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.

I fail to see why anyone should be allowed to have these silly so-called protests at Universities. Universities are supposed to be a place to study, to learn, even to debate, but not to protest. These so-called protesters, no matter what they are protesting, are just distracting those who are actually there for the University's real purpose, who have paid good money for that function, and who deserve to have their purchase respected.

You want to protest? Get a danm room!

The chapter does not apply to universities (right to liberty and its ingredient 'free speech'), to universal health care (right to life), gun possession (right to security).

Jon wrote: "... 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."

My preferred technique for each of my almae matres is to take their fund raising material, fold it up tightly, put it into their pre-paid envelope, and mail it back to them with a note enclosed explaining why they clearly don't need my money.

Vitruvius, I agree with you. If a group of kids don't want to follow the rules of the school, no problem. Refund the money and punt them out of school.

That wasn't done here. What was done instead is basic thuggery. Don Julio send cousin Guido around for a quiet word with the two girls. Made them an offer they can't refuse. Except Guido was the cops this time.

Very Leftist, eh?

justthinkin - would you provide the exact words where I supported a demonstration 'calling for the murder of all Israelis over the age of 18"?

Or, for that matter, where I said that a pro-life demonstration is 'interference'?

I'm not supporting demonstrations but education, where reasoned arguments (using posterboards etc) are made for one or another point of view. When I referred to 'interference' I meant another group of people interfering with this peaceful presentation.
I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't resort to ad hominem; I'm not 'on meds'.

rabbit - I don't think that concern over security is a 'trick'; I think it's a valid concern. Certainly, that means that a violent group could, if allowed to, stop a presentation, but that shouldn't be allowed to happen.

skip - exactly. It was the girls who brought up the possibility of potential violence and the university thus has the 'duty of care'.

The issue of freedom of speech isn't relevant to this situation.

me no dhimmi - your constant bringing up of Hamas and etc are not relevant to this situation. The issue is - a presentation on a particular subject - and both views are contentious, the pro-life and the pro-abortion. [I won't use the term pro-choice; after all, choosing life is a choice].

The lawyer's letter clearly states that the girls themselves said that the display would 'likely trigger violence' and furthermore, the university offered to allow the display IF it were in some area where passers-by could avoid the display. The girls refused.

Sorry - but I'm on the side of the university on this issue. I fully support freedom of speech; and also, opportunities to explore and learn various perspectives. BUT - that doesn't mean that I have to have such perspectives 'in my face'. No, the girls don't have a right to present their viewpoint 'for maximum exposure'.

I don't want to, for example, go into a university and see poster after poster calling Bush a 'war criminal'; or decrying the US as a capitalist imperialist blah blah...Nor do I want poster after poster promoting abortion. Or rejecting it.

Furthermore, I don't want a university environment filled with polar opposite groups flinging rocks and socks and insults at each other.

Instead - every month - have a Hall of Perspectives, where different groups can present their viewpoints. No 'demonstrations' allowed; it's an educational presentation. As for the use of graphic images to move opinions from the rational to the emotional - that's another issue.

But, I see the university's point on this.

Unfotunately, the abortion/euthenasia debate is off limits at Universities. During my critical thinking - debate class at a BC University we were instructed we could debate about any social justice issue except abortion and euthenasia. I was "corrected" when during my debate reply to the other team (debate was abstinence training versus sex education for youth)that abortion is being use by youth as a means of birth control and my use of pictures of body parts infected with STI's was protested. Not allowed to use the pictures nor bring abortion into the discussion. The only free speech at universities is the parroting of the elite.

Agreed, ET, a Hall of Perspectives. I wouldn't even care if it was permanent, just as long as it doesn't interfere with traffic flow, noise level, or atmospheric quality. Just like a smokers' lounge, or a discotheque. But if a bunch of silly so-called protesters are creating a knot in the traffic flow that prevents me from getting to my next duly-paid-for class on time, then just shoot them.

Vitruvius and Jimbo, if information booths, and graphic images, were not allowed on campus, this particular case wouldn't be disturbing, albeit that proscription would be, to me. What's disturbing is that this is yet another case of progressives saying, in effect, "you hold the wrong opinion, so you're not allowed to say that."

One should be allowed to put up an information booth for any cause that doesn't advocate violence. Deeming an information booth a "protest," and not a debate, is highly contentious; a booth certainly doesn't get up on its legs and smash windows, or hold up traffic, or march into classrooms yelling; one can just walk by an information booth.

But leaving aside the issue of whether or not a booth is tantamount to a protest, I'm guessing that we all understand that a Planned Parenthood booth, for example, wouldn't be kicked off campus.

This case isn't about graphic images: "The (U of C) regularly permits graphic images to be displayed for some causes -- in November, another, nearby exhibit displayed...photographs of Falun Gong members allegedly tortured by Chinese authorities..."

I didn't pay to have "information" "booths" strewn
around the passageways, EBD: get them out of there.

I haven't seen anything suggesting that the booths interfered with traffic flow, or that those manning the booths were making noise.

I don't even want to see them out of the corner of my eye. I'm trying to solve a differential equation in my head on my way from my logic class to my thermodynamics class. All I want to see is vaulted arches, oak trees and duck ponds. It's supposed to be an institute of higher education. Lower-level mere "information" I can get off-campus, already.

How about a booth selling tickets to a campus dance?

Put it in the non-educational part of the facility, say, in the Port lounge, behind a heavy oak door, under a vaulted arch, so I won't even know it's there while I'm on my way to differential equation solving in your head duck pond, unless I explicitly go there. And no screaming babies anywhere near classrooms or study halls. None. Put them in the crying room in back of chapel.

Okay, no booths. Would it be okay if someone walked quietly on your usual route, going the same direction as you, and furtively handed out info-sheets (time, location) for the dance?

No. Put a notice on the board, and get
your danm "info" sheets out of my face.
You're interrupting my studying thoughts.

What if you stopped to chat with a friend for a moment, and while your friend was telling you about the dance, he saw a pretty girl, who you'd had your eye on, wink at you, and he handed her an info sheet about the dance, written in mechanical pencil on a torn piece of looseleaf?

I'd like to shove down the throats of those who refuse to debate the merits of abortion as a birth control alternative this horrific news item as I'm sure the pro-life kids at U of C would too.

Liberals desperately need to keep abortion in the abstract or as a casual birth control alternative without moral consequences. We live in a day and age when their is no excuse for this.

That's fine, EBD. We highly educated folks are still people, you know. Your most recent example is spontaneous and volitional (with the proviso that we're still not blocking traffic or yelling). It's the explicit aforethought marketing of products, services, and political positions in what should rightly be holy academic spaces that I object to.

I'm altogether on the side of the girls.

Yes, as a result of their display, there may have been violence, but that would be because many "so-called" pro-choicers are left-wing bullies.

Those who support the university re its concerns about violence would, I presume, take the side of the Ayatollahs re the proper garb for women: not covering oneself "is likely to promote rape" so you’d better cover yourself.

I agree with Zeppo: "Giving control of freedom of speech to those who threaten violence is surely not the mark of a free and democratic society."

So, because pro-lifers are overwhelmingly more irenic than their ideological counterparts (think Israeli supporters versus Hamas supporters), it seems that they will be censured, rather than the bullies. This is patently unjust.

Re banning all outside-the-class displays at universities because they clutter things up: why have those who think that not been more vocal about the many left-wing—which far outnumber the conservative—displays that have regularly cluttered up our universities for decades?

Speaking of the new “lepers” of society: pro-lifers would fit the bill quite nicely and I wager that some of the support for the university here masks an aversion to the pro-life cause. Speaking of which . . .

Seeing as we are a country that 1) prides itself on its fairness and good will, and 2) via medicare, pays for all of the HUNDRED THOUSAND PLUS abortions per year (Morgentaler has been made a millionaire, thanks to the Canadian taxpayer), Canadians should know that abortion is bloody violence perpetrated against innocent and defenceless human beings more than 100 000 times every year.

’Not a pretty picture? You bet it isn’t. But it is the TRUTH and Canadians, who pay for it and, by their silence, condone it, should know what’s happening. (How on earth can a woman make an informed choice without this knowledge?)

So, as I said, I'm altogether on the side of the girls. Brava and Godspeed!

Did I do a post on this? Oh, of course!

http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com/2009/02/u-of-calgary-under-intense-fire-for.html

Needless to say, I naturally have a few strong (and perhaps 'strong' is an understatement) words for the University of Calgary's astonishing behavior. Classic Canadian Sentinel literary shock-and-awe warfare against above-the-law ideological extremists such as we now know pose as univeristy administrators.

Shut that place down. Or at least fire the administrators responsible for this criminal violation of human and Charter rights against an identifiable group. Investigate the police and the law firm who agreed to assist with this brazen act of violation of rights.

Oh, and, yes, I mention in my post that never would the University of Calgary treat "gays" or Muslims like that. Of course not; they'd say that they can't do that because they'd be violating those folks' rights and that they have to treat them equally and not discriminate. But when it comes to people, like Pro-Lifers, with a message inconvenient to the Hard Left (obviously the UofC is Hard Left), well, all of a sudden it looks like Stalinist or Putinist Russia, like Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc...

Yep. The Brownshirts of the Hard Left are active in Soviet Canuckistan.

Mr. Harper, tear down that university!

ET.....I all ready quoted it.You want no interference in what the so-called institutes of higher learning do.Since you are obviously for the adminstrators and lawyers of said "institutes" having all the rights,then nuff said.And do you really want all your Pro-Pali,tribal,Israel's faults crap posts here brought up again?
Vit.....30 years ago,you may have "paid" for your education,but no more.I devy anyone to name me ONE post high school institute in Canada that is not paid for by public i.e. taxpayer funds,in 2009.We have been,and are,a socialist state in education for far longer then most like to admit.You want no booths,etc,then stay in your room,and get it over the internet.

And another thing. Improper use of bold-face type in running text is right out. To anyone who knows anything about typography and how the human brain reads, you just come across looking like an idiot.

me thinks many missed the whole point of the exercise

ET is correct on the point of the UofC and assuring no violence occured (as the two had suggested it might),and maybe the threats and the use of police was over reaction by the UofC, but the girls achieved their goal, MAXIMUM expossure, as here we are discussing them on a popular bolg, which is far more than they would had achieved by a peacefull protest,and a lot safer than being sujected to violence, which by the way is not foreign to pro-liffers.

we too often see posters in here drag in "abortion" and "gay" into discussions they have no place, so I suggest some should look in the mirror and learn to clean up their own back yard!!!!!!

That's a relief, Vitruvius. But suppose the dance was a Pro-Life benefit, and your friend habitually moved his lips when he wrote, and there were deaf people nearby...

I kid.

Penny, that article describes a murder committed under the rubric of abortion. The familiar term CNN uses -- "Live-birth abortion case" -- implies somehow that the fetus is not alive in most abortions. But how many dead-birth abortions are there, really?

Shouldn't they be at the school for the deaf?

You've hit the nail on the head, Canadian Sentinel. Thanks.

But I am disappointed that people here, who are usually free speech advocates, are trying to find excuses to support the totalitarian U of C. I suspect this apparent double standard has everything to do with an aversion to the pro-life cause. As I said, pro-lifers are this "enlightened" society's lepers--and not just among the left-wing elitists.

(The brainwashing of "polite" society, re the abortion issue, is just about complete. In fact, it seems to me that it's considered more of a faux pas to publicly object to abortion than it is to admit one's actually HAD one. I believe there's something grossly wrong with this picture. You go, U of C pro-life girls!)

Moving to Australia is looking better all the time
Posted by: Erik Larsen at February 7, 2009 1:11 PM

--Forget it, Erik. A journalist friend of mine in Australia tells me horror stories about Liberal Fascism running amok there. She also tells me that the business-addicted Australian government is submissive to intimidation from Communist China when it comes to intimidating/silencing "inconvenient" groups and expression. And it sounds at least as bad as in Canada, if not worse. Waste of a move and money.

GYM, what nonsense: what you're saying is entirely beside the point. The publicity this story has generated in no way cancels out the totalitarian, unjust treatment that the girls are receiving at the—very heavy—hands of both the university and the state.

Which pro-life violence? Yes, some whackos, a MINUSCULE percentage of pro-lifers, have murdered—very few—abortion doctors and have been soundly excoriated by the pro-life community for this appalling and unacceptable violence and have received the full sanction of the law for their heinous crimes. And, as the MSM protect the pro-abortion camp in the same way they protect Obama and the Liberals, how would you know about the pro-choice propensity—like all the other left-wing spoiled brats—to unpleasantness, intimidation, and even violence? (Knock, knock: just who do you think is possibly going to perpetrate the violence that the university and some posters here are so afraid of and which has been used as an excuse to bully and harass the non-violent? Now, GYM, THAT’S irony!)

'Ironic, too, that you should be so concerned about violence: abortion is STATE SANCTIONED, STATE PAID FOR VIOLENCE ON A MASSIVE SCALE. Of course, as people like these two girls are demeaned and marginalized—like gays used to be—for daring to bring this inconvenient truth to people’s attention, it seems that you’re not at all aware of the irony of your arrogant and ignorant remarks.

GYM’s knee-jerk illogic and bigotry towards pro-life advocates is the deliberate end result of the “pro-choice” propaganda that is all around us (like AGW). ’Just see what happens to "deniers" who try to shine some light on the truth of the subject? And the GYM’s of this world think that this kind of discrimination—though not okay for people like gays—is just fine, as long as the citizen on the receiving end is the kind, e.g., pro-life, who DESERVES it. That kind of thinking—where ALL citizens are not considered equal under the law—is totalitarian. Having become a brainwashed dupe via the lies of the "pro-choice" propagandists, I guess GYM hasn’t noticed . . .

I guess the Charter doesn't protect them at the University either - hey, you know what? I might mosey on down there and see what I could do without "the right to property" protecting them.

Gays possess scant little more brain cells when they screech against a Charter protected right like religion, but then look all dumbfounded when they learn that all of the rights they have currently twisted into existence, are only possible because of Trudeaupian/Hegelian/Fabian document known as "The Charter." Get rid of charter protected rights like religion, and what, pray tell, document are gays gonna rest their "rights" on after that?

Lol! What a joke.

Try abusing your wife in your home and saying that "The Charter does not apply in my home." Good One.

Academics have always been amongst the most dense in society.

And it's pretty dense out there.

ET:

Perhaps trick is not the right word. It is certainly a convenient excuse, and one that gets used selectively. This case is a fine example.

Universities tolerate all sorts of highly controversial groups which pose a risk of inciting violence. Strangly, it's usually those groups that are unpopular with the university at large where there's a sudden concern with safety.

Abusing your wife is not covered by the Charter,
it is covered by the Criminal Code. Not that I
would expect people over-dosing on so-called human
rights to understand or appreciate the difference.

lookout - that's a totally unfair analogy, comparing the University's legal and moral requirement to protect the physical security of people on its property - to a fundamentalist Islamic dress code.

justthinkin - I asked you to provide evidence where I supported a demonstration 'calling for the murder of all Israelis over the age of 18"?

And, where I said that a pro-life demonstration is 'interference'?
Kindly answer. You have no right to make false claims about what I said.

Nor did I say that I "want no interference in what the so-called institutes of higher learning do.Since you are obviously for the adminstrators and lawyers of said "institutes" having all the rights".

I didn't say or even imply this.
I think you should stick to your own opinions rather than fictional rewrites of what other people say. Kindly read what I actually said - and it bears no relationship to your words.

And why on earth are you (and others) bringing up comments about Palestine, Israel etc - when the issue is about student point-of-view presentations on the issue of abortion?

lookout - the U of C was not behaving in a 'totalitarian' manner. It was behaving, in my view, in a defensive manner, focused on one and only one issue: its duty to protect the security of people on its campus. Period. Nothing else. Nothing to do with pro-or anti-abortion. Nothing to do with freedom of speech.

no-one- I'm not sure what you were taught in your critical thinking-debate class, but I would hope it would consist of logical forms (syllogism, If-Then) and fallacies of argumentation. I suggest that abortion and euthanasia are very difficult topics to use in such a class - because there is no TRUTHFUL conclusion.

The conclusions that one arrives at, whether one is pro or against, are not issues of logic but of morality and emotion. You can't really win such an argument; you can only come to a conclusion that satisfies you.

Vitruvius @ 6:20 and 6:16... I'm deaf and I graduated from UNB. Never went to any "deaf school".

FYI.

And as for my use of boldface making me look idiotic, guess I'll have to plead temporary idiocy, as do you when you get all verbally diarrheic in your own writing. ;)

Oh, absolutely, Sentinel. That's part of the price
one simply must pay for doing a parody of a satire.

So those who say that, indeed, the university is exempt from the Charter, then do you agree that they can treat "gays" and Muslims the same way they treated the Pro-Life girls in question?

Disallow any "gay" and Muslim "information" demonstrational event for made-up nonsense reasons... they can do this, too? Right?

Yeah, right. I'd love to see that happen. Not gonna.

Besides, recall the Delwin Vriend case? The Kings University College (also in Alberta) fired him for being "gay", which was unacceptable to the university's religious nature, and he won his suit against them... on the basis of the Charter.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexrights/timeline_canada.html

In November 1997, the case goes to the Supreme Court of Canada and on April 2, 1998 the high court unanimously rules that the exclusion of homosexuals from Alberta's Individual Rights Protection Act is a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court says that the act would be interpreted to include homosexuals even if the province doesn't change it. The Alberta government does not use the notwithstanding clause despite pressure from conservative and religious groups.

So, those who agree with the UofC: Are universities/colleges exempt from the Charter, even though the Supreme Court said otherwise?

Hmm...

ET wrote, "lookout - that's a totally unfair analogy, comparing the University's legal and moral requirement to protect the physical security of people on its property - to a fundamentalist Islamic dress code."

ET, that's simply an assertion on your part. (Aren’t you breaking your own rule here?) I see nothing unfair in the analogy at all.

E.g., You say that the university has a right to try to avoid possible violence—the "pre crime" you've rightly ridiculed in other circumstances—by censuring not the perpetrators of the violence to come, but those innocents who will be its victims.

Forcing women to wear burqas in order to end run the possibly violent sexual impulses of those who cannot control themselves when they see uncovered female flesh is an altogether apt analogy.

In both cases, it’s called punishing the victim for her behaviour in order to let the possible perpetrator of violence off the hook by rendering that person unaccountable for his(her) behaviour by removing any stimulus that might “force” that person over the brink.

ET, this is the very “infantalization” you deplore in the Nanny State and here you are, defending Nanny U of C.

I don't buy it.

in the 80's when I struggled thru physics completely unaware of social issues only a couple of protests were held and one was a bunch of scrawny dorks barking and handing out pamphlets that said, Fawk All..I ripped the pamphlet upinto confetti sized pieces and showered the hopeless asshole. He was so ticked about that I heard him, in a groan-cry say, Fffuuuuck hof, weakly.

To think THAT might be violent protest is the absurdity and circular-unreasoned logic of the modern pomo liberal.

Alberta's Individual Rights Protection Act is a government statute, Sentinel. How a university manages peoples' behaviour on its campus is not. Fundamentally, human rights apply to the former, not the latter. That such is not the case in practice at this time is not my fault, nor am I responsible for the fact that 97.265 per-cent of human beings have completely lost sight of what human rights were developed, over millenia, to protect against, as a result of which we are now losing those protections in the name of human rights.

I would like to know just what these so called "graphic" pictures likely to promote violence were. ALL the pro-life booths I have seen simply show the progression of the "fetus" in vitro and show that the development is quite advanced even in the first trimester. I have not come across a single pro-life demonstration or booth that showed pictures of "fetuses" being aborted. Generally, that is not their style.The Universities official position across Canada is that abortion and euthanasia are topics that are simply not up for discussion period and are deemed a "matters of personal choice"

I still can't get over the "Charter does not apply on universities" thing. Is this true? On what basis?

Thanks for the info, Vitruvius.

I brought up the Vriend case and ruling to remind folks of how things are working lately... and to remind them that "gays" are, in practice, and in the mind of the Left, protected "by the Charter" on university property, due to that ruling. Whether it's correct, the SCOC ruling, or not, is beside that... I'm saying, essentially, if we're going to live in a regime in which the Charter, according to political correctness, protects those of the "gay" ideology on university property but not Pro-Life folks... well, you know, then something's very wrong, and we must also point the finger at the judicial activists who call themselves judges of the SCOC...

So the UofC is saying that it's exempt from the Charter. I wonder what it would say about the Vriend case SCOC ruling, then? Would the UofC, to be consistent with their claim in the letter, then say, that, yes, they absolutely CAN discriminate against homosexuals as well as Pro-Lifers? That question ought to be posed, and on camera, to expose those lying hypocrites.

You're mixing up "gay" and "homosexual", Sentinel. In the mind of the
human-rights-chasing industry, "gay" is protected, "homosexual" is not.

ET, your meme about campus security is disingenuous: there have been LOADS of noisy, boisterous, dangerous left-wing demonstrations and displays at universities, and the administration routinely allows them to go ahead. (Guess what? More conservative types ARE much less prone to intimidation and violence than those on the left.) So, if the possibility of violence is allowable for the lefty causes—which , hmmm, happen to be sanctioned by the administration—then justice demands that the same courtesy—and RIGHT—be extended to conservative groups.

But that would be too much to expect of our lefty universities.

And, if the threat of violence were a real concern, there are surely less extreme remedies the administration could have put in place, other than removing the free speech rights of conservatives. I really like Me No Dhimmi's fine suggestions.

Also, I happened to be involved in a pro-life speech at a major Canadian university a few years back. Public threats were made against the pro-life speaker: rather than cancelling the standing room only speech, the campus police were out in force. Their presence was advertised in advance and they were very visible. The noisy, unpleasant lesbian contingent, who tried to shout down the speaker, were actually shushed by the audience!

ET, your implication that the administration had only one, IMO, altogether unjust and discriminatory, way to deal with POSSIBLE violent behaviour (your rightly maligned "pre-crime")—and, surely, those prone to violence are the problem here—is just not credible.

ET: Sorry, my comment about anti-Israel pro-Hamas protests is perfectly valid and on point.
To wit: Remember when Bibi Netanyahu (the next PM of Israel) was prevented from speaking at that university in Montreal? Prevented by the brute force of pro-Palestinian thugs.

Now, let's apply your logic: A university books Netanyahu to speak on the Arab-Israel conflict. Suddenly it occurs to the administration that its excitable pro-Palestinian (Muslim Students Association, terrorist front group) association may engage in violent acts to prevent the talk. Students could get hurt. Ergo, as the university has a duty to protect students, it cancels the presentation. That's your argument, and it's nonsense.
What it amounts to is a disgusting and craven acceptance and validation of student violence and the suppression of debate on controversial subjects.

This issue is extremely simple: it's censorship dressed up as a security issue by gutless university administrators. Femi-marxists now control most universities today, and you know this better than anyone.

Vitruvius: While I can see your point that one equitable solution might be to prevent all such presentations on campus, this ain't gonna happen. Moreoever, I believe this would create a very sterile learning environment, if you accept the premise that a good liberal arts education is not limited to the activities inside a classroom -- that real learning can also occur in the cut and thrust of peaceful and respectful debate about controversial social/political issues.

lookout: Excellent point!
Yeah, the "likely to lead to violence" is indeed disingenuous and virtually indistinguishable from the sec 13 "likely to cause offence" pre-crime (great phrase) which ET so eloquently nailed in all those posts.

We agree, Me No Dhimmi. Peaceful and respectful debate. That's not what's happening in this case, or in any of these such cases, indeed, if it were, we would not in general be hearing about them. Just remember, when it comes to truly insightful debates, the quality of the result tends to be inversely proportional to the size of the crowd (at least once it's past a certain minimal "seed" size).

Add SMU, Halifax to the list.

http://caymanpei.blogspot.com/2009/02/smu-stifles-discussion.html

So the Charter stops at university boundaries, eh? Ok, then...

I'm never going back to university, ever. After all, once I cross the boundary of the campus, I no longer have any rights...

It's scary, isn't it? Unless you're a member of one of those groups whom the Hard Left exalts and pampers... like the homosexuals and the Muslims... the university will certainly make rules that protect THEM but anyone else will be on-campus at their own risk, subject to the mercy of the Liberal Fascist administration... kind of like living in the Islamic World or in Communist China...

lookout

usually your responses are reasonable, level headed and clear, your last response to me had me rolling on the floor laughing. I happen to be pro-choice, anti-abortion, and that position has nothing to do with any indoctrination

now let me edumacate you just a little, first off these girls set out on a mission, and mission accomplished (brovo), secondly the UofC stopped them from breaking the law (the girls that is) as it is a criminal offence to proceed with any actions that will cause violence (or the breaking of laws)if it can reasonable avoided!!!

this law breaking is often not understood by those who claim "I was in the right" when a traffic accident occures that they could have avaided but didn't because they were in the right

now as to all your other pontifications about about me, I say chill out, I'm not a monster that kills inocent kids. I love the wee ones.

Oh really, Sentinel, you have the same rights on campus as off. I just wish people would stop inventing rights whenever they felt it convenient simply because the rights-chasing bandwagon is such a convenient thing to jump on. Simply put, you do not have the right to disrupt the proper functioning of a University. We can argue about where to draw the line, yet the point remains, you do not have that right. That so many others who are politically fashionable at this time appear to be granted such right by the limp-wristed administration does not change the fact that no such right actually exists.

Well GYM, I still find your "logic" totally skewed and I don't appreciate having words put in my mouth: "I'm not a monster that kills inocent [sic] kids". I suggested no such thing.

The girls broke no law. They pointed out that there could be violence. Please read my post of 8:00 p.m. to see what I think the reasonable response to that possibility should be.

We agree, Me No Dhimmi. Peaceful and respectful debate. That's not what's happening in this case

Not sure I follow Vitruvius. Are you suggesting that these young women were threatening violence by merely mentioning that their peaceful presentation might trigger it? Weren't they merely making a best guess based on their understanding of the stifling PC environment on campus. Would they be responsible for such violence?

Maybe I've missed something.

For the record, I'm none too fond of radical in your face anti-abortion groups. But neither am I fond of pro-Hamas protesters who don't seem to experience the same obstacles these young women did.

As mentioned, I'm kinda with you on your impatience with this university protest stuff. It's getting awfully tedious and perhaps too distracting. My interest here is merely one of equity and free speech for all, not just for approved opinion.

canadian sentinel - the case that you brought up, about hiring/not hiring someone who is gay has nothing to do with this situation of a presentation that 'might incite violence'. Your analogy is false.

lookout - no, the university has a duty to protect the people on its property. IF a group is doing X, and has themselves stated that this action might incite violence, THEN, the university has a duty to either ensure that the incitement to violence is reduced OR stop the group's action.

The university therefore asked the girls to put up their presentation in a site where people could, if they wished, avoid it. The girls refused.

This has NOTHING to do with freedom of speech, but with the university's duty to prevent violence. Remember, the university asked the girls to present their posters in a site where people could take another route. There is absolutely no obligation re 'freedom of speech' that such speech be given a wide/widest public platform.

And, again, your analogy of a 'burqa' is incorrect. This social mindset declares, as a fact, that the female body WILL incite violence. Now, IF you sincerely believe this, THEN, it is absolutely correct to cover the body.
In our society, we say the opposite.

Another example: IF you believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, THEN, you will have laws that legislate this.

Nothing to do with punishing the victim or infantilization.

lookout - the fact that there have been 'loads of noisy demonstrations' (at the U of C?) has nothing to do with this situation. And the 'tu quoque' argument is an invalid one; because it's been allowed elsewhere (or here) doesn't mean that it should be allowed.

The students themselves suggested that their presentation might incite violence. The university DID suggest another option to the girls, to set up their presentation in another walkway, where people could either see it or avoid it. They girls refused.

Your example of a public speaker is different, and was handled correctly by the university. The university essentially told the audience: No violence; we will not permit it.

My suggestion for these girls would be to go to another part of campus. My suggestion to the University would be to have a monthly Hall of Debatable Issues.

me no dhimmi- Concordia University had a choice; either hire massive police protection for that particular speaker, or cancel it. They cancelled it because they felt they couldn't protect him or the students. I don't think that this decision was made in isolation (suddenly it occurred). There were a LOT of threats made about this speaker and it was these threats that concerned the university.

Who was at fault? Not the university but the Muslim Student's Association and whoever made the threats. The university, as I said, had a choice. Either hire many police and warn against any violence - or - cancel. I suspect they felt that even the warnings and police wouldn't control the situation.

The next step for the University, IF threats of violence had actually been made by this group, would be to completely ban the group.

Again, in my view, this situation has nothing to do with freedom of speech. And remember, such speech doesn't rest on any requirement for 'the widest public venue for the speech'. The university offered the girls a different location and they refused.

Justnotthinking:

In another thread, I despaired of people's arithmetic skills. Let me despair of your reading comprehension. ET wrote:

"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."

The word "this" in the second sentence (helpfully highlighted in bold to assist you in finding it) is what grammarians call a "pronoun". A pronoun, to be understood, must have an antecedent. In this case, the antecedent is (paraphrased) "the university's duty is to provide a safe atmosphere for learning, including the learning of contentious issues". In other words, the university has to provide a safe place for the airing of all issues, including unfashionable ones like pro-life. Now the second phrase of her second sentence implies that interference with that duty won't be tolerated (although, were I your editor, ET, I would have put a comma after "duty"). In other words, the university should be willing to undertake all means to ensure that all issues, and all sides to those issues are debated, but are done so in an atmosphere free of violence or intimidation. If the pro-abortion crowd wants to have a demonstration or information session, they shouldn't be subject to a group of pro-lifers marching in shouting "Abortion is murder", etc., but the same right should hold for pro-lifers - they should be able to hold their sessions without being subject to catcalls of "women haters", "anti-woman", etc., from a pro-abortion group. To emphasize ET's point, the university's duty is to make sure that no one interferes with a group's session - not groups from the other side, not from the police, and not from grandstanding politicians or media looking for publicity.

"ET on meds" - huh. She is one of the most eloquent and intelligent posters here. Insulting her is low, and beneath a gentleman.

Here endeth the lesson.

Aye, Me No Dhimmi, theory v. practice. And I must say: brilliantly argued, KevinB. Well, thanks for the discussion folks, it's been thought-provoking (which is what I come here for, not to argue), but now I've got to go and get tonight's Late Nite Radio show together. Catch y'all later.

Vitruvius @ 8:36 and before: I think you miss the point. We're talking double standards here.

There are LOADS of lefty out-of-class events on campus. Fair enough. I even think that! For universities to censor only those that aren’t—which is what seems to be happening —is what we’re talking about here. (I find your apparent “all out-of-class events need to go” both not credible and a possible smokescreen for being not in favour of pro-life groups having freedom on campus to promote their case. IMO.)

Here’s a cross post by me, from the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) sanctions against Lowell Green thread (just below this one):

“Double standard, anyone?

“The CBSC is a left-wing propaganda machine. It supports Muslims and other, favoured groups. It discriminates against those causes it doesn't happen to like.

“E.,g., Life Canada, a pro-life group, recently had the following ad banned by the CBSC:

Along with a photograph of a very pregnant woman's belly (fully clothed), here's what the ad said:

"9 months.

"The length of time an abortion is allowed in Canada.

"abortion.

"Have we gone too far?"

“It's not just graphic, unpleasant pictures the Establishment doesn't want: it's the TRUTH.”

I’m sorry to say, that, when it comes to the abortion issue, I detect some of the same double standard right here at SDA. That’s anyone’s right. But I find it disappointing: IMO, “free speech for me [and my favoured groups], but not for thee” just isn’t one of SDA’s values.

canadian sentinel - the case that you brought up, about hiring/not hiring someone who is gay has nothing to do with this situation of a presentation that 'might incite violence'. Your analogy is false. -ET

--Guess you don't understand then.

My point is that in the Vriend case, the Charter was said by the SCOC to apply. Hence it applied to the university who fired him for being gay. No? Then to what did the SCOC's ruling apply, if not to the university?

The crux of the matter is whether the Charter applies to a university, not comparing one alleged rights-violation to another.

Hey, Lookout, I saw that ad on a billboard in my city. There was nothing graphic at all, nothing offensive.

It's crime? Being inconvenient to the Hard Left's agenda.

lookout

my bad, I did not mean to infer that you infered anything by my " I'm not a monster and I love wee ones", I was defining myself, period!!

""""The girls broke no law. They pointed out that there could be violence. """"

and as to the girls "breaking" the law, there are laws against incitement, verbal assult, consiracy, and other non-active events, and if the girls had proceeded with their protest at the location they wanted with the knowledge that it MAY cause violence, then I would leave it to a court to decide if they were charged, as they are obligate by law the avoid such actions with reasonable cosideration if they know that it may cause violence, trust me, I'm well versed in some of these things, first hand experience and all that:-))))

Went back to read Ezra's post. I was thinking exactly this while reading several of the posts above which seemed to have completely twisted this violence issue -- turned it on its head.

There is one last point in this letter that deserves our special execration. The letter claims that the pro-lifers were worried about violence. If they indeed said that, it is obvious that they were worried that they would be victims of violence – and that it was a request for the university, and perhaps the police, to uphold the law and protect them from violence. Instead, the U of C uses the pro-lifers’ own concern about being victimized as an excuse to kick them off campus. Instead of protecting students who are worried about violence, they’re picking on them. They’re blaming the victim.

ET, my head spins. I do not agree with your explanations.

I've made my case. I stand by it.

Me No Dhimmi @ 9:13: EXACTLY!! Well said.

I made the same point, about unfairly blaming the victim, from personal experience, @ 8:00 p.m. (GYM, please note. You seem to have missed this point. I do, however, appreciate your civil tone and understanding that I didn't say certain things about you.)

Write to Harvey Weingarten, President of the University of Calgary:

president@ucalgary.ca

batb, 'will do. Thanks.

I do agree, Lookout, that the fundamental, key, central, principal point here is the University's apparent double standard. It's as if one group gets treated as A, and the other as B. That's not fair. Yet the question remains: should everyone be treated like A, or should everyone be treated like B?

no-one- I'm not sure what you were taught in your critical thinking-debate class, but I would hope it would consist of logical forms (syllogism, If-Then) and fallacies of argumentation. I suggest that abortion and euthanasia are very difficult topics to use in such a class - because there is no TRUTHFUL conclusion.

ET

IF a teen chooses to be sexually active THEN STI's can occur and IF she becomes pregnant abortion THEN becomes an option.

IF a teen chooses abstinence THEN STI's, and the often resulting sterility problems, as well as pregnancy are THEN avoided. IF pregnancy is avoided, THEN abortion is unecessary.

These are TRUTHFUL conclusions.

Vitruvius, very good question . . .

I'm on the side of allowing a true diversity of opinion. Of course that's not happening. However, I'm not in favour of banning student motivated presentations. IMO, if that happened and the only presentations allowed were puppeteered by the powers that be in the front office, things would be even worse—and altogether patronizing.

As well, student involvement in issues is often a very worthwhile endeavour. Yes, this activity has gone rather overboard, but to get rid of it altogether would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Re out-of-class presentations, I altogether like Me No Dhimmi’s suggestions for curbing the worst excesses of student radicalism. Real accountability would make a huge difference.

I agree.

The astonishing thing is, the reason given by the university for taking legal action was "anonymous complaints" about the pro-life display.

Give me a break. First, "likely to lead to violence" which, as lookout and Me No Dhimmi point out, is similar to the ludicrous "likely to cause offence," is a red herring. It is the responsibility of university students NOT to react violently to other points of views and where that doesn't happen, surely it's the role of the police to quell the violence -- hypothetical, in this case.

As for the U. of C. responding in such a Draconian way to "anonymous complaints": How cowardly. How like the lib-left to hide behind an "anonymous" skirt. I'd love to know who, exactly, made the complaints. Pro-abortion feminists? Anti-religious (aka anti-Christian) bigots?

The university needs to identify the offended parties, otherwise kiss any pretense of intellectual freedom, freedom of religion, or freedom of expression on their campus good-bye.

The University of Calgary is now synonymous with bullying thuggery and intellectual totalitarianism.

And, BTW, I am in total agreement with lookout when it comes to the intellectual dishonesty with which the issue of abortion is dealt with in Canada. Anyone who accuses these young women of displaying "offensive" materials needs to view an actual abortion. Abortion is a bloody and violent act, whatever a woman's motivation for having one.

The ultimate irony is an accusation of "violence" against those attemtping to end the violence of abortion, whereas the act of abortion itself is given a pass. While these ("trespassing"???) U. of C. students are being charged and summonsed to court, Henry Morgentaler has been awarded the Order of Canada and he's the one with actual blood on his hands.

Sad Orwellian, Kafka-esque Canada.

Well, this story certainly disabuses me of my former illusion that U of Cal may have been the single exception to the dreary, politically correct landscape of Canadian academe.

"Me No Dhimmi @ 9:13: EXACTLY!! Well said.

I made the same point, about unfairly blaming the victim, from personal experience, @ 8:00 p.m. (GYM, please note. You seem to have missed this point. I do, however, appreciate your civil tone and understanding that I didn't say certain things about you.)
Posted by: lookout at February 7, 2009 9:23 PM "

Neither GYM, nor ET have missed the point - they have the point exactly. Ezra has missed the point. In going off on his tangent about freedoms, he's missed what the University is dealing with. ET has it correct that it is not a freedom of speech matter. The lawyer has thrown those points in as bafflegab against issues the students raised in their letter. As I mentioned and GYM pointed out earlier, there is a fundamental requisite of common law that regardless of right, you have a duty, in the face of negligence or will of the other party to avoid violent consequences, regardless of the colour of right. The girls have so informed the university and stated that there is an expectation that their activity may incite violence.
Having so informed the university, the university must now apply due diligence as is their obligation in view of these facts, to mitigate any possible violence which may occur. To do otherwise leaves them liable for civil action in tort if the violence occurs and injuries are sustained. Further, the girls have rejected what the university believes is a reasonably compromise to mitigate the possibility of violence and have not offered an acceptable alternative. As a consequence, the university takes the position that it cannot, under a duty of care, allow them to proceed in the manner in whcih they desire. I expect the girls pursued this with vigour and some belligerence.

The Charter does not guarantee any means by which freedom of speech may be enjoyed. The case law is long and thick on this point ("Fire" in a crowded theater...) The issue is not about freedom of speech, its not about abortion/pro-life, its about civil and possibly criminal liability.

Me no Dhimmi - no, I am not a lawyer - I enforce it, rather than debate it, sometimes against lawyers. When I need to argue in front of the court, I call the Dept of Justice to do that.

no-one - your If-Then sentences are not relevant to the reasoning to exclude certain topics from debate. Your examples are not only complex but are not opinions. Your If-Then sentences involve physical, not emotional, realities. For example, when one is sexually active, then this leads to disease which might then require or not require, abortion and so on. These topics are hardly open to debate; they are medical if/then situations.

The question in your class would be only whether or not IF one becomes pregnant, THEN, does one choose/not choose, abortion. This is not amenable to truth but to opinion.

Thanks kevinb for clarifying my point.

And Skip - you said it all perfectly. Very well argued.

As for the Charter of Rights, it does indeed not apply to university rulings. Certainly, as a citizen, you are covered by the charter when on university grounds - but the key is 'what is covered'. The Charter is confined to government action; its role is checking the powers of the government over the individual. Private activity is excluded from the charter.

A university is not part of the 'government apparatus'; its rules about its faculty, students, etc, are within its prerogative. This view, by the way, ensured that mandatory retirement could not be challenged as 'discriminatory'. (Mckinney vs University of Guelph 1990).

Don't bitch, act non-violently to defy the university. Make up 4.5x5.5 posters of the aborted babies and place them covertly all over the university.

If a 20 people places 100 of these posters, the university would be faced with seeing the resulting evidence that abortion is murder.

The university elites don't want students to see aborted babies because they don't believe students can think for themselves. They are afraid that many students, rightly, on seeing these pictures would reject abortion and the underlying lies of secular leftist feminist ideology.

Dissent ... poster the university.

Skip: Very well written post, but I'm afraid I find your argument to be pure sophistry. The girls didn't make any threats. They merely made a observation -- a very sound one -- that their booth might trigger violence -- as Ezra pointed out, toward THEM. They were seeking assurance of protection. The university has cynically and cravenly turned this against them and used it as an excuse to shut down this group which espouses a deeeply unpopular view on campus to appease femi-marxists who run the universities today.

As I understand it, they were merely to operate a information booth.

I re-read Ezra's post and that lawyer letter, which I found breathtakingly heavy-handed. Registered paid up students, trespassers? Threats of arrests. Tort. Fines, expulsions. I am deeply shocked.

As to their belligerence, your own language suggests that you are merely guessing here.

Bottom line for me is this: lib-leftist groups are assured of a complete and fair airing of their views because conservatives tend not to use the violence option. Conservative groups, on the other hand, have no such assurance because lib-leftists embrace violence. Lib-leftists need only make loud, frequent and vociferous threats to shut down conservative groups on the bogus premise that the university has to prevent violence. And of course, to shut out unpopular speakers like Netanyahu.

ET hates my pro-Hamas analogy, but I'm betting such groups were not expected to restrict themselves to dark lightly travelled corners on the campus.

No Skip, no ET, the threat of violence in this instance is minimal. Bogus. This is CENSORSHIP pure and simple.

These young women have been treated shamefully.

In Germany recently, during the Gaza war, a family was required by the police to remove a Israeli flag from it's upstairs window.
You know why? It might lead to violence. Might offend pro-terrorist protesters. Seriously.

In Brussels a while back a group that wanted to put on a 9/11 memorial vigil was prevented from doing so. Some peaceful participants, including a well-known member of parliament, were roughed up.
You know why? It might lead to violence. Might offend Muslims.

Geert Wilders had his screening of Fitna in the British House of Lords cancelled (since re-scheduled).
You know why? It might lead to violence (which was theatened by Muslim Lord Ahmed who threatened to round up 10,000 Muslims to prevent the screenning.)

Has anyone here seen Indoctrinate U?

http://indoctrinate-u.com/pages/welcome.html

"Lord Ahmed" (now there's a travesty if ever there was one) is guilty of treason.
Good King Harry must be spinning in his grave! He would have had him in the Tower so fast his head likely would have fallen off all by itself. Good one tony bliar!

Posted by ET

"The question in your class would be only whether or not IF one becomes pregnant, THEN, does one choose/not choose, abortion. This is not amenable to truth but to opinion."

ET:
As usual, you missed the point completely and are back peddling at best. Do you realize you use many words to say nothing? I stated facts not an opinion. Point penalties were imposed for simply using the word "abortion" or "euthanasia" during the team debates, regardless of the context or relevancy to the topic being debated.

IF we simply do not allow discussion, as you have had the ability to do on this board, on a topic or prohibit the use of certain words THEN it is impossible for truth or idealogical change to occur. By doing so, reality is being ignored at best. Opinions can not even exist under this type of intimidation let alone truth. Be thankful you have this board to speak your mind and give your opinions while it is still legal to do so.

I thought it was only pro-lifers who used violence, at least according to the MSM. As I said, I have never seen a pro-life booth set up that showed butchered babies. They tend to focus on life - you know the faces of smiling children and mothers, even those who chose to have a child after a rape. Testimonies for living children of abortion who are very happy the abortion failed - this does not happen anymore for this very reason-they make sure the 8 or 9 month "fetus" is dead.

ET - a word of wisdom from an old lady - reality does not disappear simply because you want it to - that state is one of mental illness. The use many words that say nothing is a transparent attempt to distract, confuse or simply put on airs. I find it interesting that when you do say something it is not communicated as an opinion, rather it is delivered in a condescending tone and as truth, yet you are quick to point out that someone else's facts are merely opinions. Goes back to the truth of an old cliché - takes one to know one.

I thank those below for what I thought were excellent points on this topic. However, I respect all points of view. This topic was close to home for me given my own university experience with an abortion discussion ban. You made my day. I would cut and paste my favorite lines from your comments but it is getting late in the evening:

Me No Dhimmi
Revnant Dream
Don Uthole
batb
lookout
vitruvius
Canadian Sentinel
Penny
Fred
And anyone else who defended free speech and the right to a "booth" on university campuses. Did not think I would see people punished or threatened to be punished for what someone here called pre-crimes. Reminds me of that Tom Cruise movie where people were arrested for the crime before they even committed a "crime" because so called "gifted" ones just knew a crime would happen if a certain set of events followed it's course.

Just wondering when the liberals are just going o go all the way and allow post-birth abortions too.

Do the world a favour: run a shopping cart into a liberal's shins today!

No-one: I am compelled to point out, in the interests of veracity, that Vitruvius most essentially did *not* in any sense whatsoever defend the right to a "booth" on a university campus. To the contrary, he vigorously and comprehensively defended the exactly contrary case, as in 3:53, 5:14 and 6:06 pm on Feb 7.

This is such a contentious topic, with some surprising perspectives -- all valid in their own way -- floating up, and I only point this out in the interest of avoiding any misunderstandings regarding the perspectives of various commenters here regarding the issue of free speech on campus.

No-name, lookout, good posts.

God bless these girls in their struggle.

Your caricaturization of my position is incorrect, EBD. I am merely of the opinion that any such booths should be kept right out of the way of serious students and should be restricted to places where faux-students, such as those playing in the fields of Literature, Sociology, Psychology, Journalism, &c, could still find them if they wanted to, perhaps in a Hall of Perspectives, as ET suggested, or in appropriate cases, in the Port lounge, as I suggested.

no-name, Thanks for your comments. And, a storm is coming, yes: God bless these girls and God bless Canada.

God knows, our benighted country, our Deranged Dominion, needs a spiritual re-birth: "Without a vision, the people perish."

If there ever was a country in the past 50 years without a vision, it's Canada --except for our Dystopian, sterile, motherless, childless, vision where all the women, according to the feminists, MUST be either childless (all the better to be used by the State, my dear) or, at the very least, employed in the workplace (all the more tax monies for the Leftists/Socialists to ram social engineering schemes down our plebian throats) .

Abortion, which has deprived families and our country of almost 2,500,000 children since 1969 -- that's a huge cohort, by anyone's reckoning, but particularly when you consider that Canada has a total population of only 33,000,000 -- has been a huge plank in this Dystopian Vision for Canada and, appallingly, too many Canadians have acquiesced to it, afraid to speak out in case they "offend" anyone. Good G*d, it should be the butchered body parts of babies that offend, not the talking about them or expressing an opinion about them. 'Down Alice's Rabbit Hole, again.

We are in a Demographic Winter, people are losing jobs everywhere. On just a practical level, 2,500,000 aborted children is a huge number of jobs in our manufacturing, educational, housing, and health care sectors, alone, lost or never created.

Abortion, on the scale seen in Canada, is suicidal -- and, frankly, seems to have sucked us dry of our collective moral and ethical fibre. Pretty much anything goes now.

I thought it was only the federal and provincial governments that could use the "notwithstanding" clause. Can anyone tell me when that power was also bestowed to Canadian universities?

Brava, batb. You are entirely correct.

What a country: the general population, which seems to be comprised of a critical mass of moral pygmies, is outraged at PICTURES of the abortion carnage and those who dare to show the TRUTH, but not at the carnage itself. 'Talk about a moral inversion.

We're in the winter of civilization. And most people shuffle, like zombies, towards oblivion, while those who try to awake them and arouse their slumbering consciences are victimized.

It's like a horror movie or a nightmare. Unfortunately, it's neither, and the people of the post-Christian West, generally, have their eyes wide shut.

These young women are prophetic and brave. God bless them! (And God have mercy on their persecutors: fat cat, ideological, bureacratic bullies.)

batb and lookout.

You've said it better than I could. Thankyou.

We as a country have spent decades throwing out God. When God is removed sopmething has to replace him. Welcome to evil. Hope you liberal types enjoy what's coming. You won't like it. I guarantee.

a different bob, the notwithstanding clause has not been used here.

When a court strikes down a law—duly passed by a legislature, elected by the citizens—as unconstitutional (as the courts have done with Quebec’s language laws), the legislature that passed the law may invoke the notwithstanding clause (Section 33 of the Charter).

The legislature says, “Notwithstanding the court’s ruling, we choose to retain our law” and the legislature, for five years, may do “business as usual”, as if the law had not been struck down.

As the situation here is entirely different, the notwithstanding clause has nothing to do with it.

However, the U of C has behaved in an abominable manner: its double standard is unjust and its willingness to harass and bully two of its own students on ideological grounds is unconscionable and draconian. (And until lately, such strong-arm behaviour was un-Canadian too. Unfortunately, this kind of bureacratic bullying by powerful elites is now all too common.)

A Storm is Coming, AMEN!

From Hosea 8: 1-14:

"[1] Set the trumpet to your lips, for a vulture is over the house of the LORD, because they have broken my covenant, and transgressed my law. . . [4] They made kings, but not through me. They set up princes, but without my knowledge. With their silver and gold they made idols for their own destruction. . . [7] For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind. The standing grain has no heads, it shall yield no meal; if it were to yield aliens would devour it. . . [11] Because E'phraim has multiplied altars for sinning, they have become to him altars for sinning. [12] Were I to write for him my laws by ten thousands, they would be regarded as a strange thing. [13] They love sacrifice; they sacrifice flesh and eat it; but the LORD has no delight in them." (RSV)

Many people here will scoff at this. But read it: does it not prophesy pretty accurately the state of affairs in which we now find ourselves—all over the post-Christian West? We've squandered our birthright and are reaping the whirlwind.

"This has NOTHING to do with freedom of speech, but with the university's duty to prevent violence"
posted by ET.And thus KevinB.endth the lesson.The intellectual ET thinks HER status and the so-called higher learning insylums have the RIGHT to prevent violence.WHAT violence? The only kind that these people want to prevent,is any that will stop/and/or expose their leftard control.Stalin would be so proud.
As others have said here,these girls KNEW their demonstration "Might" incite.Hell.Me getting up in the morning might incite violence.You are disingenous,and pompous about it,ET. And VIT. Funny coming from you that you want certain studies curtailed(Literature,sociology,etc).Aren't we allowed to study whatever we want,where we want?Muzzies and gays can,why can't pro-choice/pro-life or anti-gay/pro-gay study also?
And back to Kate's original,what the UofC and the cops did was plain and simple....they stepped on the rights of some people using the guise of "protection".So did Hitler and Stalin.And Lenin.And Mugambe.Ad naseum

"I find it interesting that when you (ET) do say something it is not communicated as an opinion, rather it is delivered in a condescending tone and as truth, yet you are quick to point out that someone else's facts are merely opinions. Goes back to the truth of an old cliché - takes one to know one." - no-name

Bingo.

MND's argument, if I understand him correctly, is that this event is a microcosm of a much larger and alarming societal pattern (ie, the Israeli flag incident in Germany. The House of Lords, 'Fitna' incident. And Police warnings to peaceful Israel supporters at pro-Hamas rallies, etc.) is insightful and in my opinion, correct.

Those groups who threaten violence are winning, merely by the act of threatening violence.

Appeasement cannot replace the enforcement of law. If so, ideological barbarians will rule, with little to no effort at all.

I'm with Irwin Daisy. I, too, find ET condescending and arrogant at times. Even I'm not so much like that, despite my admittedly well-deserved rep as hard-nosed at times. Of course, ET is a professor, so I guess that might explain the, ah, standard professorial pompousity... ;)

I'm also puzzled that ET didn't bother to respond to my last comment to her (Feb. 7, 9:07 PM).

ET, why no address thereto? I'll interpret your unusual silence as concession that my point is stronger than yours. ;)

Canadian Sentinel....even though ET and I disagree on many things,to say she is arrogant and condescending is wrong.She doesn't know any better.After all,she is our better. University educated and all,you know.
Opps.Make that University indoctrinated.
Putting all things aside,I have seen only one true "educated" university type here,and that is Vit.At least he admits what is a true education.
And yeah.I went to university,but I was "educated" long before I hit those empty,hallow,walls of so-called "academia"

Well, Justthinkin', I, too, am university "educated" (at least I have a piece of paper hanging over my fridge that says so).

Fortunately, I survived without turning into a zombie...

I've been "educated" since leaving university. The real world was the classroom and my desire to discover the truth I wasn't being told was my teacher.

Once had a dogmatic communist economics professor. One of his more bizarre ideas was "income-in-kind" in which, for example, my (hypothetical) wife vacuuming the carpet constitutes "income" for me and that I should pay a tax on that. Guy said it with a straight face.

Oh, and he's the one who arranged for Chomsky to give an indoctrination session at the university. I saw the both of 'em going into the lecture hall, plus the eager indoctrinees, and judging by their appearance, clothes, hair, etc., they were predominantly Hard-Left. Damn, those folks think Chomsky is a prophet of some kind and are mesmerized as if in a cult. Kind of like many Obama supporters...

Yep, university was my first exposure to all kinds of Leftists. It was a shock for me and messed me up in the head for awhile. They were of such a radically different worldview, had different ethics and morals... I actually thought that maybe it was I who had a problem, but now I understand the reality.

And I discovered that grading isn't what it's supposed to be- some professors pass students who fail, actually. No kidding. I, before long, detected a pattern and realized that one actually doesn't have to work all that hard all the time, on some kinds of courses (those that don't involve math and hands-on stuff like science). I actually did quite well on courses that required an essay as an exam, pretty much just using logic and reason and impressive writing skill to make the professors believe I actually paid attention to their "lectures". You just have to tell 'em what they want to hear.

That said, no wonder so many U grads are imbeciles. They just believed everything they were told, no matter what, and today demonstrate the dangers of not questioning pompous, dogmatic professors.

This is one of the ways in which the Left manipulates the brains of so many people, and many are unfortunately susceptible to this brainwashing. Hence they don't know things like what the Charter says and doesn't say and actually carry on their programming to engage in doublethink and double standards. Poor folks. The Left takes advantage of them, so unethically... But that's the nature of the Left, which is actually part of the Non-Free World, even though they were born in the Free World. They were just brainwashed according to the interference of foreign enemy agents ("community organizers" like Obama?) posing as ordinary Free World citizens, with the hidden agenda of lying and so on to transform the Free World into a land of idiots, making it ultimately easier for our enemies to one day win a future World War or Cold War. Looks like they've finally got their Manchurian Candidate in the White House...

I sincerely apologize for going on so much in one comment (blame the coffee)! I promise not to do this regularly!

The Canadian Sentinel writes, "And I discovered that grading isn't what it's supposed to be- some professors pass students who fail, actually." Interesting . . .

This is a very recent—day or two ago—Globe and Mail poll: "Do you agree with University of Ottawa professor Denis Rancourt, who gave all his students an A+ so they could forget about marks and concentrate instead on becoming 'scientists, not automatons'?"

Only 66% disagreed with the good professor.

And, in reference to the Yuri Bezmenov thread above this one: Bezmenov said that, once the populace has been thoroughly brainwashed—DONE!—no amount of truth telling and facts will dissuade the automatons from their own (skewed) belief system. (Ask any pro-lifer about THAT.)

“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings . . .” 2 Timothy 4:3

I guess that time is about now.

no, no-name - my view is always presented as 'in my view'. That means that it pertains to my analysis and perspective.

The fact is, that I haven't convinced you of its validity, and equally, you haven't convinced me of the validity of your argument. That is all one can say about either side.

canadian sentinel - sometimes I don't respond because I go away from my computer and sometimes I don't respond because the comment, I feel, isn't valid or has so diverted from the issue that it's beyond argumentation.

To repeat my point, your case of the professor being fired has no relationship to this situation of the girls wanting to set up a presentation. It's not about freedom of speech (Charter right) but about the university's duty to prevent violence (criminal law). As you are aware, the university offered the students a different location for their presentation; they refused.

And no, justthinkin, the university doesn't have the 'right' to prevent violence; it has the 'duty' to do so.

I agree with Skip's excellent outline and vitruvius' comments. I maintain that situation has nothing to do with freedom of speech and I think that many of you are climbing on an emotionally satisfying but intellectually false bandwagon.

Yeah, but I wouldn't worry about it, ET, didn't
you hear: the end is nigh! Just ask Lookout &c.

Hmmmmm, this seems a rather clear cut case:

Free Speech ain't Free Speech when you can't say something because of how someone else might act. There's a whole lot of words to describe that situation and they are usually heard alongside the sound of goose-stepping boots!

The topic is irrelevant to your right to speak, kinda an axiom if you ask me!

Universities, of all places, should hold this "freedom" higher than any other. Otherwise, hell I can COMPLETELY shut down any university today just by threatening to nail-bomb anyone who takes a stance for unions and "leftism" in general!

Direction of travel as follows:

You shouldn't say THAT!

It shall not be said!

You shouldn't write THAT!

It shall not be wrote!

It shouldn't have been written!

It shall be burnt!

Batb wrote:
"Abortion, which has deprived families and our country of almost 2,500,000 children since 1969 -- that's a huge cohort, by anyone's reckoning, but particularly when you consider that Canada has a total population of only 33,000,000 -- has been a huge plank in this Dystopian Vision for Canada and, appallingly, too many Canadians have acquiesced to it, afraid to speak out in case they "offend" anyone. Good G*d, it should be the butchered body parts of babies that offend, not the talking about them or expressing an opinion about them. 'Down Alice's Rabbit Hole, again."

Eloquently said.

If 2,500,000 is the actual number of abortions since 1969 in Canada that is horrific but what about the children that would have come from the seed of these aborted babies and their seed. We have had to open our doors much wider than we would have had to in order to recoup our losses through immigration. From a purely economical point of view, we would not have had to close down all those schools, hospitals, etc. The loss economically is absolutely staggering. Every Canadian is paying through the nose for our abortion "rights".

I am glad to see a significant rejection of abortion amoung the younger generation. They realize that it is not a "right" to terminate the life of your child as they had been led to believe, but a rather a tragedy. They are now asking "Why must I kill my own child simply because I became pregnant at an inconvenient time or because my "boyfriend" doesn't love me or is irresponsible? Women are beginning to see their "rights" in an altogether different light. In part, because they are more independent and,sadly in some cases, because they want to be loved and needed. Most often it is because they know they have a "right" to have the child. The social taboo of a pregnant single women is not anywhere near as great as it once was and women are better equipped through a broader choice in education and career to enable them to actually raise a child, at least economically, on their own.

EBD:

Thank you for the correction. I inadvertantly ascribed a comment to Vitruvius that belonged to rabbit.

It seems that the actual number of abortions since 1969 is even higher than 2 500 000. From AbortionInCanada.ca (emphasis mine; also, trying to avoid semantic squabbles, I usually use the term “unborn human beings” versus “unborn babies”):

“Annual Abortion Rates

“In 2005, the latest year on record, 96,815 abortions were performed on Canadian women. MORE THAN THREE MILLION unborn babies have died from abortion in Canada since 1969, when abortion was first decriminalized. Statistics Canada tables show a recorded total of 2,822,293 abortions between 1969 and 2005. Assuming an annual average of 100,000 abortions for 2006 and 2007 (and recognizing that reported numbers since 2000 reflect about 90 percent of abortions) the total number of abortions is more than three million.

“More than one million abortions (1,010,586) were performed between 1970 and 1987. In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down all remaining restrictions on abortion. Statistics Canada recorded 70,868 abortions in 1988. That number jumped 29% over the next two years to 91,476 in 1990. By 1992 it had risen to 101,726, a 44% increase in four years. Abortions continued to increase annually to a recorded high of 111, 526 in 1997—in the nine years following the Supreme Court decision, the number of abortions in Canada increased by a total of 57%.

“Between 1988 and 2005, almost two million babies lost their lives to abortion. The recorded total from Statistics Canada is 1,811,707, a partial record which excludes roughly 10% of the actual number of abortions performed between 2000 and 2005, due to incomplete reporting. After 1997 the number of reported abortions gradually dropped back down to 96,815 in 2005. Because the 1988 court decision also struck down reporting requirements, it is difficult to know how accurate the figures are.”

Like another left-wing poster child, AGW, the facts on abortion are put in the closet by the “tolerant, diverse, open-minded” abortion cheerleaders.

no-name says, “Every Canadian is paying through the nose for our abortion ‘rights’”. That’s for sure.

BTW, EBD, I've appreciated your input to this thread.

I just wanted to make one final comment regarding abortion. I think women who have had an abortion are NOT evil murderers, but rather are misinformed and often feel pressured into making the decision for a plethora of reasons. Many of these women are in deep pain over their decision - they are grieving over the loss of a child whether they know it or not. Care needs to be taken in responding to the issue of abortion with this in mind. An environment or forum needs to be maintained were these women and men can speak openly and honestly about their decision and the effects it has had on their person without severe judgments placed on them. I do not know what I would have done in their shoes - if I did not choose abortion it would only be due to some small grace. If I did choose abortion, I would surly be struggling with the choice at some level. Harshness only serves to push a women into defending her position and results in frozen emotions. I am not an expert, but my experience in having discussions with women who have made a decision to have an abortion in the past have shared with me their guilt and frustration and deep sense of loss when they allow themselves to feel.

no-one, I altogether agree with you. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone . . ."

I have known many pro-life advocates: many are front line care providers for both women who have chosen to carry their unwanted pregnancy—unborn child—to term, and those who have made the decision not to—and are haunted and wounded by it. (Many believe they made an uninformed choice.)

Yes, kindness and understanding for the women, who find themselves in a terrifying and extremely ambiguous situation, are imperative—and routine, in pro-life ministries (often spearheaded by women who’ve had abortions). However, hiding the truth and trying to smooth over the moral dimension of abortion are part of the problem, to which women, who were duped by misleading bromides, will attest.

The Church says, “Love the sinner, hate the sin”, short form for, “Love thy neighbour as thyself” but don’t do it by belittling that person by denying the truth of the situation. Women, who are in distress about having had an abortion, already know that “something is not right”. To honour that understanding, nonjudgmentally, for many women (who’ve been told “Abortion: there’s nothing to it”), is the first step in their healing.

I totally agree no-name and lookout: This is not about condemning women who've had abortions, as many of them felt pressured or backed into a corner or not supported. This thread isn't even about women who had abortions either frivolously or thinking only of short-term rather than long-term consequences.

It's about a society that's lost its way and will not face up to its lack of responsibility and accountability for a government policy which has gone way wrong.