babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » York-cordia tries to ban pro Israeli Speaker

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: York-cordia tries to ban pro Israeli Speaker
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 24 January 2003 10:33 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And now all I warned about is happening. York university it appears, has jumped on the bandwagon of chilling academic freedom and free speech by giving into threats and trying to stop a pro-Israeli speaker.

York stops pro Israel speaker


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 24 January 2003 10:39 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei, your post is blatantly misleading. The "University" is not "trying to stop" Pipes from speaking on campus; as your link makes perfectly clear, the university admin is now looking for another place for him to speak, after a student-run centre withdrew its permission for Pipes to speak there.

Someone here must know the restaurant in question. Would its management have reason to decide it was a bad place for a meeting that might become confrontational?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 24 January 2003 10:55 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Skdadl, the headline is clear "Pro-Israel expert STOPPED from making York U Speech". And he was STOPPED from speaking at the original site.

That said, I have heard literally dozens of academic speakers at the Underground in the student union center, including some who spoke on the middle East. Never before has there been a "security" issue. What's going on here? Well, I for one think its pretty clear.

Threats and intimidation are the only things to lead to security issues.

York should not knuckle under.

BTW, friends at York involved with the Jewish student federation did indicate to me that until CJC got involved York had decided to fully cancel Pipes with no alternative site being given.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 24 January 2003 11:04 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Then, Mishei, I hope to see a letter from you in the letters column of the Grope tomorrow, correcting their misinformation.

On principle, oddly enough, I agree with you -- the backroom guys who fuss over which room would be "better advised" or more "appropriate" earn my scorn too. In practice, being a wimp, I think I might avoid a closed space in which I expected guys overdosing on testosterone to be confronting each other.

Obviously, you have seen this space? What is it like? Is it so evil in me to ask you to describe the space?

My position on whether Pipes should speak or not is well known: let the dork speak. There are certainly grounds for considering him an overgeneralizer of absurd proportions, which is why I snort when I hear the commentator here refer to him as an "academic analyst" -- boy, people who write the way he does don't get far in my discipline. But let him speak.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 24 January 2003 11:25 AM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
By all means, let him speak, as long as the meeting is open to all and he is prepared to be challenged.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cracker Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3601

posted 24 January 2003 11:27 AM      Profile for Cracker Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think Daniel Pipes is an expert on middle east issues and knows more about it then most people in here combined. Just because you don't agree with him doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about. Whether people agree with him or not, there is a trend developing in universities where pro-israeli speakers are having a more and more difficult time being heard.
From: South Central | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 24 January 2003 11:39 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Skdadl, two things, while I may well may write to the Globe, since I don't control the media I cannot guarentee it will be printed.

Secondly, The Underground is an open space with a sort of "pit" in which speakers speak. As I said before there has never been an issue of security like this before at the pit.

Now for me the issue is not Pipes. The issue is academic freedom and free speech on campus. We cannot allow punks and thugs to rule the day. Academic freedom must be sacrosanct. Will you Skdadl and others email or call York University President Lorna Marsden and stand up for what is right? I have.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 24 January 2003 11:42 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, sure. *scuffs toe* Yeah, yeah, I'll do it, Mishei. *scuffs other toe*
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 24 January 2003 11:51 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let the bastard speak, but don't forget this:

"He is the creator of Campus Watch, a controversial Web site that details what he calls pervasive anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiments on college campuses across the United States."

He is the instigator of a McCarthyite witchunt compiling files on progressive "anti-American" academics. (Americans, that is!) Agree that he should have the right to speak, but if he came to Montreal, I'd sure be there to heckle him.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 24 January 2003 12:28 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
He is the instigator of a McCarthyite witchunt compiling files on progressive "anti-American" academics. (Americans, that is!) Agree that he should have the right to speak, but if he came to Montreal, I'd sure be there to heckle him.


Lagatta, that is what a democracy is all about. Now will you put your words where your mouth is (no disrespect intended) and speak out other than here on Babble?

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 24 January 2003 01:13 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It should be noted, whatever the free speech issues, that Pipes is a vicious, disgusting man, but he is not a war criminal himself.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 24 January 2003 01:15 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei, I wouldn't try to stop him from speaking, but I really am not going out of my way to defend someone who is trying to destroy people's careers for speaking out against the war. There was an article on this group in The Guardian a couple of months back, I'll try to find it.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 24 January 2003 03:39 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know who Pipes is and I do have problems with his approach. Nonetheless if we all cherish academic freedom it is the principle we cherish.

It is far more difficult to uphold the right of persons we disagree with to speak then those we admire.

That is the test of a true social democrat. Words are meaningless if you do not choose to fight for freedom.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 24 January 2003 04:02 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It isn't a question of disagreeing with his views on either the Bush administration (what he calls "America") or the Sharon government (what he calls "Israel"). It is a question of him attempting to destroy people's careers. Perhaps not up there with suicide bombings and death squads, but McCarthyism led many, many people to suicide, alcoholism and other forms of self-destruction.

His web site is compiling FILES of dissidents. That is not just a matter of opinion.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 24 January 2003 04:04 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You're preaching to the choir, here, Mishei. Except for a rabid few, most of the posters on this board would prefer to allow a public venue for all, including vile creatures like Pipe. Pipe becomes a much easier target when we can actually confront him and his ideas.

So, will his speech be open to the public?


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 24 January 2003 04:15 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That is the test of a true social democrat. Words are meaningless if you do not choose to fight for freedom.

now where have I heard that sentiment expressed before... oh I remember now, Noam Chomsky.

quote:
Some time ago I was asked to sign a petition in defense of Robert
Faurisson's "freedom of speech and expression." The petition said absolutely
nothing about the character, quality or validity of his research, but
restricted itself quite explicitly to a defense of elementary rights that
are taken for granted in democratic societies, calling upon university and
government officials to "do everything possible to ensure the [Faurisson's]
safety and the free exercise of his legal rights." I signed it without
hesitation.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 24 January 2003 04:18 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A Big Ben salute to ronb.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 24 January 2003 05:27 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is hilarious!

We have a guy named Pipes who runs a web site and lobbies to silence academics and others from expressing opinions who is being told to speak somewhere else. And then we have people here decrying the possibility he might not speak as a right to speech issue while totally ignoring he is a guy who works to shut people up. Absolutely amazing!


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
darkhorse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3508

posted 24 January 2003 05:46 PM      Profile for darkhorse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Perfect irony, WingNut.

And it should be noted that it is not 'York', but the students themselves who have decided not to have Pipes speak at their Student Centre.

And the fact is that they have legitimate concerns: racism for one.
Of course, he's perfectly welcome to speak on some street corner, but I don't see why the Student Council is obligated to invite someone well known for his mean-spirited views, black-lists, and generally anti-democratic attitude.

[ 24 January 2003: Message edited by: darkhorse ]


From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 24 January 2003 05:57 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You're preaching to the choir, here, Mishei. Except for a rabid few, most of the posters on this board would prefer to allow a public venue for all, including vile creatures like Pipe. Pipe becomes a much easier target when we can actually confront him and his ideas.
So, will his speech be open to the public?


As far as i know it is open to all students at York.

It seems however, atleast according to this CJC press release, that there may indeed be more than a few outside of babble that believe in suppressing speech.

Kudos to York for taking a bold move.

CJC press release


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
darkhorse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3508

posted 24 January 2003 06:05 PM      Profile for darkhorse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
there may indeed be more than a few outside of babble that believe in suppressing speech.

Free speech doesn't mean I can walk into your living-room and rant as I see fit. This is not an issue about free speech anyways. Its much more about whether the Student Centre restaurant was an appropriate venue or not. The students decided it was not.

And I don't think anyone on Babble believes in suppressing free speech. That would defeat the purpose of this forum.

[ 24 January 2003: Message edited by: darkhorse ]


From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 24 January 2003 06:09 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, I don't know, Mishei -- I suspect that it was you 'n' me who did it and deserve the praise, eh?

One thing I've always thought about being a civil libertarian: when I defend the right to speak of guys I have to hold my nose to defend, then I feel I have a concomitant responsibility to denounce their dorkish views at least as volubly. And so I do here. As I assume you also will.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 24 January 2003 06:12 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PS: Ed Morgan says that Pipes is a "mainstream academic," and "an expert in his field." Pffft! Hear the gas escaping?

Which field would that be, Mr Morgan?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 24 January 2003 08:26 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why, the field of creative McCarthyism. He's completely revitalised it, with the help of a few friends in the Office of Homeland Security. Kudos to a job well done!
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 24 January 2003 08:41 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Its much more about whether the Student Centre restaurant was an appropriate venue or not. The students decided it was not.

Seems to me that the Jewish students union felt it was an apprpriate venue. And the Pit has been like a soapbox for all political views at York ...except it seems for pro-Israel views.

That is when "the students" (and exactly which students would those be?) made the decision that since they didn' like Pipes' views well, screw it ..he just can't speak there....hmmmmm looks to me like censorship

But you'd never admit that now would you?

And Skdadl I already gave you my position on Pipes. But I know you can be very busy posting your wittisisms (no wit intended) so in case you missed it:

quote:
I know who Pipes is and I do have problems with his approach.

[ 24 January 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 24 January 2003 08:47 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dear Mishei -

But that does raise the question - why is the Jewish Students' Union monopolised by right-wingers? I know several Jewish students at York (and given my age, more Jewish profs and TAs)... they don't agree with this guy and his extreme right-wing views.

I certainly don't agree with silencing them, or supressing them - but has this group been welcoming to all Jewish students? God knows I've known many, many, many who were socially progressive, in Canada and elsewhere - including a lot of the leaders of May '68 in France and Freedom Riders in the US (yes, I know, that dates me )...


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 24 January 2003 08:56 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
...Jewish Students' Union monopolised by right-wingers...

...compromised by right wingers?


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 24 January 2003 09:18 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I certainly don't agree with silencing them, or supressing them - but has this group been welcoming to all Jewish students?

Lagatta:

Just because they choose to bring Pipes does not automatically make them a bunch of right wing extremists.

This same group has hosted, Canadian Friends of Peace Now, Steven Lewis, Bob Rae (yes Im sure he is more than suspect now that he has shown a pro-Israel bent), and many others that would be considered centrist and left.

Pipes is problamatic on many levels but remember It was only last month that York Political Science hosted Professor Ahmad Aijaz, a
virulent anti -Zionist who wrote amongst other ditties "The Nazification Of Israel and Israel the Killing Fields". He makes Pipes look positively angelic in comparision. While Jewish students peacefully protested his talk and questioned his academic abilities no one ever tried to intimidate the university into cancelling his speech.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 24 January 2003 11:15 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know, Mishei, your constantly patronizing exhortations to fall in line are starting to get a tad wearing.

quote:
Will you Skdadl and others email or call York University President Lorna Marsden and stand up for what is right?

An example is that.

Now while I'm sure you'd love to do a great big fat drive-by smear job on me when I tell you "no", the fact remains that I'm not going to e-mail or write the President of the university.

Why?

Because in this instance I think some people don't learn unless they get their fingies smacked, and Pipes strikes me as someone who might re-evaluate his stance if he gets his fingies smacked a few times.

And if it were up to me, I'd have told Mr. Killing Fields to hoof it as well.

Extremism in the pursuit of ideology is no virtue. I'm pretty sure AuH2O said it first, but what the hell.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 25 January 2003 12:03 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I gotta question:

When are these university Jewish groups gonna invite Daniel Rubinstein to talk on their particular campuses? Or am I just uniformed and they already haved?

If I remember right, Naomi Klein, if she can be believed, recieved death threats publishing a pro-Palestinian statement in her Varisty days...

It's no protest, but...


