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

[OutHouse]

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

 

[senseamp]

We got problems that are
1. bigger
2. in America

 

[interchange]

I think that we are trying to look at this (and just about everything) from a left-right axis when in reality it has much more to do with an authoritarian-libertarian axis.

 

[UglyCasanova]

We got problems that are
1. bigger
2. in America

I agree with the sentiment on point 2 and this being in Canada means its their issue to hash out.

Regarding number 1 though I think the assault of the freedom of speech (and ideas in general) is a huge problem for us in the US. Whether it be flag burning or a controversial speaker, freedom of speech is freedom of speech and this isn't something we should just sweep under the rug because there's bigger fish to fry.

 

[Commodus]

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 did some research, and it's not as delicate as you think it is.

Basically, Canada prevents "hate propaganda" that is designed to incite hatred against entire groups (race, religion, sexual orientation and the like). You can say hurtful things, but you cross the line when those statements are clearly meant to provoke a hostile response. For example, you can make an argument that Islam's teachings foster violence, but you may run afoul of the law if you claim that Muslims as a whole represent a threat to the country. One is criticizing the religion; the other is encouraging people to be scared of (or attack) anyone involved in that religion, regardless of their specific beliefs or actions.

It's a fine line, and apparently there have been cases needed to clarify just where the line sits. But it's not about trying to avoid offense at all costs -- it's about when that offense fosters discrimination or violence. It's a step beyond the US (where you cross the line by explicitly threatening others), but nor is it trying to shelter people from hearing anything negative said about their culture.

And irrational hatred of strangers does matter. The problem is that many of us white guys act as if women and minorities are only rarely confronted with hateful behavior, and that they can just dismiss it. But that's not how life works. The truth is that many women and minorities deal with lots of little incidents. As an example, let's illustrate what black people experience. Store owners will follow them around on the assumption they'll steal something; they'll be ignored by taxi/ridesharing drivers; police will pull them over because they're driving in the 'wrong' neighborhood, or driving a car that's 'too nice;' and of course, there's the casual racist remarks that crop up all the time. None of these are earth-shattering in isolation, but they add up quickly. It's death by a thousand cuts.

For Muslims, there's an added threat of out-and-out violence. Remember, Montreal just recently dealt with a mass murder by a white guy who bought into Islamophobic rhetoric (including from the likes of Donald Trump). And in the US, there have been incidents where Islamophobes attacked and even killed people simply because they looked like they might be Muslim (read: brown skin). If you were Muslim, how confident would you be expressing your faith in public knowing there are bigots out there who want you dead? Even if you don't run into daily incidents, there's that lingering threat that you'll be attacked because of your faith, skin color or both.

 

[Atreus21]

Of course the regressive left can't debate. That's why they resort to bullying and name-calling, constantly. It's more effective IRL than on AT since real life is... full duplex, and they can effectively drown out any opinions they don't like just by yelling or using their bodies as physical barriers.

That said, even here, they're very intimidating There's very little diversity of opinion, since every time anyone posts anything that the circle jerk brigade don't agree with, they commence with the bullying and vindictive sarcasm. It's difficult for the new counter-culture (conservatism) to get a foot in the door, so fewer and fewer bother with p&n, imho.

Alright now hang on just a damned second.

I could swear you used to be a pretty reliable left-winger around here. I can't tell whether or not you're being sarcastic in the vein of Sonikku.

 

[justoh]

Alright now hang on just a damned second.

I could swear you used to be a pretty reliable left-winger around here. I can't tell whether or not you're being sarcastic in the vein of Sonikku.

As I said, I'm a liberal, which is to be distinguished from a regressive leftist. I'm also an advocate, and, again, I think it's important to have a public position as well as a public position. I did mean what you quoted, though they're not all like that. That commodus guy seems like a liberal, and so does woolfe. Can't think of any others off the top of my head, but there probably are some.

 

[woolfe9998]

I did some research, and it's not as delicate as you think it is.

