Serious questions must now be asked of the AUSA President and Executive

On July 18, 2012, in Blog, by The Radical Feminist

Earlier today Auckland University students voted 227 to 125 to quash the attempted disaffiliation of student club Prolife Auckland (and yes, it is definitely concerning that 125 students voted against freedom of expression on a university campus).

Now that this attempt to quash freedom of expression at Auckland University has been put to bed it is time to ask some serious questions about how such an unjust act was even allowed to happen in the first place.

So, in no particular order, here are some questions that I think need further exploration and discussion:

How were the official mechanisms of AUSA Executive so easily able to be hijacked and used to try and deny a group of students the right to freedom of expression?

Why did the AUSA Executive never even speak to Prolife Auckland, or invite them to address the AUSA Executive before ruling on this matter?

Why did the AUSA Executive hold their deliberations on this matter in secret?

Why do the official AUSA Executive minutes appear to show that the AUSA never actually tabled the Right to Know pamphlet, or the solitary anonymous email complaint against it at their meeting to discuss this matter?

Once they made their ruling, why did the AUSA Executive not actually contact Prolife Auckland to tell them that their official club status was going to be the subject of a vote at a Special General Meeting (SGM)?

Why did Arena Williams, President of the AUSA, ask for $200 of AUSA money to be spent on promoting this attempt to disaffiliate a student club, and why was her request approved?

Why did Arena Williams, President of the AUSA, refuse to tell journalists, when asked, which information in the Right to Know pamphlet was “harmful misinformation” even though this was the very reason for the SGM?

Why hasn’t Arena Williams, or any other member of the AUSA Executive, taken up my offer of $100 cash if they can prove that the Right to Know pamphlet contains content that is either ‘harmful’ or ‘misinformation’ as they claim it is?

And most importantly of all…

How was the AUSA Executive able to hold an SGM on the grounds of spreading harmful misinformation when it has been shown that the Right to Know pamphlet at the centre of this allegation contains no information that can be classed as either false or dangerous?

No matter how they now might try to fudge and spin their way out of this incident, there is no doubting that Arena Williams and the AUSA Executive have some serious questions to answer about why they instigated this shameful act of bullying and harassment against a group of their fellow students, and why they did so based on grounds that are patently false.

About the author

The Radical Feminist

My feminism is so radical it'll blow your mind!

Visit Authors Website

http://www.facebook.com/alistair.young1 Alistair Young

I think it was 227 – 125 (as opposed to 247 above).
http://straightupsocialist.blogspot.com/ KJ

Stop trying to play the victim, we thoroughly refuted the claims that it was about free speech. In order to remain affiliated your ‘secular’ pro life group had to call on damn near every single religious group on campus to come and stack the meeting. We had also prepared a thorough refutation of the medical information in the pamphlet but the postgraduate public health student that had done the research wasn’t able to speak. We’ll be trying to get that information printed and distributed within the week.
- Rowena
  
  KJ,
  
  Let’s for the sake of argument agree with your assertion that the Right to Know campaign did contain wrong information.
  
  It still does not explain or reconcile the woeful behaviour of Arena Williams and the AUSU exec.
  
  Where was constitutional procedure? Where was the adage ‘innocent until proven guilty’? Are we to take your word for it that the campaign was misinformed, or wait for the AUSA to produce some abesentee postgrad expert at a public forum?
  
  A SGM to deaffiliate ProLife Auckland is not the appropriate place to refute a pamphlet, if no effort had been taken to officially do so before.
  
