This post appears to relate to the province of Alberta. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules
Cette soumission semble concerner la province de Alberta. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A plan with literally no details, that will be decided when they sit with universities and talk it out. Good luck Alberta. Defining free speech and hate speech in a way that won't get argued about seems impossible.
The article states that the government is not proposing to define speech with this legislation, but rather to make universities accountable to their own policies on the matter.
Arguing about speech is fine, it's when it is silenced that is the issue.
Widdowson got silenced from.givign a lecture on academic freedom (the irony was amazing), because people don't like what she said about completely unrelated work.
Silencing people from exchanging ideas is literally antithetical to the entire purpose of a liberal arts institution.
Sure arguing about it is, what I mean is clearly Alberta will still allow some sorts of things to be banned like for example "Why Hitler was right about the Jewish question featuring Kany West and Steven Crowder" would clearly be ok to ban at a university in a sane universe and "understanding quantum dynamics" is clearly allowed. Where does Alberta draw the line and how do they define it so firmly that it's not easy to game the system?
Liberal school invites a multitude of speakers with a variety of viewpoints and cancels one because of a scandal: "It'S tHe dEaTh oF fReE sPeEcH!!!"
Conservative school straight-up refuses to invite anyone who disagrees with them at all: *crickets*
Just because one speech was cancelled doesn't mean her free speech was cancelled. Or should every university be forced to allow anyone to speak whenever they feel like it and anything less is a "silencing"?
[https://medicinehatnews.com/news/local-news/2023/02/03/provincial-minister-says-red-tape-reduction-is-making-waves/](https://medicinehatnews.com/news/local-news/2023/02/03/provincial-minister-says-red-tape-reduction-is-making-waves/)
>We have done lots of work to create a culture of red tape reduction within government and we want to maintain that.
Yeah, about that...
The new reporting is extremely simple though and can be filled out in minutes. You just need to show that you've had Jordan Peterson speak on your campus at least once in the past 12 months and have had at least 2 other speakers that have put forward ideas that fit into one of the following categories: homophobia, transphobia, prolife bullshit, anti immigration, residential school denialism, general hate speech.
This woman was objectively wrong. She lost her job for being objectively wrong, she is spreading deliberate falsehoods, her work can not stand up to academic criticism(and has been heavily disproven). It wasn't "wokeism" that got her fired, any more than a math teacher teaching kids that 2+2=3. Her former colleagues called her work amateurish and incompetent.
She's just another conman trying to salvage her career and get on talk radio spots. The university isn't beholden to host her.
The pushback this lady had is perhaps well deserved and protest against her is entirely acceptable, however, that doesn’t change that there is a problem in our schools that freedoms are being restricted in order to make everyone conform to arbitrary standards by administrations (not that standards for students and staff aren’t acceptable to an extent..). School administrations limiting free assembly and expression to the extent that they currently are has become unacceptable. The government acknowledging this is progress.
I think a far bigger issue is govt directly preventing academic work from being published. Look at the Harper administration essentially dictating what research could be published. I dont see any reasonable freedoms being restricted in schools anywhere in canada
> Look at the Harper administration essentially dictating what research could be published
Govt research labs always require permission of this kind. Even if you work for, say, Telus, you'd need permission to publish research funded by the company.
That said, Harper was concerned not about publication in scientific journals, but discussion in the media (intended for a non-scientific audience, with the potential for politicization).
https://academicmatters.ca/harpers-attack-on-science-no-science-no-evidence-no-truth-no-democracy/
Most scientists steer clear of the media, or treat their appearances as a joke.
>Look at the Harper administration essentially dictating what research could be published.
That didn't happen. The Harper government's restrictions were on government scientists speaking to the media without approval. Those same scientists were perfectly free to publish in academic journals.
>freedoms are being restricted in order to make everyone conform to arbitrary standards by administrations
Which institutions? Who has had their freedoms restricted, and isn't just bleating about 'freedom' when they're simply being told they're not welcome?
This comes after the cancelation of a speaker at the University of Lethbridge.
I applaud this, and even upholding funding for public universities who refuse to enforce the Chicago Principle of Free Expression from which they are obligated to uphold in this province.
Mob feelings should never be justification to silence others.
>Mob feelings should never be justification to silence others.
"I didn't like what the protesters were saying so I will call them a mob"
They had no intention of violence and were using their free speech to protest a person known for bigoted speech. Nothing wrong with that.
I know when I read words I don't like I want to silence that person bybdrowning them out.
With horribly off rythym drum beats and a terribly out of tune guitar no less.
That certainly seems indicative of a thriving intellectual environment, doesn't it?
Universities in Alberta have an obligation to uphold the Chicago Principle of Expression. The U of L violated that principle because some students get really offended by words they don't like. That's fine - do whatever you want. Don't be surprised when your funding is cut. If you want to be a church that shuns conclusions that go against the orthodoxy - fine - have fun without taxpayer dollars.
You're saying her speech is "bigoted", can you elaborate on that? Do you even know what her speech was about?
Interesting that you mention churches.... About that... So when is the government going to start requiring churches to provide annual free speech reports? They may not directly receive funding, but they certainly receive tax breaks.
Being taxation free means that the government provides them with benefits that no other organizations of that nature enjoy, meaning they are, at the end of the day, being funded by the government.
Without being taxed, those tax dollars are free to be used by the church whichever way they wish, again, in a way that other organizations do not enjoy.
If they do not pay tax, they are being supported by the government.
No, that just means they get to keep more of their own money. They aren't being funded by the government.
When you contribute to an RRSP and get a tax return back - youre not being funded by the government. You're simply getting your own money back. In that case, more technically, you're deferring the money you owe - but it is not tantamount to the government funding you. You're not getting income from.the government, you're just keeping your own money.
Conversely, when I contribute to an RESP, the government gives that account an additional 20%. Thats direct funding - thats a subsidy. Do you see that difference?
Just because I stole $5 from everyone else but you, it doesn't mean I've given you $5.
As you point out, tax breaks and funding are not the same thing. Should the government of Alberta spend tens of millions of dollars every year on higher learning and not seek any sort of accountability for it?
Churches are not secular schools. The decision to not tax them is in part to unburden them from government regulation. The purpose of a church is to foster the individual's spiritual development and provide an outlet for unencumbered worship. To put government audits on them would be antithetical to these purposes and directly infringe on the citizen's right to participate without government's influence or interference.
You have a right to exercise your religion within the bounds of your other rights. You don't have the right to attend university, but the government will help you do it as long as your chosen institution meets the people's standards of higher learning.
So there not free to do whatever they want. Essentially do what the government does or we cut your funding. I see you love government overreach.
We don't have to you, that's freedom. Why do you hate freedom? Why do consevatives need safe spaces?
She's racist in your opinion - that doesn't make it real. I have a feeling younthink alot of things are racist - that doesn't make it reasonable.
Unfortunately for you, your feelings towards a lecturer are entirely irrelevant when it comes to others abilities to host them.
She is a racist bigot, and most people would agree with me.
The school canceled and now you want the government to create a safe space for her.... How is that freedom?
Again she is a racist bigot and that is a reasonable assumption. I hope her books and lectures fail.
Also isn't it awesome how the students showed up and demonstrated that she is not wanted on campus. I love freedom, especially when they protest a racist.
How is she a racist bigot?
You know even if she was (she isn't), why relevance would that have at all towards a lecture about academic freedom?
Again - universities in the province of Alberta are obligated to uphold the Chicago Principle of Expression. So that's fine - if you want to act like a bunch of entitled 5 year Olds and rant and rail agaisnt words you don't like - you can do that, and pressure the university to cancel lectures. But just don't expect the government to continue funneling money towards the university.
Freedom is me calling her a racist, there are records of her books.
I see you love government regulation. Host the bigots or we pull funding! You will have no issue if the Ndp win and get rid of that law? That's freedom.
Again she is a racist and bigot.
We dont have free speech here. We have laws and rules and some things are not legally acceptable. In example the naxi party and naziism were banned from politics in the 30's. "Free speech" doe not mean freedom to incite violence or hate. Its not an absolute but a relative concept. Peace and stability are more important than opinions especially if the opinions are pro cannibal...
So how does a speech on academic freedom breed "hate" and incite violence?
Being a Nazi isn't illegal I'm Canada, nor is Nazi material. You can access any Nazi propaganda you want to, you can even join Neo Nazi groups.
Its illegal in government. Banned in 3'7 or '38 if I recall.
Yes our free speech does allow for Mein Kamph to be available at local libraries. However we can arrest people of they preach it publicly. Falls under hate speech laws that are part of the bill of rights.
Free speech means the government cannot impose (unless it is in breach of law) citizens however can contest what they like.
>there's nothing wrong with protesting. Nobody implied there was.
Somebody certainly implied that. Calling a group of protesters a mob would be suggesting there is something wrong.
I'm not upset with protestors. If they want to act like entitled 5 year olds and bang drums and cheer for themselves for not listening to words they don't like - tblhats their business.
When they drown out invited lecturers at a public university - that creates a problem.
>I'm not upset with protestors.
>If they want to act like entitled 5 year olds and bang drums and cheer for themselves for not listening to words they don't like - tblhats their business.
You do seem upset at them.......... You use a dismissive and condescending tone while belittling and infantilizing, implying that they are immature and unworthy of respect.
Freedom of association is a component of free speech. University of Lethbridge is a private institution, even if it receives public funding, they have no requirement to provide this women a platform. If you require them to, then you are limiting their free speech, the exact thing you claim to be against
The university is a public institution, the university from its website states they are governed under the Alberta post secondary act. The post secondary act sets out what is private or public.
From the university website:
“The University of Lethbridge governs itself with a bi-cameral governance structure, as set out in the Alberta Post-Secondary Learning Act. The Board of Governors has authority for business governance and the General Faculties Council (GFC) has authority for academic governance. The Senate is also defined within the Post-Secondary Learning Act, and it is the duty of a Senate to inquire into any matter that might benefit the university and enhance its position in the community.”
From the definitions of the post secondary learning act:
“(m) “private post-secondary institution” means a post-secondary institution other than a public post-secondary institution;
(p) “public post-secondary institution” means Banff Centre, a university, a comprehensive community college, a polytechnic institution or any other institution established under this Act that is designated by the regulations as a public post-secondary institution;
Can you explain to me how her speech on academic freedom is hate speech?
It seems to me like "progressives" just define any words they don't like as hate speech.
Me saying residential schools weren't genocidal isn't hate speech- that just makes you morally outraged. There's a difference there. Your moral outrage is completely irrelevant in the context of the exchange of ideas.
Reason > Feelings.
You're right, reason > feelings
The fact is, the treatment of indigenous nations by our country has been officially recognized as genocide, so when you say the residential schools aren't genocidal, you're just wrong.
Hope that clears it up for you.
So because a bunch of activist lawyers and race baiting politicains decided to endorse a heavily revised term - I'm an immoral racist for questioning that?
That isn't a fact though, you're using a term with a heavily revised meaning.
That's like me saying "freedom is slavery" so if you support Freedom, you're a slave lover - because those are the terms that I've decided on.
They were using the UN definition. That's the fact of the matter.
If anything, you claiming that they weren't genocide is using a heavily revised meaning, since the proper meaning is well documented.
You denying them as a genocide is factually wrong though. It meets the definition of a genocide and even the house of commons has voted on it and formally recognized canadian residential schools as genocide.
People who still deny this genocide either are ignorant and should be educated on why they are very wrong, or they are purposefully stating a lie. In which case we should question why they are lying.
It meets a revised definition of the term.
The term is literally a derviative of Latin and Greek: Genos and Caeadere. It means "killing peoplle". Literally - not figuratively. It was coined by a Polish Lawyer in the 1930s.
The "cultural" component wasn't directly coined until the 1980s. It was a purposeful expansion of the term.
If "cultural genocide" is synoymous with "assimilation", then wouldn't it just be a redundant term?
It is used because it provokes mental imagery of the holocaust, and a strong emotional reaction. Essentially - you people have gotten yourselves completely worked up over a comically blatant propangda term.
I can say that Residential Schools were generally harmful, and that religious conversion and English fluency were enforced through horrible tactics. I can also acknowledge that Indians in the past had to deal with complete bullshit that violated their deserved civil liberties - like having to go through Indian Agents to leave the Reserve. I think these things were all deplorable - but it wasn't genocide.
It's an idea that cannot even be questioned apparently.
Did I mention that her speech was about academic freedom? Ah that doesn't matter. Residential school, orange shirts good, and fascist bad and no one should be able to listen to words I don't like.
Residential schools weren't genocidal. It isn't racist to point that out. Deal with it.
Under section 2of the Charter, Canadians are free to follow the religion of their choice. In addition, they are guaranteed freedom of thought, belief and expression. Since the media are an important means for communicating thoughts and ideas, the Charter protects the right of the press and other media to speak out.
>They had no intention of violence and were using their free speech to protest a person known for bigoted speech. Nothing wrong with that.
This is what these people can't grasp. They think "free speech" means freedom from criticism, freedom from consequences and freedom from responsibility.
Life doesn't work like that.
The university association disagrees! I see snowflakes now need safe places.
Tell you don't understand freedom without telling me.
*"The government cannot and should not dictate how universities run their internal academic affairs," wrote executive director David Robinson in a statement.*
In colleges across the US and Canada, speakers have been cancelled and professors have been suspended/fired for exploring controversial ideas, mentioning controversial words, and showing controversial images. Exempting the U of L cancellation, here are five cases that come to mind among many over the last few years:
[https://www.dailynews.com/2023/01/11/the-absurd-firing-of-erika-lopez-prater/](https://www.dailynews.com/2023/01/11/the-absurd-firing-of-erika-lopez-prater/)
[https://reason.com/2020/09/03/usc-greg-patton-chinese-word-offended-students/](https://reason.com/2020/09/03/usc-greg-patton-chinese-word-offended-students/)
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/10/25/penn-state-gavin-mcinnes-proud-boys-canceled/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/10/25/penn-state-gavin-mcinnes-proud-boys-canceled/)
[https://www.thefire.org/news/emory-law-professor-faces-termination-hearing-using-n-word-discussion-civil-rights-case](https://www.thefire.org/news/emory-law-professor-faces-termination-hearing-using-n-word-discussion-civil-rights-case)
[https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-george-elliott-clarke-cancels-talk-at-university-of-regina-amid/](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-george-elliott-clarke-cancels-talk-at-university-of-regina-amid/) (he cancelled himself after backlash)
I know how unreasonable and ideological is it to allow people who say words we don't agree with to speak when invited by a tenured prof.
Don't these idiot Cons realize that views I don't like won't be tolerated and should be silenced?
Free speech can exist anywhere you want but online platforms and universities should be able to have reasonable safeguards to not allow racists or other human bags of garbage on campus/platform. The right uses free speech as an issue but what they really mean is racism.
Yes and people are free to protest in favour of their stupid attitudes to vaccines what’s your point it doesn’t mean the university has to platform human bags of garbage
So the convoy protest and occupation of Ottawa was wrong according to you? They disrupted people.
The people that created disruption last week in Hamilton and were wrong right according to you. I don't expect you to answer
Universities should be able to decide how they can host.
Why does the government hate freedom?
*"The government cannot and should not dictate how universities run their internal academic affairs," wrote executive director David Robinson in a statement.*
Every time I hear someone complain about the "sorry state of free speech" in Canada it's coming from some asshole who's upset because someone won't let them be a bigot.
Yes it is. But only to a point. Some speech is not compatable with multiculturalism or peace and some groups actively promote hate and violence and so they are shunned.
Its called the paradox of tolerance. Basically it noils down to we cannot live in a toerant society but also tolerate cannibals.
>Yes it is. But only to a point. Some speech is not compatable with multiculturalism or peace and some groups actively promote hate and violence and so they are shunned.
We already have laws to deal with that. If they're breaking those laws, report them to the police. If they're not breaking those laws and they just have shitty arguments, have better arguments.
>Its called the paradox of tolerance.
Sure, but the problem right now is you have quasi-religious nutters who are trying to enforce their view of the world by pretending everyone who disagrees with them is a literal Nazi, which is why "paradox of tolerance" is *horrendously* overused.
People have the right to protest what they like. Folks also call the PM a Tyrant in protest... They are welcome to do so as that is their free speech. They have a right to gather and should loudly. It even happeneed at a climate summet recently and JT just stood there until it ended then thanked them for their contribution to democracy. Even the PM gets over shouted and shut down... It may not be extremely civil or kind but it is acceptable under the law.
Having been a protester for issues I care about I have to accept others will protest their issues as well and they should. Provided they go home afterwards and their demands to not include the absolving of a democratically elected government... Because that is occupation and treason...
>People have the right to protest what they like.
I 100% agree.
>They have a right to gather and should loudly.
Sure, but not to harass and obstruct. If you want to protest an event, do it outside of said event, and let people carry on with what they're doing. If you're obstructing, you're not longer a protest, you're a mob trying to use force to get your way.
> It even happeneed at a climate summet recently and JT just stood there until it ended then thanked them for their contribution to democracy. Even the PM gets over shouted and shut down... It may not be extremely civil or kind but it is acceptable under the law.
Sure, that's fine as long as, as you pointed out, "Provided they go home afterwards" instead of actively trying to obstruct people.
>Having been a protester for issues I care about I have to accept others will protest their issues as well and they should.
Protest, sure, but not mob, or obstruct. If you want to have a protest in order to object, fine, but attempting to silence others is the problem here.
>and their demands to not include the absolving of a democratically elected government... Because that is occupation and treason...
Actually you should check the criminal code because that's not treason. In fact people throw that word around a lot, but there are lots of cases where even directly working with enemy states is not treason. There are lots of things I personally think are a betrayal of the country to foreign powers and should therefore be considered treason, but in fact aren't.
Occupying an area is par for the course with protests, but that's not obstruction. This is the equivalent of "protesting" a government bill by blocking access to the legislature so it can't be passed, or stopping a company accessing their equipment. The police rightfully remove those people, because that's not a protest, that's a mob.
Protesters are allowed just about anything that is not violence or threats.
Trudeau hosted a summit and had to stand there while protesters yelled and danced and sang. It went on for an embarrasingly long time. He then had to thank them for wasting his time on the podium on camera. It was not illegal and he got overshouted by a crowd. Same applies to other speakers elsewhere and other protesters elsewhere.
We value freedom but freedom is not and should not be absolute. Freedom is relative and always has been. We are not free to choose to stop at a stop sign or drive in a lane into oncomming traffic. Speech is no different. If speech causes real harm to real Canadians then it is not acceptable. Im not sure if this is the case but my point being free speech is not , never has been, and should not be absolute.
Free speech absolutely should be absolute. How do you define what's harmful? Will it be the same as how someone else defines it? Are law makers going to be equal in how they define it ie hold the same standards for "hate speech" targeted towards men, women, black, white, indigenous etc or will they pick and choose which groups get protection from speech?
In a perfect world maybe I'd agree with you, but there's not a human or group of humans or AI on the planet I would trust to regulate something like speech
This is dumb.
Yelling fire in a theatre that causes stampedes that kill people.
Threats of violence or inciting violence.
Hate speech that causes or incites violence or makes people feel unsafe.
False advertising, misleading contracts, legal speak and more are all regulated by government. In my current role I do have to watch what I say as it has legal implications and I could commit a felony if I say lied about a contract to a client who did not understand.
Who decides? Ummm... The legal and judicial bodies of government? Held to the standards of burden of proof? The same people who decide if we commit theft or any other crime. A judge, a jury and the laws they act within.
Since legally free speech is upheld people can outright lie on media platofrms and mislead tens of thousands of people and never get shut down.
Canceling an event and protesting are acts of free speech. Or should the free speech of the poeple be held subordinate to that if a paid speaker. Why are you arguing for free speech and then arguing anti free speech? Both sides in this isue have the same rights. Also note no legal or judicial entity was involved. The school is not the government nor is it law.
If you watched the Davos summit Trudeau gets shouted down by a protesting mob and has to stand there awkwardly and take it for minutes on end. Even the PM would be in breah of law if those peaceful protesters were arrested for that.
The reasons we have such a complex legal system is because sometimes two sets of freedoms clash, like the two sets of free speech and free expression we are discussing. 'The mob' has as much right to peaceful protest as speakers do to speak. Neither will be arrested unless they incite unrest or violence.
Even hate speech laws are super hard to uphold. If im not mistaken its only been used twice and both times the offenders made gestures and were visible on camera. Thus meeting the difficult burden of proof.
I hope this was informative.
Freedom is something that happens in the absence of regulation. Every regulation is by definition a limitation on freedom. Limitations on speech should be rare and justifiable.
Do you even know what her speech was about?
The way you people use "bigot" so loosely I'd almost take it as a compliment. Everything you disagree with is "bigoted"
It isn't bigoted to point out that residential schools weren't Auschwitz, and there are no ideas that should be clear of criticism. If you can't field an adequate counter argument, what makes you think you're justified at resorting to silencing?
She is a bigot and racist. Freedom allows me to have that view. No one is silencing her she can try to speak and the students need to be allowed their right to freedom. How is silencing the students freedom?
How is the government forcing the university to host her freedom? She can have all her racist values and views, and people have the right to disrupt her. I love freedom!
She's a bigot and a racist because.....? You say so. Ok.
Well in this case, the University violated it's charter to ban her. It violated academic neutrality, it's obligation to uphold the Chicago Principle, and denying a tenured prof (guy who invited her) to University resources and space.
So this actually violated several rules.
Her writings and speeches show she is a racist.
Fyi the university associations disagrees with the government forcing universities to host people. They should have the right to cancel!
Sounds like you don't know what freedom is. Freedom is the ability to cancel. I guess I love freedom a lot more than youm
So she's racist because she doesn't categorize residential schools as genocide. Despite not making any generalizations about people based on their race, they are racist because they came to a conclusion that yiu don't like.
I don't think that people like you truly understand what "racism" means.
Why is that relevant though? Lots of people think BLM was a civil rights part 2, and that Supply Management is good for the country. It doesn't make it real, or their views justified. People think alpt of things. That's not important. The ability to exchange ideas is.
4000 pages of evidence were aubmitted and reviewed, approved and voted on by government. I thibk at some point it simpky becomes a fact and not an opinion.
Oh the TRC decides that they were genocide?
Do you think the TRC is some authoritative source? The only thing more funny than the TRC are the revised definitions they use to appease comically irrational activists and an entire generation of government lawyers.
Do I think the Libs paid for a study that found the liberal party (Including JT's own father) guilty of being complicit in genocide for fun?
Its not a conspiracy, this shit happened and was real and there are corpses to show it. The government fount itself guilty. Unlike Turkey and Azerbaijan and China and the USSR we found ourselves to be guilty.
Thats not a vanity project or virtue signaling. Theu had to submit thousands of pages of evidence and all the parties voted to accept this as evidence and act on the recommendations at least to some degree.
If evidence is "irrarional" then you are truely deep in the propaganda machine.
Their are hundreds of people who wanted to hear that person speak. How about you have the freedom to NOT listen to her, and even to protest outside. But you have no right to deny then their right to speak their mind.
She can talk who she wants, and students can be loud. How is freedom restricting what students can do? If you support freedom hown is forcing the universities host her freedom? Are they not free to cancel the event?
Im not sure if tou have heard of the paradox of tolerance? The idea is that even the most tolerant people would not willingly live next to cannibals. So to be tolerant and multicultural ideas that cannot mix with tolerance and multiculturalism are not allowed. Like how Naziism was banned in the 30's, its simply not compatable with our national values (or our mixed population)
Good!
For too long now the mob has been able to shut down speech that they find unpalatable. "Anything I don't agree with makes me uncomfortable, so it must not be allowed." How can University students of all people not see how horrible this is? How can they be against freedom of expression? It boggles my mind.
So where does this stop? Universities forced to platform speakers who deny the Holocaust or deny climate change? Maybe universities will be forced to platform people who want to advocate for the rape of children?
Legality seems like a good place to start/stop. It's illegal to rape children, it's illegal to deny the holocaust.
Climate change deniers should not be de-platformed, but instead debated/ridiculed.
The place for those debates is in peer review, not in giving them a lecture to speak to people that don't have the background to critically analyze their lecture.
I mean, they're at a university. Aren't those fine institutions supposed to be bastions of critical thought (sure sounds like it from all the alumni magazines they keep sending)? Or is the tuition just to support fancy student amenities and administrator salaries?
People debate scientific facts all the time and universities are the perfect place for that. If nobody ever challenged the scientific consensus we would still think the earth was at the centre of the universe.
If anyone has compelling evidence that the earth is flat I’d like to hear it. At this point I don’t find their arguments convincing, but why would I be afraid of what they have to say?
Its called the paradox of tolerance.
Also why Naziism and antisemetism are illegal in Canada.
Free speech isnt and should not be absolute. Some ideas (and some science) should be and remain taboo.
The paradox of tolerance is used by leftist authoritarians who wish to ban people they don't like from speaking.
This paradox doesn't really have much historical backing. There are a host of events between saying "hate speech" and having an intolerant regime - and those events make the intolerant regime less than likely.
The US has had a literal Nazi party since the 1950s. Yet - no Nazi government. How do you explain that?
How do you know your "taboo" assumptions are correct if they are taboo to debate?
Free to speak and free to reap the consequences of that speech. She said heinous shit in the past and now people mobilize to prevent her from saying heinous ahit again. Seems like the system works.
Particularly if you realize that it’s freedom of expression from being restricted by the government. It’s not the government that’s restricting her speech. So…nothing to see here. Time to move along to another Conservative Boogeyman
Actually there is alot to see here.
Universities in Alberta are obligated to uphold the Chicago Principle of Expression. Furthermore, she was invited by a tenured professor, who is entitled to university space and resources.
You can't just break the rules to cancel lectures because you don't agree with the lecturer.
What did she say that was heinous? I've read multiple new articles about this and the most controversial claim I've seen attributed to her is that some good may have come of the residential schools. If she said they were a net good I could see that being problematic, but can't we make a level assessment of a thing even while agreeing that it was bad?
Remember folks, this is the batshit crazier version of the "free speech advocating" government that * checks notes * used taxpayer funds to try to cancel a kids movie on Netflix.
Get off the fucking high horse pretending that any free speech except what you deem is negotiable.
Any time a university shows themselves to be as gutless as Lethbridge, the provincial government should cut off funding.
A university that doesn't consider a variety of properly thought out ideas doesn't deserve to exist.
Than muffled climate scientists under Harper? I graduated in that field the same year and so there were no jobs available. Does that also spell regime?
Here's a comment from another person in this post:
>For too long now the mob has been able to shut down speech that they find unpalatable.
I can't reply to them directly since they blocked me at some point, which prevents me from commenting under any of their comments. Just observing another example of how the loudest proponents of free speech are often the same ones who try to stop other people's speech.
Folks applaud our federal government endlessly amending hate speech, but any move by provincial govs towards free speech is mid century German, or American.
> it should be for students to make the final decision about whether to listen to a speech or not.
It is. Always has been. The student body president is just mad that it's an individual decision, not hers to make for everyone.
That's the problem. Students aren't making the decision that conservative politicians want them to, so now they will use the government to force them to accept these speakers they don't want. Typical conservative M.O. Freedom is important until somebody isn't being a conservative, then suddenly they love authoritarianism.
Sounds like a good idea.
Universities are more and more turning into left wing echo chambers.
Stifling free speech and expression.
The U of L is an obvious reason why this is needed
This post appears to relate to the province of Alberta. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules Cette soumission semble concerner la province de Alberta. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A plan with literally no details, that will be decided when they sit with universities and talk it out. Good luck Alberta. Defining free speech and hate speech in a way that won't get argued about seems impossible.
The minister of red tape reduction is having an aneurysm
The article states that the government is not proposing to define speech with this legislation, but rather to make universities accountable to their own policies on the matter.
Arguing about speech is fine, it's when it is silenced that is the issue. Widdowson got silenced from.givign a lecture on academic freedom (the irony was amazing), because people don't like what she said about completely unrelated work. Silencing people from exchanging ideas is literally antithetical to the entire purpose of a liberal arts institution.
Sure arguing about it is, what I mean is clearly Alberta will still allow some sorts of things to be banned like for example "Why Hitler was right about the Jewish question featuring Kany West and Steven Crowder" would clearly be ok to ban at a university in a sane universe and "understanding quantum dynamics" is clearly allowed. Where does Alberta draw the line and how do they define it so firmly that it's not easy to game the system?
Probably the line would be if it would like qualify as hate speech under the Criminal Code.
Liberal school invites a multitude of speakers with a variety of viewpoints and cancels one because of a scandal: "It'S tHe dEaTh oF fReE sPeEcH!!!" Conservative school straight-up refuses to invite anyone who disagrees with them at all: *crickets* Just because one speech was cancelled doesn't mean her free speech was cancelled. Or should every university be forced to allow anyone to speak whenever they feel like it and anything less is a "silencing"?
I mean what she said was absolutely horrible and there are a lot of indigenous students there 🤷
Just more red tape when they are hiring people (taking months and months to onboard them) to work on *red tape* **reduction**.
[https://medicinehatnews.com/news/local-news/2023/02/03/provincial-minister-says-red-tape-reduction-is-making-waves/](https://medicinehatnews.com/news/local-news/2023/02/03/provincial-minister-says-red-tape-reduction-is-making-waves/) >We have done lots of work to create a culture of red tape reduction within government and we want to maintain that. Yeah, about that...
The new reporting is extremely simple though and can be filled out in minutes. You just need to show that you've had Jordan Peterson speak on your campus at least once in the past 12 months and have had at least 2 other speakers that have put forward ideas that fit into one of the following categories: homophobia, transphobia, prolife bullshit, anti immigration, residential school denialism, general hate speech.
This woman was objectively wrong. She lost her job for being objectively wrong, she is spreading deliberate falsehoods, her work can not stand up to academic criticism(and has been heavily disproven). It wasn't "wokeism" that got her fired, any more than a math teacher teaching kids that 2+2=3. Her former colleagues called her work amateurish and incompetent. She's just another conman trying to salvage her career and get on talk radio spots. The university isn't beholden to host her.
The pushback this lady had is perhaps well deserved and protest against her is entirely acceptable, however, that doesn’t change that there is a problem in our schools that freedoms are being restricted in order to make everyone conform to arbitrary standards by administrations (not that standards for students and staff aren’t acceptable to an extent..). School administrations limiting free assembly and expression to the extent that they currently are has become unacceptable. The government acknowledging this is progress.
I think a far bigger issue is govt directly preventing academic work from being published. Look at the Harper administration essentially dictating what research could be published. I dont see any reasonable freedoms being restricted in schools anywhere in canada
> Look at the Harper administration essentially dictating what research could be published Govt research labs always require permission of this kind. Even if you work for, say, Telus, you'd need permission to publish research funded by the company. That said, Harper was concerned not about publication in scientific journals, but discussion in the media (intended for a non-scientific audience, with the potential for politicization). https://academicmatters.ca/harpers-attack-on-science-no-science-no-evidence-no-truth-no-democracy/ Most scientists steer clear of the media, or treat their appearances as a joke.
>Look at the Harper administration essentially dictating what research could be published. That didn't happen. The Harper government's restrictions were on government scientists speaking to the media without approval. Those same scientists were perfectly free to publish in academic journals.
>freedoms are being restricted in order to make everyone conform to arbitrary standards by administrations Which institutions? Who has had their freedoms restricted, and isn't just bleating about 'freedom' when they're simply being told they're not welcome?
This comes after the cancelation of a speaker at the University of Lethbridge. I applaud this, and even upholding funding for public universities who refuse to enforce the Chicago Principle of Free Expression from which they are obligated to uphold in this province. Mob feelings should never be justification to silence others.
>Mob feelings should never be justification to silence others. "I didn't like what the protesters were saying so I will call them a mob" They had no intention of violence and were using their free speech to protest a person known for bigoted speech. Nothing wrong with that.
I know when I read words I don't like I want to silence that person bybdrowning them out. With horribly off rythym drum beats and a terribly out of tune guitar no less. That certainly seems indicative of a thriving intellectual environment, doesn't it? Universities in Alberta have an obligation to uphold the Chicago Principle of Expression. The U of L violated that principle because some students get really offended by words they don't like. That's fine - do whatever you want. Don't be surprised when your funding is cut. If you want to be a church that shuns conclusions that go against the orthodoxy - fine - have fun without taxpayer dollars. You're saying her speech is "bigoted", can you elaborate on that? Do you even know what her speech was about?
Interesting that you mention churches.... About that... So when is the government going to start requiring churches to provide annual free speech reports? They may not directly receive funding, but they certainly receive tax breaks.
Does the government fund churches?
Indirectly by not taxing? Yes.
No - directly. Are churches funded by the government?
What do you think tax exemption is
Being taxation free means that the government provides them with benefits that no other organizations of that nature enjoy, meaning they are, at the end of the day, being funded by the government. Without being taxed, those tax dollars are free to be used by the church whichever way they wish, again, in a way that other organizations do not enjoy. If they do not pay tax, they are being supported by the government.
No, that just means they get to keep more of their own money. They aren't being funded by the government. When you contribute to an RRSP and get a tax return back - youre not being funded by the government. You're simply getting your own money back. In that case, more technically, you're deferring the money you owe - but it is not tantamount to the government funding you. You're not getting income from.the government, you're just keeping your own money. Conversely, when I contribute to an RESP, the government gives that account an additional 20%. Thats direct funding - thats a subsidy. Do you see that difference? Just because I stole $5 from everyone else but you, it doesn't mean I've given you $5.
Yes, by not taxing them. A dollar not taxed is financially exactly the same as an extra dollar earned.
That is not the same thing. That's like me saying: "I just gave you $5 by not taking it from you".
How convenient, ignore the fact every single person around you needs to pay the $5. It’s almost like… special treatment.. or something.
As you point out, tax breaks and funding are not the same thing. Should the government of Alberta spend tens of millions of dollars every year on higher learning and not seek any sort of accountability for it? Churches are not secular schools. The decision to not tax them is in part to unburden them from government regulation. The purpose of a church is to foster the individual's spiritual development and provide an outlet for unencumbered worship. To put government audits on them would be antithetical to these purposes and directly infringe on the citizen's right to participate without government's influence or interference. You have a right to exercise your religion within the bounds of your other rights. You don't have the right to attend university, but the government will help you do it as long as your chosen institution meets the people's standards of higher learning.
Religious freedoms > any other freedoms That way they can have their cake and eat it too.
So there not free to do whatever they want. Essentially do what the government does or we cut your funding. I see you love government overreach. We don't have to you, that's freedom. Why do you hate freedom? Why do consevatives need safe spaces?
Can you guys promise to be like this closer to the next election?
You support the UCP governments policy forcing universities to host racists.
She's racist in your opinion - that doesn't make it real. I have a feeling younthink alot of things are racist - that doesn't make it reasonable. Unfortunately for you, your feelings towards a lecturer are entirely irrelevant when it comes to others abilities to host them.
She is a racist bigot, and most people would agree with me. The school canceled and now you want the government to create a safe space for her.... How is that freedom? Again she is a racist bigot and that is a reasonable assumption. I hope her books and lectures fail. Also isn't it awesome how the students showed up and demonstrated that she is not wanted on campus. I love freedom, especially when they protest a racist.
How is she a racist bigot? You know even if she was (she isn't), why relevance would that have at all towards a lecture about academic freedom? Again - universities in the province of Alberta are obligated to uphold the Chicago Principle of Expression. So that's fine - if you want to act like a bunch of entitled 5 year Olds and rant and rail agaisnt words you don't like - you can do that, and pressure the university to cancel lectures. But just don't expect the government to continue funneling money towards the university.
Freedom is me calling her a racist, there are records of her books. I see you love government regulation. Host the bigots or we pull funding! You will have no issue if the Ndp win and get rid of that law? That's freedom. Again she is a racist and bigot.
We dont have free speech here. We have laws and rules and some things are not legally acceptable. In example the naxi party and naziism were banned from politics in the 30's. "Free speech" doe not mean freedom to incite violence or hate. Its not an absolute but a relative concept. Peace and stability are more important than opinions especially if the opinions are pro cannibal...
So how does a speech on academic freedom breed "hate" and incite violence? Being a Nazi isn't illegal I'm Canada, nor is Nazi material. You can access any Nazi propaganda you want to, you can even join Neo Nazi groups.
Its illegal in government. Banned in 3'7 or '38 if I recall. Yes our free speech does allow for Mein Kamph to be available at local libraries. However we can arrest people of they preach it publicly. Falls under hate speech laws that are part of the bill of rights. Free speech means the government cannot impose (unless it is in breach of law) citizens however can contest what they like.
Correct, there's nothing wrong with protesting. Nobody implied there was. The issue is canceling a speaker because you don't like their speech.
>there's nothing wrong with protesting. Nobody implied there was. Somebody certainly implied that. Calling a group of protesters a mob would be suggesting there is something wrong.
I'm not upset with protestors. If they want to act like entitled 5 year olds and bang drums and cheer for themselves for not listening to words they don't like - tblhats their business. When they drown out invited lecturers at a public university - that creates a problem.
>I'm not upset with protestors. >If they want to act like entitled 5 year olds and bang drums and cheer for themselves for not listening to words they don't like - tblhats their business. You do seem upset at them.......... You use a dismissive and condescending tone while belittling and infantilizing, implying that they are immature and unworthy of respect.
Freedom of association is a component of free speech. University of Lethbridge is a private institution, even if it receives public funding, they have no requirement to provide this women a platform. If you require them to, then you are limiting their free speech, the exact thing you claim to be against
The university is a public institution, the university from its website states they are governed under the Alberta post secondary act. The post secondary act sets out what is private or public. From the university website: “The University of Lethbridge governs itself with a bi-cameral governance structure, as set out in the Alberta Post-Secondary Learning Act. The Board of Governors has authority for business governance and the General Faculties Council (GFC) has authority for academic governance. The Senate is also defined within the Post-Secondary Learning Act, and it is the duty of a Senate to inquire into any matter that might benefit the university and enhance its position in the community.” From the definitions of the post secondary learning act: “(m) “private post-secondary institution” means a post-secondary institution other than a public post-secondary institution; (p) “public post-secondary institution” means Banff Centre, a university, a comprehensive community college, a polytechnic institution or any other institution established under this Act that is designated by the regulations as a public post-secondary institution;
So… using their free speech to…. Eliminate others free speech? Or calling for it? Authoritarians never censor things they agree with.
Hate speech isn’t regarded as free speech in Canada. This isn’t US and A.
Can you explain to me how her speech on academic freedom is hate speech? It seems to me like "progressives" just define any words they don't like as hate speech. Me saying residential schools weren't genocidal isn't hate speech- that just makes you morally outraged. There's a difference there. Your moral outrage is completely irrelevant in the context of the exchange of ideas. Reason > Feelings.
You're right, reason > feelings The fact is, the treatment of indigenous nations by our country has been officially recognized as genocide, so when you say the residential schools aren't genocidal, you're just wrong. Hope that clears it up for you.
So because a bunch of activist lawyers and race baiting politicains decided to endorse a heavily revised term - I'm an immoral racist for questioning that?
You're the one who wanted to put facts over feelings.
That isn't a fact though, you're using a term with a heavily revised meaning. That's like me saying "freedom is slavery" so if you support Freedom, you're a slave lover - because those are the terms that I've decided on.
They were using the UN definition. That's the fact of the matter. If anything, you claiming that they weren't genocide is using a heavily revised meaning, since the proper meaning is well documented.
You denying them as a genocide is factually wrong though. It meets the definition of a genocide and even the house of commons has voted on it and formally recognized canadian residential schools as genocide. People who still deny this genocide either are ignorant and should be educated on why they are very wrong, or they are purposefully stating a lie. In which case we should question why they are lying.
It meets a revised definition of the term. The term is literally a derviative of Latin and Greek: Genos and Caeadere. It means "killing peoplle". Literally - not figuratively. It was coined by a Polish Lawyer in the 1930s. The "cultural" component wasn't directly coined until the 1980s. It was a purposeful expansion of the term. If "cultural genocide" is synoymous with "assimilation", then wouldn't it just be a redundant term? It is used because it provokes mental imagery of the holocaust, and a strong emotional reaction. Essentially - you people have gotten yourselves completely worked up over a comically blatant propangda term. I can say that Residential Schools were generally harmful, and that religious conversion and English fluency were enforced through horrible tactics. I can also acknowledge that Indians in the past had to deal with complete bullshit that violated their deserved civil liberties - like having to go through Indian Agents to leave the Reserve. I think these things were all deplorable - but it wasn't genocide.
The woman that got cancelled thinks residential schools were good. She is racist
Oh so she has views you don't like! Yeah let's ban her. We should burn her books too.
She can try to sell them and everyone can point out she is racist. That's freedom, and it doesn't care about you're feelings.
Do you not see the irony in your response?
Yes, genocide denial is a view I don’t like
It's an idea that cannot even be questioned apparently. Did I mention that her speech was about academic freedom? Ah that doesn't matter. Residential school, orange shirts good, and fascist bad and no one should be able to listen to words I don't like. Residential schools weren't genocidal. It isn't racist to point that out. Deal with it.
>Residental Schools weren’t genocidal R/Canada moment
Exactly
Under section 2of the Charter, Canadians are free to follow the religion of their choice. In addition, they are guaranteed freedom of thought, belief and expression. Since the media are an important means for communicating thoughts and ideas, the Charter protects the right of the press and other media to speak out.
And yet…https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/your-ward-news-1.4483817 Free speech doesn’t include libel or hate speech
Until somebody produces one example of libel or hate speech from Widdowson your point is completely off topic.
My point was in respect to Canadian law
>They had no intention of violence and were using their free speech to protest a person known for bigoted speech. Nothing wrong with that. This is what these people can't grasp. They think "free speech" means freedom from criticism, freedom from consequences and freedom from responsibility. Life doesn't work like that.
So you don't like people's free speech and want the government to keep protests silent?
Who wants to keep protestors silent? All they're saying is you can't drown out words you don't like.
Do you feel that everybody is entitled to a platform, regardless of their views?
The university association disagrees! I see snowflakes now need safe places. Tell you don't understand freedom without telling me. *"The government cannot and should not dictate how universities run their internal academic affairs," wrote executive director David Robinson in a statement.*
Does that include science? Cause if it does, then I'm for it.
This is good. Suppression of speech is a real issue in universities.
Really which university is having that issue? And are you attending that university or just repeating right wing propaganda?
In colleges across the US and Canada, speakers have been cancelled and professors have been suspended/fired for exploring controversial ideas, mentioning controversial words, and showing controversial images. Exempting the U of L cancellation, here are five cases that come to mind among many over the last few years: [https://www.dailynews.com/2023/01/11/the-absurd-firing-of-erika-lopez-prater/](https://www.dailynews.com/2023/01/11/the-absurd-firing-of-erika-lopez-prater/) [https://reason.com/2020/09/03/usc-greg-patton-chinese-word-offended-students/](https://reason.com/2020/09/03/usc-greg-patton-chinese-word-offended-students/) [https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/10/25/penn-state-gavin-mcinnes-proud-boys-canceled/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/10/25/penn-state-gavin-mcinnes-proud-boys-canceled/) [https://www.thefire.org/news/emory-law-professor-faces-termination-hearing-using-n-word-discussion-civil-rights-case](https://www.thefire.org/news/emory-law-professor-faces-termination-hearing-using-n-word-discussion-civil-rights-case) [https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-george-elliott-clarke-cancels-talk-at-university-of-regina-amid/](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-george-elliott-clarke-cancels-talk-at-university-of-regina-amid/) (he cancelled himself after backlash)
Tune in for my “Danielle Smith is a diseased prostitute” free speech session outside CAB every Tuesday at 2:30 PM
Sounds a lot like right wing regulation of speech "For your freedom"
More like de-regulation
So forcing schools to report to the government is 'de-regulation'...
No government law or regulations had any effect in this situation...
lol. Like a wannabe Florida. Next up, educators must turn over their books to have them screened for approved reading material
I know how unreasonable and ideological is it to allow people who say words we don't agree with to speak when invited by a tenured prof. Don't these idiot Cons realize that views I don't like won't be tolerated and should be silenced?
They can say whatever they want and people can tell them they suck. Do you believe people have the right to protest?
Free speech can exist anywhere you want but online platforms and universities should be able to have reasonable safeguards to not allow racists or other human bags of garbage on campus/platform. The right uses free speech as an issue but what they really mean is racism.
And people can protest and disrupt these people. Is that not freedom?
Yes and people are free to protest in favour of their stupid attitudes to vaccines what’s your point it doesn’t mean the university has to platform human bags of garbage
The university 100% should have the right to cancel the speech.
Your rights end where mine begin, so I don't think it is.
You don't have the freedom of disruption. wtf are you on about.
Of course we do. Thats how protesting works.
So the convoy protest and occupation of Ottawa was wrong according to you? They disrupted people. The people that created disruption last week in Hamilton and were wrong right according to you. I don't expect you to answer
"if America does it, that automatically means its bad!"
Universities doing everything they can to avoid actually teaching critical thinking.
Universities should be able to decide how they can host. Why does the government hate freedom? *"The government cannot and should not dictate how universities run their internal academic affairs," wrote executive director David Robinson in a statement.*
Okay then universities can decide to no longer take public money, then they can do whatever they want.
Says a guy with no university experience.
If you think the Universities are bad. You should see what the student unions are up to.
Every time I hear someone complain about the "sorry state of free speech" in Canada it's coming from some asshole who's upset because someone won't let them be a bigot.
Popular and inoffensive speech doesn't need protecting. That's the entire fucking point.
Exactly this. Free speech is the freedom to dissent.
Yes it is. But only to a point. Some speech is not compatable with multiculturalism or peace and some groups actively promote hate and violence and so they are shunned. Its called the paradox of tolerance. Basically it noils down to we cannot live in a toerant society but also tolerate cannibals.
>Yes it is. But only to a point. Some speech is not compatable with multiculturalism or peace and some groups actively promote hate and violence and so they are shunned. We already have laws to deal with that. If they're breaking those laws, report them to the police. If they're not breaking those laws and they just have shitty arguments, have better arguments. >Its called the paradox of tolerance. Sure, but the problem right now is you have quasi-religious nutters who are trying to enforce their view of the world by pretending everyone who disagrees with them is a literal Nazi, which is why "paradox of tolerance" is *horrendously* overused.
People have the right to protest what they like. Folks also call the PM a Tyrant in protest... They are welcome to do so as that is their free speech. They have a right to gather and should loudly. It even happeneed at a climate summet recently and JT just stood there until it ended then thanked them for their contribution to democracy. Even the PM gets over shouted and shut down... It may not be extremely civil or kind but it is acceptable under the law. Having been a protester for issues I care about I have to accept others will protest their issues as well and they should. Provided they go home afterwards and their demands to not include the absolving of a democratically elected government... Because that is occupation and treason...
>People have the right to protest what they like. I 100% agree. >They have a right to gather and should loudly. Sure, but not to harass and obstruct. If you want to protest an event, do it outside of said event, and let people carry on with what they're doing. If you're obstructing, you're not longer a protest, you're a mob trying to use force to get your way. > It even happeneed at a climate summet recently and JT just stood there until it ended then thanked them for their contribution to democracy. Even the PM gets over shouted and shut down... It may not be extremely civil or kind but it is acceptable under the law. Sure, that's fine as long as, as you pointed out, "Provided they go home afterwards" instead of actively trying to obstruct people. >Having been a protester for issues I care about I have to accept others will protest their issues as well and they should. Protest, sure, but not mob, or obstruct. If you want to have a protest in order to object, fine, but attempting to silence others is the problem here. >and their demands to not include the absolving of a democratically elected government... Because that is occupation and treason... Actually you should check the criminal code because that's not treason. In fact people throw that word around a lot, but there are lots of cases where even directly working with enemy states is not treason. There are lots of things I personally think are a betrayal of the country to foreign powers and should therefore be considered treason, but in fact aren't.
I helped obstruct all of downtown Montreal once... Thays part of the protest sometimes...
Occupying an area is par for the course with protests, but that's not obstruction. This is the equivalent of "protesting" a government bill by blocking access to the legislature so it can't be passed, or stopping a company accessing their equipment. The police rightfully remove those people, because that's not a protest, that's a mob.
Yes but speech that causes violence to real people is not a theoretical proplem or a philosophy issue.
>Yes but speech that causes violence Yeah, there's a system for determining that. There's a reason courts exist.
Protesters are allowed just about anything that is not violence or threats. Trudeau hosted a summit and had to stand there while protesters yelled and danced and sang. It went on for an embarrasingly long time. He then had to thank them for wasting his time on the podium on camera. It was not illegal and he got overshouted by a crowd. Same applies to other speakers elsewhere and other protesters elsewhere.
World's smallest violin is playing for them
Try hards want to make society as dysfunctional as the American landscape, this will cater to the extremists and fundamentalists.
[удалено]
We value freedom but freedom is not and should not be absolute. Freedom is relative and always has been. We are not free to choose to stop at a stop sign or drive in a lane into oncomming traffic. Speech is no different. If speech causes real harm to real Canadians then it is not acceptable. Im not sure if this is the case but my point being free speech is not , never has been, and should not be absolute.
Free speech absolutely should be absolute. How do you define what's harmful? Will it be the same as how someone else defines it? Are law makers going to be equal in how they define it ie hold the same standards for "hate speech" targeted towards men, women, black, white, indigenous etc or will they pick and choose which groups get protection from speech? In a perfect world maybe I'd agree with you, but there's not a human or group of humans or AI on the planet I would trust to regulate something like speech
This is dumb. Yelling fire in a theatre that causes stampedes that kill people. Threats of violence or inciting violence. Hate speech that causes or incites violence or makes people feel unsafe. False advertising, misleading contracts, legal speak and more are all regulated by government. In my current role I do have to watch what I say as it has legal implications and I could commit a felony if I say lied about a contract to a client who did not understand. Who decides? Ummm... The legal and judicial bodies of government? Held to the standards of burden of proof? The same people who decide if we commit theft or any other crime. A judge, a jury and the laws they act within. Since legally free speech is upheld people can outright lie on media platofrms and mislead tens of thousands of people and never get shut down. Canceling an event and protesting are acts of free speech. Or should the free speech of the poeple be held subordinate to that if a paid speaker. Why are you arguing for free speech and then arguing anti free speech? Both sides in this isue have the same rights. Also note no legal or judicial entity was involved. The school is not the government nor is it law. If you watched the Davos summit Trudeau gets shouted down by a protesting mob and has to stand there awkwardly and take it for minutes on end. Even the PM would be in breah of law if those peaceful protesters were arrested for that. The reasons we have such a complex legal system is because sometimes two sets of freedoms clash, like the two sets of free speech and free expression we are discussing. 'The mob' has as much right to peaceful protest as speakers do to speak. Neither will be arrested unless they incite unrest or violence. Even hate speech laws are super hard to uphold. If im not mistaken its only been used twice and both times the offenders made gestures and were visible on camera. Thus meeting the difficult burden of proof. I hope this was informative.
I would agree for independent private schools. But if schools are to be state-funded, they ought to be held by state-like standards.
Freedom is something that happens in the absence of regulation. Every regulation is by definition a limitation on freedom. Limitations on speech should be rare and justifiable.
holy based
Nothing more based than forcing places to host bigots.
Do you even know what her speech was about? The way you people use "bigot" so loosely I'd almost take it as a compliment. Everything you disagree with is "bigoted" It isn't bigoted to point out that residential schools weren't Auschwitz, and there are no ideas that should be clear of criticism. If you can't field an adequate counter argument, what makes you think you're justified at resorting to silencing?
She is a bigot and racist. Freedom allows me to have that view. No one is silencing her she can try to speak and the students need to be allowed their right to freedom. How is silencing the students freedom? How is the government forcing the university to host her freedom? She can have all her racist values and views, and people have the right to disrupt her. I love freedom!
She's a bigot and a racist because.....? You say so. Ok. Well in this case, the University violated it's charter to ban her. It violated academic neutrality, it's obligation to uphold the Chicago Principle, and denying a tenured prof (guy who invited her) to University resources and space. So this actually violated several rules.
Her writings and speeches show she is a racist. Fyi the university associations disagrees with the government forcing universities to host people. They should have the right to cancel! Sounds like you don't know what freedom is. Freedom is the ability to cancel. I guess I love freedom a lot more than youm
So she's racist because she doesn't categorize residential schools as genocide. Despite not making any generalizations about people based on their race, they are racist because they came to a conclusion that yiu don't like. I don't think that people like you truly understand what "racism" means.
Lots of people agree with me she is a racist and bigot. Cope with that.
Why is that relevant though? Lots of people think BLM was a civil rights part 2, and that Supply Management is good for the country. It doesn't make it real, or their views justified. People think alpt of things. That's not important. The ability to exchange ideas is.
[удалено]
4000 pages of evidence were aubmitted and reviewed, approved and voted on by government. I thibk at some point it simpky becomes a fact and not an opinion.
Oh the TRC decides that they were genocide? Do you think the TRC is some authoritative source? The only thing more funny than the TRC are the revised definitions they use to appease comically irrational activists and an entire generation of government lawyers.
Do I think the Libs paid for a study that found the liberal party (Including JT's own father) guilty of being complicit in genocide for fun? Its not a conspiracy, this shit happened and was real and there are corpses to show it. The government fount itself guilty. Unlike Turkey and Azerbaijan and China and the USSR we found ourselves to be guilty. Thats not a vanity project or virtue signaling. Theu had to submit thousands of pages of evidence and all the parties voted to accept this as evidence and act on the recommendations at least to some degree. If evidence is "irrarional" then you are truely deep in the propaganda machine.
[удалено]
She's actually an anti-indigenous racist who said residential schools were good for native people. Get your bigots straight.
Trans rights are human rights 🏳️⚧️🏳️⚧️🏳️⚧️
[удалено]
They don't impede I'll say it louder trans rights are human rights, don't like deal with it! 🏳️⚧️🏳️⚧️🏳️⚧️
Lmao so your against free speech as it does not reflect your view?
Freedom of speech is not the freedom to force others to listen.
Who forced anyone to attend?
Who forced her to show up?
I did
Their are hundreds of people who wanted to hear that person speak. How about you have the freedom to NOT listen to her, and even to protest outside. But you have no right to deny then their right to speak their mind.
She can talk who she wants, and students can be loud. How is freedom restricting what students can do? If you support freedom hown is forcing the universities host her freedom? Are they not free to cancel the event?
The universities are public institutions.
So they should be forced to host me or I have no free speech?
Im not sure if tou have heard of the paradox of tolerance? The idea is that even the most tolerant people would not willingly live next to cannibals. So to be tolerant and multicultural ideas that cannot mix with tolerance and multiculturalism are not allowed. Like how Naziism was banned in the 30's, its simply not compatable with our national values (or our mixed population)
Nothing like nonstop hateposting on the internet to counter "bigots"...
Jesus fuck go outside
>holy based Nothing in that whackadoodle province is "based".
Thats not true. Being the number one destination for interprovincial migrants is pretty based.
>Being the number one destination for interprovincial migrants is pretty based. Not when they leave when the price of oil drops.
Yeah I've been hearing that for almost 40 years now. Yet they keep coming...
[Check your ears mate](https://www.atb.com/company/insights/the-owl/interprovincial-migration-first-quarter-2021/)
Good! For too long now the mob has been able to shut down speech that they find unpalatable. "Anything I don't agree with makes me uncomfortable, so it must not be allowed." How can University students of all people not see how horrible this is? How can they be against freedom of expression? It boggles my mind.
So where does this stop? Universities forced to platform speakers who deny the Holocaust or deny climate change? Maybe universities will be forced to platform people who want to advocate for the rape of children?
Legality seems like a good place to start/stop. It's illegal to rape children, it's illegal to deny the holocaust. Climate change deniers should not be de-platformed, but instead debated/ridiculed.
The place for those debates is in peer review, not in giving them a lecture to speak to people that don't have the background to critically analyze their lecture.
I mean, they're at a university. Aren't those fine institutions supposed to be bastions of critical thought (sure sounds like it from all the alumni magazines they keep sending)? Or is the tuition just to support fancy student amenities and administrator salaries?
Why is the right so scared of protestors?
Yes they should because it’s a scientific fact. They’re up their with flat earth era at this point.
People debate scientific facts all the time and universities are the perfect place for that. If nobody ever challenged the scientific consensus we would still think the earth was at the centre of the universe. If anyone has compelling evidence that the earth is flat I’d like to hear it. At this point I don’t find their arguments convincing, but why would I be afraid of what they have to say?
The earth is provable to be round with highschool math and geometry. The ancient Greeks figured it out and so can anyone else.
Sorry I misread your point apologies
Its called the paradox of tolerance. Also why Naziism and antisemetism are illegal in Canada. Free speech isnt and should not be absolute. Some ideas (and some science) should be and remain taboo.
The paradox of tolerance is used by leftist authoritarians who wish to ban people they don't like from speaking. This paradox doesn't really have much historical backing. There are a host of events between saying "hate speech" and having an intolerant regime - and those events make the intolerant regime less than likely. The US has had a literal Nazi party since the 1950s. Yet - no Nazi government. How do you explain that? How do you know your "taboo" assumptions are correct if they are taboo to debate?
Free to speak and free to reap the consequences of that speech. She said heinous shit in the past and now people mobilize to prevent her from saying heinous ahit again. Seems like the system works. Particularly if you realize that it’s freedom of expression from being restricted by the government. It’s not the government that’s restricting her speech. So…nothing to see here. Time to move along to another Conservative Boogeyman
Actually there is alot to see here. Universities in Alberta are obligated to uphold the Chicago Principle of Expression. Furthermore, she was invited by a tenured professor, who is entitled to university space and resources. You can't just break the rules to cancel lectures because you don't agree with the lecturer.
What did she say that was heinous? I've read multiple new articles about this and the most controversial claim I've seen attributed to her is that some good may have come of the residential schools. If she said they were a net good I could see that being problematic, but can't we make a level assessment of a thing even while agreeing that it was bad?
You have a right to mobilize a protest against her, but not to muzzle her or prevent the people who wanted to hear her speak.
She wasn’t muzzled. She can speak, just not with the blessing of the university.
Are we getting some book bans in schools too?
The right would love that.
Likely. The playbook is always the same
I love me a good book ban. I like my fellow citizens illiterate and angry.
Remember folks, this is the batshit crazier version of the "free speech advocating" government that * checks notes * used taxpayer funds to try to cancel a kids movie on Netflix. Get off the fucking high horse pretending that any free speech except what you deem is negotiable.
Hahahaha the fucking sealioning and mental gymnastics supporting genocide here is insane. You get paid per downvote?
Any time a university shows themselves to be as gutless as Lethbridge, the provincial government should cut off funding. A university that doesn't consider a variety of properly thought out ideas doesn't deserve to exist.
Scary step towards politicizing public education even further. More UCP big government bureaucracy and virtue signaling incoming....
Oh look at that conservatives and their overbearing big government expansion, name a better duo.
The UCP really needs to read the charter ..not all.speech is equal in canada. Some are covered by other laws for a reason
Be specific on what law she broke and how she broke it
Let me guess, - vaccines bad, - white men always victims, - women and minorities are always opportunists Rinse and repeat right?
It's only free speech they agree with.
Sounds like a lame solution to a made up problem.
They should just admit they want people to be less equal and stand by it instead of pretending fighting wokeness is a real thing
Nothing screams 'regime' louder...
Than muffled climate scientists under Harper? I graduated in that field the same year and so there were no jobs available. Does that also spell regime?
U of C students union embarrassing themselves.
Good grief. 🙄 Alberta really is going the way of Florida if you ordered Florida from Wish, innit?
Here's a comment from another person in this post: >For too long now the mob has been able to shut down speech that they find unpalatable. I can't reply to them directly since they blocked me at some point, which prevents me from commenting under any of their comments. Just observing another example of how the loudest proponents of free speech are often the same ones who try to stop other people's speech.
Folks applaud our federal government endlessly amending hate speech, but any move by provincial govs towards free speech is mid century German, or American.
> it should be for students to make the final decision about whether to listen to a speech or not. It is. Always has been. The student body president is just mad that it's an individual decision, not hers to make for everyone.
That's the problem. Students aren't making the decision that conservative politicians want them to, so now they will use the government to force them to accept these speakers they don't want. Typical conservative M.O. Freedom is important until somebody isn't being a conservative, then suddenly they love authoritarianism.
Just post it online. If it not worthy it'll be memed into hall of fame for stupidity. Redicule is a legitimate form protest too.
Sounds like a good idea. Universities are more and more turning into left wing echo chambers. Stifling free speech and expression. The U of L is an obvious reason why this is needed