This is in Canada, and it's Liberal, (not Conservative) MPs asking.
Liberal MPs ask universities if calling for genocide of Jews violates school codes (https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberal-mps-ask-universities-if-calling-for-genocide-of-jews-violates-school-codes-1.6687343)
QuoteFive Liberal members of Parliament are asking 25 Canadian university presidents to say whether calling for a genocide against Jewish people or the elimination of Israel violates their school policies.
Simple answer: Calling for genocide of
any group should violate codes. I doubt there will be as much problem with clarity on this as in the US.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 15, 2023, 05:02:22 AMThis is in Canada, and it's Liberal, (not Conservative) MPs asking.
Liberal MPs ask universities if calling for genocide of Jews violates school codes (https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberal-mps-ask-universities-if-calling-for-genocide-of-jews-violates-school-codes-1.6687343)
QuoteFive Liberal members of Parliament are asking 25 Canadian university presidents to say whether calling for a genocide against Jewish people or the elimination of Israel violates their school policies.
Simple answer: Calling for genocide of any group should violate codes. I doubt there will be as much problem with clarity on this as in the US.
Please go listen to the NYT Daily podcast from the other thread I recommended. At the beginning of the infamous US hearing, the soundbites not aired ad nauseum included all Presidents actively denouncing genocide in their intro statements. Their stumbling to answer congressional gotchas, while cringey, is not the whole answer.
Quote from: Diogenes on December 15, 2023, 07:24:44 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on December 15, 2023, 05:02:22 AMThis is in Canada, and it's Liberal, (not Conservative) MPs asking.
Liberal MPs ask universities if calling for genocide of Jews violates school codes (https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberal-mps-ask-universities-if-calling-for-genocide-of-jews-violates-school-codes-1.6687343)
QuoteFive Liberal members of Parliament are asking 25 Canadian university presidents to say whether calling for a genocide against Jewish people or the elimination of Israel violates their school policies.
Simple answer: Calling for genocide of any group should violate codes. I doubt there will be as much problem with clarity on this as in the US.
Please go listen to the NYT Daily podcast from the other thread I recommended. At the beginning of the infamous US hearing, the soundbites not aired ad nauseum included all Presidents actively denouncing genocide in their intro statements. Their stumbling to answer congressional gotchas, while cringey, is not the whole answer.
Really! The presidents think genocide is bad! Wow!
</sarcasm>
The issue is not whether they think genocide is bad, but
whether students publicly calling for it are over the line. That's only a problem if the presidents don't want to offend said students. It has
nothing to do with
academic speech.
Calling for genocide is a hate crime in this country,so the answer is straightforward in a way it isn't in the US.
They are, however, asking in bad faith. They don't actually mean "calling for genocide". They mean things like chanting slogans which Israel has decided to equate with calls for genocide--when uttered by anyone other than Likud.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 15, 2023, 08:18:30 AMCalling for genocide is a hate crime in this country,so the answer is straightforward in a way it isn't in the US.
They are, however, asking in bad faith. They don't actually mean "calling for genocide". They mean things like chanting slogans which Israel has decided to equate with calls for genocide--when uttered by anyone other than Likud.
Exactly, depending on speaker and point of view "intifada" and "from the river to the sea" may be spoken and heard with different intents. And when it's college students doing the chanting you need to remember that they almost certainly don't understand the nuances (hell, I don't understand the nuances), and also their brains aren't ripe yet.
Quote from: onthefringe on December 15, 2023, 08:35:59 AMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on December 15, 2023, 08:18:30 AMCalling for genocide is a hate crime in this country,so the answer is straightforward in a way it isn't in the US.
They are, however, asking in bad faith. They don't actually mean "calling for genocide". They mean things like chanting slogans which Israel has decided to equate with calls for genocide--when uttered by anyone other than Likud.
Exactly, depending on speaker and point of view "intifada" and "from the river to the sea" may be spoken and heard with different intents. And when it's college students doing the chanting you need to remember that they almost certainly don't understand the nuances (hell, I don't understand the nuances), and also their brains aren't ripe yet.
That's why the adults in the room need to be telling them why what they're saying
isn't appropriate, rather than just admiring their "youthful enthusiasm" and "naivete".
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 15, 2023, 08:44:23 AMQuote from: onthefringe on December 15, 2023, 08:35:59 AMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on December 15, 2023, 08:18:30 AMCalling for genocide is a hate crime in this country,so the answer is straightforward in a way it isn't in the US.
They are, however, asking in bad faith. They don't actually mean "calling for genocide". They mean things like chanting slogans which Israel has decided to equate with calls for genocide--when uttered by anyone other than Likud.
Exactly, depending on speaker and point of view "intifada" and "from the river to the sea" may be spoken and heard with different intents. And when it's college students doing the chanting you need to remember that they almost certainly don't understand the nuances (hell, I don't understand the nuances), and also their brains aren't ripe yet.
That's why the adults in the room need to be telling them why what they're saying isn't appropriate, rather than just admiring their "youthful enthusiasm" and "naivete".
Those aren't calls for genocide, though.
And when students
have said awful, morally bad, and stupid things--e.g. the group that called Hamas's attack 'heroic' (also not a call for genocide)--the university
has intervened appropriately.
Keep in mind that many people, including some posting here, specifically criticized those college presidents for not explicitly saying that genocide was bad in their answers. Apparently they had done so earlier. Perhaps they should have repeated it, its hard to say. I said and still believe that their answers were fine as isolated answers to the specific question. But the questioner was really asking a moral question (as the podcast elucidates), so they probably should have re-affirmed their moral beliefs when answering the question, lest they get mired in legalese and bureaucratic talk (which, lets face it, they did).
I think it's the same problem that happened after George Floyd's death with all kinds of people failing to denounce looting and vandalism, because the felt that the intense emotion people felt was understandable. Part of learning to be a mature adult is learning to control your actions, regardless of the strength of your emotions, but many people in positions of leadership have abdicated their responsibility to deliver that message.
It's not helping young people to give them the impression that if they're REALLY, REALLY upset about something they can basically do whatever they want.
In various other contexts as well in recent months, reading and listening to tv commentary, I have noticed that 'genocide' is becoming a rather overused, nigh-onto-meaningless buzzword.
I think what people are sort of thinking (who agree with these sorts of conclusions) is the following:
If you call for an uprising against Israel you are essentially calling for war--> Most soldiers in Israel (and a large majority of civilians) are Jewish--> Wars will obviously kill people--> most will be Jewish--> therefore if you call for an uprising against a mostly Jewish nation it will lead to a war that will get a lot of jews killed--> therefore, genocide---.therefore call for "uprising" is tantamount (in their view!) to calling for genocide.
The same reasoning can be used for any group, and more or less has been.
Though I can see the steps that lead to such conclusions, its one of those arguments for which the somewhat weaker links add up to create a very weak argument.
That being said, those calling for "uprisings" and such should indeed be aware of what those words will mean to others. I am not calling for abridging speech. I am calling for more teachable moments.
The other claim of genocide is against Israel, that it has been conducting genocide against the residents of Gaza. Would Israel really have wanted to do this, it would have been all over by now.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 15, 2023, 08:44:23 AMQuote from: onthefringe on December 15, 2023, 08:35:59 AMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on December 15, 2023, 08:18:30 AMCalling for genocide is a hate crime in this country,so the answer is straightforward in a way it isn't in the US.
They are, however, asking in bad faith. They don't actually mean "calling for genocide". They mean things like chanting slogans which Israel has decided to equate with calls for genocide--when uttered by anyone other than Likud.
Exactly, depending on speaker and point of view "intifada" and "from the river to the sea" may be spoken and heard with different intents. And when it's college students doing the chanting you need to remember that they almost certainly don't understand the nuances (hell, I don't understand the nuances), and also their brains aren't ripe yet.
That's why the adults in the room need to be telling them why what they're saying isn't appropriate, rather than just admiring their "youthful enthusiasm" and "naivete".
People are allowed to have opinions, even bad opinions.
It's not really the "adults" right to tell people what is "appropriate," no matte how young the speaker is (obviously, not talking about the little children you are raising). One can only counteract hate speech with your own more humane opinion.
Freedom of speech is a very dangerous thing, as is freedom of religion and most other freedoms while we are at it.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 15, 2023, 08:44:23 AMQuote from: onthefringe on December 15, 2023, 08:35:59 AMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on December 15, 2023, 08:18:30 AMCalling for genocide is a hate crime in this country,so the answer is straightforward in a way it isn't in the US.
They are, however, asking in bad faith. They don't actually mean "calling for genocide". They mean things like chanting slogans which Israel has decided to equate with calls for genocide--when uttered by anyone other than Likud.
Exactly, depending on speaker and point of view "intifada" and "from the river to the sea" may be spoken and heard with different intents. And when it's college students doing the chanting you need to remember that they almost certainly don't understand the nuances (hell, I don't understand the nuances), and also their brains aren't ripe yet.
That's why the adults in the room need to be telling them why what they're saying isn't appropriate, rather than just admiring their "youthful enthusiasm" and "naivete".
Wait, just to be clear... Are you coming out against free speech on campus, here? That... seems to be against years of arguments you've made.
Quote from: eigen on December 17, 2023, 09:58:47 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on December 15, 2023, 08:44:23 AMQuote from: onthefringe on December 15, 2023, 08:35:59 AMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on December 15, 2023, 08:18:30 AMCalling for genocide is a hate crime in this country,so the answer is straightforward in a way it isn't in the US.
They are, however, asking in bad faith. They don't actually mean "calling for genocide". They mean things like chanting slogans which Israel has decided to equate with calls for genocide--when uttered by anyone other than Likud.
Exactly, depending on speaker and point of view "intifada" and "from the river to the sea" may be spoken and heard with different intents. And when it's college students doing the chanting you need to remember that they almost certainly don't understand the nuances (hell, I don't understand the nuances), and also their brains aren't ripe yet.
That's why the adults in the room need to be telling them why what they're saying isn't appropriate, rather than just admiring their "youthful enthusiasm" and "naivete".
Wait, just to be clear... Are you coming out against free speech on campus, here? That... seems to be against years of arguments you've made.
Nope. That's where I'd point them to things like a code of conduct (which is the origin of this thread). It's not hard to make it clear to people that there is a pretty broad range of what they can
legally say, there is narrower range of what they can say
without opening themselves to public criticism. So, admins can point out that certain speech won't get students expelled, but it doesn't exhibit the kind of character and values that educated people are expected to have.
It's ironic that many of the most vehement criticisms of Israel (and possibly Jews in general) are from a generation of people who define "harm" in such broad terms and with such huge consequences that people are to be
fired for
comments they make. The "cancellers" are much less judicious in their speech than what they demand of others. Pointing out that sort of inconsistently is well within the purview of administrators and faculty.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 17, 2023, 10:39:44 AMThat's where I'd point them to things like a code of conduct (which is the origin of this thread). It's not hard to make it clear to people that there is a pretty broad range of what they can legally say, there is narrower range of what they can say without opening themselves to public criticism. So, admins can point out that certain speech won't get students expelled, but it doesn't exhibit the kind of character and values that educated people are expected to have.
