University battling anti- abortion group
B. C.’ s appeal court began hearing arguments Thursday in a bitter free- speech battle over the University of Victoria’s decision three years ago to forbid a pro- life group from holding a small demonstration on campus.
A B. C. Supreme Court judge previously ruled the Charter of Rights and Freedoms did not apply as the decision to block the antiabortion group fell “within the university’s sphere of autonomous operational decisionmaking.”
But in their appeal to the province’s top court, the B. C. Civil Liberties Association and Cam Cote, former president of the university’s Youth Protecting Youth club, said the judge erred by failing to apply the Charter and by failing to consider whether administrative decisions over use of campus space ought to take into account such fundamental values as freedom of expression.
“There’s no question, ( the club) is an unpopular minority and they’ve suffered for it,” Craig Jones, counsel for the appellants, told the three- member panel.
In written submissions, the appellants argued a university is “not a purely private entity.” Like a hospital, it is a “complex corporate body that can be subject to the Charter for some purposes.”
A university’s control of its property through bylaws and policies is not that different from the regulatory powers of municipalities, which are subject to the Charter, the appellants wrote.
“The university’s view … is that it should be able to regulate speech on its property as a private landowner,” they wrote.
“If the university’s position were accepted, then it would be permitted ( to) make any policy restricting speech it so chooses. It could, for example, forbid students from discussing any political matters anywhere on campus.”
Tension between the prolife club and the university’s administration and student society go back years.
In 2008, a poster campaign in the student union building was removed after students complained.
In 2010, the student society denied the club funding and stripped the club of its status following another poster display. Their status and funding were reinstated after the club filed a court petition alleging discrimination.
In 2011, the club applied to hold an event that involved signs depicting aborted and developing fetuses. The student society asked the university to prohibit the event, but the school allowed it.
On the day of the event, the club’s members were the targets of verbal attacks and even stink bombs. Once again, the student society sanctioned the club for violating harassment policy.
In early 2013, the group asked the university if it could hold the same event again. It was approved by Jim Dunsdon, the school’s associate vice- president of student affairs.
But he withdrew his approval two days later after being reminded of a new policy that allowed the student society to decline a club’s request to use outdoor space if the club had previously been sanctioned.
The pro- life club went ahead with the event anyway, resulting in the loss of some privileges and a warning that future violations could result in non- academic discipline.
In written submissions, UVic’s lawyers argued “effective operational autonomy requires that universities must be independent from external interference.”
Universities should have a “high degree of control over their internal affairs while remaining accountable to government in certain areas, like financial reporting.”
They also argued the appellants were now reframing the debate in a way that was “not substantially developed” in the lower court — to whether the university was obligated under administrative law to consider fundamental values in deciding whether to allocate space for student clubs.