  It would seem that, given the fact that the AUSA attempt to deaffiliate PLAuckland has been so abysmally executed, this has less to do with protecting women and more with your own ideology.
- Geofrey Rainey
  
  Oh don’t get excited at the “like” of your post, it was an error due to the size of my fingers on this stupid iPhone’s keypad. What I wanted to do was comment at your appalling and discriminatory actions toward this group while encouraging the consumption of pigs eyes, nudity, and other filth. Frankly, you’re all a bunch of damned fools too stupid to recognize proper moral conduct.
  - Emma
    
    “Proper moral conduct?” What? Look I’m an UoA student who is undecided and didn’t vote in this but that kinda of statement puts me off anything at all to do with prolife Auckland. That kind of assumption of you holding a higher moral ground than other people is pretty disgusting. Also what’s wrong with nudity?!
    - Rowena
      
      Hi Emma, I don’t represent ProLife Auckland but I’m pretty certain that Geofrey Rainey doesn’t either. The views, language, etc which he expresses are strictly his own. Remember, anyone can post on the internet!
    - Geofrey Rainey
      
      You espouse a kind of repressive tolerance it seems; namely that it is unacceptable for me criticize the views of AUSA on this matter but acceptable for you to criticize mine, unfortunately not an uncommon hypocrisy today.
      
      There’s no assumption, it is self evident that one who holds the murder of the unborn to be immoral is of far superior moral certitude to those that do not.
      - JR
        
        Troll.
- JR
  
  Are you serious? I have nothing to do with ProLife, but I cannot believe that a SGM was called to disaffiliate the club, with $200 of AUSA money being used to do so. There were 3 major problems with calling the SGM.
  
  First, the allegations had not been substantiated. We can talk all we want about possible misinformation, but unless it is proven, allegations amount to nothing. It wasn’t for ProLife to prove the information wasn’t misinformation; it was up to you to prove that it was information. As you admit, that was not done.
  
  Secondly, even if we put aside the serious issue of a SGM being called on pure allegations, there is a clear breach of the right to due process. The right to natural justice is recognised in NZ as a fundamental human right. How the right breached? In two ways:
  (A) ProLife were never informed of the allegations.
  (B) ProLife never had an opportunity to contradict the allegations.
  
  Even assuming the ProLife had spread misinformation, it is indefensible to deny a fundamental human right in dealing with the complaint. It is also undeniably hypocritical; it is rather difficult to complain about ProLife’s misconduct if we ourselves go forth and breach fundamental human rights when dealing with the club. Are we not then just as bad, if not even worse, as we have committed hypocrisy as well?
  
  Thirdly, even if we assume ProLife was guilty of spreading misinformation, and we also assume that there was not a clear breach of natural justice, is not calling an SGM a total over-reaction? As that disabled man speaking for ProLife pointed out, several other clubs have made similar errors in the past. No SGM was called for those clubs. Ought there have been an SGM called? Of course not.
  
  There seemed to be a false dilemma created; either ProLife be disaffliated, or Prolife remains. Nothing in between. No other options to consider. Rubbish! Let’s say ProLife was found to have spread misinformation, as per the accusation. Well, that’s misinformation, not disinformation. So why not have them do several things:
  (A) Make a public apology for their error
  (B) Commit to taking much greater care in future
  (C) Distribute another flyer, which again apologises, and clearly states what was wrong in their first flyer. They admit to their error, and provide the correct information instead. Have them distribute this new flyer to the same extent as last time. If that doesn’t satisfy the complainants, have them distribute the flyer twice as much as last time.
  
  So, even if we assume ProLife was guilty of spreading misinformation, and we also
  assume that there was not a clear breach of natural justice, calling an SGM to disaffliate them is a poor reaction when no other options have been explored.
  
  But, but that assumes that there was not a clear breach of natural justice, which there irrefutably was, and it also assumes that ProLife was guilty of allegations (which were never proven).
  
  Ultimately:
  (1) The allegations had not been substantiated, as you admit, so the SGM should never have been called.
  (2) Even assuming the ProLife had spread misinformation, it is indefensible
  to deny a fundamental human right in dealing with the complaint.
  (3) Even if (1) and (2) didn’t exist, the idea that ProLife either be disaffliated or remain is a false dilemma.
  
  No matter way the cake is cut, the SGM should never have even been called.
Pingback: Generations for Life » Blog Archive » Don’t Take Free Speech for Granted