It's ironic that many of the most vehement criticisms of Israel (and possibly Jews in general) are from a generation of people who define "harm" in such broad terms and with such huge consequences that people are to be fired for comments they make. The "cancellers" are much less judicious in their speech than what they demand of others. Pointing out that sort of inconsistently is well within the purview of administrators and faculty.
Okay, that's not bad, as long as the "code of conduct" is very moderate and reasonable---such a "code" when poorly designed is exactly how we end up with "cancellers." That's where your problem will lie. We have two whole threads on this problem.
Although I do not think that a line like "the kind of character and values that educated people are expected to have" is going to have much traction with students, or anyone, for that matter----I can almost hear the sneers, and very few extremists think their extremism is extreme; extremists tend to think they are right.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 17, 2023, 08:36:11 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on December 17, 2023, 10:39:44 AMThat's where I'd point them to things like a code of conduct (which is the origin of this thread). It's not hard to make it clear to people that there is a pretty broad range of what they can legally say, there is narrower range of what they can say without opening themselves to public criticism. So, admins can point out that certain speech won't get students expelled, but it doesn't exhibit the kind of character and values that educated people are expected to have.
It's ironic that many of the most vehement criticisms of Israel (and possibly Jews in general) are from a generation of people who define "harm" in such broad terms and with such huge consequences that people are to be fired for comments they make. The "cancellers" are much less judicious in their speech than what they demand of others. Pointing out that sort of inconsistently is well within the purview of administrators and faculty.
Okay, that's not bad, as long as the "code of conduct" is very moderate and reasonable---such a "code" when poorly designed is exactly how we end up with "cancellers." That's where your problem will lie. We have two whole threads on this problem.
Although I do not think that a line like "the kind of character and values that educated people are expected to have" is going to have much traction with students, or anyone, for that matter----I can almost hear the sneers, and very few extremists think their extremism is extreme; extremists tend to think they are right.
I agree completely; however, most of the mob are not the extremists; they're the sheep who go along to fit in. Being unequivocal about what crosses the line might move a bunch
of the *sheep, and a
small group of extremists aren't nearly as dangerous as a
large mob
controlled by a small group of extremists.
(*The sheep are, by definition, people
very much concerned with how they are perceived by others, so knowing that their actions make other people lose respect for them will have a
huge effect on them.)
Well, establishing the line calls for a bit of sheepism on someone's part, no?
I think we are back to square one in which someone is controlling what someone else is allowed to say through some sort of control mechanism.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 18, 2023, 10:20:15 AMWell, establishing the line calls for a bit of sheepism on someone's part, no?
I think we are back to square one in which someone is controlling what someone else is allowed to say through some sort of control mechanism.
As dismalist said in another thread
Quote from: dismalist on December 11, 2023, 10:54:02 AMOnce upon a time one didn't need lawyers to draw the limits of the allowed, one had common courtesy, which amounts to self-restraint. Everybody wants to exercise their right to free speech. Doing so turns the university into a commons of cross purpose yelling.
Institutions have gotten squeamish about telling students that certain behaviour is rude and immature. (And, perhaps more importantly,
unproducitve, or even
counterproductive.) It's considered essential to support any and all expressions of outrage because it "validates" their feelings.
Validating everything a two-year-old does kind of shows how that turns out.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 18, 2023, 10:42:19 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on December 18, 2023, 10:20:15 AMWell, establishing the line calls for a bit of sheepism on someone's part, no?
I think we are back to square one in which someone is controlling what someone else is allowed to say through some sort of control mechanism.
As dismalist said in another thread
Quote from: dismalist on December 11, 2023, 10:54:02 AMOnce upon a time one didn't need lawyers to draw the limits of the allowed, one had common courtesy, which amounts to self-restraint. Everybody wants to exercise their right to free speech. Doing so turns the university into a commons of cross purpose yelling.
Institutions have gotten squeamish about telling students that certain behaviour is rude and immature. (And, perhaps more importantly, unproducitve, or even counterproductive.) It's considered essential to support any and all expressions of outrage because it "validates" their feelings.
Validating everything a two-year-old does kind of shows how that turns out.
Is that not "viewpoint diversity"?
Institutions are squeamish about telling people their idiot views on climate change, racial IQ, sex/gender, etc. are stupid and unwelcome and, perhaps more importantly, unproductive or even counterproductive. It's considered essential to support any and all such expressions of outrage because it validates their feelings.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 15, 2023, 05:02:22 AMThis is in Canada, and it's Liberal, (not Conservative) MPs asking.
Liberal MPs ask universities if calling for genocide of Jews violates school codes (https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberal-mps-ask-universities-if-calling-for-genocide-of-jews-violates-school-codes-1.6687343)
QuoteFive Liberal members of Parliament are asking 25 Canadian university presidents to say whether calling for a genocide against Jewish people or the elimination of Israel violates their school policies.
Simple answer: Calling for genocide of any group should violate codes. I doubt there will be as much problem with clarity on this as in the US.
Seems weird to conflate genocide with elimination of Israel. People can believe that Israel should not exist in its current form without being genocidal.
These "tough questions" are all just setup to then take part of their answer out of context.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 18, 2023, 10:42:19 AMInstitutions have gotten squeamish about telling students that certain behaviour is rude and immature. (And, perhaps more importantly, unproducitve, or even counterproductive.) It's considered essential to support any and all expressions of outrage because it "validates" their feelings.
Validating everything a two-year-old does kind of shows how that turns out.
Examples?
The issues that students take on are usually important, even if I do not always agree with the aggressive and disruptive nature of their expression.
Would we say the same thing, for instance, about objections to drag queens reading books to children in libraries?
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 18, 2023, 10:54:22 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on December 18, 2023, 10:42:19 AMInstitutions have gotten squeamish about telling students that certain behaviour is rude and immature. (And, perhaps more importantly, unproducitve, or even counterproductive.) It's considered essential to support any and all expressions of outrage because it "validates" their feelings.
Validating everything a two-year-old does kind of shows how that turns out.
Is that not "viewpoint diversity"?
Institutions are squeamish about telling people their idiot views on climate change, racial IQ, sex/gender, etc. are stupid and unwelcome and, perhaps more importantly, unproductive or even counterproductive. It's considered essential to support any and all such expressions of outrage because it validates their feelings.
Have they really? I'd say institutions are
blindingly clear on what they think of views that are from the "wrong" ideological point of view. But for
extreme views that are closer to
their ideological point of view, they are largely mute.
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 18, 2023, 11:10:59 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on December 15, 2023, 05:02:22 AMThis is in Canada, and it's Liberal, (not Conservative) MPs asking.
Liberal MPs ask universities if calling for genocide of Jews violates school codes (https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberal-mps-ask-universities-if-calling-for-genocide-of-jews-violates-school-codes-1.6687343)
QuoteFive Liberal members of Parliament are asking 25 Canadian university presidents to say whether calling for a genocide against Jewish people or the elimination of Israel violates their school policies.
Simple answer: Calling for genocide of any group should violate codes. I doubt there will be as much problem with clarity on this as in the US.
Seems weird to conflate genocide with elimination of Israel. People can believe that Israel should not exist in its current form without being genocidal.
These "tough questions" are all just setup to then take part of their answer out of context.
But that's the point: the question asked "IF someone called for genocide of Jews, would that violate the code of conduct?" It wasn't a question of
what might be
considered a call for genocide; if it were, the inability to give a straight answer would have made sense. (And if the presidents had stuck to the idea that
what would qualify as a call for genocide was the issue, since a call to genocide would clearly violate the code of conduct, then they wouldn't have gotten in this mess.)
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 18, 2023, 12:03:43 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on December 18, 2023, 10:42:19 AMInstitutions have gotten squeamish about telling students that certain behaviour is rude and immature. (And, perhaps more importantly, unproducitve, or even counterproductive.) It's considered essential to support any and all expressions of outrage because it "validates" their feelings.
Validating everything a two-year-old does kind of shows how that turns out.
Examples?
The issues that students take on are usually important, even if I do not always agree with the aggressive and disruptive nature of their expression.
Would we say the same thing, for instance, about objections to drag queens reading books to children in libraries?
I would, absolutely. I don't think drag queen story time is a good idea, but I absolutely disagree with people pulling fire alarms and yelling either inside or outside a library or school where it's taking place. (If peoples' objection is based on
protecting children, then clearly all kinds of loud, obnoxious, angry protesting
in front of children is inconsistent, to say the least.) Barricading doors to facilities and/or yelling at people trying to enter are
antithetical to the values of a free society.
The question as stated here says genocide "or" existence of Israel. The "or" adds a lot of gray zone to me and would makes it hard to give a black and white answer.
If someone says that Israel should not exist in it's current form, that is not really crossing the line or the same as saying death to all Israelis.
They have bundled genocide with more gray issues that make it hard to give a short and concrete answer. This is probably on purpose to get the gotcha moment. I note that the headline only mentions genocide in the question, but looking deeper it was not that limited.
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 19, 2023, 06:20:14 AMThe question as stated here says genocide "or" existence of Israel. The "or" adds a lot of gray zone to me and would makes it hard to give a black and white answer.
If someone says that Israel should not exist in it's current form, that is not really crossing the line or the same as saying death to all Israelis.
They have bundled genocide with more gray issues that make it hard to give a short and concrete answer. This is probably on purpose to get the gotcha moment. I note that the headline only mentions genocide in the question, but looking deeper it was not that limited.
Here's the section from the transcript (https://rollcall.com/2023/12/13/transcript-what-harvard-mit-and-penn-presidents-said-at-antisemitism-hearing/):
QuoteELISE STEFANIK: Ms. Magill, at Penn, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's rules or code of conduct, yes or no?
LIZ MAGILL: If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment, yes.
ELISE STEFANIK: I am asking specifically. Calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?
LIZ MAGILL: If it is directed and severe or pervasive, it is harassment.
ELISE STEFANIK: So, the answer is yes?
LIZ MAGILL: It is a context dependent decision, Congresswoman.
ELISE STEFANIK: It's a context dependent decision? That's your testimony today? Calling for the genocide of Jews is, depending upon the context, that is not bullying or harassment? This is the easiest question to answer yes, Ms. Magill. So, is your testimony —
LIZ MAGILL: If it — if it —
ELISE STEFANIK: That you will not answer yes?
So, the questioning was pretty belligerent, but the wording was direct, and the non-response was clear.
Calling for genocide would not, in itself, violate codes of conduct. Some sort of action beyond the statements would be required.
I think most people have a hard time believing that if she had been asked about whether
calls for genocide of [insert
any marginalized group] would have produced such an equivocal "answer". (Again, just to be clear; it's not about
what would count as a call to genocide- it is
explicitly a call to genocide that is being discussed.)
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 19, 2023, 06:44:40 AMQuote from: Kron3007 on December 19, 2023, 06:20:14 AMThe question as stated here says genocide "or" existence of Israel. The "or" adds a lot of gray zone to me and would makes it hard to give a black and white answer.
