This story my be of interest to Languishites.
You all know Coulter. She is on a speaking tour of some Canadian universities. Last night her talk was cancelled because of the actions of a large group of protestors.
Here are some links for more details.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/video/ann-coulter-speech-cancelled/article1510516/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/video/ann-coulter-controversy/article1508968/
and here is a Blog opinion I agree with.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/silver-powers/coulters-shutout/article1510505/
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.
I wonder if this kind of intellectual intolerance is being experience on campuses in other countries.
Whenever a communist infection spreads in one of your universities, you should take it out by all necessary means. I'd recommend mass executions.
LOL because Ann Coulter is known for tolerance for opposing views (except when she calls people who hold them traitors, or wants to send them to Gitmo or advocates murdering them).
While I think freedom of speech in a legal sense is a good concept, that does not mean that universities or any other similar bodies are legally or morally obliged to provide a podium or a pulpit to any lunatic and hate monger. Ann Coulter is a real life troll. She is in no way thought-provoking or inventive - she just puts her idiotic views into books that sell to idiots like her. I fail to see how she should be given room to speak at universities, any more than some crazy islamist imam.
Marti's post is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Here we have someone who is presumably legally trained and is prepared to make judgments about what ideas should and should not be voiced on a university campus.
So much for universities being bastions of academic freedom where the exchange of ideas are supposed to be encouraged even if you might not agree with those ideas.
QuoteWhile I think freedom of speech in a legal sense is a good concept, that does not mean that universities or any other similar bodies are legally or morally obliged to provide a podium or a pulpit to any lunatic and hate monger.
So freedom of speech is good in concept but not in practice....
Considering that the university presumably asked her to speak that's a strange position to hold Martinus.
The university campus is a private space. If Ahmedinejad (sp?) or Irving writes to a Canadian university and wants to come to explain why Holocaust is a Jewish invention, and Israel needs to be wiped off the face of Earth, are you saying that the university should allow him to do so?
The idea that a private institution (no matter how dedicated to free exchange of ideas) should provide a pulpit to any lunatic willing to speak there is hilariously off-base.
Quote from: frunk on March 24, 2010, 11:34:55 AM
Considering that the university presumably asked her to speak that's a strange position to hold Martinus.
Typically Universities themselves do not invite speakers. Typically groups within the University will do that. But your point still holds.
Ya I'm not for censoring assholes anymore than I am censoring people I like. Everyone should get to have their say, no matter how stupid they are. Coulter fits in the latter category. To my mind though she's just another bigot. I understand why people are protesting. What I don't get is why universities are against protests. That's the whole point of University. If she really had the convictions she espouses she would go ahead despite the protests. (I know it's the Uni, but they were the one's offering to pay her whatever exorbitant sum she was charging them to hear her moronic tirades.
A better protest is always to convince people beforehand that yes she is an idiot, and have only tiny crowds of assholes show up for said speech. Nothing shuts up an idiot like nobody to blather at.
seeing cc's post above mine, I use "universities" in the sense of whatever group that is part of the Uni is hiring the speaker at said Unis.
thinking about that is even scarier, that there are young people in university who are suckered into her fearmongering nonsense. I fear for our youth!
I don't understand. Did she cancel because of protests?
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 24, 2010, 11:36:36 AM
What I don't get is why universities are against protests. That's the whole point of University.
I am not sure why you think universities are against protest. Also, protest is not the whole point of a University. The whole point of a university is to be a community of scholars and students where ideas can be freely exchanged and developed.
Protest which delibrately attempts to stop that academic freedom (as it did last night) goes beyond expressing a view and becomes an exercise in preventing others from expressing their views.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 24, 2010, 11:36:36 AM
Typically Universities themselves do not invite speakers. Typically groups within the University will do that. But your point still holds.
That's true, that's the sense I meant it.
Quote from: frunk on March 24, 2010, 11:34:55 AM
Considering that the university presumably asked her to speak that's a strange position to hold 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.
Besides, Coulter herself is not a big fan of freedom of speech. Here's her own quote:
QuoteThey're [Democrats] always accusing us of repressing their speech. I say let's do it. Let's repress them. Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment.
Quote from: Faeelin on March 24, 2010, 11:37:15 AM
I don't understand. Did she cancel because of protests?
Someone in the protest group pulled a fire alarm so the building had to be evacuated and then they tried to enter the hall where she was to speak so that her talk could not be held. The report I heard was that after about an hour delay the police and University security officials finally cancelled the talk. I am not sure what their reason was.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 24, 2010, 11:40:47 AM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 24, 2010, 11:36:36 AM
What I don't get is why universities are against protests. That's the whole point of University.
I am not sure why you think universities are against protest. Also, protest is not the whole point of a University. The whole point of a university is to be a community of scholars and students where ideas can be freely exchanged and developed.
Protest which delibrately attempts to stop that academic freedom (as it did last night) goes beyond expressing a view and becomes an exercise in preventing others from expressing their views.
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
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 24, 2010, 11:40:47 AM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 24, 2010, 11:36:36 AM
What I don't get is why universities are against protests. That's the whole point of University.
I am not sure why you think universities are against protest. Also, protest is not the whole point of a University. The whole point of a university is to be a community of scholars and students where ideas can be freely exchanged and developed.
Protest which delibrately attempts to stop that academic freedom (as it did last night) goes beyond expressing a view and becomes an exercise in preventing others from expressing their views.
:unsure:
I was going by this statement, from you, which I have read in the news also.
QuoteThere 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.
I wonder if this kind of intellectual intolerance is being experience on campuses in other countries.
I guess I was unclear, myself... by Universities I was being inclusive of all the orgs within, who seem less radical (in a trad. leftie sense) than back in my day.
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2010, 11:41:31 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2010, 11:45:38 AM
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?
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 24, 2010, 11:47:17 AM
I was going by this statement, from you, which I have read in the news also.
The pro-isreali talks were cancelled because of protests. This doesn't mean the university has a problem with protests. It means the speakers could not physically give their talks because of the protestors. For example at York university the protestors turned violent.
So Coulter was threatened, or the security types just figured they couldn't deal with the protests, because they somehow knew they would be violent. That's kinda siding with the douchebag there. Should just let her speak and let the chips fall where they may. If people fall for here nonsensical rantings they are the suckers, who in the long run are going to feel stupid, more than they are "right" Pun intended. :blush:
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 24, 2010, 11:44:59 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on March 24, 2010, 11:37:15 AM
I don't understand. Did she cancel because of protests?
Someone in the protest group pulled a fire alarm so the building had to be evacuated and then they tried to enter the hall where she was to speak so that her talk could not be held. The report I heard was that after about an hour delay the police and University security officials finally cancelled the talk. I am not sure what their reason was.
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?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 24, 2010, 10:42:28 AM
This story my be of interest to Languishites.
You all know Coulter. She is on a speaking tour of some Canadian universities. Last night her talk was cancelled because of the actions of a large group of protestors.
Here are some links for more details.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/video/ann-coulter-speech-cancelled/article1510516/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/video/ann-coulter-controversy/article1508968/
and here is a Blog opinion I agree with.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/silver-powers/coulters-shutout/article1510505/
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.
I wonder if this kind of intellectual intolerance is being experience on campuses in other countries.
It's been that way in the US for awhile now. Most campuses are controlled by the liberals.
Quote from: Faeelin on March 24, 2010, 12:03:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 24, 2010, 11:44:59 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on March 24, 2010, 11:37:15 AM
I don't understand. Did she cancel because of protests?
Someone in the protest group pulled a fire alarm so the building had to be evacuated and then they tried to enter the hall where she was to speak so that her talk could not be held. The report I heard was that after about an hour delay the police and University security officials finally cancelled the talk. I am not sure what their reason was.
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 otu on her beliefs are censoring her?
No, that would not be an accurate summary. Did you look at the links?
Quote from: Strix on March 24, 2010, 12:05:44 PM
It's been that way in the US for awhile now. Most campuses are controlled by the liberals.
It used to be that liberals were the people most concerned with freedom of expression. In Canada it now appears that such freedom will only be extended if the speaker says things that are not considered offensive.
Somewhere things have gone terribly wrong.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 24, 2010, 11:57:55 AM
That's kinda siding with the douchebag there. Should just let her speak and let the chips fall where they may. If people fall for here nonsensical rantings they are the suckers, who in the long run are going to feel stupid, more than they are "right" Pun intended. :blush:
University security and police are put into a difficult position. With the history of protests turning violent, the large group of protestors trying to disrupt the speech (which is not simply excercising a right a free assembly as Faeelin seems to think) it becomes a bit risky to simply let events run there course.
I agree with you that in an ideal world the protestors would simply chant outside and Coultier would do her thing inside. 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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 24, 2010, 12:12:59 PM
It used to be that liberals were the people most concerned with freedom of expression. In Canada it now appears that such freedom will only be extended if the speaker says things that are not considered offensive.
Liberal used to mean something a lot different than it means now. Liberal used to mean "anti-authoritarian" and now means "left-authoritarian." This is exactly the behavior one expects from left-authoritarians.
Quote from: grumbler on March 24, 2010, 12:18:09 PM
Liberal used to mean something a lot different than it means now. Liberal used to mean "anti-authoritarian" and now means "left-authoritarian." This is exactly the behavior one expects from left-authoritarians.
Good point.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 24, 2010, 12:12:59 PM
Quote from: Strix on March 24, 2010, 12:05:44 PM
It's been that way in the US for awhile now. Most campuses are controlled by the liberals.
It used to be that liberals were the people most concerned with freedom of expression. In Canada it now appears that such freedom will only be extended if the speaker says things that are not considered offensive.
Somewhere things have gone terribly wrong.
