April 2015
“I can’t stand what you’re saying, therefore I
will silence you.”
This sentiment is rapidly becoming the normal
practice at Canada’s public universities, which accept mob rule as a way to
censor controversial ideas on campus. Christie Blatchford was invited to speak
at the University of Waterloo about her book Helpless: Caledonia’s Nightmare
of Fear and Anarchy, but loud, unruly “protesters” forced the cancellation
of this event in 2010. U-Waterloo’s president, Dr. Hamdullahpur, learned
nothing from this incident, allowing MP Stephen Woodworth to be shouted down by
“protesters” in 2013, while campus security watched passively.
In April 2014, the University of Ottawa condoned
the forcible shut down of a presentation by Dr. Janice Fiamengo, by “activists”
who disagreed with her opinions against radical feminism. This was consistent,
of course, with Ottawa-U previously allowing a mob to prevent a scheduled
speaking event with controversial author Ann Coulter from taking place.
Men’s Issues Awareness events at the University
of Toronto and elsewhere have been blocked, disrupted and effectively shut down.
Alternatively, the university administration censors these events by permitting
them to proceed only if the campus club pays hundreds of dollars in “security
fees” to cover the real or potential risk posed by obstructionists who disagree
with the club’s viewpoint. Last week’s physical blocking of a pro-life display
at the University of Alberta, with disruptive protesters hiding it from view
entirely, is the latest example of mob censorship that is condoned by university
presidents.
Disruptive protesters, who silence their
opponents by making it impossible for the public to hear or see a controversial
message, claim that they are merely using their own free expression rights. But
even a Kindergarten student can tell the difference between making her own
painting, and placing a sheet of paper on top of the painting of the girl
sitting beside her. University students who cannot grasp this simple distinction
have likely been educated beyond their intelligence. Put simply,preventing
someone else from communicating her opinionis not the same asexpressing your
own.
Those who obstruct and disrupt their opponents’
events claim that the opinion which they have silenced is so obviously wrong
that it doesn’t deserve a hearing. But who should get to determine which
opinions are sufficiently odious to warrant being censored by a small mob of
“protesters” or “activists”? Should people, if they feel “very” hurt and
offended, be allowed to silence the peaceful expression of messages they
disagree with?
Not all university presidents agree that free
expression includes the right to block, obstruct and disrupt others’ messages
and events. In 2011, then-president of the University of British Columbia,
Stephen Toope, directed campus security to uphold the free speech rights of a
student pro-life group in the face of threats on Facebook to block the students’
display. Campus security informed the would-be blockers that they had every
right to engage in their own peaceful counter-protest, but warned against
censoring the pro-life display by obstructing it from view. Campus security
protected freedom of expression from mob rule, upholding the rule of law in the
best interest of everyone at UBC.
Unfortunately, University of Alberta president
Indira Samarasekera has taken the opposite approach. On March 3 and 4, U of A
campus security condoned the physical obstruction of a pro-life display on
campus, which was set up by a registered student club with the University’s
permission. The Code of Student Behaviour expressly prohibits the obstruction
and disruption of university-related functions, activities and events, but
campus security took no action against those who broke the rules. If the campus
security guards were unwilling or unable to control these “activists,” they
could at least have demanded to see their student ID, and commenced disciplinary
proceedings against them.
Dr.Samarasekera and other university presidents
are buying an artificial and very short-term “peace” by condoning the mob
censorship, by physical means, of politically incorrect views on campus. In so
doing, they send the message to all students that it’s OK to physically shut
down opinions and events one disagrees with. These university presidents
undermine the free exchange and debate of ideas on campus by inviting more and
more little mobs to consider: “Why debate your opponent when you can simply
silence her?”
Calgary lawyer John Carpay is president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional
Freedoms (Jccf.ca) and acts for the pro-life students at the University of
Alberta in defence of their free expression right.
National Post, March 10, 2015.
Help us maintain freedom in teaching, research and scholarship by joining SAFS or making a donation.