If someone says that Israel should not exist in it's current form, that is not really crossing the line or the same as saying death to all Israelis.
They have bundled genocide with more gray issues that make it hard to give a short and concrete answer. This is probably on purpose to get the gotcha moment. I note that the headline only mentions genocide in the question, but looking deeper it was not that limited.
Here's the section from the transcript (https://rollcall.com/2023/12/13/transcript-what-harvard-mit-and-penn-presidents-said-at-antisemitism-hearing/):
QuoteELISE STEFANIK: Ms. Magill, at Penn, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's rules or code of conduct, yes or no?
LIZ MAGILL: If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment, yes.
ELISE STEFANIK: I am asking specifically. Calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?
LIZ MAGILL: If it is directed and severe or pervasive, it is harassment.
ELISE STEFANIK: So, the answer is yes?
LIZ MAGILL: It is a context dependent decision, Congresswoman.
ELISE STEFANIK: It's a context dependent decision? That's your testimony today? Calling for the genocide of Jews is, depending upon the context, that is not bullying or harassment? This is the easiest question to answer yes, Ms. Magill. So, is your testimony —
LIZ MAGILL: If it — if it —
ELISE STEFANIK: That you will not answer yes?
So, the questioning was pretty belligerent, but the wording was direct, and the non-response was clear. Calling for genocide would not, in itself, violate codes of conduct. Some sort of action beyond the statements would be required.
I think most people have a hard time believing that if she had been asked about whether calls for genocide of [insert any marginalized group] would have produced such an equivocal "answer". (Again, just to be clear; it's not about what would count as a call to genocide- it is explicitly a call to genocide that is being discussed.)
I was referring to your initial post with Canadian MPs.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 19, 2023, 05:36:51 AMI would, absolutely. I don't think drag queen story time is a good idea, but I absolutely disagree with people pulling fire alarms and yelling either inside or outside a library or school where it's taking place. (If peoples' objection is based on protecting children, then clearly all kinds of loud, obnoxious, angry protesting in front of children is inconsistent, to say the least.) Barricading doors to facilities and/or yelling at people trying to enter are antithetical to the values of a free society.
We already have laws against pulling fire alarms when there is no fire and barricading buildings. I don't see why we can't protest in front of children, but there are plenty of laws protecting children, and anybody, already.
Is that your "line" on "rude and immature" behavior? Because we already have those in place.
Okay, as long as you extend exactly the same line around drag queens reading to children during a book hour as you do to anything else, cool. No hypocrisy. No sheep screaming at drag queens. This may go against the ideology you have expressed in the past, but as long as you are consistent, no argument.
Having been a part of my colleges hearings and investigations regarding such issues (not precisely calls for genocide, but discriminatory acts) I can say that there's really no way anyone could come up with a one-size-fits-all punishment for any particular act, even if it sounds bad enough to be expelled summarily. To state that publicly would actually be irresponsible, and I am sure lawyers told the presidents that. However, as I mentioned before, there's a way to answer that which expressed *both* moral outrage *and* commitment to the process and getting at the truth.
Some of the same people expressing phony outrage over this incident were among the first to say universities were putting "scarlet letters" on their sons for having sex with a young woman, and then having her just declare that it was rape, and the everyone was forced to believe her unwaveringly (by the way, that's *not* what happens in the Title IX processes, but so be it). If you want a university to conduct a real investigation into a claim of sexual assault, then I would hope you'd want them to have a real investigation into a claim that someone called for genocide of Jews (or anyone else, for that matter). No one should be declaring from on high that any claim of X should automatically lead to punishment Y.
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 19, 2023, 07:56:12 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on December 19, 2023, 06:44:40 AMQuote from: Kron3007 on December 19, 2023, 06:20:14 AMThe question as stated here says genocide "or" existence of Israel. The "or" adds a lot of gray zone to me and would makes it hard to give a black and white answer.
If someone says that Israel should not exist in it's current form, that is not really crossing the line or the same as saying death to all Israelis.
They have bundled genocide with more gray issues that make it hard to give a short and concrete answer. This is probably on purpose to get the gotcha moment. I note that the headline only mentions genocide in the question, but looking deeper it was not that limited.
I think most people have a hard time believing that if she had been asked about whether calls for genocide of [insert any marginalized group] would have produced such an equivocal "answer". (Again, just to be clear; it's not about what would count as a call to genocide- it is explicitly a call to genocide that is being discussed.)
I was referring to your initial post with Canadian MPs.
Ah, OK. I would agree with you that an "or" makes a lot of grey area. In that case, I'd say your actual distinction is part of the correct answer.
Calling for genocide is wrong.
Calling for changes to the state of Israel does not necessarily involve genocide.
I think the difficulty in giving a black and white answer is only for people who don't want to be seen as opposing
anything that certain protesters say. (That would basically apply to people firmly on
either side of the issue; wanting to appear totally sympathetic to their side makes clear distinctions like yours unpalatable.)
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 19, 2023, 07:56:46 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on December 19, 2023, 05:36:51 AMI would, absolutely. I don't think drag queen story time is a good idea, but I absolutely disagree with people pulling fire alarms and yelling either inside or outside a library or school where it's taking place. (If peoples' objection is based on protecting children, then clearly all kinds of loud, obnoxious, angry protesting in front of children is inconsistent, to say the least.) Barricading doors to facilities and/or yelling at people trying to enter are antithetical to the values of a free society.
We already have laws against pulling fire alarms when there is no fire and barricading buildings. I don't see why we can't protest in front of children, but there are plenty of laws protecting children, and anybody, already.
Is that your "line" on "rude and immature" behavior? Because we already have those in place.
Okay, as long as you extend exactly the same line around drag queens reading to children during a book hour as you do to anything else, cool. No hypocrisy. No sheep screaming at drag queens. This may go against the ideology you have expressed in the past, but as long as you are consistent, no argument.
I can't recall having ever spoken in favour of that kind of extreme protest behaviour. Do you have an example where it seems that I did?
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 19, 2023, 08:37:28 AMI can't recall having ever spoken in favour of that kind of extreme protest behaviour. Do you have an example where it seems that I did?
No, and I didn't mean to imply that. As often seems to be the case, your point shifts as you post from one thing to something completely different.
But you have certainly expressed your opinion that people should not do or express certain things in the past----that's why I returned to the drag queen hosting a reading hour in the library.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 19, 2023, 10:07:33 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on December 19, 2023, 08:37:28 AMI can't recall having ever spoken in favour of that kind of extreme protest behaviour. Do you have an example where it seems that I did?
No, and I didn't mean to imply that. As often seems to be the case, your point shifts as you post from one thing to something completely different.
But you have certainly expressed your opinion that people should not do or express certain things in the past----that's why I returned to the drag queen hosting a reading hour in the library.
Oh, OK. So to put those two ideas together:
- The library board has the responsibility of deciding what goes on in the library.
- People who want to suggest something (or criticize something) can go to the library board through the proper channels.
Loud, obnoxious protests for (or against) something, are not the way to go. This is especially true of protests relying on shaming or intimidating people into silence or avoiding the library altogether.
Anything that has been approved (or rejected) should nevertheless have some process for having it revisited, typically involving something like a 2/3 majority of board members agreeing, or some sort of petition with a large number of signatures. In either case, the idea is that if it appears that there has been a
big enough shift in opinion, it can be reconsidered, but just minor shifts above and below 50% shouldn't be allowed to make these interminable debates.
In other words, on all these kinds of issues I'm much more concerned with the
process for dealing with them, rather than the
specific outcome. I don't lose sleep over elections where my chosen candidate didn't get elected, but I do get annoyed at decision-making processes in institutions that are supposed to be public but where there seems to be a lot of railroading going on by one side
or the other. A fair process respects everyone, regardless of point of view; railroading suggests that the "wrong" side are just stupid or nasty.
Does that clarify things?
Are you sure there isn't a process? Or put another way, where isn't there a process, and what is your evidence that there isn't one?
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 19, 2023, 01:16:00 PMDoes that clarify things?
So, the issue is not important, it's how it's handled.
Objections to a drag queen in the library should be pursued though a bureaucratic process. Okay. Doesn't sound like what you were saying, but fine. I'm not sure where "sheep" fit into this construct. And we already have laws that cover public expression.
Note that Civil Rights would not have gone very far if that process were followed in the '70s.
It also sure aces out a lot of Christian and conservative expression, including anti-abortion protests.
But as long as goose and gander are both treated the same way, I have no objection.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 19, 2023, 02:16:16 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on December 19, 2023, 01:16:00 PMDoes that clarify things?
So, the issue is not important, it's how it's handled.
Objections to a drag queen in the library should be pursued though a bureaucratic process. Okay. Doesn't sound like what you were saying, but fine. I'm not sure where "sheep" fit into this construct. And we already have laws that cover public expression.
Note that Civil Rights would not have gone very far if that process were followed in the '70s.
MLK got the idea of
non-violent civil disobedience from Gandhi. And Gandhi said that it would only work against a society that was basically good; i.e. that the societal idea of justice would be sufficiently violated by the actions of the state that the laws would ultimately change.
In other words, actions
did not involve violence, and they relied on the fundamental values of society to
work within the system to make change.
The "burn it all to the ground" mentality of the extremists (on either side) is antithetical to the methods of MLK and Gandhi.
Okay, so we are just opposed to violence, not necessarily peaceful public disruption now?
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 20, 2023, 08:01:57 AMOkay, so we are just opposed to violence, not necessarily peaceful public disruption now?
Absolutely, as long as "peaceful" is understood to exclude actions that hold people hostage in some way, like blocking access to spaces or services, etc. "Disruption" can mean a lot of things.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 20, 2023, 08:49:16 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on December 20, 2023, 08:01:57 AMOkay, so we are just opposed to violence, not necessarily peaceful public disruption now?
Absolutely, as long as "peaceful" is understood to exclude actions that hold people hostage in some way, like blocking access to spaces or services, etc. "Disruption" can mean a lot of things.
Interesting.
That is quite a bit different from
QuoteThat's why the adults in the room need to be telling them why what they're saying isn't appropriate, rather than just admiring their "youthful enthusiasm" and "naivete".
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 20, 2023, 08:49:16 AMAbsolutely, as long as "peaceful" is understood to exclude actions that hold people hostage in some way, like blocking access to spaces or services, etc. "Disruption" can mean a lot of things.
Except disruption.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 20, 2023, 09:35:51 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on December 20, 2023, 08:49:16 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on December 20, 2023, 08:01:57 AMOkay, so we are just opposed to violence, not necessarily peaceful public disruption now?
Absolutely, as long as "peaceful" is understood to exclude actions that hold people hostage in some way, like blocking access to spaces or services, etc. "Disruption" can mean a lot of things.
Interesting.
That is quite a bit different from
QuoteThat's why the adults in the room need to be telling them why what they're saying isn't appropriate, rather than just admiring their "youthful enthusiasm" and "naivete".
Is
telling them that what they're saying isn't appropriate somehow shutting down their protest? I didn't advocate arresting them or expelling them.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 20, 2023, 10:05:48 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on December 20, 2023, 08:49:16 AMAbsolutely, as long as "peaceful" is understood to exclude actions that hold people hostage in some way, like blocking access to spaces or services, etc. "Disruption" can mean a lot of things.
Except disruption.
So would you call the trucker convoy peaceful, disruptive, or both?
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 20, 2023, 10:40:18 AMSo would you call the trucker convoy peaceful, disruptive, or both?
I think you'll find that I was and am consistent on this score (https://thefora.org/index.php?topic=95.105). It seemed and seems entirely fine to me for them to drive into downtown Ottawa and block the streets with their trucks. They're allowed to protest, and even to choose where they do it. They don't have to find some farmer's field way out of the way. Protests aren't convenient. They're disruptive, and I accept that. If they weren't, they would never work. (They rarely work to begin with, but imagine how ineffectual they would be if they were convenient for everyone.)
Open flames in an urban location are not okay, however, and they should have been held to local fire ordinances. Threatening and harassing people on the street is likewise unacceptable, and should have been dealt with in the same manner such things usually are. And blaring machine-assisted horns
at ear-damaging volumes in residential neighbourhoods at all hours is
definitely not okay, and not in keeping with
any protests in which I've participated (and that includes the largest in this country's history).
What I found astonishing and troubling was that the authorities did not crack down on them the same way that they've cracked down on the other protests I've participated in. Such behaviour would never have been tolerated--indeed, I've been in crowds beaten, cannoned, and gassed for much,
much less. As I said then, I don't think violence was necessary to deal with them, but given how low the threshold for police violence normally is, I can't believe how kindly they were treated by the cops.
And as I said at the time, the invocation of the War Measures Act was excessive and, in my opinion, unwarranted. To the extent it
was necessary, it was because municipal and provincial authorities
refused to act--and that's extremely troubling.
As for the "truckers" at the border, they were armed and thus not at all peaceful. They merited a much swifter and more forceful response. That they were only dealt with when the US demanded it is likewise troubling.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 21, 2023, 08:54:55 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on December 20, 2023, 10:40:18 AMSo would you call the trucker convoy peaceful, disruptive, or both?
I think you'll find that I was and am consistent on this score (https://thefora.org/index.php?topic=95.105). It seemed and seems entirely fine to me for them to drive into downtown Ottawa and block the streets with their trucks. They're allowed to protest, and even to choose where they do it. They don't have to find some farmer's field way out of the way. Protests aren't convenient. They're disruptive, and I accept that. If they weren't, they would never work. (They rarely work to begin with, but imagine how ineffectual they would be if they were convenient for everyone.)
Open flames in an urban location are not okay, however, and they should have been held to local fire ordinances. Threatening and harassing people on the street is likewise unacceptable, and should have been dealt with in the same manner such things usually are. And blaring machine-assisted horns at ear-damaging volumes in residential neighbourhoods at all hours is definitely not okay, and not in keeping with any protests in which I've participated (and that includes the largest in this country's history).
What I found astonishing and troubling was that the authorities did not crack down on them the same way that they've cracked down on the other protests I've participated in. Such behaviour would never have been tolerated--indeed, I've been in crowds beaten, cannoned, and gassed for much, much less. As I said then, I don't think violence was necessary to deal with them, but given how low the threshold for police violence normally is, I can't believe how kindly they were treated by the cops.
And as I said at the time, the invocation of the War Measures Act was excessive and, in my opinion, unwarranted. To the extent it was necessary, it was because municipal and provincial authorities refused to act--and that's extremely troubling.
As for the "truckers" at the border, they were armed and thus not at all peaceful. They merited a much swifter and more forceful response. That they were only dealt with when the US demanded it is likewise troubling.
I think we're pretty much on the same page about this. I'm trying to remember the last time there was a "swift and forceful" response to protesters of
any sort. I think the media reaction to situations like Oka and Ipperwash, (and other non-Indigenous ones as well), has consistently been critical of law enforcement, so it's hard to imagine any situation so black-and-white that they'd immediately wade in to it. (And of course, in Ottawa all of the different levels of government and law enforcement were at odds about exactly
whose jurisdiction it was.)
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 21, 2023, 09:08:02 AMI think we're pretty much on the same page about this. I'm trying to remember the last time there was a "swift and forceful" response to protesters of any sort.
You just need to keep up, Marshy, instead of living in your confirmation bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_violence_incidents_during_George_Floyd_protests
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/police-cease-fire-protesters-blame-violent-clash-dnc/story?id=104943694
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/29/us/tyre-nichols-protests-sunday/index.html
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2023/10/portland-expected-to-pay-300k-to-settle-2020-police-brutality-lawsuit-by-protester.html
And so on...
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 21, 2023, 02:55:07 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on December 21, 2023, 09:08:02 AMI think we're pretty much on the same page about this. I'm trying to remember the last time there was a "swift and forceful" response to protesters of any sort.
You just need to keep up, Marshy, instead of living in your confirmation bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_violence_incidents_during_George_Floyd_protests
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/police-cease-fire-protesters-blame-violent-clash-dnc/story?id=104943694
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/29/us/tyre-nichols-protests-sunday/index.html
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2023/10/portland-expected-to-pay-300k-to-settle-2020-police-brutality-lawsuit-by-protester.html
And so on...
In fairness, I think marshwiggle meant
in Canada. Depending on just what counts as 'forceful', we might even agree.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 21, 2023, 03:25:29 PMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on December 21, 2023, 02:55:07 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on December 21, 2023, 09:08:02 AMI think we're pretty much on the same page about this. I'm trying to remember the last time there was a "swift and forceful" response to protesters of any sort.
You just need to keep up, Marshy, instead of living in your confirmation bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_violence_incidents_during_George_Floyd_protests
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/police-cease-fire-protesters-blame-violent-clash-dnc/story?id=104943694
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/29/us/tyre-nichols-protests-sunday/index.html
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2023/10/portland-expected-to-pay-300k-to-settle-2020-police-brutality-lawsuit-by-protester.html
And so on...
In fairness, I think marshwiggle meant in Canada. Depending on just what counts as 'forceful', we might even agree.
Fair enough. The Marshman comments often on US events, particularly university events.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 21, 2023, 04:39:17 PMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on December 21, 2023, 03:25:29 PMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on December 21, 2023, 02:55:07 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on December 21, 2023, 09:08:02 AMI think we're pretty much on the same page about this. I'm trying to remember the last time there was a "swift and forceful" response to protesters of any sort.
You just need to keep up, Marshy, instead of living in your confirmation bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_violence_incidents_during_George_Floyd_protests
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/police-cease-fire-protesters-blame-violent-clash-dnc/story?id=104943694
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/29/us/tyre-nichols-protests-sunday/index.html
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2023/10/portland-expected-to-pay-300k-to-settle-2020-police-brutality-lawsuit-by-protester.html
And so on...
In fairness, I think marshwiggle meant in Canada. Depending on just what counts as 'forceful', we might even agree.
Fair enough. The Marshman comments often on US events, particularly university events.
As Para said, I was talking about the Canadian situation, where we have fewer and smaller right-wing protest groups, so most of the protests that get on the news are from the left. As I indicated, many are related to Indigenous issues, which adds a complete extra layer of awkwardness in how to deal with them.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 22, 2023, 05:04:57 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on December 21, 2023, 04:39:17 PMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on December 21, 2023, 03:25:29 PMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on December 21, 2023, 02:55:07 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on December 21, 2023, 09:08:02 AMI think we're pretty much on the same page about this. I'm trying to remember the last time there was a "swift and forceful" response to protesters of any sort.
You just need to keep up, Marshy, instead of living in your confirmation bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_violence_incidents_during_George_Floyd_protests
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/police-cease-fire-protesters-blame-violent-clash-dnc/story?id=104943694
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/29/us/tyre-nichols-protests-sunday/index.html
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2023/10/portland-expected-to-pay-300k-to-settle-2020-police-brutality-lawsuit-by-protester.html
And so on...
In fairness, I think marshwiggle meant in Canada. Depending on just what counts as 'forceful', we might even agree.
Fair enough. The Marshman comments often on US events, particularly university events.
As Para said, I was talking about the Canadian situation, where we have fewer and smaller right-wing protest groups, so most of the protests that get on the news are from the left. As I indicated, many are related to Indigenous issues, which adds a complete extra layer of awkwardness in how to deal with them.
Really? Are we living in the same Canada? I would argue that the indigenous protests are not really left or right, they are something on their own. Outside of that I dont see many lefty protests, or at least they tend to be pretty subdued.
The ones I hear about include the trucker convoy and all sorts of anti-LGBT...+++ rallies.
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 22, 2023, 09:06:10 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on December 22, 2023, 05:04:57 AMAs Para said, I was talking about the Canadian situation, where we have fewer and smaller right-wing protest groups, so most of the protests that get on the news are from the left. As I indicated, many are related to Indigenous issues, which adds a complete extra layer of awkwardness in how to deal with them.
Really? Are we living in the same Canada? I would argue that the indigenous protests are not really left or right, they are something on their own. Outside of that I dont see many lefty protests, or at least they tend to be pretty subdued.
Most of the popular support for the various Indigenous protests comes from the left; things like blockades of rail lines get much more sympathy from the left than the right.
QuoteThe ones I hear about include the trucker convoy and all sorts of anti-LGBT...+++ rallies.
Many, if not most, of the "anti-LGBT...+++ rallies" seem to be
counter-protests to "pro-LGBT...+++ rallies". Do you have some examples of the former that were unaccompanied by the latter, (or planned before the latter)? The trucker convoy, and various anti-vax rallies during COVID were especially newsworthy because they were from the right. And all of those were not received at all sympathetically by the media.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 22, 2023, 10:06:38 AMQuote from: Kron3007 on December 22, 2023, 09:06:10 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on December 22, 2023, 05:04:57 AMAs Para said, I was talking about the Canadian situation, where we have fewer and smaller right-wing protest groups, so most of the protests that get on the news are from the left. As I indicated, many are related to Indigenous issues, which adds a complete extra layer of awkwardness in how to deal with them.
Really? Are we living in the same Canada? I would argue that the indigenous protests are not really left or right, they are something on their own. Outside of that I dont see many lefty protests, or at least they tend to be pretty subdued.
Most of the popular support for the various Indigenous protests comes from the left; things like blockades of rail lines get much more sympathy from the left than the right.
QuoteThe ones I hear about include the trucker convoy and all sorts of anti-LGBT...+++ rallies.
Many, if not most, of the "anti-LGBT...+++ rallies" seem to be counter-protests to "pro-LGBT...+++ rallies". Do you have some examples of the former that were unaccompanied by the latter, (or planned before the latter)? The trucker convoy, and various anti-vax rallies during COVID were especially newsworthy because they were from the right. And all of those were not received at all sympathetically by the media.
Sure indigenous issues have more support from the left, but that is not the same thing as it being the left initiating protests.
As for protests from the right on LGBT issues, the recent million March for Children comes to mind.