By Cameron CôtéHaving recently received the BC Supreme Court decision involving myself, together with the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) versus the University of Victoria (UVic) and the University of Victoria Students' Society (UVSS) that stated UVic is not subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it comes to which groups they decide to allow to share their message, I've been asked a few times now if it is exciting to be involved with such a prominent and essential court case. For some reason they are surprised when I say I'm not excited at all.While some may find it exciting to be in the middle of a controversial court case that may very well end up in the Supreme Court of Canada and have implications for generations of university students to come, I am decidedly not enthusiastic about my predicament for the very simple reason that no student holding the pro-life view should ever have fight in the court of law to have their basic right to freedom of speech and expression ensured.On January 31st, 2013 when I first received the call from Mr. Jim Dunsdon informing me that UVic had revoked it's approval for our “Choice” Chain event scheduled for the next day, I was blown away that a university would even consider participating in such censorship, especially because of pressure applied by the UVSS, whose position and past censorship of the pro-life club had been discussed by myself and Mr. Dunsdon on numerous occasions. Though initially optimistic that UVic would see their error in directly violating the club's right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it soon became clear that I was actually going to have to take UVic to court for them to recognize their responsibility to uphold my rights and the rights of all university students. And now this.A case that many (myself included) considered to be so clear that it could only possibly go one direction, has turned into a case that is only just beginning, signalling to university students across the country that their rights may not be as safe as they thought. Their university might actually have the right to decide whether or not their specific message is compatible with their university's commitment to foster an environment of debate and discussion. Maybe I would be excited if I was in a case that seemed like a great opportunity to expand the freedom or justice in our nation. But as it is, I'm in a case that is trying to prove that universities can't pick and choose at a moment's notice who gets to share their views on campus, and that does not have me excited in the least.