I think this is true. I blame people like Coulter (and yet am willing to let her blather, I can change the channel) for turning the right into a hate speech group. There has been a growing political correctness movement in Universities since back in my day... I think outside of Uni there is a backlash now against pol. correctness like this taken too far, but as always big lumbering institutions lag behind.
To the mind of any reasonable person, Beck, Coulter, Limbaugh are simply clowns. But People have become so ingrained to be intolerant of intolerance that they can't see their own intolerance, or taste any of the delicious irony therein..
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2010, 11:22:55 AM
While I think freedom of speech in a legal sense is a good concept, that does not mean that universities or any other similar bodies are legally or morally obliged to provide a podium or a pulpit to any lunatic and hate monger. Ann Coulter is a real life troll. She is in no way thought-provoking or inventive - she just puts her idiotic views into books that sell to idiots like her. I fail to see how she should be given room to speak at universities, any more than some crazy islamist imam.
If she was gay, you'd be weeping and gnashing your teeth.
This is typical behavior from activist university students, who these days resemble nothing so much as a pack of low-rent brownshirts. If I had my way, every single university student in the country would be executed.
Quote from: grumbler on March 24, 2010, 12:18:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 24, 2010, 12:12:59 PM
It used to be that liberals were the people most concerned with freedom of expression. In Canada it now appears that such freedom will only be extended if the speaker says things that are not considered offensive.
Liberal used to mean something a lot different than it means now. Liberal used to mean "anti-authoritarian" and now means "left-authoritarian." This is exactly the behavior one expects from left-authoritarians.
so true... this is why I have such a hard time being "for" either of these extremes. When I was younger I never felt that the Tories or the Liberals were really that far apart from each other, both governing from the centre. But the centre has moved along without me.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 24, 2010, 10:42:28 AM
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.
Quote from: viper37 on March 24, 2010, 12:25:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 24, 2010, 10:42:28 AM
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.
Quote from: frunk on March 24, 2010, 11:48:07 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2010, 11:45:38 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2010, 12:40:50 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 24, 2010, 12:17:41 PM
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.
Quote from: frunk on March 24, 2010, 12:42:23 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2010, 12:40:50 PM
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?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 24, 2010, 11:47:37 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2010, 11:41:31 AM
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?
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2010, 12:50:22 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2010, 12:45:19 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on March 24, 2010, 01:03:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2010, 12:50:22 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2010, 12:40:50 PM
Quote from: frunk on March 24, 2010, 11:48:07 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2010, 11:45:38 AM
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?
Quote from: Faeelin on March 24, 2010, 12:03:31 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2010, 01:09:19 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2010, 01:09:19 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2010, 01:25:00 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 24, 2010, 12:44:07 PM
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.
I agree but descending to her level of discourse says more about the protestors then it does about her. In the last question and answer she did, she was shown to be a complete idiot - telling a muslim student that if she couldnt ride a magic carpet instead she should use a camel.
It is far more effective to actually let these types of people talk then it is to turn them into martyrs to free speech.
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2010, 12:45:19 PM
Quote from: frunk on March 24, 2010, 12:42:23 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2010, 12:40:50 PM
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?
Nobody revoked their invitation.
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2010, 01:09:19 PM
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.
I find it baffling that you, a lawyer so you say, thinks its ok to prevent someone from speaking because they have a track record of some sort.
There is a law in this country regarding hate communications. If the speaker breaks the law then the police will investigate and the Crown will act accordingly. If the speaker broke the law in the past then they will have been dealt with through the due process of law.
This is law 101 stuff.
I think I can speak for our American friends and include all North America in the statement that we dont censor people based on what we guess they might say.
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2010, 01:25:00 PM
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?
If you break the law you will be charged and hopefully put away for a very long time.
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2010, 01:25:00 PM
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?
Bunch of issues here.
Depending on how curious you are, here's a leading case on hate speech / advocating genocide;
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2005/2005scc40/2005scc40.html
Saying that "Neil should be killed" is probably not a crime (although it is fact specific). For it to be a on offense of counselling someone to commit an offense we (the Crown) would have to show that the person intended for someone to act on that statement. To charge the person with uttering a threat, we would have to show that on all the facts the person would reasonably view those words to be a threat.
You should be happy of that, for it means you likely can't be charged for the number of times you've wished death on other posters. :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on March 24, 2010, 01:03:29 PM
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.
Quite right. Indeed it would be the very rare case that the administration would even turn its mind to whether they approved of the views expressed or not independant of some form of complaint from another group on campus. And then it is not a question of approval or not, it is a question, as you said, whether University policies are being breached in some way. And since those policies err heavily on the side of academic freedom and freedom of expression, it is very rare indeed for there to be any interference at all.
No one takes university people seriously anyway. They're either students and therefore irrelevant or they are ivory tower retards who couldn't hack it in the real world.
Quote from: Barrister on March 24, 2010, 02:06:36 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2010, 01:25:00 PM
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?
Bunch of issues here.
