SMUSA Still Struggling With Basic Concepts Like Free Speech

Same old, same old!

 Every year SMUSA disappoints , and apparently the SMU administration are not helping them learn. Outspoken Professor Mark Mercer speaks his mind:

... once we all knew that it was SMUSA and not Saint Mary’s that had interfered with the expression of opinion on campus, I received an email message from Colin* saying that he takes the incident very seriously. He didn’t say whether he was for it or against it or what he intended to do....
...The continuing important story, then, is the administration’s implicit refusal to comment on the matter.”
*(SMU president Colin Dodds)

Previously...

Intolerance At SMU Re-Dux
Cancelled Debate
Free Speech Bullies
Bad Girls?
Atmosphere Stifling!

Of course, if you've been paying attention, you know of the many other examples - not limited to students- on other Canadian campuses like Queens, York, Calgary ,UBC, Ottawa.. the list goes on. We've even garnered some international attention!

Are these students/university free-speech travesties - anomalies, or a symptom of general societal disease? I freely submit it's endemic to Canadian society. The public schools teach it. The governments support it. Canadians seem to be able to live with it.

Hey Folks! What happened to "True North Strong and Free"!! Edited out?

.

Intolerance at SMU Re-Dux

The students' union at Saint Mary's University in Halifax, hosts a 'society fair' each fall, the purpose of which , is to give their members the opportunity to acquaint themselves with the various student groups on campus. This year's event was marred by the theft of ALL the materials from the 'Students For Life' display.

It may seem like a small thing, but looking around society today, I'm pretty sure its indicative of an underlying problem with veracity. Liars are intolerant. The truth is an inconvenience they cannot bear.

Here is a letter from a student regarding the unfortunate disruption of the student event :

Crime & Drama at the Fair - Students For Life:
Last Thursday at the SMU Society Fair, one small display was targeted. Someone secretly watched the table, and at the first opportunity, tore down the sign, and stole clip-boards sign-up sheets, pens, and personal documents. You might be thinking... what could possess someone to go to such extreme (not to mention illegal) lengths to prevent students from seeing, hearing or thinking about something? It’s a mystery to me, and I was manning the display, but maybe it was the name that set them off...
Name: “Students For Life”.
Right... the same as the name of the article, and since you’re reading this it doesn’t seem to be as offensive to you as it was to the thief. On the other hand, maybe it was the idea behind the group that was so terrifying and offensive...
Founding Principal: “Every human life has equal value”

Uh... that’s pretty much of the foundation of civil society. Not scary stuff. Maybe the society was planning dangerous and offensive activities of some sort. What is the society going to do?...

Planned Activities: 1. Come together as a group.
2. Provide volunteer opportunities.
3. Discuss value-of-life issues.

I take it you’re still reading, and have somehow managed to avoid destroying and /or stealing anything. You may even want to consider participating in some way down the line. We aren’t completely up and running, but if you send an email with your first and last names to smu.studentsforlife@gmail.com we’ll give you a heads-up when we’ve got something on the go. Students are busy people, so participation will be on an event-by-event basis. Show up when you can, and make Saint Mary’s University (and the world) a better place.

Note: Students who have already signed up are asked to re-submit their names by email.

Thank you for your time,
Paul Mullen
SMU student & member of Students For Life

The usual suspects (see this post on SMU's 'free-speech' travails last winter) were reminded by campus police ahead of time to follow 'rules of good behaviour', sat themselves directly beside the 'Students For Life' table, and left as soon as the display had been stolen. Witnesses say that as soon as Paul Mullen had stepped away a few feet to the trashcan, a man in a 'hat' came and took everything and left. Apparently he had been waiting for his chance!

Mr. Mullen has a very good point in his letter. What exactly is so disturbing and scary about 'Students For Life'? Can it be that the mere idea that everyone have access to the truth, is so threatening to some that they can't allow it? Can people really be rationalizing their actions this way? Knowing that a group exists that cares whether babies, elderly, handicapped and...well, everyone, lives or dies, is REALLY a threat to ...whom?

To liars. Only those protecting their own lies are threatened by the truth.

Do Your Homework Missy!

Saint Mary's University student forgets to get her story straight before offering 'daft' interview in 'The Journal'.

Scott Gilbreath:

...Ms Taylor’s “defence” is full of faulty assumptions, erroneous arguments, and dumb mistakes. The unnamed SMU Journal reporter who conducted the interview is complicit for failing to challenge her foolishness.

Taylor cites as precedent SMU’s cowardly decision to cancel a debate between former philosophy professor Peter March and alleged racist Jared Taylor in March 2007, but she gets crucial facts wrong. According to her, the university cancelled the debate “in an effort to protect students from the pain and suffering that is inflicted by the promotion of hate speech”; but that’s not what SMU said about it. The SMU press release she herself quotes refers only to “high security risks and potential threat to both our campus community and to visitors”.

The press release also says this:

The University remains committed to academic freedom, diversity of opinion, and supports open debate in a forum that does not put the personal safety of our community at risk.

Taylor does not allege that Mr Ruba’s presentation endangered anyone’s “personal safety”, so the press release that she relies on as justification does not actually support last month’s display of anti-free speech fascism...
Hello! She refers to the Canadian Human Rights Act, but quotes from and links to the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act. Does she know what she’s talking about?

In any case, taking the law into one’s own hands by presumptively shouting down a speaker is not one of the legal remedies set forth in the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act. One must lodge a complaint with the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, which will decide if the complaint is worthy of further action.

She calls Ruba a racist because he cites Martin Luther King, Jr, in support of anti-abortion views in what she thinks is a misleading and manipulative fashion. A racist is someone who thinks that some races are inherently inferior to others. Quoting a black man with approval is prima facie evidence that Ruba thinks blacks are equal. Taylor may disagree with Ruba’s interpretation of King’s words but, obviously, that doesn’t make Ruba a racist.

Besides, in view of Taylor’s self-serving misuse of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act, it’s a little rich for her to complain that someone else is being “misleading and manipulative”.....

I'm sure Ms. Taylor is unaware that Dr. Alveda King, Martin Luther King Jr.'s niece, frequently quotes her uncle in her prolife advocacy work.


(I sure hope my son is receiving a better education at SMU than Ms. Taylor apparently is!)

Free Speech On Campus

Here are some great posts on the 'free speech on campus' battle going on in Nova Scotia:


Steynian

...The fascistic tactics of such militant Progs are beyond irony– they view themselves as lonely crusaders for truth, and that the ends justify all means, even if said means are prejudicial, anti-democratic, hateful, and suppressive or real debate and discussion on the issues they supposedly feel so strongly about. It’s political violence, of a sort, and injures civil society, facts and reflection, and is an absolute assumption of rightness and righteousness on the protesters. This is a popular tactic of Jihadists, brownshirts, black shirts, Bolshevik students, ranting 60’s student bullies– not of those who want the free exchange of ideas in pursuit of truth.…

Comment Gold!

...our awesomer-than-usual Infidel Prof sends along a screed he flung off to the local Chronicle Herald. Proborts, anti-speechists, and academic drones beware: the truth is offensive.

To the editor:

The Herald is right that the protesters who disrupted Jose Ruba’s presentation at Saint Mary’s University last Thursday (”Protesters denied pro-lifer’s right to free speech,” 10 February 2009) have no regard for freedom of expression and were acting as vigilantes. But the Herald fails to press the same points against the university.

This is the first paragraph of the university’s press release regarding the incident: “The University remains committed to academic freedom, diversity of opinion, and supports open debate in a forum that does not put the personal safety and rights of our community at risk. There is a balance that must be maintained among all of these.”

This paragraph implies that it is possible in a open debate to put at risk the rights of our community, and this risk has to be balanced against other things. The university and the protesters are, then, as one in their disdain for freedom of expression. One of the organizers of the protest has said that to compare abortion to the Holocaust, which indeed is what Mr Ruba did, is to violate people’s human rights. Now if it is possible in an open debate to put at risk people’s human rights, comparing abortion to the Holocaust seems a good candidate for violating human rights. The university might well agree with the protesters about both principle and case....

NS Scott

...Today’s issue of The Journal, student newspaper of Saint Mary’s University, carries a front-page story on last week’s disruption of a pro-life presentation by a bunch of Brown Shirts.

A high-ranking official says that the university forced the presentation to be moved off campus because of concerns that the young fascists would become violent if the event were not stopped....

ConcernedForLife

...Among the many comments on this that I have read, one comment keeps popping up. If Mr. Ruba compares abortion to the holocaust, it is assumed that he is comparing women who have abortions to Nazis. I fail to see that that follows; only people who did not hear his talk make that conclusion. The comparison of abortion to the Holocaust is made on the basis of several points...

BigBlueWave

...Pro-lifers raise a number of important philosophical questions and dismissing them as irrelevant is not an intellectually satisfactory position for most people. The human mind, like the rest of nature, abhors a vacuum. When questions are raised, and answers sought, the need for authenticity and logical consistency pushes the mind to find answers, even if they are deemed "irrelevant" by some. That is the beauty of the human intellect.

If they do not answer these questions, they will lose ground. By raising questions, pro-lifers will create that vacuum and pro-lifers will fill it.

We only need to persistently present the facts in a calm and peaceful manner. I am not saying this is the magic bullet. I don't believe in magic bullets for such complex questions.

I am saying it can only further our cause...

(If you have found other relevant articles you'd like to share, pleas add them in the comments, or e-mail me.)

.

Chair of Univ. Women's Center Tries to Deflect Blame

NS Scott:

Chutzpah on stilts: A bunch of anti-free speech fascists shouted down pro-life speaker Jojo Ruba at Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, last Thursday evening and the chairwoman of a university board is so offended that she threatens to lodge a human rights complaint—against one of speaker’s sponsors!
(Chronicle Herald)
"Lesley-Anne Steeleworthy, who is chairwoman of the board at the women’s centre at the university, said the lecture topic was “anti-choice” and offensive on “a number of levels.”

“It is shocking,” Ms. Steeleworthy said Sunday. “It’s comparing women who want the right to choose to being as evil as Hitler.”

As a result, her group is considering a human rights complaint against the university chaplain for participating in the event. The chaplain is in his first year in the position..."

We wouldn't want to actually 'listen' to Mr. Ruba's presentation, and THEN make remarks! In fact, the whole purpose of her protesters was to NOT LISTEN.(I say they are hers, because she suggested as much in an article with 'U-News' BEFORE the event!)

Since when is it a 'human rights' issue to support life? Since when is it a 'human rights' issue to speak about history and warn about repeating mistakes? As in, "don't make the mistake of denying the humanity of another human being." I would think the human rights commission would be more interested in someone who denied that history provided this lesson!

Its quite obvious which group has respect for others, and also which group is hate-mongering, telling lies, and obstructing free speech.

Ms. Steeleworthy is not a good person to be chairing a board for a 'women's centre'. She's obviously an abortion fanatic, and can hardly be relied upon to provide healthy and safe service for all women.(Would you want her near YOUR daughter?!) She also has an unwarranted confidence in her level of influence in the universe. She does not have the power to decide moral issues and 'shut down' other voices. (Canada still being ,nominally at least, a democracy). She has no business in a place of 'higher' learning, sitting on a board that influences the outcome for young women the university is hoping will survive their experience at SMU!


One other comment. The Chronicle Herald (quoted above) mentioned that this was Fr. Dan's first year as Chaplain at SMU, as if to give hime an excuse for a 'mistake' in judgement. (This is their idea of journalism!) Fr. Dan made no mistakes. He followed protocol, his group was peaceful, and he hosted a speaker for those interested enough to attend. All the error is on the side of those who think they can control what discussions are being held by others. IT IS WRONG. And a newspaper should not
in any way , suppport this kind of intolerance.

See Also SMU Stifles Discussion

Commentary By Others:

Kevin Mullen, SMU Alumnae

Re: island breezes: Chair of Univ. Women's Center Tries to Deflect Blame

Hopefully the university (SMU) has a somewhat reasonable response to this
embarrassment - there is obviously no hate mongering from the speakers, they hadn't
even started speaking yet - SMU should be handing a suspension to the chair of the
women's centre - this is a blatant abuse of her authority, to use her position to
further a political end, through unethical means (bullying), and definitely shows
lack of judgement for the responsibilities she's been entrusted.

And that is totally besides the life vs abortion issue, to which you would think she
would have learned a somewhat sensitive approach, given her responsibilities.
(via facebook)

--------------------

Daimnation
ProWoman ProLife
Opposing Views
BlazingCatFur
SoCon Or Bust
Deborah Gyapong

.

SMU Stifles Discussion *update*

Saint Mary's University, Halifax, has joined the ranks of 'higher ' education institutions that disallow intelligent discussion of 'certain' subjects.
Dartmouth Soundsystem:

"We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still."

A few nights ago a group of SMU students gathered to hear a speaker talk about abortion. This was not a debate or protest, and it did not affect any SMU students or faculty in a negative manner. Students and interested non-students gathered to hear the speaker. He gave his introduction and invited questions to be asked at the end...
....There's a good old quote that states that while I may not agree with your opinion, I will fight to the death to preserve your right to have it and express it. Beyond the topic of abortion, this incident is terrifying in that one group completely silenced the other by chanting for over 45 minutes. I am saddened that university-educated students don't realize that the tactics they're employing have always been favoured by fascists. If our universities don't support open discourse on "uncomfortable" topics like this, then who will?...

(video of event disruption)

Kudos to the students who held their tempers in the face of injustice and intolerance. The event was closed down by SMU 'conflict resolution(?)' officials, and moved off campus . Lesson learned by young facists in the making? Be loud and obnoxious. The university will support your intolerance.


*More at:
NovaScotiaScott.

American Papist

Related : Holocaust Analogy IS Appropriate