Judgementally Poor

Well, there go my illusions. I'd felt that U. of O. president Allan Rock had somehow been blindsided by a rather un-astute far-too-assiduous underling who'd presumptuously written to American political speaker Ann Coulter on behalf of the University of Ottawa administration in an insultingly patronizing admonishment that warned her off her usual methodology of demonstrating free speech aptitudes laced with half-humorous put-downs.

All right, wholly humorous, but demonstrating in the process a lack of empathy for the poor sods unwary enough to (belligerently) place themselves in her telescopically-unerring gunsight.

There ya go - from the outset he was fully engaged and, sigh, in command. Having given his assent to the forwarding of that zinger email with its clearly threatening undertones. Free speech yes, but only the kind of free speech that the university is prepared to tolerate. Otherwise, dontchaknow, Canada has laws against the spewing of hate-speech.

Well, Ms. Coulter received quite a lesson in hate-speech, only she was the recipient not the disher-out. And how does that benefit Canada and the students with enquiring minds at that university? No, not the close-minded ones, those who had clearly intended to attend with a view to establishing their own opinion of the topic at hand, after measuring what they heard from the speaker. In any event, it's gone, it's history, it's done with.

And a clearly chastened (we would think) U. of O. president has re-thought the trajectory of events, from his first having been approached by the students' association whose devotion to political correctness could not countenance her speaking engagement, and his refusal to accede to their request to stop her speaking engagement, to his reaction when he looked up her website, and his following use of "intemperate language", in speaking of her to his colleagues.

Obviously leaving them with the impression that he was somewhat less than impressed with her political ideology and its expression, obviously leaving the way clear for his vice-present of university affairs, Francois Houle to address a scathingly condemnatory admonition to her. "It was sent on behalf of the administration with my knowledge, so I share responsibility", acknowledged Allan Rock in an interview conducted by the Citizen earlier this week. "I acknowledge that there were other and better ways of achieving the letter's purpose."

Yes, there certainly were. Inclusive of just letting things go. We don't leap on every controversial speaker invited to ventilate opinion on controversial subjects unless they truly are hate mongers - and even then the advisability of doing so is questionable, since through the ruckus that usually ensues they're given far more visibility given the resulting news reportage and public response, than if they'd gone ahead and unburdened themselves at the scheduled event.

Ms. Coulter did not, after all, advocate deporting all immigrants who might pose a risk to public security; seriously, how many could fit on a flying carpet?

"It could be seen as having a chilling effect and they say there is some selectivity if you send it to some speakers and not others. I accept those criticisms." The university, he explained is engaging in the development of a new policy on free speech based on the university's "collective view" of what constitutes free speech.

Shouldn't the collective view of any university in a free, liberal democracy honour the general principles of free speech as set down in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? And reflect the general view within society and under the law of what constitutes free speech?
If any of society's institutions might be expected to hold to the right of individuals, organizations or groups of people to speak freely, and make themselves available to critical commentary post-speech, it might be thought to be a university setting.

There does need to be a distinction between hateful agitation exemplified by hideous slander with a view to demonizing a target, and those who give their honest and balanced views on matters of public interest, however. It's a tough balancing act, but isn't that what we have hate laws for to begin with, not to be confused with non-legal entities given free reign to freely pronounce upon, inspire fear into and heap whopping fines on people going about their ordinary day-to-day business expressing opinions that may be discriminatory but nowhere near broaching hate speech territory...?

People do have opinions, and we do have a valued public atmosphere receptive to hearing them out. Or not, by simply absenting oneself from the event, while those interested in the speaker and her/his message are free to attend a scheduled speaking event. Events like "Israeli Apartheid Week" skid dangerously close to hate speech through an unbalanced highlighting of personal apprehensions fed by racially-motivated overtones of discord.

Much like the Sikh festival parade honouring Sikh separatist extremists as martyrs for the cause of an independent Khalistan to be carved out of India's Punjab region. Interesting that they're not calling for Pakistan's Punjab region - where in fact, Sikhism's most worshipped heritage sites are located - to give up part of its territory on behalf of Sikhs' wish to have their own state.

Add to that the clear violent threats issued against an Indo-Canadian MP and MPP because of their anti-terror stand, and there's is hate-mongering in bilious full-blown terrorism within Canada. These are matters that should have nothing to do with Canada; the importation into the country of disputes, violent in nature and complex beyond simple explanation. Resulting in stark divisions within Canadian society.

Had Allen Rock not encouraged his provost to his incandescently-irate confrontational style of communication, which itself, made public, encouraged the student association's "anti-free speech" body to rally their troops and threaten violence, none of the newsworthy controversy that raged around the university having the end result internationally of presenting it as extremely feeble-minded, would have occurred.

Act in haste, repent at leisure.