Depending on how curious you are, here's a leading case on hate speech / advocating genocide;
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2005/2005scc40/2005scc40.html
Saying that "Neil should be killed" is probably not a crime (although it is fact specific). For it to be a on offense of counselling someone to commit an offense we (the Crown) would have to show that the person intended for someone to act on that statement. To charge the person with uttering a threat, we would have to show that on all the facts the person would reasonably view those words to be a threat.
You should be happy of that, for it means you likely can't be charged for the number of times you've wished death on other posters. :lol:
Thanks for the explanation. Polish law is different - it is a crime to either incite or even publicly commend people for committing a crime. So her speech about the abortion doctor killing could breach the law.
In fact, one leftist group once tried to put the Polish prime minister on trial for saying that the war against Iraq is a good thing (since Polish law names "starting an aggressive war" a crime) but this was dismissed as too silly. :P
Here is an update regarding how the U of C is handling things and also how the U of O is going into damage control.
QuoteA day after she was chased away from an Ottawa campus by rowdy crowds, the University of Calgary is giving American pundit Ann Coulter a bigger venue to air her extreme brand of right-wing politics, saying part of its role is to "promote the free exchange of ideas."
Ms. Coulter, a skilled political agitator, has hit the jackpot on her three-campus visit to Canada. Her planned appearance earlier this week at the University of Ottawa was cancelled because of security concerns after an estimated 1,500 people showed up at a lecture hall with roughly 400 seats.
That cancellation – and an advance note from the school's provost advising her to mind her words in case she risk criminal charges for hate speech – has unleashed a firestorm, especially among conservative commentators, and renewed the debate over freedom of expression on campus. As the tour moves from Ontario to Calgary, it also holds the potential of exposing yet again the political east-west divide of the nation.
"I've never heard of Calgary shutting anyone down. The worst we'll do is ignore someone," said Ezra Levant, a Calgary-based author, lawyer and conservative thinker who was asked to introduce Ms. Coulter on her Canadian tour. He called the Calgary stop a welcome homecoming.
Calgary, known for its true-blue conservative ideals, was the first city former U.S. president George W. Bush visited last year after he left the White House. While there were some protesters outside the venue and security was tight, there were no major incidents. Even when the G8 summit was held in nearby Kananaskis Country in 2002, protests were small, mellow and trouble-free, unlike raucous events that marred similar international meetings in Seattle and Quebec City.
The University of Ottawa faced an onslaught of criticism Wednesday after the cancellation of Ms. Coulter's talk. President Allan Rock refused interviews, but issued a short statement late in the day, noting that the event was cancelled by her own organizers.
"Freedom of expression is a core value that the University of Ottawa has always promoted," Mr. Rock said in the statement. "We have a long history of hosting contentious and controversial speakers on our campus. Last night was no exception ..."
Mr. Rock's statement made no reference to the provost Francois Houle's warning, singled out by Ms. Coulter as part of the cause of the angry crowds that opposed her speaking Tuesday night.
"I would like to know if any Muslim has been treated this badly, at least since the Reformation, because I am drawing a blank," Ms. Coulter told The Globe and Mail after the talk was cancelled.
The decision to cancel the talk was cheered by some of her opponents. "I was just worried that things were going to be said about certain groups of people that were going to make them feel very unsafe and very uncomfortable," a student protester said.
Toronto lawyer Frank Addario, who has defended many free speech cases, called the events at the University of Ottawa an embarrassment to Canada. "It shows an immaturity and a misunderstanding of the basic precepts of free speech," he said. "The provost has a duty to encourage free speech, not to encourage those who would prevent it or censor it – there is never a shortage of those people."
McGill ethicist Margaret Somerville, who was once advised by a university to wear flat shoes in case she had to run, said groups on campuses have become skilled at silencing debate. "I think it is extraordinarily dangerous," she said.
An appearance by Ms. Coulter earlier in the week at the University of Western Ontario packed an auditorium, including some hecklers. President Amit Chakma said school police met in advance with the person handling Ms. Coulter's security, but the university did not contact her to discuss the content of the talk.
University of Calgary provost Alan Harrison told reporters at a hastily called news conference that the school had "significantly augmented" security plans in light of what happened in Ottawa. Her address was moved to a room that can accommodate 800 people, from a lecture hall for 400.
"If we try to suppress people's views simply because we don't agree with them we're doing two things," he said. "We're acting contrary to what the university stands for, and also frankly, we're providing increased publicity for the person who's spreading those views. That's not our purpose. Our purpose is to give her the same respect that everybody else deserves."
Rainer Knopff, a political scientist at the University of Calgary who is known for his conservative views as part of the so-called Calgary School, helped arrange the event for organizers, although he's not familiar with Ms. Coulter's work. In light of what happened in Ottawa, he's not surprised by the increased interest in Calgary.
"We've tended at the University of Calgary so far to have contentious speakers get at least a civil reception on all sides of the political divide," Prof. Knopff said.
What an extremely one-sided article (and no source as well, so no way to assess its credibility). Only one person supporting the decision quoted, and that person is not even named.
