Dawgy you should see my follow up post ; )
I'm not trying to apologize for this, but this is not exactly an isolated incident, and quite frankly it's usually the other way around.
I point to the famous example of the Concordia Student Union shutting down Hillel because of it's "zionist position" that was incompatible with the Student Union's pro-Palestinian position.
Don't even get me started on Ryerson University in Toronto.
Point me to where you've shown outrage over those incidents.
Correction: They didn't "shut down" Hillel, but they moved to remove its status as a supported student group.
This is about the right to a platform or equal time and is a different issue, no? I think I'd need a lot more information before I'd express a strong opinion on Dawg's Blawg, let alone lend my name to an official protest. Just who are these folks?
One thing that is becoming clear is that many of the charges of Islamophobia being made by Islamist acivists don't relate to what we have traditionaly seen as discrimination. I'm not aware of any claims they have been denied jobs, housing, education etc,. Nobody is saying we should ban or deport Muslim immigrants. Nobody is preventing the construction of mosques or forcing Muslim printers to print material for CJC fund-raiding efforts for Israel. Nobody is trying to ostracize them socially--in fact it's more about the reverse. It always seems to be about muzzling their critics (and above all, their Muslim critics) or demanding platforms or effectively taking over podiums and magazines.
Totalitarians are always the strongest proponents of radical free speech before they take power.
Peter:
This is a free speech issue, isn't it? And I wholeheartedly agree that "[t]otalitarians are always the strongest proponents of radical free speech before they take power," which I guess has been one of the undercurrents of my commentary over the past while. (Marc Lemire a liberal democrat? I think not.)
Mike:
The Concordia incident took place in 2002. I've been blogging since mid-2005. Perhaps you could enlarge on the Ryerson issue(s). Was a club shut down there? Google reveals nothing. Hillel appears to be going strong at Ryerson. There was some concern by Jewish students last year that a pro-Palestinian film was screened--do you have anything more?
The issue about Lemire isn't whether he is a liberal democrat but whether he poses any kind of a real threat to anybody. Surely as a good lefist, you would agree we have to tolerate some fruitcakes-on-the-fringe from both sides. Remember those extreme, near-disturbed marxist groups who called for violent revolution, sold Mao's red books and portraits of Enver Hoxha in dingy bookstores and dependably got ten votes when they stood for Parliament?
But Islamicist agitation is different, not from the perspective of potential widespread popular appeal in Canada, but from the perspectives of freedom of speech viewed beyond the immediate moment, keeping the public square and public debate open, civil and decent and especially protecting the freedom and safety of the Muslim-Canadian community. That's why Barbara Hall is so chilling and why Kinsella is so far off the mark. They are determined to seek glory fighting the battles of the 30s while remaining oblivious to what is going on around them today, and seemingly proudly so.
It isn't all just about legalisms and hyper-rational abstract principles. At some point you have to open your eyes and make critical judgments based on experience and what your lyin' eyes are telling you.
Dawg,
I generally vote left but the free speech issue seems straightforward to me. The Montreal PIRG groups (at least at Concordia and McGill) are funded automatically from student fees (separate fees specifically earmarked for QPIRG, not via the student society). A student must "opt out" (in person and only during brief, prescribed periods) if he objects to having his fees sponsoring some of the blatantly anti-Israel (veering occasionally into the anti-semitic) speakers that have been invited (via SPHR) to his campus. Hillel is not funded by student fees, nor are any other ethnic, religious or political organizations. Why should PIRG be any different?
PT:
You know very well that this broader issue was not the one that motivated the ban.
Perhaps you could enlarge on the Ryerson issue(s).
Oh, please don't encourage him. It just aggravates his PTSD.
At some point you have to open your eyes and make critical judgments based on experience and what your lyin' eyes are telling you.
Until some people start referring to specific events in Canada that are the only things our lyin' eyes can perceive (which, we should assume, our intelligence and security services have also perceived, otherwise they're failing), I remain mystified by what the hysteria and the...*ahem*...polemics is supposed to accomplish.
I'm so sick of these discussions and I'm sick of neoconservatives. Thank God it's protected speech to express hatred for them.
Until some people start referring to specific events in Canada
Oh come on now, Ti-Guy. Elmasry said something shocking on the Michael Coren show once. How much more evidence do you need before you'll wake up to the reality that the Islamojihadians are camped outside your door waiting for the right moment to dress you in a burka.
Dawg,
I'm unfamiliar with the situation at UWO but I am familiar with (Q)PIRG's biases at McGill and Concordia. No pro-Israel speaker (even from left-wing or dovish organizations) has ever been sponsored by PIRG, but numerous speakers/events advocating Israel's outright elimination have been supported by PIRG. As an Irish atheist (yes, there are some) it galls me to see how my money often funds antithetical activities. Why shouldn't Jewish and/or pro-Israel students feel the same way about PIRG? (And, btw, what exactly is the "public interest" in sponsoring virulently anti-Israel speech?)
PT:
I take it you aren't one of the speech warriors up in arms about the Human Rights Commissions? I just want to be sure about the terms of the debate here.
Elmasry said something shocking on the Michael Coren show once.
Was that before or after Coren expressed the desire to see Iran nuked?
The problem with me is that every stupid thing a righty says goes in one ear and out the other. But the traumatised and the hysterical remember every dirty look, every intemperate comment, every strange cooking odour, every instance of homicide in Toronto and Montreal (but never Calgary or Edmonton). Frankly, I don't know how these people manage to make it through the day.
Dawg,
Until recently I hadn't given much thought to human rights commissions. I regarded them mostly (and probably erroneously) as tribunals of recourse for people discriminated against in the workplace or when renting an apartment. But, the more I hear the less I like. Their (original) purpose seems to have been perverted. (Complaints against neo-Nazi web sites should be filed in criminal or civil courts.) So, yes, I am re-evaluating my normal (knee-jerk?), liberal support for HR commissions. At the very least, they should not be allowed to define, let alone adjudicate, matters of free speech. E.G. (tying it all into the PIRG business), a Zionist student at York or McGill should not be able to file a "hate speech" complaint about an anti-Israel speaker at his university, but PIRG should not be free to use his money to fund such speech either.
PT:
As I said, this issue wasn't decided on the matter of compulsory student fees. That's a completely separate matter. But if you want to address it, then perhaps you can begin by telling us what speech should, and what speech shouldn't, be subsidized by student activity fees.
Dawg,
Thank-you for posting this. I especially appreciate the historical narrative. If you find anymore information, historical or otherwise, please keep us up to speed.
another lead for you - Pride Western was shut down this year as well (rather, torn apart by the USC).
The Women's Issues Network (W.I.N.) is under constant attack/scrutiny especially when there is even the slightest hint of lefty opinion. Amnesty International have horrible stories of suppression from the USC. The list goes on and on and most of the cases of totalitarian rule go unreported as student clubs are afraid that the retaliation will be so much worse. No other student union on this continent could get away with this sort of suppression without a coalition of clubs and students fighting back with a Free Speech movement on campus.
I think it is time for a loud, unmistakable, unified voice on campus demanding freedom of speech and expression. The left is tired of running around trying to appease the neocons in the USC, its time for us to make some demands and follow through with action.
Easy. No religious or political advocacy (directly) funded by student fees.
And how would you define "religious or political advocacy?" Which clubs would be in, which out?
No dime for Hillel, Newman Club, Muslim Students Association, SPHR, NDP, Liberal Party, Conservatives, etc.
Your turn... i.e. name an organization and I'll tell you.
So much for promoting a diversity of opinions and activities on campus.
But at least you'll agree that pro-Palestinian clubs shouldn't be singled out under the current set-up.
The above clubs are generally "recognized" -- along with the local kite-flying chapter. They can reserve/rent student space on campus when needed. They should not be funded by compulsory (or even "opt-out") student fees.
In fact, as it now stands in most universities across Canada, "pro-Palestinian" (in my experience mostly anti-Israel) speech is often funded from compulsory fees. I doubt you'll find an ordinary Zionist speaking on a Canadian campus on the students' dime.
to clear up a misconception here, UWO PIRG was not funded by any "specially earmarked" money. Believe it or not, things worked differently at UWO than in Quebec. Shocking, i know. UWO-PIRG didn't receive "special funding" any more than the Anime Club or the Snowboarding Society.
Speaking of which, i think the anime club is a bit of a waste of my student fees, we should cut out compulsory funding for every student group. right?
i'm interested to know which speakers UWO PIRG brought in "on the students' dime" in a way that wasn't done by, say Hillel, when they brought in a speaker co-sponsored by Betar in the late winter months. Or any other student group on campus when they brought in speakers.
What virulently anti-semitic speakers did UWO PIRG endorse. The Palestinian who spoke about a democratic binational state as his view for the future, or the Israeli historian who wanted the same thing? Unless you mean the fact that the historian believed ethnic cleansing was and is performed by the Israeli nation-state. Or that PIRG called the february invasion of Gaza a war crime. In which case we'd better stop talking about Tibet for fear of seeming Sinophobic.
It's strange when talking about "freedom of speech", that the ones who already have too much of it seem to be Arabs. Israeli students can celebrate the 60th anniversary of Israel (called the Catastrophe by Palestinians) in the UCC. That's freedom of speech, and it's so happy.
Palestinians can't hold events in the same building about the wall that's being built in the West Bank (ruled illegal by the ICJ) without being banned from USC property. Because that's anti-semitic.
These efforts to confuse the issue are interesting, and it seems to me at least some of them stem from a basic ignorance of what's happened/happening at UWO. I won't address so much the past pattern of palestinian and other "left wing" groups like previous PIRG's getting banned, you can find that elsewhere.
the current situation: UWO PIRG received a notice of potential de-ratification on April 4 . This was mere days before the start of the final exam period, in a club composed of undergraduate students. There were no warnings, or even lesser sanctions, from the USC/CPC (clubs policy committee, the de-ratification committee).
Clubs Policies state that a group must be given several warnings and/or sanctions before movement to de-ratify can be put forward. Unless: a serious breach of policies have been committed. Here's the kicker, what constitutes a serious breach is the sole domain of the CPC, i.e. there's no definition of it anywhere. It's anything the CPC wants it to be, at any time.
It gets slightly more suspicious when a former president of the Israeli Action Committee/Israel on Campus sits on the CPC. Or the fact that when SPHR was de-ratified 2 years ago (and the story of that miscarriage of justice is too long for here), another former IAC/IOC president sat on the Committee.
The body of the charges included both legitimate grievances, and otherwise. Money, totaling ~74 dollars, had not been deposited in the club's USC bank account. Although it was accounted for in an Internal Audit.
Money from PIRG's largest event was still in the hands of co-sponsors. They were going over it with their own (professional) accountants before releasing PIRG's share. Bringing someone from England was beyond PIRG's logistical capability, hence, co sponsors. Although assured by PIRG that this money would be deposited as soon as it was received, VP Sdao replied that PIRG was not entitled to co-sponsors of this sort as it was "not a political club".
By itself, this did not constitute a "serious breach". What made a "serious breach" were the second set of charges. UWO PIRG's name appeared as an endorser of the "Week Against War", a series of off-campus actions against the Iraq/Afghanistan wars organized by a Fanshawe College student. Finally, a working group under PIRG (Counter-Stryker) held an event without USC approval.
The first charges were totally false. PIRG never endorsed these events, and the name "UWO-PIRG" was used without PIRG's permission. A letter from the organizer confirming this was included in PIRG's defense package. God knows if the CPC read it. It should be noted that other campus groups whose names appeared as endorsers were not sanctioned or de ratified by the CPC.
The second charge was a misunderstanding. The counter stryker working group co-sponsored the event with the MIT student council. MITSC received permission to hold the event, and counter stryker didn't think they had to seek sep
separate permission. PIRG execs were not even informed properly of the date/location of this event, which shows an admitted lack of control in this situation
So, to take this discussion away from hypothetical yet enjoyable discussions on "Islamicists" and freedom of speech, please ask yourself.
Did 74 dollars, a false accusation, and a misunderstanding justify the de-ratification of an entire club (that deals with more than Palestinian issues) for 12 months. Would another club, not involved with "unpopular" issues such as Palestinian human rights or military research, not have received ANY warnings about charges that apparently dated back to November 2007? Would another club have simply been warned to change their ways, or at most sanctioned, for these charges?
i apologize for the length of this, it frustrates me when people deal with this specific issue by saying "well, at Concordia i heard that...."
Thank-you RD.
I wish PIRG luck with that defense package. I believe the transparency of this brutally suppressive move by the USC should be a warning to all other clubs who are interested in challenging students and colleagues with critical thought and dialogue at UWO. What group will they attack next year? When will they tell you they are coming? what warning will you get? probably about the same as what PIRG has received.
To all critically minded individuals and clubs, please consider a unified effort to attain Free Speech on campus but specifically in the UCC where students rights are valued less than Tim Hortons, Pizza Pizza etc..
Thank-you, RD, that was more than a little impressive. I'm quite wary about what is going on here, but if I were a judge and you had establised all of that, I'd be looking for a pretty damn good explanation from the other side.
Ti-Guy:
Until some people start referring to specific events in Canada that are the only things our lyin' eyes can perceive (which, we should assume, our intelligence and security services have also perceived, otherwise they're failing), I remain mystified...
Not good enough, my fine Boomer friend. Never mind "some people", nobody has to convince you of nuttin'. You can't sit in your living room and lie back on the couch demanding they overcome your ossified perspectives, especially given your track record of just calling your opponents dishonest whatever the issue. Time to get out there, walk the streets and do your own research about what is really going on, and stop looking to your glory days as a paradigm. You know, for the kids.
Perhaps before you exhort us to stand up for free speech on campuses across Canada, you could explain your understanding of what "free speech" is?
In the past, you've written posts that could be fairly described as pro-Palestinian. You've also written posts that could be fairly described as pro-choice. So it is no surprise that when one university denies funding to a group you support, the pro-Palestinians, you see it as an assault on free speech, while another university can deny funding to a group you do not support, the pro-lifers, and you vehemently deny that free speech is being suppressed. Both groups exist for political purposes: to promote their view of the world and to attempt to bring about a change in public opinion. Both groups have a message that not all members of society wish to hear or pay for. But only in the case of the group whose viewpoint is close to your heart is this considered by you to be a suppression of free speech. Not very consistent for a fellow impugning the motives of "speech warriors" for their absence, as you see it.
fergusrush:
You will be referring to the chartering of a "pro-life" club at Carleton university. The club was refused recognition at first because it was in violation of the Carleton University Students' Association's human rights policy, although it was always free to meet, distribute literature, and so on. The issue in question was the organization's alleged support for recriminalizing abortion--the removal of a woman's reproductive rights. And a few years earlier, chartering was refused to a chapter of the neo-Nazi Heritage Front.
Were the pro-Palestinian, and gay and women's groups that always seem to run afoul of the UWO student council, in violation of some human rights policy or other? Then what is that policy, and how did they violate it? The students' council isn't saying. If you followed my links, you'll see what a mockery of due process was afforded the clubs in question. Neither the SPHR nor PIRG have had the opportunity to defend themselves.
At Carleton, on the other hand, the issue was in plain view. And so the "pro-life" club made it clear that lobbying for recriminalization was not their aim, and they got their charter and funding.
Oh, c'mon. Dangling "human rights policies" as some ethereal mantra that allows you and the students to stifle speech you don't like just begs the question. The case against neo-Nazis and arguably some Islamists is ambiguous because they stand on free speech in the cause of erasing free speech. There is no way you can make that case against the anti-abortion lobby.
You're arguing much like an 18th century Tory who says he is all for free speech provided it doesn't disturb the King's Peace.
Peter:
You misunderstand. There are two distinctions to be made here, and both are real, not rhetorical.
The first is that the suppression of clubs at UWO is simply done--there do not seem to be policy violations at issue, just a dislike of what the students are saying. That's a fairly low bar, you'll agree.
The second is process. Frankly, there doesn't appear to be any at UWO. Clubs are simply struck off, with little or no explanation, and, while appeals are possible, it's hard to appeal something when the grounds of the original decision are not made clear. This and other serious lapses of due process are detailed here.
As you know, I am not a free speech absolutist, and I don't think anything goes, even on a university campus. But I set the bar very high for suppression of any kind of speech, and I demand open and honest debate when such decisions are made. At Carleton, I agreed with CUSA's initial decision, because the grounds were plainly stated for all to see: there was a human rights policy in place, against which the activities of all campus clubs are measured.
That, quite properly, became the focus of the debate. Not: should CUSA have a human rights policy (I think it should, but in any case no one questioned it, not even the "pro-lifers"), but: did the campus pro-lifers contravene it? With some classic Canadian compromise, and a goodly amount of public discussion (in which yours truly took part as a grad student), the group is now active on campus, funded and recognized.
That's the way things ought to work. But at UWO there is no debate with the junior thought cops on the Clubs Policy Committee. They just issue their ukases, and that's that. No policy issue, as noted, appears to be involved; there's nothing like honest debate. Button-down minds prevail, and for progressives at that benighted place, it's duck and cover all the way.
Yes, I agree the lack of a process is a genuine concern (although we are in the realm of the quasi-private here--does the University itself have any say?), but that isn't answered by just any old process. I'm sure you would howl if a student's union included the right to private property in its human right's code and therefore declined to let a marxist speak. Proclaiming that the absolute right to an abortion is a universal human right such that to deny it is hate-speech may make some folks feel good, but it doesn't make it a fact.
Dawg,
To repeat the gist of the comment I made earlier... the issue of which clubs/publications/events are subsidized seems very clear to me: at universities across Canada the rule is that Israel and Zionism are accepted whipping boys. The UWO situation is the exception, conspicuous in its rarity. The rule is that anti-Israel speakers and events (i.e. speech promoting the elimination of Israel one way or another) get funded - often directly (e.g. via PIRGs) from student fees. Do anti-Palestinian speakers (i.e. who argue that there should not be a Palestinian state one way or another) ever get funded? Never. Indeed, you would be hard-pressed to find any pro-Israel speaker on campus promote anything but a two-state solution.
I regard myself as left-liberal (and a pretty staunch defender of free speech), but I'm sorry, in this context the complaints about UWO ring rather hollow.
"Were the pro-Palestinian, and gay and women's groups that always seem to run afoul of the UWO student council, in violation of some human rights policy or other?"
While I understand your point here, I was actually referring to cause and effect: the denial of status and funding being the cause, with suppression of free speech being the effect. Regardless of the reasons for denial of status, justified or not in one's mind, the effect will be the same. So, if it results in a restriction of free speech in one case, it must do so in the other case as well. We may see the reasons for denial of funding differently, but the outcome of the loss of money will be identical. To use your example, if the pro-lifers at Carleton could still get their message across by other means, so too could the pro-Palestinians at Western. Whether or not either group should have been denied funding is another kettle of fish.
I'm not sure what you mean exactly PT? accepted whipping boys? all across canada? Concordia, unfortunately, only spans a small part of Quebec. And even there SPHR has been banned from using university space as recently as 2006.
When Palestinian groups at UWO have their displays covered by large curtains to make them unviewable to passers-by, is that not censorship? When, 2 months later, the Israelis celebrate "Israel Day" (with nary a mention of Occupied Territories) and have banners spanning 2 levels of the community centre, that's just "evening the playing field" in your eyes, yes?Palestinian boards are covered so that nobody is "made uncomfortable". I guess it doesn't apply when Palestinians see their national tragedy celebrated to music and free cake. I guess bullshit always smells sweeter when it's your side taking the dump.
As i said before, you "defenders of free speech" are so transparent in your belief that the only group in Canada with too much of it are the Arabs. If you're so happy about UWO being a shining beacon of pro-Zionist actions, perhaps you'd better re-evaluate your idea of objective attitudes to free speech.
and when McMaster banned the use of the term "Israeli Apartheid" on campus this year, was that another "conspicuous exception"? Does this ring hollow as well? we should all remember that this comparison didn't originate at Mac, but rather from the twisted minds of such noted anti semites as Bishop Desmond Tutu, and others.
When Carleton University tried to ban SPHR there from putting up displays, was this another "conspicuous exception"
At York where students and staff who speak out against Israel are punished and ostracized: another exception? don't play the victim, it's pathetic.
and all our palestinian speakers thundering from the pulpit for the destruction of Israel! my oh my, what a story. If only it were true. Unless you take to heart, like so many others, the demographic bomb/demographic problem/arab problem or whatever euphemism the Israeli right has latched onto today to justify denying Palestinian Arabs equal rights.
You need to take another look at the SPHR- National speaker's tour i think. It's probably the biggest source of Palestinian speakers in canada for student groups. Ali Abunimah (proponent of a binational state), Marcy Newman (spoke on the abuses of the Lebanese Army against Palestinian refugees, also a proponent of a binational state), Ilan Pappe (born and raised in Haifa, also a proponent of a binational state). Which of these speakers violate any kind of human rights? Which of these speakers advocates anti semitism? Find me examples of speakers put on at major centres who did. Although im probably wasting my energy, as the words "binational state" are likely translated in your mind to "push the jews into the mediterranean". It shows a basic ignorance on your part of what a binational state means. there are plenty of reasons to disagree wit
with such a solution. But that's what category it falls under: A legitimate proposal that must be judged fairly, not behind a screen of censorship and "Anti-Semitism" hysteria.
Although im probably wasting my energy, as the words "binational state" are likely translated in your mind to "push the jews into the mediterranean".
Yes, you are wasting your energy. A "one-state" solution is effectively a "no-state" solution for Israel and, at this stage, only the disingenuous are proposing it.
Ti-Guy said:
I'm so sick of these discussions and I'm sick of neoconservatives. Thank God it's protected speech to express hatred for them.
Yeah, until somebody figures out that neo-cons are an "identifiable group". Then you're screwed.
PT, your last comment reinforced what RD is saying. Its amazing how smug and non reactive people are who wield the sword. How brutally prejudice of you to suggest that only the disingenuous are proposing a binational state!
This type of blatant prejudice is a product of the culture the has usurped the USC as an institution. Individuals who work inside the USC quickly figure out who are pulling the strings and providing significant levels of pressure from within. These folks are trained to do such. just step inside the USC for a year and you'll find out as I did.
Considering pro-feminist, pro-choice, anti-racist, pro-diversity, anti-fascist, anti-military, pro-Palestinian voices, are nowhere near accepted by the members of the student elite, and are completely rejected by the USC as an institution, its time for the oppressed to stand up.
We need a Unified Front! It is possible. The power of the Unified Front is contagious... it is organized democratically, unlike the shady practices of wealthy elites in the background of the USC or the USC itself. Our agenda is freedom of speech and expression in the UCC with a medium of truly democratic, grassroots organizing.
Unified Front now!
quickly figure out who are pulling the strings and providing significant levels of pressure from within. These folks are trained to do such.
"Trained", eh? On which page in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion can I find the instructions?
(...and to think that this sort of vomit is now being regurgitated by the "Left"!)
Again, you prove yourself useful for the argument. Who said anything about Zion?
Why are you suggesting this? Are you really suggesting with your final comment that I am being 'antisemitic'? As I clearly said, the student elites have usurped power... your old tricks are wearing thin.
In case you are interested, I have witnessed such training. It takes place in all institutions of power. When power centralizes, fear of losing such power becomes a great concern. So, it only makes logical and strategic sense for an institution to expend resources proportionate to the amount of undemocratic power it has in order to maintain hegemony. This is just as true in the business world as it is for the little Eichmanns in the USC.
PT, you are clearly either naive/unaware or part of such a situation - or both. either way, we're really getting tired of the illegitimate claims of antisemitism. If you really cared about abolishing racism, you wouldn't use peoples' fear of being racist against them to increase your control (this is what we call manipulation). Power is power regardless of what God you believe in.
little Eichmanns, eh?
Hmm, where have I heard that epithet before? Oh, right...
http://marccooper.typepad.com/
ma...e_eichmann.html
Keep digging, Jaco.
Yeah, until somebody figures out that neo-cons are an "identifiable group". Then you're screwed.
What?
You know, you aren't obliged to say anything. Freedom of speech also means freedom to remain quiet.
You're welcome.
Dr Dawg, this is at least relevant to your questions about UWO and their USC. A year ago, they and President Davenport dealt very clumsily with a pretty disgusting parody of Take Back the Night marches published in the UWO Gazette, and with the protests that arose among UWO women. BnR followed that story here, in a thread that I retitled last week so that we could continue our reflections on the present story.
I don't know UWO, but I sure hae me doots about Davenport.
yikes. are you really using an opinion piece, in a blog no less, as some type of factual information? And in this process, do you believe you have made some sort of legitimate statement? You have ignored all of the points that I have made and have attempted to elicit some type of emotional response.
You are now, officially, wasting my time.
an opinion piece, in a blog no less
Yes, of course, just "an opinion piece" (by Marc Cooper, one of the sharpest, sanest left-liberals around): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Cooper
And, of course, Ward Churchill never said "little Eichmanns". And neither did you. It's all "disinformation" by the "power elites", right?
Does anyone else find it odd that the letter you received explaining why PIRG was de-ratified was signed by Tom Stevenson, USC President?
I do. Do you know why?
Because appeals in cases of De-Ratification are submitted and looked over by the USC President, and PIRG's appeal was only submitted today, at ~3:30 pm.
How impartial will this appeal be, one wonders.
If that is the case, RD (and I have no reason to doubt you), then due process at UWO is a joke. Appeals, as you know, are final. I had no idea they would go to someone so obviously parti pris.
What fun!
Your resident hater, Ti-Guy, stepping up. A student council debate raised to the status of a question of free speech - yo, Dawg, State/student council one of these things is not like the other. And much high end language: parti pris, usurped, ukases (used correctly which is rare).
What is great fun is the abject surrender to the idea that the student council in the instant case has the right to control speech.
Hello. If the odious Pali supporters want to they can stage actions of one sort or another and tell the student politicos to fuck right off.
Do any of you seriously think that the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley in the 1960's was authorized? Was Stonewall about getting certified? Did Martin Luther King proclaim "I have permission".
Wimps, the lot of you.
Jay:
Since when do I not use words correctly?
Funny, though, that campus speech is suddenly a non-issue for the speech warriors.
Just as an aside, that's one amazing bunch of commenters you've got over at your place. Compared to the drunken, slobbering john begley, Kathy Shaidle (now reduced to Usenet-style trolling), JustMe (another troll), stephen.reeves (who actually argued for speech suppression over at Daimnation, and got called to order for it by dcardno) and the earnest but not very bright Blazing Cat Fur, Ti-Guy is witty, urbane and civilized.
In fact, we don't need such invidious comparisons: Ti-Guy is witty, urbane and civilized, by any measure, unless you poke him with a sharp stick. I don't believe he hates anyone, but he gets annoyed now and then. Don't we all?
Your resident hater, Ti-Guy, stepping up.
Add me to your list of pending HRC complaints.
RD:
Stevenson replied, as follows:
If UWO PIRG chooses to appeal the decision it would go to the Board of Directors through me as the Chair. The decision of the Board is final, that is correct.
Regards,
Tom Stevenson
USC President
sorry, you are correct, i didn't mean to suggest he was the only person looking over the appeal. He is the chair and voting member of the 5 person appeal board.
it's still, to me anyways, an open conflict of interest when he's signing his name to the justification of PIRG's de-ratification.
RD:
I quite agree.
3 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
