Category: O Canada!

The University of Toronto encampment has a ceremonial fire; head of Sonoma State University in California suspended for deciding on an academic boycott of Israel

May 20, 2024 • 8:30 am

This message was sent to students at the St. George campus (the downtown branch) of the University of Toronto. The message doesn’t stand out insofar as college actions or capitulation to protestors’ demands, goes, but it does combine two of my favorite subjects: college free speech and indigenous knowledge. Only in two places—Canada and New Zealand—could you find such a mixture.

The students at St. George apparently had an encampment, and students were informed that occupying Tent City (Ville de Tentes) constituted trespassing and they were asked to leave, but the University says it’s also determined to end the encampment peacefully.  Since the students aren’t leaving, the encampment continues.

Click on the headline to read, but go to the May 16 update—the latest one. The ceremonial fire is in the forth paragraph:

Here’s the message:

Dear U of T community,

University representatives met again yesterday with students representing those at the encampment. This meeting is the latest in a series of discussions that have taken place.

The discussion was constructive and productive. Much of the focus at the meeting was on discussing the students’ demands.

The University and student representatives have worked together to mitigate the prior concerns regarding sanitation. Moreover, the ceremonial fire inside the encampment is burning under the careful supervision of experienced Indigenous Firekeepers in a manner that suits the unique conditions of the site. We continue to discuss signs and language and emphasize how important it is that they be consistent with the spirit of peaceful protest.

We aim to reconvene soon. We recognize that our entire community has a stake in this matter. Our next community update will be sent early next week, and all updates continue to be posted on the UTogether site.

Our goal remains the same: to find a peaceful and sustainable conclusion to the encampment on Front Campus as soon as possible, in line with University principles and policies.

Sincerely,

Christine Szustaczek
Vice President Communications

There’s a ceremonial fire! Well, it’s better than some acts of the entented, including violence and defacing buildings. Let’s hope the Indigenous Firekeepers are sufficiently experienced and that the tents aren’t flammable.

As of the next day, the encampment remained; here’s a news video from May 17. The encampment (on the St. George campus) appears to be surrounded by a sturdy fence, which means entry is controlled and there’s a part of campus where non-protesters aren’t allowed or welcome.

The President of the University of Toronto had previously responded to protestors’ demands, but the response was basically “no”: the U of T refused the demands to boycott and break off contacts with Israeli Universities, and also refused to divest from Israeli companies because it adheres to a Kalven-esque principle of institutional neutrality in investing:

. . . . . the University’s Policy on Social and Political Issues with Respect to University Divestment notes in its opening Preamble that “As a general matter, the University does not take positions on social or political issues apart from those directly pertinent to higher education and academic research.” Accordingly, “the University will not consider proposals for restrictions on its investments that require the institution to take sides in matters that are properly the subject of ongoing academic inquiry and debate.” It further notes, as a corollary, that the University’s response to any requests for divestment “must be governed by the fundamental place of diversity of opinion within its community. Except in those situations in which the University must settle on an answer to controversial questions about how best to achieve its academic mission, the University risks abandoning its core values if it takes sides in ongoing debates and is perceived to be advancing a specific political or social position.”

That’s an admirable policy. If only the University of Toronto had the same kind of institutional neutrality for speech and official university policy and announcements!  There are a few more points about investing, like the one below, but they’re above my pay grade.

Notwithstanding the above fundamental points, let me make clear that the investment of the University’s endowment, which is comprised of endowed gifts to the University, is managed by the University of Toronto Asset Management Corporation (UTAM), and does not hold any direct investments in companies. The Expendable Funds Investment Pool (EFIP), consisting of expendable gifts and working capital, holds direct investments in fixed-income products, but not in company securities.

The video above reports that the U of T is pondering creating an institute of Palestinian Studies (a form of bias that may be illegal) and creating two faculty chairs in Palestinian studies. My guess is that these demands won’t be met, though the protesters have given the University a June 30 deadline to meet their demand (or what?)

*************

Note as well that meeting protestors’ demands, including academic boycotts, can be dangerous to one’s career (and, I suspect, will give birth to many lawsuits):

The president of Sonoma State University in California was placed on an indefinite leave of absence two days after he sent an email to the university community announcing that he had acceded to campus encampment organizers’ anti-Israel demands.

Ming-Tung “Mike” Lee issued a statement on Tuesday informing SSU students, faculty, and staff that, after standing for 19 days, the anti-Israel encampment on the university’s lawn had achieved at least one of its goals: an academic boycott of Israel.

He went on to address the new academic boycott:

SSU will not pursue or engage in any study abroad programs, faculty exchanges, or other formal collaborations that are sponsored by, or represent, the Israeli state academic and research institutions. SSU also commits to immediately updating any SSU pamphlets and SSU-hosted websites that may still be circulating or searchable and to remove hosting or linking to any pamphlets, flyers, or brochures advertising the study abroad program where students are encouraged to study abroad in Israel. SSU will make it clear to any students that any such programs are terminated until further notice and not simply suspended.

. . . . California State University chancellor Mildred García, who oversees the state’s public university system, wrote in a statement on Wednesday that Lee’s decision to accede to protesters’ demands had not been approved by any entity with authority over the school.

“On Tuesday evening, Sonoma State University President Mike Lee sent a campuswide message concerning an agreement with campus protesters. That message was sent without the appropriate approvals,” García wrote. “The Board’s leadership and I are actively reviewing the matter and will provide additional details in the near future. For now, because of this insubordination and consequences it has brought upon the system, President Lee has been placed on administrative leave.”

Insubordination!

Blatant discrimination in Canadian ads for academic jobs

April 24, 2024 • 1:15 pm

An anonymous author (presumably Canadian) has written this piece for Times Higher Education, and it’s clear why he or she doesn’t want their name given. If that was publicized, the person would never be able to get any academic job in Canada.  Below are the two job ads from the University of Waterloo to which the anonymous author objects (click to find them). Note that there are two positions in computer science, but both reserved for those who self-identify as “minoritized” people, including Two-spirit people. What are those? The U.S. Indian Health Service defines them this way:

Traditionally, Native American two-spirit people were male, female, and sometimes intersexed individuals who combined activities of both men and women with traits unique to their status as two-spirit people. In most tribes, they were considered neither men nor women; they occupied a distinct, alternative gender status.

I had thought these were simply indigenous people, but they seem to be non-binary indigenous people. So the first position is for people whose sexual identity doesn’t conform to their natal sex (I assumed that “identify as women” meant transwomen, but since “trangender” follows that, it could mean natal females as well. And the other job is for a minority, but a “racialized” minority, which means “not women”and nobody white”. I’m not sure whether Asians count as “members of a racialized minority.”  They are in a minority, and they are thought of as a race, so perhaps they would be. Canadians can weigh in here.

Regardless of how you interpret the requirements, it’s clear that these ads are targeted only for “minoritized” individuals. (Women in computer science stubbornly remain a minority, perhaps not because of structural sexism).

 

And here’s the anonymous article (click to read):

The author wants to apply for these jobs but since he or she (I’m guessing it’s a “he” since women could apply for the first job) simply isn’t qualified.  Excerpts:

The intention behind these postings is not malicious; rather, it aims to correct historical injustices. The attempted correction, however, only adds to the injustice of discrimination.

Why is academia so equivocal about making a universal condemnation of discrimination?

The author gives three reasons. First, the ad implicitly aims to correct bias, but underrepresentation of groups in a field, as you should know well know by now, need not automatically imply systemic bias. As the author says, it could reflect “differences in sex or culture” that “influence interests, behaviours or priorities.” I am pretty sure this plays a role in the underrepresentaiton of women in computer science.

Second, such ads, by assuming that the oppression reflects a hierarchy of bigotry, “perpetuates the false and dangerous idea that scars are passed down through generations, as if modern-day French children should cultivate hatred towards Germans because of the world wars.” He/she believes that the ads perpetrate a view of society as an eternal power struggle à la postmodernism. Well, that may be partly correct if underrepresentation reflects lower qualifications based on historical discrimination, but one can still wonder whether that should be rectified by ads like these, which list identity as the first criterion for application (presumably merit will be considered later).

Third, the author claims that “debate is stifled.”  I’m not sure what that means, but presumably the mere appearance of these ads justifies discriminatory hiring. As the author notes,

While intellectual and cultural diversity enriches humanity, equality in dignity unites us in a spirit of fraternity. Discrimination violates this moral equality, fosters resentment, undermines social cohesion, instrumentalises individuals and conveys the fatalistic and wrong idea that one’s path is determined by one’s ethnicity or gender. These severe consequences are wishfully thought to be dodged when discrimination is given a different name. But they are not.

Finally, the author tacks on another problem: those who are hired may be under the self-stigma of realizing that they got their job because of racial or sexual identity, not because of merit. This fact is of course the case for many minority hires, but I’m not sure if those hires are constantly tormented with this kind of self-doubt, though I know from testimony that some are. The author favors a “colorblind” approach to hiring, i.e., prize merit over identity.

I agree that the ads are objectionable, and they’d be illegal in the United States. Still, I favor a form of affirmative action, which is gradually taking shape as a belief that when candidates are pretty equally qualified, you can hire (or admit) the minority candidate more than half the time.  But even that is now illegal in the U.S., though of course schools will practice it anyway by getting around the “tick a box” prohibition. But no, there should not be jobs completely reserved for people who have a certain race of gender identity

Canadians deplatform championship cyclist because she was an Israeli who served in IDF

February 22, 2024 • 11:45 am

I am so bloody sick of the kind of hatred instantiated in this article, where someone gets deplatformed not because of what they were going to say, which is bad enough, but simply because of who they are.  From Cycling magazine we get a disgusting tale of a championship cyclist booted out of an International Women’s Day event, with her keynote speech canceled, explicitly because she was an Israeli, and one who fought—as was required for someone her age—for the IDF.  Meet the accomplished athlete Leah Goldstein, whose crime was being Israeli:

This will be short and not-so-sweet, reflecting poorly on Canada. The details:

Former pro cyclist Leah Goldstein, who lives in Vernon, B.C, will no longer be the keynote speaker at an International Women’s Day event in Peterborough, On., in March, apparently because of her time spent working for the IDF. In September, she was offered the role and she accepted. However, in January, she was told she was being removed from the role.

Goldstein, 54, was born in Canada to Israeli parents. At 17, she moved to Israel, where she spent several years, and served her mandatory military service. In 1989, she was world bantamweight kickboxing champion. After an injury, she began cycling, riding for teams such as the Canadian squad, Symmetrics Pro Cycling. After her career in road cycling, she then began ultra-endurance cycling. In 2011, Goldstein took the victory in the women’s solo category of the Race Across America. Notably, she attained second place in the women’s group and fifth overall in 2019. However, it was in 2021 that she etched her name in history by winning the overall solo division, beating not just all the women, but men too.

On Thursday, after the decision began to circulate on social media the organization put out a formal statement saying that she would no longer be involved with the event, amid the Israel/Gaza war.

Look at this weaselly pronouncement!

“Our focus at INSPIRE has been and will always be to create safe spaces to honour, share, and celebrate the remarkable stories of women and non-binary individuals,” the statement read.“In recognition of the current situation and the sensitivity of the conflict in the Middle East, the Board of INSPIRE will be changing our keynote speaker.”

No safe space can be created with an Israeli Jew on the dais!

They don’t dissimulate in their explanation!  By the way, Goldstein is also a professional speaker, so she doubtless would have given a good talk.  She was of course greatly disappointed, but kept her dignity when reacting to this slight. (She was not, according to what’s below, going to speak about the war.)

It has taken me a while to wrap my head around your decision to remove me as INSPIRE’s International Women’s Day ‘Inspire Inclusion’ keynote speaker. I was hurt. I was angry. But most of all I was heartbroken,” she said. “I’ve been a speaker for nearly 10 years and have told my story in front of real estate agents, business managers, garbage collectors, CEOs, motorbike dealers, government agencies and many diverse women’s groups. Not once has someone (to my face, to the organizers, nor anonymously) ever claimed to have been offended by my presentation. Not once.”

During her speeches as a motivational speaker, Goldstein, frequently recounts how her mental resilience enabled her to triumph over injury, discrimination, and bullying in various arenas, including sports and her service in Israel. She proudly states her distinction as the inaugural female elite commando instructor in the IDF, alongside her tenure as an undercover police officer in Israel. However, she says her presentations are never political.

“I am zero political when I speak,” she told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.“Honestly, there is nothing political about my presentation. I just talk about the crap that I went through and the crap that most women go through, and they still do, and how I handled it.”

Goldstein added she would never have a problem if a Palestinian woman spoke at a similar event.

“As a Jewish woman, I would never be offended if a Palestinian woman were to speak about her obstacles and life journey,” she aded. “I thought that’s what women were supposed to do for each other – listen and support!”

Indeed. Goldstein had one crime: she was a Jew who lived in Israel, even though she was born in Canada.  Can this be seen as anything other than anti-semitism?

Leah Goldstein (photo from the article); courtesy of Leah Goldstein @NoLimitsLeah

 

h/t: Paul

Canadian university advertises for scientists expert in Indigenous “ways of knowing”

January 22, 2024 • 1:15 pm

The combination of Canadian wokeness and the migration across the Pacific of New Zealand’s “indigenous ways of knowing” trope has led to this ad by The University of Victoria.  The U of V wants to hire three candidates in any branch of science with expertise “in either (a) working with Indigenous ways of knowing, or (b) in infusing Indigenous science approaches and perspectives into science.”

Click below to see the ad:

But before giving specifics, this being Canada, the ad has to have a VIDEO territory acknowledgment, to wit:

We acknowledge and respect the Songhees, Esquimalt and WSÁNEĆ peoples on whose traditional territory the university stands and whose historical relationships with the land continue to this day. We invite applicants to watch the “Welcome to the Territory” video and to visit the Songhees, Esquimalt, and W̱SÁNEĆ Nations’ websites to learn more about these vibrant communities. To learn more about the Indigenous community on campus, please see the Indigenous Academic and Community Engagement (IACE) office’s website.

Well, whose territory is it? And shouldn’t they be giving the U of V back to either the Songhees, Esquimalt and WSÁNEĆ peoples? (I guess they first need to determine who morally owns the land.)

Oy! This is part of a job ad! Well, granted, it may help attract those three scientists who are tasked with furthering indigenous ways of knowing or melding them with modern science:

But now the real meat: the job ad itself. Bolding is theirs:

Indigenization and Decolonization at UVic
The University of Victoria is committed to the ongoing work of decolonizing and Indigenizing the campus community both inside and outside the classroom. UVic released our second Indigenous Plan in 2023 and the Faculty of Science has drafted its Indigenization Implementation Strategy (2022-2026) as we prepare ourselves for the work ahead. Decolonization and Indigenization are integral aspects of the 2023 UVic Strategic Plan and the 2022 Faculty of Science Strategic Plan.

To advance our work on Indigenization and decolonization, the Faculty of Science is excited to invite Indigenous applicants for three faculty positions in any field of Science. The three available positions are at the tenure-track assistant professor level and are cross-posted across our six departments: Biochemistry & Microbiology, Biology, Chemistry, Earth & Ocean Sciences, Mathematics & Statistics, and Physics & Astronomy.

Among the qualifications is this:

“The candidate has interest, potential or experience in either (a) working with Indigenous ways of knowing, or (b) in infusing Indigenous science approaches and perspectives into science.”

Do I need to emphasize once again that there are no “indigenous ways of knowing” beyond the ways that modern science “knows” things. To be frank, indigenous “ways of knowing” are inferior to modern science, which has a whole armamentarium for determining what counts as “knowledge” (experimentation, controls, replication, hypothesis-testing, pervasive doubt, and so on). In contrast, indigenous ways of knowing invariably come down to simple observation of natural phenomena or assertions (say, about the efficacy of plants as medicines) that aren’t tested using blind studies. And without verification and replication and testing, you don’t have knowledge; you have claims.

In addition, Indigenous “ways of knowing” are almost invariably gotten down with a large dose of spirituality, religion, or tradition. Some Native Americans, for example, deny that their ancestors came to the area around 20,000 years ago, saying that their tradition tells them that they were “always here.” Under indigenous ways of knowing, experiments must conform to what is sacred: you can’t build a telescope, for example, on Hawaiian land that’s seen as sacred, or send ashes to the Moon because “Grandmother Moon lit the way for our ancestors.” (There are better reasons not to clutter up the Moon.)

It’s also for these reasons that part b) above—”infusing Indigenous science approaches and perspectives into science”—is largely futile. What does this even mean? What is an “Indigenous science approach/perspective”? Does this mean that fish are best found in area X at time Y, and that berries are likely to be found in locality Z in the fall? Or plant Q can cure you if you have malady R? If so, then yes, that’s empirical “knowledge” of a sort, but it has to be tested using real science, not “Indigenous science approaches”. The approaches may suggest hypothesis, but these “approaches” cannot become part of modern science until they’re verified using the tools of modern science. In other words, there is not Indigenous science, only science done by Indigenous peoples using the methods of modern science.

It is, then, more or less of a travesty for the U of V to hire three Indigenous people to “decolonize” science, which means, of course, to throw away the tools of modern science, developed by oppressive colonizers, and use whatever empirical/spiritual knowledge the new professors have. Or, as Wikipedia puts it,

According to Mpoe Johannah Keikelame and Leslie Swartz, “decolonising research methodology is an approach that is used to challenge the Eurocentric research methods that undermine the local knowledge and experiences of the marginalised population groups”.

Yes, science, now used worldwide by many non-European people, is still seen as not only “Eurocentric”, but as “undermining local knowledge and experiences” of Indigenous groups. But that like science undermining, as some Māori insist, their tradition that their Polynesian ancestors discovered Antarctica in the 7th century A.D?  If so, then “colonizing science”, which really means using modern science, is going to win, for it tells us that there is not a shred of evidence for such claims. As best we know, Antarctica was seen by Russian sailors in 1820.

These job ads, then, are threefold travesties. They undermine real science by replacing scientists who could be finding out real stuff with scientists committed to buttressing Indigenous “ways of knowing”. They suck up money by funding largely futile endeavors. And, worst of all, they confuse students (and the populace) about what science really is: a set of methodologies, developed over a few centuries, that gives us ever closer approaches to truth. It has no legends, Gods,  or spirutuality.

One could add, I suppose, that these adds are really efforts to advance science, but a big DEI initiative to advance Indigenous people themselves. That’s fine, but you shouldn’t don’t do that by sacralizing their ways of knowing. Instead, you ensure that they get the opportunities to study and practice modern science—the so-called “Eurocentric” science that is the only real “way of knowing”. To do otherwise is to erode the understanding of science.

***********

Finally, we see below the racial requirements (their bolding). Note that you don’t really have to be an indigenous person; you only have to identify as indigenous, and do so in writing. But that is weird. If the University has an equity plan and the government a Human Rights Code limiting applicants to Indigenous peoples, on what basis do they allow a non-Indigenous person who self-identifies as one? (I doubt such people would be accepted for the job anyway.). Of course this would be considered a violation of the law in America, but Canada isn’t the U.S.

In accordance with the University’s Equity Plan and pursuant to section 42 of the BC Human Rights Code, the selection will be limited to Indigenous peoples. Our search committee will review the pool of applications from those who self-identify with this designated group. Candidates from this group must self-identify in their cover letter to be considered for this position.

h/t: Luana

Anti-Semitic materials distributed to Toronto school students; school board agrees that they’re anti-Semitic but censures the person who called them out

December 7, 2021 • 10:15 am

Reader Jeff sent me a notice from the National Post‘s “First reading” section whose headline at first didn’t make sense (click on screenshot):

Why would someone who called out “antisemitism” in a school (and whose claims, as you’ll see below, were verified) face any censure! Well, that’s the way it goes in these crazy, woke times. You can correctly point out anti-semitism but still be labeled “Islamophobic” for doing so! That’s what happened to Toronto School Board Trustee Alexandra Lulka Rotman (called “Lulka” below).

Below is the entire short piece from the Post, and there are links so you can check for yourself. I urge you to scan the report itself, though it’s 122 pages long. Emphases is from the paper.

The Toronto District School Board [TDSB] is calling for the censure of a Jewish trustee who pointed out that one of their official manuals appeared to be endorsing Palestinian terrorism . According to a lengthy internal investigation conducted by the board, the manual (circulated to teachers in May ) did indeed contain links which, among other things, referenced suicide bombing as “a legitimate means of resistance” against Israel. Investigators ultimately concluded that the materials called out by trustee Alexandra Lulka “could be reasonably considered to contain antisemitic materials and seen to be contributing to antisemitism.” Nevertheless, they recommended that Lulka be censured anyway because her opposition to the materials could be construed as “discrimination” against Muslims.

Here’s Lulka Rotman’s Twitter statement about the anti-Semitic materials in the “official manual”:

And here are some of the findings in the report:

On or around June 4, 2021, the HRO completed a review of the May Mailouts to determine if the content contravened the TDSB Human Rights Policy. The HRO concluded that the main articles in the May Mailouts did not express hatred or criticism towards Jews as an ethnic group or as a creed or religion. The HRO concluded that stating one’s support of Palestinians does not indicate support for terrorist groups or hate of Jewish peoples nor Agenda Page 23 24 are criticisms of Israeli state policies, government and army de facto antisemitic, though the HRO noted that criticisms can be done in an antisemitic way.

HRO did conclude that certain links were problematic and could be reasonably considered to contain antisemitic materials and seen to be contributing to antisemitism. “In particular, some of these materials dismiss the historical connection of Jewish people to the land; lump all Israelis together; notes that “martyrdom operations (called “suicide bombing” )” are a legitimate means of resistance; and refer to “the “Iron Fist” policy of crushing the bones of Palestinian children’s hands” which feeds into the ‘blood libel’ trope. [Note: according to an article in the Chicago Tribune an “iron fist” policy was enacted by Rabin and “resulted in hundreds of fractured limbs”.

Finally, the HRO confirmed that some of the materials contained in the links support the use of violence and terrorism against Israeli Jews; specifically, including a link to the website of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (a group that is currently on Canada’s Listed Terrorist Entities), documentary and resources about Leila Khaled who was involved in plane hijackings, and an interview with Ghassan Kanafani, who was involved in violent actions against civilians.

Yes, but despite this, Lulka was still censured; click on this article from the Jewish News Syndicate below to see how. Jewish organizations in Canada are appalled at the TDSB’s double standard:

A short excerpt from the article above:

A Toronto District School Board (TDSB) trustee who raised concerns on Twitter last spring about a “manual” sent to teachers that included anti-Semitic messages was recommended for “censure.”

The recommendation was issued on Thursday against trustee Alexandra Lulka by Integrity Commissioner Suzanne Craig, who in her report also found that the materials Lulka complained about did, in fact, contain some anti-Semitic writings and promoted terrorism.

“Censure,” according to trustees, “is the harshest penalty that can be meted out to a trustee.”

According to Craig, Lulka’s online posts “fell within the TDSB definition of being discriminatory and did breach” the district’s code of conduct.

And get this: Lulka was censured because she didn’t “balance” her criticism of the anti-Semitic stuff in the pamphlet with saying positive things about the booklet!:

Craig’s 50-page report was met with incredulity by the local Jewish community.

“It is astonishingly unreasonable to compel a Jewish trustee calling out Jew-hatred to also highlight positive elements in the resources. The recommendation to censure her for not doing so is misguided and must be rejected,” said Noah Shack, vice president at the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. “Punishing trustee Lulka is contrary to the values of an educational institution purporting to engender learning and mutual respect.”

O Canada! Not you, too? No, Canadians cannot BE anti-Semitic!

Photo of Lulka from Facebook:

Self flagellation in Canada

October 16, 2020 • 11:30 am

This link, from Canada’s National Post via the news agency The Canadian Press, was sent to me by reader Rich Harkness, who noted, “As they say about the influx of critical race theory/intersectionality:   We are all on campus now!”

Well, we’re both on campus and also in a procession of penitentes from the Church of Wokeness, in which people who have said perfectly respectable things get demonized by the Offense Brigade. Rather than be smeared as a racist, the offenders then repeatedly lash their backs in contrition. Or, acknowledging their “privilege”, they beat their backs from the outset. It’s an embarrassing sight, amply on display in a recent debate in British Columbia.

First, John Horgan, premier of British Columbia and leader of the B.C. New Democratic Party, made a big-time slipup during an election debate. His opponent, B.C. Liberal Leader Andrew Wilkinson, avoided demonization by groveling from the outset. This article (click on screenshot) shows the self lashing proceeding fast and furious (click on screenshot):

Horgan’s slip, in quotes from the article:

Horgan shared his experience playing lacrosse as a youth, telling the debate moderator he doesn’t see colour.

Oops! BAD mistake! And now comes his fulsome apology:

On Wednesday, Horgan said he needs to be reminded daily that he does not face the challenges of systemic racism that many others do.

“As a personification of white privilege, I misspoke, words matter,” he said at a campaign stop at Richmond. “I deeply regret it, but I’m also committed to making sure that every day I’m reminded of the discomfort that I cause to people and I will work to correct that.”

Horgan said he did not intend to hurt people with his debate comments.

“I was jolted out of my comfort last night and I’m going to reflect on that,” he said. “I profoundly regret that I alienated and hurt people last night.”

In an earlier statement on Twitter, Horgan said he wished he had given a different answer during the debate when the three party leaders were asked how they have reckoned with white privilege.

“Saying ‘I don’t see colour’ causes pain and makes people feel unseen,” he wrote. “I’m sorry. I’ll never fully understand, as a white person, the lived reality of systemic racism. I’m listening, learning, and I’ll keep working every day to do better.”

Clearly people told him that “not seeing colour” was hurtful. But what an embarrassing display of craven pandering! “I don’t see color” doesn’t mean that black people get ignored; it means that people are treated the same regardless of race.

Wilkinson wasn’t quite as bad, but, as the article notes, he acknowledged several times his white male privilege. You have to do that these days, you know:

At the debate, Wilkinson discussed his time working in rural B.C. as a doctor in Indigenous communities, saying all people must be treated equally.

He expanded on his comments Wednesday at a campaign stop in Kitimat.

“In medical practice, I became very much aware of the particular struggles of Indigenous people in dealing with the health-care system and in dealing with society’s other structures,” Wilkinson said. “The idea that people in our society are somehow treated differently because of the colour of their skin or where they grew up or who their parents are is not acceptable.”

He said he grew up fortunate as a white male and it wasn’t until his teenage years that he realized he received different treatment than others.

“It’s wrong. It’s not fair,” said Wilkinson. “I’ve suggested in the (Liberal) platform there should be anti-racism training for everybody in the provincial government.”

Okay, there’s the obligatory anti-racism training, most likely along the lines of critical race theory. Wilkinson said that elected officials should also receive such training.

But wait! There’s more! The article goes on, and gets more and more cringe-worthy as others weigh in with their ideological bona fides:

The Green party’s Sonia Furstenau said at the debate she cannot comprehend that some mothers tell their children to be wary of the police. She pledged to work to end systemic racism, but admitted neither she nor the other two party leaders could ever grasp its nuances.

Prof. Annette Henry of the University of British Columbia’s Institute for Gender, Race, Sexuality and Social Justice said she believes Furstenau gave the strongest answer in the debate, but Wilkinson and Horgan didn’t seem to understand what systemic racism is.

“I don’t really think they understand how they are implicated in everyday systemic racism and how the structures that we live in prevent people from access, prevent people from opportunities, prevent people from being educated, from getting adequate health care from getting adequate housing,” she said.

Lama Mugabo, a community engagement co-ordinator for the Hogan’s Alley Society, which advocates for Black people in Vancouver, said he wants a premier who sees colour.

“When you say you don’t see colour, what does that really mean?” he said. “I don’t want people not to see that I’m Black. I want them to appreciate that I’m Black and recognize my Blackness. I don’t want any special treatment, but I want to be acknowledged as such.”

Now of course Canadians are liable to be woker than Americans, if only because they are famously polite and don’t want to give offense to anyone. But even polite Canadians should refuse to put up with this brand of nonsense. And now, besides Land Acknowledgments, for which Canadians are also famous, we have Race Acknowledgments. “I’d like to begin by acknowledging that Ms. Mugabo is Black, and I deeply acknowledge her Blackness.”

This all demonstrates exactly what Bari Weiss said in her article in Tablet:

Racism is the gravest sin in American life. Who would ever want to be anything other than an anti-racist? And so under the guise of a righteous effort to achieve overdue justice and equality of opportunity for Black Americans, Kendi and his ideological allies are presenting Americans with a zero-sum choice: conform to their worldview or be indistinguishable from the likes of Richard Spencer.

UBC cancels free speech event on grounds of “risk”

January 6, 2020 • 12:15 pm

Andy Ngo is a photographer and journalist who is widely viewed as a conservative. At least that’s what Wikipedia says, and so I’ll go with it, though he describes himself, when pressed, as “center-right”. But I also know he’s documented the excesses of Antifa, was beaten up by them, and has provided some useful coverage of an organization that is supposed to be progressive but acts more like a gang of fascist thugs. At any rate, Ngo’s not somebody I would think would be the subject of left-wing protests, as he’s no white supremacist. But of course he’s antagonized Antifa, and that’s a recipe for disaster if you’re supposed to speak.

And so it was, dear readers, that when Ngo was supposed to speak on January 29 at the University of British Columbia on “Understanding Antifa (Anti-fascist) Violence”, the University canceled the event because of “campus safety and security”, which of course means they were worried about Antifa not only deplatforming Ngo, but trashing the place. Read about it at this article from the Vancouver Sun (click on screenshot):

Now in the University’s defense, the group sponsoring Ngo’s talk, the Free Speech Club, is “not funded by the school’s Alma Mater Society and is considred independent of the university.” But balance that against the fact that UBC is a public university and, especially, that the Free Speech Club had already booked the event on the UBC campus and paid a booking deposit, with the talk confirmed by the University. The University’s cancellation occurred on December 20.

And the reasons for the cancellation are that UBC not only feared for the safety of its people, but couldn’t afford the cost of security. Statements like these don’t make me feel good about their commitment to free speech:

. . . a free expression expert said he believes the school isn’t stifling free speech, as The Free Speech Club is alleging, and doesn’t have a duty to host an event if it isn’t part of the university’s academic mission.

“The speaker has every freedom of expression right to express his views. This group of students has every freedom of expression right to find a place to hold an event to let him express his views. It’s just the university doesn’t have an obligation to be that place,” said James Turk, director of Ryerson University’s Centre for Free Expression.

Except that the University had already agreed to host the talk, and took a deposit for it. It’s weaselly to renege on that commitment because you’re afraid of trouble. Canceling talks in such a way is a terrible precedent, sending the message to everyone—but especially the Left, which is responsible lately for most disruptions and deplatformings—that if you threaten to make trouble, you can shut up your opponents.

Ron Holton, the university’s chief risk officer, said in an emailed statement that campus safety and security is the primary concern, and the school does risk assessments to evaluate the impact that event bookings could have on the campus community.

“The assessment in this case determined the safety and security of UBC students, faculty, staff and infrastructure was at risk if the event was allowed to proceed,” he said, noting the event was cancelled “in order to safeguard the safety and security of our community.”

This is an open message from UBC to Antifa that “if you make enough threats, we’ll shut down any speaker you oppose.”  After all, what does it matter if a club is private or public if the University has the view that if a talk is “dangerous”, it can be canceled? My own view is if the University commits to holding a talk, it is responsible for security, and shouldn’t saddle those who schedule “controversial” speakers with the extra costs. After all, the Free Speech Club has hosted people from all sides of the political spectrum, including UBC professors. But, as the Free Speech Club director said, “It’s just whenever we host a right winger, it turns into this huge volcano.”

And that’s true. If you look at FIRE’s “disinvitation database”, which tallies all campus deplatformings and disruptions in the U.S., you’ll find that when the ideology of the deplatformers ideologues could be identified, 17 came from the Right and 31 from the Left—almost a 2:1 ratio. This has been the case for a decade or more.

It’s shameful that UBC, once committed to hosting a speaker who, after all, has something to say to people (Ngo is no Milo Yiannopoulos), decides to renege on grounds of “safety.” But the Free Speech Club isn’t letting this rest:

The club is represented by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, which issued a letter to UBC president Santa Ono on Dec. 31, asking that the event be reinstated. The centre gave the university until Jan. 10 to respond.

In the letter to Ono, lawyer Marty Moore called the university’s decision “unreasonable.”

“It is an alarming betrayal of the foundational pillar of higher education — the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. Furthermore, it signals automatic acquiescence to the ‘heckler’s veto,’ which will embolden threats from those who oppose the very notion of free expression,” Moore wrote.

The letter emphasizes UBC’s avowed commitment to academic freedom, but ends with a sting: “Freedom must not be sacrificed to fear. We request that UBC act immediately to reinstate the Event. Please respond no later than January 10,2A20. Failure to reinstate the Event will necessitate legal recourse.”

Finally, it looks as if there have been several deplatformings or attempted incidents of censorship in Canada recently. The Sun describes a few:

The university’s policies came under scrutiny last summer when it hosted an event with Jenn Smith, who has campaigned against the use of the sexual orientation and gender identity, or SOGI, resources in B.C. schools. The program is designed to promote a more inclusive environment for queer students.

Smith, who is transgender but uses masculine pronouns, has said he doesn’t promote hate. His events are hosted by the Canadian Christian Lobby.

Similar talks were cancelled at Douglas College and Trinity Western University, but the university defended its decision to hold the talk, citing its “commitment to freedom of expression.”

The debate about free expression hit Simon Fraser University this fall, after a faculty member booked an event at its downtown Vancouver campus called “How media bias shapes the gender debate.” The event was criticized because it featured writer Meghan Murphy, who espouses anti-transgender views.

Although university provost John Driver said in a statement that while the school didn’t endorse the views expressed, it supported the right of faculty and other SFU community members to engage in free speech within the limits of the law.

In the end, the SFU event was cancelled by the sponsor “for security reasons” and relocated.

Earlier in the year, a speaking event with Murphy at the central branch of the Vancouver Public Library drew protesters and prompted the Vancouver Pride Society to ban the library from entering the 2019 pride parade.

The library’s policy states that it “will not restrict freedom of expression beyond the limits prescribed by Canadian law,” even if those who use the library’s spaces express ideas that are contrary to the library’s vision and values.

I tend to think of Canada as more liberal than the U.S., and by “liberal” I mean that they should tolerate free speech more readily. I should have known better because, after all, Canada does have “hate speech” laws. These are stricter than U.S. laws, for Canadian law prohibits publicly inciting hatred against any identifiable group, with “identifiable groups” including “any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression or mental or physical disability”.

While hatred like that is reprehensible, I don’t advocate its abolition because this is truly a slippery slope. For example, Ernst Zündel was convicted twice in Canada for Holocaust denialism, though both convictions were eventually overturned. I happen to think that it’s useful to allow Holocaust denialists a platform, and a platform without disruption, so that they can present their case. As I’ve often said, it’s only by hearing their arguments, which are slippery and can be superficially convincing, that we ourselves are able to find counterevidence that of course shows the Holocaust happened and that Hitler wanted it. And every generation needs to understand the arguments and counterarguments. You don’t eliminate Holocaust denialism by banning it; you eliminate it by allowing it to be publicly challenged. 

And likewise with any argument that is not completely wacko but doesn’t comport with the prevailing ideology. They should be heard, and then met with counterspeech.

O Canada!

 

Strong pushback attends Quebec’s proposed ban on wearing of religious symbols by government employees

April 11, 2019 • 12:33 pm

According to many sources, including the CBC article below (click on screenshot), Quebec has proposed a bill (“Bill 21,” which I can’t seem to find on the Internet) that, designed enforce secularity, bans all public servants, including teachers, judges, police officers, and other government officials, from wearing religious symbols. These banned symbols include hijabs, turbans, yarmulkes, and crosses. The bill also requires citizens to uncover their faces when their use public services like municipal transit and the courts (and presumably, though I don’t know for sure, banks). Bill 21 hasn’t yet been passed.

This bill has not yet been enacted, but there’s been substantial protest, with, according to the Montreal Gazette, many more groups against it than for it, even though the Quebecois (is that the plural?) seem more evenly divided. On the plus side one can argue that it helps preserve a secular society, so that religion isn’t entangled with the government. Certainly a policewoman in a hijab would not conform to uniform standards, though I don’t have strong objections to a hijab or a yarmulke hidden under a uniform hat. In this view, government officials must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s: a secular dress on the job.

On the negative side, it’s possible that a lot of the sentiment behind this bill is based on bigotry against Muslims, and there are many of them in the province who migrated to Canada from Islamic, French-speaking countries. Religious people are also objecting to the bill on the general grounds that it shows bias against religion, though I don’t pay as much attention to those objections as to ones that suggest it’s singling out just one faith. The Gazette link above details all the various objections, and there were big protests in Montreal (largely Muslims but also some Jews) denouncing Bill 21.

In general, I think the bill is pretty good but not perfect, and I can think of some quibbles. Should teachers also doff their religious symbols in class? I’m pretty much neutral on that one, though leaning in favor of “yes.” I also think it’s more important to have your face uncovered in banks and courts than on buses.  To the objection, “People should be able to wear what they want,” I respond, “There are uniforms mandated for some jobs.” To those who say, “Well, teachers and judges don’t have uniforms mandated except for robes on the judges,” I respond, “But should a child or a defendant worry that they’ll get a fair trial or a bias-free education if the authority figure is flaunting their religion?”

Finally, if religious symbols/clothing can be completely hidden on government officials, I don’t see any problem with it. That allows people to still sport symbols of their faith but not make the public worry that they may be biased, and this solution still effects a separation of one’s job from one’s faith.

The bill is obviously controversial, so I’ll put up a poll with an alternative to the ban with is a “modified ban”, and if you favor that you can explain in the comments. But I’d appreciate comment on this whatever your view.

 

h/t: Stephen