Coulter speech cancelled because of protestors

[crazy canuck]

There is a growing trend in Canadian university student bodies of intolerance to opposing views.  For example Canadian universities (particularly in Ontario and Quebec) have had considerable problems whenever pro Israeli speakers are scheduled.  Many times these events also have to be cancelled because of large protests.

AFAIK, one particular university in Montreal, namely Concordia, one of the two english universities there.

Thats right.  I was tyring to remember the name.

[Martinus]

Academic freedom is not "freedom to spew any idiocy no matter how baseless or retarded". Paul Cameron is a great example of this. His "findings" about homosexuality have been slammed by pretty much every scientific body or organization, because his "method" is completely faulty and unacceptable. This "academic freedom" you are advocating is like giving a fair hearing to a supporter of homeopathy and healing crystals at a serious medical conference.

Red some of her quotes. There is not a shred of "political debate" in this blather:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter

Why are you spreading the speech of someone who so obviously should be censored?

I'm not saying she should be censored, I'm saying that does not mean she should be invited to a private institution.

I wouldn't invite Coulter to give a speech at my home but I am not for censoring her either.

[frunk]

I'm not saying she should be censored, I'm saying that does not mean she should be invited to a private institution.

I wouldn't invite Coulter to give a speech at my home but I am not for censoring her either.

But she was invited, it's not like she just showed up at the place and demanded an audience.

[The Minsky Moment]

As was planned she would then take questions and the protestors could then attack her ideas on an intellectual basis - since it is a university.

That would require her to have ideas and to express them.

I understand what you are saying but the you are talking about a model of discourse that presupposes certain shared axioms about how to engage in reasoned discussion.  Ann Coulter has demonstrated repeatedly that she has no interest in engaging in meaningful dialogue on the basis of appeal to reason; she is running a circus.  And when the circus comes to town, don't act surprised when people start acting like they are at one.

[Martinus]

I'm not saying she should be censored, I'm saying that does not mean she should be invited to a private institution.

I wouldn't invite Coulter to give a speech at my home but I am not for censoring her either.

But she was invited, it's not like she just showed up at the place and demanded an audience.

And then they revoked the invitation. Surely they are allowed to change their mind?

[Martinus]

Well a university is a collective institution. Such invitations are usually sent at the initiative of some fringe group or an individual, who just manages to push it through the right bureaucratic channels and people just sign off on this without thinking until the shit hits the fan. We had a similar case in Warsaw recently, when a university invited Paul Cameron and this was approved because most of the people who signed the relevant red tape had no idea who he was.

That is not how a Canadian University functions.  People within the university community can invite who they wish.  It sounds like universities in Poland have a built in censorship system so I can understand now why you take the position you do having been educated in that system.

Ok. So does it mean a Canadian University has no way of preventing a speaker from using its premises to speak, no matter how heinous or outrageous his or her views? Could a person advocating another Holocaust be invited by someone from the university community and the chancellor of the university (or some other person or body in authority) would have no way of preventing that from happening?

[Barrister]

Ok. So does it mean a Canadian University has no way of preventing a speaker from using its premises to speak, no matter how heinous or outrageous his or her views? Could a person advocating another Holocaust be invited by someone from the university community and the chancellor of the university (or some other person or body in authority) would have no way of preventing that from happening?

Someone advocating another holocaust is a bad example as that type of speech would be criminal.

But someone who is advocating something merely distasteful (e.g. maybe someone who denies there was a holocaust)?  It's going to depend very much on the universities specific guidelines, but from my time a decade ago in student government it would be very difficult for the university itself to block a recognized student group from renting out space to hold a talk merely because the administratin didn't approve of the views being expressed.

[frunk]

And then they revoked the invitation. Surely they are allowed to change their mind?

Sure, I don't have a problem with the invitation being revoked, I have a problem with someone thinking that pulling fire alarms is a reasonable response to someone talking.

[Martinus]

Ok. So does it mean a Canadian University has no way of preventing a speaker from using its premises to speak, no matter how heinous or outrageous his or her views? Could a person advocating another Holocaust be invited by someone from the university community and the chancellor of the university (or some other person or body in authority) would have no way of preventing that from happening?

Someone advocating another holocaust is a bad example as that type of speech would be criminal.

I don't know if this is a bad example - check out some of the quotes the link to which I posted. She is advocating an aggressive war, or she is advocating (or at least endorsing) killing of abortion doctors.

And obviously since you do not know in advance what a speaker is going to say exactly, my question stands: is there no way for a Canadian university to prevent a person who has a track record of advocating another Holocaust from speaking at a Canadian university when invited by someone?

I find it seriously baffling that CC claims the answer is no.

[sbr]

Academic freedom is not "freedom to spew any idiocy no matter how baseless or retarded". Paul Cameron is a great example of this. His "findings" about homosexuality have been slammed by pretty much every scientific body or organization, because his "method" is completely faulty and unacceptable. This "academic freedom" you are advocating is like giving a fair hearing to a supporter of homeopathy and healing crystals at a serious medical conference.

Red some of her quotes. There is not a shred of "political debate" in this blather:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter

Why are you spreading the speech of someone who so obviously should be censored?

I'm not saying she should be censored, I'm saying that does not mean she should be invited to a private institution.

I wouldn't invite Coulter to give a speech at my home but I am not for censoring her either.

So it would be OK for a public institution?

[Neil]

So in other words, a student pulled a fire alarm like a jerk, and so the school cancelled it, and so students who are expressing their rights of freedom of speech and assembly to call the bitch out on her beliefs are censoring her?

Unfortunately for riotous scumbags, they only have the right to peaceful assembly.  As soon as they get a little bit rowdy, the government has the obligation to have the lot of them shot.

[Neil]

I don't know if this is a bad example - check out some of the quotes the link to which I posted. She is advocating an aggressive war

Aggressive war isn't a crime.

[Barrister]

I don't know if this is a bad example - check out some of the quotes the link to which I posted. She is advocating an aggressive war, or she is advocating (or at least endorsing) killing of abortion doctors.

And obviously since you do not know in advance what a speaker is going to say exactly, my question stands: is there no way for a Canadian university to prevent a person who has a track record of advocating another Holocaust from speaking at a Canadian university when invited by someone?

I find it seriously baffling that CC claims the answer is no.

No, it's a bad example because there is a specific criminal law in Canada which prohibits 'advocating genocide'.  Advocating war is not the same as genocide.  Advocating killing abortion doctors is not genocide either, as the law specifies genocide against an identifiable group distinguished by 'colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or (and you'll like this) sexual orientation'.  Type of employment is not a listed group.

I didn't mean to attack your overall point - I just pointed out that you had by accident picked a rather bad example.

There are other laws about 'public incitement of hatred', which are more broad, but also contain defences of truth, religious belief and public interest the last two which would arguably cover someone like Coulter.  There are no such defences to the advocating genocide legislation.

[Martinus]

But isn't publicly advocating a violent crime (whether genocide or not) a crime itself?

If I go on a public rally and start saying that Neil should be killed, am I not committing a crime?

[Neil]

But isn't publicly advocating a violent crime (whether genocide or not) a crime itself?

If I go on a public rally and start saying that Neil should be killed, am I not committing a crime?

Blasphemy isn't illegal.