The event was organised by "Choose Life", a pro-life club recognised by the Students' Society, and had permission for the event to take place from the University Authorities.
The SSMU (Students Society of McGill University) objected to the ideology of the speaker; Choose Life recognised the ideology is controversial and not accepted by all "pro-lifers" in the club.
The SSMU proceeded to try to shut down the event by bringing a resolution before their council to censure the event, and the request that the Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning), Professor Morton J. Mendelson, revoke permission for the event and ban it from campus.
Professor Mendelson refused the request with a careful and thorough explanation of the principles of free speech and debate at McGill.
However this well-considered response was not enough for some students and the editors of the McGill Tribune.McGill is ... steadfastly committed to the principle that universities are places for full exchanges of views.
Debate, free of constraint, is appropriate at the University as long as the discourse remains civil and does not violate the law or McGill’s Code of Student Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures.
- They disregarded McGill's commitment to providing an environment for the "full exchanges of views".
- They disregarded McGill's commitment to providing an environment for "debate, free of constraint".
- They disregarded McGill's commitment for remaining "civil".
Their only intention was to shut the speaker down.
They set up a chant demanding that he leave. Why should he leave? Because the protesters didn't think he should be on campus grounds. They didn't want him there, and that was reason enough in their eyes.
They set themselves up as the arbiters of who can speak at campus, regarding their own reasons as superseding those of Professor Mendelson (the proper authority in the matter).
They disrupted the proceedings in a juvenile fashion, singing "Old MacDonald had a farm" complete with animal noises, and other nursery rhymes. They denied the rights of the organisers and the speaker to their legitimate right of free-speejavascript:void(0)ch. They denied the attendees from hearing the talk, which they had come to hear. The protesters seemed oblivious to the implications of their mob rule and were very pleased with themselves as if it was only a jaunt, a prank, that they were doing which denied other folks their rights.
The whole odious charade can be seen on YouTube in 19 parts, Part 1 can be see here.
You can see for yourself the yobbish behaviour of the protesters, here's one of my post on the McGill Tribune comments page of this story:
"The hosts (Choose Life) and the guest speaker, displayed patience and courtesy, in the face of rudeness in the extreme; crass behaviour and a stupid arrogance that I found disgusting."It is very disturbing that the protesters, and the McGill SSMU, chose to silence a view-point that they don't like, I wrote about this trend on Wednesday Campus Leftists Don't Believe in Free Speech
People of this mind-set, elevate themselves up as the arbiters of what can be said and what cannot be said. They choose to shout down any opposition to their view-point and deny proper debate and consideration of the offered talk.
Choose Life recognised the controversial nature of the speaker's (Jose Ruba) ideologies as stated in the McGill Daily.
I watched the videos and the hosts and genuine particpants were polite in the face of rudeness:"These questions are controversial. Some of them even divide members of the pro-life community. The event was attended by the curious and the questioning, by supporters of Ruba’s position, by opponents (pro-life and pro-choice) who came to listen and raise real objections and concerns."
"In the end, none of these questions were discussed, as a group of protesters drowned out all dialogue with a tiresome farce that lasted two hours. Despite polite and repeated invitations to leave or raise objections during the open discussion following the talk, despite the patience of those in attendance who came to engage with the issues and calmly waited for the lecture to proceed, the evening was entirely consumed by the churlish antics of a few."
The SSMU's letter requesting a ban on the Choose Life event, along with Professor Mendelson's reply, in which he refuses the request to withdraw permission for the event, can be seen hereMcGill should take measures to ensure that the level doesn't sink to that of Concordia or York.
Security was totally ineffective, and when a lone policeman finally arrived, he entered into a debate with the protesters, and so played into their hands by prolonging the disruption.
I imagine that neither the security nor the police were prepared for the scene; however the University Administration should ensure that next time any behaviour is dealt with expediently.
My fear is that the authorities will capitulate and the mob will get their way; it’s happened at other schools in N. America, and it’s a blight."
.jpg)
Posts
People who on ideological grounds take an immoral position have no choice but to shut down debate.
ReplyDeleteStop spamming the McGill Tribune site, you creepy old man.
ReplyDeletehis comment is by a McGill Tribune reader.
ReplyDeleteIt will remain for the shame of “anonymous” (as will the other comment by the same author).
A post will follow.
"Never trust anyone over 30" was the maxim of the 60s/70s so called 'Free Speech' movement.
ReplyDeleteWell, the anonymous little creep who has the audacity to call you 'creepy' has gone one better than his pot-smoking predecessors.
He holds that your age disqualifies you altogether from having an opinion as he and his like-minded farmyard friends drown debate with infantile refrains of 'Old George Orwell had an Animal Farm'.
Which young Creepy out there would do well to read.
you're 50 and comment on stuff university students write you are creepy. get over yourself and grow up,
ReplyDelete