154 Replies to “What’s The Opposite Of Diversity?”

  1. 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!

  2. 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).

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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…”

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

  11. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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?

  16. 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?

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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!

  20. 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!

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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!!!!!!

  24. 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?

  26. 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!)

  27. 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.

  28. 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 . . .

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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. 😉

  35. 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…

  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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.

  39. 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”

  40. I still can’t get over the “Charter does not apply on universities” thing. Is this true? On what basis?

  41. 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.

  42. You’re mixing up “gay” and “homosexual”, Sentinel. In the mind of the
    human-rights-chasing industry, “gay” is protected, “homosexual” is not.

  43. 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.

  44. 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.

  45. 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.

  46. 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).

  48. 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…

  49. 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.

  50. 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.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation