Tag: freedom of speech

Categories
News

Arts and Science Federation of Associations (ASFA) council voted to bar Jordan Peterson from ever being featured at any of their events, indefinitely

Over 60 participants attended the council meeting that voted to bar the controversial Canadian intellectual.

Did you hear that rumour during the winter break that the Arts and Science Federation of Associations (ASFA) was planning on inviting Jordan Peterson to speak at an event?

It caused quite a stir: hundreds of students spoke out in different ways for, and against, the famed and controversial Canadian clinical psychologist being featured at the university.

But the story of Peterson taking the spotlight at ASFA came to a close at the association’s Dec. 16 regular council meeting, when a majority of the council voted against platforming Peterson, in-person or in any medium, forever.

Minutes of the ASFA executive meeting on Nov. 25 reveal that the initial idea, proposed by Student Life Coordinator Natalie Jabbour, was to invite Peterson as a speaker on mental health during the winter semester.

“One of my ideas was to invite Jordan Peterson as a speaker. I know he’s a controversial speaker but I think he has brilliant ideas on psychology. I messaged his manager yesterday,” stated Jabbour at the meeting.

Curiously, Jabbour later told The Concordian she did not intend on organizing an event that featured Peterson, despite contacting his manager. Her intention was solely to discuss her event ideas during the winter semester, which also included suggesting another enterprise called “The School of Life,” an educational company that gives life advice.

Following the meeting, several executives shared news of Jabbour’s proposal through personal messages, emails to the student media, and posts on social media.  The news spread like wildfire.

Various posts, hundreds of emails and signatures on a petition were shared online to support both opinions.

However, Peterson is not available for any guest speaking engagements at the moment, according to his public speaking and engagements contact.

Since he is unavailable, Jabbour decided to change the event from being about mental health support for students featuring Peterson, to an event solely about Peterson and freedom of speech.

The new event discussed at the council was called “Diversity of Views in Academics at Concordia University.” Organized by ASFA’s Student Life Committee, the event would have been moderated by a Concordia professor, who would help guide the discussion as students watched, and then critiqued, the subject matter.

It would have showcased Peterson in some format, either through a speech, lecture, or written material.

Before the deciding vote to bar Peterson, the council debated for over three hours whether the association should even consider hosting Peterson. ASFA executives and councillors, several students and alumni, participated in the over-attended meeting to speak on the rumoured event.

Opinions were divided between people who thought Peterson’s rhetoric should be protected by freedom of speech ideals and the need to hear different opinions on campus, versus those that thought the responsible course of action is to ban the speaker, citing his rhetoric as harmful and discriminatory.

This reflected the same debate — and backlash — which the University of Toronto professor became internationally known for in the first place. Back in 2016, he refused to use non-gendered pronouns and spoke out against Canada’s Bill C-16, which was only at it’s proposal stage at the time, to add gender identity and expression to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.

He feared that refusing to use someone else’s preferred pronouns would be classified as hate speech under the new amendment, and this would infringe on the freedom of Canadians.

Those who spoke in favour of Peterson at the meeting did not address his controversial statements. Instead, they pointed to the importance of having a civil discussion.

According to an ASFA executive who requested to remain anonymous, while these events would feature Peterson, they weren’t about him, they were about freedom of expression on campus.

They told The Concordian they have noticed an increasingly hostile environment at Concordia, particularly in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, with certain groups of students feeling “disenfranchised.” This individual is “concerned over legitimately not being able to say what’s on their mind.”

According to the source, this has become a widespread issue at the university, manifesting as “hostility towards certain ideas … that’s aimed at censoring and blocking people.”

When asked to provide an example of this hostility, or an even example of the types of ideas being ostracized, the source refused.

The purpose of the events, according to the source, would be to encourage ideas, not censoring or suppressing information over people’s feelings – no “cancelling,” with the hope of improving critical thinking and discourse on campus.

The idea of freedom of speech on campus and fighting against the cancelling of other opinions is not new, and Peterson is largely to thank for that.

A large part of Peterson’s platform was about freedom of speech, the end of political correctness, and the attempt to end or discourage Marxist/radical left ideology on campus.

Several gendered-non-conforming people who spoke at the council meeting said their identity was not up for debate.

Many described the harassment they’ve received over their choice of pronouns and lifestyle, and pointed out that rhetoric like Peterson’s had only helped to inflame the discrimination they’ve faced.

In a statement to the The Concordian, ASFA Communications Coordinator Carmen Levy-Milne said showcasing Peterson’s views would contradict the organization’s anti-discrimination regulations.

“It is morally inappropriate to suggest that a speaker who is openly sexist, islamophobic, homophobic, anti-Semitic, racist, and transphobic speak at our university … The suggestion to openly platform a speaker contradicts our Policy against Harassment, Discrimination, and Violence,” said Levy-Milne.

The motion to bar Peterson from being featured at the association followed this reasoning.

Proposed by Payton Mitchell, ASFA’s Mobilization Coordinator, the motion outlines that “Allowing Jordan Peterson to have this space would mean ASFA is directly facilitating an environment in which stochastic terrorism may be fostered here at Concordia.”

Peterson may no longer be platformed at ASFA or any of its member associations.

Peterson’s media representative at Penguin Random House Canada told The Concordian they had no comment.

 

Graphic by Taylor Reddam

 

Categories
Sports

China and the NBA: Lebron enters the fold

In light of the events leading to a frigid disconnect between the NBA and its connections with China, Lebron James was once again the one left to speak up for the players.

James publicly reprimanded the timing of Houston Rockets GM Daryl Morey, who on Oct. 4, tweeted “Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong.” The problem with Morey’s tweet is not that he was supporting freedom for a foreign country under a communist government, but rather that he did so while two teams, the Brooklyn Nets and Los Angeles Lakers, were in the thick of that very regime in China; where they were to play two exhibition games.

Ever since James spoke publicly about Morey’s terrible timing, he’s been under fire for being a supporter of censorship. People are saying his comments are financially motivated, as he doesn’t want to lose all the endorsement money that Nike makes him in China. Fox News paints him as “unamerican” in his position against Morey, who is simply speaking freely, and supporting freedom, as Americans do. HURRAH. This is so typical in more ways than one… Leave it to the USA to impose their constitution on countries halfway across the world, and to dumb down the issue at hand, using ideology as an excuse.

Let’s take a step back and look at this in a rational, practical way.

James doesn’t hate free speech – all of his actions say otherwise. The man founded and funded a public elementary school in his home town of Akron, Ohio, and promises free college tuition to every graduate. He is constantly a voice for the disenfranchised, a philanthropist to those in need, and is openly liberal. What James hates is loose-lipped executives sitting in their ivory towers far, far away, who stir the pot while he’s sitting in it. Despite the tweet only existing for several minutes before being deleted, it sparked a controversy in a country with a population of over 1.3 billion people.

The controversy caused outrage, and hostility. Lebron and his team, as well as the Nets, were simply there to play basketball, and grow the game on an international level. All of a sudden, they’re on the front lines of an international conflict and media storm, where they could have potentially been in political, or even physical danger. What if the Chinese government wouldn’t let them leave? What if Chinese loyalists became violent?

Now, thankfully, those things didn’t happen, but they very well could have. Instead, they experienced a different kind of backlash: The wrath of corporate China. The Chinese broadcast of the two games on their network, CCTV, was cancelled. Tickets became hard to come by.  All corporate logos were taken off the hardwood. Community events involving the players were cancelled. Chinese apparel brands suspended their relations with the NBA. The Chinese Basketball Association, run by Rockets legend Yao Ming, severed all ties with the Rockets. Chinese streaming service Tencent banned Houston from their service. The team’s official apparel is no longer available in China. China has basically censored the hell out of the NBA.

Like many NBA superstars, Lebron James has been visiting China in the offseason for over 10 years on behalf of Nike, who carries his signature shoe and apparel lines. Of course it benefits him financially, why shouldn’t it? Would you spend weeks in China doing promotion for free? I didn’t think so. I assure you the league doesn’t mind either, because it popularizes their sport in a massive market.

More important than money, James is the most impactful ambassador for the sport since Michael Jordan made the NBA an international phenomenon. He cares more about the state of the game than he does his bank account, which is doing fine, I promise. The complete destruction of all the inroads the NBA has built into China is more likely what doesn’t sit well with him. All that time spent globalizing the game, and instilling its values in parts of the world that need them, evaporated in a moment’s notice with a seven word tweet.

But wait, here’s the cherry on top: In an attempt to either limit the damage, or save face with China, the NBA has censored the game in their own way. Fans holding up “Free Tokyo” signs in Philadelphia and Washington have had their posters taken from them by stadium officials. Reporters have been silenced in asking questions about the controversy in Houston. Hypocrisy at its best, right? How is James the one being criticized for being an advocate of conciliatory speech, when the league is clearly guilty of that very thing?

This is why sports and politics should never intersect. Sports bring people together, politics have a tendency to be divisive. James wants Morey to let the game speak for itself, and so do I.

 

Graphic by Salomé Blain

Categories
Opinions

The political left cannot prevent freedom of speech

Photo by Yuzvir from Creative Commons.

How many conservatives are being silenced by leftist radicals

Divisions between the left and right often open the floor to dialogue. These dialogues are crucial, as they allow both sides to express their beliefs and opinions in a civilized manner.

However, I feel that rather than challenging the opposition with their own ideological views, the left supporters are simply silencing any discussion that doesn’t conform to their beliefs.

Look at conservative speakers, like political commentator Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos, the technology editor for Breitbart News, a conservative news and opinion website. They are currently on separate tours across the United States, delivering speeches and holding events at major universities.

At these talks, both Shapiro and Yiannopoulos speak openly of their beliefs and values. They both answer questions from the audiences afterwards, and many events go by peacefully as students hear out their opinions.

However, in many instances, leftists protest their university’s choice to give these speakers a platform. Some left-wing individuals even purchase tickets to these events and disrupt the speakers by screaming and shouting, according to multiple news outlets, including the Washington Post.

For example, at DePaul University in Chicago, Yiannopoulos was scheduled to give a talk as a part his “Dangerous Fa***t” tour (Yiannopoulos identifies as homosexual), when protesters stormed the stage and shut down the event. Videos on YouTube show protesters rushing the stage and threatening to punch Yiannopoulos in the face and disrupting the entire event. Eventually the police showed up in order to tame the chaos.

Similar instances have taken place in Canada as well. Back in 2010, conservative media personality Ann Coulter was due to speak at the University of Ottawa until nearly 2000 protesters gathered at the venue and created a security issue, according to CBC News. Coulter is quite controversial and has been known to say openly xenophobic and islamophobic comments. She has stated that all Muslims should be barred from airlines, and instead use “magic carpets,” according to the same report. No matter the content of her rhetoric, doesn’t she have the right to express herself?

Many people on the left side are hypocrites. They claim to believe in free speech—so long as it reflects their side of the argument. Yet conservatives, and others, have just as much of a right to express themselves. Is that not what’s so great about living in a democratic society? What is the point of having free speech if it only applies to a select few?

I understand that not all liberals and leftists are trying to silence the right, but I believe liberalism must be challenged.  

Just because you are offended by an open discussion of ideas that challenges your beliefs, doesn’t mean a dialogue should be shut down. After all, if we keep silencing individuals who speak their mind, are we truly living in a democracy?

Categories
Opinions

Freedom of speech fused with the right to protest

Photo by William Fox taken from a Black Lives Matter rally in Montreal back in April

Violent protests are inciting further chaos instead of looking at the root cause of the problem

Last month on Aug.  26, while the American national anthem was being played at an NFL preseason game at California’s Levi’s Stadium, San Francisco 49ers’ quarterback Colin Kaepernick refused to stand.

He told the media after the game that he sat out the anthem to protest the recent acts of police brutality in “a country that oppresses black people and people of colour.” Last week, USA TODAY reported the union of police officers who normally patrol the 49ers’ stadium threatened to boycott in response to Kaepernick’s protest.

The exchange adds tension to an already strained relationship between police and those associated with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, according to an article from the BBC.

BLM supporters long been calling for systematic reforms amongst police forces in the US. Meanwhile on the other end of the spectrum, police view these supporters as violent criminals who wish to incite violence against organized authority.  

Some BLM supporters have resorted to violence— but such acts are cases of the few spoiling it for the many. Profiling every supporter as violent is no different than blaming every police officer for the heavy-handed ways of the trigger-happy few.

Last July, I attended a Black Lives Matters gathering at Cabot Square— one of the first of its kind to be held in Montreal. Organizers were careful to call the event a “gathering,” a “rally” or a “meeting”—anything other than a “protest”.

It shows just how explosive the word “protest” is— not only here in Montreal, but around the world. The word elicits fear in the hearts of police who have watched protests snowball into riots—something those officers have every right to be afraid of. Unfortunately, there are some radicals and anarchists often spoil what should be a peaceful practice.

Instead of finding workable solutions, these individuals only worsen the problem. Violence only leads to more violence.

Earlier in the summer, six police officers were killed at a BLM rally in Dallas, Texas, which was widely reported in the media. The violence against the police force did not help the BLM movement and in fact spurred further debate and anger against those on either side.

According to a CNN report in late August, 6 U.S. police officers have been fatally shot this year. Needless to say, killing cops hasn’t fixed a corrupt system. It’s only torn apart families— whose only crime was having a police officer for a father, a mother, a daughter or a son.

Real change is hard because it takes time—something that radicals and anarchists are unwilling to understand. There is no get-rich-quick scheme for social change. It takes continued patience and resilience in the face of opposition.

As students, as teachers and as civilians, a protest is our only way to voice our pains. When we are violent, our voices become distorted and no one can hear what we have to say.

In 1955, when Rosa Parks was ordered to the back of the bus, she didn’t kick and scream and set fire to the bus. She quietly and stubbornly refused, making enough noise for Martin Luther King Jr. to hear her and carry her protest out into the streets and onward to revolution. She is the kind of protester we need to emulate today.

It is good advice to be flexible in our form of protest —be it sitting out during a national anthem or taking to the streets—but we must remain inflexible in our way: always peaceful, patient and persistent.

Exit mobile version