Basically, Canada prevents "hate propaganda" that is designed to incite hatred against entire groups (race, religion, sexual orientation and the like). You can say hurtful things, but you cross the line when those statements are clearly meant to provoke a hostile response. For example, you can make an argument that Islam's teachings foster violence, but you may run afoul of the law if you claim that Muslims as a whole represent a threat to the country. One is criticizing the religion; the other is encouraging people to be scared of (or attack) anyone involved in that religion, regardless of their specific beliefs or actions.

It's a fine line, and apparently there have been cases needed to clarify just where the line sits. But it's not about trying to avoid offense at all costs -- it's about when that offense fosters discrimination or violence. It's a step beyond the US (where you cross the line by explicitly threatening others), but nor is it trying to shelter people from hearing anything negative said about their culture.

And irrational hatred of strangers does matter. The problem is that many of us white guys act as if women and minorities are only rarely confronted with hateful behavior, and that they can just dismiss it. But that's not how life works. The truth is that many women and minorities deal with lots of little incidents. As an example, let's illustrate what black people experience. Store owners will follow them around on the assumption they'll steal something; they'll be ignored by taxi/ridesharing drivers; police will pull them over because they're driving in the 'wrong' neighborhood, or driving a car that's 'too nice;' and of course, there's the casual racist remarks that crop up all the time. None of these are earth-shattering in isolation, but they add up quickly. It's death by a thousand cuts.

For Muslims, there's an added threat of out-and-out violence. Remember, Montreal just recently dealt with a mass murder by a white guy who bought into Islamophobic rhetoric (including from the likes of Donald Trump). And in the US, there have been incidents where Islamophobes attacked and even killed people simply because they looked like they might be Muslim (read: brown skin). If you were Muslim, how confident would you be expressing your faith in public knowing there are bigots out there who want you dead? Even if you don't run into daily incidents, there's that lingering threat that you'll be attacked because of your faith, skin color or both.

Yeah, that's a pretty accurate statement of Canadian law. However, I would point out that the problem with such a law is what you alluded to above: the line isn't entirely clear. A line that isn't clear has a chilling effect on free expression. In the US, the line of a direct threat is clear. You know when you've crossed it and when you haven't. Under Canadian law, there are lots of statements that could be illegal or not. The logical conclusion that is people will gag themselves to avoid the possibility of being on the wrong side of that law.

 

[LPCTech]

If you have ever used the term "regressive leftist" you are a hardcore right-wing conservative trump-ite authoritarian.

Regardless of whatever you see your self as.

 

[justoh]

I did some research, and it's not as delicate as you think it is.

Basically, Canada prevents "hate propaganda" that is designed to incite hatred against entire groups (race, religion, sexual orientation and the like). You can say hurtful things, but you cross the line when those statements are clearly meant to provoke a hostile response. For example, you can make an argument that Islam's teachings foster violence, but you may run afoul of the law if you claim that Muslims as a whole represent a threat to the country. One is criticizing the religion; the other is encouraging people to be scared of (or attack) anyone involved in that religion, regardless of their specific beliefs or actions.

It's a fine line, and apparently there have been cases needed to clarify just where the line sits. But it's not about trying to avoid offense at all costs -- it's about when that offense fosters discrimination or violence. It's a step beyond the US (where you cross the line by explicitly threatening others), but nor is it trying to shelter people from hearing anything negative said about their culture.

And irrational hatred of strangers does matter. The problem is that many of us white guys act as if women and minorities are only rarely confronted with hateful behavior, and that they can just dismiss it. But that's not how life works. The truth is that many women and minorities deal with lots of little incidents. As an example, let's illustrate what black people experience. Store owners will follow them around on the assumption they'll steal something; they'll be ignored by taxi/ridesharing drivers; police will pull them over because they're driving in the 'wrong' neighborhood, or driving a car that's 'too nice;' and of course, there's the casual racist remarks that crop up all the time. None of these are earth-shattering in isolation, but they add up quickly. It's death by a thousand cuts.

For Muslims, there's an added threat of out-and-out violence. Remember, Montreal just recently dealt with a mass murder by a white guy who bought into Islamophobic rhetoric (including from the likes of Donald Trump). And in the US, there have been incidents where Islamophobes attacked and even killed people simply because they looked like they might be Muslim (read: brown skin). If you were Muslim, how confident would you be expressing your faith in public knowing there are bigots out there who want you dead? Even if you don't run into daily incidents, there's that lingering threat that you'll be attacked because of your faith, skin color or both.

I agree with most of the above. I've said repeatedly that i'm not really interested in what Muslims do. I'm interested in what Islam preaches, and it's simply immoral, similar to how Christianity is. Judaism doesn't have a hell, which is a huge moral advantage. Islam is an extension of both, and worse because it's the final word in the trilogy and far broader in what it tries to accomplish.

Jesus supposedly said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's," so there's arguably an explicit separation of church and state, if you will. Islam not only doesn't contain any such concession, it does the opposite and actually provides its own unalterable law.

It should be a liberal position to oppose fascism and leader worship, the subjection of women and the abuse of children with the terrible idea of hell, to name just a few of the issues.

So if a populist hypocrite (himself being religious, or claiming to be) speaks out against Islam, then I find it hard not to support them on that, even if they're doing so for the wrong reasons. Trump, for example, has made statements both fairly against islam and unfairly against muslims. Regressive leftist leaders don't even acknowledge that Islam is a problem. Trump repeating the words, "radical islamic terror" doesn't go far enough. It's not radical. Should be just "islamic terror." Even so it's much appreciated and it may be the reason why he won.

I might be jumping the gun here, baldrick, but are the words "I have a cunning plan" "bigot" and "racist" marching along with ill-deserved confidence in the direction of this thread?

 

[Atreus21]

As I said, I'm a liberal, which is to be distinguished from a regressive leftist. I'm also an advocate, and, again, I think it's important to have a public position as well as a public position. I did mean what you quoted, though they're not all like that. That commodus guy seems like a liberal, and so does woolfe. Can't think of any others off the top of my head, but there probably are some.

How do you identify a regressive-leftist position?

Not a challenge - I'd like to understand better what you mean.

 

[justoh]

How do you identify a regressive-leftist position?

Not a challenge - I'd like to understand better what you mean.

This guy explains some of it quite well:

But generally it's a lot of what conservatives complain about routinely, from political correctness to new-wave feminism, "campus rape culture," all the other sjw nonsense, and their open alignment with islamic fascism. Recently I've been finding conservatives a lot more reasonable than before.

 

[Commodus]

I agree with most of the above. I've said repeatedly that i'm not really interested in what Muslims do. I'm interested in what Islam preaches, and it's simply immoral, similar to how Christianity is. Judaism doesn't have a hell, which is a huge moral advantage. Islam is an extension of both, and worse because it's the final word in the trilogy and far broader in what it tries to accomplish.

Jesus supposedly said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's," so there's arguably an explicit separation of church and state, if you will. Islam not only doesn't contain any such concession, it does the opposite and actually provides its own unalterable law.

It should be a liberal position to oppose fascism and leader worship, the subjection of women and the abuse of children with the terrible idea of hell, to name just a few of the issues.

So if a populist hypocrite (himself being religious, or claiming to be) speaks out against Islam, then I find it hard not to support them on that, even if they're doing so for the wrong reasons. Trump, for example, has made statements both fairly against islam and unfairly against muslims. Regressive leftist leaders don't even acknowledge that Islam is a problem. Trump repeating the words, "radical islamic terror" doesn't go far enough. It's not radical. Should be just "islamic terror." Even so it's much appreciated and it may be the reason why he won.

I might be jumping the gun here, baldrick, but are the words "I have a cunning plan" "bigot" and "racist" marching along with ill-deserved confidence in the direction of this thread?

This is where I have to disagree. Being liberal doesn't mean banning religion, including practices that don't harm others ('honor' killings and genital mutilation are clearly harmful). That's just discrimination by another token. As a non-religious person, I would prefer that people move to a secular approach, but I think it would be hypocritical and vicious to make people behave that way. Lead by example -- show them that you do really advocate freedom, not just a different kind of forced conversion.

Also, the reason why you don't usually see the left blame Islam itself is because, in practice, religions are complex and varied. There are moderate or even very liberal Muslims (Mona Eltahawy is a good example); there are conservative Muslims who draw the line at violence or imposing laws on others; and yes, there are extremists who want to impose a theocracy by any means necessary. Taking action against an entire religion, rather than focusing on its most extreme elements, leads you down a dark path. It leads to religious censorship. It leads to isolationism. And at its worst, it leads to military crusades and genocide.

You're not necessarily advocating for those, but those are the logical conclusions: if you believe that a religion is inherently evil and must be eliminated at all costs, what other choices would you have? And how are you going to prevent radicalization when you're effectively waging a culture war? Fight Muslim terrorists; don't aggravate the more temperate believers by convincing them that their very way of life is under attack.

 

[Thebobo]

This guy explains some of it quite well:

But generally it's a lot of what conservatives complain about routinely, from political correctness to new-wave feminism, "campus rape culture," all the other sjw nonsense, and their open alignment with islamic fascism. Recently I've been finding conservatives a lot more reasonable than before.

Lol you want us to watch an Infowars.com video?

You need to stop getting your news and world view from InfoWars. Paul Joseph Watson is the vile person narrating the video, he is the Editor For Infowars.com. That's like one of most right wing wacky sites on the web. You're going to lead a miserable life clinging to folks like that.

Also what's with the conservative wacky British coming to our country declaring themselves the authority what goes on here. Thats another person I would pay airfare for him to go back to Yorkshire. Or maybe they have had enough of there as well.

 

[Victorian Gray]

This guy explains some of it quite well:

But generally it's a lot of what conservatives complain about routinely, from political correctness to new-wave feminism, "campus rape culture," all the other sjw nonsense, and their open alignment with islamic fascism. Recently I've been finding conservatives a lot more reasonable than before.

Whoa bunky, that's a lot of straw for you to have to find your way through. Good luck with that.

Finding videos, like this one, done by schlubs on the interwebs will be a big help I'm sure.

And never forget, it''s all about ethics in gaming journalism and the memory of the Massacre at Bowling Green.

 

[justoh]

Lol you want us to watch an Infowars.com video.

You need to stop getting your news and world view from InfoWars. Paul Joseph Watson is the vile person narrating the video, he is the Editor For Infowars.com. That's like one of most right wing wacky sites on the web. You're going to lead a miserable life clinging to folks like that.

Nah, just outhouse, if he wants, since he asked. This paul watson guy, of whom you seem to know a lot more than me for some reason, doesn't seem wrong on this. I don't routinely watch anyone, except maybe maher and john oliver. Everyone deserves a voice. Maybe open your mind to people you don't always agree with, as I have.

 

[justoh]

This is where I have to disagree. Being liberal doesn't mean banning religion, including practices that don't harm others ('honor' killings and genital mutilation are clearly harmful). That's just discrimination by another token. As a non-religious person, I would prefer that people move to a secular approach, but I think it would be hypocritical and vicious to make people behave that way. Lead by example -- show them that you do really advocate freedom, not just a different kind of forced conversion.

Also, the reason why you don't usually see the left blame Islam itself is because, in practice, religions are complex and varied. There are moderate or even very liberal Muslims (Mona Eltahawy is a good example); there are conservative Muslims who draw the line at violence or imposing laws on others; and yes, there are extremists who want to impose a theocracy by any means necessary. Taking action against an entire religion, rather than focusing on its most extreme elements, leads you down a dark path. It leads to religious censorship. It leads to isolationism. And at its worst, it leads to military crusades and genocide.

You're not necessarily advocating for those, but those are the logical conclusions: if you believe that a religion is inherently evil and must be eliminated at all costs, what other choices would you have? And how are you going to prevent radicalization when you're effectively waging a culture war? Fight Muslim terrorists; don't aggravate the more temperate believers by convincing them that their very way of life is under attack.

Well, there's woolfe then... lol. At least you're still civil, and well-meaning/intentioned. Said nothing about banning religion. You can't fight fascism with fascism. Couldn't read beyond the bolded part.

 

[Commodus]

This guy explains some of it quite well:

But generally it's a lot of what conservatives complain about routinely, from political correctness to new-wave feminism, "campus rape culture," all the other sjw nonsense, and their open alignment with islamic fascism. Recently I've been finding conservatives a lot more reasonable than before.

But that's InfoWars. You know, the site that pushes easily disproven conspiracy theories and lies on a frequent basis. You must always dismiss everything InfoWars says, as it's so untrustworthy that it might as well be a tabloid newspaper. You certainly aren't going to convince any of us that there's an informed, carefully considered opinion coming from an outlet that constantly froths at the mouth with blind rage.

Also, I don't find those particular conservative views reasonable at all. Griping about "political correctness" and "SJWs" is usually just shorthand for "I want to continue being a hateful asshole, and I don't want to face consequences for it." There is the potential for excessive sensitivity to issues, but I would much, much rather show someone an unduly high level of respect than be intentionally callous.

I'm willing to keep an open mind, but you have to present opinions that are intelligent, evidence-based and (in cases like this) grounded in positive values like compassion. It's like claiming that scientists should be open to Biblical creationism. Sorry, but just because you believe strongly in something doesn't mean it carries enough weight to be taken seriously. Good critical thinking doesn't just mean considering others' opinions -- it also means analyzing the objectivity and truthfulness of a source. And InfoWars, as a rule, is junk.

 

[Commodus]

Well, there's woolfe then... lol. At least you're still civil, and well-meaning/intentioned. Said nothing about banning religion. You can't fight fascism with fascism. Couldn't read beyond the bolded part.

Like I said, you didn't necessarily advocate for bans, but if you believe that Islam is inherently wrong and must be stopped, what are you going to do?

And remember, populists like Geert Wilders are really just taking your view to its logical conclusion. He believes Islam is inherently dangerous, so his solution is to effectively ban Islam in the Netherlands. Don't believe that's right? Then you probably aren't as adamant in your beliefs as you think you are, and accept that most Muslims don't really pose a threat.

 

[justoh]

Like I said, you didn't necessarily advocate for bans, but if you believe that Islam is inherently wrong and must be stopped, what are you going to do?

And remember, populists like Geert Wilders are really just taking your view to its logical conclusion. He believes Islam is inherently dangerous, so his solution is to effectively ban Islam in the Netherlands. Don't believe that's right? Then you probably aren't as adamant in your beliefs as you think you are, and accept that most Muslims don't really pose a threat.

I stated that I agree with populists in their criticism of Islam, not Muslims. Obviously Islam is inherently immoral. It would be obvious to anyone who has taken a look at Islam and understands what the words moral and inherent mean. And of course most Muslims don't pose a threat, but the ones who do have the religious texts on their side. Muslims are victims of Islam. That's probably why I have more empathy for Muslims than any regressive would have. Instead of, "fuck that guy, he killed innocents," I consider whether he could or would have without Islam.

 

[Commodus]

I stated that I agree with populists in their criticism of Islam, not Muslims. Obviously Islam is inherently immoral. It would be obvious to anyone who has taken a look at Islam and understands what the words moral and inherent mean. And of course most Muslims don't pose a threat, but the ones who do have the religious texts on their side. Muslims are victims of Islam. That's probably why I have more empathy for Muslims than any regressive would have. Instead of, "fuck that guy, he killed innocents," I consider whether he could or would have without Islam.

Don't know how you can say you have empathy for them when you're effectively saying "you're a broken person, and I want to destroy one of the most important things in your life." Again, lead by example: be a positive role model for secularism, because they're not going to be understanding if you say you hate their most cherished values.

