The Value of a Vote in Ontario? No Less Than $730

Ontario Liberals crassly trying to buy votes

Students in Ontario following the ongoing provincial election were recently alerted to a remarkable fact:

To the Liberal Party of Ontario, their vote is worth money. So much so that Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal Party are willing to blatantly buy their votes for anywhere from $730 to $1600 per year.

In a mass email sent out to University of Windsor students, someone working on behalf of the Liberal Party spammed in favour of the party's proposed education policy. The specific language of that email lays out in no uncertain terms how the Liberal Party is appealing to these students:

"So [the Liberal Party] are going to support all middle-class Ontario families with a 30% across-the-board post-secondary undergraduate tuition grant.That means - every year - the families of five out of six students will save $1600 per student in university and $730 per student in college.

Neither the NDP nor the Conservatives have an education plan - nothing! Shame on the NDP and the Conservatives for not caring about students, higher education, or the future of Ontario.

We are in battle for our future and you get to help make the choice on October 6th, 2011. As many of you may know, we are currently in a provincial election. On one side there are the NDP and the Conservatives who want to take Ontario off track - cutting healthcare, education, and destroying jobs.

On the other side, there is the Ontario Liberal Party, who is fighting to ensure that we continue to have the best education in Canada, the strongest healthcare, and that we create jobs for everyone. We need to stay on the right track because our future depends on it.

PS. If you are in 4th year and don’t think this amazing policy will apply to you - think again. By voting Liberal, every student will receive half the amount in January - that is $800!"

To describe a blatant vote-buying scheme as an education plan is beyond facetious. It lacks any kind of insight into what is continuously driving up the costs of post-secondary education across Canada and certainly lacks the foresight to address those issues.

Instead, it simply promises to send a government cheque to university students once a year, every year, until the next election. That means that the Liberal Party has offered to buy the vote of post-secondary students for anywhere ranging from $2,920 to $6,400.

And all of this without ever having addressed, or even attempted to solve, a single problem related to the cost of post-secondary education. Finding ways to reduce the costs of providing post-secondary education in the first place would solve this problem once and for all. The Liberals' proposed policy simply shifts the costs away from the student to the taxpayer.

Any political party that respects taxpayers and aims to spend tax dollars responsibly would be absolutely ashamed to have put such a crassly irresponsible and flagrantly self-interested policy forward.

It's political bribery at its finest, and desperation from a party for whom the poll numbers are not what they're telling people they are.

It Wasn't About Integrity, It Was About Politics

University of Winnipeg group falsely dresses their political grievances in language of integrity

A tiny group of University of Winnipeg students made what they must regard as a remarkable statement recently -- but one that was really only remarkable in the brazen extent of its own self-edification:

They think the University of Winnipeg should only grant honourary degrees to individuals who agree with their political views.

That was the basic theme that emerged out of a protest by a miniscule group calling itself the Coalition for Integrity in Academic Accolades. As is the case with so many members of Canada's far left, their definition of integrity is one that begins and ends with their own political views.

"[Toews’] policies are in direct opposition to the notions of compassion, justice, acceptance, inclusiveness, human rights and equality," said Brittany Thiessen. "As a university which values these notions, I along with many others, believe that honouring this man is unacceptable."

Thiessen's Care2 profile largely speaks for itself. There, Thiessen declares that her aim is "to promote and protect human rights and equality for all. End discrimination and social/economic/racial/gender/sexual inequality worldwide."

Spoken like a true grievance monger.

Among Thiessen and company's other grievances are Toews vote against same-sex marriage, his government's plan to build new prisons, and his acknowledgement that some of the Tamil migrants that arrived by boat this past summer could have been terrorists.

The Winnipeg Sun's brief photo essay tells one all one needs to know about the objections raised by these individuals.

"Ask me what Vic Toews said during his speech at the national pro-life conference," reads one sign. "Ask me about how Vic Toews supports an American-style war on drugs," reads another.

The latter sign is categorically false -- Conservative anti-drug policies provided additional funds for treatment of drug addicts while focusing enforcement toward those who distribute drugs. Compare this to American drug policies which are primarily aimed at users.

Moreover, the other sign-holders outrage that Toews would disagree with her on abortion really only casts her reaction as part of the effort by pro-abortion groups to silence their opponents on university campuses.

The Valedictorian for the U of W's convocation, Erin Larson, took her speech as an opportunity to air her own grievances against the honour.

“While I’m immensely proud to be an alumnus of the University of Winnipeg and extremely honoured to have been selected valedictorian, I have to admit I’m not proud to share the stage with everyone who is on it today,” Larson -- piercings and all -- complained. “I feel the University of Winnipeg has recently suffered a profound loss of integrity due to the actions of the administration.”

Former Liberal Foreign Affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy was not impressed.

“I think it’s important to point out that I don’t think Mr Toews used his platform to express political views,” Axworthy said. “He talked about what it meant to be a student. I think that was the unfortunate part, that [the valedictory address] was used as a way to make a political statement, not a statement on behalf of the graduates.”

“I respect the way the students had a quiet protest and I think it was a respectable way of doing it, but I wouldn’t say the same for the valedictorian,” he concluded.

Simply put, the protest against Toews' honourary degree wasn't about integrity at all. It was merely about politics: about one group's attempt to enshrine their own political views within the university administration to the exclusion of all others.

God forbit that the University of Winnipeg would want to honour Vic Toews, an alumnus, with an honourary master of laws degree for becoming the Minister of Public Safety.

Regina 16 Professors Can't Take the Heat...

...And Murray Dobbin thinks they shouldn't have to

If there's anything Canadians should have come to expect out of Rabble.ca's Murray Dobbin, it should be the left-wing lunatic screed. God knows he's offered little else since becoming senior contributing editor at Rabble.

In his most recent screed, Dobbin complains about criticisms of the now-infamous Regina 16 at the University of Regina who recently co-signed a letter to U of R President Vianne Timmons recommending that the institution not participate:

"For their actions in trying to defend the university's reputation from an association with blatant jingoism, the fifteen Profs have been treated to a wave of attacks from assorted bottom-feeders on Canada's right. One of the Profs wrote me that he and the others have been subjected to '..a vilification campaign directed in part by right-wing politicians in the Conservative Party and the Saskatchewan Party [the Saskatchewan equivalent of Harper's Conservatives]. As a result, we have been at the receiving end of a wave of vitriolic hate mails, full of terrible language and demands that we be fired from our university positions.'

This kind of mindless verbal violence is reminiscent of the hate campaigns being fomented by the extreme right of the Republican Party in the US against Obama -- campaigns that do not even bother to hide their racism. It is indicative of how easy it is to undermine and gradually change a political culture rooted in a desire for peace and a suspicion of militarism."

The "political culture" of which Dobbin speaks of is, of course, his political culture, which he so often mistakes for that of all of Canada.

The mentality of Murray Dobbin, Jeffrey Webber and company is the same mentality found at the heart of the far-left loonies who insist that Canada discontinue Remembrance Day as it is allegedly militaristic holiday.

We shouldn't benefit the children of fallen soldiers because that glorifies imperialistic war. We shouldn't devote a day to remember those who died in war because that glorifies imperialistic war.

Another one of the professors has raised the objection that the scholarship would make it more difficult for them to criticize specific wars.

“It conflates heroism with the death of individuals who are in the military service and we think that the death of individuals is always a tragic matter, but we think that heroism is something different,” said co-signatory Joyce Green. “When you attach heroism to the deaths of the military, it makes it very difficult, maybe impossible for us to talk about what’s going on, what the nature of our military engagement is. In other words, it shrinks the space for democratic discussion and criticism of military policy in Canada and in the university.”

But apparently Green has never stopped to think that attaching the label of "imperialism" to wars also shrinks the space for democratic discussion and defence of military policy in Canada.

It seems that kind of shrinkage is A-OK with people like Green, Webber and Dobbin.

Dobbin writes:

"Project Hero is purely political and has nothing to do with looking after 'our troops.' It is a transparent effort to stop people from thinking about the meaning of our occupation of Afghanistan and our ugly collaboration with US imperial interests.

Project Hero cynically exploits the very soldiers it pretends to be supporting -- soldiers who are dying, being wounded and having their lives changed forever in large part because of the lobbying of former general Rick Hillier to take on a combat role that those soldiers were ill-equipped to handle -- both in terms of training and equipment. Over 140 Canadian soldiers dead and hundreds more seriously wounded so Hillier could go out and talk about 'killing scumbags.'"

Of course, what Dobbin overlooks is that rejecting Project Hero out of disdain for what he deems "imperialistic war" accomplishes the same act. In accepting these objections, the university would be effectively granting an air of officiality to the views of these particular professors, and would disrupt any critical thinking about these professors' claims of imperialism.

Then again, one imagines that must be somehow different. In the mind of Murray Dobbin it always is.

Bill O'Reilly Nails It

It isn't often that Bill O'Reilly finds a surplus of praise at the Nexus, but viewing his interview with Now Magazine's Susan Cole, one can't help but avoid the conclusion that he managed to nail it.

If O'Reilly has one particular talent, it may be to use his reputation as a right-wing ideologue to flush out left-wing ideologues for precisely what they are.

In the case of Susan Cole, he accomplishes this with just one question: why can't Ann Coulter speak at a university campus?

The topic at hand, of course, was the recent cancellation of a Coulter speech scheduled for the University Ottawa under circumstances that seem to remain the matter of some dispute.

Cole insists that Coulter could speak at a right-wing think tank or at a lecture hall (although she doesn't elaborate on where one may find an off-campus lecture hall).

Cole's insistence that Coulter could speak anywhere but a university is very revelatory. It tells us precisely what Cole thinks the role of a university should be -- to disseminate views that she finds palatable, and lock any that she doesn't out.

For example, one would not that the University of Ottawa has no problem hosting a wide variety of anti-Israel speakers on its campus. One would even wonder if Francois Houle would send a letter like the one he sent to Ann Coulter to an individual like Syed Soharwardy, if he were to accept a speaking engagement at the University of Ottawa.

The public discourse on the topic of Coulter has always been a little peculiar. Rarely have the off-beat jokes and hyperbole of one individual been treated as such substantive fare for protest. In the case of Ann Coulter it can be difficult to tell what is offered sheerly in jest from what is truly objectionable -- there has certainly been some of both.

But when clear hyperbole is taken as cause for hate crime complaints it's become clear that Canada's human rights regimes have grown far beyond what should be considered tolerable by a free-thinking society.

It's time to start peeling back and reforming some of the "limits" on freedom of speech in Canada. That freedom shouldn't be one that can be practiced without consequence -- hate speech should still be prosecuted as a matter of criminal law -- but the use of human rights commissions as a method to freeze out speech that Francois Houle and Susan Cole don't like has to come to an end as quickly as possible.

When it does, many may look back on Bill O'Reilly's remarks on the difference between hyperbole and hate speech as the asteroid that led to the extinction of left-wing dinocaurs like Susan Cole.

Ann Coulter Set to Escalate the Free Speech War

Coulter's complaint to be most recent of numerous political stunts in CHRC

As the battle over Canada's Human Rights Commissions has gone on, one of the great tragedies over the matter has been the sheer number of times Canada's human rights commissions have been used to prepetrate political stunts.

The most recent of these stunts is set to be a complaint Ann Coulter has promised to file over the cancellation of her scheduled speech at the University of Ottawa.

“I’m sure the Human Rights Commission will get to the bottom of it,” Coulter announced. “I think I’m the victim of a hate crime here. Either what (Francois Houle) did was a hate crime, or the whole commission is BS.”

Houle, a provost of the University of Ottawa, wrote Coulter a letter recommending that she familiarize herself with the limits of free speech in Canada.

"We, of course, are always delighted to welcome speakers on our campus and hope that they will contribute positively to the meaningful exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of a great university campus," Houle wrote. "Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."

Ezra Levant, who has been accompanying Coulter on her speaking engagements, described the letter as a veiled threat.

University of Ottawa Students' Federation President Sheamus Wolfe has insisted that Coulter isn't welcome on the University of Ottawa campus. That particular veiled threat was made good on, as University of Ottawa officials cancelled the speech in fears that the protest could turn violent.

The venue for Coulter's speech had to be evacuated after a fire alarm was pulled.

The experience must have been frustrating for many of Coulter's admirers. Speeches by left-wing firebrands like Ward Churchill have taken place at many Canadian universities without terminal interruptions. During her Monday night speech at the University of Western Ontario, Coulter complained about a double standard that may facilitate such differences.

"It’s almost like there is one standard for conservatives and one completely different one for liberals," Coulter complained. "A word is either offensive or it’s not. In a world of political correctness, all words are banned unless they’re used against conservatives."

This is, of course, the language of self-imposed martyrdom. Coulter's remarks to a Muslim student at UNO seemed designed to provoke some sort of reaction, and she would up getting what she wanted.

Now, she clearly intends to use Canada's Human Rights Commission as a venue for a political stunt -- one likely not unlike the one Syed Soharwardy perpetrated against Levant, when he withdrew his complaint over Levant's publishing of the infamous Prophet Muhammad cartoons after Levant had spent an exorbitant amount of money defending against the complaint.

At the end of the day, however, Francois Houle and the University of Ottawa have given Coulter what she desires most: publicity, and means by which to elevate herself into martyrdom again.

In the soon-to-be-immortal words of Adrian McNair: way to go, bozos.




Other bloggers writing about this topic:

The Reaction - "Ann Coulter: Liberal"

Russ Campbell - "Ann Coulter: Right-wing Lightning Rod"

Just Right - "Ann Coulter and Free Speech in Canuckistan"

Don't Be So Bloody Sensitive

Liberals back FNUC out of "cultural sensitivity"

In an era in which being insufficiently sensitive to any number of things can result in a complaint to a human rights commission, a great many people are feeling pressure to twist themselves in the name of cultural sensitivity.

For the Liberal Party of Canada, the demands of cultural sensitivity also seem to include supporting the embattled First Nations University of Canada, which recently had its funding cut by the federal government and government of Saskatchewan.

At issue are numerous issues -- ranging from questions of academic freedom related to the search of computers (an arbitration board eventually found insufficient evidence for violation of academic freedom), governance issues related to the Board of Directors, and questions regarding financial mismanagement.

The FNUC board of governors recently offered a plan to solve some of the problems at the university, a plan of which Minister of Indian Affairs Chuck Strahl seems skeptical.

There are many good reasons to support an institution like FNUC.

Liberal House leader Ralph Goodale insists that FNUC should be supported because many of its students allegedly wouldn't continue their education due to an alleged lack of cultural sensitivity.

That isn't a terribly compelling reason to support FNUC.

To begin with, many of Canada's universities have Native Studies departments where students at institutions like the FNUC could study in an environment every bit as culturally sensitive as FNUC.

But one can't help but wonder what kind of "cultural sensitivity" it is that Goodale believes the FNUC supplies. Many aboriginal leaders have expressed disagreement and even outrage at the views of Tom Flanagan, who is an outspoken critic of the current model of first nations governance.

The answer to such criticisms is not to insulate students from them. Rather, the proper way to answer such criticisms is to debate them -- an approach taken by the University of Manitoba when students and faculty objected to a speech by Flanagan at the institution.

On the other hand, to insulate aboriginal students from criticisms of their governance model does them a great disservice -- it doesn't lead them to confront any of the numerous shortcomings of that model (including an absolultely massive democratic deficit) so that they may one day fix them.

So, the lesson for Ralph Goodale and the Liberal Party should be: don't be so bloody sensitive.

Sensitivity has its time and place -- a university campus is rarely one of them.

Why Mt Churchill Is the Wrong Hill to Die On

Ward Churchill acted unethically, dishonourably, and he paid the necessary price

When former University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill was fired for numerous cases of academic misconduct, it sparked numerous complaints from the far left.

Churchill had drawn unwelcome attention to himself by publishing an academically dubious essay in which he described the victims of 9/11 as "Little Eichmanns". Eventually, that attention led to the investigation of numerous cases of plagiarism and forgery by the University of Colorado professor.

He was even able to convince a jury that he had been fired for the essay, and not for his misconduct. The jury rule in his favour, but awarded him only a single dollar -- demonstrating that they had concluded that his "Little Eichmanns" essay was a factor in his firing, but that he had still committed academic misconduct.

More recently, Churchill has applied for reinstatement at the University of Colorado -- and he is being backed by the American Association of University Professors and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Both of these organizations, however, are making an egregious error by backing Churchill.

First off, the ACLU and AAUP may be shocked to learn that freedom of speech doesn't indemnify plagiarism. If it did, a great number of university students expelled for the act would have grounds to seek reinstatement at the institutions that expelled them.

It doesn't, and they do not.

But the AAUP in particular is doing itself a tremendous disservice by backing Churchill.

As Mitchell S Handelsmann points out, even if the "Little Eichmanns" essay was in any way a factor in Churchill's firing, it doesn't change the fact that he was guilty of academic misconduct:

"A few years ago, here in Colorado, Ward Churchill got into trouble for things he wrote about the 9/11 attacks. Politicians called for his ouster. Meanwhile, charges of academic misconduct started to surface, inlcuding plagiarism and fabricating facts. A faculty committee found evidence for this misconduct, and Churchill was fired from his job in 2007. In 2009 a jury decided that he was wrongfully fired for his essay about 9/11, but they only awarded him $1 in damages, perhaps because they recognized that he really did behave unethically. (As US News asked, what if you conduct a witch hunt and actually find a witch?)"

The stakes for the AAUP deal with public perceptions of university professors.

As Handelsmann notes, stories like Churchill's cast a pall over academia, making a great many more of them seem dishonest than actually are:

"The media does not report instances of exemplary ethical behavior; those stories would be too numerous and too boring. Thus, the pictures we get in the media are really skewed. We know that most professors are doing very good, very honorable, and very non-newsworthy things every day. So we're sometimes embarrassed but always hopeful."

Catapulting Ward Churchill's case into the national spotlight again would only case deeper aspersions over academia as an institution. Worse yet, it makes it appear as if the American Association of University Professors may approve of Churchill's conduct. It makes it seem as if the AAUP condones plagiarism and forgery.

The Ward Churchill case is the wrong hill for the AAUP to die on. Worse yet, the AAUP will harm the reputations of associated academics who don't deserve to have their repuations harmed in the name of defending a lionized figure of the far left.

Institutional Censorship of the Pro-Abortion Movement

Banning anti-abortion groups violates civil liberties

Across Canada, anti-abortion groups on various University campuses have been under fire.

Where pro-abortion groups fail and students' unions decline to run pro-abortion groups off campus, they settle for simply disrupting any events they disagree with.

In the latter case, it's censorship by deeply-institutionalized means.

Fortunately, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association is prepared to take a stand on the matter, they're preparing to intervene in a case involving the University of Victoria Student Society and an anti-abortion group by the name of Youth Protecting Youth.

The argument is that anti-abortion activism "inherently discriminates" against women.

It shouldn't be thought that the BCCLA necessarily agrees with Youth Protecting Youth -- they merely believe that their freedom of expression should be protected.

"We're pro-choice nuts over at the civil liberties association," explained BCCLA spokesman John Dixon. "We would like to persuade the university students society to relent -- that's the course we're pursuing for now."

"This is a public institution and an organ of the government of British Columbia. Students are forced to pay fees to fund the Students Society."

It's on that note that the members of Youth Protecting Youth pay funds to an organization that has acted to deny them the freedom to express themselves because pro-abortion busybodies like Joyce Arthur -- who is representing pro-abortion group Students for Choice in this matter -- believe that expression "inherently" oppresses them.

Dixon insists that the U Vic Students' Society is wrong to attempt to censor the group. He quite rightly notes that silencing Youth Protecting Youth doesn't in any way settle the abortion issue.

"They can't punish, denounce, discipline a group who, in a very civil way ... try to persuade people not to have abortions. It isn't as though the entire Western world has settled all these bioethical questions about the beginning of life and end of life -- they're live issues."

Barry Cooper has often theorized about what he calls the "embedded state". He describes the embedded state as politicized institutions that operate for the preservation of its own powers, often in support of partisan or ideological interests.

The behaviour of the students unions that rush to run anti-abortion groups off their campuses demonstrate that the embedded state is alive and well on university campuses across Canada.

These organizations have given themselves the power to censor student groups on their campus in direct contravention of civil liberties. It's entirely understandable that zealots like Joyce Arthur either do not understand this or simply don't care.

Fortunately, the BCCLA seems to be prepared to stand up to these organizations -- at least within the province of BC. The time is long overdue that civil liberties groups in other provinces take a similar stand.

Now, This is How These Matters Should be Handled

Opposition to Flanagan visit calmed with constructive dialogue

On University Campuses across North America, a disturbing number of vocal minorities have often learned that they can quiet viewpoints they don't want to be heard on campus if they just make enough noise.

Many of those who value free speech have long decried these incidents.

But in an episode that deserves every bit of attention it can possibly get, a recent visit by Tom Flanagan to the University of Manitoba -- which at first provoked a loud protest by groups that objected to Flanagan's stance on aboriginal affairs -- in the end wound up proceeding when the objecting groups were granted a public forum with Flanagan, wherein they could question him and comment on his ideas.

A greater victory for freedom of speech -- and for the intellectual climate of university campuses -- would be difficult to find.

Commending on the matter in the Winnipeg Free Press, Carson Jerema writes that "Scholarly relevance is the only criterion that should determine whether or not a speaker is suitable for a university audience."

"It has nothing to do with political appropriateness, as campus censors sometimes like to think," he continued. "Nor does it have anything to do with the lofty ideals of free expression that are so often, and erroneously, conflated with the business of teaching and learning."

"Universities are concerned with academic worth, not with ensuring an inclusive environment, or with providing a forum for everyone, as if universities were no different from street corners," he concluded.

He couldn't have been more right about that.

Sadly, not all of Canada's Universities are as enlightened. At various universities across Canada, speeches by Jose Ruba comparing abortion to the Holocaust are frequently disrupted by pro-abortion groups, who refuse him the opportunity to speak.

These protesters tend to categorically refuse to even hear Ruba's ideas. Certainly, anyone is entitled to take offense to the character of Ruba's ideas or to the interpretations that he draws. But that is not to say that such individuals have the right to silence someone based on that offense.

So even as those at the University of Manitoba who disagree with Tom Flanagan dealt with their disagreement in a calm, mature and constructive fashion by participating in a public debate, not everyone has come to share their wisdom.

Canada's Universities will all be much better off when they do.

Turnabout Has Got To Be Fair Play

Darwin, from the Creationists ought to be countered with Jesus, from the Darwinists

Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort did the intellectual discourse surrounding religion a few -- but not many -- favours when they took Brian Sapient and Kelly O'Connor from the Rational Response Squad and spanked them on national TV.

The debate, in which both sides exchanged some silly arguments over the question of whether or not God exists -- an insipid topic for a formal debate -- revealed Sapient and O'Connor for the vapid, pretentious and self-righteous thinkers that they are, and spoke droves about those who have chosen to fall into lock-step behind them in their so-called "Rational Response Squad".

Now Cameron and Comfort are replicating the feat -- this time by embarking upon an endeavour that reveals themselves for the vapid, pretentious and self-righteous thinkers they truly are.

There has been a great deal of discussion about Cameron and Comfort's plan to distribute 175,000 copies of The Origin of Species on college and university campuses.

This, however, isn't any ordinary edition of Darwin's benchmark work. Rather, this edition features a special foreword written by Comfort outlining what they describe as Darwin's "undeniable" links with Adolph Hitler, Nazism and the Holocaust.

In a way, they are right. But only half right.

Comfort's writing is expected to suggest -- if not outright state -- that Darwin's theories were directly responsible for the Holocaust and the eugenics program carried out under Hitler's Third Reich.

Certainly, many people get offended when it's suggested that there are links between Darwinism and Nazism. This is an insipid outrage. As unpleasant as it is to recognize it, there very much are links between Darwin's theories, the body of facts that supports it, and Nazism.

Where Comfort goes awry is in distorting the scope and context of those links.

In carrying out his eugenics program in particular -- an endeavour formulated feverishly in Hitler's mind -- Hitler relied heavily on Darwin's writings. Hitler was known to have been fond of this particular passage from The Descent of Man:

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

In Expelled, Ben Stein (who is Jewish) uses this same passage in his attempted indictment of Darwin.

The problem is that this particular reading is incomplete. The following paragraph is extremely enlightening as to what Darwin's thoughts on the matter really were:

"The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage."

History shows us that Hitler didn't share this particular opinion.

Hitler's partial reading of Darwin's work -- taking only what was useful to him for his purposes, and discarding outright anything that is very telling. In fact, it shows us that the links between Darwinism and Nazism are actually born of the misuse of Darwin's theories.

Hitler's partial reading of Darwin's work is also reminiscent of the "Christian" who accepts only portions of the Bible that justify hatred of non-Christians and homosexuals, and discards entirely the benevolence and compassion of Christ's message.

It's on this note, however, that perhaps those who support Darwin and his theories ought to consider responding (somewhat) in kind. Perhaps distributing an annotated edition of the Holy Bible outlining how, just as an incomplete and misguided reading of Darwin's theories can be used to support historical atrocities such as the Holocaust, incomplete and misguided readings of the Bible have been used to justify the oppression of women, religious minorities, and homosexuals.

Anyone bold enough to formulate such a response would be doing the intellectual discourse surrounding religion and evolution a big, big favour.

Time to Abolish the Flag

Canada's flag is a disgraceful, exclusionary symbol

As Calgary's Mount Royal College debates whether or not it will fly the Canadian flag, the eyes of many Canadians have been opened to the true nature of Canadian patriotism.

The oversized Canadian flag that used to fly on the roof of Wyckham House, where the Mount Royal College Students' Union operates from, was taken down last year while the building was renovated.

Re-hanging the flag has been delayed after someone submitted an unsigned letter to the Mount Royal Students' Union suggesting that the flag is an exclusionary symbol.

The eyes of many Canadians have surely been opened.

"People may not realize that overt displays of patriotism can also be seen as exclusionary and even sometimes work to undermine democratic ideals," the letter continues.

Certainly, it's true! Democracy is undermined when citizens love their country. Canadians have loved their country for far too long. The only way to build a healthy democracy in this country is for its citizens to stop caring about it. Only when Canadians don't give a shit what happens to this country can we ever have a democratically strong country.

In Strong Democracy, Benjamin Barber cautions people against loving their country.

"Your country probably sucks," he suggests. "The best way to attain democratic ideals is to realize that it sucks, and never care enough to make it any better. It'll all work out somehow. I think."

Indeed, the Canadian flag is a shameful, exclusionary symbol. Flying it only serves to isolate those who don't give a shit about this country. Flying large Canadian flags is a disgrace.

In fact, the smaller a Canadian flag is, the better. The government should immediately roll out a new anti-patriotism program wherein we will pay millions of dollars to print and distribute Canadian flags so small they cannot be seen by the naked eye.

It's important symbolically, you see. Not giving a fuck about Canada is how we'll prove we have a tolerant society.

Whimsical, Racist, Sexist, Homophobic Fratboys?

Dancing fratboys greet Westboro Baptist Church at University of Chicago

One of the best ways to deal with hatemongers effectively is to refuse to take them seriously.

That was the scene at the University of Chicago this past week, as protesters from the Westboro Baptist Church were met not with the usual derision and outrage, but rather with revelry.

Among their reception at the University of Chicago was a bake sale raising funds for a GLBT charity, and members of the Alpha Delta Phi fraternity, who danced in their underwhere to "I'm Coming Out" by Diana Ross while flying a "no tolerance for intolerance" banner from their house.

Ever the faux-optimist, Shirley Phelps Roper tried to put the best face on their reception. "It is so awesome when you juxtapose this little group of servants of God with this restless mob of humanity. The little girly boys up there with their clothes half off gyrating around--they might as well flip off their God."

First off, the Westboro Baptist Church aren't servants of God -- they're slaves to their own hatred.

But secondly, when a college fraternity -- organizations that have a reputation for homophobic behaviour -- has the moral wherewithal to oppose Phelps and the WBC's promotion of intolerance, one knows that times are changing.

To those familiar with college fraternities this is far less surprising. The homophobic stereotype of fraternities is one that has slowly ceased to fit, as fraternities have quietly been initiating gay men into their ranks for years.

It must be disappointing for Roper to find that an organization she must have expected to be a natural ally for her and her hate cult instead opposes her so vociferously.

You Know You're In Trouble When...

You're a left-wing prof whose students are sick of you

Even if the conclusions he sometimes draws are extremely dubious, one can very well assume that Michael Byers' position at the University of British Columbia is fairly safe.

But even if he wasn't worn out his welcome with the faculty or administration at UBC, apparently Byers has worn out his welcome with the editorial staff of the University newspaper, the Ubyessy:

"Last week, UBC political science professor, failed NDP Candidate, and media gadfly Michael Byers went on a hunger strike as part of the 2010 Homelessness Hunger Strike Relay. When we heard the news, virtually every member of The Ubyssey editorial staff winced. And not just because it was a self-serving media stunt that reeked of martyrdom and did little to serve the actual cause of homelessness. Since he arrived on campus in 2004, we’ve seen, heard, and written more about Byers than is merited given his accomplishments—how­ever impressive they might be. He’s written many a book, comes off as incredibly thoughtful in interviews, and people who take his classes generally have nice things to say. That’s the case with a lot of academics though—and we don’t see many thrusting themselves into the public spotlight with the gusto Byers does.

But Byers isn’t an academic at this point; he’s a politician. He ran for the NDP last election, he plans to run again for them in the next election and he’s ready to criticize the Harper government about anything at the drop of a dime. Except he—and reporters who use him for his good quotes and pretty face—still refer to him as an “in­ternational law expert,” even when he’s talking about the Olympics, the economic crisis, or any other subject that has nothing to do with international law. An academic imparts his learned knowledge on an issue, and a politicians promotes himself and his particular views. With Byers, the line is certainly blurred. At this point, whenever he publicly promotes a cause, it’s difficult to tell: is he promoting an important issue, or is he promoting Michael Byers and the NDP?
We know that even though his actual job is a UBC professor, UBC students aren’t exactly his first priority. After all, this past semester plenty of graduate students signed up for his class on global politics, but when they got to their first class, he told them that due to the upcoming election the class would be cancelled. He then proceeded to tell them why he was running, why students should vote for him, and, by the way, if anyone wanted to volunteer for him, that would be super awesome. Not exactly a humble display from the socially conscious professor.

All of which has led us to conclude the following: we’re tired of Byers; tired of talking about him, tired of hearing about him, and tired of his pseudo-self promotion. Michael Byers, we’re taking a cue from Stephen Colbert: you’re on notice."

Ouch.

One would have to think that this isn't exactly the kind of treatment Byers would want from the Ubyessy.

But it's interesting to note the distinction the newspaper has made in this particular case: Byers is no longer an academic, according to the Ubyessy editors. He's now a politician.

Certainly, Byers is not alone in this regard. University of Calgary professor Tom Flanagan has taken leaves of absence to work as a strategist for the Conservative party -- including during the 2008 federal election alluded to in this editorial. Flanagan, like Byers, hasn't been shy about his political views either.

The Ubyessy editorial raises an interesting question: should seeking a political career preclude an individual from continuing to work as an academic?

Some may be tempted to say "yes" to this question. But those who would do so need to consider the obvious implications of such an answer. Many academics take leaves of absence from their universities or think tanks in order to run in elections. If they were to be precluded from doing so the ranks of potential political candidates would shrink dramatically.

It would also deprive our political system of vast quantities of expertise on a variety of topics, including Byers' purported area of expertise, international law.

Certainly, this doesn't make Byers any less insufferable. Nor does it make Tom Flanagan any less insufferable to those who disagree with him.

But the Ubyessy editors would be very amiss if they were to suggest that academics should be denied the opportunity to run for politican office, even if it means they might become -- gasp! -- politicians.

Fortunately, they don't really try to argue that particular point.


Other bloggers writing on this topic:

The Canada-Afghanistan Blog - "Check and Mate"

Nice Teaching Job You've Got There

...Be a shame if something happened to it

The Canadian Union of Public Employees has a message for any Israeli academics who may want to teach or speak on unveristy campuses in Ontario:

Condemn Israel's military actions in the Gaza Strip. Or else.

CUPE drafted the proposal as a response to a December 29th attack on an Islamic University in Ghaza.

"Attacking an institution of learning is just beyond the pale," CUPE Ontario President Sid Ryan announced. "They deliberately targeted an institution of learning. That's what the Nazis did."

Of course Ryan is overlooking the fact that Hamas is widely known to use schools and hospitals as hideouts for their fighters, normally using the occupants of those buildings as human shields or to provoke international outrage when those buildings are attacked.

Reports that the University was being used to store weapons for Hamas remain unconfirmed.

But as debate over Israel's actions in Gaza become a matter of intense international debate, as they so often do, CUPE's move to force Israeli academics to denounce Israel's actions would ultimately have the effect of limiting this debate on University campuses across Ontario.

Moreover, Ryan is overlooking an important issue underlying the permanent state of affairs between Israel and its various Islamic militant foes: that is, a state of total war.

Canada has not been at a state of total war for well over 60 years. While Ryan's criticism may suit an ordinary country under ordinary states of warfare, but Israel is no ordinary country and its conflict with Hamas is no ordinary conflict.

If anything, perhaps Ryan should consider condemning the University in question should claims that it was storing weapons caches for Hamas turn out to be true. After all, any institution of higher learning that agrees to store weapons certainly surrenders its sancrosanct status.

While an air strike is most certainly an unsuitable method for dealing with such situations -- a special forces strike provides additional safety for civilians, although there are never any guarantees in war -- any University that chooses to provide material support to a combatant becomes a legitimate target in war time.

Academics -- be they Israeli or otherwise -- have the right to hold such an opinion if they so choose. For Sid Ryan to imagine that he can coerce them into saying otherwise is dangerous for the academic climate of any university.

How to Not Get Something Over With

University of Guelph Students Association drags its feet on Life Choice controversy

The latest development on the tale of the Life Choice controversy at the University of Guelph is being embraced by the editoral staff of the Guelph Mercury embracing the reinstatement of interim club status as a "welcome gesture".

This was done as the appeal process for Life Choice's suspension was delayed yet again, while a tribunal is adjourned to arbitrate the matter.

Previously, on October 30, procedural considerations stalled the appeal process.

"I believe the environment of this room is unsafe," complained U of G CSA's Human Resources Commissioner Joel Harnest -- the very same Joel Harnest who indulged himself in denouncing the Life Fair as "anti-choice", and helped lead the charge against Life Choice on the basis that it somehow rendered the University of Guelph cmapus unsafe for women.

So in other words, the "unsafe environment" of the October 30 appeal hearing more likely had to do with Joel Harnest hearing things he didn't want to hear rather than any particular risk of physical violence.

The October 30 meeting had been conduced in the absence of the CSA's adviser regarding its bylaws.

For one, Patrick Case, the director of the University of Guelph's human rights and equity office admitted that the procedure of the meeting was unfair when the CSA aired uninvestigated allegations of harassment against Life Choice. Case noted that such accusations needed to be either investigated for factualness or discarded.

The matter was delayed until November 19, when the matter was once again delayed due to poor preparation on the CSA's part.

Now, the matter will be delayed further still.

Which makes one wonder precisely how confident Harnest and his CSA cohorts are in their efforts to deny Life Choice student club status in the name of promoting their own agenda -- and they very much do have an agenda.

Some of Harnest's comments printed in the National Post are very indicative of what Harnest's agenda really is, and it should be considered altogether unsurprising considering his previous "anti-choice" rhetoric.

"It's not the responsibility of the CSA to support them because we are a pro-choice organization. And as a private organization we can choose who to associate with," Harnest insists. "My argument is that women are a minority in this country in terms of the power and stake that they have. We are defending the rights of women."

Of course, there are numerous problems with Harnest's argument. First off, the University of Guelph Central Students Association is supposed to be a governing body, not a "pro-choice group".

Secondly, while it can be expected that such organizations will reflect the views of its membership, it does not have the right to impose them on others. Furthermore, the CSA would have to demonstrate that a significant majority of students at the U of G hold "pro-choice" views before it could reasonably declare itself to hold such a stance.

Even then, being a "pro-choice" group does not give it the right to expel a club from its membership for holding contrary views -- particularly when the members of that club each, as U of G students, pay student fees to fund the CSA.

Furthermore, the University of Guelph's actions is proven that it is not a pro-choice group. What Harnest really means is pro-abortion group. Any group that would expel a member for daring to choose to express a contrary opinion is not pro-choice.

Now, with their rationale for expelling Life Choice unraveling before their very eyes under the scrutiny of the U of G human rights and equity office -- an organization that Harnest had to have imagined would back his agenda 100% without so much as a question -- the CSA is apparently looking for a way out.

Now, if their decision to expel Life Choice is overturned by a tribunal, it will at least seem as if their personal responsibility in the matter is diminished.

But it won't be. The University of Guelph Central Student's Association made a decision dictated not by the rules of the CSA itself, but by the political biases of its members.

Given the place this episode has taken as yet another chapter in what Charles Lewis considers to be the ongoing tale of left-wing intolerance on many University campuses, this is an episode that will not be forgotten.

Nor will the role of the CSA in bringing these events to fruition.

The What the Fuck!? Files Vol. 5: Kill Whitey

Racist and wrong -- it's a perfect combination

One bets that any non-retards attending Carlton University are wishing the Carleton University Students Association allowed for the recall of councilors.

Beyond Ridiculous

Intellectual dishonesty at the very heart of push to "secularize" U of A convocation ceremony

On Monday, October 27th, the University of Alberta General Faculties Council held a special meeting regarding recent demands by a number of U of A-affiliated atheists to remove the a reference to God from the U of A's convocation ceremony.

In the convocation speech, graduates are directed to use their degrees "for the glory of God and the honour of your country."

The line has endured for 100 years since the University's establishment. Now, in the University's centenary year, a small group of atheists wants to purge the line from the speech. This group insists that they're doing so in the name of secularism, rationalism, and diversity.

The truth is very different.

Sadly, there's very little rational thought at the core of this campaign, and more than their fair share of intellectual dishonesty.

“I would feel unwelcome at the current convocation ceremonies,” complained Ian Bushfield, the president of the University of Alberta Atheists and Agnostics. “By charging me to use my degree to the glory of God, I feel that my belief system, which does not include beliefs in any form of deity, is being ignored by this University’s administration.”

“If the argument for tradition is to be held over all rational discourse, then this University shall never achieve its goal of becoming a top 20 university by 2020,” Bushfield insisted.

Which is a rather bizarre claim. If a passing reference to God in a convocation speech is enough to be a millstone around the University's neck in terms of University rankings, then there is something severely wrong with those rankings.

Of course, Bushfield's rhetoric barely holds a candle to that of John Crookshanks, a political science student who is also working to push the UAAA's agenda.

“This is a public, non-creedal university with a diverse, multicultural student, faculty, and staff community, and so appeals to the will of the religious majority are misleading. They, like many others, believe that for the University to be arbiter of what is the correct faith for all students is completely inappropriate,” added Crookshanks.

Readers may cue rolling eyes at their leisure. After all, a ceremonial charge falls significantly short of instructing graduates on what their religion should be. For Crooksthank, however, the irrational ravings only get better.

“This is a public university, whose mission statements, goals, and even the 'Dare to Deliver' plan have no religious mandate. Convocation then is neither the place nor the time to invoke any one religion to the exclusion of all others,” he continued.

Of course, Bushfield may want to rethink that last claim. After all, the God reference in the convocation speech doesn't merely apply to one religion. Considering that Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the same god -- merely disagreeing on the subject of Messiahs and prophecy -- this god charge actually refers to no less than three separate religions. Adding Sikhism, this can easily be expanded to four religions when one considers the ambiguity of the God reference in the speech.

For Crookshank, however, a clear strategy is at play here: there is no secrets that Christians have, increasingly, become politically vulnerable. A broad portion of Canadian society, recognizing that Christians still remain the majority in Canada, don't consider it politically incorrect to attack Christians.

Crookshank's particular attitude seems very self-explanatory: it's OK to screw with religious people so long as it looks as if you're only screwing with Christians.

Sadly, the reality underlying the issue is very different. Crookshank's use of the notion of the U of A being a public University as a rationale for this campaign is also a little more than alarming.

As Benjamin Barber notes, while individual religious beliefs very much are a largely private matter, religion itself is actually a public good. The vast majority of places of worship remain public places. To try and displace religion from the public sphere into the private sphere, individuals like Busfhield, Crookshank and their compatriots would compromise the ability of religious believers to congregate in communities of belief.

Not to mention that it's impossible to believe that the University of Alberta Atheists and Agnostics,whose membership numbers 180 members -- accounting for nearly the entirety of the 189 signatures on their petition -- are merely doing this in the name of secularism.

Rather, they're doing it in the name of atheism. As such, all their petition would really accomplish is displacing no less than three other religions from the convocation speech in favour of their own religion -- atheism -- by default.

That's an odd definition of "inclusiveness".

...It's OK When We Do It

Over at the Canadian Cynic Temple of Sycophantic Group Think, there's no question that they really, really hate "freepers".

Unless, of course, it's them doing the freeping. Then, it's all hunky dory.

This time, the idea actually isn't theirs. In fact, it actually turns out to be the brainchild of "EZ" PZ Myers.

The entire affair revolves around Ian Bushfield and the University of Alberta's Atheists and Agnostics' Associations' demands that references to God be removed from the U of A convocation ceremony.

The Edmonton Sun offered up a poll asking readers whether or not they agreed.

As it turns out, things were not going the way Myers, Cynic and their ilk would have hoped. In fact, before Myers chose to intercede in the poll, 67% of those who had answered preferred to keep references to God in the ceremony.

"Will that have changed when I wake up in the morning, I wonder…?" Myers asked, seemingly hypothetically. Considering that the title of his post was "Canadian Poll to Crash", he had to have known full well that his flock of mindless sheep were going to do precisely that.

In the end, the Myers'-inflated poll result produced a 91% margin of victory for himself and his atheist sheep.

Unsurprisingly, Cynic feels quite triumphant over this result. Of course, it this had been, oh say... the Canadian Blog Awards, they would have whined to high heaven.

Fortunately, the Edmonton Sun poll in question is and remains entirely meaningless. The defeat incurred by Cynic and his coterie of mindless douchebags when they failed to deliver the Galloping Beaver a blog award (via freeping) is certainly much less so -- it represents a wholesale rejection of Cynic's imagined influence in the Canadian blogosphere.

Still, Cynic and his cronies at the Groupthink Temple simply wouldn't feel like themselves if they weren't proving themselves to be the utter apex of intellectual dishonesty, cowardice and hypocrisy in the Canadian blogosphere.

There's something very special about becoming everything one claims to hate -- something that generally only the most intractable ideologues can fail to appreciate.