Archive for the “University Censorship” Category

Can’t handle the truth?  Shut ‘em down.

That’s what liberals do at Canada’s universities which have become nothing more than ghettos of liberal group-think.

Must. Not. Challenge. The. Pro-abort. Meme.

 

Comments No Comments »

…Agree or disagree with Woodworth’s stance, the man has a right to speak when invited to an event. He is a lawmaker, being paid by taxpayers. If you don’t like his stance, debate him, protest him, or please campaign against him. But don’t stomp and pout and refuse to let him speak. It makes everyone look foolish, not just you.

It is troubling that this is not the first time a controversial speaker has been shouted down by University of Waterloo students….(Source)

Just another example of the state of “higher learning” in this country.   When I was a kid, we used to have an expression for school kids like this:  Touched in the head

The problem is today, the inmates are running the asylum.

Comments No Comments »

…”The appeal process is you may request a formal appeal,” she added. “We then you will met [sic] with myself [sic], the vp [sic], and possibly student affairs and advocacy. You will be able to state why you should feel like you should get club status we will present out [sic] opinion and then we will have a review session.”… (Source)

Lady, lady, lady…after you figure out what free speech is all about, maybe you should take some remedial English language courses.

Comments No Comments »

A “Free Speech Wall” set up by Carleton University Students for Liberty was destroyed by a fellow student who described himself as an “anti-homophobia campaigner.”

Now that’s a shock, a gay activist against free expression and into violence to get his message across.  And at Carleton University of all places!

Censorship U. strikes again!

Comments No Comments »

Liberals vs. Liberals.

It’s very entertaining to watch multi-cult liberals vs. atheist liberals over university censorship.

I wonder why we still think sending our children to these kind of “institutions” is particularly healthy for them?  It begs the question what a University is for.  There are lots of purposes to a University, but these days, there aren’t too many secular universities which are fulfilling their purpose.

The clients of today’s universities are a different breed.  It’s the rise of the Sugar Baby University.  My oh my what lovely legacy feminism has left for women.

 

Comments 2 Comments »

LANGLEY, British Columbia, December 6, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Facing a lawsuit for denying club status to the campus pro-life group, the student union at Kwantlen Polytechnic University has backed down.

Why did they back down? Don’t they believe in totalitarianism?  What changed? It’s amazing to see the pretzels that pro-abort student unions get themselves into over banning speech on abortion.

Comments 1 Comment »

Frightening.  Education.

Comments No Comments »

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Censorship Case at Carleton University Heats Up
Carleton University Applies to Strike Pro-Life Lawsuit a Second Time

December 8, 2011. Carleton University has brought a second motion to strike the lawsuit against them put forward by two pro-life Carleton students, Ruth (Lobo) Shaw and John Nicholas McLeod in February 2010. In October 2011, Carleton University had (Lobo) Shaw and McLeod arrested for attempting to exhibit a pro-life display thereby violating the rights of the students to freedom of expression, freedom from discrimination and freedom of security. The Statement of Claim, which is the document initiating the lawsuit, claims that Carleton University is acting as a delegate of the Province of Ontario in providing post-secondary education to the general public. Read the rest of this entry »

Comments 1 Comment »

…“Mr. Whatcott entered the university property with a purpose to distribute his literature to students, staff and public,” said the judge, adding, “Traditionally, universities have been places for the exchange of ideas” and the “concept of free expression is part of the University of Calgary philosophy.”

“His activity was peaceful and presented no harm to the university structures or those who frequented the campus. … Although Mr. Whatcott’s pamphlet is not scholarly, freedom of speech is not limited to academic works.”

In conclusion, Judge Bascom found that “the means used by campus security halted Mr. Whatcott’s distribution of these flyers and violated his right of free expression.”