Also, immorality in Islam is not "obvious." Otherwise, there wouldn't be 1.7 billion people who adhere to it. And there are definitely Muslims who have done beneficial things in their religion's name, such as Red Crescent (or, for that matter, the Muslim scholars who helped advance math and science). While I may ultimately believe that a non-religious approach is best, I'm not going to paint with such a broad brush. Many of those people are ultimately good, even if it's not always in an ideal way.

 

[Fern]

-snip-

That said, even here, they're very intimidating There's very little diversity of opinion, since every time anyone posts anything that the circle jerk brigade don't agree with, they commence with the bullying and vindictive sarcasm. It's difficult for the new counter-culture (conservatism) to get a foot in the door, so fewer and fewer bother with p&n, imho.

Yep.

Fern

 

[justoh]

Don't know how you can say you have empathy for them when you're effectively saying "you're a broken person, and I want to destroy one of the most important things in your life." Again, lead by example: be a positive role model for secularism, because they're not going to be understanding if you say you hate their most cherished values.

Also, immorality in Islam is not "obvious." Otherwise, there wouldn't be 1.7 billion people who adhere to it. And there are definitely Muslims who have done beneficial things in their religion's name, such as Red Crescent (or, for that matter, the Muslim scholars who helped advance math and science). While I may ultimately believe that a non-religious approach is best, I'm not going to paint with such a broad brush. Many of those people are ultimately good, even if it's not always in an ideal way.

yeah, and hezbollah does a lot of good charity work. I don't quite think it makes up for all the harm they cause.

 

[Commodus]

yeah, and hezbollah does a lot of good charity work. I don't quite think it makes up for all the harm they cause.

That's still a flawed argument. There are groups that are mostly bad but occasionally do good things; there are mostly good groups that occasionally do bad things. The vast majority of Muslims aren't Hezbollah members, and you know full well that there are Muslims who do benevolent things without a 'catch' like that involved.

 

[UglyCasanova]

I did some research, and it's not as delicate as you think it is.

Basically, Canada prevents "hate propaganda" that is designed to incite hatred against entire groups (race, religion, sexual orientation and the like). You can say hurtful things, but you cross the line when those statements are clearly meant to provoke a hostile response. For example, you can make an argument that Islam's teachings foster violence, but you may run afoul of the law if you claim that Muslims as a whole represent a threat to the country. One is criticizing the religion; the other is encouraging people to be scared of (or attack) anyone involved in that religion, regardless of their specific beliefs or actions.

It's a fine line, and apparently there have been cases needed to clarify just where the line sits. But it's not about trying to avoid offense at all costs -- it's about when that offense fosters discrimination or violence. It's a step beyond the US (where you cross the line by explicitly threatening others), but nor is it trying to shelter people from hearing anything negative said about their culture.

And irrational hatred of strangers does matter. The problem is that many of us white guys act as if women and minorities are only rarely confronted with hateful behavior, and that they can just dismiss it. But that's not how life works. The truth is that many women and minorities deal with lots of little incidents. As an example, let's illustrate what black people experience. Store owners will follow them around on the assumption they'll steal something; they'll be ignored by taxi/ridesharing drivers; police will pull them over because they're driving in the 'wrong' neighborhood, or driving a car that's 'too nice;' and of course, there's the casual racist remarks that crop up all the time. None of these are earth-shattering in isolation, but they add up quickly. It's death by a thousand cuts.

For Muslims, there's an added threat of out-and-out violence. Remember, Montreal just recently dealt with a mass murder by a white guy who bought into Islamophobic rhetoric (including from the likes of Donald Trump). And in the US, there have been incidents where Islamophobes attacked and even killed people simply because they looked like they might be Muslim (read: brown skin). If you were Muslim, how confident would you be expressing your faith in public knowing there are bigots out there who want you dead? Even if you don't run into daily incidents, there's that lingering threat that you'll be attacked because of your faith, skin color or both.

I don't want my government to decide what is "hate propaganda".