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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  9. 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:-))))

  10. 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.

  11. ET, my head spins. I do not agree with your explanations.
    I’ve made my case. I stand by it.

  12. 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.)

  15. 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?

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. “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.

  22. 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).

  23. Don’t bitch, act non-violently to defy the university. Make up 4.5×5.5 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.)

  26. 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!

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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!

  30. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. 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?

  35. 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.)

  36. 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.

  37. 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.)

  38. 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.

  39. “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

  40. “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.

  41. 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. 😉

  42. 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”

  43. 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!

  44. 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.

  45. 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.

  47. 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!

  48. 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.

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

  50. 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.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation