Super Free Speech Defender Mark Steyns Bans White Supremacist from Tal

[Argus]

They take out mortgages on new buildings. I helped get approved a 20 million dollar mortgage for a new student centre.

They are established by government, operate with a charter from the government, and while they might sometimes pay for new buildings out of their own funds, the government paid for all their initial infrastructure, in most cases, and also gives direct capital grants to construct new ones. In fact, I seem to recall a recent court decision which quashed a university's claim that it was a private organization and didn't have to obey the Charter. The court found it was a public organization, an arm of government.

[Argus]

You're still going on about how he was trying to speak at the event? He wasn't.

So you're saying everyone who bought a ticket to hear him speak had to identify himself and his organization? I find that rather hard to believe. I think if you wanted to buy a ticket they sold you a ticket.

[Argus]

If you don't think what she says is hate speech, you've got a REALLY high bar for what hate speech should be.

As I recall from the discussion at that time even the UofO's law dean said that nothing Coulter had ever said even came close to violating Canada's hate speech laws. Try again.

[Argus]

I don't know if I have a strong opinion about the Steyn/white supremacist issue but I don't even think it's a relevant issue whether universities are public or private when it comes to Ann Coulter's cancelled talk at U of O. Not giving someone a platform to speak is not the same thing as denying someone her right to free speech. Coulter has spoken on many other campuses. If most of us asked to be able to give a talk at U of O, we might get turned down as well.

Nonsense. Coulter was invited to speak. There was a hall rented. What the university did was to pre-emptively tell her they (the university) disapproved of her speech and that the police would be watching to make sure she didn't step a foot out of line. The question remains, did the university habitually send such letters to controversial speakers? So far the answer is, no, never before. Second, the university colluded with the students association in organizing a mob of potentially violent leftists to interfere with her right of free speech. Again, had either group ever done this before? Not to anyone on the Left side of the political spectrum, that's for sure. So again, we have people sucking at the public teat stifling free speech, but only when it's from a direction they don't like.

[Argus]

Steyn is a bigot, but of a different kind. He wouldn't have a problem with Arabs, providing they were Christian.

You mean providing they weren't blowing people up all over the world?

[Argus]

Even with just these two passages, he's clearly calling for any legal restriction against the freedom of speech to be removed.

I am opposed to laws which threaten people with prison for having a bowel movement.

That doesn't mean i'm in favour of some clown coming into my living room and having a dump.

[g_bambino]

both are controlled by government.

Proof?

[charter.rights]

Iz zat a fact.... so if someone says there is a god, it is up to me to prove otherwise?

You are trying to present a conclusion without going through the process necessary to prove it. So yes if someone tells you there is a God and you stand up and state there isn't, then the burden is on you.

If the crown says that somone is guilty, it is up to the defence to prove otherwise?

Again you are trying to undermine the issue. First it is up to the Crown to present a case of reasonable cause. You as the defense are required to counter the accusation, which is what you are failing to do here. Rather you jump right to the conclusion and suggest that YOUR conclusion is fact, when it is nothing more than an unsubstantiated belief.

If a drug company claims that their drug cures old age, it is up to health Canada to prove otherwise?

Yes. It is up to Health Canada to substantiate any claims BEFORE they approve the drug for use in Canada.

No, proof lies with the positive statement.

Incorrect. All you are doing is presenting an argumentum ad ignorantiam - a fallacy argument - that has no place in formal and intelligent debate.

Edited November 4, 2010 by charter.rights

[Shady]

You are trying to present a conclusion without going through the process necessary to prove it. So yes if someone tells you there is a God and you stand up and state there isn't, then the burden is on you.

Don't they first have to explain why there is a God? If that isn't the case, I'd like to state for the record, that charter.rights is a rabid anti-semetic and child molestor. And until I see proof to the contrary, my statement should be considered as fact.

[M.Dancer]

You are trying to present a conclusion without going through the process necessary to prove it. So yes if someone tells you there is a God and you stand up and state there isn't, then the burden is on you.

Excellent. Show me in this thread where I have said to the effect, there is no god..

Again you are trying to undermine the issue. First it is up to the Crown to present a case of reasonable cause. You as the defense are required to counter the accusation, which is what you are failing to do here.

All the defense need do is not counter per se, but poke holes into the crowns argument. They need not prove their clients innocence...following?

Rather you jump right to the conclusion and suggest that YOUR conclusion is fact, when it is nothing more than an unsubstantiated belief.

Again, I have made no claims regarding Steyn, I have challenged the claims that he defends hate speech, the claim that the racist "likes" steyn and another unsubstantiated claim that Staeyn supported unmitigated free speech.

Yes. It is up to Health Canada to substantiate any claims BEFORE they approve the drug for use in Canada.

In correct. Heath Canada verifies the claims of the producer demanding a lengthy period of clinical tests...it is in fact, the producer who has to prove, Health canada merely verifies the producers tests, heath canada does not test themselves.

Incorrect. All you are doing is presenting an argumentum ad ignorantiam - a fallacy argument - that has no place in formal and intelligent debate.

Clearly, like your own nonsense about human occupation of north americam you are out to lunch.

[M.Dancer]

Don't they first have to explain why there is a God? If that isn't the case, I'd like to state for the record, that charter.rights is a rabid anti-semetic and child molestor. And until I see proof to the contrary, my statement should be considered as fact.

[M.Dancer]

Basically, what CR is trying to foist here is: Fact until proven false.

That is not the way it works.

[Pliny]

Not at all. I'm just trying to point out the hypocrisy of someone who defends freedom of speech in speech alone but not in action. The man has berated public and private organizations left and right for their lack of committment on freedom of speech but allows a man to be banned from one of his talks specifically for his beliefs. I welcomed the decision to not allow him in, but in the end the organization isn't claiming it's over speech, they're claiming security concerns which, in the end when you actually think about it, is hilarious.

The underlying point that I'm also trying to make is that everyone, including Mr Steyn despite the fact that he won't admit it, has placed a limit on where freedom of speech ends. It's too bad here that there are people who refuse to answer the question.

Fire! Fire!

Illegal if yelled in a crowded theatre. Hypocritical?

I know you would like limits on free speech but just not Mr. Steyn's limits.

Simply said, it is government that should not put limits on freedom of speech. It properly persecutes libel, slander and fraudulent utterances that cause damage or are criminal in intent.

Private individuals and organizations have the right to limit whatever speech they want. Atheists are not particularly welcome to speak during Church ceremonies - maybe some other time but not generally during a sermon.

Universities, are supposedly our bastions of freedom of speech. The intolerant leftists demonstrating at the U of O are better examples of hypocrisy regarding violations of freedom of speech.

It is your position that there needs to be limits on freedom of speech. You are simply pleased to present this as an argument for your case.

[Evening Star]

Nonsense. Coulter was invited to speak. There was a hall rented. What the university did was to pre-emptively tell her they (the university) disapproved of her speech and that the police would be watching to make sure she didn't step a foot out of line. The question remains, did the university habitually send such letters to controversial speakers? So far the answer is, no, never before. Second, the university colluded with the students association in organizing a mob of potentially violent leftists to interfere with her right of free speech. Again, had either group ever done this before? Not to anyone on the Left side of the political spectrum, that's for sure. So again, we have people sucking at the public teat stifling free speech, but only when it's from a direction they don't like.

Why did I never hear anyone on the right complain about the use of actual academic disciplinary actions and arrests by police against anti-Israel and anti-Bush protesters at York?: http://canadiandimension.com/articles/1901

These are cases where the power of authority was genuinely used to stifle free speech with actual disciplinary sanctions, as opposed to a case where a widely published author was invited to give a paid talk and was then treated a little paternalistically and eventually had her talk cancelled. U of O was disrespectful to Coulter and handled the situation idiotically. I just don't think it's at all comparable as a free speech issue. (If it were up to me, I would just not have invited her in the first place and no one would have complained about free speech, although the end result is the same.)

[M.Dancer]

Why did I never hear anyone on the right complain about the use of actual academic disciplinary actions and arrests by police against anti-Israel and anti-Bush protesters at York?: http://canadiandimension.com/articles/1901

These are cases where the power of authority was genuinely used to stifle free speech with actual disciplinary sanctions, as opposed to a case where a widely published author was invited to give a paid talk and was then treated a little paternalistically and eventually had her talk cancelled. U of O was disrespectful to Coulter and handled the situation idiotically. I just don't think it's at all comparable as a free speech issue. (If it were up to me, I would just not have invited her in the first place and no one would have complained about free speech, although the end result is the same.)

I'm not familiar with the event, but it doesn't seem as one sided as the author indicates.

http://www.hillel.org/about/news/2004/mar/20040324_officials.htm

[Evening Star]

As for the Bush demonstration, I guess this was York's side of it: http://news.yorku.ca/2005/01/20/york-u-says-no-to-violent-protest-condemns-disruption-of-classes/

[charter.rights]

Basically, what CR is trying to foist here is: Fact until proven false.

That is not the way it works.

Not at all. Proposition meets proposition and when they are resolved we can agree on the fact. That is what intellectual discussion is all about. You cannot come to a conclusion that your beliefs hold more weight than another person's facts unless you can refute it with facts that support your case.

[M.Dancer]

Not at all. Proposition meets proposition and when they are resolved we can agree on the fact. That is what intellectual discussion is all about. You cannot come to a conclusion that your beliefs hold more weight than another person's facts unless you can refute it with facts that support your case.

In this case it is Nicky's beliefs sans facts. That is where the onus of proof comes in. She has at this point supplied no prrofs that

Steyn believes in unmitigated free speech

The racist likes Steyn

If she can proved proof then and only then is there a need for counter proof if the debate is to continue.

[nicky10013]

And of course I believe you...just like I believe you were on the board of directors so you know about thier finances (but didn't know that tuition is far less than 50% of a university's income).

The board doesn't post it's minutes but I was on the senate as well. Right there in the minutes, Mr N Kelly.

Though, despite me actually providing physical proof of not only my attendance at the university but also the proof in my involvement in the administration of the university, you still won't believe it.

http://www.vicu.utoronto.ca/Assets/VICU+Digital+Assets/December_3$!2c_2008_minutes.pdf.pdf

As for being so smug about tuitions, you do realize that the going rate for tution in Canada, at least at U of T is around 30,000 dollars. The Federal Government and the Province of Ontario subsidize around 25,000 dollars of that per year, so, in the end, I paid around 25,000 dollars for a 4 year degree which should've cost somewhere around 120,000 dollars. The university doesn't ask the government to pay that money. The government pays that money on behalf of students to help them make it through their education without gigantic debt burdens. If the government didn't subsidise tutions, each student, like foreign students who aren't subsidised would have to pay the same rates of around 30,000 per year. Given that U of T has about 33,000 undergrads (just undergrads) the tuition and tution subsidies come to just under a billion dollars for a year which comes quite close to the operating budget which, the last time I was there was about a billion and a half dollars. The rest of the money comes primarily from U of T's and their subsequent college's endowment which is essentially a collection of investments from which they use the dividends and gains towards the operating budget and any capital gains improvement projects. That's just undergrad as well, there are another 10,000 grad students on top of that.

Edited November 5, 2010 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

Iz zat a fact.... so if someone says there is a god, it is up to me to prove otherwise?

If the crown says that somone is guilty, it is up to the defence to prove otherwise?

If a drug company claims that their drug cures old age, it is up to health Canada to prove otherwise?

No, proof lies with the positive statement.

http://www.wikisynergy.com/wiki/Pseudoskeptics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

No, it's up to you to prove that what I've posted here is false. You can't just say WRONG and move on. It doesn't work that way. Furthermore, you know that. If you think the proof I've posted here is wrong, maybe you should either get off your ass and actually show me something to back that up rather than just tell me that I'm embarrassing myself. Either that, or just don't respond.

Edited November 5, 2010 by nicky10013

[M.Dancer]

No, it's up to you to prove that what I've posted here is false.

Wrong again

RESEARCH YOUR POST

If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (websites, links etc).

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?app=core&module=help&do=01&HID=17

You can't just say WRONG and move on.

Don't have to. You comment regarding your source wqas just plain wrong..

Even with just these two passages, he's clearly calling for any legal restriction against the freedom of speech to be removed.

There was nothing clear about it.

It doesn't work that way. Furthermore, you know that. If you think the proof I've posted here is wrong, maybe you should either get off your ass and actually show me something to back that up rather than just tell me that I'm embarrassing myself. Either that, or just don't respond.

I will attempt to convince you...

You say that he is for "unmitigated free speech"

Of course, that is nonsense...and you are asking me to prove a negative, which is also nonsense...the byrden of proof is yours..

I will overlook the obvious (FIRE!) and work my way backwards.

Can you find anywhere he has said he favours abolishing all libel laws?

Can you find anywhere he has said he favours abolishing all slander laws?

Can you even, tangentially show where he has said that it is okay to broadcast, publish or cry, kill so and so?

If you can't, then the statement, he favours "unmitigated free speech" is just propaganda on your part, your flaccid attempt to smear the man in disappointment that he didn't allow a convicted felon and racist to attend his meetings

So Right, you unmitigate hyperbole is noted and laughed at, repeatedly.

[M.Dancer]

The board doesn't post it's minutes but I was on the senate as well. Right there in the minutes, Mr N Kelly.

Okay, so you misrepresented yourself.

[nicky10013]

Don't have to. You comment regarding your source wqas just plain wrong..

There was nothing clear about it.

I will attempt to convince you...

You say that he is for "unmitigated free speech"

Of course, that is nonsense...and you are asking me to prove a negative, which is also nonsense...the byrden of proof is yours..

I will overlook the obvious (FIRE!) and work my way backwards.

Can you find anywhere he has said he favours abolishing all libel laws?

Can you find anywhere he has said he favours abolishing all slander laws?

Can you even, tangentially show where he has said that it is okay to broadcast, publish or cry, kill so and so?

If you can't, then the statement, he favours "unmitigated free speech" is just propaganda on your part, your flaccid attempt to smear the man in disappointment that he didn't allow a convicted felon and racist to attend his meetings

So Right, you unmitigate hyperbole is noted and laughed at, repeatedly.

Of course I did. He made it clear that our current laws are against British and Canadian legal tradition. As I suspected you're looking for him to specifically say "unmitigated free speech." This is all about semantics and nothing more. Nothing I ever said was ever going to be correct to you and you've never given anything to prove otherwise. You just like sitting behind your computer screen and typing, "you're wrong." Maybe if you could come back with evidence that disproves mine rather than a bad language lesson , we'd be able to have a conversation.

[Argus]

Why did I never hear anyone on the right complain about the use of actual academic disciplinary actions and arrests by police against anti-Israel and anti-Bush protesters at York?: http://canadiandimension.com/articles/1901

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 Canada’s pro-Israeli lobbyists and fundraisers.

I'm gonna guess what the writer meant to say but didn't dare is that he found a number of Jewish names.

If I see or hear of a demo at York being unfairly targeted I'll be sure to weigh in with my opinion.

[nicky10013]

Okay, so you misrepresented yourself.

Uhhh, did I? You want to look through Vic's records and find meetings of board minutes between April 2008 and April 2009, you'll find my name. I did it, couldn't find it. I was also on the Victoria College Council but I didn't mention it because it didn't have any significance to anything financial. That's not misrepresenting anything. I'm certainly not going to look through 600 pages of documents I recieved while on the board just to appease the likes of you. I misrepresented nothing.

Edited November 5, 2010 by nicky10013