Well, articles like this one are what happens when academics study topics whilst refusing to speak to people who are actually engaging in said topics.
Paul Saurette here claims that if M-408 becomes about freedom of speech, then anti-abortion activists have cunningly won a significant victory.
The problem is in his thinking that anti-abortion activists actually want to be free speech activists. The people I know who are engaged in the fight for life actually want to debate abortion, not free speech, but because we are so often told we can’t speak freely, we end up talking about free speech. He doesn’t know this, because he doesn’t talk to pro-life activists. Not me, anyway. Perhaps he’s been around the block speaking to others.
I also had a good solid laugh because apparently funding to the status of women department actually correlates to increased women’s rights for him??
by 
Paul Saurette would do well to think about the question; ‘Why is Mark Warawa’s motion banned from discussion?’. In his effort to support his view on abortion he seems to miss the point that Parliament is willing change a foundation of Canadian parliamentary system by denying elected members their opportunity to speak unless they think like Paul Saurette. Oh my, ‘I am tolerant of everybody who agrees with me.’ Not a good example for parliamentary democracy nor teaching at a University.
Couldn’t agree more, David. He is OK with suppressing freedom of speech because he doesn’t like the topic we are discussing. But he couches it in a different way.