In his latest response, university president Brian MacArthur maintains the policy is legal and that the dispute is more complicated than its opponents make it out to be.

[T]he [N.B. Human Rights] code recognizes that as important as it is to avoid limiting opportunities for individuals based on particular characteristics, there are legitimate and natural occasions when this is not possible, and such are not necessarily a violation of a person’s rights.

In support, Dr MacArthur cites the Supreme Court’s vindication of Trinity Western University (TWU), which went to court after the British Columbia College of Teachers refused to approve its teacher education programme, claiming that the university discriminated against homosexuals.

The Justices of the Supreme Court ruled in favour of TWU, observing that a tension can exist in law between rights and not be in violation of the law. They stated: “Any potential conflict between religious freedoms and equality rights should be resolved through the proper delineation of the rights and values involved. Properly defining the scope of the rights avoids a conflict in this case. Neither freedom of religion nor the guarantee against discrimination based on sexual orientation is absolute.”
[…]
[I]it should be made clear that the accusation made against ABU is really based on a clash of views, not human rights. The Supreme Court decision recognizes that so long as appropriate boundaries are respected in the exercise of rights, rights can be balanced. Canadian citizens and faith communities are free to hold a traditional view of marriage and to express their belief, as are those with other views.

He concludes on an idealistic note.

A truly just society is not created by forcing everyone to accept the same view. In our pluralistic nation, differing views should be able to be voiced and expressed with equal conviction without fear of reprisal in funding or other ways.

Some vehemently disagree with that sentiment. The first comment posted at the Times & Transcript calls Dr MacArthur’s column “a whitewash” and the Supreme Court decision in the TWU case a “loophole that allows for exclusion”.

Atlantic Baptist University is affiliated with the Convention of Atlantic Baptist Churches, which also plays a role in governing Acadia University and Acadia Divinity School.

ANHRI also alleges that the arrest “occurred with the collaboration of the Church in [his hometown of] Naga Hammadi”.

The controversy began on October 1st 2008, when some young Muslims were browsing Hani’s blog and found a link to another site containing an electronic novel called “Azazil’s Goat in Mecca” which included an attack on Islam. This work was written by an anonymous author under the name of “Father Utah.” The novel came in response to Yusuf Zidane’s famous novel “Azazil,” which was considered by some conservatives as offensive to Christianity.

Some young people in Hani’s village became very angry and thought he was the author of the story. Security Forces took this opportunity to arrest Hani Nazeer in order to get rid of the problems raised by his blog because of his strong opposition to both Muslim and Christian hardliners.
[…]
The crime against Hani was further agravated [sic] by Anba Cyrilus, Bishop of Naga Hammadi, when he asked the family to keep silent in order not to upset the state security.

Since Mr Nazeer’s arrest, “Father Utah” has continued to post at other Christian blogs. Nazeer’s own blog has been emptied of content.

Nazeer is an inmate at Burj Al Arab prison, where at least two other bloggers are currently imprisoned.

h/t: Religious Intelligence

In a speech in St. Petersburg on April 7, the chairman of Russia’s Constitutional Court argued that due to the economic crisis, Russia could descend into anarchy and then turn to totalitarianism. To prevent this, he said, the Kremlin has the right to employ authoritarian methods to save the country from disaster.

So, Russia should skip the anarchy and go straight to totalitarianism?

In related news, the prosecutor’s office in Vladivostok has censored a popular slogan of Communist anti-government protestors.

The slogan “Putler Kaput!” — a play on words combining Putin and Hitler — was found by the prosecutor’s office to be offensive to Putin and has been banned from use at public gatherings and meetings.

The prosecutor’s office is mulling over bans on other popular slogans, e.g., “Down with the Dictatorship of LilliPutians!”

The shorter letter, signed “Anonymous”, misunderstands the role of free speech in Canadian society.

[T]he right to free expression is necessary to address the struggles of marginalized populations by allowing for dissidence and challenges to the often oppressive norm.

