GAP

During a stroll through the University’s Red Square yesterday I was confronted by something more than the usual charming architecture of the Suzzallo Library. A 20-foot colour image of a ten-day-old aborted foetus was omnipresent across the entire Square. Suffice to say that the looming presence of the image was causing a significant stir amongst passersby and was certainly a jolt to my otherwise carefree morning.

This ‘exhibit’ belonged to a protest group called the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP), whose proponents surrounded the image offering literature on abortion and seeking to engage people on the issue. It must be obvious to you from their provocative title and tactical approach that the group stands firmly against abortion rights.  It was my fleeting observation that the GAP representatives did not seem to be gaining much traction with those passing, despite the enormity of the visual assault.

I genuinely have no desire to turn this article into a debate on abortion but to simply register my reaction to the Genocide Awareness Project. This is because I believe the issue of abortion to be one fraught with emotive opinion and a deep complexity that it should be granted privilege from the parameters of a ‘typical’ public ethical debate. That is not to say that it is should be exempt from public discourse nor to imply that those wishing to advocate on any element of the issue should be censored.

I would wholeheartedly stress the importance of granting a dignified sensitivity to the issue that moves beyond inflammatory and pejorative rhetoric. Hence, I refuse to be drawn into any discussion whilst being assaulted by such an offensive image or in a forum such as a blog, when these principles are not embraced, guaranteed or respected. If I were to have engaged this group as a result of their ‘exhibit’, I cannot but help feel that I would have been complicit in their exploitive and divisive tactics.

The approach of the Genocide Awareness Project serves to only pollute debate by distastefully and grotesquely embracing the right to free speech whilst simultaneously disrespecting the very opportunity for debate and their responsibility to others under this powerful freedom. Strength of personal conviction is not excuse for the lack of common decency and respectful decorum.

In some respects I wish that these thoughts had formulated whilst I made my way across Red Square to class. Perhaps I would have made my opinion known in an expressive fashion to a member of the Genocide Awareness Project in the hope to make them aware of their wholly negative impact. But then I fear that the urge to move beyond a verbal confrontation to a more demonstrative representation of my feelings may have been too tempting. The University does after all have it’s own police force…