kimmy

A similar recent story was the brutal beating of two RCMP officers at Cadotte Lake in northern Alberta. No article that I read on the incident mentioned that Cadotte Lake is on Woodland Cree I.R. #226, or that all of the people arrested were native. So... was it relevant to the story? On the one hand, you could argue that since all of the suspects had already been identified and taken into custody, there was no need to provide the public with information that could help identify them. On the other hand, there might be questions surrounding the event where that's pertinent information. I provided an example earlier in the thread of cases where the media declined to mention the race of at-large native suspects, and additionally the Toronto rape gang case where the racial aspect had been made a prominent issue by the families of the accused early in the case, but was dropped completely from the coverage once the convictions and guilty pleas were obtained. -k

I wasn't going to "bump" this thread to address some of the earlier comments that I didn't get to respond to. But since it's already bumped, why not. I wanted to react to this little exchange where Nicky asked how what Francois Houle's letter is any different from what the president of Columbia U said in regards to Makmood: ...and here's the reply. Bingo? With AW's help we've unearthed a rather substantial difference between Houle and the president of Columbia U: one guy said he things the impending speaker is a moron, and the other guy warned the impending speaker to watch what she says or she could get arrested. That's the difference between what happened at U of O and what happened at Columbia, Nicky. What about this talk of a "caveat" placed on Makmood, Nicky? What caveat? You said there was one, I've never heard of it, you failed to provide evidence of it, so what the hell were you talking about there? We're all aware of the "caveat" Houle placed on Coulter's speech. Where's the analog in regard to Makmood's speech at Columbia? Now, as for the suggestion that Houle was simply providing her with friendly advice... come on. There's only three possible explanations for that claim: 1) you think I'm stupid enough to believe it. 2) you're stupid enough to believe it. 3) you think Francois Houle is stupid enough to believe she might not have been aware of the laws. I'm sure points one and two are highly debatable, but pretty clearly point three is ridiculous. One doesn't become the VP Academic of a major university by being that stupid. She was touring with Ezra Levant, who of all people knows Canada's hate speech laws intimately, and the speeches were promoted as being about "Political correctness, Media Bias, and Free Speech." You really think Francois Houle believed she needed to be told about the laws, or that the letter was sent in a spirit of good-natured advice? Come on. He sent the letter to put her on notice. -k

It's very interesting that the linked articles refer to her as "University of Ottawa student Ellen Ocran". I wonder if she represented herself to be a student, or if the writers just assumed. Regardless, the protest was after her work hours (nobody in Ottawa is at work past 4pm, right?) so aside from the possibility that she misrepresented herself as being a student, I don't see anything big here. I'm not surprised at all that an NDPer would be at something like this. -k

Muslims have had mosques in Canada for over 70 years, and still have to bring in foreigners to be their imams. What's the deal? -k

Is anybody saying the "National Party of Canada" can not say what their ideals are? I suspect that the only thing preventing them from explaining their views is that nobody would vote for them if they made their views known. As a courtesy to other forum members, why don't you learn to use the quote feature properly, so that people can figure out who and what you are replying to without reading the whole thread? -k

Houle was going to let her speak (and watch her real close.) Wolfe tried to have her venue revoked. I don't actually recall specifically what Columbia's president told Makmood, other than that he holds his views to be reprehensible. If there was more to it than that, perhaps you could draw attention to parts you feel particularly relevant. If Makmood was warned that he might be arrested if he said something deemed inappropriate, then sure, they're exactly the same. If that's the case, then sure, I think that's an obvious attempt to intimidate a guest speaker and completely contrary to the principle of free exchange of ideas that universities are supposed to cherish. Did Columbia's president say that he thinks Makmood is an idiot and an asshole, or did he say that he'd be watching for ways to sic the cops on Makmood based on the content of his speech? Because to me there's a pretty substantial difference, though one that may be lost on some people. -k

We're talking about a students union that banned posters for Coulter's speech, lobbied to have the university revoke the venue they'd booked for her, we're talking about students unions that ban clubs they don't agree with, and you don't see how any of that demonstrates an opposition to freedom of speech? Come on. Wolfe successfully banned posters publicizing the event from being posted, and he lobbied the university to revoke the booking that had been made for her. So Wolfe and the U of O SU prove by their actions that they (despite their claims to the contrary) are opposed to free speech. You interpret student apathy as tacit approval for the sort of tactics employed by Wolfe and his ilk. I interpret student apathy as a sign that most students believe student politics is utterly unimportant. We'll have to agree to disagree. No, you're the one who missed the point. The fact is, every campus has many clubs who provide no value at all to anybody other than the club members. Trying to rationalize the banning of pro-life clubs as potentially a decision based on utilitarian considerations falls flat on its face as a result. It's inane and you can only make yourself look ridiculous by pursuing that line of argument. The examples I provided were not simply clubs denied students union funding, they were clubs that were denied official club status on campus, barred from using student space for their meetings, participating in student events such as Welcome Week. And, while coming up with the cites for your request of campuses where pro-life clubs had been banned, I came up with plenty more incidents where the clubs themselves were not banned, but their displays were banned, posters removed, or materials confiscated. If Seamus Wolfe and his ilk are going to use their power to silence opinions they disagree with, they will simply have to deal with accusations of supporting censorship and opposing free speech. Then it's not relevant to students unions that have banned pro-life clubs from official club status or using campus space, then, is it. That they might have the legal power to bar groups they disagree with from campus does not change the fact that they're attempting to muzzle opposing voices. It's not consistent with the free exchange of ideas that's supposed to be one of the founding principles of higher education. They can apparently do what they want, but what they want to do proves what sort of people they are. It's an act of free speech that says: "we oppose free speech." -k

By "reporters who were there", you actually mean "Kady O'Malley," right? This report from CTV Ottawa pegs the number at "hundreds": If the police themselves felt compelled to bar the door, that seems to indicate that it was not all hugs and rainbows. I don't disagree that she likely decided that there was much more mileage in canceling the event than in proceeding. Francois Houle and Seamus Wolfe can pat themselves on the back for handing her a golden opportunity. The president of the school sent her the textual equivalent of the "we're watching you" stare. It might not have prevented her from speaking, but there is a strong argument to be made that it is an attempt at intimidation. If it was "Francois Houle: guy on the street" who sent the letter, it would be a complete non-issue. However, he was acting in his capacity as a representative of the institution. He "welcomes" her on behalf of the school. He signs the letter with his job title. It is clear that this is not a guy on the street expressing his opinion, it is an official communication from a senior representative of the university. And I think we all understand that our conduct when we're acting as a representative of our employer has much different expectations than our conduct when we're acting as private citizens. And I think that's a highly debatable claim when one considers that he was not acting as a private citizen but as a representative of the school. Were her rights violated? I don't believe so. I believe, however, that the conduct of Houle and of Wolfe reflects extremely poorly on the school's supposed enthusiasm for "the meaningful exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of a great university campus". -k

Calling someone a "brownshirt leftist fascist" doesn't carry the implicit threat that the institution will be monitoring your speech looking for the opportunity to give you legal trouble. -k

"Constitutionally" is kind of beside the point. If Seamus Wolfe has the power to bar posters for events he doesn't like from the Ottawa campus, then I guess he has that power. If students unions have the power to ban pro-life groups from campus, I guess they have that power. However, whatever the legal aspects of the issue may be, the conclusion is obvous: for these people, fighting views they disagree with is more important than the principle of free speech. They give weaselly statements supporting free speech or opposing censorship, then go on to demonstrate that they don't actually "We support free speech, but..." "We don't believe in censorship, but..." ...but, I don't agree with Ann Coulter and I don't agree with pro-life clubs, and I'm the students union president, and I can use my powers to suppress them. Wyly said earlier: ...and the only difference between Wyly and Seamus Wolfe (and other student union executives using their station to muzzle views they don't agree with) is that at least Wyly is honest. The truth is, very few people on most campuses care about student politics at all. (The students union elections drew a turn-out of well below 10% during the year I attended university.) Most students are there to study and enjoy, not to effect social change. Those that do feel motivated toward student politics, either to vote or especially to run for office, are not likely involved because they're fired-up about the status quo. One campus pro-life club I'm aware of conducted fund-raisers for womens' shelters. I'm sure that their supporters also feel they're voicing an important view on an important social issue. Surely on merit that's more substantial than a lot of clubs. How many campus clubs actually contribute anything of value to anybody other than their own membership? Every campus has a Role Playing Game club and an Anime club. What do those contribute to the campus at large? Fulfilling a need for cartoon Japanese tentacle-porn that wasn't being met elsewhere on campus? Getting morbidly obese shut-ins out of their mom's basements a couple of nights a week? Assuring a steady source of income for the guy who operates the Coke-and-Doritos vending machines in the S.U. building basement? You're suggesting that the students unions have moved to ban pro-life groups because they're trying to *avoid* controversy? Preposterous, Nicky. What a cosmically stupid thing to say. I can only assume you're pulling our leg when you present that little nugget for consideration. I'm sure it isn't lost on you that moving to ban one side of a debate isn't "avoiding" a hot political issue, it's wading in with your sleeves rolled up. At least 2 of the articles I referenced earlier involved legal challenges to the decision, with one costing the students union a substantial amount of money in legal fees, and the other resulting in the s.u. changing its decision to avoid a court battle. Hardly the actions of a group trying to "avoid a hot political issue". In fact, I'd go so far as to say that taking a side in the abortion debate is one of the few ways that students unions ever get any attention at all outside of their campuses. Other than by attempting to bar speakers from campus, of course. In each article that contained statements from the student executives (and the same for the CFS decision as well) the move was justified in terms of protecting women's rights. "Opposing a woman's right to reproductive choice is counter to the student charter" or similar statements. I don't see any reason not to take their word for it, especially when such a number of students unions take the same position, and when the CFS endorses that position. I mean... you're not going to tell me that when they say it's about women's rights they're not telling the truth, that actually it's some ulterior motive, like the Dungeons and Dragons club buys a lot more Doritos and Coke? -k

Well, that's certainly how such situations are handled at hockey games and movie theatres, and never so far as I'm aware do the police feel compelled to give "suggestions" in those situations. However, anticipating that a situation might not work out for the best is undeniably part of the job of the police and security people, yes? -k

Other questions I would be fascinated to hear the answers to are: -why did Francois Houle take it upon himself to send Coulter the warning regarding Canada's hate speech laws. -did Francois Houle take this step when other potentially controversial speakers spoke at his institution, such as during "Israeli Apartheid Week"? I think he owes us an explanation as to what his motivation was, why he took this step in this instance, whether this is customary when speakers arrive at the University of Ottawa, and if so, why? And if not, why just Coulter? I think these are entirely reasonable things to ask, and I am not aware of any reasonable response so far. -k

I would be fascinated to hear that answer as well. They did not issue this sort of "suggestion" when people couldn't get into a showing of Avatar down at the local cineplex. What's the difference? I suspect that police know (and you know, and everybody else here knows) that unlike people who couldn't get a ticket to Avatar, many of the people who couldn't get a ticket to Coulter were not going to just say "aw, shucks" and go home quietly. -k

Seamus Wolfe's effort to ban Coulter from the U of O campus was a students union decision too. His ban of posters publicizing the event was a students union decision. Trying to create a demarcation between an official act by the university president and the actions of the students union isn't going to do anything to dissuade people from noting the anti-free-speech mood on campus, which was the point of the Ottawa Citizen editorial and has been the point of people such as Argus. -k

That happened one time when I tried to go to a hockey game... the home team wasn't advised to move the event to a bigger arena... why did the police advise Coulter to move? -k

Argus was not alleging that any of those things actually occured, he was citing things that exceeded the bounds of peaceful protest. Your response to him seems to indicate that you disagree. For the record, I know that Coulters' people were the ones who canceled the event. I agree that they may well have overstated the reasons for doing so. However, the fact that she was advised to find a new venue by the police, the fact that the alarm was pulled, and the fact of trespassers getting inside the venue makes it a defensible decision, if a disappointing one. -k

Why is it a serious claim? Serious or not, it's easy to verify... McGill: http://www.mcgilldaily.com/articles/4863 Carleton: http://thegauntlet.ca/story/10874 Guelph: http://thevarsity.ca/articles/6026 York: http://www.catholicregister.org/content/view/1898/854/ Calgary: http://bclaifc.wordpress.com/2009/02/11/university-of-calgary-anti-abortion-group-loses-status/ Victoria: http://www.bccla.org/pressreleases/09UVic_pro-life.html UBC-Okanagan (Kelowna) http://www.the-peak.ca/article/5623 Lakehead (Thunder Bay) http://utsfl.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/lakehead-university-life-support-club-denied/ Capilano (Vancouver) ban overturned: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08051511.html Brochure from Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada gives student politicians tips on how to argue their case: http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/student/snappy-answers.pdf edit to add: Canadian Federation of Students affirms support for students unions seeking to fight pro-life groups on campuses: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08052809.html -k

Footnoting easily verified claims and common knowledge might be standard practice for an academic paper, but it's hardly standard practice for a newspaper editorial or a message board. Are you demanding a cite because you don't actually believe the claim? Or are you just demanding a cite because you don't want to acknowledge the point? -k

I did not say otherwise. However, you were responding to a message in which Argus says that pulling fire alarms, tresspassing, and throwing stuff at speakers are not peaceful protest. Your response seems to indicate that you believe those actions are protected by the charter. Let's recap: Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh so here it is. You don't believe in completely free speech either. The main point in protesting is to disrupt and protesting is protected by freedom of speech and assembly. So are you saying that pulling alarms, trespass, and pelting people with stuff examples of protected free speech and assembly, and if not, then what were you trying to say with your response to Argus? -k

I don't claim it's a rule. However, it's an example that demonstrates the sort of political bias that you have been dismissing as Argus being paranoid. Again, if you are skeptical of the claim I don't see what's preventing you from spending 30 seconds with Google to find out for yourself, and I am confident that anybody skeptical of the claim made in the Ottawa Citizen editorial can do the same. UVic is hardly the only example, it's just one that I knew right off the top of my head. -k

And yet, that was the decision made by York University... It actually doesn't appear to be ridiculous at all, judging from the events at York. Well, at least one that we know of. I recall that that happened at the University of Victoria back when I lived in Victoria. The hardcore lefties running the students union used the students union charter to justify it. I would not be surprised to find other students unions have done the same. And, as it turns out, that is the case. A couple of minutes of research on the subject verifies the claim so easily that demanding a citation seems lazy and juvenile. -k

uh, no. The main point in protesting is to voice an alternate viewpoint. Protesters might use disruptive means to draw attention to their cause, but there are obviously limits. You don't have a *right* to disrupt people from the exercise of their own legal rights. Abortion protesters can't *disrupt* women from entering the clinic, for example. If your ultimate claim is that protesters' free speech includes the right to disrupt someone elses' expression of free speech, that would be a profoundly stupid claim. -k

That it is publicly owned doesn't mean all or even part is open to the public. If you want to test your theory, why don't you go down to your local elementary school and hang out in the hallway. While the police are cuffing you, explain to them that you have the right to be there since it's public property. Many areas of a university campus are open to the public, and many more areas are accessible to the public provided you look like you belong there... but it is incorrect to assume that you have a right to be at any place on any publicly owned piece of property at any point in time. You probably don't even appreciate the irony. -k

A university building is not public property. -k

Shady's claim that the University of Ottawa students federation *banned* posters advertising Coulter's visit is easily substantiated. Your response was to claim that you recall Al Gore posters being torn down too. Well,that's not actually a *ban*, is it. You're not even in the same ballpark. -k