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
darkhorse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3508

posted 25 January 2003 12:29 AM      Profile for darkhorse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That is when "the students" (and exactly which students would those be?) made the decision that since they didn' like Pipes' views well, screw it ..he just can't speak there....hmmmmm looks to me like censorship
Pipes is openly racist. Frankly I'd be ashamed to defend him, Mishei. Aren't you? "The students" concern cited in the article you posted was 'racism'. He should not be speaking at any university, not with views like:
quote:
“The Palestinians are a miserable people...and they deserve to be.” — Daniel Pipes, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, July 2001
Or this charming generalisation:
quote:
“...black converts tend to hold vehemently anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic attitudes.” — Daniel Pipes’ commentary about black Muslims in the US, 6/1/2000

[ 25 January 2003: Message edited by: darkhorse ]


From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 25 January 2003 12:34 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Frankly I'd be ashamed to defend him, Mishei. Aren't you?
I am proud to defend academic freedom. Aren't you?

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
darkhorse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3508

posted 25 January 2003 12:38 AM      Profile for darkhorse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I am proud to defend academic freedom.
Does that include defending racism and hate crimes? How academic is hate?

[ 25 January 2003: Message edited by: darkhorse ]


From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 25 January 2003 12:44 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Does that include defending racism and hate crimes?
DarkH...Pipes has been to Canada and Europe countless times. Each country in Europe as well as our own have serious anti-hate laws. To the best of my knowledge no jurisdiction has yet charged Pipes with a hate crime violation.

Now I am not one to be skeptical of your selected quotes and examples, but prior to making any judgements I prefer to read these pieces in whole and in context.

I assume this is just what anyone else would before passing judgement. I will try to find these full stories and read them for myself.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
darkhorse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3508

posted 25 January 2003 12:54 AM      Profile for darkhorse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
More irony. If you are really outraged by the blocking of free speech, you should campaign against Mr. Pipes, or at least send him an e-mail:
quote:
PIPES SEEKS TO BLOCK ASHRAWI SPEECH
WASHINGTON TIMES, 9/13/02 ...Speaking to demonstrators outside after Mrs. Ashrawi's address, Mr. Pipes called her appearance at the event "a grievous error." "We should work so that this type of anti-American spokeswoman is not welcome on American campuses," Mr. Pipes said…

From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 25 January 2003 01:04 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Speaking to demonstrators outside after Mrs. Ashrawi's address, Mr. Pipes called her appearance at the event "a grievous error." "We should work so that that this type of anti-American spokeswoman is not welcome on American campuses," Mr. Pipes said…


DarkH...there is a significant difference between peaceful protest and outright intimidation.

Agree or not , Pipes spoke about ensuring that Ashrawi would not be "welcomed" at any campus.

Look, you may not like that, but he has every right to work towards that. He would have NO right to in any way intimidate or cause there to be any implied threat that would lead to any campus authority canceling her appearance. If you know of anytime Pipes has done such a thing please do let me know and I will indeed send him an email of protest.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 25 January 2003 01:23 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Forgive the double post. Here is the latest update from this morning's Globe and Mail.

Globe on Pipes talk


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 25 January 2003 01:24 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The issue is academic freedom and free speech on campus.

Here is the leadoff on Pipes website:

quote:
The Problem:American scholars of the Middle East, to varying degrees, reject the views of most Americans and the enduring policies of the U.S. government about the Middle East.
Who We are
Campus Watch consists of American academics concerned about US interests and their frequent denigration on campus.


But my favourite is:
quote:
The project mainly addresses five problems: analytical failures, intolerance of alternative views, the mixing of politics with scholarship, apologetics, and the abuse of power over students.

So I guess mixing politics with scholarship only applies when Daniel Pipes disagrees with your politics. But he's allowed to do it because it's U.S. policy.

[ 25 January 2003: Message edited by: Non-partisan partisan ]


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 25 January 2003 01:34 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You can critisize his position all you want and I urge you to do so. Civil discourse and peaceful protest is the hallmark of all democratic societies.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 25 January 2003 02:35 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm sure I've missed out on a hundred Babble threads dealing with free speech, academic freedom and the Middle East but at the risk of repeating things already said:
1) Someone is advocating that professors' rights be diminished at Universities (for starters) because they disagree with U.S. policy.
2) I'm supposed to defend their right to diminish professors' rights.
3) If they become successful, certain people will then lose some of their rights.
4) Because you happen to agree with many of his positions, you couch your argument in a cloak of free speech.

And please don't tell me it's only about speech. Pipes is trying to affect professor's funding and ability to work because he disagrees with them.

Daniel Pipes doesn't have the right to curtail other people. Why in the world would I ever defend a right he should not have?


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012

posted 25 January 2003 04:49 AM      Profile for Flowers By Irene     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The students at York have control over the student centre (where the Underground is located - someone earlier asked what it looks like -- it looks like a subway platform, cause well, it was supposed to be one, until the province cancelled extending the YUS line to York some years ago.)

Several college councils, and many student groups have all asked that Pipes not be allowed to speak in the student centre - if the admin (I'm sure Lorna "I deserve to be paid for work I didn't do" Marsden and all her banker buddies on the BoG love this guy) wants him to speak at York, there are plenty of places they could arrange, its a big campus.

An article on Pipes

Another article on Pipes

quote:
(a dispatch I received by email from friend @York)
The York Centre for International and Security Studies has withdrawn its co-sponsorship of the upcoming lecture by Daniel Pipes. At the time the
decision to co-sponsor the event was made, the Centre was unaware of Mr. Pipes' links to Campus Watch.

The Centre will continue to sponsor presentations by academics, experts, and policy-makers in all fields relevant to the Centre's mandate who are
willing to support and engage in scholarly openness and debate.

For those interested in the range and intensity of
the extensive internal debate at YCISS on this issue, material will be available on the Centre's website as of this Monday, January 27th.

David Dewitt, Director Centre for International and Security Studies
Professor of Political Science York University,
Toronto, Canada.

ddewitt@yorku.cahttp://www.yorku.ca/yciss


[ 25 January 2003: Message edited by: Flowers By Irene ]


From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012

posted 25 January 2003 04:51 AM      Profile for Flowers By Irene     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Another email I received on the subject:

quote:
[...]>I believe, and this is a very important point, that
the JSF organizers
>were genuine in their efforts to encourage debate and
discourse and that
>no offence or provocation was intended. In my
conversations today, I
>think we realized that many of us had a crash course
in Mr Pipes and his
>opinions in the last week or so, especially his
connection to
>CampusWatch.
>
>The JSF accepted my request to relocate the event off
campus without
>question or protest and I admire their cooperation
for that. I think it
>critically important that this decision not be viewed
or celebrated as a
>victory and that there should be no celebration along
those lines. Far
>more important for us to see this as a learning
opportunity where people
>of differing opinions could, at the end of the day,
share concerns and
>issues and mutually resolve to the benefit of the
community. I hope I
>can count on your leadership here.
>
>Thanks again.
[...]

From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 25 January 2003 09:39 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So I guess mixing politics with scholarship only applies when Daniel Pipes disagrees with your politics. But he's allowed to do it because it's U.S. policy.

Ah, but Non-P P, you are missing the true beauty of Pipes's position. He isn't mixing politics with scholarship at all. He has eliminated the scholarship entirely!


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 25 January 2003 09:53 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Loved this quote:

Along these lines, a 1990 National Review article insisted that "Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene.... All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most."

How can this racist cretin be "pro-Israel"? A majority of Israelis are Jews from Arab and Muslim lands, the same colour and eating the same foods (with slightly different dietary rules) as their Muslim and Christian neighbours.

Oh, those troubling Muslim customs... the ones Vladimir Putin was so down on, like circumcision? Or perhaps abstaining from pork?


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 25 January 2003 09:57 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Some of the neo-cons verge on neurasthenia, don't you think? I mean, how can anyone have an icky-nasty-poo complex about Mediterranean food? Greatest cuisine in the world, IMHO.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 January 2003 10:07 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'll let you know what I think about that, skdadl, once I get to the N's in the dictionary.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 25 January 2003 10:13 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, skdadl, still remember the Jewish wedding I attended several years ago in Paris - he of Polish descent, she Moroccan.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Oh god, another foodie thread.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 25 January 2003 10:16 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now this is what peaceful debate is about; disagreement, opposition and honestly held beliefs. Not threats, intimidation and censorship.

As for this wide array of students wanting to stop Pipes from speaking and create a "campus chill" on academic freedom, are we saying, for argument sake that if a majority (and I do not believe it is a majority)of students vote to censor a speaker then so be it?

From all I have read there appears to be one group and a questionable new "coalition" that have demanded Pipes' be silenced.

Jewish students who make up a huge percentage of York's student body don't seem to even figure in the calculations. Sheesh if we are going to go with numbers (and remember no objective knowledge of what students believe has been made on this matter no matter what you read here)surely Jewish students should be a big part of the mix.


I thought today's Toronto Star editorial said it best.

York draws a line

And this article as well is quite interesting.

Shutting down Pipes

[ 25 January 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 25 January 2003 12:40 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting that the editorial made no mention at all about Campus Watch and its agenda of denying academic freedom. That Mishei would think this was a good editorial says a lot more about the poster's approach than the editorial itself.
From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
darkhorse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3508

posted 25 January 2003 01:13 PM      Profile for darkhorse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Pipes sucks the sewer pipe. If the Jewish Student Federation at York wants to invite him, its a reflection on their intellectual and moral bankruptcy. If he's their beacon of illumination, let them live with the shame of it.
We're all for free speech here, but I guess there's never any accounting for taste.

From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 25 January 2003 01:18 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, that about sums it up. If they're the kind of people who would want an ass like him to speak, fine, let him speak.

[ 25 January 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 25 January 2003 03:45 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That Mishei would think this was a good editorial says a lot more about the poster's approach than the editorial itself.
Well why am I not surprised? After all this was a Toronto Star editorial. The newspaper that is so blatantly pro-Israel what else would you expect?

Now if the editorial appeared in say the Globe and Mail or the National Post would that make it better? Definitely not. Why? Because these papers are not to the liking of most babblers. These papers are too middle of the road and yes eeeek RIGHT WING and in the case of the Post (shudder to think) pro-Israel. But if an editorial were to appear in Socialist International or that bastion of the alternative media, Counterpunch well then it would be gathered to the bosom and coddled.

[ 25 January 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 25 January 2003 04:24 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why do you think most right wing media is pro-Israel, while most left-wing media is not?
From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 25 January 2003 07:35 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Because right-wingers are generally pro-West, pro-American and pro-colonization.

Left-wingers have supported Israel in the past; however, facts have come to light that caused left-wingers to question that stance.

quote:
Now if the editorial appeared in say the Globe and Mail or the National Post would that make it better? Definitely not. Why? Because these papers are not to the liking of most babblers. These papers are too middle of the road and yes eeeek RIGHT WING and in the case of the Post (shudder to think) pro-Israel. But if an editorial were to appear in Socialist International or that bastion of the alternative media, Counterpunch well then it would be gathered to the bosom and coddled.

Evidence for this statement?

You really have no respect for us at all, have you? I mean, we clearly don't think for ourselves, in your view. What we say is just a knee-jerk reaction fuelled by conformism. Right?


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012

posted 25 January 2003 09:25 PM      Profile for Flowers By Irene     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As for this wide array of students wanting to stop Pipes from speaking and create a "campus chill" on academic freedom, are we saying, for argument sake that if a majority (and I do not believe it is a majority)of students vote to censor a speaker then so be it?

Well, it must be noted that this is taking place at York, a university with a quite apathetic student body. If it's not gonna affect their ability to park Mommy's Lexus, or Daddy's BMW, most York students wouldn't give two shits about anything happening on campus.

And, yes York has a large Jewish population - I wouldn't be surprised if its the largest in Canada. But there is also a large Muslim & Arab population - York is a very large school (like 40,000 students.)

From what I hear from friends and other contacts @York, of all the political/activist groups on campus, although a minority of students, they are pretty united in their opposition to Pipes speaking in the student centre where the students have the power to decide who is allowed or not, and where those who do speak have the implicit support of the student body by doing so. So yes, in this case I say the students should be able to act as censors.

Ed. for SP.

[ 25 January 2003: Message edited by: Flowers By Irene ]


From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 26 January 2003 01:04 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
From what I hear from friends and other contacts @York, of all the political/activist groups on campus, although a minority of students, they are pretty united in their opposition to Pipes speaking in the student centre where the students have the power to decide who is allowed or not, and where those who do speak have the implicit support of the student body by doing so. So yes, in this case I say the students should be able to act as censors.


That is not how I understand the policy at all. Where do you get this information. The Student union is not run by the few "political" groups on campus and while it is not under the wing of the administration, it has an independantly hired manager.

I have read nowhere about a "student' management decsion here. As a matter of fact it is quite clear that it was "security" concerns that forced it out of the Underground. Nothing at all to do with a students decision.

BTW, are you suggesting that in this case censorship is good? Wow how enlightened of you.

OK the next time a controversial pro-Palestinian speaker wants to access the Underground and Jewish students and their supporters decide they don't like what he has to say or what he does and thinks, let's ban him too. And oh say a pro- American academic wants to talk about George Bush, gee, maybe even David Frum (no academic but he'll do)well I know what many think of him, let's censor him too. And of course ....the list is endless....Hmmmm I got it, let's just halt debate altogether in the Underground that will solve all these problems.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 26 January 2003 01:19 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When is the Jewish Students Union going to get Ilan Pappe to speak on new perspectives on Israeli history to show people that it is not simply a front for the right-wing?
From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 26 January 2003 01:28 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I guess the students will decide who they want. It is their organization and they are free to choose who they would like to hear.

Perhaps the "Coalition" could invite Pappe and ask JSU to attend. Could be an interesting evening.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 26 January 2003 01:30 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now that is a reasonable suggestion, but I am sure that joint invitation would be the best.
From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 26 January 2003 02:41 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know, I'm not for censorship at all, but if it's a matter of one building on the campus, I don't really see what's so terribly bad about that.

quote:
When is the Jewish Students Union going to get Ilan Pappe to speak on new perspectives on Israeli history to show people that it is not simply a front for the right-wing?

But what if it is simply a front for the right wing?

[ 26 January 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012

posted 26 January 2003 03:22 AM      Profile for Flowers By Irene     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Student union is not run by the few "political" groups on campus and while it is not under the wing of the administration, it has an independantly hired manager.

And just how many years were you involved in York student politics, and how recently?

The YFS (York Federation of Students) -- the central student political body on campus -- has been bitterly divided between hard right and moderate left factions for several years now -- (individual interest groups on both sides of the spectrum holding the balance of power on specific issues depending on circumstance; i.e. in 2001/02 the YFS spent almost half it's budget on legal fees defending the hard right [slim] majority against various lawsuits, leaving "no money" for activist causes like the tuition freeze campaign, despite the mandate of the YFS --search & read if you like...) and these battles have brought some incongruent decisions to bear during this time, however, over the same period the various college councils (especially Winters, Founders, & to some degree Vanier) have had some rather leftist views (including the support of the banning of Pipes from student controlled buildings, as well as the more activist visions of the tuition freeze, pro-democracy, anti-Imperialism, anti-FTAA, etc.)

The "student union" (YFS) is in fact controlled by (often slim) specific student interests (political groups), depending on the issue, how "cute" the leading candidate is, and what _HE_ drives (lets not forget this is York) -- and the imposition of Admin interference (not by any means new, but not unexpected in the current overt form; though not exactly as you described - the danger from the admin is more in its propensity to shut down all debate rather than shift it to more convenient terminologies) is seen by virtually all sides as unnecessary interference, & is being fought at several levels on campus.

Where do I get my info, you ask? Well, I was a York student for 2 1/2 years up to last summer, and still have many friends & other contacts on and around campus. People on the ground, you might say. Of course, if they don't write for the National Poop, they don't count, eh?


From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 26 January 2003 11:22 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But what if it is simply a front for the right wing?


It simply is not. I know many students from all sides of the political spectrum who are involved with JSF.

quote:
Where do I get my info, you ask? Well, I was a York student for 2 1/2 years up to last summer, and still have many friends & other contacts on and around campus. People on the ground, you might say. Of course, if they don't write for the National Poop, they don't count, eh?


All very interesting but it still is no proof that the YSF had anything to do with the cancellation of the event. And BTW, the Post is one of many papers I read from all lines of the political spectrum. Im sure you do the same.

quote:
You know, I'm not for censorship at all, but if it's a matter of one building on the campus, I don't really see what's so terribly bad about that.
One building at which some students or others indicated there would be trouble if Pipes spoke. Smith, you may not see it as much but many see it as the slippery slope.

It was unacceptable and in this case the administration did the right thing. I do wonder, however, if the CJC would not have lobbied on the JSF's behalf if Pipes would have spoken at all?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 26 January 2003 11:55 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's amusing when an advocate of censorship is himself censored...

I don't know about the slippery slope. As I said, it's one building, they're trying to find another building for him (or they were), and, well, I don't know who exactly controls this building, but I don't think saying "no, not in my building" is censorship.

If there were threats of violence or the like, that's different. But I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that someone with such an exclusive and offensive point of view not speak in the building that's supposed to be (is it?) controlled by all the students.

quote:
I do wonder, however, if the CJC would not have lobbied on the JSF's behalf if Pipes would have spoken at all?

Too many negatives in that sentence. Are you saying the CJC lobbied to get Pipes to speak? I honestly don't understand.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 26 January 2003 12:47 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
but I don't think saying "no, not in my building" is censorship.

At a university campus? Isn't a university suppoose to be a market place of ideas? It is unreal that thjis could happen at a university campus.

There are now rumors going around Campus that some students may try to set up road blocks to stop Pipes from entering. If this is true we have a serious problem on our hands. Anarchy cannot be allowed to win.

quote:
Are you saying the CJC lobbied to get Pipes to speak? I honestly don't understand.

It seems that CJC assisted JSF. I note that it has commented on the matter so Im assumming it played some role.

[ 26 January 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 26 January 2003 12:50 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
At a university campus? Isn't a university suppoose to be a market place of ideas?

I don't think it's appropriate to insist that a student-run building be required to take in speakers whom many of the students feel are racists. That can happen in other buildings.

And if the CJC tried to get Pipes there, well, shame on them for endorsing this shit.

[ 26 January 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 26 January 2003 12:52 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is this censorship?

quote:
UBC Daily Media Summary

PROFESSORS SHUN MIDDLE EAST SCHOLAR

National Post
Fri 24 Jan 2003
Page: A9
Byline: Chris Wattie

York University professors have withdrawn an invitation to meet with a controversial Middle East scholar who is speaking at the Toronto campus next week.

Daniel Pipes, an author and analyst with the Middle East Forum think-tank, was to have been the guest of honour at a lunch by York's Centre for International and Security Studies next Tuesday, just before speaking with students at a nearby campus
restaurant.

The visit by Dr. Pipes, one of the first and most persistent analysts warning of the dangers of Islamic extremists, has become the centre of a dispute between the Jewish Students Federation, which invited him to speak, and university authorities fearful
of protests like those at Concordia University last year.

David Dewitt, a political science professor at York, said the centre decided not to have lunch with Dr. Pipes after all because of his affiliation with Campus Watch, a U.S.-based group that acts as a watchdog on professors studying the Middle East.



From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 26 January 2003 12:56 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't see why they should have to be all chummy with him, personally. He's a censorship advocate for crynoutloud. He isn't their friend.

Mind you, I don't know exactly what's involved in an academic boycott, and I don't know how much this will affect his career - but my guess is not much. I think all he is entitled to is the opportunity to speak.

[ 26 January 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 26 January 2003 01:10 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Smith and the rest, if you think Pipes is such a bad guy then confront the shit out of him, peacefully. That is what a university is for. It is not for students to hear only what they like and agree with.

Sheesh, what's happening to today's students? They seem to be one dimensional refusing any other pov. Shame on them for denying access to a POV they disagree with and kudos to CJC for standing up for academic freedom. Same kudos to Lorna Marsden, president of York and the Toronto Star for recognizing what a university is suppose to be.

Smith, you are a student are you really that close minded as to promote only what you think is right? If your university is that way your education will be very limited.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
darkhorse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3508

posted 26 January 2003 01:18 PM      Profile for darkhorse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A free society doesn't mean we give up all judgement. Any institution should rightfully think twice about inviting someone to speak whose views are racist and immoral.
From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 26 January 2003 01:20 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Smith and the rest, if you think Pipes is such a bad guy then confront the shit out of him, peacefully. That is what a university is for. It is not for students to hear only what they like and agree with.

I'm not arguing for that. I'm saying he shouldn't be in the student building if he cannot be assumed to represent the interests of all the students. And I really don't think he does. If they were banning him from all or most of the university, I'd agree with you. However, when you only really control one building in a larger institution, I'd say allowing someone to speak there is tantamount to endorsement of their views. Fine when you're having a talk about peace or tolerance or postmodern theories or whatever; not fine when you're a racist pro-censorship ass and the group you're prejudiced against makes up a large chunk of the student population. I would expect a university to allow Tom Paulin to speak, for example (they had a controversy about that at Harvard, as you may know), but I wouldn't ask to have him speak at a building devoted to general student interests.

quote:

Sheesh, what's happening to today's students? They seem to be one dimensional refusing any other pov.

Bull. Not refusing. Some things are appropriate; some are not. If someone wanted to have, say, David Irving in there to talk about the issues on which he is a genuine expert (as opposed to the issues on which he's a repulsive anti-Semitic goon), I'd feel the same way. (Actually, I probably would protest the speech, but regardless, I wouldn't want it in the student building.) Controversy is fine; hate is not fine.

quote:

Smith, you are a student are you really that close minded as to promote only what you think is right? If your university is that way your education will be very limited.

Well, as far as I know we don't have speeches in the student union building, so the issue's pretty much moot. The rest of campus does not claim to represent my specific interests.

[ 26 January 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 26 January 2003 02:58 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm not arguing for that. I'm saying he shouldn't be in the student building if he cannot be assumed to represent the interests of all the students. And I really don't think he does. If they were banning him from all or most of the university, I'd agree with you. However, when you only really control one building in a larger institution, I'd say allowing someone to speak there is tantamount to endorsement of their views. Fine when you're having a talk about peace or tolerance or postmodern theories or whatever; not fine when you're a racist pro-censorship ass and the group you're prejudiced against makes up a large chunk of the student population. I would expect a university to allow Tom Paulin to speak, for example (they had a controversy about that at Harvard, as you may know), but I wouldn't ask to have him speak at a building devoted to general student interests.


I hate being put in a position of defending Pipes, nonetheless, like Ahmed Aijaz (The Nazification of Israel) who also spoke there, Pipes has not ever been charged with promoting hatred. He has a right to his POV no matter how offensive you find it and like other offensive speakers who have spoken at the underground, should have the same right.

Tom Paulin is an interesting case. He seemed to be advocating the deaths of settlers as I recall. That would be beyond the pale but if he has never been charged with a hate crime I suppose he has as much right to speak as anyone else.

Now for example, there are those who consider Alan Dershowitz a racist today and a supporter of torture. Should he be able to speak at the Student centre? Many Jewish students believe that Norman Finklestein in a Holocaust minimizer and a selfe-hater, should he be permitted to speak at the student centre? Some on this very board have accused B'nai Brith of being racist should it be permiited to speak at the student union?

I think you get my drift here. Who makes the rules? What are the rules? You cannot be subjective about this. You cannot pick and choose at whim. I believe there are protocols for who can speak at the student union. If Pipes met those protocols (which he must have because Im told he was booked into the centre weeks ago)why should he be shut down?

And lastly, but most importatntly, let's not revise history here. Pipes was shut down not because of any protocol problem; he was sut down from the Student Union because of threats. That cannot be permitted. I cannot imagine that you Smith would find that tactic acceptable.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 26 January 2003 03:11 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I specifically said that I do not find that acceptable.

If the past history of the building is as you say it is, I suppose you are right. And the threats are unacceptable. Nonetheless, I hope they have a big whoppin' (peaceful) protest the day he speaks.

As for Paulin, as I recall, he's retracted his statement about shooting settlers, which sounds like a statement made in the heat of emotion; nonetheless, I can see why people are uncomfortable with him.

[ 26 January 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 26 January 2003 03:14 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
however, this man is a censorship advocate, which is important.

And that is EXACTLY what a university is for. That is EXACTLY what students should be doing CONFRONTING such ideas, exposing such concepts to the light of day. This then is exactly where Pipes SHOULD speak, at the student centre so that if people believe he advocates censorship, they can confront the shit out of him. Certainly preferable to discussing the super bowl over a cappacino, no?

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 26 January 2003 03:15 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, I hope they allow for confrontation, in that case.

quote:
That is EXACTLY what students should be doing CONFRONTING such ideas, exposing such concepts to the light of day.

Where, with any luck, they will shrivel up and disappear. Feh.

[ 26 January 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 26 January 2003 03:17 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
They always have in the past.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 26 January 2003 03:26 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am familiar with the first proposed venue for Pipes' speech. I do think that it is insecure, and that, given his controversial ideas, one could find more controllable venues.

It is no shame that York University wants to insure his security.

By the way, for people interested in both sides of the debate about who may speak on campuses, and who is officially discouraged, The New Yorker has an article this week about Irish poet Tom Paulin, who was disinvited from speaking at Harvard.

Although the New Yorker article is the most complete, this link gives the essence of the situation:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1113-03.htm

p.s.

quote:
Tom Paulin is an interesting case. He seemed to be advocating the deaths of settlers as I recall.

According to the New Yorker, he has disavowed this opinion.

[ 26 January 2003: Message edited by: jeff house ]


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 26 January 2003 05:02 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One wee comment about the use of the word "censorship":

To me, censorship is a legal category: that is, it takes the state to censor, to forbid any legal dissemination at all.

In a distinctly different situation would be, eg, the editor of a periodical, a newspaper or magazine. Even when they are committed to presenting a variety of viewpoints (and not all are), most periodicals reserve the right to define their own editorial character, and to reject any submission on that basis.

Universities, it's true, are publicly funded institutions; and beyond that, as Mishei says, they have a tradition of being a protected space for free inquiry and open debate, and claim themselves special status because of that tradition.

But what if, eg, a single group on campus began a program of inviting one provocative speaker after another? Mishei fears anarchy, but it seems to me that the partisan on many sides are capable of stretching the tolerance of others to crisis level, especially when the partisans pay only lip-service to tolerance.

At the other extreme, of course, this case reminds us that the category of "hate crime" is a troubling one. Who defines hatred, and who passes judgement on individual cases?

I think that liberals have to recognize that it is all very well to defend open debate to the hilt -- I certainly do, probably further than most here (I am opposed to criminalizing thought and expression, period) -- but there are times and situations where the contests of the impassioned will simply drown free debate. They simply will. It is naive to resist recognizing that hard truth.

Mind you, I don't think it's naive to keep defending open debate -- as long as you're prepared to die for it.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 26 January 2003 05:50 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Mind you, I don't think it's naive to keep defending open debate -- as long as you're prepared to die for it.


And many have Skdadl, many have.

There have been countless crisis over countless decades. Students in universities have confronted a myriad of issues from desegragation to the Vietnam war from the FLQ crisis to apartheid South Africa and debate remained open free and challenging.

I say shame on those students who prefer to stop debate rather than confront ideas they dont like.

Its easy to stop speech. Fascists do it all the time. It is much harder to stand up for what you believe in to cofront what you consider offensive and through what you believe is the truth argue it out.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 26 January 2003 05:54 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nonetheless, there have to be limits...unless you want to see Ernst Zundel speaking at universities.
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 26 January 2003 05:55 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei, maybe it's time that we dropped loaded terms like "shame" and "fascist" and admitted that sometimes every culture produces or goes through -- what shall we call them? -- romantic phases where liberal values at least face severe challenges ... and simply moralizing at people who become impassioned accomplishes little.

I'm not suggesting that you abandon your values. I am suggesting that we all might take more time to understand what we face, and why. Partisans can't do that.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 26 January 2003 06:00 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Nonetheless, there have to be limits...unless you want to see Ernst Zundel speaking at universities.
There are limits. Hate speech, in which people who have violated Canada's hate provisions would be the limit. Zundel who has been found in violation of Canada's Human rights code would fit that bill (excuse the pun).

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 26 January 2003 07:15 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Isn't a university suppoose to be a market place of ideas?

But doesn't Pipes want that market to be monopolized by only those who agree with U.S. and Israeli policy?
Isn't he just getting a taste of his own medicine?

p.s. - I was being critical of the Star for leaving out the part about Campus Watch.


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 26 January 2003 11:45 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But doesn't Pipes want that market to be monopolized by only those who agree with U.S. and Israeli policy?
Isn't he just getting a taste of his own medicine?
Maybe, so you don't like what he says, challenge him don't threaten him.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 27 January 2003 12:08 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did I threaten him? Don't recall saying, insinuating or thinking that. All I'm saying is that if enough people have already found him objectionable enough to lobby to deny him a venue, then that's good enough for me.

In fact, he should be denied entry into Canada altogether. That can certainly be one line that's drawn. There are enough hateful people in Canada already, we surely don't need any more coming in (and to get paid on top of it).

My views are based on Campus Watch which I think is despicably anti-democratic and hateful. Going to debate him only legitimizes his dreck politics. But if he does speak, I'm sure there will be many people, much more qualified than I, who will attempt to challenge his views. It'll be interesting to see how the event is organized and who gets to speak.

I'll take a Jaggi Singh anyday over Daniel Pipes as my cause celebre.

You lose credibility by accrediting things to me (and others) which they don't say.

[ 27 January 2003: Message edited by: Non-partisan partisan ]


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 27 January 2003 12:18 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Did I threaten him? Don't recall saying, insinuating or thinking that
Im not talking about you.

However the fact that you would prefer Jaggi Singh a person who has advoctaed and supported violence as a means to an end over Pipes an academic polemicist and controversial webmaster says much.

BTW Pipes cannot be denied entry to Canada he has never been charged with anything.

[ 27 January 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 27 January 2003 01:11 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You quoted me and then said not to threaten him? Don't quote me if you're not responding to me. That's called smearing.

Don't you mean Pipes was never convicted of a crime? Or are you still trying to cover your ass over advocating that Singh should have never been allowed into Israel? Pipes on other hand, should be welcomed with open arms so we can debate him? That's consistent.

I didn't know that Pipes was a pacifist. At least I learned something.


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012

posted 27 January 2003 01:19 AM      Profile for Flowers By Irene     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Inventing words, twisting words to fit a certain context, this is all part of the game, no??

NPP, dont take the slight as personal, it happens much 'round these parts - I can think of at least once it happened to me this weekend, (perhaps more, I have yet to read every thread I was involved in TWnd.)


From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 27 January 2003 01:27 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks Flowers. I think I'll just avoid any threads started by this guy and avoid the aggravation. I don't take it personally.
From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 27 January 2003 05:55 AM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
skdadl's wee comment about censorship is excellent.

I don't see anything wrong with letting someone such as Daniel Pipes speak at a university. I would have no objection to Ernst Zündel, either, as scary as his ideas may be. (skdadl: "...Who defines hatred, and who passes judgement on individual cases?")
Sorry, Smith, I agree there should be limits, but I don't believe these limits should be on "who" or "what" but on "how".

If students feel that too many anti-Islamic speakers are using the university's facilities, then instead of "banning" speakers students should organise themselves and find funding to promote other views.

On the issue of Palestine/Israel it seems to me that there is significant disparity between pro-Israel organisations and other groups, in terms of organisation and funding. So instead of banning speakers, I think the university should try more constructive stategies to "equalize" the oportunities to speak. For example, by setting certain days for each group involved to have their say, students would put their energy into promoting different views instead of stifling them.


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 27 January 2003 07:57 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Don't you mean Pipes was never convicted of a crime? Or are you still trying to cover your ass over advocating that Singh should have never been allowed into Israel? Pipes on other hand, should be welcomed with open arms so we can debate him? That's consistent.

I didn't know that Pipes was a pacifist. At least I learned something.


No it is sufficient that even facing charges or if a customs officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe you may commit a crime in Canada to be disallowed entry.

quote:
You quoted me and then said not to threaten him? Don't quote me if you're not responding to me. That's called smearing....I think I'll just avoid any threads started by this guy and avoid the aggravation. I don't take it personally.

The Quote was used for emphasis on the subject. Clearly there was no threat in your quote...btw, is this a new policy, your "smearing" example?

And while I respect your decision not to respond to my posts, must admit it is sort of like "since I don't like what you say Im taking my marbles and going home".


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 27 January 2003 09:00 AM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And while I respect your decision not to respond to my posts, must admit it is sort of like "since I don't like what you say Im taking my marbles and going home".
*ehem* That's true.

From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 27 January 2003 10:27 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'll just take my marbles and play somewhere else. Home is so boring. It's not that I disagree with what you say, it's that you don't "play fair".

I actually said I would avoid your threads, not your posts so I don't doubt we'll meet again.

[ 27 January 2003: Message edited by: Non-partisan partisan ]


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 27 January 2003 11:29 AM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
BTW, just to challenge the thread's inflammatory and innappropriate conflation of Concordia and York - wasn't the Netanyahu event specifically closed to the general student population? Wasn't this at the root of the violence? This whole notion that Universities have a responsibility to be the open marketplace of ideas is negated when controversial figures are invited to speak unopposed and unchallenged. Denying students the opportunity to challenge the proponents of controversial ideas is as egeregious an act of violence as a riot that results from its suppression is. Let's not forget where the academic chill is emanating from here.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 27 January 2003 11:52 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Denying students the opportunity to challenge the proponents of controversial ideas is as egeregious an act of violence...

Try signing up for a women's studies course, and make it clear to them that you're there to challenge some ideas and present the "guy's side" & you'll find yourself as welcome as a reggae band at a National Alliance convention.

It would be nice if everyone were committed to respect and decorum above their own politics, but they aren't. Any controversial ideas are open to being heckled, disrupted or shut down if no controls are in place.

At Concordia that happened regardless of the controls; do you really believe that if the crowd HAD been invited in that they would have sat at the back taking notes? Raised their hand if they had a comment? I don't.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 27 January 2003 11:57 AM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why do you think that? Because Likud's opponents can't help themselves, they are all just naturally violent?
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 27 January 2003 12:38 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think the crowd was there to respectfully debate the issues because too many protesters have claimed, after the fact, that they did what they set out to do: shut him down. Not "get in to hear him speak and perhaps rebut", but shut him down.

Had they been invited in then perhaps there would not have been a free-for-all as there was, but I don't doubt that shutting him down would have still been on their agenda.

Do you really think the lynchpin of all of this was the (alleged) closed invite list?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 27 January 2003 12:54 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes I really do. Perhaps you and I have differing views on what "shut him down" means. I assume this means dispute his position, respectfully if given the opportunity, and forcefully if it is clear that the opportunity to debate is going to be short-shrifted. Mostly, I'm tired of having this most salient point about Netanyahu's Concordia engagement go completely ignored in op-ed piece after op-ed piece now. It flies directly in the face of the "free marketplace of ideas" rhetoric, because like most other free-market blathering, what is actually meant is a monopoly of ideas.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 27 January 2003 03:02 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Perhaps you and I have differing views on what "shut him down" means.

Ya, likely. I'm remembering all the commotion on various IMC's at the time, and most of the posters seemed pretty self-satisfied that they had stopped him from speaking. I don't recall anyone saying "Gee... we only wanted to confront his ideas - how did this get so out of hand?".

I think that many of them would have pilloried him if they'd had the chance.

I think we also disagree on the relevance of whether or not everyone who wanted to attend got a ticket. The "anti" side claims that they were denied tickets on the basis of their assumed position, while the "pro" side claims that tickets were given out first-come, first-served. Either way, if you aren't one of the ones who gets to protest inside, protest outside. The public isn't going to see or hear you inside anyway. This Pipes speech could be a litmus test of this though... just let everyone in to hear him, and watch as peace breaks out

And for the record, I wouldn't expect the pro-Palestinian groups to invite Hillel to their meetings or speeches either, and for exactly the same reason. There's just too much bad energy at Concordia; it's WAY past being a situation of 'learning and debate'... it's not far from where someone's going to get physically hurt.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 27 January 2003 04:18 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Long thread!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca