the Fasicst Anti-Free Speech Mind

Following on from the sickening behaviour of student "demonstrators" at McGill, that I wrote about a few days ago here at Lux et Veritas (McGill Protesters Shut-Down Free Speech, posted Friday, October 9, 2009).
The students think it was their right to shut-down a legitimate event, that was authorised by McGill University for the simple reason that they didn't like the content of the presentation, they didn't like the view-point of the presenter, and they formed an opinion before the talk ever took place.

Now one of the protesters, left this nasty personal comment on this blog-site. The product of bankrupt mind 

How does the mind work of those who think that only their opinions should prevail. We all think our beliefs are correct, this is obvious otherwise we wouldn't believe them. But most people understand that no one has a lock on truth, and these are after all beliefs.

Society stumbles forward, examining beliefs, debating them and making laws that hopefully allow everyone to live together in peace, in relative harmony without imposing an authoritarian control on beliefs.

I should say that in general this is the way in Canada, or at least is according to the  CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS. But I must not continue without mentioning that there are very notable exceptions.

The exception is section 13 "hate laws" which have lead to agrgegious abuse of our fundamental right to freedom of speech, and even more seriously, our right to a fair trial.

Under the Human Rights Commissions (HRCs) at the national and provincial levels, citizens of Canada have been persecuted by these government sponsored agencies.

The facts speak of "persecution". This is not hyperbole, this is the appropriate word to describe the illegal prosecutions by the HRCs. This will be covered in future posts on Lux et Veritas.

So I come to the attachment; we see that a person who is probably a student at McGill University, who's at home in Toronto for the Thanksgiving weekend, decided to post this comment, although pathetic also very nasty. I know that this person, let's say "he" to simplify, I know that he linked to Lux et Veritas from comments that I put on the McGill Tribune website. I put links with my comments so that people interested in the debate could look at more commentary on the matter.

Many Tribune  readers availed themselves of that opportunity to read more on the matter, which was pertinent to the discussion thread. It's common practice to leave links in comments (to offer back-up or more information on a matter, or the source of the information).

In this case I wanted the Tribune readers to have the opportunity to read more on the matter if they chose to do so.

However the anonymous author of this nasty little comment seems to think that because I am "old" (I don't acceot it!) I should be barred from leaving comments on the McGill Tribune. However I followed the protocols of the Tribune; I registered and gave my name and email, and posted my comments under my full name, rather than an alias.

I stand behind my comments, so I give my name. I wont hide behind a pen-name.

I should add that most of the comments at the McGill Tribune were firmly against the protesters; most were moderate in their choice of words but clear in their condemnation. One of the more direct opponents to the disruptive behaviour of the protesters, left this comment:

"little fascist thugs are too intellectually inadequate to present a counter-view so they disrupt and shout. what poor excuses for human beings these authoritarian cry-babies are.

these spoiled brats will get crushed in the real world."

It was apparent that the opponents to the thuggery could write a cogent argument, that was not true of the protesters who struggled to formulate a clear reason why they were justified in shutting things down.

One argument, was that "McGill is private property", and "therefore there is no right to free speech." The event has been censured by the SSMU council meeting (Students Society of McGill University), and they claimed that this gave them moral authority, even though the University had denied the SSMU's request to rescind approval for the event.

This seems to be the tenuous thread in the mind of Mr. anonymous. Because he is at McGill, and students are generally young he should, be able to shut down my criticism. He doesn't like me posting comments on the Tribune comment page, even though I follow protocol.

He can not shout me down on my blog, so he leaves a nasty little message.

He has an open forum to leave a rebuttal of my comments, but he is too lazy, and too lacking to formulate a rebuttal, but instead he leaves an anonymous comment with nothing added to the debate.

The he leaves a second message a few seconds later even more odious.

Maybe that will be the topic for another post.

Gurth Whitaker
Thanksgiving Day