Anonymous needs to read Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which says nothing about that.  Moreover, given that Canada has no law restricting abortion, and that prime ministers for the past quarter-century have adamantly opposed introducing any such law, it’s clear that the “marginalised” group subjected to an “oppressive norm” is the pro-life movement.

[T]he Canadian Association of University Teachers concedes in their policy statement on Civil Liberties that “Today, we recognize that academic freedom can only be exercised when basic civil liberties are protected and respected”. Their Anti-harassment Statement indicates that “Harassment is any behaviour that demeans, humiliates or embarrasses a person, and that a reasonable person should have known would be unwelcome. It includes actions, comments or displays”.

It was made explicitly clear to the organizers of the event, the university administration and the presenter himself that a number of students felt demeaned and humiliated by the presentation, and that such harassing behaviour was unwelcome.

The CAUT statement provides an objective definition of harassment, but then Anonymous appeals to feelings. Not very conclusive, to say the least. Moreover, by that same definition, the actions of the anti-free speech hooligans certainly constituted harassment against Mr Ruba, his supporters, and everyone else who wanted to hear what he had to say.

So, by Anonymous’s logic, it’s OK to fight harassment with harassment.

In any case, I doubt the CAUT envisioned small groups with hurt feelings acting as judge, jury, and executioner in interpreting and applying its anti-harassment statement. I suspect the CAUT has more respect for democracy and due process than the Anonymous letter-writer.

The other, much-longer letter, attributed to Melannie Burke, is one of the worst cases of verbal diarrhoea I have seen since I was a university student eons ago. She rambles hither and yon in a barely coherent fashion, taking bizarre pot shots at Mark Mercer, more than once calling him a “totalitarian” who wants to subvert our freedom of speech. Clearly, Ms Burke has no idea what she’s talking about.

Burke thinks interrupting people who are speaking is quite acceptable because, well, “most people do interrupt if they feel it is necessary”. I kid you not.

Let me remind Professor Mercer of the most famous example in London, Speaker’s Corner. Yes, anyone can stand on the soapbox and speak on any topic; however the audience can also heckle and protest all of those who they do not agree with or whom they feel are promoting views that have no place there. This model is at the cornerstone of our democracy and shows aptly how all people have the right to speak, at the same time, whether you agree with them or not.

If this represents the considered knowledge and wisdom of one of Canada’s future leaders, God help my country.

Earth to Melannie Burke: Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park is most certainly not the “model … at the cornerstone of our democracy”. Try the House of Commons. Heckling, laughter, and cross-talk happen in the House all the time, but the Speaker maintains the level of order necessary to ensure that the rules of the chamber are followed. The person who has the floor is allowed to finish what he or she has to say. No one else may take the floor until and unless the Speaker says so.

Speakers’ Corner is anarchy. You’re welcome to it. As a civilised person, I prefer the House of Commons—the real model at the cornerstone of our democracy.

The complete current issue of the SMU Journal can be downloaded here (pdf).

Rooney says he became depressed and withdrawn after the alleged incident and complained to the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal. Mr Bertiboni did not recall the conversation, but insisted he is not prejudiced against homosexuals and has had homosexual tenants in the past whom he treated with respect.

Last month, the tribunal ordered Bertiboni to pay $4000 to Rooney, even though Rooney had no corroboration for his account of the telephone conversation.

Coolopolis has the details of that and another questionable Quebec HRT decision.

The text of the judgment is posted here (French only).

The BC Supreme Court has ruled that the City of Powell River was wrong to threaten charges of defamation against three residents who dared to criticise the mayor and council over their handling of a controversial harbour development.

As reported by The Vancouver Sun’s Daphne Bramham, the decision forcefully and unequivocally states that constitutional guarantees trump any claim that citizens have defamed governments.

The Charter of Rights’ guarantee of free speech overrides any claims by governments that they can be defamed by citizens critical of their actions, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Nicole Garson ruled last week.

“The Charter-enshrined value of freedom of expression is paramount and local governments have to resort to other means to protect their reputations from citizens who publish critical commentary about the government itself,” she wrote in a case involving the city of Powell River’s threat to sue three residents who criticized the mayor and council in an online newspaper.

“It is antithetical to the notion of freedom of speech and a citizen’s right to criticize his or her government concerning its governing functions that such criticism should be chilled by the threat of a suit in defamation.”

Justice Garson noted that, if governments could launch defamation lawsuits against anyone who criticises their actions, only those with the resources to defend themselves could afford to speak publicly against the state.

Earlier this week, ACMA banned a graphic but legal anti-abortion website. With this latest, entirely predictable, fiasco, the whole censorship scheme is looking more foolish with each passing day.

A BUNGLED list of “banned websites” is not official, the Communications Minister says – but the matter might be referred to the Australian Federal Police.

“ACMA is investigating this matter and is considering a range of possible actions it may take including referral to the Australian Federal Police,” Senator Stephen Conroy said.

A dentist’s practice, a tuckshop convener and a kennel operator in Queensland have all been wrongly included on the list of websites to be censored.

The owners of the websites are furious their small businesses have been implicated on the list, which includes links to child pornography, rape, incest and bestiality websites.

ACMA insists that Australians caught linking to or otherwise distributing the ”secret” list could face criminal charges and up to ten years in prison.

h/t: Australian Politics

Mr Atkinson, famous for his roles in Blackadder and Mr Bean, told Peers in the House of Lords: “Do I think that I would risk prosecution because of jokes or drama about sexual orientation with which I might be involved if we don’t have the free speech clause?

“Not really – but I dread something almost as bad – a culture of censoriousness, a questioning, negative and leaden attitude that is encouraged by legislation of this nature but is considerably and meaningfully alleviated by the free speech clause.”

He added: “It would provide succour and reassurance to those of us in the creative world and I would plead for its retention.”

Mr Atkinson also criticised “hate speech” legislation in general.

The Labour Government is expected to use its majority in the House of Commons to defeat a motion to retain free speech protection. If that happens, it will fall once again to the House of Lords to safeguard civil liberties in the UK.

This is not the first time that Rowan Atkinson has publicly lobbied against Labourite proposals to restrict free speech. In 2005, he spoke against a bill to outlaw inciting religious hatred that was subsequently defeated in the House of Lords.

The list of websites banned by Anni’s [Nasheed’s] government is growing, all of them on the orders of the Ministry of Islam. According to Haveeru, eight websites have been blocked so far for allegedly publishing anti-Islamic and pro-Christianity content in the Dhivehi, the Maldivian language.

Blogger Jawish Hameed identifies several blocked sites and possible reasons for banning them.

Seedhaahithun.com, sidahitun.com and gospelgo.com were apparently blocked for “promoting Christianity”. The reason for blocking RaajjeIslam a few days ago is unknown and according to the media, the MoIA has not offered an explanation. As has been noted by Minivan News and Haveeru News, the website was blocked after they published an audio clip of Mohamed Shakeeb, an Imam at Shaviyani Atoll Foakaidhoo, claiming that he has been threatened by the State Minister of Islamic Affairs Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed.

Another Maldivian blogger points out that the Ministry of Islamic Affairs is controlled by an opposition political party.

The population of the Maldives is over 99 percent Muslim and the country has in the past been inhospitable to Christians and other religious minorities.  The constitution of the Republic of Maldives, ratified by former President Gayoom in August 2008, states that “a non-Muslim may not become a citizen” and that “no law contrary to any tenet of Islam may be enacted”.