The judge also lifted the University’s ban against Whatcott that would have indefinitely prohibited him from setting foot on the campus again, stating that the ban was “arbitrary and unfair.”…(Source)

Whatever you think of Bill’s tactics, you’ve got to hand it to him. He’s got brass balls.  And his courage is making freedom possible for the rest of us who would prefer not to get our fingernails dirty in digging up the garbage that Lefists have been dumping on this country for the past 40 years.

Thank you, Bill. 

I expect you’ll be paying another visit to the University of Calgary very soon.

Comments 1 Comment »

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Student Trespass Charges Withdrawn in Carleton University Free Expression Case

OTTAWA, ON. November 1, 2011- Trespassing charges that were filed against members of Carleton Lifeline, the pro-life student club at Carleton University, were withdrawn by the Crown yesterday. Read the rest of this entry »

Comments 1 Comment »

From a Socon or Bust reader…

I’ve been reading through the 26-page decision by Justice Toscano Roccamo regarding the attempt by Carleton University (CU) to strike the Statement of Claim in the case of Lobo and McLeod against CU.

I’ve been struck by some of the arguments which CU put forward in the case.  For example:

Regarding the Charter: CU asserts that CU is not subject to the Charter (Article [16])  That’s right.  Carleton University is arguing in court that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply to it.  (The essence of their argument is that the Charter applies only to government,  and that CU is not the government).

Regarding its own policies: “CU argues that a policy directive has no force of law and does not create an actionable wrong from which damages can flow” (Article [34]).  Here, in reference to CU’s alleged breaches of its Human Rights Policies and Procedures (HRPP) and Student Rights and Responsibilities Policy (SRRP), CU is stating that it is not required (by law) to follow its own policies.

Regarding having an open academic environment: “CU takes the position that the Defendants owe no fiduciary duty to all students to provide an environment free and open to discussion and debate of controversial ideas” (Article [41]) So CU claims that it has no obligation to be a place where free discussion and debate of ideas can take place.

Regarding responsibility for the arrests:

  • “The Defendants argue that they did not arrest the Plaintiffs… CU points out that it was Ottawa Police who handcuffed and detained the Plaintiffs. (Article [56]) While CU asked the Ottawa Police to arrest these students, it claims that the Ottawa Police alone are responsible for the deed.
  • “CU maintains that a statement of policy in a university document, without more, does not give rise to an enforceable contractual right.” (Article [59]) Again, CU is claiming to not be bound to follow its own policies.
  • “CU… noted that it is not for an individual student to determine for the University how it ought to promote the principles of academic freedom.” (Article [62])

While some of CU’s claims were accepted by the court, they do make for interesting public relations reading.

Driving by Carleton University this evening I paused to read a sign which welcomes pedestrians and cyclists to the campus:    

“Carleton University Private Property Authorized entry and activity only”

 A friend of mine is familiar with the history of Carleton University (CU).  He mentioned that the university campus lies on what used to be a garbage dump.   He also mentioned that in the early days of CU, people wondered why there needed to be a second university in Ottawa, as the University of Ottawa was already well established (and run by Catholic Oblates).   The answer which CU proclaimed, was:  

 “At Carleton University we teach you how to think, not what to think“.  

Comments 2 Comments »

OTTAWA, ON Aug 8th, 2011- In the case of Lobo et al. v. Carleton University et al, Carleton University brought a motion before the Court asking it to end the lawsuit. Ruth Lobo, a named plaintiff in the lawsuit stated, “Carleton University claimed that our lawsuit was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the Court process. The Court ruled, however, that we have grounds for a lawsuit and we’ll continue to fight for our right to free expression.” Read the rest of this entry »

Comments 3 Comments »

Carleton University Claims Carleton Lifeline’s Lawsuit Is Frivolous

OTTAWA,ON.  In the case ofLobo et. al. v. Carleton University et. al, Carleton University has brought for a Motion to Strike Carleton Lifeline’s Statement of Claim. The lawsuit followed closely on the heels of Carleton University having Ottawa City Police arrest its students for trespass when they tried to set up a pro-life display last October.

“This is an important case for freedom of expression on campus.” said Albertos Polizogopoulos, legal counsel for Lifeline.” Recently there has occurred many other cases where university students have had their voices silenced.”

 In February 2011, Ruth Lobo and Nicholas McLeod, two members of Carleton Lifeline, the pro life club at Carleton University, commenced an action against Carleton University following the University’s attempt to censor them.

In April, Carleton University responded to Lifeline’s Statement of Claim with a Motion to Strike it on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable cause of action, is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process.

Carleton Lifeline disagrees and will continue to defend their right to freedom of expression vigorously.

If the University is successful in their Motion, Carleton Lifeline’s Statement of Claim will be struck, thereby ending this lawsuit.

The Motion to Strike will be heard in court on June 16, 2011 at 10:00 am. The hearing will be held at 161 Elgin Street it Ottawa, Ontario and is open to the public.

For more information please contact Carleton Lifeline’s legal counsel, Albertos Polizogopoulos: 613-241-2701 – albertos@vdg.ca.
Mr. Polizogopoulos will also be available for comment after the hearing.

To view footage of Carleton Lifeline’s arrest and for other information, please visit: www.carletonlifeline.wordpress.com

-30-

So freedom of speech is “frivolous”?   Obviously Carleton is going to fight this case, but to claim it’s “frivolous” is pretty arrogant and dumb.

Comments 3 Comments »

 

TICKETS STILL AVAILABLE — PLEASE COME OUT!

Don’t forget to bring your cheque books. This is a fundraiser.

100 Tickets Only. You snooze, you lose. 

Yours truly will be there too.  That makes it a pro-life star-studded event of epic proportions!

(I only say that because I never leave this damn keyboard!)

Comments No Comments »

April 13, 2011

For Immediate Release: Pro life clubs asks Court to Judicially Review student union’s decisions and policies

Ottawa—After their club status was denied November 15, 2010, Carleton Lifeline has filed a Notice of Application for Judicial Review of the Carleton University Students Association’s (CUSA) decisions and policies.

The clubs status was revoked after CUSA acted on sections 5 and 6 of their Discrimination on Campus Policy. Section 6 reads, “CUSA further affirms that actions such as any campaign, distribution, solicitation, lobbying effort, display, event etc. that seeks to limit or remove a woman’s right to choose her options in the case of pregnancy will not be supported. As such, no CUSA resources, space, recognition or funding will be allocated for the purpose of promoting these actions”.

This section is in direct contravention of CUSA’s Constitution, which declares that CUSA will “promote and assist in maintaining an academic environment free from prejudice, exploitation, abuse or violence on the basis of… political affiliation or belief” (Article 2.1.d).

Carleton Lifeline exhausted the internal appeal mechanisms, culminating in a challenge of the decision and policy in a hearing before the CUSA Constitutional Board. In a meeting that did not follow CUSA’s own protocol, and violated policies, the Constitutional Board unanimously ruled against Carleton Lifeline’s challenge.  On December 16, 2010, the Constitutional Board ruled in favour of the policies and upheld the ban on pro-life groups on campus.

Ruth Lobo, Carleton Lifeline president, stated, “Lifeline deserves to be treated the same way as other clubs. For this reason, we are asking a panel of judges to review CUSA’s decisions and policies. We hoped that we could not have had to proceed this way, but we feel very strongly that we have been treated unjustly”.

Carleton Lifeline sought to have the appeal reheard due to the Constitutional Board’s violation of board rules. However, CUSA refused. 

John Mcleod said, “This is overt discrimination. After our club was banned on the basis of our political beliefs were then banned from a fair hearing. The fact that CUSA cannot respect their own policies shows its inability to function as a voice for the student body”.

As a result, the club has filed a Notice of Application for Judicial Review. 

For further information, contact Carleton Lifeline at (613)-600-4791, or Carleton Lifeline’s legal counsel, Alberto’s Polizogopoulos at (613)-241-2701.

Comments No Comments »

Another campus victory! We’re slowly gaining ground. Soon, they’ll be no stopping us.

Comments 1 Comment »

OTTAWA, Ontario, February 23, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Carleton Lifeline, the pro-life club at Carleton University, announced Wednesday morning that they are suing the University and its administration for discriminatory treatment over the 2010-2011 academic school year. “We believe that the behaviour of the University is actionable. We have suffered discrimination and intimidation, we have been arrested and threatened and we are seeking restitution,” said Ruth Lobo, President of Carleton Lifeline. “The University’s discriminatory actions are shocking, to say the least. We want to ensure, through law, that this behaviour is not repeated at Carleton University ever again.”…

Never again at a Canadian University.

Shame on Carleton University.  Nevermind blackening these students’ records with boorish threats.  It will take a lot longer to shake Censorship U.’s reputation after this is all said and done.

Comments 1 Comment »

You know that abolitionists were uniformly reviled in the cultures they lived in. They were social outcasts and trouble-makers.  They took the hit to do what was right. And history proved them right.

Of course, after the fight was won, the chattering classes hopped on the bandwagon so as not to be seen as the barbarians they really were or the barbarianism they tolerated.  As long as the bandwagon is free, everyone’s on board.

The same people who are “pro-choice” today are “pro-life” tomorrow when the bandwagon changes direction after history has delivered its judgement.

But for those who hold to it on principle, the load is heavy to carry in the mean time.  Only living fish swim upstream.  Dead ones…well…you know.

Offer your prayers and sacrifices for these brave students as they take the fight to Censorship U. and the shallow barbarians of this age.

We will win because the truth is on our side.


Comments 1 Comment »

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: PRO-LIFE CLUB SUES CARLETON UNIVERSITY

Carleton Lifeline Seeks Restitution Carleton Lifeline, the pro-life club at Carleton University, has sued the University and its administration for the discriminatory treatment they have been subjected to during the 2010-2011 academic school year. “We believe that the behaviour of the University is actionable. We have suffered discrimination and intimidation, we have been arrested and threatened and we are seeking restitution”, said Ruth Lobo, President of Carleton Lifeline.

“The University’s discriminatory actions are shocking, to say the least. We want to ensure, through law, that this behaviour is not repeated at Carleton University ever again.” Lifeline is asking the Court to declare that Carleton University and its administration have breached their own internal policies regarding freedom of expression, academic freedom and discrimination.

As such, Lifeline is also requesting that the University is ordered to comply with these internal policies. On October 4, 2010, Carleton University had members of Lifeline handcuffed, arrested, charged and fined with trespassing for attempting to display an exhibit that the University administration deemed disturbing and offensive due to the graphic nature of the display. In November 2010, Carleton University’s administration provided Lifeline with an ultimatum regarding the expression of their opinions and threatened further arrests.

“Carleton University has allowed other exhibits using graphic images on campus” commented Albertos Polizogopoulos, Carleton Lifeline’s lawyer. “Clearly the University opposes Lifeline’s message and not its medium. This is censorship and viewpoint discrimination and it violates Carleton University’s internal policies.”

To view a copy of the Statement of Claim, please visit www.carletonlifeline.wordpress.com

For more information, please call Carleton Lifeline at 613-600-4791 or Lifeline’s lawyer Albertos Polizogopoulos at 613 -241-2701 Ext: 243

If the Students get an uncorrupted judge, they’re gonna win too.

Comments 4 Comments »

VICTORIA, BC, Thurs Feb 17, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The University of Victoria Students’ Society (UVSS) has ruled that the university’s pro-life club, Youth Protecting Youth (YPY), broke the UVSS’s “harassment policy” by promoting an event last October that compared abortion to the Holocaust.

At their February 7 meeting, the UVSS voted to censure the club for violating this policy because of the way YPY advertised a talk given by Jose Ruba of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform called “Echoes of the Holocaust,” but not because of the content of the presentation.

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments 1 Comment »