Tag Archives: Censorship

News

Alberta judge defends student’s free speech against U of Calgary

Leave a comment

A surprising defeat for fascism in Alberta, Canada. (H/T Andrew)

Excerpt:

An Alberta judge ruled last week that universities are not entities deserving of independence and protection from the state, but rather that they are part of the state. In her decision, involving a case where twin brothers challenged being punished by the University of Calgary for negative Facebook posts about an instructor, Justice Jo’Anne Strekaf ruled that the university violated the Charter right to free expression. The landmark decision may have legal precedence, but it will unnecessarily handicap universities when acting as universities.

As only Parliament and provincial legislatures are subject to the Charter, Strekaf has confirmed that at least some policies held and enforced by universities are on par with government legislation when certain Charter rights are concerned.

In 1990, a Supreme Court ruling concluded that, despite government regulation and funding, universities “control their own affairs and enjoy independence from government regarding all important internal matters.” That ruling, long cited by universities accused of violating the Charter, did leave open the possibility that some university activities could be subject to Charter review.

Strekaf’s contribution is, briefly, that when dealing with the hiring and firing of staff, universities are not government. With respect to students, however, universities educate them according to a government mandate and, therefore, are government.

While the university argued that its disciplinary policies are part of a private contract between the U of C and students, Strekaf concluded that those policies are too closely related to the school’s educational mandate to not be considered government action.

Strekaf could have only ruled that the punishment (six months’ probation) was excessive, or inconsistent with university policy, or that the students’ comments were not defamatory, and left it at that. But no, the judge went all the way, and whittled Ivory Tower autonomy down to a pathetic nub.

[…]If Strekaf’s ruling holds, it will prove popular among any number of campus protest groups, and anti-abortion clubs in particular. Such groups have been denied campus space for their activities at schools across the country, and have even been arrested and charged with trespassing. They may now have a remedy.

I hope this decision will help the Canadian pro-life students who have to deal with censorship and coercion all the time. You’ll recall that the Canadian pro-life students face censorship, expulsion and even imprisonment from left-wing university administrators.

Neonatal survival after withdrawal of artificial hydration and nutrition can last up to 26 days, according to a case series presented here at the 18th International Congress on Palliative Care. Although physical distress is not apparent in the infants, the psychological distress of parents and clinicians builds with the length of survival, said Hal Siden, MD, from Canuck Place Children’s Hospice in Vancouver, British Columbia.

“These babies live much, much longer than anybody expects. I think that neonatologists and nurses and palliative care clinicians need to be alerted to this,” he said. “The time between withdrawal of feeding and end of life is something that is not predictable, and you need to be cautioned very strongly about that if you are going to do this work.” He presented a series of 5 cases that clinicians at his hospice had overseen over a 5-year period.

News

Left-wing NPR should lose all government funding for firing Juan Williams

2 Comments

This 10-minute segment about NPR’s firing of Juan Williams is a MUST-SEE.

The CEO of NPR (Vivian Schiller) is a radical leftist. She even worked for the New York Times – the most radically left-wing newspaper in the entire nation.

Look, I love to watch Juan Williams. Sure he’s a lefty, and he says some crazy things sometimes, but he’s a great guy and a good journalist. Conservatives ought to go to the mat for Juan Williams because he has always been willing to come on Fox News and mix it up with people on the other side of the aisle – that makes him a stand-up guy in my book. NPR should be ashamed. And they should not be funded by the government if they are only going to present left-wing views. If they want to be Air America The Sequel, then let them do it with their own money, until they go bankrupt.

Sarah Palin calls for NPR to lose all government funding

Here’s what Sarah Palin said about Juan Williams’ firing. (H/T Gateway Pundit)

Excerpt:

At a time when our country is dangerously in debt and looking for areas of federal spending to cut, I think we’ve found a good candidate for defunding. National Public Radio is a public institution that directly or indirectly exists because the taxpayers fund it. And what do we, the taxpayers, get for this? We get to witness Juan Williams being fired from NPR for merely speaking frankly about the very real threat this country faces from radical Islam.

We have to have an honest discussion about the jihadist threat. Are we not allowed to say that Muslim terrorists have killed thousands of Americans and continue to plot the deaths of thousands more? Are we not allowed to say that there are Muslim states that aid and abet these fanatics? Are we not allowed to even debate the role that radical Islam plays in inciting this violence?

I don’t expect Juan Williams to support me (he’s said some tough things about me in the past) – but I will always support his right and the right of all Americans to speak honestly about the threats this country faces. And for Juan, speaking honestly about these issues isn’t just his right, it’s his job. Up until yesterday, he was doing that job at NPR. Firing him is their loss.

If NPR is unable to tolerate an honest debate about an issue as important as Islamic terrorism, then it’s time for “National Public Radio” to become “National Private Radio.” It’s time for Congress to defund this organization.

NPR says its mission is “to create a more informed public,” but by stifling debate on these issues, NPR is doing exactly the opposite. President Obama should make clear his commitment to free and honest discussion of the jihadist threat in our public debates – and Congress should make clear that unless NPR provides that public service, not one more dime.

Mr. President, what say you?

My favorite senator, Jim Demint of South Carolina, will introduce a bill to cut government funding of NPR.

If you want to see how far on the left NPR really is, read this story by Byron York. They will tolerate any insult directed at the center-right, but they can’t bear to even hear a mainstream conservative point of view.

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/10/bill-oreilly-npr-will-rue-the-day-congress-is-going-to-defund-npr-video/
News

Israeli education minister dismisses chief scientist for asking questions

2 Comments

Scary story from Haaretz.

Excerpt:

The Education Ministry’s chief scientist sparked a furor among environmental activists and scholars Saturday with remarks questioning the reliability of evolution and global warming theory. The comments from Dr. Gavriel Avital, the latest in a series of written and oral statements casting doubts on the fundamental tenets of modern science, led several environmentalists to call for his dismissal.

“If textbooks state explicitly that human beings’ origins are to be found with monkeys, I would want students to pursue and grapple with other opinions. There are many people who don’t believe the evolutionary account is correct,” Avital said yesterday.

[…]Avital, who received bachelor’s and advanced degrees from Haifa’s Technion Institute of Technology, previously directed the aeromechanical arm of electronic-systems manufacturer Elbit.

Avital is the ministry’s first chief scientist to be drawn from outside the community of education scholars. A 20-year Likud member, he represented the party in an unsuccessful 2006 Knesset run.

[…]”Why are environmental organizations pressuring the government over alternative energy that is both unattainable and probably very costly? These questions cannot be avoided,” Avital wrote. “The answers to them are likely to surprise and possibly disappoint. But the moment science is enlisted for political ends – that is, in the name of ideology – questions arise as to the scientific basis of environmental organizations.”[…]In an article published last year in the newspaper Israel Hayom and other media outlets, Avital wrote, “There is no scientific proof that the rise in carbon dioxide leads to a rise in temperatures – I would recommend to scientists not to join this intimidation campaign, which is entirely predicated on the basis of dubious science.”

Now, let’s take a look at the “arguments” of the people who are trying to silence him.

Prof. Hava Yablonka of Tel Aviv University said Avital’s statements are tantamount “to saying that space should be given in textbooks to the view that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. It’s astonishing that the chief scientist of a government ministry can say such bizarre things.”

“Avital must resign from his position,” said Dr. Lia Ettinger, academic supervisor of the Heschel Center for Environmental Learning and Leadership in Tel Aviv. The chief scientist’s remarks, she said, “are similar to the Health Ministry’s chief scientist declaring that all the research linking cigarettes with cancer are nonsense. …Avital has removed himself from the consensus,” she said.

Notice how they take their questionable theory and say that it is similar to a completely unrelated theory for which we have observational confirmation. And then they say he stupid for not equating the two things, which is the very point under debate – is there evidence for the weaker theories like there is for the stronger theories, which he obviously accepts? Notice that none of the people who are trying to silence him brought up arguments. They just commit the fallacy of begging the question, and then they demand that he agree with them. It really just amounts to insulting him rather than refuting him. Is that science?