By Dave Andrusko

I remember reading on many occasions news "analysis" pieces that (insincerely, in my view) questioned what does freedom of speech have to do with abortion? Why does NRLC, the pre-eminent single issue pro-life organization in the world, vigorously oppose (for example) the ridiculously misnamed "DISCLOSE act"?

Simply because efforts like this are intended to muzzle corporation--including incorporated nonprofit citizen groups such as NRLC--so that it is nigh on impossible to communicate with the public about the actions of federal lawmakers. It is dressed up in highfalutin language, but that's all for show. "Keep the public in the dark" is the unspoken motto of the DISCLOSE Act's Democratic sponsors.

But pro-life freedom of speech is continually under siege not only in Congress or even only in the United States. A couple of weeks ago we wrote about a ridiculous assault on the free speech rights of a Canadian pro-life campus group--Carleton Lifeline--at Carleton University.

I learned about it from work appearing in the National Post, which tackled the issue again on Sunday. I very much am indebted to their reporting.

According to Charles Lewis, it was not the University but the Carleton University Students Association (CUSA), that "decertified the group." Lewis did his due diligence--he tried t o speak with the CUSA--but "there was no response to any of my many phone calls and emails."

But Lewis did have access to the letters the CUSA sent to Carleton Lifeline. Starting from the position that the CUSA has "an anti-discrimination policy that upholds a woman's right to choose," they "seem to have decided that anyone who opposes abortion, presumably one of the two choices of someone who believes in 'choice,' holds a discriminatory view that violates the policy and therefore cannot be a campus club," Lewis writes.

I've read and re-read that sentence multiple-times and it still makes no sense to me. What does make sense is Lewis' conclusion. After noting that no other major Canadian newspaper has covered the controversy, he writes, "But the fact that these young men and women are anti-abortion should have nothing to do with whether they are worthy of coverage. This is about certain students, CUSA, acting like petty tyrants because they do not like the views of some of their fellow students. This goes against every principle of free speech."

So, he asked, "Why is there not more outrage about this?"

Lewis concludes with a brilliant twist. Canada's biggest paper, the Globe and Mail, did find time to talk about the 50th anniversary of the conclusion of a celebrated free speech trial. One of their Globe columnists was all up in arms--five decades later!

"This was a lovely piece but it had the comfortable advantage of not having to deal with a current situation," Lewis wrote. "It is easy to get righteous about the free-speech issues involving a novel of 50 years ago rather than take on the task of highlighting the battles of those who need help today.

"This is not about taking sides on the abortion issue; it is about taking sides in favor of free speech."