On Jan. 28, 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada released its judgment in the case of R. vs. Morgentaler, which struck down the abortion provision in the Criminal Code. As a result, Canada became the only Western nation with no abortion law -- a situation that persists to this day. This week, National Post writers will be looking at the legacy of R. vs. Morgentaler. In today's third instalment, Lorne Gunter looks at some of the barriers to free expression now faced by pro-life advocates.

Pro-lifers' freedoms are under attack, particularly on our college and university campuses. Their freedom of speech is threatened by campus speech codes, and many of their clubs have been denied official status. Not only does that mean they receive no students' union funding (something, actually, they should be proud of ), more damagingly it prevents them even from tacking up posters, handing out pamphlets, setting up displays and holding their meetings on campus.

Perhaps the worst incident of violence against pro-lifers came in late 1999 when three officers of the University of British Columbia's Alma Mater Society (AMS) -- the UBC equivalent of a students' union -- were caught on video ripping up posters at a Students for Life display, overturning the tables and stomping pamphlets into the ground.

Despite the evidence against the trio, a majority on the AMS Council refused to send the three to student court, a decision later upheld by a majority of students at the AMS's annual general meeting.

I was reminded of this justice-by-show-of-hands farce last week when the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) dismissed a complaint brought against the UBC-Okanagan students' association for refusing club status to another branch of Students for Life.

As part of her justification for dismissing the complaint, BCHRT investigator Barbara Humphreys cited a general meeting of UBCO students in November, 2006, at which a majority voted against permitting a pro-life club. Council had been unable to decide what to do, so they deferred to a student assembly that voted down the application.

But put the shoe on the other foot. Imagine if it were a pro-choice club seeking approval and a majority of students voted "no." Does anyone imagine a human rights investigator claiming such a vote as partial justification for refusing even to hear the pro-choicers' grievance? Of course not.

Still, it's amazing in Canada how what's sauce for the goose is seldom also sauce for the gander.

Recall three years ago when Parliament was considering same-sex marriage. Opponents were repeatedly told it didn't matter that a majority of Canadians were against the move, human rights could not be made subject to the will of the majority.

And two years ago, when the Tory government proposed reopening the same-sex debate, perhaps even holding a national referendum, all those in the know shrieked that no minority's rights could be subject to the whim of the majority. And they were right.

So where are these same guardians of rights and free speech on the UBCO case?

I think the pro-lifers' case at the UBCO campus was particularly weak. It rested on their argument that they had been denied club status because of religious discrimination when, indeed, they and their views were affiliated with no particular religion or denomination. Moreover, the student council had approved several overtly Christian clubs.

What the UBCO pro-lifers are is victims of political or ideological discrimination-- not religious.

At Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ont., at Memorial University in Newfoundland, Carleton in Ottawa, Capilano College in North Vancouver and a score of other campuses around the country, the story is the same: Students' Union or university administrators claiming to be supporters of diversity, tolerance and choice come up short when asked to support choices and views with which they disagree.

Speech codes are applied selectively. Shout-downs and boycotts are tolerated only against politically incorrect speakers, not against those from favoured special interests.

The UBCO students' union justified its rejection of Students for Life in part because "a number of students stated ? they had been offended by the methods and materials used by SFL to promote its views."

Freedom of speech is not just the right to say nice things acceptable to the majority. Indeed it most especially must include the right to offend. Otherwise, it is merely a privilege doled out at the whim of apparatchiks such as Ms. Humphreys.

All that said, I have some advice for the pro-life side. And I will end my column by giving it.

I have read scores of anti-abortion pamphlets of the kind given out by campus pro-lifers, and while I passionately defend their right to distribute them, I have a friendly word of advice: Get new tactics.

Your efforts to use graphic photos of mutilated fetuses and claims of "genocide" aren't winning you any mainstream supporters.

Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive