University - Free Speech - Restricted and discrimination for those that differ -

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
University - Free Speech - Restricted and discrimination for those that differ -

Universities were at one time a bastion of Free Speech - Yet in the past few decades that is no longer true at many universities.

If you have Left Wing beliefs - Free Speech is protected - Right Wing including Anti Abortion - Pro Israel - Then you are silenced, funds are cut off for University Clubs, Denial of Free Speech - Billed for Security Costs by the University - When you are not the problem. That is a clear failure for the University to act upon violence or threats of violence committed by Students or person from off-campus - Any less than that is pure discrimination.

It is clear that speech is free as long as you toe the Party Line.

Carleton student association bans anti-abortion club

http://www.nationalpost.com/Carleton+anti+abortion+group+have+student+club+funding/3837384/story.html
On Monday, Carleton Lifeline, an anti-abortion group, was told by CUSA, the Carleton University Student Association, that it was in violation of CUSA’s anti-discrimination policy.

The letter noted that Carleton Lifeline believes in the “equal rights of the unborn and firmly believes that abortion is a moral and legal wrong,” wrote Khaldoon Buhnaq of CUSA.

Therefore, because of CUSA’s commitment to choice, Carleton Lifeline can no longer promote activities on campus or even lobby in any way that would go against a pro-choice position.

“It is ironic that they support choice and do not see that they not having an abortion is a choice,” said Ruth Lobo, president of Carleton Lifeline.

The group’s lawyer, Albertos Polizogopoulos, said the CUSA decision “was appalling” as it violates the basic right to free speech. He and his clients are now considering possible legal action.

The CUSA letter does offer Carleton Lifeline a way out:

“We invite you to amend your constitution to create one that respects our anti-discrimination policy as laid out above. If you are able to resubmit a constitution that meets our criteria by Thursday, November 18th we will be able to certify your club for this semester.”

Point - So if the give up their personal / religious /moral beliefs then and only then will they receive funding.

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/canadian-university-bans-israeli-apartheid-week/

Check the above link out and then ask - Is this Hate the Jew

http://terroroncampus.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/apartheid_week_poster.jpg?w=300&h=464&h=464

Jewish Students Brace For Israeli Apartheid Week | Canada | Epoch Times

Pure Hatred and Anti Semitism under the guise of Anti-Apartheid Week. Or as I call it - Hate the Jew

There are concerns that the tensions on some university campuses—where pro-Palestinian activists have already had run-ins with students who support Israel—could worsen during the week.

A near-riot in mid-February at Toronto’s York University necessitated police intervention to escort Jewish students to safety. An angry mob of about 100 pro-Palestinian activists began banging on the glass doors of York’s Jewish student club Hillel, shouting racial slurs at the students inside.

“I was called a dirty f---ing Jew,” says Daniel Ferman, president of Hillel at York and one of the besieged students.

Ferman says an “environment of intimidation” exists on campuses for Jewish students in general these days but especially during IAW, and that the event does nothing to foster “civil discourse and dialogue.”

“This type of anti-Israel sentiment leads only to threats, harassment and intimidation. The reality is that true academic freedoms can’t exist in this atmosphere. There’s no discussion or debate—it’s one side attempting to scare and bully the other.”

The Canadian Federation of Jewish Students (CFJS) says there has also been “alarming growth” on campuses across Canada of bullying and intimidation of students who show support for Israel.

CFJS held a press conference last Thursday in Toronto to call attention to what they call “a toxic and frightening atmosphere in which Jewish students fear for their safety.”

“Tensions have increased since the operations in Gaza,” says Ferman. “It’s rough on the student community as a whole

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/02/13/matt-gurney-anti-semitism-at-york-university.aspx

The crowd followed them. Banging on walls and floors, shouting profane, anti-Semitic slurs (I stress anti-Semitic, not "merely" anti-Israeli), they trapped the students inside the Hillel office. Campus security proved typically useless, and Toronto Police were summoned. Reportedly concerned with the possibility of violence, they escorted approximately 20 students out of the office to safety, through the smugly cheering, chanting crowd. While the police observed nothing warranting an arrest, they should be praised for taking moderate action appropriate to the situation. Indeed, the timely and professional conduct of the police might be the only bright spot in what is a very gloomy story.

Now I am not a fan of Volpe.

Universities ?hotbeds of anti-Israel activity?: MP


Canadian universities have become “hotbeds of anti-Israel activity” where Jewish students face intimidation, a Toronto MP told the House of Commons on Tuesday.

Joe Volpe — whose Toronto riding is home to the rabbi at the centre of a public row with York University — said “anti-Semitism cannot be tolerated, especially under the cloak of free speech.” The Liberal MP condemned the university, which has since requested a meeting with the rabbi, for what he called a “dreadful way to deal with those who oppose hatred.”

Last week, the National Post first reported that York University issued a letter to Rabbi Aaron Hoch, warning him he could face legal action if he continued to spread “defamatory” remarks about the school’s president and did not stop encouraging non-students to protest former British MP George Galloway’s speech on-campus.


POINT

Imagine that. A University warning of legal action for protesting George Galloway. That person should be removed from their position.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
Keep it to yourself say the PC people.
Unless of course you agree with them, then they'll let you say whatever you want. In general I agree with the sentiments expressed here so far, and unfortunately it's not just a recent phenomenon, I've been seeing it all my adult life, and I'm 61. There have always been people who are so sure they're right they won't tolerate dissent and think they're entitled to repress it. Before I retired from the workaday world I fought those a$$holes every day of my life. And won once; I managed to shut down a committee that was so sunk in avoiding offending anyone it was paralyzed into futility. It deserved to die and I killed it. I still count that as one of the high points of my professional life.

Couple of recent cases in Canada really pissed me off. Ann Coulter prevented from speaking, and George Galloway prevented from even entering the country. I disagree strongly with almost everything I've ever read or heard of either of them saying, but dammit, if free speech means anything, it means you have to let the people you disagree with speak. You don't shut them down, you dispute with them, and if you can't make your case against theirs, you deserve to lose, because that means you haven't done your homework.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Unless of course you agree with them, then they'll let you say whatever you want. In general I agree with the sentiments expressed here so far, and unfortunately it's not just a recent phenomenon, I've been seeing it all my adult life, and I'm 61. There have always been people who are so sure they're right they won't tolerate dissent and think they're entitled to repress it. Before I retired from the workaday world I fought those a$$holes every day of my life. And won once; I managed to shut down a committee that was so sunk in avoiding offending anyone it was paralyzed into futility. It deserved to die and I killed it. I still count that as one of the high points of my professional life.

Couple of recent cases in Canada really pissed me off. Ann Coulter prevented from speaking, and George Galloway prevented from even entering the country. I disagree strongly with almost everything I've ever read or heard of either of them saying, but dammit, if free speech means anything, it means you have to let the people you disagree with speak. You don't shut them down, you dispute with them, and if you can't make your case against theirs, you deserve to lose, because that means you haven't done your homework.

Well Dex that is as good a post as i have seen in a long time. i despise both, Coulter and Galoway but Free Speech is one of the basics that hold or are used to build, maintain and expand a democracy.

Some would say freedom from arbitrary arrest, seizure of assets and on and on with this or that right.. Those actions mentioned are what happens when Free Speech is silenced and when it is the previous is what does occur..

And in Canada it is being silenced. By left wing and right wing zealots.
 

Skatchie

Time Out
Sep 24, 2010
312
0
16
40
Assiniboia
I was just talking about this very thing in AGW scam thread. It's nice to see it making the mainstream. There is no science or any real debate anymore. That much is obvious.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
I was just talking about this very thing in AGW scam thread. It's nice to see it making the mainstream. There is no science or any real debate anymore. That much is obvious.

As Stascream mentioned - The whole freaking world is locked into the PC Act - and that is all it is an Act - These people then with their friends will take an opossing view of the so called PC position - Shallow people.
 

Skatchie

Time Out
Sep 24, 2010
312
0
16
40
Assiniboia
As Stascream mentioned - The whole freaking world is locked into the PC Act - and that is all it is an Act - These people then with their friends will take an opossing view of the so called PC position - Shallow people.

The debate is necessary though. Look at what happens when there is no debate. Look at 9/11 truth. Because all they ever do is throw out "tin foil hat" comments and accuse the idea of it being an inside job as the opinion of an anti american the 9/11 truth movement gains momentum. If they had real substantive debates they could have quashed it, although they actually wouldn't have because they'd hav elost the debates but that's another story.
 

Ariadne

Council Member
Aug 7, 2006
2,432
8
38
One group claims that women should choose the best option for them. The other group says that there is no choice, that it is immoral to terminate a pregnancy. I don't see the problem in silencing a group that tries to impose their values on others. It's all about respecting the autonomy of others.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Since student associations are intended to be organisations representative of the student body-at-large, it isn't inappropriate to suggest that clubs (which are, under most university structures, subordinate to the student association) should manage themselves within the guidelines set by the said student association. Moreover, we may not have the entire story here--was this anti-abortion "club" staging protests that were making women feel pressured or devalued?
 

Starscream

Electoral Member
May 23, 2008
201
2
18
Somewhere, someplace
Dex, I agree to your reply to my post. I've heard some of the things (though not all) that Coulter and Galloway and I too disagree with their stance, but as Free Speech goes (if free speech still exists) they are entitled to their opinions and views just as I or you are.

From what I have seen and experienced in my life I really believe that Free Speech is gone and dead. However, Free Speech still exists and is still a right as long as you agree with PC. My veiw of it anyway.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
One group claims that women should choose the best option for them. The other group says that there is no choice, that it is immoral to terminate a pregnancy. I don't see the problem in silencing a group that tries to impose their values on others. It's all about respecting the autonomy of others.


No, one group says it's ok to murder an unborn child for whatever selfish reasons a "woman" may have and the other says that there are other options beyond murder.

Since student associations are intended to be organisations representative of the student body-at-large, it isn't inappropriate to suggest that clubs (which are, under most university structures, subordinate to the student association) should manage themselves within the guidelines set by the said student association. Moreover, we may not have the entire story here--was this anti-abortion "club" staging protests that were making women feel pressured or devalued?


gee.....I wonder how oit would have gone over if a "gay support group" had been shut down because they made some hetro's "uncomfortable".
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
I don't see the problem in silencing a group that tries to impose their values on others. It's all about respecting the autonomy of others.
But silencing them isn't respecting their autonomy, that's the wrong approach. They're entitled to their opinions and entitled to express them, but that isn't the same as imposing their values on others who don't share them. That's what to stop, not the expression of opinion. I agree there has to be a line drawn somewhere, but we have to carefully choose where to draw it, and it's seldom easy or obvious. No matter where we draw it, somebody's going to be unhappy and will feel imposed upon. That's really why we need to hear all the opinions.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
The debate is necessary though. Look at what happens when there is no debate. Look at 9/11 truth. Because all they ever do is throw out "tin foil hat" comments and accuse the idea of it being an inside job as the opinion of an anti american the 9/11 truth movement gains momentum. If they had real substantive debates they could have quashed it, although they actually wouldn't have because they'd hav elost the debates but that's another story.

Funny you should mention that - What is your opinion on this Baby of Waste???

University of Lethbridge pays student $7,714 to pursue 9/11 conspiracy theories | Full Comment | National Post
 

Ariadne

Council Member
Aug 7, 2006
2,432
8
38
But silencing them isn't respecting their autonomy, that's the wrong approach. They're entitled to their opinions and entitled to express them, but that isn't the same as imposing their values on others who don't share them. That's what to stop, not the expression of opinion. I agree there has to be a line drawn somewhere, but we have to carefully choose where to draw it, and it's seldom easy or obvious. No matter where we draw it, somebody's going to be unhappy and will feel imposed upon. That's really why we need to hear all the opinions.

I was looking at the two views. One view says that women should be free to make the best decision for themselves regarding whether a pregnancy is viable within the big picture. The other view says that if women choose to not see a pregnancy to term, they are immoral - thus imposing negative values on those that want choice.

The view that gives women the right to choose what is best within their circumstances - be they familial, financial, personal, or health related - respects the woman's autonomy. The view that women that choose to terminate a pregnancy are immoral is to have their autonomy compromised, as they are negatively judged for making the best choice available to them.

People that are not in favour of abortion as a choice are entitled to their beliefs, but I do not think that they should have the right to impose those beliefs on others by displaying images of fetuses, or by attempting to influence public perception about that choice.

I think another point that should be considered is that abortion can be an extremely difficult decision for some women, but that they make the decision because it is the only choice that they can see without experiencing extreme hardship. Many women, after having an abortion, experience guilt and struggle to come to terms with their decision in spite of it being the best decision at the time. Those are the women that would suffer the most with exposure to anti-abortion propaganda and implications of immoral or unethical actions. Women's feelings about abortion align somewhat with women's feelings about miscarriage. Some women mourn a miscarriage for years, some women mourn an abortion for years ... others view miscarriage as nature way, and abortion as a simple medical procedure to terminate unwanted cell division.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Technically they weren't silenced...the Student Association told them to redraft their club Constitution to one which satisfies the existing Constitution that governs the Student Union activities. The Student Union isn't required to give money to any group that wants to meet on campus either. Not funding a club is not the same thing as silencing people's opinions.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Technically they weren't silenced...the Student Association told them to redraft their club Constitution to one which satisfies the existing Constitution that governs the Student Union activities. The Student Union isn't required to give money to any group that wants to meet on campus either. Not funding a club is not the same thing as silencing people's opinions.

Did you read what they had to change in their Constitution? Is that required change a technicality??
 

Ariadne

Council Member
Aug 7, 2006
2,432
8
38
It looks like this is the clause that is problematic: “equal rights of the unborn and firmly believes that abortion is a moral and legal wrong,” as it is a belief that conflicts with Canadian law and imposes negative connotations on choice. It is clearly not a "legal wrong" to have an abortion, and the statement attempts to influence choice.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Did you read what they had to change in their Constitution? Is that required change a technicality??

Yes I did, and yes it is. The technicality relating to free speech though, is that they haven't been silenced. Not funding a group does not equal silencing them. Silencing someone is an act, and the decision against funding a group is not an act that silences. An opinion or your voice is not dependent on money from the Student Union....

ETA: The legal team this group has could have revised the groups constitution for them easilly. That is what lawyers are good at...legalese is their native tongue.