Freedom of Speech - Carlton U. and Anti Abortion Extremists

[bloodyminded]

The second article I linked elaborates on what guyser mentioned, on York's role in leading the trend towards universities seeing themselves as private institutions.

It rather runs directly counter to the notion of "radical campuses" that are "hotbeds of extremism, political correctness, anti-Israeli and anti-American sentiment," a practically verbatim criticism much cherished by sectors of the political Right. Doesn't it?

[bloodyminded]

IMHO, the tide shifted in the 1980s when the ranks of University professors were populated by the then student demonstrators of the 60s and 70s. They so fervently subscribe to their dogma they feel more then justified in suppressing any dissent. Without their support Human Rights Commissions and other tacit tools used to try and control thought and beliefs would never be employed.

Thanks to EveningStar, your hypothesis here seems not only dubious, but somewhat closer to the opposite of the truth.

From the article he links:

York administrators emergent self-conception as private agents of a private institution has lately shaped their actions as well as their rhetorical and legal maneuvering. They have hired private-sector advertisers and spin doctors to overhaul Yorks communications and marketing apparatus along corporate lines, replete with new logos and slogans and branding campaigns. At the same time, they have imposed tighter controls over the flow of information in and out of the university, passing it through the filter of corporate media relations to guarantee the correct message.

Most importantly, in the manner of all private-sector owners and managers, they deemed the physical plant of the university that is, the university campus to be private property and formulated official policy on its use. In the summer of 2004, without notice or consultation, the president and her minions overhauled the Temporary Use of Space Policy, henceforth outlawing any unauthorized use of buildings and grounds, severely restricting freedom of speech and assembly, and barring any use whatsoever of the Vari Hall rotunda, the central forum of the campus. Simultaneously, the university began installing sophisticated surveillance cameras in all potential gathering places, including Vari Hall. More recently, York has sought similar control over cyberspace, as well, by requiring graduate teaching staff to use Yorks server for e-mail, enabling York to monitor all traffic.

These aren't some misguided 60s radicals imposing left-wing political correctness; these are businesspeople, with media and branding savvy, protecting their "product" through the very diminution of free speech and critical thinking that you pillorize.

The question, given this new information, is whether you still do?

A further chilling of free expression:

Some months later, Freeman-Maloy and several of his fellow activists were once again subjected to disciplinary procedures, this time for holding a peaceful vigil on behalf of the inhabitants of Gaza during an Israeli army incursion. I decided at that point to try to understand what was behind the apparent pattern in the administrations repressive actions. Having first examined the composition of the Board of Governors, I turned to the Board of the York University Foundation, where I discovered a significant representation of Canadas pro-Israeli lobbyists and fundraisers. Might this be an explanation for the targeting of pro-Palestinian activists, I wondered? I published my preliminary findings which included information on other matters also, such as the notorious land deal and half-baked plans to build a pro-football stadium in a two-page leaflet entitled The Tail That Wags the Dog: The York University Foundation, Suggestions for Further Research.

Barely 24 hours after distributing this leaflet at a film event, I received a phone call from the education reporter of the Globe and Mail informing me that she had received simultaneous press releases from York University and the Canadian Jewish Congress denouncing me as an anti-semite and bigot. The York press release, issued by its media relations department, contained statements by Yorks president and the president of Hillel. (The Globe dutifully ran the piece the next morning, the Toronto Star a day later, even after learning that I am Jewish albeit not a Zionist).

Yes, free speech does indeed appeart to be under attack, at least at this university (though given the normalcy of its new paradigm, I doubt others would behave entirely differently).

Again, no lefty ex-hippies viciously protecting their dogma. Only business-friendly bureaucrats protecting the "commercial" potentials of private property, using smears and accusations of bigotry...directly at the expense of free expression.

Edited October 13, 2010 by bloodyminded

[grainfedprairieboy]

I think you offer an excellent rebuttal that is difficult to refute from the angle you perceive I am coming from. To be clear, I believe that Universities today are far more tolerant of what is deemed politically correct behaviour: Pro abortionism, anti Israeli sentiment, pro homosexuality just to name three of maybe 50 somewhat sacrosanct issues, at the expense of issues they perceive as closed and not open to debate such as SSM, anti abortionism, and Christianity again to cite only three examples.

So where a protester could organise a campus rally in favour of gay marriage when it was against the law, that same student could be suspended or jailed for protesting against it now that it is legal.

[Evening Star]

No. As the article clearly spells out, it was pro-Palestinian protesters (who should have been 'sacrosanct' according to you) who were the main target of York's restrictions. Anti-Bush protesters were also targeted.

Student activists attempting without prior authorization to engage in heretofore routine activities, such as tabling, leafletting and demonstrating, were now subjected to intimidation and discipline. It was in this context that third-year student activist Dan Freeman-Maloy was summarily suspended for three years and banned from the now “private” campus by York’s president, who acted in utter disregard of established disciplinary procedures. (The suspension and ban, imposed after Freeman-Maloy’s participation in a pro-Palestinian demonstration, were later rescinded by the president, apparently to avoid a judicial review).

Some months later, Freeman-Maloy and several of his fellow activists were once again subjected to disciplinary procedures, this time for holding a peaceful vigil on behalf of the inhabitants of Gaza during an Israeli army incursion.

Things finally came to a head in January, 2005, when the York administration called the Toronto police onto the campus to bust up a peaceful student demonstration in Vari Hall, held in protest of the second inauguration of George W. Bush. Students were attacked and arrested, charged with trespassing on private property and assaulting police officers (ironically, the university’s own cameras documented the opposite).

[bloodyminded]

I think you offer an excellent rebuttal that is difficult to refute from the angle you perceive I am coming from.

To be clear, I believe that Universities today are far more tolerant of what is deemed politically correct behaviour: Pro abortionism, anti Israeli sentiment, pro homosexuality just to name three of maybe 50 somewhat sacrosanct issues, at the expense of issues they perceive as closed and not open to debate such as SSM, anti abortionism, and Christianity again to cite only three examples.

I understand that some people feel this impression, but it's not clearly supported. For example, this very thread is about anti-abortionists protesting; and as far as their protest was ordered moved to a different location, this appears to be an apolitical assignment, demanded of (at least) all controversial subjects.

We can debate whether or not the university's stance was correct; but not so obviously that it was based on "political correctness."

At the same time, as I think the article shows, there is some tendency (how broad is yet to be determined, perhaps) to shut down, punish, and chill debate through smears--when the politics under attack are just what you claim are the only ones allowed.

At any rate, I'd like to see some evidence that pro-Israel rallies, for example, are not allowed. I think you'll find this little more than a stubborn myth. I've witnessed them myself, at my own alma mater, without ever witnessing a pro-Palestinian rally.

So where a protester could organise a campus rally in favour of gay marriage when it was against the law, that same student could be suspended or jailed for protesting against it now that it is legal.

Except you can't name the cases where anything of the sort has happened?

Edited October 13, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Saipan]

Actually, very, very few people could care less about a Nativity scene. It sure doesn't bother me.

Then why it's illegal here in Canada, while even 95% Buddhist country will allow Christmas displays anywhere?

[Shwa]

Then why it's illegal here in Canada, while even 95% Buddhist country will allow Christmas displays anywhere?

The Nativity scene is illegal? Dammit. I should have guessed when that guy popped out of the alley on Yonge St and whispered, "Psssst, buddy. Wanna buy a nativity scene?"

[bloodyminded]

Then why it's illegal here in Canada, while even 95% Buddhist country will allow Christmas displays anywhere?

Nativity scenes are illegal in Canada?

Ok, big guy.

[bloodyminded]

The Nativity scene is illegal? Dammit. I should have guessed when that guy popped out of the alley on Yonge St and whispered, "Psssst, buddy. Wanna buy a nativity scene?"

I know. It was bad enough when it was heroin, or the letter "L." But Nativity Scenes are just going too far.

[Saipan]

The Nativity scene is illegal? Dammit. I should have guessed when that guy popped out of the alley on Yonge St and whispered, "Psssst, buddy. Wanna buy a nativity scene?"

Illegal on public property, Einstein.

[guyser]

Illegal on public property, Einstein.

Show us the statute...Einstein.

[Shwa]

Illegal on public property, Einstein.

I know, I know. The guy on Yonge said it was the special 'public property' type of nativity scene, not no stinking church or neighbourhood variety that anyone can do. I mean this guy was selling the good stuff. But it was Yonge Street afterall...

[Saipan]

Show us the statute...Einstein.

Who's us?

Do you deny it?

[guyser]

Who's us?

Do you deny it?

You said it is illegal.

Us, is all of us , and we want to see the statute that proves you correct.

In the meantime, we shall laugh at the display of ignorance.

[punked]

Who's us?

Do you deny it?

Ummmm my town square has a Nativity scene every year, a Christmas tree lighting, along with a very Large Menorah lighting. I just assume you are a right winger who doesn't ever read anything. Honestly.

[Saipan]

There will be no Nativity Scene in Ottawa this year!

The Supreme Court has ruled that there cannot be a Nativity Scene in Ottawa this Christmas season. This isn't for any religious reason; they simply have not been able to find three wise men and a virgin in the Nation's capital. There was no problem, however, finding enough asses to fill the stable.

[grainfedprairieboy]

At any rate, I'd like to see some evidence that pro-Israel rallies, for example, are not allowed. I think you'll find this little more than a stubborn myth. I've witnessed them myself, at my own alma mater, without ever witnessing a pro-Palestinian rally.

Following the 2002 riots where Concordia University in cooperation with Montreal police canceled a visit by Benjamin Netanyahu after they failed to secure the campus then in 2003, York University canceled the "Barriers to Peace" conference after threats by the Middle East Students Association, it became pretty clear to the Universities to stop allowing keynote Israelis.

So I submit that Universities now self censor over Israel in order not offend Muslim and Liberal political sensibilities and following Ann Coulter's recent visit I reckon that will extend to controversial conservatives.

Except you can't name the cases where anything of the sort has happened?

I said "could". Again, we both know that the Human Rights Commissions jurisdiction extends onto any campus. As such, you would have to prove to me how they could not be fined or prosecuted for openly opposing SSM, unless you also believe that HRs have never prosecuted anyone for actively objecting to SSM.

[wyly]

Following the 2002 riots where Concordia University in cooperation with Montreal police canceled a visit by Benjamin Netanyahu after they failed to secure the campus then in 2003, York University canceled the "Barriers to Peace" conference after threats by the Middle East Students Association, it became pretty clear to the Universities to stop allowing keynote Israelis.

So I submit that Universities now self censor over Israel in order not offend Muslim and Liberal political sensibilities and following Ann Coulter's recent visit I reckon that will extend to controversial conservatives.

I said "could". Again, we both know that the Human Rights Commissions jurisdiction extends onto any campus. As such, you would have to prove to me how they could not be fined or prosecuted for openly opposing SSM, unless you also believe that HRs have never prosecuted anyone for actively objecting to SSM.

I submit you're a conspiracy theorist...there is no censorship by university student councils, student councils have no control over a student body at large if they choose to demonstrate and protest individual speakers, that is their right to do so, the right you now infer they shouldn't have, why? because it doesn't agree with your view?...

and Ann Coulter canceled her appearance, not the university...

[grainfedprairieboy]

I submit you're a conspiracy theorist

I submit you personify the Liberal sensitivities I alluded to earlier and will soon add me to your ignore list lest you be offended by what you read.

...there is no censorship by university student councils, student councils have no control over a student body at large if they choose to demonstrate and protest individual speakers, that is their right to do so,

Agreed

the right you now infer they shouldn't have, why? because it doesn't agree with your view?...

Your conclusion is wrong. I protest the Universities considering the potential for mass demonstrations in not considering some speakers or events. This belief of mine is purely circumstantial given I can't prove it. Then again, you can't prove I am wrong and given that Israeli speakers on campus in the 1990s vs 2000 are pretty disproportionate I reckon I'm probably right.

and Ann Coulter canceled her appearance, not the university...

I never claimed she did or didn't. I used her as an example of what University officials likely don't want on their campus if they want to keep the peace.

[wyly]

I submit you personify the Liberal sensitivities I alluded to earlier and will soon add me to your ignore list lest you be offended by what you read.

are you a bigot? Nazi? did you approve the genocide of a religious group? are you a banjo pickin village idiot? have you resorted to calling me names? no? then why would I add you to my list? those on my list are there for very good reasons...

Your conclusion is wrong. I protest the Universities considering the potential for mass demonstrations in not considering some speakers or events. This belief of mine is purely circumstantial given I can't prove it. Then again, you can't prove I am wrong and given that Israeli speakers on campus in the 1990s vs 2000 are pretty disproportionate I reckon I'm probably right.

the speakers invited to speak reflect the student body, support for Israeli politics is very low among the young why would they want to hear them speak?...have you any interest in hearing a Hamas or al Qaeda speakers view? probably not so if you're part of a like minded group you'll never invite them to speak in comparison to those you favour...

I never claimed she did or didn't. I used her as an example of what University officials likely don't want on their campus if they want to keep the peace.

not surprisingly universities don't want riots but there is no censorship...

[Evening Star]

Yeah, a university choosing not to invite particular speakers or cancelling a talk by a well-known speaker who has spoken at many other Canadian universities is not a restriction on free speech to the same extent as actually taking disciplinary actions against students who have protested peacefullly.

[bloodyminded]

Following the 2002 riots where Concordia University in cooperation with Montreal police canceled a visit by Benjamin Netanyahu after they failed to secure the campus then in 2003, York University canceled the "Barriers to Peace" conference after threats by the Middle East Students Association, it became pretty clear to the Universities to stop allowing keynote Israelis.

So I submit that Universities now self censor over Israel in order not offend Muslim and Liberal political sensibilities and following Ann Coulter's recent visit I reckon that will extend to controversial conservatives.

But if that were true, how do you account for the article we linked to....which was about York--and which showed precisely the opposite restrictions and chilling-through-smears which you think moves in a uniform direction?

I said "could". Again, we both know that the Human Rights Commissions jurisdiction extends onto any campus. As such, you would have to prove to me how they could not be fined or prosecuted for openly opposing SSM, unless you also believe that HRs have never prosecuted anyone for actively objecting to SSM.

Again, I'm with you in terms of trepidation about the HRCs...but again, it has nothing whatsoever to do with some ideological pogroms against conservatives.

As Mark Steyn himself pointed out, in a rare moment of fair-minded lucidity, the left has been under every bit as much HRC bullying as has the right. He offerred several examples; they're not well-known like his case, because they're not well-known polemcists with a readership.

I could respect your concerns more if you realized the real problems with the HRCs, and with politically-correct silencing and self-censorship, rather than assuming conservatives are the new victims. They're not.

Edited October 14, 2010 by bloodyminded

[msj]

So my question was not answered before.

Is the university campus considered private or public property?

Check out this article: Carleton student arrests show the limits of limiting free speech

True free speech does not exist on the campuses of Canada's publicly-funded universities - that is not in doubt. Universities are legally private institutions and immune from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (The Supreme Court of Canada famously confirmed this in 1990 in the famous McKinney v. University of Guelph decision)

With no legal requirement to allow for the free exchange and expression of ideas, it is not surprising that Canadian universities limit the expression of controversial or unpopular ideas.

The eternal question facing universities is not if it is reasonable to impose limits on free expression - even governments institutions, which fall under the Charter, are allowed to impose restrictions - but what those limits should be and if limiting speech is even effective.