SU Official condemns pro-life campaigning on Houghton St.

on 27 Jan 2009 in News

Create4Life small.jpg

A Students’ Union official has started a petition against a stall set up on Houghton Street by a pro-life group.

Union Education and Welfare officer, Emmanuel Akpan-Inwang, engaged in intense debate with two representatives of Created4Life, who came on campus today to raise awareness for their cause.

Created4Life is “a new charitable organisation” set up to “encourage women and men not to choose abortion”. Representatives from the group distributed leaflets and used models that depicted the human foetus at various stages of its growth.

“I actually got a text from a student who complained that there were pro-lifers on Houghton Street, who are espousing their filth…that they had dolls or foetuses which I thought was beyond ridiculous,” explained Akpan-Inwang.

The representatives did not respond to Akpan-Inwang’s arguments for women’s right to choose. “The guy actually didn’t want to debate,” said Akpan-Inwang.

The Education and Welfare officer, accompanied by a group of students that included the Union’s Women’s officer Ruby Buckley, then initiated a petition in an attempt to expel the group from Houghton Street.

A second-year Law student agreed with the Union officials’ action. “[Created4Life's] imposition of views on students is outrageous,” she said.

Related posts:

  1. Houghton Street poster policy change to affect societies
  2. Parents jubilant as nursery saved

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 27th, 2009 at 15:23 and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • Dominic

    Dear Mr Akpan-Inwang, I wonder if you could tell us what kind of “filth” this “charitable organisation” was “espousing”? It sounds to me that this organisation is, in fact, working towards educating the students and providing options toward the welfare of students and their unborn children, something that surely you should be promoting? The fact that this particular organisation is representing the side of the ‘choice’ of this ‘pro-choice’ nation that you, perhaps, disagree with should not be an issue. In order for this country to be the pro-choice nation it wishes to be requires education on both the pro-life and pro-abortion sides of the issue. It does sound from the article, Mr Akpan-Inwang, as if you are AGAINST this type of support being offered to students of LSE who wish to have it.
    With regards to the second-year Law student’s comment, I wonder how Creation4Life was imposing its views on students? From the photo and description, it looks more like Creation4Life were offering information to students, should they be interested. If Creation4Life was approaching and confronting students in an illegal and therefore objectionable way, surely the Police should have been called?
    Kind regards
    Dominic

  • Dominic

    Dear Mr Akpan-Inwang, I wonder if you could tell us what kind of “filth” this “charitable organisation” was “espousing”? It sounds to me that this organisation is, in fact, working towards educating the students and providing options toward the welfare of students and their unborn children, something that surely you should be promoting? The fact that this particular organisation is representing the side of the ‘choice’ of this ‘pro-choice’ nation that you, perhaps, disagree with should not be an issue. In order for this country to be the pro-choice nation it wishes to be requires education on both the pro-life and pro-abortion sides of the issue. It does sound from the article, Mr Akpan-Inwang, as if you are AGAINST this type of support being offered to students of LSE who wish to have it.
    With regards to the second-year Law student’s comment, I wonder how Creation4Life was imposing its views on students? From the photo and description, it looks more like Creation4Life were offering information to students, should they be interested. If Creation4Life was approaching and confronting students in an illegal and therefore objectionable way, surely the Police should have been called?
    Kind regards
    Dominic

  • Carmen

    I am surprised the Union Officers found offensive for a charity (legally constituted) to raise awareness in the campus. Raising awareness is not the same as imposing views (specially to LSE students we tend to think are quite open minded, liberal and of course intelligent!). having been an LSE student myself and having enjoyed a wide ranging of views about politics, life and death whilst at campus I think officers were been dictatorial. Really surely officers have more important things to deal with? the Credit Crunch? getting grants from students losing jobs? etc etc etc

  • freeopinion

    Removing this group from Houghton Street would be a much greater ‘imposition of views’ than allowing them to stay. Akpan-Inwang is acting like there aren’t two sides to this discussion. It would be a mistake to assume that everybody agrees with abortion.

  • freeopinion

    Removing this group from Houghton Street would be a much greater ‘imposition of views’ than allowing them to stay. Akpan-Inwang is acting like there aren’t two sides to this discussion. It would be a mistake to assume that everybody agrees with abortion.

  • Michael

    To make a technical point, it was not the views of the group that the Union officials objected to, but the way in which they were being conveyed. Displaying plastic models and encouraging students who have had an abortion to “work through their guilt” is highly upsetting.
    As Education and Welfare officer, it is Emmanuel’s job to ensure that students are able to go about their day without facing such distressing scenes. This isn’t about free speech, but decency.

  • Dominic

    Michael
    We make a lot of decisions in life. Usually, we work through the different options beforehand and decide upon the choice best suited to our situation at the time. From time to time, we later realise that we made the wrong decision. This is something we must face, however upsetting.
    It is not for anyone to try to run around ahead of us protecting us from such feelings arising, keeping anyone from saying anything that might be upsetting, making sure we see nothing that may stir the emotion.
    However, people often benefit from help and guidance through these difficult times. Ask any counsellor and they will not tell you that problems are best swept under the carpet.
    Therefore, for the team from Created4Life to be there as an obvious source of help and support must surely only be a good thing? I do not believe that the charity members were chasing women down the street shouting at them to “work through their guilt”, and so surely if the stand was there to be approached by anyone interested, it can only have a positive influence, as anyone not interested would simply walk past?
    Kind regards
    Dominic

  • Monte

    There is the same problem here in America. The universities are always proclaiming a right to freedom of speech. Of course, this only means the speech that they agree with. Also, Created4Life’s display seems very benign and non-threatening. It’s not as if they are screaming at people to see their exhibit or grabbing and forcing them without their consent to see their display. It comes down to the fact that the same people preaching tolerance, diversity, and freedom of speech are usually the same people not allowing any of that if it’s a side of an issue they disagree with. In the United States some groups show displays of aborted baby pictures which seems much more disturbing than what Created4Life is doing. But these groups have to be allowed on campuses here, despite protests by the administration and students. Aren’t the schools supposed to be a place where students expand their minds by acquiring as much information as possible about a certain issue.

  • Monte

    There is the same problem here in America. The universities are always proclaiming a right to freedom of speech. Of course, this only means the speech that they agree with. Also, Created4Life’s display seems very benign and non-threatening. It’s not as if they are screaming at people to see their exhibit or grabbing and forcing them without their consent to see their display. It comes down to the fact that the same people preaching tolerance, diversity, and freedom of speech are usually the same people not allowing any of that if it’s a side of an issue they disagree with. In the United States some groups show displays of aborted baby pictures which seems much more disturbing than what Created4Life is doing. But these groups have to be allowed on campuses here, despite protests by the administration and students. Aren’t the schools supposed to be a place where students expand their minds by acquiring as much information as possible about a certain issue.

  • Xandro

    This story is very disturbing. It really seems that freedom of speech is not universally recognised by certain members of the SU and only applies to certain views.
    How can people who want to save the killing of innocent children be insulted by such phrases as “espousing their filth”? And what is wrong about displaying foetuses? If anything, they should awake in us a feeling of pity for these small little helpless beings. I cannot understand how little models of foetuses can be seen as undescent.
    Also, I don’t think we should just try to avoid facing problems: just as pictures of the war in Gaza raise our awareness of the human tragedy happening there, models of foetuses which are a lot less disturbing, are supposed to raise our awareness of the human tragedy happening each time one of those innumerable unborn children is aborted.
    However, the main point is not whether abortion is good or bad, but simply that both sides of the argument should be given the right to be expressed.
    I am positively shocked by the behaviour of our Welfare Officer and would expect official apologies for such an outrageous and biased action.

  • Xandro

    This story is very disturbing. It really seems that freedom of speech is not universally recognised by certain members of the SU and only applies to certain views.
    How can people who want to save the killing of innocent children be insulted by such phrases as “espousing their filth”? And what is wrong about displaying foetuses? If anything, they should awake in us a feeling of pity for these small little helpless beings. I cannot understand how little models of foetuses can be seen as undescent.
    Also, I don’t think we should just try to avoid facing problems: just as pictures of the war in Gaza raise our awareness of the human tragedy happening there, models of foetuses which are a lot less disturbing, are supposed to raise our awareness of the human tragedy happening each time one of those innumerable unborn children is aborted.
    However, the main point is not whether abortion is good or bad, but simply that both sides of the argument should be given the right to be expressed.
    I am positively shocked by the behaviour of our Welfare Officer and would expect official apologies for such an outrageous and biased action.

  • John

    Where free speech is concerned, people are free to express their views and, subject to the law, in any way they see fit even if it offends. As a matter of fact, a lot of “offense” is manufactured in order to stop people saying what you don’t want them to say. There is nothing so illiberal as this kind of “liberalism”. When I was a student in the heady days of the Vietnam War in Australia, we said what we wanted to say and how we wanted to say it. true we sometimes went a bit over the top, but hey guys from the SU, lighten up. Good debate is good for the blood pressure!

  • anon

    Can i setpup a stall supporting displaying gruesum images of rape victims and then talk about counselling? Please, please please. Or about jihad and its benefits? Or a stall on how porno reduces rape ?

    If any of you think that these are offensive and think that these kinds of stalls should not be on campus, then COMPLAIN. Thats what happened here. The SU member took action basis a complain and not basis self wimps and fancies.

    It doesnt matter if your a charitable group or not, if you offend someone (student esp) then stop. If there were women who made the choice of an abortion walking on campus for a morning lecture and passing a pro-watever-life stall might not be the greatest sights especially since they are displaying dolls of the life that they have taken. How do you think those women felt, at that moment?

    It doesn’t matter if it was one hundred students or one student that complained. If some one was disturbed by it. then the supposed charitable organization failed to deliver its message in an appropriate manner.

    Wait can i open a stall without permission? if yes, JIHADI BENEFITS HERE I COME!! or wait PORNO REDUCE RAPE HERE I COME!!!

  • GC Student

    Bizarre. This type of behavior from a comparable official would never be accepted at an American university.

  • GC Student

    And, to anon: maybe you British people do things differently, but in the US there exists no inherent right to not be offended. It’s part of the bargain you accept when you leave your doorstep every morning.

  • GC MAN!

    Haha. It sounds like GC Student is having a little difficulty adjusting to a new life abroad. There is free counseling at LSE if you feel it might be helpful.

    It is quite humorous however, that an SU official finds it reasonable to petition a student group because he does not share the same opinions. For such a reputable international institution, LSE has some of the most close-minded students I’ve met.

  • Pingback: Antisemitism, Dissent, and the LSE « Automatic Ballpoint

  • silly beaver

    we reelected this douchebag too