But the explanation that person gives:
Quote
The decision to cancel the talk was cheered by some of her opponents. "I was just worried that things were going to be said about certain groups of people that were going to make them feel very unsafe and very uncomfortable," a student protester said.
Is the one most sensible in the article. The university may be a forum of free academic debate, but it is not a Hyde park or an agora where everyone may come to spout their nonsense, however vile and offensive. It is a community of various people, meeting in mutual respect - Ann Coulter's track record shows she does not respect other groups of people, but rather singles them out for her abusive language. I don't see why such a circus freak should be treated with "respect" or given a pulpit to speak.
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2010, 10:49:51 AM
I don't see why such a circus freak should be treated with "respect" or given a pulpit to speak.
I know you don't. And that's a real shame. :(
Speaking of which, it seems Texas universities don't respect freedom of expression either:
QuoteSecurity Concerns Change Gay Jesus Play
By Julie Bolcer
Tarleton State University in Texas has made changes to the start time and audience composition of a play that portrays Jesus as gay in response to security worries.
The Terrence McNally play, "Corpus Christi," was to be performed Saturday at 4 p.m. on the campus in Stephenville, about 70 miles southwest of Fort Worth. Critics assailed the play as blasphemous.
According to the Associated Press, a news release provided Thursday "says the student-produced play will now start at 8 a.m. Saturday. A private audience of invited guests and relatives of the cast will be the only people allowed to watch the play, the school said."
The statement from TSU said the school "has a responsibility to provide a safe and secure educational environmental for students, faculty, staff and visitors."
www.advocate.com
QuoteI would like to know if any Muslim has been treated this badly, at least since the Reformation, because I am drawing a blank," Ms. Coulter told The Globe and Mail after the talk was cancelled
It is fortunate for Coulter that MR is not contagious, because that would have given the university a perfectly valid excuse to bar her from campus.
I'm ususally the first the mock the universities for their limp committment to free speech.
It seems to me from reading various accounts that the main offence the university admin gave here was writing an absurd letter "reminding" her of Canada's hate-speech laws. This had more or less the same effect as handing a circus clown a cream-filled pie - she smooshed it all over their collective faces.
Coulter's own organizers apparently cancelled the talk, it wasn't an "offical university" cancellation. Again, arguably the universities' 'crime' in that case was not censorship, but failing to provide adequate security.
In short, Coulter (or her supporters) has taken a bunch of incompetent bumbling by the university admin, and the usual bullshit from student protestors, and successfully manufactured an issue out of it in which she emerges as a hero of free speech. The university admin (and students) are at fault for handing her the ammo, to be sure.
I'll say this for her: as a troll, she could teach Jaron some tricks. :D
Now that I've done some outside of Languish reading about this. I have to say what malthus says above me here is absolutely correct. the clown/cream pie analogy being extremely apt in the circumstances. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Malthus on March 25, 2010, 11:14:58 AM
I'll say this for her: as a troll, she could teach Jaron some tricks. :D
Well duh... she's a professional troll. Jaron is a mere weekend warrior.
Quote from: Caliga on March 25, 2010, 12:20:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 25, 2010, 11:14:58 AM
I'll say this for her: as a troll, she could teach Jaron some tricks. :D
Well duh... she's a professional troll. Jaron is a mere weekend warrior.
I figure trolling is sorta like sex - something that the amatuers sometimes do better than the professionals, because they put more heart into it. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on March 25, 2010, 11:14:58 AM
In short, Coulter (or her supporters) has taken a bunch of incompetent bumbling by the university admin, and the usual bullshit from student protestors, and successfully manufactured an issue out of it in which she emerges as a hero of free speech. The university admin (and students) are at fault for handing her the ammo, to be sure.
The thing that catches my attention about all this is the actions of the students. I think you are downplaying their role in trying to disrupt the talk by calling it the usual bullshit. It isnt usual. It is a recent trend that is worrying - at least to me.
Back in the time before time, when I was an undergraduate, Canada was going through a very intense debate over free trade. Whenever a proponent of free trade came to campus to speak there were huge demonstrations protesting against free trade (the NDP and Liberals were very much against the deal if you recall calling it a betrayal of Canadian sovereignty). But I cant remember a single time when anyone actually attempted to prevent the speaker from speaking. Back then there was a very strong commitment to free speech among the student body and an attempt to try to shut someone up because their ideas just wasnt on.
Large numbers of students now appear to think that they have some kind of responsibility to silence other points of view. Its a troubling trend.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2010, 02:38:53 PM
The thing that catches my attention about all this is the actions of the students. I think you are downplaying their role in trying to disrupt the talk by calling it the usual bullshit. It isnt usual. It is a recent trend that is worrying - at least to me.
Back in the time before time, when I was an undergraduate, Canada was going through a very intense debate over free trade. Whenever a proponent of free trade came to campus to speak there were huge demonstrations protesting against free trade (the NDP and Liberals were very much against the deal if you recall calling it a betrayal of Canadian sovereignty). But I cant remember a single time when anyone actually attempted to prevent the speaker from speaking. Back then there was a very strong commitment to free speech among the student body and an attempt to try to shut someone up because their ideas just wasnt on.
Large numbers of students now appear to think that they have some kind of responsibility to silence other points of view. Its a troubling trend.
I've definitely noticed that. During a Federal election campaign awhile back I was riding home after midnight one night and came across some UVic students who were vandalizing a big Conservative party sign someone had on their lot. I slowed and asked them who they were voting for and they said Green Party...
Edit > Hit post by accident..
I asked them if the Green Party supported the vandalism of political opponents signs and the stifling of political discourse and they told me to fuck off..
Then I just gave them a fuck you back and rode off.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2010, 02:38:53 PM
The thing that catches my attention about all this is the actions of the students. I think you are downplaying their role in trying to disrupt the talk by calling it the usual bullshit. It isnt usual. It is a recent trend that is worrying - at least to me.
Back in the time before time, when I was an undergraduate, Canada was going through a very intense debate over free trade. Whenever a proponent of free trade came to campus to speak there were huge demonstrations protesting against free trade (the NDP and Liberals were very much against the deal if you recall calling it a betrayal of Canadian sovereignty). But I cant remember a single time when anyone actually attempted to prevent the speaker from speaking. Back then there was a very strong commitment to free speech among the student body and an attempt to try to shut someone up because their ideas just wasnt on.
Large numbers of students now appear to think that they have some kind of responsibility to silence other points of view. Its a troubling trend.
I dunno - when I was going to university the 'authoritarian left' in its various manifestations was no more respectful of free speech -- one of the reasons I found them unpleasant (and no doubt vice versa). The late '80s was I thought a sort of pinnacle of political correctness, with various methods used to silence people with 'unacceptable' views.
I'll admit, the acts of students at some universities to use actual violence to silence the 'unacceptable' is disturbing, and particularly manifest when Israelis are invited to speak. I remember one particularly evocative pic of some student kicking out a window to demonstrate what he thought of the idea of allowing the other side to state its case.
OTOH, what actual 'violence' took place here? Did it amount to any more than chant-y demonstrations, and some joker pulling the fire alarm? None of the articles are very specific.
Again, the most hilarious aspect of this was the university writing that letter. It was tailor-made to cause them trouble.
Quote from: Malthus on March 25, 2010, 02:53:04 PM
Again, the most hilarious aspect of this was the university writing that letter. It was tailor-made to cause them trouble.
Oh, I agree with that. I have no idea what they hoped to achieve by sending that letter.
As revolting and ignorant as she is, she needs to be debated, not stifled.
Repression only feeds a sense of grievance, and contributes to a martyrdom complex.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2010, 02:38:53 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 25, 2010, 11:14:58 AM
In short, Coulter (or her supporters) has taken a bunch of incompetent bumbling by the university admin, and the usual bullshit from student protestors, and successfully manufactured an issue out of it in which she emerges as a hero of free speech. The university admin (and students) are at fault for handing her the ammo, to be sure.
The thing that catches my attention about all this is the actions of the students. I think you are downplaying their role in trying to disrupt the talk by calling it the usual bullshit. It isnt usual. It is a recent trend that is worrying - at least to me.
Back in the time before time, when I was an undergraduate, Canada was going through a very intense debate over free trade. Whenever a proponent of free trade came to campus to speak there were huge demonstrations protesting against free trade (the NDP and Liberals were very much against the deal if you recall calling it a betrayal of Canadian sovereignty). But I cant remember a single time when anyone actually attempted to prevent the speaker from speaking. Back then there was a very strong commitment to free speech among the student body and an attempt to try to shut someone up because their ideas just wasnt on.
Large numbers of students now appear to think that they have some kind of responsibility to silence other points of view. Its a troubling trend.
Well these two are hardly comparable. Being for free trade is not the same as calling groups of people (who are students at the college), traitors, murderers, deviants or wanting to ship them off to Gitmo.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on March 25, 2010, 03:15:15 PM
As revolting and ignorant as she is, she needs to be debated, not stifled.
Repression only feeds a sense of grievance, and contributes to a martyrdom complex.
I'll take "ignore" or perhaps "laugh at". ;)
Quote from: Malthus on March 25, 2010, 04:41:46 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on March 25, 2010, 03:15:15 PM
As revolting and ignorant as she is, she needs to be debated, not stifled.
Repression only feeds a sense of grievance, and contributes to a martyrdom complex.
I'll take "ignore" or perhaps "laugh at". ;)
That's fine as well. My point is that a gagging order is not all that.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on March 25, 2010, 03:15:15 PM
As revolting and ignorant as she is, she needs to be debated.
I disagree; debating people like that is pointless because they don't accept the rules of reasoned discourse and they are not interested in persuasion in the first place. The best response is to ignore them and marginalize them. In that sense, the decision to invite her was unfortunate; the protest reaction was even more unfortunate because it transformed what otherwise would have been an irrelevant college club meeting into the three-ring circus that is her favored venue.
