CAUT calls for resignation of "Science" Minister for interfering in academic conference on Israel/Palestine

Incredibly stupid on Goodyear's part. Do these neandrethals have any idea of the purpose of universities?

I agree that this is wrong.  I have no respect for the arguments of those who promote the so-called "one state solution" - it is at best a very naive utopianism - but if some academics want to have a conference about it should not be subject to political interference.  It may be an unpopular idea but people have the right to express it.

I also thought it was wrong for the protesters to try to stop Daniel Pipes from speaking at York a few years ago.  He is repugnant to me but he has a right to speak. 

Yes Unionist the government doing it is worse, I agree.

Speech gets shut down either way.

When the government does it, then you also have a corrupt government to deal with, but from the point of view of the exchange of ideas and academic freedom, it really doesn't matter who does the shutting down.

I'm not saying it's identical in every respect.  I said that [b]from the point of view of the exchange of ideas and academic freedom[/b] the effect is the same.

Similarly, while we may be more concerned with a government that executes citizens than by a citizen who does, from the point of view of the corpse, it's pretty much the same. And to continue your analogy, surely we would be interested in vigorously opposing both the government AND a citizen killing citizens, wouldn't we? I'd like to think we'd do the same in the case of speech, but we don't. And when it's "sometimes OK" to shut down speech that kind of dilutes the gravity of situations like this.

Sort of.  Actually, I wasn't as clear as I should have been.  The gravity of the situation, both in this case and in your example, is unaffected.  Shut down speech is shut down speech.

What I meant was the gravity of the pious concern.  In the case of Galloway, it was downright comical watching him bray about freedoms and rights he himself disrespects when it's convenient to him.  Similarly, Harper braying about Bob Rae being barred from Sri Lanka is kind of funny right now too, for the same reason.

I think it would be so much easier to get on board with promoting a free exchange of ideas at universities if that were a consistent goal.  Is there any reason it can't be?  Is there any real reason why we couldn't simply say that outside of the reach of hate crime laws, no speech, presentation, film screening, public appearance or conference at a Canadian university should be shut down by anyone?   That would include this conference, and it would also include Pipes.  Could we live with that, or no?

Good for CAUT. Too bad they were mute on the visit of George Bush to U of A. Ditto CFS

Quote:

 What's good about vigilantes deciding that someone should not be allowed to speak? Why is that something we should support?

Because, first of all, it's not vigilanteism; it's their freedom of speech, their freedom of assembly, and their right to protest. Secondly, because their judgment was impeccable: Daniel Pipes is the lowest of the low; a racist liar and a fascist who does not hesitate to silence others, given an opportunity.

The problem with that is that once you endorse the idea that a group of people should be permitted to disrupt, block, hijack or prevent a legal event under the dubious umbrella of "free speech" or "freedom of assembly" it becomes that much harder to tell, say, Freddy Phelps and the Westboro nutjobs that it's not OK when they do it.  As appealing as it sounds to have a world in which the only speech is speech I approve of, I think overall I'd rather have who can speak and who cannot decided by the law than by a group of individuals.

And I suspect that all it would take for you to agree with me, albeit temporarily, would be to change whose ox is being gored.

B'nai Brith is really having a bad year. Everything they've been attempting lately, banning Seven Jewish Children, banning QuAIA from the Pride Parade and now this has backfired horribly on them and undermined their position and the credibility of Israel's advocates in Canada.

I think that this is very simple no academic and no academic conferernce should be banned. I am against all academic boycotts whether they be sponsored by friends or those i would consider adversaries

actually I did. their should be no interference. I do not care if it is a Canadian university program, a Canadian University professor or a prof from Israel or Britain etc

I was against the british boycott call, and am against a Canadian boycott call and am against the government stating what can happen at a university campus. The only caveat is if proof of violation of laws can be shown which in this case they cant be

Nice try unionist but guess what we are on the same side here.

"This sham of a conference, which questions the Jewish state's very right to exist, promises to be a veritable 'who's who' of anti-Israel propagandists," Frank Dimant, the vice president of B'nai Brith Canada, said in statement. "This is not an issue of academic freedom, despite the great lengths the university is going to, to try to paint it in that light. It is purely and simply about delegitimizing the Jewish state and its supporters here at home - an exercise that runs far afield of so-called legitimate academic discourse."

B'nai Brith also stated that the conference will host speakers who "advocate for the destruction of the Jewish state," "reject compromise" and "justify terrorism."

Ed Beck, president of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, said yesterday that it was clear that, "the conference premise and configuration represents a clear bias against Israel and allows for a discussion of [its] delegitimization." While his nonprofit organization has not taken an official stance on this conference, Beck said many its nearly 20,000 members were concerned that "vulnerable institutions such as York University only [give] a seemingly increasing sense of academic and intellectual legitimacy to anti-Israel forces which, in the long run, constitutes a cumulative, serious debilitating attack on Israel in terms of erosion of support."

"The speakers range from the extreme left - those who say Israel should be wiped off the map - to Israelis who are quite hesitant about going," Gerald Steinberg, the executive director of the Israeli watchdog NGO Monitor, told Haaretz. "Some of them said they realized that it'll be a mini Durban," he added, referring to the controversial UN-sponsored conference on racism."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1094640.html