President Nasheed, a one-time political dissident, took office in November 2008 after free multi-party elections. The current internet censorship campaign would appear to be an attempt by hard-line elements in the state bureaucracy to hamper his efforts to enhance democracy and personal freedoms in the Maldives.  Some are wondering if he has the stomach to fight “the threat facing Maldivian democracy”.

h/t: Global Voices

Plainly, SMU officials have a lot of work to do if respect for diversity of opinion is going to be restored.  Mark Mercer offers some suggestions in his latest Cranky Professor column.

We have to insist that the university, and all university groups, not engage in self-censorship. We must not fear protests or human rights complaints. We have to ensure that Saint Mary’s not give in to bullies who would threaten to bring it before a human rights commission.

We have to guard against our university’s tendency to think in terms of conflict resolution. There is no conflict here to resolve. What is at stake is the integrity of our institution as a university. If through safeguarding our mission some members of the Saint Mary’s community come to feel their needs are going unmet, well, that’s too bad.

Strangely, one thing we need is an explicitly formulated policy for handling a disruption; one Security can consult and easily apply. (Strangely, because one would have thought Security wouldn’t have had any trouble figuring out what to do.)

Dr Mercer then offers his seven-point outline of a campus security policy for speeches and presentations. Check it out.

Let’s hope that Saint Mary’s University does what is necessary to re-establish its reputation as an institution that takes a pro-active role in protecting and promoting its marketplace of ideas.

Also in this week’s SMU Journal are two admirably reasoned letters from philosophy student Kirk Emery defending freedom of expression against those who would stifle opposing views.  They’re not included in the Journal’s online content, unfortunately, but can be found on page 3 of the pdf version.

On March 10, ACMA issued Sydney web hosting company Bulletproof Networks with an “interim link-deletion notice” for allowing its customer, the Whirlpool internet community website, to post the link to an anti-abortion web page blacklisted by the regulator.
[...]
The interim notice, obtained by The Australian, stated that on February 19, ACMA received information that a Whirlpool forums page “may contain links to other websites that may contain ‘prohibited content’ or ‘potentially prohibited content’”.

According to the notice, ACMA determined that end-users in Australia could access the content on the blacklisted web page.

ACMA gave Bulletproof around 24 hours to act.

And act Bulletproof did. Whirlpool removed the prohibited link in very short order.

ACMA sent the notice after it received a “complaint” about “offensive content” from an anonymous internet user.

h/t: Australian Politics

They wanted to post information about abortion and distribute fliers with anti-abortion viewpoints.

School officials said they would need to display abortion-rights information as well, the lawsuit said.

According to the suit, the school has allowed other groups to hold events without presenting opposing viewpoints, including one with a clergyman on why faith communities should be allies with the gay and lesbian community.

University officials also maintained that the event would be (you’ll never guess) “discriminatory” and “offensive”—cardinal sins in academia today.

John Jansen at Generations For Life makes fun of the college’s lame-brained directive.

Which of the following actually happened at a community college in Washington State?

(a) A human rights student group wanted to post materials around campus encouraging people to work to stop the genocide in Darfur, but was told by the school that they would also have to post materials encouraging people to work to continue the genocide in Darfur.

Read the other possibilities here.

A speech by conservative writer Don Feder was disrupted by loud-mouthed “anti-hate” activists at the University of Massachusetts. His scheduled topic was hate crime legislation (he’s against it); but when obstreperous protestors entered the room, he took ‘em on.

Feder sternly redressed the crowd in his opening statement.

“You don’t stop someone from speaking who you disagree with,” he said, banging his hand on the lectern, “there’s something god-damn fascistic about people coming into a speech and deliberately trying to disrupt it.”

Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, was recently the scene of a similar fascistic tactic.

After repeated interruptions and increasing tension, the speech was cut short. As Feder pointed out, that could only happen at a post-modern institution of “higher” learning.

“These people know there’s no consequences, the only place this can happen is on a college campus, anywhere else these people would be arrested for disorderly conduct,” he said.

A clueless pair of collegians defended the shout-down.

“There’s absolutely no room for hate speech on this campus,” said winter 2008 graduate Natalia Tylim. Her friend, senior Katie Perry, concurred, adding “I think campuses are places for open-mindedness, and this is the opposite of that.”

Proving, once again, that irony is lost to liberals.

See also Tommy Devine’s eyewitness account.

h/t: Michelle Malkin

One thing to value about democracy is its fairness. When a decision is made democratically, even those who think it the wrong decision can accept it as fair and, thus, as legitimate, as binding on them. But a decision isn’t made democratically when some people are prevented from trying to change minds by presenting their views. To shout down pro-life speakers, then, is to subvert democracy and, thereby, to render pro-choice customs and institutions illegitimate. We love democracy for its own sake, of course, but we also prize it for the peace and security it brings, peace and security that are threatened when people are denied public avenues through which to influence policy.

Those who set out to disrupt Jose Ruba’s presentation must have known all of this. They understood that contempt was their tactic. They understood that this tactic wouldn’t serve the cause of protecting or extending abortion rights. They understood that their tactic would put at risk our fragile commitments to disinterested thought and dispassionate discussion, and would coarsen the social fabric here at Saint Mary’s and beyond. And yet they chose contempt and shouted down the speaker.

Shouting down a controversial speaker threatens democracy because it undermines mutual respect and liberality, without which democracy cannot survive and flourish.

Dr Mercer explicitly supports the disruptors’ agenda with respect to legal abortion but, he argues, their tactics have brought the cause of abortion rights into disrepute.

Today’s column is the first of two discussing issues surrounding last month’s display of anti-free speech hooliganism.  Next time, Mercer will address what can be done to make Saint Mary’s University a safe place for civil debate and discussion.  Let’s hope SMU officials are paying attention because the university’s reputation in that area has taken a beating.

Hate speech and anti-conversion laws are cropping up around the globe in what, on the surface, seems to be an effort to protect religious freedoms. In reality, these laws are generally aimed at preserving the rights of only one religion and restricting and even criminalizing the expression of others.
[…]
Sri Lanka Bill

It may be surprising to note that the most recent example of this trend is the largely Buddhist country of Sri Lanka. Seen in the West as a tolerant, meditative religion, Buddhism is the driving force in Sri Lanka’s introduction of a bill that would make it illegal to distribute religious literature or condemn any other religion, and would prohibit faith-based charities from operating openly.
[…]
India Anti-Conversion Laws

The bill being considered in Sri Lanka is based on several similar laws already in place in another unlikely country: India. India touts itself as the largest secular democracy in the world, but is in the middle of an internal struggle with Hindu extremists who want to make India a Hindu-only nation.
[…]
Apostasy and Blasphemy Laws in Muslim Countries

The laws in India and Sri Lanka, however, pale in comparison to apostasy laws that carry the death penalty for Muslims who convert to another religion. There are at least eight Muslim countries that prescribe the death penalty for apostasy, and many more where apostasy is such a stain on a family’s honor that Muslim fathers are even willing to torture and kill their own children for the offense. Many Muslim countries also have laws against blasphemy that prohibit anyone from speaking critically of the Koran or Muhammad.
[…]
Hate Speech Prohibition in UN from Muslims

Muslim countries are also seeking to make their blasphemy laws binding on the entire world through a resolution in the United Nations.

Our freedoms are God’s gifts to us to be used to worship and serve our Lord and to spread the Good News. In the face of persecution, the first believers prayed for boldness in speaking God’s Word. May that be our prayer today.

Ms Taylor’s “defence” is full of faulty assumptions, erroneous arguments, and dumb mistakes. The unnamed SMU Journal reporter who conducted the interview is complicit for failing to challenge her foolishness.

Taylor cites as precedent SMU’s cowardly decision to cancel a debate between former philosophy professor Peter March and alleged racist Jared Taylor in March 2007, but she gets crucial facts wrong. According to her, the university cancelled the debate “in an effort to protect students from the pain and suffering that is inflicted by the promotion of hate speech”; but that’s not what SMU said about it. The SMU press release she herself quotes refers only to “high security risks and potential threat to both our campus community and to visitors”.

The press release also says this:

The University remains committed to academic freedom, diversity of opinion, and supports open debate in a forum that does not put the personal safety of our community at risk.

Taylor does not allege that Mr Ruba’s presentation endangered anyone’s “personal safety”, so the press release that she relies on as justification does not actually support last month’s display of anti-free speech fascism.

The Journal: Let us know, in more detail, the reason for you believing the talk was discriminatory.

Holly: As per the Canadian Human Rights Act, we are guaranteed the right to be free from discrimination, which is defined within the act as follows:

Prohibition of discrimination
“For the purpose of this Act, a person discriminates where the person makes a distinction, whether intentional or not, based on a characteristic, or perceived characteristic, referred to in clauses (h) to (v) of subsection (1) of Section 5 that has the effect of imposing burdens, obligations or disadvantages on an individual or a class of individuals not imposed upon others or which withholds or limits access to opportunities, benefits and advantages available to other individuals or classes of individuals in society”
5 (1) No person shall in respect of [emphasis hers]
(f) a publication, broadcast or advertisement; discriminate against an individual or class of individuals on account of
(m) sex; http://www.gov.ns.ca/legislature/legc/statutes/humanrt.htm

Hello! She refers to the Canadian Human Rights Act, but quotes from and links to the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act. Does she know what she’s talking about?

In any case, taking the law into one’s own hands by presumptively shouting down a speaker is not one of the legal remedies set forth in the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act. One must lodge a complaint with the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, which will decide if the complaint is worthy of further action.

She calls Ruba a racist because he cites Martin Luther King, Jr, in support of anti-abortion views in what she thinks is a misleading and manipulative fashion. A racist is someone who thinks that some races are inherently inferior to others. Quoting a black man with approval is prima facie evidence that Ruba thinks blacks are equal. Taylor may disagree with Ruba’s interpretation of King’s words but, obviously, that doesn’t make Ruba a racist.

Besides, in view of Taylor’s self-serving misuse of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act, it’s a little rich for her to complain that someone else is being “misleading and manipulative”.

The interviewer points out that some pro-choice people, unlike the anti-free speech protestors, followed Ruba off campus, heard his presentation, and then engaged him in debate afterwards. Why didn’t Taylor do that?

We chose not to engage in debate with him as a symbolic action, in an effort to send a strong, clear message that we would not accept the delivery of hate speech in our university. We chose to defend our human rights by refusing the delivery of his verbal and pictorial assaults. Having done extensive research about the group, the presenter and their harassment tactics, we were not willing to be abused by such accusations. He is challenging women’s right to control their own bodies by likening them to Nazis, and that issue is not up for debate when it is being promoted as an educational seminar.

Is it possible to proclaim more plainly one’s contempt for freedom of speech? Taylor has appointed herself Kommissar of SMU. If she doesn’t agree with you, she and her stormtroopers reserve the right to prevent you from speaking.

She is daft, and her anti-free speech stance is contrary to everything a decent university stands for.

The university issued a statement defending its decision to cave to mob rule by requiring the speaker and those interested in hearing what he had to say to move off campus.  The presentation continued at a nearby church.

Nothing further has been said since then, and the acting president of St Mary’s Students for Life says it’s time for some answers.  He also says that the university’s statement included false information that needs to be corrected.

The latest issue of The Atlantic Catholic, cover dated 28 February, carries a report on this and other fallout from SMU’s capitulation to anti-free speech bullies.  The publication is not available online, so I post the full text here.

‘They Were Breaking The Law’

Student calls on university to apologize for allowing protestors to end pro-life presentation

By Nicole Myshak

Even with the passage of several weeks, there is still no greater clarity as to whether or not St. Mary’s University (SMU) chaplain, Father Dan Kelly, SJ, will be facing a human rights complaint relating to his involvement in a Feb. 5 presentation on campus.

