you think this video should be censored? Just became aware that it had been. The creator of the video is suing.

Movie to Movement exists to discover, create, and promote works of art that highlight the dignity and sanctity of human life—and do so beautifully. We were thrilled to learn of “What Was Your Name”, a music video that did all that, which was burning up Youtube, thanks to the thousands of people who were moved by its message. We went to look for ourselves, and found that it was gone. Down the memory hole, thanks to arbitrary policies of content censorship in place at Youtube. This wasn’t the first time that Youtube has done something like this, and it won’t be the last, but we’re proud to be helping the makers of “What Was Your Name”, evade the censors. That’s why we’re helping to promote the film on Vimeo, at iTunes, and on the artist Joyce Bartholomew’s website. Go check it out. You’ll see why we want you to share it—and why some people don’t. And we publicly support the makers of “What Was Your Name”, in their lawsuit against Google, demanding that their video be restored and Youtube’s policies changed.

The following is a press release I got from NCLN, re-printed in full. Consider supporting their case if you can.

_____

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

RYERSON PRO-LIFE STUDENTS PREPARE LAWSUIT AGAINST STUDENT UNION

JUNE 9, 2015. TORONTO, ON—On February 23rd, the Ryerson Student Union (RSU) Board of Directors unanimously voted that Students for Life at Ryerson (“SFLR”), a pro-life club at Ryerson University, would not be allowed to form a pro-life club under RSU. This vote marked the last step in an appeal process that began in the fall semester after SFLR was rejected by the Student Groups Committee on the basis that the RSU, “opposes…groups, meetings, or events that promote misogynist views towards woman [sic] and ideologies that promote gender inequity, challenges women’s right [sic] to bodily autonomy, or justifies [sic] sexual assault”.

“Our club stands for human rights for all human beings, including those at the earliest stages of life. We also want to support pregnant students on campus who want alternatives to abortion,” states Carter Grant, a second year business major and Vice-President of SFLR.

Pro-life students at Ryerson were first denied club status back in 2003.  Now students are preparing to take the decision to court to assert their right to be treated fairly by their student union, and to not be discriminated against on the basis of their pro-life viewpoint.

The students’ case has been taken on by Charter Defence, a new pro-bono legal defence organization.  It has retained experienced constitutional lawyer Carol Crosson to defend the students.  Ms. Crosson says that, “pro-life students have been denied rights on campuses long enough.  This is the time to end this battle and enshrine students rights on campus.”

However, there is one thing stopping these students.  Ms. Crosson explains, “sadly, standing up for your rights often requires money. Charter Defence is graciously covering legal costs, but during the trial or afterwards costs may be awarded against the students.”

Nicholas McLeod, who sued Carleton University on a similar conflict about student rights, states that “we were forced to give up continuing our fight because we had to pay costs to continue.  We were not able to and were forced to give up.  I want these students to succeed.”

“The students need to raise $20,000 by the middle of July to be able to initiate this case”, Ms Crosson says.  “If these students win, it means a win for all pro-lifers. It means that other students in ON will have a legal leg to stand on when their universities and student unions treat them unfairly. It means that bureaucrats in other arenas will take notice that pro-lifers are not easy prey.  Let’s help these students win.”

Donations are processed through Charter Defence.  Please see donation information on their website, charterdefence.com.

Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards wants to “talk, really talk” about abortion.

Talking about abortion is the apparent wish of one Cecile Richards, CEO of Planned Parenthood. Great idea. Here’s another pro-lifer who agrees.

Richards is calling us to “talk – really talk – about abortion. America has an urgent need for authentic public dialogue on abortion.” Canada too.

Here’s the problem. Pro-choicers may say they want to talk about abortion, but then they are upset when the authentic talk goes sour.

It took me all of about 10 seconds to find a mournful “let’s talk about abortion” story. I googled “I had an abortion,” which is usually the hallmark of the pro-choice world on the internet. These are the people who want to share their abortions because they are not ashamed and because they want to raise consciousness about how abortion is a difficult, but simultaneously empowering, choice. The very first story I clicked on ends on this (sarcasm alert) tremendously uplifting note:

I was too scared to tell him he already hates me i couldn’t do it and so i aborted. I couldn’t raise a baby by myself. Its been over a month since my abortion and i would give anything to have my baby back.

I feel so guilty i took away my baby and his. He hasn’t a clue, part of me thinks i should tell him but whats it going to achieve now? My baby is gone and i cant get him/her back and that kills me.

I want my baby back.

Where were we? Oh yes, at Cecile Richard’s desire to talk about abortion. The sidebar for that same website includes the headline “My world is crashing down,” (surely a euphemism for something positive?!) and “I think of them. Always.” (Probably a pleasant reverie.)

There’s one called “The Right Choice“–so I scrolled through that one thinking it would be the tale of empowerment Cecile is looking for. As it turns out, the story includes crying, crying some more, tears, some more crying, confusion and a conclusion that includes missing the baby, anger at the situation and yes, you guessed it, even more crying.

Richards can say she wants to talk, but she doesn’t really.  Because the web site above is what she is going to get a lot of, unless she scripts it, in which case, we aren’t talking–really talking–about abortion.

There’s a reason why there is a stranglehold on free speech regarding abortion, and it serves the pro-choice world very nicely indeed.

That said, hear hear, Cecile Richards, I agree. Let’s talk about abortion. Really talk. Call anytime. I’m available. The whole pro-life community is right here, eagerly waiting to talk about abortion. We’ve been waiting a while, but better late than never.

I listened to this program on CBC not too long ago. It’s Chris Turner talking about how to be a Green Party candidate in Calgary. I appreciated his remarks.

Activists in particular tend to come guns a blazing, and it’s rare that others share the passion. That can be the first problem.

Pro-life activists tend to want to speak truth but we can be bad at listening. And we can be bad at meeting people where they are at. (Listening and meeting people where they are at is not the same thing as compromising on important values, she reminds herself.)

In any event, finding consensus in a conversation is a good starting point, whether you are an environmentalist in Calgary discussing the oil sands or a pro-lifer at a downtown Toronto dinner party.

Sometimes the most insightful and remarkable statements come from children.  We have all been witness to a child whose keen observation, humility and complete innocence causes them to spout great and eternal truths at the most uncanny and opportune (or inopportune) moments in life.  Often these truths, which are so obvious to the child, have been have sullied by adults with our greed, our cynicism and our pride.

Here is one such example, and it is worth watching.

[youtube:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9–Rf1K9aA]

(The YouTube link is here.)

We would do well to heed these children.

photo credit: Mud Fest 2008 via photopin (license)

From the Onion:

Saying that such a dialogue was essential to the college’s academic mission, Trescott University president Kevin Abrams confirmed Monday that the school encourages a lively exchange of one idea.

They forgot to get into the part about socially ostracizing, raising eyebrows, looking askew and docking grades for those students who discuss an idea other than the one idea everyone already agrees on. But that story could be for another day.

The Association for Reform Political Action and Run with Life blogger Pat Maloney are taking legal action against the Ontario government by challenging the constitutionality of not allowing abortion to be subject to access to information requests.

Pat Maloney used to get aggregate abortion statistics by filing these access to information requests, but since the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act was passed in Ontario, she can’t.

She is not asking for private information, only the aggregate stats. The denial of this information is the opposite of Public Sector Accountability. Here are the notes from press conference held this afternoon at Queen’s Park in Toronto.

That’s because all abortion information is now excluded from FIPPA: Abortion numbers. Abortion complications. Abortion costs to the taxpayer. The demographic statistics of women who have abortions: their age, how many abortions they have, and the gestational age of the fetus at termination. Anything and everything about abortion is now being hidden by the Ontario government.

This is not about being pro-life. We need good statistics to see trends in our society and to know whether education programs are working.

Challenging the Ontario government for withholding abortion statistics.