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

U. of Calgary - Circus School

The administration of the University of Calgary has decided to sic the police on some young women students for expressing unapproved thoughts on campus. Well, it is a university after all - you can't go around letting students think for themselves! They are paying good money to be trained like seals!!

Ezra Levant (ticked off alumnus of U of C) weighs in:

...This is part of a disturbing trend of censorship on Canadian campuses. Just weeks ago, Queen's University announced roving squads of conversation "monitors" -- busybodies who would butt into private conversations to lecture students who said anything politically incorrect.

U of C goes straight for the cops.

In my travels, from time to time I find myself rebutting stereotypical perceptions of Calgary and Alberta. I point out that, in fact, our city has the highest rate of post-secondary education in the country; that we are very multicultural; that we are enlightened, and educated and open-minded, and I always have a half-dozen proof points.

But it's going to be tough to make the case now that the city's university sends cops after young women to bully them into ceasing their political discussions.

I'm glad to read that the Canadian Constitution Foundation has caught notice of the case; the Canadian Civil Liberties Association should intervene, too.

I think a pre-emptive lawsuit against U of C is in order (in addition to defending the students against the trespass charges). And -- far more effective -- a boycott on donations by alumni is in order, as well....

That's right. We're Canadian. You have to make it personal before we pay attention. (i.e. hit us where it hurts - the pocketbook!)

Cause And Effect?

Two stories from Britain caught my eye . Anyone else think there's a connection?

"British Muslims Want To Remain Segregated":

...A shocking 44 percent of Muslims in Britain have said that they would like to be segregated from the rest of society, and be free to develop along separate lines...

"Teach Pleasure Of Gay Sex To 5 Yr. Olds":

...Children as young as five should be taught to understand the pleasures of gay sex, according to leaders of a taxpayer-funded education project.

Heads of the project have set themselves a goal of 'creating primary classrooms where queer sexualities are affirmed and celebrated'...

I don't suppose the dramatic rise in the number of homeschoolers in Britain,( now estimated to be over 100,000) is at all related ....

.

Pimping The Tweens

Seems like British schools have found their calling...pimping tweens! "Here ya go guys, the girls are free of any parental or consequential impediments"....WHAT ARE THEY THINKING??
LifeNews:

Secondary schools in England are under fire for giving the morning after pill to girls as young as 11 years old without the knowledge of their parents. Norman Wells, director of campaign group Family Education Trust, obtained the information from the health department under the Freedom of Information Act.

The information shows that, in Oxfordshire alone, school-based health clinics have given 1,081 Plan B pills to schoolgirls in the last six years.

Staff at the more than 1,000 clinics throughout the UK are not required to obtain parental permission before giving girls the drug, which can cause an abortion in some circumstances if taken after conception....

"... there's evidence it may be making matters worse. Confidential school clinics enable boys to put even more pressure on girls to have sex as Mum needn't know anything about it," (Wells) said....

....In June, the British health department showed the number of abortions on young teenagers is up significantly in 2007 compared with the year before.

Across all age groups in England and Wales, abortions appear to have risen 2.5 percent. But the jump in teen abortions is staggering in comparison.

The number of abortions on girls younger than 14 years of age rose 21 percent from 2006 to 2007 -- making it appear more cases of sexual abuse are occurring and resulting in more abortions....

Carleton U. (Home of a School of Journalism!)

David Warren on "Equality":

....Last Monday, the student council of Carleton University attracted much attention to their university and to the city of Ottawa—around Canada and the world—with their decision to cancel their annual Shinerama fundraising efforts on behalf of the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Their argument was that this disease afflicts “white people and primarily men.“ They would rather choose a charity that is more “inclusive.“....

....“Good intentions” do not excuse them, as their president, Brittany Smyth, has tried to argue with several media callers. Anti-white and anti-male prejudices are not well-intentioned; she should have been corrected publicly on that. And here is how Ms. Smyth dismissed the disgraceful preamble of Mr. Northup’s motion, to CTV News: “It’s 100 per cent their opinion. Their opinion doesn’t have to be fact or anything really. It’s just how this individual felt.“

This remark reveals an extraordinary degree of incuriosity, allied perhaps with lethargy and cowardice, on the part of the student councillors. Political correctness has numbed their brains. How has it done so? By instilling indifference to truth in their souls.

Evil and stupidity reinforce one another. Even acts which appear, on their face, to be devilishly clever, turn out not to be, with a little extra cunning. There are arguable exceptions, but in the main, the reason so many criminals get caught, even by rather flat-footed policemen, is that they suffer from cruel deficiencies of intellect. They can’t keep up with the lies they are living.....

How To Raise An Idiot

...send him to university unprepared to do daily battle with 'educated people' for control of his speech and thought!

One of Canada's 'top' universities and home of one of their 'best' medical schools- Queen's University, exemplifies the stifling atmosphere on campuses across the country:(Ben-Ami)

....the “intergroup dialogue program” is part of a broader initiative by the university to “foster diversity and encourage students to think about their beliefs”. What could be more benign?

To accomplish these objectives, however, the school will be deploying “student facilitators” whose job it will be, in part, to monitor private conversations on campus and to jump in when they hear someone using terms that could be interpreted as homophobic, sexist, or otherwise bigoted. These facilitators will also be responsible for initiating “spontaneous” conversations about issues and organizing discussion groups and other activities for the same purpose.

So far, critics have focused their attention almost exclusively on the possibility that the reactive aspect of the program – intervening in private conversations – might impinge upon the freedom of speech or freedom of expression of students, a not unreasonable fear. I’m more worried about the proactive aspects of the project – the so-called “spontaneous” conversations and discussion groups on issues that the program envisions.

Clearly something of this nature must have a set of standards to determine whether or not a conversation is offensive enough to warrant an “intervention” by facilitators. What are those standards, and how will they be applied to the “spontaneous” conversations and discussion groups the facilitators are also mandated to initiate, particularly if these conversations and discussions deal with controversial subject matter? The war in Iraq, abortion, the gay agenda, radical feminism – it’s not hard to imagine a list of topics where feelings run high and where dissent is rarely tolerated these days, let alone respected, especially on university campuses. Will facilitators create an environment where dissent is welcome, or will they use their quasi-authoritative positions to try and convince the dissenters of their sins and persuade them to return to the warm and friendly embrace of neo-orthodox opinion? I for one am not optimistic.

The explanation offered by representatives of Queen’s University that this program encourages diversity and independent thinking simply makes no sense. By challenging and effectively suppressing non-conformist behaviour and opinion, it seeks to induce uniformity of thought and expression, otherwise there would be no purpose in intervening in private conversations in the first place.

Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of examples of stupid and offensive ideas out there, and I’m all for confronting those who express those ideas, but any confrontation ought to be spontaneous and it ought to be limited to truly private individuals rather than agents of the state posing as private individuals...

"If Stephen Harper Doesn't Care, Why Should We?"

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is sucking the west into his vortex of inhumanity by ignoring the call for freedom of expression on the abortion issue IN PARLIAMENT. By vowing to prevent ANY DISCUSSION he has set the tone for others:

LifeSiteNews

....Dr. Harvey Weingarten, president of the U of C, has stated in the past, "The role of universities is to promote, permit and enable the free exchange of ideas, debate and civil discourse. If universities do not support these values, which societal institutions will?" The president's comment reflects the university's own policy laid out in its Academic Calendar showing that the University aims "to promote free inquiry and debate."

However, the university is justifying its censorship of the pro-life display because of anonymous complaints, and claims that the display could provoke violent reactions. However, there have been no such incidents on the previous five occasions the display has been shown on campus.

"Banning an event because of the possibility of someone else being violent towards it, is like telling women they are not allowed to walk on campus at night because of the possibility they may be sexually assaulted," stated Leah Halllman, president of CPL...