Bambi would like to begin by thanking her friend Charles for sharing this story.
Who is Rafael Zaki? For those who did not follow his story, he is a Manitoba medical student of Egyptian origins who expressed personal views on his Facebook page that were pro-life and pro-right of owning a gun in the United States.
His university claimed having received complaints about his social media and expelled him from university. It did so because of his “conscientious and religious-based beliefs”, to use his own words, as reported by Mr. Dylan Tyser from the National Post:
You can read the details about his story in the article above, if you wish. Bambi will just comment on the following points:
Abortion is a hot topic in North and South America, contrary to other parts of the world (e.g., Lebanon)., as explained in an earlier post (shown at this end of this one) in which she wrote that in her mind, “the choice of having children or not in life clearly belongs to the woman only… or first and foremost if there is a couple’s partner in the equation”.
This being said, for having grown up during a bloody civil war, Bambi is not fond of weapons. However, she can understand the importance of the topic of legal firearms for a large number of our American neighbours. Mind you, the latter is also important for our Canadian hunters, farmers, trappers, ranchers, target or recreational shooters, as well as collectors.
Keeping this in mind, Mr. Rafael Zaki, whose parents escaped to Canada from Egypt to find safety (being Orthodox Coptic) will now be able to graduate from medical school in 2022. Good for him!
As patients, we can simply avoid consulting him for our future abortions. We can seek the help of another colleague to get an abortion. It is called having a choice in life… and Bambi is pro-choice.
Mr. Zaki (the future Dr. Zaki, if he succeeds the rest of his program) deserves our respect for having had the courage to be true to his personal beliefs. Despite his youth, he did not fall in the trap of repeating what others say just to fit in, out of conformity, that is without a genuine conviction.
Without having read his essay, Bambi finds that Mr. Zaki may have expressed his opinion in a harsh or judgmental way (i.e., using words like murderous, etc.). Regardless and even if it seems odd for a physician-to-be to use such strong words, it is his right as a Canadian citizen to express such an opinion. Perhaps he simply meant to say that he does not even feel comfortable to refer patients to another colleague? And the onus is on the patient to find that physician? Could it be?
Anyhow, it is also Bambi’s right to clearly have an opposite opinion that is for women’s choice (wanting or not wanting children, resorting to an abortion or not, etc.).
Talking about life and death, in Bambi’s mind, she is clearly against death penalty in life to all, even to monsters like the Hitlers or Maos of our world or to other creatures, called human beings, living the Middle East.
The above comment may contrast with recent sentiments expressed by many citizens in Bambi’s birth country, following the surrealistic Beirut port explosion. The people of Lebanon are too fed up of those governing them (even without a government) that they are drawing scenes referring to capital punishment of political leaders on Beirut’s public walls. Of note, capital punishment is theoretically a legal option in Lebanon, even if no execution has been carried out for almost 20 years now (i.e., before the last one(s), many years passed without any execution).
To come back to Mr. Zaki, and of note, the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship (SAFS) has supported Mr. Zaki in the past. If you wish, you can read the SAFS President (Dr. Mark Mercer)’s letter about Mr. Rafael Zaki’s case here:
To conclude this post, today’s court ruling, is the SAFS victory too, not just Mr. Zaki’s victory. Most importantly, it is our collective victory, all of us, in Canada. Each time freedom survives its attacks in our country, we ALL win with it!
—
The National Post Article
Rafael Zaki said he was expelled for his conscientious and religious beliefs. The judge said the university appeared biased in its decision
“Zaki’s posts received 18 anonymous complaints to the university and he was brought in for meetings with top faculty members.”
It seems that the University of Manitoba overstepped its jurisdiction on these matters as it was none of their business to start with.
“Zaki’s posts received 18 anonymous complaints”
Anonymous complaints something creepy about that.
“He then made five attempts to write an apology letter regarding the posts, none of which were deemed satisfactory.”
So it was not about being offended and even if they were who cares.
It is clear that these complainants are just as or even more ideological in their views.
“no evidence of any personal exploration or self-examination”
No “self-criticism” so he is guilty of not having the right “ideology”. Not about his fundamental rights to be pro-life.
“The University Discipline Committee, the final appeal within the university, found that the Facebook posts were misogynistic and had a negative impact on the learning environment, Champagne wrote.”
Being pro-life does not mean he is a misogynist and no his Facebook posts do not negatively impact the learning environment at the University of Manitoba. Though Mr. Rafael Zaki would have a good case if he chose to sue the University of Manitoba for let’s say character assassination.
“Ken Champagne, the provincial judge in the case, found that there was a perception of bias and the university discipline system had failed to consider Zaki’s Charter rights to freedom of expression.
“The decision is quashed,” Champagne wrote, calling it “incorrect and unreasonable.”
The University Discipline Committee is “Not A State Within A State” and is a joke, besides they were just going through the motions, anyway, that is also clear. Of course, let’s not forget they did not have any jurisdiction in these matters to start with.
Truly abhorrent actions by a Canadian institute. Glad it’s been overturned in court, a glimpse of hope in rationality.
While I also disagree on the topics of abortion and gun control, I find it nuanced and fully respect other people’s opinions, including Mr. Zaki’s point of view.
I am not sure if it’s appropriate, but would like to raise a question to Bambi. Specifically, should the pregnant woman’s choice to abort override the father’s desire to have the child?
My initial opinion was that the woman’s opinion was enough. But then I met a friend whose girlfriend at the time got pregnant, but decided for abortion against his wishes. He was clearly affected by it, and got me thinking – the current process is skewed in favor of women.
Women get to chose when to abort, but they also get to reap alimony if they want the baby but the father does not. Win-win for women, while the father has pretty much no say in either case.
Wouldn’t it be fair to mandate agreement of both progenitors for abortion OR in case the woman makes a unilateral decision, then no alimony could be demanded from the father?
I believe this would balance the scale a little bit, but would definitely love to read Bambi’s thoughts on this topic.
Thank you Carlos for sharing your thoughtful comment!
Thanks also for challenging Bambi with your very interesting questions. Thank you also for sharing your friend’s story.
His story is actually so timely and here is why: Bambi loves to bike 30 minutes per day while watching the only program she has watched on TV for over maybe 3-4 years now. Well, it is a French sort of reality-based soap opera addressing social topics that occur in a neighbourhood in Marseilles (it is called “Plus Belle La Vie” or Life is more beautiful). One of the recent stories is about a young couple where the girlfriend had an abortion “behind” the back of her boyfriend, so to speak. The couple ended up breaking up over this, despite their love. Even if it is just a TV show, the story illustrates well the touchy and complex situation. Bambi felt for this young man (who happens to be grieving his own dad). What his girlfriend did was not right to him. She was suffering too (the pregnancy was not desired). However, she did not have the courage to tell him before her abortion. She made him face the fait accompli.
This fictional example is making Bambi think of your friend’s (sad) past story. Like this guy in the TV show, he was affected and this speaks volumes about his sensitivity and his principles in relationships. Perhaps it also speaks about his readiness to have a child at the time or values in life (personal or religiously-based or both). Bambi hopes he is in peace now and happy, whether single or in another relationship.
Bambi also agrees with you that there are many situations were men do not feel heard… worse respected.
Where do we draw the line between women’s rights (not to be taken for granted in life) and men’s rights too?
This brings Bambi to your last good question, which is the hardest of all :). Seriously, initially, the idea was to make sure women’s rights are protected (the pregnancy occurs in their own bodies…). Taking the decision of having an abortion or not is one of the most difficult ones in women’s lives (perhaps for some more than for others). In some cases, it is hard to know the identity of the father. In extreme cases, it can even due to rape. However, in other (maybe most cases?), it is is within a relationship whether a short-term one or a longer-term one. The ideal would be to discuss all this before having a sexual relationship. What protection or method of contraception, and what to do if she gets pregnant? That would be the ideal scenario in life that would perhaps let the men’s voices be heard. So to repeat your question, “wouldn’t be fair to mandate agreement of both progenitors for abortion”? Bambi will not answer as she does not have an answer for that. Her answer would be let’s invite men to those debates about abortion to begin with. It would be a space where they can talk and where hopefully we will know how to listen. As for the alimony… Mmm, that may be a stretch maybe. If you have arguments for it, Bambi will be happy to hear from you and learn.
Mind you, sometimes conversations are difficult not just for abortion, but also for decisions to try to have a child after a loss. Bambi does not mind sharing the following: Her spouse and her had three recurrent miscarriages. He may have perhaps wished to try one more time. After all, they have been naturally fertile despite the natural losses. Given her age and knowing her own limits in life, for her the third grief was the last she wanted to risk having telling herself that her own sanity matters more (had she been younger, perhaps it would have been another story). If Bambi shared the latter is to highlight once again the importance of communication in a couple. Talking honestly. Listening to one another, even if each has own rhythm. Bambi will also say that even if she is pro-choice, she is personally happy because she did not have to have an abortion in her life. She is saying so, especially after the three recurrent pregnancy losses.
To conclude, in Bambi’s mind, direct communication is a sign of respect and it goes both ways. Men and fathers deserve our respect. We sometimes tend to forget about them… even in the scientific literature. On one hand, women have historically participated more in studies in the field of perinatal health. Perhaps it is still more difficult to recruit men as research participants, even if things are changing.