Dear Friend,
In 2019, a Christian student was expelled from the University of Manitoba’s College of Medicine for expressing his opposition to abortion on his personal Facebook page.
The college received 18 anonymous complaints about what the medical student wrote. This led the university to launch an investigation into his conduct. When the medical student was made aware of these complaints, he promptly removed the posts from his Facebook page and agreed to apologize to his classmates for having offended them.
However, his numerous attempts to apologize were all rejected. They were deemed to be insufficient and unsatisfactory because he refused to change his views on abortion. He was told: “It is not clear to us that you have had any change in your opinion on sensitive topics.”
The University Discipline Committee (UDC) Panel found him guilty of non-academic misconduct and expelled him. He appealed the ruling twice but failed to get the decision overturned. In arguing strongly for the rights of unborn children (by equating abortion with murder, for example), his Facebook post was judged to be “misogynistic and hostile to women” and to have “a negative impact on the learning and work environment.” He was told he would have to recant his views on abortion if he wanted to continue with medical school.
In 2020, the student took his case to the Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba. He told the court, “Being a Christian is the very essence of my being. I cannot be separated from my faith."
He won. In 2021, the court ruled that the discipline process was biased, unreasonable and failed to take the student’s
Charter rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression into account. The university was ordered to re-evaluate his case through a
Charter lens.
However, after the case was re-evaluated, again by the UDC Panel, he was expelled again. The committee ruled that the student engaged in unprofessional conduct by posting his pro-life views and that this outweighed his
Charter right to freedom of expression.
The student is appealing the decision, this time in Manitoba’s Court of Appeal. He is arguing that the bias remained in the re-evaluation process. The Court has agreed to hear the case.
No Canadian should ever be silenced or compelled to deny their sincerely held beliefs in order to avoid professional sanctions or discipline. Our
Charter guarantees the freedoms of religion, conscience, thought, belief, opinion and expression for all Canadians. These freedoms must be respected and upheld, even when the views expressed are unpopular or controversial.
We live in a vibrant multicultural and multi-faith society, with a diversity of beliefs and opinions. This diversity means we will not always share similar views or attitudes on many hot-button issues. Healthy discussion and debate of ideas, beliefs and policy is what strengthens us as a free and democratic society.
The EFC is seeking intervener status in this case. We believe and publicly affirm that life is a gift from God for us to respect and protect through all its stages, from conception to natural death. Each person’s life has inherent worth because we are all made in the image of God and are loved by him. Based on this belief, the EFC supports rights for the unborn and opposes abortion. In this regard, I’m proud to say that the EFC has a long track record of public advocacy against abortion.
If the EFC is granted intervener status, we will defend the fundamental freedoms of religion, belief and expression, for the sake of
all Canadians. We want the best ideas to prevail – and not to be shut down – on fundamental issues that are important to all.
Should merely holding certain moral views be sufficient grounds for barring someone from attending university or from pursuing certain studies? Should a university have the right to impose academic discipline on the basis of students’ non-academic social media posts, e-mails, texts or web pages? Will personal opinions shared in private conversations or letters be subject to formal scrutiny, too?
Beyond the threats to freedom of thought, opinion and belief, this case will also test the extent to which professionals might suffer discrimination or expulsion just for
holding certain views. Increasingly, individuals pursuing careers in health care, law, or education are facing backlash for holding the minority view on moral issues that disagree with popular opinion.
As always, your prayers and financial gifts in support of the EFC are greatly appreciated, especially as we seek legal intervention status in this case. We thank God for you and your partnership in our Kingdom work!
Dr. David Guretzki
President & CEO