In what B’nai Brith called a “precedent setting move,” the University of Manitoba Students Union voted Thursday to strip the group Students Against Israeli Apartheid (SAIA) of official club status.
The motion bars SAIA from receiving student union funding or using activity space in student-union controlled buildings.
[…]
The two-page resolution justified the delisting of SAIA under the terms of the Manitoba Human Rights Code, claiming that the group was guilty of “discrimination” and “harassment.”
The document also claimed that certain student union members “being Zionists, experience fear for their safety during ‘Israeli Apartheid Week.'”
h/t Kevin B
No one wants this to happen. Free speech is a fundamental right even for those groups who preach hate. To deny SAIA that right is to deny any other group the same right.
Much as I would like to see SAIA be disappeared, what happened to them can happen to any other group.My initial response to this news was one of happiness but upon reflection, it is
a dangerous precedent.
It’s about damn time!
I agree with “original”. When I first heard about this, I thought it was wrong. Free speech means those whom we dislike and disagree with have as much right to express their views as those with whom we are in accord. The Israel-haters, vile and loathsome as they are, have the same right to be heard as Israel supporters.
It is interesting that in our society the staunchest defenders of free speech tend to be conservatives, the so-called “right-wingers” who are often labelled “fascists”. Those most often acting as censors tend to be on the left, the so-called “liberals” and “progressives”. Why is this? I think it is a constant temptation for the left to flirt with (and sometimes embrace) totalitarianism. They believe they know what is best for the rest and are willing to do what it takes to reach utopia. The first milestone on that road is always suppression of free speech.
I partially agree with you that this could be a dangerous precedent, but there is an awfully long hill of leftist curtailment of freedom of speech in Canadian and American universities to climb before anything approaching that danger point would arrive.
It is on the other hand great to see the total leftist take over being arrested in U of M even if only momentarily. It could get nasty as the left can never stand losing and will redouble their viciousness.
They’re not getting censored, just cut off from funding. The students’ union is basically an unelected (under 10% of students vote) left wing cabal. Try getting “official club status” for anything to do with men’s rights, Christianity, nationalism, European heritage, etc. and see just how evenly the rules are applied. The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot anyway. They’ll just change their name to something like “Students for a Free Palestine” and be back on the teat next semester.
The problem is that when authorities have the power to ban anything ‘hateful’, anything they want can be ‘hateful’.
Eventually, of course, any form of government criticism becomes hate speech.
The best I can say is what Justice Brandeis said several years ago. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
This is good.
The whole idea of free speech has been debased, starting off in the US. Free speech is precisely that. The concept has been allowed to shade over into physical actions, activities, which have breached the peace but which have been tolerated under the rubrick of “free speech”. An assault is not “free speech”. Shouting down an opponent is not “free speech”. A demonstration is not “free speech” and should receive prompt and vigorous police attention if it does breach the peace.
While I agree with “original’s” point about freedom of speech, SAIA does practice what could legitimately fall under the heading of hate speech, which is not protected. Criticizing Israel is a protected right, but having that as a total raison d’etre for an organization and running a week-long campaign crosses the line.
A demonstration is not “free speech”
Yes it is.
having that as a total raison d’etre for an organization and running a week-long campaign crosses the line.
No it doesn’t.
This is a dangerous precedent but it does serve a useful role in encouraging hypocrites like Kate to out themselves.
No one is shutting SAIA up. They are still free to spew their hatred – on their own dime. The fact that a politicized hate group was getting student-union funding under the guise of being a “club” was the original problem, which has now been corrected. Politicized so-called “clubs” should never be funded out of general student dues, just as unions should not be funding their pet political causes out of member dues. Clubs are for photo, chess, fencing, D&D if you must’ not for political activism or violence, whether verbal or physical against identifiable groups. This has nothing to do with free speech – it has everything to do with the general student body funding distasteful groups. Let SAIA see if there really is support for their filth.
That is all.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I didn’t read anything that said anyone’s right to speech had been taken away.
What I read was that ‘funding’ which would have been provided by the student union, and use of its facilities had been taken away.
I don’t have a problem with that at all. It’s called exercising discretion and freedom of non-association.
If we deny the student union the right to make that choice, then, in effect, we have to endorse HRC decisions that would force a Roman Catholic Parish to rent its hall for a homosexual wedding or a pro-abortion rally.
Did everyone here just turn into lefties? You all seem to confuse entitlements with free speech.
NO ONE is denying them of their free speech.
They are being denied official club status and what comes with that – funding.
They are still free to run around and spout their hate speech. But they are not free to be recognized as an official student club authorized by the university, or receive funding from it.
I absolutely agree with pulling funding for them, I’m less certain about the second part – being barred from “using activity space in student-union controlled buildings”.
I guess I’d need to hear the reasoning for that, and whether or not there are adequate facilities on campus for them to continue meeting, should they choose to.
Quite obviously, I have no personal experience with the University of Manitoba.
Close but no cigar LAS. This only a precedent in that this is the first time in recent memory that a left wing group has been denied status on a university campus. I believe the larger precedent was set at the UofC when a pro-life group was treated in the same way. IMHO neither instance is a good thing. If you pay student union fees, you should be eligible to receive funding in proportion to the size of your group from the available pool, regardless of your politics or the perceived vileness of your rhetoric.
As far as this exposing Kate as a hypocrite, I don’t see how. The headline is consistent with her point that universities don’t espouse diversity in practice. The sub-heading “Pushback” comes across as a statement of fact rather than an editorial comment on the righteousness of the decision. It seems the totalitarian tactics of SAIA have been adopted by opposing forces.
What’s bad for the goose is also bad for the gander…get it? That you would ascribe hypocritical motivation to Kate based on the meager evidence available speaks more to your character than Kate’s.
I support unfettered free speech right up to the point where it becomes utterance of credible threats. I hope the religion of peaceniks fight this in court and that the joos-lose setting precedent whereby lefties, and by lefties I mean the politically correct university administrations and their sophomoric pseudo-intellectual spawn, cannot keep speakers from speaking and free speech walls from promoting ALL points of view. If this move was such a ploy on the part of the Manitoba Students Union, I say “brilliant” and “bravo”!.
Proud to say I’m a U of Man graduate.
Hey, one of my grandmothers was born in Manitoba. I’m proud of these students. There’s no place in a university for the SAIA. Let them set up in a mall or the basement of a United Church but not on a university campus.
Totally agree. And if they spout truly hate speech, there’s remedies available via the Criminal Code.
Tanker and Sean have the right of it. It’s not a free speech issue, it’s a funding issue.
Finally a tiny pin prick of light gets through the black bubble of university politics. Finally someone is reigning in Islamist and leftist antisemitism.
It be different if that organization condemned Hamas for their apartied and human right’s abuses against the people of Palestine but they never never do and I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s nothing more than a cover for anti-semites to join forces to spew hatred.
Fork em. They’ve been asking for that and worse for a long time.
TLTL – Too Little Too Late
Kate seems to approve so I made a judgement on that.
Regarding funding: this argument might work if all political groups are treated this way ie no money but I don’t know how to enforce that.
Tanker, Jamie, Sean: thank you for writing your first comments so well, now I don’t feel obliged to join the discussion to say what you so ably did.
LAS
There should be no no money for anything except “education” and that needs scrutiny.
Nope. It isn’t speech, and therefore can’t be free speech.
Anyway, you willfully ignore my point. Carrying placards at a rally probably is free speech. Chanting may be, though it is usually mindless. However, so long as the demonstration lies within the law, it is – well, lawful. However, if it turns violent or otherwise breaches the peace, free speech provisions should not afford any sort of protection.
IAW & other events , even if Conservative or Liberal should not be held under the auspices of the Students Unions . If people want to bring in speakers let them do so. Allowing this Group to officials any organization only increases PC thuggery.
Officially having one body sanction any activities is the role of Totalitarians. It killers free speech.
Through I may get a certain joy seeing the Socialists being tweaked. In the long run its worse allowing these bodies any intervention in any debates.
It isn’t speech, and therefore can’t be free speech.
Could you beg the question harder?
As per Kate’s position, you have no case. As for funding of these university groups, my understanding is that all students are required to pay student union fees, ergo all are eligible to request funds for campus groups. As I said, any and all who pay into the pool should receive from the same based on membership. Regardless of their political motivation or rhetorical bent. There are criminal laws that address excesses in speech, ie Uttering Threats…other than that, anything goes…
How convenient and easily you use the word hypocrite. Hypocrite.
original rick said: “No one wants this to happen. Free speech is a fundamental right even for those groups who preach hate. To deny SAIA that right is to deny any other group the same right.”
Its not about speech. Its about -money-.
From the article: “…University of Manitoba Students Union voted Thursday to strip the group Students Against Israeli Apartheid (SAIA) of official club status.
The motion bars SAIA from receiving student union funding or using activity space in student-union controlled buildings.”
Nowhere is it said that the SAIA is banned from campus, or that students who are members of SAIA may not speak on campus, or may not rent space to speak on campus, or that other actions shall be taken against those students or the overall organization. SAIA is no longer a club, may not use club space, and will not receive money. Period.
LAS said: “Regarding funding: this argument might work if all political groups are treated this way ie no money but I don’t know how to enforce that.”
Oh, you mean how the right-to-life groups are treated at every campus in Canada? Not a big right-to-life booster myself, but I can’t see a problem if SAIA has managed to get themselves dis-invited to the party through outright anti-Semitic activities and dangerous behavior.
One argument you should respect as a pretend libertarian (but clearly don’t) is that the money belongs to the student union. Its theirs. They can spend it where they want. As of this vote, they don’t want it wasted on SAIA. Private ownership has spoken.
Maybe all the dumbass lefties would like to face These guys …. I often wonder just what it will take to get the JDL Really involved….
I don’t often disagree with you Phantom but I will on this point. Student union fees are mandatory. As such any and all students should get a proportionate piece of the “support the groups” pie based on membership. No exceptions, no exclusions barring criminal acts. A student union is not a private entity.
syncro
same rule applies here that I use to argue against union participation in politics, as the “union” collects dues from every student, they should not be allowed to support any “activity” unless there is total agreement on the part of the payees (or in this case their representatives) who voted it down 19-15, so funding should be pulled. If I was forced to pay union dues and some a$$hole was giving money to the NDPee I would be pi$$ed big time. In this case there was a vote and the results should stand, as it ain’t NO speech issue, it’s a money issue.
LASS, quit proving yer an idiot, we’r pretty much aware of that fact by now!!!!
LAS: I think you owe Kate an apology for referring to her as a hypocrite, but that’s entirely up to you. See…free spech does exist, but you’re doing it on Kate’s dime, which engenders a little respect.
No-one is removing these peoples’ rights to free speech,, they have simply chosen not to fund it. And let us not forget that these are the same people who shout down visiting Israeli politicians to prevent them from delivering their point of view.
Now THAT is hypocrisy…
Libertarians never apologize, their smarter than that.
I will not bat an eyelash when student-funded Jew-hatred is chased off. The haters will still gather around but will have to pay for their own snacks instead of having others, who see university as a stepping stone in their lives, fund their rubbish.
I thought universities were supposed to be about learning, especially on someone else’s dime?
This whole thing is a game, anyway.
Let me know when someone is serious about reverting universities back to their original purposes.
synchro said: “A student union is not a private entity.”
Sir, must respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement.
First, student union is a private, as in non-government, non-compulsory body. Nobody is -forced- to go to university.
Second, money given by whatever means to the student union is property of the student union, to be used (or abused) as decided by the governance of… the student union. Same as a publicly traded company. Shareholders chose the board, which runs the company.
Third, the university itself is (I’m fairly sure) a -private- corporation. Funding comes from government, but not control. Same as a hospital.
Fourth: “…any and all students should get a proportionate piece of the “support the groups” pie based on membership.” Yes, subject to the discretion of the board. Which has ruled bad behavior trumps entitlement. Yay!
The lawyer agreed with you, but the board said “we don’t care, we’re not paying money to those idiots.” Kudos to the board for finally showing up with a fully calcified spinal column.
And trollocracy (not synchro) please note, still a MONEY issue.
Actual -censorship- is when the cops come to your house and chuck you in the slammer for talking.
Oh, and LASsie is an idiot. Just sayin’.
For those concerned this is stifling “free” speech, why do they want funding and access to the facility? Let them buy their own soap box.
As an alumni of the U of M, and a member of at what that time was a recognized “club,” I know the recognition of a “club” allows the application for funding grants, the ability to rent office space from what is considered a private facility, UMSU, aka the student centre, not the public University.