What's The Opposite Of Diversity?

Everyone is equal, except for our elite ruling class which is more equal and capable of inflicting "fair discrimination" on the underlings.

What a disgrace.

I had a call last recently from Queen's - looking for alumni money. Gave the kid on the other end a lesson about freedom and my right to not give money to totalitarian, thought police supporting universities.

They won't be calling back.

My three children are within miles of attending that University, when the oldest who has now been accepted by Lethbridge, mentioned just going the short drive to Uof C I said, "on your money, that pony tailed scraggly bearded professor infested rats nest will get none of my hard earned money". This is the reason, Ted Morton was an anomaly when he taught there, practically the only prof. who knows where money comes from, thank god he left this cesspool!

... the Charter does not apply...

Then leftist oligarchy does.

Time to abandon UoC.

Who said that the University of Windsor was a s**thole?
Has not the arrogant elitist leftist socialism of Windsor become the standard for all schools?
Yes, you now can have you or your loved one's brains be turned into porridge with Windsor smarts.
Now at the University of Calgary, soon to be mandatory at all schools in the world.

I'm a grad from U. of C.

They will never see one red cent from me.

Is there an address to write to protest this abomination ?

Agent Smith,

Hopefully you "learned how to learn" at UofC and can just type "Alumni Affairs" or "Office of Advancement" into google. My guess is that's where you'll find an address to harass.

I did the same when my university canceled homecoming and introduced a conversation monitoring Stasi.

I was under the impression we had no choice whether the Charter applies or not. I remember walking with my daughter on Campus and she said I could not smoke on the grounds. We were about a half block away from the building and had just passed a cop jumping from behind a bush with a rader unit. My reply was they could send my money back.

according to a poll in the Calgary SUN, it appears a majority of readers agree with the UofC.

Sad.

The pro life "protest/trepass" as presented on local TV was a bunch of billboards with photos, in a roped off area.

The American woman in the news who just popped out octuplets to bring her brood count up to fourteen is getting lots of discussion in the media and on the internet. It is becoming clear that she is dumber than a sack of hammers. She also appears to be some kind of Angelina Jolie obsessive. The point being she is apparently close to obtaining her Masters degree in something. What does that tell you about the "equality of outcome" at today's universities?

With regard to the opinion that 'The Charter of Rights and Freedoms' does not apply on University Property - I was told that very same thing by my own university when I, as a professor, was claiming my right to freedom of speech - in my case, to carry out research.

That was, and remains, an astonishing statement, for it removes citizenship from the individual as a basic attribute of that person no matter where he is standing - and locates the rights of citizenship ONLY on public property.
This doesn't make sense.

Think about it. Is this really the correct argument? Do Charter Rights only function on public property? And isn't a university, funded by the taxpayer, public property?

I think that this assertion by the lawyers is completely bogus; the Charter is not constrained by your location. I think the real issue is 'trespassing'.

You are not a trespasser on public property if you are there for the purposes of that property (eg education) or involved in a peaceful demonstration. But, since the university has a duty of care for all who are on its property, then, their concern is violence.

Indeed, the first sentence of the lawyer's letter expresses this: that the display "would likely trigger violence".

That's their concern; the University has a legal 'duty of care' to everyone on its property and it doesn't want to get into a situation where someone is hurt - and sues - or whatever.

I'm guessing that the students brought up the issue of their freedom of speech. But, it really has nothing to do with freedom of speech and most certainly, the Charter doesn't enter the picture and it is illogical to claim, as the lawyers do, that the University is both private property and that the Charter doesn't apply.
The lawyers are just intimidating and frightening the students to prevent a possible situation of violence.

I think it would have been more honest if the lawyers had brought up the real reason - the possibility of violence and the University's obligation in such a situation to protect both sides against violence.

Where does this leave a debate dealing with contentious issues? I think the University has to make a special effort to educate students that it is a University and therefore, ALL opinions are open to debate. Without violence. And that the university has a duty and students have a duty as students, to explore all perspectives.

As I've said many times:

the opposite of 'diversity' is... 'tolerance'

Sounds counterintuitive if you're a lefty, but think about it.

The two are as troublingly mutually exclusive as 'equality' and 'freedom'.

Universities were exempted from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (an abomination if there ever was one) in the mistaken belief that universities should, and would, be allowed to be bastions of totally free speech where any idea, no matter how outrageous, could be debated. Little did the populace, aside from a few of us cynical conservatives, believe that the exemption would be hijacked by a bunch of indoctrinated social engineers who took it upon themselves to impose their standards on the rest of the student body.
Fortunately for me, my continuing university studies are done by on-line correspondence where I can tell my instructors when I think they are full of s**t just as I did when I attended in person. If I were attending full time today, I would probably be barred from the campus for non-Marxist beliefs. I did it quite a bit then and even more so now as I get textbooks and answers to questions that are so full of politically correct, socialist hogwash as to make one want to gag.

I went to the U of C for a year. I know the pro-life rallies they're talking about, the billboards depict aborted fetuses and the like which I suppose offends people? I'm sure this is how the SUN has spun the matter and why some might identify with the University.

None the less, they were always peaceful demonstration and ALWAYS coupled with a bunch of ugly, overweight, single-women who managed to give off that vibe of "No man will ever love me and I will die a lonely death" masquerading as "pro-choicers". Ironic considering that I can't imagine them ever having to make ANY choice as a consequence of becoming pregnant by way of a consenting, male humaoid.

I always got the impression there was fair and balanced representation. I guess from now on it will only be the latter group. Seems about right- they tend to turn up at the PETA rallies too where they depict the mutilated carcasses of aborted animals. I wonder if frying an egg bothers them? I'm going to go do that now...

Time to write to your MP's and demand a Federal Law guaranteeing free speech at all universities.

The people who would commit violent acts after seeing these protest signs, what are they even doing on a University campus? Are _they_ trespassing on private property, or are they there with the sanction of the UofC? Is the UofC not then liable for having allowed to remain on the property anyone likely to be triggered into violence? Does their duty to protect the safety of everyone on the campus not extend to identifying and removing those who would react with violence to a picture?

Unfortunately, I am not surprised. This type of thing has been happening in the US for years, on and off campus. Taking our legal system on has produced results though. Good luck to my good Canadian friends...

"The University of Calgary should pay massively for this abomination of everything liberal."

Huh? He says liberal like it's a good thing. It's not, and the evidence (100 million deaths) is conclusive.

It's been a few years since public law class but doesn't the charter apply only where proscribed by law?

IE if the city of Calgary passed a bylaw banning certain protests it would be unconstitutional but if a university or a social club has a rule or regulation it can't be remedied by the Charter, which is why HRCs exist: to deal (or ignore, as the case may be) with "infringements" that aren't proscribed by law, in a quasi judicial manner.

Perhaps people with real legal education can elaborate but technically since the University doesn't pass laws they are somewhat correct, the Charter doesn't apply directly. It's still surprising to see them come out and say that in writing though.

The girls should sue the Province of Alberta.

1. U of C is public property not private since it is paid for by the citizens of Alberta.

2. The two girls ARE students of U of C. To charge them for trespassing would be like charging someone for breaking into their own home.

3. Infringement of Constitutional rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

4. The Province funds and operates the universities. If you wanted to get things changed and get a lot of media attention for it, you sue them.

Dana - it's rather difficult to pre-identify someone who has an agenda of violence.

I think the educational response of the university ought not to have been to stifle debate, which they did out of their fear of being legally liable for violence - but to have launched an aggressive campaign of education on the role of the University.

This role is that they have a DUTY to enable the expression of different perspectives - for the purposes of education and debate.

Instead, they fled from the possibility of violence and thus, failed in their duty as a university.

It's not an easy task. What if you have a gang of off-campus leftist political activists, and they are as you know, quite open to violence, come to campus to deliberately create violence to prevent any further such discussions from the pro-life people?
They could create a LOT of violence, with the deliberate agenda of harming students..whose parents could legally sue the University for its failure to protect those same students.

But I do think that the University has a duty aggressively educate the community and establish itself as open to 'all viewpoints'.

All theis talk of rights and freedoms is amusing. We are Canadians. We do-not-have rights and freedoms. We have privileges. This is what it looks like when somebody decides to revoke your privileges because you've rocked the boat.

UofC will entirely get away with this crap, because they are oppressing an unfashionable group. If they tried it with Palestinians the police would not cooperate. Palestinians are fashionable.

This isn't a new thing in Canada either. Its always been this way, all that has changed is who is in fashion.

Which SUCKS in my humble opinion. But I'm just a friggin' beer swilling, pickup truck driving neocon, what the hell do I know?

This "there might be violence" is a total cop out.

Here's how this problem should be solved: allow all peaceful protests. Any student reacting violently (and this could include extreme verbal violence) is expelled with no tuition refund as per a university-student contract signed at the time of registration.
I would also apply this approach to controversial speakers on campus. Any student shouting down a speaker would be, for a first offence, fined, for a second offence expelled.
Events are video-taped. All -- and I mean all -- identified students engaging in violent protest would be punished.

After a few exemplary fines/expulsions, free speech would again be restored.
As to the university being liable for violence, this is bullshit. We all know that such liability is easily covered by waivers. You don't want to saign a waiver -- no problem: get some babysitting at another university.

But I strongly suspect that fear of violence is not really the issue. I'm curious: were there any anti-Israel pro-Hamas protests at U of C?

University administrators are despicable gutless wonders.

BTW, I presume that everybody knows now that the British House of Lords reversed it decision to cancel Wilders screening of Fitna; stood up to Lord Ahmed who threatened to assemble 10,000 Muslims to violently prevent Wilders appearance.

Phantom
A "pickup truck driving neocon."
Two more priveleges the Lefties are trying to eliminate. Driving a truck and being a neocon.
I'm with you.

Seeing pictures of aborted fetus parts was very offensive to those supporting abortion. Don't let the public see the truth!!

ET, it appears the UofC believes the CPL has a sure fire method, or at least one 'likely', to enable identifying someone who has an agenda of violence.

ID them and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.

Sending the cops to the homes of these students was an appalling tactic, an abuse of power by the strong arm of the government at the behest of the cowards that stubbornly refuse to do their duty to the students of the University and the taxpayers that subsidize the UofC.

What we have now is a gang of on-campus leftist political activists.

ET.....good summary @ 10:53. However....being " a friggin' beer swilling, pickup truck driving neocon" just like Phantom....time to stir the pot.There is one,and only one reason for this.The U of C is preparing their legal defense for when they allow wife-beating,culturally neaderthalic,stoning,and honor killing muzzie members to hold their protest.With their burlap clad baby factories at their side,of course.
After all,in the PC world,it is ok for leftie,terroristic women to be pro-life,but not good Canadian gals.
Anybody,and I mean ANYBODY,from eithier side,who supports this commie move by the U of C,should be booted up the butt with a good,solid frozen ice pick.(No damage is being supported here,because driving an ice pick up somebodys butt,and hitting the dead space of their head,doesn't count)

I think it would be safe to say that had an LGBT display been threatened with violence the UoC would have done everything in its power to ensure the display was successfully held and rightly so. I believe that what controls the stiffness of the UoC's spine is the idea being expressed, not the threat of violence. Giving control of freedom of speech to those who threaten violence is surely not the mark of a free and democratic society and not the mark of a first class university.

If The Charter of Rights and Freedoms exempts a university property commonly considered to have free public access, it would seem to me it is incumbent on the legal entity in possession to post signage at all heavily used access points onto the property attesting to this fact and to the fact that legal action is possible by campus security for any reason when they are directed by the administration to charge those deemed to be unwelcome.

Since the argument by the uc seems to rest on the "all not expressly permitted is forbidden" euro think vs traditional common law "all that which is not forbidden is permitted", I would guess the spirit in which the charter exemption was offered has been breached. If the actions taken are not retracted and those responsible dismissed, or successful legal action taken by those charged against uc, it must fall on the Federal government to see that the abused exemption is removed as soon as possible.

I would have thought that there would be no shortage of tenured profs and apprentice shysters hanging around uc ready to run with this to poke the uc admin in the eye or conversely up the ante and get the AHRC involved on the side of suppression.

When lefty principles and real world lefty politics force choices what was Stalin's famous quote?

This might be an interesting book to read.

Your Charter doesn't defend freedom to the same extent as the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. In the US, these restrictions would be obviously unconstitutional, but under your regime, constitutional rights are subject to limitations and exemptions by act of Parliament. The upshot of this is that it's Parliament that is supreme, rather than the Charter. Minority viewpoints have no real protection in Canada.

Last fall, the UBC's Alma Mater Society (AMS), the UBC student society, voted to have "equity officers" present at every AMS club meeting. Virtually no one objected.

Precisely what these equity officers are supposed to do and how they supposed to do it is a bit vague to me. Something about advancing "social justice". But they are eerily reminiscent of the communist party members that used to be required in many events and organizations in totalitarian regimes such as Soviet Russia, East Germany, and China.

Potential violence.

Yes, that is a good excuse to prevent the unpleasant truth about the murder of the unborn being diseminated. It might provoke violence from those that support killing children.

Well, we don't really know whether the U of C rejected the presentation because of its content or because of the possibility that it might provoke violence.

I opt for the latter - the fear of violence. I don't think that a 'waiver' signed by a student absolving the University of any harm resulting from a violent demonstration on campus would hold up in court.

The university has a legal duty to protect people, students and non-students, on its property. That's the law and it would be privileged over any such 'waiver'..which as I said, would probably be thrown out by a court. No individual 'private' agreement would absolve the university of this primary duty. In fact, the university would probably be fined for even attempting to do this.

I like the idea of fines for provoking violence but this is already the law in our criminal books. And it would have to be actual violence, as per our Criminal Section. Verbal violence is too amorphous to have any legal validity (eg, that's the problem with the HRC Section 13). And you can't expel a student that easily.

No, I don't think it has anything to do with Hamas! The issue of pro-life vs pro-abortion can lead to violent emotions without any Middle East intrusions!

I think that the University does have a valid concern over violence. I think it was wrong to bring in the issue of the Charter and free speech - but that's because the students did this.

However the duty of a university, besides providing a safe atmosphere for learning, is to provide such learning - and that includes contentious issues. It has to educate the public that this is its duty and interference won't be tolerated.

Moving to Australia is looking better all the time

I have a dream - well okay, a nightmare. Imagine thousands of students at a university graduation ceremony, standing shoulder to shoulder in their mortar hats and gowns, blank faced and vacant eyed, intoning in unison...

WE -- ARE -- DIVERSE!

"Giving control of freedom of speech to those who threaten violence is surely not the mark of a free and democratic society"

Thanks Zeppo, that sums it up for me.

Reading #1...

All I can say is...

WTF?!

Fire.

Them.

All.

ET:

Concern over security and violence is a very old trick used by universities to suppress free speech. FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights In Education) have documented many such cases. Go to:

http://www.thefire.org

One variation is to charge some controversial group for security, knowing full well they can not afford it. Here's one case:

http://www.thefire.org/index.php/case/766.html

This sort of policy lets universities shut down peaceful groups because they have violent opponents. It means violence wins.

"However the duty of a university, besides providing a safe atmosphere for learning, is to provide such learning - and that includes contentious issues. It has to educate the public that this is its duty and interference won't be tolerated.

Posted by: ET at February 7, 2009 1:09 PM "

Ummmmmm....care to clarify this for me ET? "interference won't be tolerated." Interference by WHO? So are you telling me that a pro-life demonstration is "interference", but a pro burn the Jooos isn't???. That a demonstration standing up for freedom of choice is an interference,but a demonstration calling for the murder of all Israels over 18 is a just demonstration?? Have your meds worn off?

Oh.BTW ET. Demonstrations for burnig all Jooos,and kill all Israelis over 18 have been held at Candadian universities.So again. Please explain. What is your defintion of interference?

ET:

Maybe this has changed now, but I thought that when schools, for example, take children on "field trips" the parents are required to sign waivers. Yes, they still have a duty of care but stuff happens for which they not possibly be responsbile. Certainly the waiver would not absolve them from negligence (a poorly maintained vehicle, for example).

The university is NOT a police force. It is not their responsbility to prevent violence. That's the job of the police and the courts. The people responsbile for violence are the perpetrators of such violence.
As I stated above, it can help prevent violence with very strict rules, student contracts, and clearly communicated outcomes should these rules be broken. Fines, expulsions without refunds.

If I own a shop at which Jews and Muslims shop, I'm responsbile if a chandelier should fall from the ceiling and seriously hurt a Jew or Muslim, but I'm in no way responsible for the results of a fight that may break out between a Jew and Muslim on my premises. Surely, you wouldn't argue that I should refrain from doing business with one of those groups on the basis that there might be violence between them. Heh, I'd be turned in to the HRC if I did, what?

HOWEVER, I do agree with your remark about the possibility of a waiver "not holding up in court" and in fact I beleve that some schools have stopped doing these "field trips" due to concerns about the viability of the said waivers. This is a most distressing aspect of our society today when even firm contracts are nullified because in the court's opinion (too often women judges) the original terms of the contract weren't "fair". Someone told me a while back that in BC for instance a pre-nuptial agreement older than 3 years doesn't hold any weight today -- a real dilemma for older adults the second time around.

As I said above, however, and as others have opined, this "fear of violence" is a feint.

Erik

Australia isn't the answer, just returned from there.
My daughter in law has a tenured job at one of the U's in Melbourne. The horror stories she tells are just as bad as here. She told me she has several people working for her and she only needs one full time, the reason, most of them just won't do any thing they are asked and one refuses to do anything she is asked. Can't get rid of them and the professors of course are no different. She actually moved her office down the hall so she didn't have to look at them. Her biggest fear is they will gang up and start throwing around false accusations.

EVERY time an opinion that is protected by freedom of expression is suppressed for fear of violence, those who would commit the violent act have successfully done so, without effort, without risk, without consequence. Those commiting the suppression, witting or not, are accomplices to the act, and render any assurances of freedom as empty words.

These outfits have openly promoted violence to get their warped ideas before the public in the past and no doubt will do so in the future. The UofC has the responsibility to ensure a safe & secure premises and are anticipating the possibility of some form of shenanigans on their part.

If someone was parading around the campus with pictures of genocide in say Rwanda, or the Karen people of Burma

Burma 'orders Christians to be wiped out'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...ped-out% 27.html

Probably, nobody would be too upset on the U of C campus. The point is that one's own society is not implicated, it is some bad regime 'over there'. IE the bodies are not dropping on your doorstep.

These gals go by the moniker Genocide Awareness Project(GAP). So far Canada, according to the Criminal Code s318 s319, is still against the notion of genocide.

When these gals point out that Canada has unrestricted abortion on demand, via no law at all; suddenly the 'intelligencia' get uppity because it is a bad reflection on the current regime.

As to the pictures of genocide, of course they are disturbing. The point being, does the society in which they are presented have any moral reflex left? The reflex given so far is to turn away and deny that there is anything wrong at all with unrestricted abortion on demand at any time for any reason. Deny the opposing point of view a platform and the debate will be "settled."

The moral reflex was gone in german society during the '30s and '40s and those who spoke out risked being muzzled or worse. The Jewish question in that society was 'settled'.

The same is true of Ezra, when reprinting the cartoons it was a legitimate inquiry into the mindset of a minority of Islamists who think that blowing up themselves and others is a reasonable way to make a point.

This is similar to Geert Wilders calling attention to demonstrations in the Netherlands with people yelling:

"Hamas! Hamas! Jode to de gas!"

"Hamas! Hamas! Jews to the gas!"

Here you have a couple of girls facing expulsion from a university for calling attention to an issue which the rest of society is too damn lazy or disinterested, to properly debate. IE the moral reflex of the society is going dead.

If one is going to make the claim that one has freedom of speech in Canada, and the raison d'etre of a university is the free exchange of ideas, then the claim is hollow if one turns away every time someone is offended. Universities are not "bully pulpits" but places of FREE INQUIRY.

No one says you have to like the message, but one should have the right to express oneself without fear of recrimination.

The proposition that paid up students are trespassing on their chosen university, due to the content of the signage they possess, is preposterous.

To wit Columbia University invited Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak even though he was considered a highly controversial guest.

So what is wrong with politically correct U of C?

Evidently, they are intellectually spineless wimps afraid to debate and they call themselves a university.

The legalese claptrap is simply a cloak to hide behind to avoid dealing with issues of substance.

Similar to my namesake great uncle Hans in Munich denied his mathematics teaching position at the university because he didn't go along with the then current regime in the '30s and '40s. And I dare say the risk of violence back then would markedly higher than exists on the U of C campus today. The lawyerly assertions by the U of C are simple balderdash.

Same rubbish, different century.

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group "True North"

I think the girls have little chance of winning this, because I think they hooped themselves right from the outset. According to this letter, it was the girls who insisted that there would be "likelihood of violence" created by their own actions, cited in their own correspondence. That admission enhances the duty of care required by the university to take steps to mitigate such violence on the properties within its control and thats what they doing.

All the stuff about private property and the charter is just fluff. Common law imposes a duty of care on everyone to act in a manner that mitigates the possibility of violence by their actions, regardless of where and how it comes about. That the girls have already admitted to a probability of violence as a consequence of their actions imposes a duty of care on their part which the university has asked them to ameliorate, and they're refusing. Since they are unwilling, the onus now falls on the university to assume the duty of care that they will not. Would take a judge 10 second to blow the girls out of court.

The start of the Police State for socialists is to normalize police persecution against certain ideology with protest. As I’ve said many times the legal authorities are no haven in times of social unrest. They always go after the weak. Ask anyone from a third or second world Country. They will be more them happy to tell you what happens to police when the State has become a prison. They follow the laws of the land of the moment. Not Democratic principles.

In this case do you think any of the girls will trust police again after this lark?
As for the University, shame is not enough. An investigation with heads rolling ought to be pursued.

I am tired of the Marxist worm always weaseling into our institutions making of them Puppy mills of socialism & censorship for everyone else but terrorists with there socialist bitches. Who our limpid leaders are frightened of so much they side with hatred against our own civilization . If nothing else this showed the cowardice of themselves with the co-operation of the Alberta Government by was allowing Islamists 3 weeks of harassment of Jews in Calgary in their own community. In the MSM, a great quiet has descended unless its to do with Muslim excuses for killing or banning others by select violence. The Civic authorities all had hoof in the mouth disease. Of course they where not a threat nor the Caledonians no need to comment or the authorities to do there jobs to keep citizens safe. Indeed stalk them. Easy pickings..
No wonder no one applies except bullies for a position on the force these day's. Edmonton can’t even find bodies too hire. Its become a job like being a tax agent. Time to fire education mandarins & political leftist police chiefs. Fire them all!!!!

If we don't where just as culpable as the bigots, unless we get action on this outrage. How to kill Democracy by banning free speech. Great lesson there “educators". No rights for students. That means there slaves or only a select few ? I would like to see there reaction to a speaker being kicked off violently by the usual fanatics. But as we all know they would be cowering behind there desks at confronting real evil. The real lawless have been given free rein at this so called institution of diversity. Rather call it a house of tyrants.
JMO

Under another thread of Liberal Fascism, I heard an interesting story this morning. A Canadian friend of mine, who works at a large American company, told me about a not so pleasant internal forum discussion about California's Proposition 8, which puts a ban on Gay Marriage.

A self-identified gay fellow was lamenting about how homosexuals are the "New Blacks" and completely oppressed in every way. He added that anyone who doesn't support Gay Marriage is a bigot.

My friend, who doesn't really care one way or the other about Gay Marriage, pointed out a few things to this fellow:

1. Labeling anyone who disagrees with you as a bigot isn't very conducive to having a useful discussion.

2. This would make Barack Obama a bigot.

For anyone not familiar with it, Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism is an important read.

Skip: Are you a lawyer?

I read the first few lines of the lawyer letter. I dunno about that.
What if the univeristy had agreed that the protesters could put their display in a locked broom closet where people would not see it.
Would that be freedom of speech?

No I don't buy this at all. I can walk by any display even in a high traffic area and avert my eyes. Easy.

The girls saying their protest might trigger violence is a simple statement of fact, given the anti-free-speech PC thought-police environment at universities now. This bogus letter intimates that they themselves are threatening violence.

These girls have a right to present their ideas for maximum exposure. Other students have a right to avert their eyes. They do NOT have a right NOT to see something they think unpleasant. A right NOT to have to avert their eyes.

Would these girls get the same respect if they requested that anti-Israel pro-Hamas protests he held in low-traffic spots, in a dark corner. That's a rhetorical question to which you already know the answer.

The university and the law firm are both full of sh*t. The latter at least has the excuse of lying for a fee, which is what Liaryers do.

"Is there an address to write to protest this abomination ?"

Yes. Send a cheque to the US based Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), and send a photocopy of the cheque and letter to the University of Calgary. Explain that you take Freedom of Speech so seriously that you'll even forgo a Canadian tax deduction to support it.

I know several Catholics who do the same thing when their parish does something insane. They send a cheque and letter to Mother Theresa's Missionaries of Charity and send a photocopy of the cheque and letter to their local chancery explaining that they will never see one red cent from them until things change.

To paraphrase the Alberta chant during the 1970's battle over the National Energy Program:

"Let the University bastards freeze in the dark."

I believe what most people had a problem with was the overt use of disgusting graphic images to make their point. They intentionally offended a lot of people. It was central to making their point.

I wonder what the response would be from either side if it was some anti-war group using graphic images of dead soldiers or innocent women and children ripped apart by bombs. It's not as if horrible things like this don't really happen. They could use the same kind of justification for using the images - whether they appreciate it or not, people need to be confronted with the graphic truths, and it needs to be in-your-face, on-your-turf.

Or a domestic abuse support group campaigning for funds using photos of women badly beaten, or even paraded real victims fresh out of hospital. How about people trying to raise funds for testicular cancer research, or colon cancer, etc. I'm sure you can guess where I'm heading with those.

Or what if all of these groups and others decided to all put up displays, covering the campus with disgusting images, competing, as it were, to see whose graphic photos can elicit the most offense?

I'd prefer there were some restrictions. These girls were asked to take down the graphic images. They were told they'd be charged with trespassing. They ignored those warnings, and guess what?

I'm glad they got shut down. I have a problem if they get shut down, and other groups using similar tactics are not.