The same issue came up with that fake Cherokee professor, Ward Churchill or the 9-11 "truthers", the equivalents to Coulter on what I suppose could be termed the left. There is nothing to be gained by engaging in debate with such people. it only gives credence to their frauds and outrages because implicit in the decision to debate is that the ideas they are presenting are debatable in the first place (like free trade vs. protection), as opposed to nonsense designed to titillate and provoke.
MM, I can agree with your stance, again, I fear gagging people strengthens them... and that is to be avoided.
The more she talks, the more damage she does to her cause. We should be inviting her to speak every day. Seems like the students are themselves among the Coulter equivalents on the left.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on March 25, 2010, 04:48:06 PM
MM, I can agree with your stance, again, I fear gagging people strengthens them... and that is to be avoided.
Yup, attempting to gag such folk merely gives them some sort of spurious legitimacy. In this case it's more than a bit of a stretch, since she's acting like actual gagging has taken place when as far as I can understand it that isn't the case ...
I think there is a fine line somewhere. Again, the university is not a street corner - it's a community of professors and students, and I think it is important they feel welcome there.
If a lunatic comes to say that CIA orchestrated 911 or that the government is dominated by the lizard people, you can just consider this a lunacy and move on. On the other hand, if someone came to teach that, say, Jews are dirty and greedy and untrustworthy, or that blacks are lazy and stupid or that gays spread diseases and are deviants, this goes beyond mere lunacy, but targets entire groups of people - this is certainly note helping Jewish, black or gay students feel welcome in the community, when you have to "engage in a debate" with a hate monger to justify your existence like this.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 25, 2010, 04:46:13 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on March 25, 2010, 03:15:15 PM
As revolting and ignorant as she is, she needs to be debated.
I disagree; <snip>
It really depends on the makeup of the debate audience.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 25, 2010, 04:46:13 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on March 25, 2010, 03:15:15 PM
As revolting and ignorant as she is, she needs to be debated.
I disagree; debating people like that is pointless because they don't accept the rules of reasoned discourse and they are not interested in persuasion in the first place. The best response is to ignore them and marginalize them. In that sense, the decision to invite her was unfortunate; the protest reaction was even more unfortunate because it transformed what otherwise would have been an irrelevant college club meeting into the three-ring circus that is her favored venue.
The same issue came up with that fake Cherokee professor, Ward Churchill or the 9-11 "truthers", the equivalents to Coulter on what I suppose could be termed the left. There is nothing to be gained by engaging in debate with such people. it only gives credence to their frauds and outrages because implicit in the decision to debate is that the ideas they are presenting are debatable in the first place (like free trade vs. protection), as opposed to nonsense designed to titillate and provoke.
It's not like it's she's going to convince anyone.
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2010, 04:27:19 PM
Well these two are hardly comparable. Being for free trade is not the same as calling groups of people (who are students at the college), traitors, murderers, deviants or wanting to ship them off to Gitmo.
I will forgive your comment since you dont know about how intense the free debate was. Coulter is merely a fool who, as JR said, can easily be ignored.
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2010, 05:06:01 PM
I think there is a fine line somewhere. Again, the university is not a street corner - it's a community of professors and students, and I think it is important they feel welcome there.
Your commitment to free speech is astounding. You would really draw the line at "making people feel welcome"?
Isnt the whole point of free speech the ability to say things that may not be comforting.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2010, 07:34:47 PM
You would really draw the line at "making people feel welcome"?
No, just making certain people feel welcome. Not everyone. :sleep:
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2010, 02:38:53 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 25, 2010, 11:14:58 AM
In short, Coulter (or her supporters) has taken a bunch of incompetent bumbling by the university admin, and the usual bullshit from student protestors, and successfully manufactured an issue out of it in which she emerges as a hero of free speech. The university admin (and students) are at fault for handing her the ammo, to be sure.
The thing that catches my attention about all this is the actions of the students. I think you are downplaying their role in trying to disrupt the talk by calling it the usual bullshit. It isnt usual. It is a recent trend that is worrying - at least to me.
Back in the time before time, when I was an undergraduate, Canada was going through a very intense debate over free trade. Whenever a proponent of free trade came to campus to speak there were huge demonstrations protesting against free trade (the NDP and Liberals were very much against the deal if you recall calling it a betrayal of Canadian sovereignty). But I cant remember a single time when anyone actually attempted to prevent the speaker from speaking. Back then there was a very strong commitment to free speech among the student body and an attempt to try to shut someone up because their ideas just wasnt on.
Large numbers of students now appear to think that they have some kind of responsibility to silence other points of view. Its a troubling trend.
:yes:
and despite what Hans et al might tell you it's not limited to the Left. Nobody lets anybody have their say anymore. Or if they do, they discount it as Fascism, Communism or some other ism that it isn't.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 25, 2010, 09:02:07 PM
:yes:
and despite what Hans et al might tell you it's not limited to the Left. Nobody lets anybody have their say anymore. Or if they do, they discount it as Fascism, Communism or some other ism that it isn't.
I'll let you have your say, boo. :hug:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2010, 05:16:37 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 25, 2010, 04:46:13 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on March 25, 2010, 03:15:15 PM
As revolting and ignorant as she is, she needs to be debated.
I disagree; <snip>
It really depends on the makeup of the debate audience.
Well, I guess. I mean, the guyliner and manscara crowd probably is more leftist.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2010, 07:34:47 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2010, 05:06:01 PM
I think there is a fine line somewhere. Again, the university is not a street corner - it's a community of professors and students, and I think it is important they feel welcome there.
Your commitment to free speech is astounding. You would really draw the line at "making people feel welcome"?
Isnt the whole point of free speech the ability to say things that may not be comforting.
Again, I am not trying to set up a legal standard here for "freedom of speech" understood as an ability to spout nonsense in the public space (the proverbial street corner) without being sued or jailed.
I am talking about giving a speech at a university, which is a community of people and which, while encouraging free debate and exchange of ideas within such community, should also take steps to ensure that, within reasonable limits (the verbal equivalent of "eggshell skull rule"), all its members feel welcome and are not being gratuitously insulted.
It's amazing you are unable to grasp this difference.
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2010, 02:39:23 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2010, 07:34:47 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2010, 05:06:01 PM
I think there is a fine line somewhere. Again, the university is not a street corner - it's a community of professors and students, and I think it is important they feel welcome there.
Your commitment to free speech is astounding. You would really draw the line at "making people feel welcome"?
Isnt the whole point of free speech the ability to say things that may not be comforting.
Again, I am not trying to set up a legal standard here for "freedom of speech" understood as an ability to spout nonsense in the public space (the proverbial street corner) without being sued or jailed.
I am talking about giving a speech at a university, which is a community of people and which, while encouraging free debate and exchange of ideas within such community, should also take steps to ensure that, within reasonable limits (the verbal equivalent of "eggshell skull rule"), all its members feel welcome and are not being gratuitously insulted.
It's amazing you are unable to grasp this difference.
Even more astounding that you think freedom of expression should be protected less within an institution which has at its core academic freedom and freedom of expression. The next time you want to rant about how repressive Poland is you might reflect on the views you have expressed here.
Paper say couter is going to go complain to the Canadian Human Rights Commission lol
Quote from: HVC on March 26, 2010, 11:18:50 AM
Paper say couter is going to go complain to the Canadian Human Rights Commission lol
Don't you need to be human to do that? :P
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2010, 11:25:09 AM
Quote from: HVC on March 26, 2010, 11:18:50 AM
Paper say couter is going to go complain to the Canadian Human Rights Commission lol
Don't you need to be human to do that? :P
I think Harp Seals and beavers are protected also. Her voice reminds me of a dying seal so maybe she can? :p
I really don't understand why university students protest so much. When I was a student, I was both physically and psychologicaly crushed by schoolwork and future uncertainties that I couldn't do anything except studying. And worrying.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 26, 2010, 02:25:19 PM
I really don't understand why university students protest so much. When I was a student, I was both physically and psychologicaly crushed by schoolwork and future uncertainties that I couldn't do anything except studying. And worrying.
I could come up with a snarky response but I will wait for CdM to do so.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 26, 2010, 02:25:19 PM
I really don't understand why university students protest so much. When I was a student, I was both physically and psychologicaly crushed by schoolwork and future uncertainties that I couldn't do anything except studying. And worrying.
When I was a college student, I spent a lot of my time either drunk or asleep.
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2010, 02:48:59 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 26, 2010, 02:25:19 PM
I really don't understand why university students protest so much. When I was a student, I was both physically and psychologicaly crushed by schoolwork and future uncertainties that I couldn't do anything except studying. And worrying.
When I was a college student, I spent a lot of my time either drunk or asleep.
Yep, that's university.
I remember at one point I just didn't bother to go in to King's College for six or seven weeks soon after Christmas. When I finally went in I said I had had unspecified "personal problems", wrote four essays in four days, and they didn't say anything more about it. :lol:
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2010, 02:48:59 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 26, 2010, 02:25:19 PM
I really don't understand why university students protest so much. When I was a student, I was both physically and psychologicaly crushed by schoolwork and future uncertainties that I couldn't do anything except studying. And worrying.
When I was a college student, I spent a lot of my time either drunk or asleep.
"University is a place for acquiring a fine set of friends and an appalling set of habits"
- Somebody Clever
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2010, 02:48:59 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 26, 2010, 02:25:19 PM
I really don't understand why university students protest so much. When I was a student, I was both physically and psychologicaly crushed by schoolwork and future uncertainties that I couldn't do anything except studying. And worrying.
When I was a college student, I spent a lot of my time either drunk or asleep.
ditto...
Yes. It can take years to adjust to the common paradigms / expectations of "the real world" after uni. :huh: