Far left students shuts down Professor from speaking at free speech event in Toronto

[alcoholbob]

So this is about Professor Jordan Peterson and the fact that he's speaking against the new Ontario law requiring Canadians to address anyone by the gender pronoun they demand to be addressed by at any time or face possible jail time? I kinda figured it would be.

So for some reason it's what Canadians feel like is an important civil rights issue to fight over, but hey, Canadians have choices. You can always move to America

 

[sdifox]

So this is about Professor Jordan Peterson and the fact that he's speaking against the new Ontario law requiring Canadians to address anyone by the gender pronoun they demand to be addressed by at any time or face possible jail time? I kinda figured it would be.

So for some reason it's what Canadians feel like is an important civil rights issue to fight over, but hey, Canadians have choices. You can always move to America

http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/


And the protesters were objecting to Ezra Levant, not prof Peterson.

 

[woolfe9998]

+1 On this topic I totally agree that the use of "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" has gone way, way too far.

To the OP's specific point: I have strong reservations about shouting down any speaker to the point where they can't speak at all. Vigorous dissent from the audience? Ok. But not this. It's puerile. Make your points against their points. But not 100% override such as I saw on this vid.

However, these are 19 year old college kids. What excuse does, say, Bully Bill O'Reilly have for unfairly shouting and shutting down guests he doesn't agree with, to the point of cutting their mikes? He's a grown man with a millions strong audience.

I fear the ugly imbalance of Fox News and Breitbart more than a small clutch of asshole college students. They might yet grow up.

You won't find many liberals over 40 who agree with "safe spaces." This is almost entirely a thing with millennials, and there mainly with the ones currently in college. Like you said, many of them will grow up.

 

[alcoholbob]

http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/


And the protesters were objecting to Ezra Levant, not prof Peterson.

The article kind of leaves out an important point, which is how it interacts with other Canadian laws--you can still be held in contempt of court by the tribunal, and a federal court later on can in fact imprison you for violation of the criminal code.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

The article kind of leaves out an important point, which is how it interacts with other Canadian laws--you can still be held in contempt of court by the tribunal, and a federal court later on can in fact imprison you for violation of the criminal code.

No. You couldn't be imprisoned. Canada's criminal code requires very specific incitements of genocide, violence etc... It's not an important point. It's a bullshit point.

It's a HUGE leap to try and twist around into some complex scenario of contempt to try and say what you said earlier of "address anyone by the pronoun they demand at any time or face jail time".

 

[sdifox]

The article kind of leaves out an important point, which is how it interacts with other Canadian laws--you can still be held in contempt of court by the tribunal, and a federal court later on can in fact imprison you for violation of the criminal code.

It's about hate crimes.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=8609176

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Really. He can rent his own venue and those who want to hear him can go listen to him there.
In the meantime, consider the irony of arguing for someone who wants certain beliefs to be outlawed by claiming that his free speech is being infringed upon.

Funny thing is that some people did want to hear him and the campus did want him there. So much, in fact, that he's been a professor for two decades there. In what world do you live in that illegally shutting down a professor at a campus speaking at a reserved event falls under the umbrella of "consequences of free speech" or "freedom from criticism"? You're a sick fascist.

EDIT: Actually, my bad, this event was at Ontario and not Toronto where the guy is a professor, doesn't change much.

 

[agent00f]

agent00f made 7708 posts so far defending liberalism in less than a year. incredible watching him thrive in this degenerate group, he is very successful and must be the worst human being per his own law: agent00f's law of worsts.

That's called jealousy. You has it.

Conservatives demonstrating everything said about them: "When we're not busy carrying water for the clan our party takes money from hungry kids and old people to fund tax cuts for trust fund Trump sorts, but ur the Real degenerates".

If there were a christian god there's going to be a reckoning for the lot.

 

[agent00f]

+1 On this topic I totally agree that the use of "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" has gone way, way too far.

To the OP's specific point: I have strong reservations about shouting down any speaker to the point where they can't speak at all. Vigorous dissent from the audience? Ok. But not this. It's puerile. Make your points against their points. But not 100% override such as I saw on this vid.

However, these are 19 year old college kids. What excuse does, say, Bully Bill O'Reilly have for unfairly shouting and shutting down guests he doesn't agree with, to the point of cutting their mikes? He's a grown man with a millions strong audience.

I fear the ugly imbalance of Fox News and Breitbart more than a small clutch of asshole college students. They might yet grow up.

The original point of safe spaces was to solve a particular problem, whereby people interested in minority/women issues or whatever would inevitably get swamped by oppressed white nationalists. For example, it's literally impossible to have any sort of rational discussion about AA without the usual dummies who're only ever going to be perpetually confused why they're not always the center of attention anymore. Speaking of which, that's basically Bill O'Reilly's entire shtick: tell his audience to be angry that they don't get to decided everything like back in the day.

 

[sdifox]

Funny thing is that some people did want to hear him and the campus did want him there. So much, in fact, that he's been a professor for two decades there. In what world do you live in that illegally shutting down a professor at a campus speaking at a reserved event falls under the umbrella of "consequences of free speech" or "freedom from criticism"? You're a sick fascist.

EDIT: Actually, my bad, this event was at Ontario and not Toronto where the guy is a professor, doesn't change much.

It was right in downtown Toronto. It was in U of T and the protesters didn't show up til 4pm, before Ezra started his speech.

The fire alarm was pulled on Ezra.

Note that in Canada free speech is not absolute. Charter Rights and notwithstanding clauses supersedes freedom of speech.

 

[Perknose]

The original point of safe spaces was to solve a particular problem, whereby people interested in minority/women issues or whatever would inevitably get swamped by oppressed white nationalists. For example, it's literally impossible to have any sort of rational discussion about AA without the usual dummies who're only ever going to be perpetually confused why they're not always the center of attention anymore. Speaking of which, that's basically Bill O'Reilly's entire shtick: tell his audience to be angry that they don't get to decided everything like back in the day.

Yes, all true, to a point, and I do understand the this is the minor league dialect of the pendulum swing at work, in that safe spaces and such are a response to groups never having had control of their space, BUT . . .

This had better be a short, sharp reaction that soon passes because EVERYONE needs to be exposed to competing stances in the free marketplace of ideas for their own damn good! Groups retreating to their own special echo chambers of lockstep non-dissent is dangerous, imho. We liberals should never, ever be afraid of bullshit trumping (to use a phrase) the truth, as we best understand it. If you trust what you believe is correct, it will win out in the long run.

Herding "others" into the ghetto of their very own "safe spaces" and/or cravenly catering to their "triggers" is absolutely patronizing and infantilizing them.

The whole idea of a liberal arts degree in college used to be, "Here, you will find your intellectual voice. You will learn how to think for yourself in the crucible of conflicting ideas, and this capability will serve you the rest of your damn life." It goes to that old cliche, "Give a man a fish and he will eat for one day, but teach a man to fish and he will never go hungry."

 

[Commodus]

Yes, all true, to a point, and I do understand the this is the minor league dialect of the pendulum swing at work, in that safe spaces and such are a response to groups never having had control of their space, BUT . . .

This had better be a short, sharp reaction that soon passes because EVERYONE needs to be exposed to competing stances in the free marketplace of ideas for their own damn good! Groups retreating to their own special echo chambers of lockstep non-dissent is dangerous, imho. We liberals should never, ever be afraid of bullshit trumping (to use a phrase) the truth, as we best understand it. If you trust what you believe is correct, it will win out in the long run.

Herding "others" into the ghetto of their very own "safe spaces" and/or cravenly catering to their "triggers" is absolutely patronizing and infantilizing them.

The whole idea of a liberal arts degree in college used to be, "Here, you will find your intellectual voice. You will learn how to think for yourself in the crucible of conflicting ideas, and this capability will serve you the rest of your damn life." It goes to that old cliche, "Give a man a fish and he will eat for one day, but teach a man to fish and he will never go hungry."

You're largely right, although then again, remember how we thought that most voters could clearly tell that Trump was clueless about politics, a threat to the freedoms of women and minorities, and so fundamentally vile that he makes Clinton seem saintly by comparison? Yeah, guess those didn't matter so much as long as he made bogus claims about jobs and threw childish insults at his opponents.

This isn't to excuse the exact behavior in this case, but I would absolutely support protests outside everything Levant does, and if an opponent gets into one of his presentations, challenge him bluntly (but politely) on his bigotry and lying.

 

[justoh]

People who think that these are just kids and that they'll "grow out of it" are just wrong. That is where they're supposed to develop. They're also the future of the Democratic party. It's not just limited to colleges either, as evidenced by the prevalence of the regressive left on this very forum. Surely they can't all still be in college?

 

[Commodus]

People who think that these are just kids and that they'll "grow out of it" are just wrong. That is where they're supposed to develop. They're also the future of the Democratic party. It's not just limited to colleges either, as evidenced by the prevalence of the regressive left on this very forum. Surely they can't all still be in college?

Given that they're Canadians in this case, they're not likely to be the future of the Democratic party...

And here's the funny thing: data shows the modern Republican party has a disproportionately larger number of uneducated voters. It seems that gaining intelligence, and exposing yourself to different cultures and experiences, increases the chances you'll vote Democrat. This isn't to say there aren't intelligent conservatives -- there certainly are -- but that's not who the Republicans are currently catering to.

 

[justoh]

Given that they're Canadians in this case, they're not likely to be the future of the Democratic party...

I guess that's a valid point, as long as the commentators referenced limited their "growing out of it" rhetoric to just this one event. If so, I apologize for the mistake.

 

[brycejones]

Shouting down is BS and I missed all the threads started by conservatives in 2009 stating as much when their ilk engaged in the same behavior over the ACA.

But hey you all keep clutching those pearls.

 

[jackstar7]

It might help to imagine the speaker was any nationality or political leaning.

The problem with the [far right] is lack of empathy.

You're almost getting it.

 

[JSt0rm]

You won't find many liberals over 40 who agree with "safe spaces." This is almost entirely a thing with millennials, and there mainly with the ones currently in college. Like you said, many of them will grow up.

What we do find is all alt right deplorables and consevatards regardless of age are demanding safe spaces for their shitty speech.

 

[1prophet]

Freedom of speech does not guarantee a public venue to speak in either.

That is the same attitude the South had during the Civil rights era and it was justified in their minds no different than alot of Pseudo liberals justify using violence and coercion to shut down speech they don't agree with under the guise "you don't have freedom from the consequences"

Defending speech even that which you don't agree with does not mean you endorse that speech

https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie

ACLU History: Taking a Stand for Free Speech in Skokie
" In 1978, the ACLU took a controversial stand for free speech by defending a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie , where many Holocaust survivors lived. The notoriety of the case caused some ACLU members to resign, but to many others the case has come to represent the ACLU's unwavering commitment to principle. In fact, many of the laws the ACLU cited to defend the group's right to free speech and assembly were the same laws it had invoked during the Civil Rights era, when Southern cities tried to shut down civil rights marches with similar claims about the violence and disruption the protests would cause. Although the ACLU prevailed in its free speech arguments, the neo-Nazi group never marched through Skokie, instead agreeing to stage a rally at Federal Plaza in downtown Chicago."

 

[sdifox]

That is the same attitude the South had during the Civil rights era and it was justified in their minds no different than alot of Pseudo liberals justify using violence and coercion to shut down speech they don't agree with under the guise "you don't have freedom from the consequences"

Defending speech even that which you don't agree with does not mean you endorse that speech

https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie

ACLU History: Taking a Stand for Free Speech in Skokie
" In 1978, the ACLU took a controversial stand for free speech by defending a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie , where many Holocaust survivors lived. The notoriety of the case caused some ACLU members to resign, but to many others the case has come to represent the ACLU's unwavering commitment to principle. In fact, many of the laws the ACLU cited to defend the group's right to free speech and assembly were the same laws it had invoked during the Civil Rights era, when Southern cities tried to shut down civil rights marches with similar claims about the violence and disruption the protests would cause. Although the ACLU prevailed in its free speech arguments, the neo-Nazi group never marched through Skokie, instead agreeing to stage a rally at Federal Plaza in downtown Chicago."

Free speech in Canada <> free speech in USA.

 

[Perknose]

Free speech in Canada <> free speech in USA.

Tru dat.

 

[justoh]

Free speech in Canada <> free speech in USA.

More correct to state that free speech protection isn't the same/universal. People appealing to free speech also do so on some principled basis and not simply because it's a feature of a const., ie. the ideas the provision were based on in the first place. And then it's fatuous to just reply that they're not universal when implicitly the argument is that they should be.

 

[sdifox]

More correct to state that free speech protection isn't the same/universal. People appealing to free speech also do so on some principled basis and not simply because it's a feature of a const., ie. the ideas the provision were based on in the first place. And then it's fatuous to just reply that they're not universal when implicitly the argument is that they should be.

Not exactly. Canadians don't think an individual can say anything, hate speech for example is a big no no. Westborough Baptist Church is explicitly banned from entering Canada.

Freedom of expression is universal, but in Canada you don't get to trample other people's rights.

 

[justoh]

Not exactly. Canadians don't think an individual can say anything, hate speech for example is a big no no. Westborough Baptist Church is explicitly banned from entering Canada.

Freedom of expression is universal, but in Canada you don't get to trumple other people's rights.

I'm unfamiliar with Canadian law, so I'm curious which rights they're protecting. Presumably is some kind of misguided guarantee of "dignity" or " not being offended," based on (dubious) sociological "evidence" of "harm."

Why is the Canadian approach better than that of the US? Why can't people just be offended? Even in the us if hate speech poses some kind of imminent threat of disturbing the govt's precious monopoly on violence then it's also theoretically excluded.

It's easy to say this as a white male but I can't imagine being bothered too much by the irrational hatred of strangers. I believe the professionals who insist that melatonin levels aren't important, for example, so I feel like I would be immune to racist expressions even if I wasn't privileged.

And people having those ideas in the first place seems more problemematic than them expressing them. Censoring them can reinforce their bad ideas, by never asking them to justify them - which they can't - and also make them harder to identify.

Stating they're welcome to hold their own private meetings off-campus seems like a terrible idea, since then there'd be nobody to scrutinize and (calmly) challenge them, allowing them more opportunity to grow and their nonsense to intensify.

 

[sdifox]

I'm unfamiliar with Canadian law, so I'm curious which rights they're protecting. Presumably is some kind of misguided guarantee of "dignity" or " not being offended," based on (dubious) sociological "evidence" of "harm."

Why is the Canadian approach better than that of the US? Why can't people just be offended? Even in the us if hate speech poses some kind of imminent threat of disturbing the govt's precious monopoly on violence then it's also theoretically excluded.

It's easy to say this as a white male but I can't imagine being bothered too much by the irrational hatred of strangers. I believe the professionals who insist that melatonin levels aren't important, for example, so I feel like I would be immune to racist expressions even if I wasn't privileged.

And people having those ideas in the first place seems more problemematic than them expressing them. Censoring them can reinforce their bad ideas, by never asking them to justify them - which they can't - and also make them harder to identify.

Stating they're welcome to hold their own private meetings off-campus seems like a terrible idea, since then there'd be nobody to scrutinize and (calmly) challenge them, allowing them more opportunity to grow and their nonsense to intensify.

I didn't say better, I said different.