With transportation and digital communication, the size of the earth continues to shrink. And as more and more groups from different social, ethnic and cultural backgrounds are exposed to each other with a frequency unimaginable even a generation ago, it is becoming increasingly clear that we need now more than ever to band together in love, not divide in anger. You know, ‘love your neighbor.” I think that’s in the Bible somewhere?

So in order to be accommodating to all persons, the logical step seems to me to encourage an environment of tolerance. I don’t mean an outdated definition of tolerance like, “a permissive attitude towards those different from oneself.” No, friends, to even believe that someone’s view is such that it needs to be tolerated rather than accepted is the height of arrogance and is the very definition of the intolerance that we must eliminate! And by any means necessary.

No, viewpoints that seek to diminish the status of others must not be tolerated. Intolerance must be stamped out. (Note—this is not intolerance because we are seeking to encourage tolerance…) Our friendly hockey fans up north know exactly what it is I am talking aboot:

In response to a series of controversies over abortion debates on Canadian campuses, the student government of York University in Toronto has tabled an outright ban on student clubs that are opposed to abortion.

Gilary Massa, vice-president external of the York Federation of Students, said student clubs will be free to discuss abortion in student space, as long as they do it “within a pro-choice realm,” and that all clubs will be investigated to ensure compliance.

“You have to recognize that a woman has a choice over her own body,” Ms. Massa said. “We think that these pro-life, these anti-choice groups, they’re sexist in nature … The way that they speak about women who decide to have abortions is demoralizing. They call them murderers, all of them do … Is this an issue of free speech? No, this is an issue of women’s rights.”

Hopefully you noticed my sarcasm above.

Look at that last line, “Is this an issue of free speech? No, this is an issue of women’s rights.” Translation: We only value free speech when the speaker agrees with us. Though apparently, this really isn’t an issue of women’s rights either. While women obviously ought be allowed to kill their children without being criticized, a woman is not allowed to use her body to disagree with choice.

Let’s be serious for just a minute. This isn’t about the right to control one’s own body. I never heard much of a fuss over South Carolina prohibiting tattoos, nor did civil rights groups raise their needles in celebration when the ban was recently lifted.

What about alcohol? I think there are still about 20 states that have numerous “dry” counties where the sale/purchase of alcohol is not allowed. Isn’t that an autonomy issue? Where is the outcry?

And back:

Ms. Massa said the new policy would not apply to religious groups that may be opposed to abortion on doctrinal grounds. Rather, it was focused on groups, whether student or external, “whose sole purpose is to provide the anti-choice side.”

That is very kind of her to make exemptions for those “religious” people, but does anyone else see the irony in banning “anti-choice” groups? I suppose “choice” really isn’t the issue either.

This kind of thing isn’t far off in America, and in California specifically, but I wonder how long it is until it actually becomes illegal to object to abortion.