On Feb. 9 local media sources reported that a “chairwoman of the board at the women’s centre at the university” indicated that her group was “considering a human rights complaint against the university chaplain for participating in the event.”

The event, entitled “Echoes of the Holocaust: A Reflection on the Abortion Issue,” featured a presentation by Jose (Jojo) Ruba, a founding member of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.

Sponsored by the St. Mary’s Pro-life Students and Campaign Life Coalition Nova Scotia, the talk was disrupted by pro-abortion protestors who drowned out Ruba with chants and yelling. A member of this group also blocked Ruba’s visual presentation by covering the projection window in the lecture hall.

The Halifax Regional Police were present and repeatedly cautioned protestors that they were disturbing the peace. Even so, the disturbance continued until representatives of the university brought the presentation to a premature ending. Organizers then chose to resume the talk off campus at Canadian Martyrs church, which neighbours the university.

Reached by phone, Georgia Schurman, one of the co-coordinators of the St. Mary’s Women’s Centre, said she was unable to comment on the likelihood of a human rights complaint against Father Kelly. “We’re in the process of figuring out all the details of what happened behind the scenes with the university and the chaplaincy,” she says.

However, Schurman stressed the importance of her group being “well informed” before they were willing to put out their “position.”

Besides the possibility of this complaint, there has been other animated dialogue in the media and throughout cyberspace on account of what transpired at the university. Part of this controversy relates to a perceived breach of the freedom of speech.

Joseph Westin, the acting president of the St. Mary’s Students for Life, the group who co-sponsored the event, is of this opinion. He is disturbed by what happened and dissatisfied with the university’s subsequent response. “We’re not getting the answers we want from the school,” he asserts.

The second year commerce student recounts having received a number of calls from those who share this perspective, including alumni who are “cutting oft” their financial support to the university and one who is redirecting these funds to Campaign Life Coalition. “We have support,” affirms Westin.

He notes that Dr. Mark Mercer “the renowned atheist on campus,” has also voiced his support of the group’s right to have held the event. “He’s definitely pro-choice but he’s still on our side,” stresses Westin.

The 22 year old would like to see a number of things happen to rectify the situation including a “retraction of the press release” posted on the University’s website as well as “a public apology from the school.”

Westin wants this retraction because, through the Feb. 9 media release, he claims that university officials are “under their breath” giving the impression that they moved the presentation “on campus somewhere else.” That’s false, he states.

The university statement reads that, “protesters were asked to stop disrupting the event, but after more than an hour and a half, the presentation was relocated to a nearby location. … Relocating the event, though regrettable, allowed the speaker to complete his presentation.”

Westin believes it necessary to clarify what happened. “Really they stopped the presentation and we decided to leave and go to the church; if the church was not there we wouldn’t have been able to continue.”

“They made no effort to provide another building or venue for us,” he adds of the university. “They’re claiming that they moved us to another building. But they didn’t. They stopped our presentation.”

The media release concludes by saying that ‘The University is currently reviewing the matter.” In response to a phone inquiry about this release, Chuck Bridges, the Vice President of External Affairs at St. Mary’s, emphasized that “while the matter is under review” the university would have “no further comment.”

Westin is adamant that the university is “trying to save face” thereby denying that they succumbed to the pressure applied by the pro-abortion protestors.

“But they did give into the mob,” he maintains.

“They’re not dealing with it at all,” Westin continues. “They’re pretty much sweeping it under the rug. They’re trying to get rid of it.”

As a result, the pro-life student doesn’t want the matter to subside. ”I’m not forgetting what happened and I’m not letting it go,” he says. “The people who were breaking the law should have been dealt with and stopped, not us”

Accordingly, Westin would like the university to apologize for “the way they handled” the incident. He says this is fitting on account of the event being stopped and “for the behavior they let happen.”

He feels that escalation of the disruption, which prompted the arrival of the Halifax Regional Police, “shouldn’t have had to happen” as security officials ought to have stepped in prior to this.

“They should have just dealt with it right away saying, ‘you guys gotta’ go now,’” suggests Westin.

Since this didn’t happen the St. Mary’s student is disillusioned that protestors were allowed to continue their interruption of the presentation. “They were breaking the law,” insists Westin. “They were breaking campus rules and they should have been dealt with.”

Because he believes the protestors’ behaviour was unacceptable in any circumstance, whether on a university campus or within society, Westin would like an investigation into “why they weren’t dealt with.” As well he is seeking “an investigation into the Women’s Centre” which he claims was “behind the organizing of the protest.”

He’s upset that a portion of the annual student fee amounting to $1 per student — payable in the fall and the winter semester — is allocated specifically to this Centre.

A companion article in the same issue covers Mr Ruba’s presentation at St Francis Xavier University,  Antigonish, Nova Scotia, which was held a few days after the disruption at SMU.  No problems were reported at StFX: Ruba made his planned presentation, and opposing views were aired and discussed during the subsequent question period.

StFX campus police were on hand to ensure order, and order was kept.  If only the authorities at SMU had done their job as well.

Mr Silverglate says the university has adopted an agenda of narrow-minded political correctness to the detriment of academic freedom.

“They have redefined harassment to include any speech that somebody doesn’t want to hear,” he says, adding that the overseers should declare unacceptable any restrictions that limit academic freedom or curtail speech that would be protected off campus.

Having represented numerous students who have run afoul of Harvard’s Administrative (read: disciplinary) Board, he’s scathing about the process.

“It has become totally irrational, unfair, uninterested in seeking facts, and not geared to finding out the truth,” he says, noting that the board has no student representatives and doesn’t allow the accused to call witnesses. “And yet, you just never hear a word from the overseers about this utter outrage.”

Mr Freedman objects to curriculum changes that have removed broad survey courses in favour of specialised and arcane courses focusing on idiosyncratic interests of faculty.

Harvey Silverglate is co-founder of The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), and Robert Freedman is a long-time FIRE supporter.

h/t: Tongue Tied 3

A company was forced to spend $35,000 in legal fees before the complainant dropped her case, but the complainant is ordered to repay only $3500.

A woman who filed a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal alleging sexual harassment by an employer has been ordered to pay the company $3,500 for dropping her complaint one day before a hearing.
[…]
A lawyer for Olympic claimed preparing the case cost more than $35,000 and wanted more than $5,000 in damages.

[Tribunal member] Ms. [Lindsay] Lyster ruled $3,500 is sufficient to signal the tribunal’s condemnation of Ms. Samuda’s conduct.

If it’s “sufficient” for the tribunal, it only shows the BC HRT has very low standards. But we already knew that.

Now several more Church of England bishops have done the same.

The Bishop of Bradford, the Rt Rev David James, said: “There is a certain political correctness which tends to target Christians especially and forbid Christian expression.

“Often people claim to be doing this in the interest of other faiths, but they welcome Christians being upfront on their beliefes [sic].

“I think in part it arises out of a secular agenda which wants to restrict religion to the private sphere. But all our faiths impact on the way we live in the public domain.

“I think the secularists have to get real and accept the fact that Christianity, like other religions, isn’t something that happens between consenting adults in private.”

London Telegraph correspondent Martin Beckford has a question:

First they came for the Christians?
[…]
[R]ecent cases give the distinct impression that what is under attack is not evangelism, nor even Christianity, but freedom of speech itself.

White Christian women are obviously an easy target, but as I pointed out last week in discussing the NHS guidelines on religion, what they are really aimed at is getting all believers to keep quiet unless they are within a designated private prayer space.

New Labour says it wants “equality”, but that apparently means that Christians must not mention any differences at all.