EclectEcon

Kagan: It Just Doesn't Matter

One of the things that separates me from most of my right-wing friends is that I am definitely not a social conservative. Rather, I am more libertarian, valuing freedom highly. 

An example of this distinction comes from US Supreme Court Justice nominee Kagan. I do not care what her sexual preference or sexual orientation is. And to be more blunt, I don't think anyone else should either. And so I find articles like this to be of little relevance in considering whether she would be a good justice. 

Is she gay? It doesn't matter and it shouldn't be an issue.

What Ten Books Would You Save in a Fire?My Answer: None.

I came across this question the other day while reading this (likely via Craig Newmark). I thought about the question for a few minutes, and then I realized my answer is "none".

Not that I want the contents of books to disappear. Even I am not so much of an unlettered person that I would wish for that.

Rather, it's that I don't read books as books much anymore. I read books on the internet, I read books on my iPhone, but I don't often read hard copy books. And the ones I read as hard copy are generally (like most textbooks) so unimportant to me in the grand scheme of things that I wouldn't really miss them anyway (in part because they were sent to me by publishers at no charge). 

And in another 5-10 years I will hold this view even more strongly. I really doubt there will be many, if any, books in the homes of most of us or even in most libraries that are not available electronically.

This realization makes several things more interesting.

• First, censorship and control of the internet will be increasingly important. I hope people will continue to work for maintaining freedom of expression via the internet.
• Book burnings will be a thing of the past, if they aren't already. 

Ms. Eclectic and I both use our iPhones to read books electronically. They are very light and portable and are capable of carrying tonnes of books. I see little or no reason to buy books when the electronic versions are so much more convenient. And increasingly educators will be moving in this same direction.

If there were a fire, I would grab my laptop and iPhone long before I would think about saving my hardbound copies of Balzac or Shakespeare or Ayn Rand.

Respect and Consideration? Where are the University of Ottawa Admins' Admonitions Now?

I don't like Ann Coulter's humour. Many of her statements seem buffoonish at times. Some of my friends were disappointed that I declined to attend her talk when she visited The University of Western Ontario.

And yet, I thought it reprehensible that the University of Ottawa's Provost would issue a veiled threat to her in the form of a reminder about Canada's "hate speech" legislation before she visited their campus. Shock of shocks, the Canadian Association of University Teachers actually agreed with my position and wrote to the Provost, objecting to his behaviour (see this).

So, now, after some students disrupted her planned speech and closed it down, where are the University of Ottawa admins now? Has the Provost made any pronouncements denouncing their actions, denouncing their lack of "respect and consideration"? Alan Adamson asks a similar question. As Ezra Levant has said,

Houle essentially accused Coulter of planning to commit illegal acts. But when actual illegal plans were hatched -- in public for the world to see -- and then carried out, Houle was silent. So much for his "restraint, respect and consideration."

What a bunch of friggn hypocrites.

Does the University of Ottawa really want to take on Ann Coulter on Free Speech Issues?

This should be friggn embarrassing to all academics and Canadians. From Mark Steyn:

Ah, that famous Canadian hospitality. One François Houle, Provost of the University of Ottawa, writes to warn a forthcoming visitor to the campus, Miss Ann Coulter, that Canadians enjoy only the right to government-regulated "free speech" and that therefore she may be liable to criminal prosecution: ...

I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or “free speech”) in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here. You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind....

I wonder if the provost sends these letters to people from other parts of the ideological spectrum. Even if he does, it is offensive to those of us who value freedom of expression in the ivory tower.

Update: for more, see this.

In Ottawa, the president of the student federation barred a volunteer organizer from putting up posters advertising the upcoming appearance.

"The federation does not support Ann Coulter speaking on our campus," said student president Seamus Wolfe. "We're trying to work with the administration to see if we can ask her to do her speaking event somewhere else."

It Is OK for Teachers to Disagree with Some Political Views But Not Others? Guess which...

From FoxNews (Europe), [h/t BenS]:

A British teacher was fired from his job after complaining that some of his Muslim students were celebrating the Sept. 11 hijackers as "heroes," the Daily Mail reported.

Nicholas Kafouris, 40, who taught at East London's Bigland Green Primary School for 12 years, is suing the school for racial discrimination after he was allegedly forced from his post because he would not tolerate the remarks of his students.

Kafouris claims members of his class, some as young as eight years old, openly praised Islamic extremists in his classroom, hailing the terrorists behind the attacks of Sept. 11 as "martyrs," the Daily Mail reported.

Kafouris alleges the students told him they "want to be Islamic bombers when we grow up," and "the Christians and Jews are our enemies, you too because you're a Christian," according to the Daily Mail.

Israel, Haiti, and Gaza: "Forgive me, but this is nuts."

My posting of an item last week about Israel's aid to Haitians sparked a discussion with several Facebook friends who cited a piece from Haaretz and from the NYTimes by an Israeli writer complaining that Israel needed to show that much compassion for Gazans, too. My first reaction on reading that column was,

Even though I think the writer severely slanted the facts, isn't freedom of the press wonderful. I can't imagine being able to write something so critical of one's own gubmnt in (m)any other countries in the middle east.

My second reaction, was "Good grief, how might one reasonably address the issues raised in that column?" Fortunately, I don't have to do it myself. David Harris does it here. Excerpts:

I read the article in The New York Times on January 22nd with dismay.

... Entitled "For Israelis, Mixed Feelings on Aid Effort," referring to the response to the earthquake in Haiti, the article was best summarized by the following excerpt:

But Israelis have been watching with a range of emotions, as if the Haitian relief effort were a Rorschach test through which the nation examines itself. The left has always complained that there is no reason to travel thousands of miles to help those in need - Gaza is an hour away. The right has argued that those who accuse Israel of inhumanity should take note of its selfless efforts and achievements in Haiti."

Forgive me, but this is nuts.

Israel responded magnificently to the immense tragedy unfolding in Haiti.... The Israeli field hospital, by all accounts, quickly became the finest medical unit in the country. ... Israeli rescue-and-relief teams found survivors in the rubble and restored them to life. Other Israeli units are providing a range of basic services to a population whose needs are almost impossible to grasp.

The Israeli effort far exceeds the nation's small size and dwarfs the response of many larger countries. Of course, some countries, most notably in the Arab world, shamefully sat on their hands, doing nothing in the face of a human calamity....

In fact, Israel's quick action in Haiti is nothing new....

I visited an entire prefabricated town that Israel built in Turkey after a devastating earthquake, in 1999, destroyed thousands of homes.

I saw the Israeli field hospital in Macedonia set up to assist Muslim refugees from neighboring Kosovo, who were driven out of their land by Slobodan Milosevic's ethnic-cleansing campaign.

I recall Israel's offer to assist Iran - yes, Iran - after a powerful earthquake hit Bam in 2003, when more than 25,000 people were killed. Teheran rejected the offer, presumably preferring some of its citizens to die rather than be rescued by Israelis. ...

Indeed, few countries react so quickly and consistently as does Israel when it comes to mobilizing emergency responders at a moment's notice. ...

Yet, according to the Times' story, all of this, at least for a few Israelis, is, in the end, rather meaningless as a source of national pride. Instead, the litmus test for Israel must be Gaza.

This is when self-reflection turns to the instinct for self-destruction.

Gaza has declared itself an enemy state. It is run by Hamas, whose goal is the annihilation of Israel. Anti-Semitism runs rampant throughout the Hamas Charter and the blood-curdling statements of its spokesmen. The smuggling of ever more lethal weapons into Gaza is a top priority. Iran is Gaza's foremost state patron.

Of course, it didn't have to turn out this way. In 2005, at great political risk, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon withdrew all Israeli soldiers and settlers from Gaza. The unilateral disengagement offered local residents their first chance in history for self-rule. Moreover, Jewish donors, as a gesture of peace and reconciliation, purchased the Israeli-built greenhouses in Gaza and presented them to the Palestinian Authority. These were meant to form part of a new foundation of economic and social development. [note from EE: most of these greenhouses were soon destroyed by Gazans, not Israelis].

It was in Israel's vital national interest to see Gaza thrive as a society committed to construction and coexistence.

Alas, it was not to be. Hamas ousted the PA and seized power in a bloody civil war. Israel's brief re-entry into Gaza in December 2009 was an inevitable outcome of daily provocations that no sovereign nation could have long abided.

... While leaders of Gaza strikingly abdicate all responsibility and blame everyone but themselves for the misfortunes of their land, according to the Times, some in neighboring Israel anguish over Israel's purported responsibility for Gaza's travails.

One could argue that this is eloquent testimony to their ethical reflex, their desire to heal the world of Gaza. That might well be laudable but for the simple fact that Gaza is at war with Israel, a seemingly obvious proposition to all but those Israelis blinded by their own self-generated "guilt," which prevents them from confronting reality and those ultimately accountable for the facts on the ground.

Were circumstances different, would Israelis offer help in Gaza as they have in Haiti, Turkey, the Balkans and elsewhere? I have no doubt. In fact, Israel would doubtless do far more, given the proximity and the stakes.

Meanwhile, no national self-examination is required. Rather, Israel should be immensely proud of its role in Haiti - and what it reveals about the national character. As a friend of Israel, I certainly am.

Addendum:  KJ sent me this link, listing those countries which have provided or pledged aid to Haiti. It appears that most arab countries are on the list. Interesting contrasts: Lebanon and Jordan are on the list, but Syria and Egypt are not. UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are on the list, but Yemen and Oman are not. Among other Muslim countries, Bangladesh is on the list, but Pakistan is not.

But this is digressive from Harris's main point, namely that Israel has provided considerable aid to Gaza despite the Gazan attacks on Israel. For more on this, itemizing Israeli aid to Gaza, see here.

Litwak, Mill, and Liberty

2009 was the sesquicentennial of John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. My friend (and sometime colleague), Eric Litwak has an insightful piece about Mill's work here. Some strongly libertarian excerpts:

It can be said of only a very few texts that they are touchstones for important discussions across many generations. John Stuart Mill produced such a text in 1859, and friends of freedom would do well to celebrate the sesquicentennial of On Liberty. At a time when challenges to human rights and freedom of expression continue around the world, the message of this relatively short work remains a clarion-call for liberty and the supreme dignity of the individual. ...

Rather than seeing human beings as something to be perfected by the state, he saw, in true liberal form, the need for the individual to be defended against excessive encroachments of the state. ...

Whatever liberal model might triumph, Mill saw the real threat to freedom as the forgetting or denial of the supreme value of the reflective individual over the collective. This he wisely saw as the common feature of all forms of dogmatism, bigotry, and overly perfectionistic views. His commitment to the liberty of the individual was also in keeping with his methodological individualism in social science, according to which group categories such as the state or nation are to be seen purely as the sum of many parts, with no transcendental power. The avoidance of the Procrustean bed of collectivism and autocracy in favour of the encouragement of human development through education, democratic debate and limited state intervention is the key challenge addressed in On Liberty.

In On Liberty, Mill depicted the ideal human life as maximally free in its choices, truthful and tolerant in its attitudes and individualistic, even to the point of eccentricity.

Not from the Onion: UN Investigates Canada for Discrimination, Ignores Serious Abusers of Human Rights

From a UN Watch Briefing (received via e-mail, not yet on their website, vol. 209, as I write this),

U.N. Discrimination Investigator Focuses on Canada, Ignores China, Sudan, Iran

 

News:  Ms. Gay McDougall, the U.N.'s chief monitor of discrimination against minority groups, and a leading defender of the 2001 Durban conference, just wrapped up a 10-day investigation of Canada by accusing it of failures and "significant and persistent problems." She has never investigated any of the countries listed by Freedom House as the world's worst abusers: not China, Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Belarus, Burma, Chinese-ruled Tibet, South Ossetia in Georgia, Chechnya in Russia, or Zimbabwe.

 

Analysis: While it's perfectly legitimate to hold free societies accountable, the reality is that immigrants of every color and creed rightly seek out Canada as a haven of tolerance, equality and opportunity. UN Watch launched a protest against this U.N. official's skewed set of priorities: picking on the most tolerant countries like Canada -- possibly as U.N. payback for Ottawa being the first of 10 Western governments to pull out of the world body's ill-fated Durban II conference -- while she consistently turns a blind eye to the world's worst abusers. ...

 

   In a related development, the U.N. human rights office is also investigating the United States as a country of singular concern. The “special rapporteur on the right to adequate housing” has decided to conduct her next investigation in the U.S., particularly in New York City. Writing in the Opinio Juris blog, Professor Julian Ku of Hofstra Law School notes that the U.N. monitor "is going to spend her time on a country which is unlikely to be in the top ten places with lack of adequate housing, and which in any event, is not a party to any of the treaties which form her mandate." But the anti-Western voting blocs that control the U.N. Human Rights Council -- and appoint its experts -- will no doubt be very pleased.

WWMFS

What Would Milton Friedman Say (about Obama's address to school children)? Phil Miller has the answer, with which I completely agree. The quotation from Capitalism and Freedom is a section that really opened my eyes and my mind when I first read it back in the 1960s.

Let's See the UN Human Rights Groups Go after THIS!

From Arab News [h/t Judith]:

Child bride turned over to 80-year-old husband

AL-LAITH: A 10-year-old bride was returned last Sunday to her 80-year-old husband by her father who discovered her at the home of her aunt with whom she has been hiding for around 10 days. A local newspaper said the husband, who denies he is 80 in spite of claims by the girl’s family, accused the aunt of meddling in his affairs. “My marriage is not against Shariah. It included the elements of acceptance and response by the father of the bride,” he said. He added that he had been engaged to his wife’s elder sister and that this broke off as she wanted to continue with her education. “In light of this, her father offered his younger daughter. I was allowed to have a look at her according to Shariah and found her acceptable,” he said.

But don't hold your breath waiting for the UN to say, much less do, anything about it.

Cowardice, Sell-Out, or Both? Yale University Caves on Danish Cartoons

From Roger Kimball (h/t BenS),

In its August 13 report on the decision by Yale University Press to censor Jytte Klausen’s book The Cartoons that Shook the World by insisting that she publish the book without the Danish cartoons or other images of Mohammed, The New York Times informed its readers that

Yale University and Yale University Press consulted two dozen authorities, including diplomats and experts on Islam and counterterrorism, and the recommendation was unanimous: The book, “The Cartoons That Shook the World,” should not include the 12 Danish drawings that originally appeared in September 2005. What’s more, they suggested that the Yale press also refrain from publishing any other illustrations of the prophet that were to be included, . . .

It turns out, though, that the recommendation was not “unanimous.”...

1) The story in the Times implied that in its appeal to experts the University and/or the YUP was exercising normal caution. But in fact, Professor Klausen’s book had already been throughly vetted. Readers’ reports — including two from Muslim scholars — were unanimously enthusiastic. The only Muslim member of the House of Lords, Baroness Kishwer Falker, enthusiastically endorsed the book. The book had also been vetted by YUP’s legal counsel and passed muster. The YUP’s publications committee unanimously and enthusiastically recommended the book for publication. So why call in another “two dozen authorities” on the veritable eve of publication?

Another detail: 2) .... As I said in response to a comment from Jytte Klausen, “I strongly suspect . . . that the threats-of-violence trope was a pretext, or at most a subsidiary concern” for Yale. What was the real reason that Yale was anxious to bowdlerize Professor Klausen’s book? Even now, I know, energetic investigative reporters are looking into Yale’s financial relationships with some of the spots where Linda Lorimer, Vice President and Secretary of the University, told Professor Klausen she has often traveled recently: Saudi Arabia, for example. Quite soon, I suspect, we will know why the Yale administration insisted that the Yale University Press dim the lux and veritas when it came to Professor Klausen’s book.

It looks as if the appeasers at a typically left-wing elitist institution over-ruled their own, in-house, Yale University Press. Or maybe the university was afraid of offending potential major donors? Or maybe both?

Orwell on Chaplin

The writings of George Orwell made the news last week when, without advance warning, Amazon erased electronic versions of some of his novels from people's Kindles [see, for example, this by Phil Miller]. That incident brought to mind Orwell's comments about Charlie Chaplin [h/t to BenS]:

Speaking of Chaplin in his role of The Great Dictator, George Orwell asks “What is Chaplin’s peculiar gift?” It is his power to stand for a sort of concentrated essence of the common man, for the ineradicable belief in decency that exists in the hearts of ordinary people, at any rate in the West. We live in a period in which democracy is almost everywhere in retreat, supermen in control of three-quarters of the world, liberty explained away by sleek professors, Jew-baiting defended by pacifists. And yet everywhere, the common man sticks obstinately to the beliefs that he derives from the Christian culture.”

 --Film Review, The Great Dictator in Time & Tide, Dec 21, 1940. Reprinted in All Art is Propaganda, Critical Essays by George Orwell (Harcourt, Inc.) 2008

I would happily change "Christian culture" to "Judeo-Christian traditions", but otherwise I like the observation.

The Hypocrisy and Double Standards of Canada's Hate-Speech Cops

Mark Steyn recently wrote about how Canada's Human Rights Commission refused to take any action against a man with a Muslim-sounding name who advocated killing Canadians and, especially, Jews [h/t to Eva]:

.... if you're Salman Hossain and you want to expound on the benefits of killing Canadian troops and shooting Jews, party on:

'I hope the German brothers were gonna blow up US-German bases in their country. We should do that here in Canada as well. Kill as many western soldiers as well so that they think twice before entering foreign countries on behalf of their Jew masters,' he wrote...

In addition, he singles out Jews, writing: 'When do I get to shoot a few Jews down for attempting to blow up dozens of mosques in America right after 9-11 - why f---ing target the Americans when the Jews are better?'

Also:

'Here’s what I suggest we do … just throw out the Jews (by religion or blood) out of the instruments of mainstream media, finance/banking, government/politics, and the intelligence/secret services.'

'That’s how the Muslims have done it in the past, especially when they were in power and glorious. Leave behind the token Jew here and there just to appear non-discriminatory.

'Then send the Jews packing on a different ship to their own territory or maybe the South Pole to live with the penguins. Do this before they claim we gonna do another ‘holocaust.’ There’s no Jew better than an exile Jew.'

Feel free to quote Mr Hossain all you want. Unusually for Queen Jennifer's realm, these sentiments are entirely legal:

'The OPP reviewed the case with Crown counsel. As a result of that review, it was determined that insufficient grounds existed to support willful promotion of hatred charges,' said Detective-Sergeant Brent Young.

Confusion: Honduras

It seems pretty clear that the ousted president was behaving illegally and unconstitutionally.

As the general elections scheduled for November began to creep up, Mr. Zelaya decided to hold a referendum with the ultimate aim of allowing him to seek re-election. The move violated articles of the Constitution that forbid changes to the presidential limit of one four-year term and establish the legal procedure for constitutional amendments. The electoral court, the Supreme Court, the attorney general, Congress and members of his own party declared Mr. Zelaya’s intention unlawful. Then, on Sunday, the military stepped in.

At the same time, there should be ways to head that off other than by military coup. This piece from the Independent Institute illustrates the problem. Here is their summary:

The crisis in Honduras is, in a word, complicated. Although deposed President Manuel Zelaya bears the brunt of the blame for his ouster, the military actions against him were ill advised and play into the hands of Zelaya's anti-democratic allies in the region, according to Independent Institute Senior Fellow Alvaro Vargas Llosa.

Zelaya acted unconstitutionally by taking steps to seek reelection, and he followed that misdeed with an even more brazen one: breaking into the location of the impounded election ballots in an effort to distribute them. Yet the response from the Organization of American States has been to ignore Zelaya's dictatorial conduct, just as it ignored similar violations by Chavez in Venezuela, Morales in Bolivia, Correa in Ecuador, and Ortega in Nicaragua. Supporters of the military action may come to regret Zelaya's propaganda victory in a conflict that bodes poorly for the rule of law.

As the Honduras imbroglio illustrates, the trick for Latin America is to avoid the extremes of the left and the right. Vargas Llosa concludes: "Honduras' crisis should bring to people's attention this truth about Latin America today: The gravest threat to liberty comes from elected populists who are seeking to subject the institutions of the law to their megalomaniac whims. Given that scenario, the hemisphere's response to Honduras' crisis has undermined those who are trying to prevent populism from taking the region back to the times when it was forced to choose between left-wing revolution and military dictatorships." [emphasis added]

Also see Llosa's piece in the NYTimes on why the primary winner in Honduras could well end up being Hugo Chavez.

"An Academic Version of Durban"

Last month, Canada's York University was the site for a conference on the middle east. Given the organizers, most of us expected it to be a hate-Israel fest and decided not to attend it. Na'ama Carmi of Haifa University was an exception. Here, from the Toronto Star, is an excerpt of her experiences and impressions [h/t Dylan]:

Although the extreme manner in which they were presented was sometimes hard to hear, I was not surprised by the same Palestinian arguments that have been around for decades.

Thus, we heard that Israel is a racist, apartheid state; that the Palestinians are the "indigenous" and Zionists the colonials; that the only reason for the unwillingness of Jewish Israelis to give up a Jewish national state is their unwillingness to surrender power and privileges; and that Zionism has an inherent tendency toward war crimes.

Unfortunately, this was not accompanied with introspection or self-criticism by the Palestinians. Hamas was not mentioned at all. Apparently it does not exist in the virtual map of the Palestinian participants. Another "marginal" phenomenon that disappeared as if it did not exist is the lethal Palestinian terror against Israeli citizens.

But if all this was quite an expected scenario, not in my worst dreams did I imagine an atmosphere that was totally incompatible with academic discourse. The university rightly resisted outside pressures aimed at silencing the conference. But there were attempts at the conference itself to silence unpopular views.

A hostile atmosphere toward people with different views generally, and Jewish-Zionist Israelis in particular, was created. Anyone who challenged the Palestinian perspective was intimidated or even labelled a racist. The audience vocally applauded those whose views it approved. At times, those presenting a different view were subject to abuse and ridicule.

For me, this reached an extreme when one interlocutor, rather than debating the substantive arguments I presented, questioned my psychological state. And all of this without any apparent attempt by the organizers to stop it. Never before in my whole academic career have I encountered the rudeness that I experienced at this conference. ...

[W]hat happened at York University reflects a worrying, dangerous and, unfortunately, not uncommon pattern. Persons who demand the protection of human rights abandon them and display little tolerance for the views of others when they have the power to marginalize them. ...

This was not an academic conference, but an "academic" version of Durban.

Freedom and from the Human Rights Commission?

On April 13th, Ezra Levant, Kathy Shaidle, and my colleague Salim Mansur will be speaking at the London City Music Theatre on

The Human Rights Commission:
Useful or Obsolete?

7pm, Admission only $5. For people who live anywhere near London, Ontario, this will be an amazing opportunity.

CAFI, DAY2: Intro

Mayo Moran, Dean, Law, Univ of Toronto, "Understanding Hate-Speech on Campus"

The Cdn Chief Justice dissented in the Keegstra case on the grounds of "freedom of expression".

The essence of "freedom of expression" is that competition in the marketplace of ideas is best (I first heard/read  this approach in Posner's text on Economic Analysis of Law. [EE: this is a long-run view]

Universities tend to thrive on this approach.

She also noted the argument that freedom of expression can be damaging to students "who are members of vulnerable groups" [EE: I get concerned with this argument.]. So where should the line be drawn? Later... she emphasizes that answering this question can be "challenging".

Several US cases in which freedom of expression was defended by courts. Many dealt with speech codes.  General conclusion: universities must err on the side of freedom of expression.

Disappointing talk. She should have talked about human rights tribunals.

Also, during the discussion, my friend, Clive (prez of SAFS) challenged her, pointing out that there is far less freedom of speech on Cdn campuses. And he also mentioned the human rights councils. She waffled in her reply, essentially saying nothing. And more waffling on other questions.

There's an interesting tension in the discussion. Some favour very free speech. Others, noting the existing hate laws, are upset by the apparent discriminatory application of them (most recently favouring Palestinians and not Jews).

More people need to read Posner's Chapter on free speech. Is there really monopoly on campuses in the marketplace of ideas? Not in the long-run.

In the end, she said NOTHING about current issues. Too careful, too dean-like.

York University Wimps Out and Distorts the Situation

Yesterday, after months of labour unrest and after attacks on Jewish students, the president of York University made a speech to the university senate. In part, the speech said,

[A]t a time when our community should be pulling together, we turn on each other instead — academic disruption, intimidation, sit-ins, name-calling, shouting people down, banging on the doors and windows of Senate or the Board of Governors or student clubs.  Then we run to the media and tell anyone who will listen how bad York is.

Is it any wonder our own students are disconnected?  Or that turnout at our student elections is so low?  Or that our students and their families are voting with their feet?  Our public face is not demonstrating the core values a university should stand for:

• Freedom of speech – especially for those with whom we disagree
• Mutual Respect
• Reason
• Discourse
• Objectivity
• Being able to teach — and learn — without disruption
• Being open to other ideas and other people.
• And yes, social justice.

So far so good? It reads mostly like typical university motherhood- and-apple-pie type statements. Except I quite vehemently disagree about social justice. I wish every course that mentions this term could be struck from university catalogs. And then the tone continues to change as more biases creep in:

But we cannot demand social justice only for ourselves and for those who think like us. Social justice is for everyone, or it is for no one. York has a history of social activism, but the events of the past weeks — intimidation and shouting each other down — have nothing to do with social activism.

Now I begin to disagree even more. No matter what people say, whenever they use the term "social justice", they typically mean a redistribution of wealth and political power. The use of this term so much by a university president bothers me. But read on.

That is why I am asking you today, as Senators and key representatives of the academy, to make your voices heard and say, “enough is enough.”

I want to give a couple of examples of how the academy can contribute to open dialogue on tough issues.  At other universities in this province, faculty members participate as guest speakers at lecture series organized by student clubs. These events tackle the very same issues we are struggling with:

• Islamophobia
• Anti-Semitism
• Racial profiling
• Overcoming stereotypes

Oops. Islamophobia exists because the major terrorists of concern are Muslims, not because of any racism. And racial stereotyping makes some sense if only the people from a particular racial group are those who are most likely to carry out some heinous crime. These things are not at all the same thing as anti-Semitism or discrimination in general. If the odds are high that only people from a specific group are likely to kill, bomb, or otherwise terrorize people, then it makes sense for security forces to pay special attention to people from that group.

And why, oh why, is Islamophobia mentioned first on that list, when the problem at York University has been attacks on Jewish students (and others) who oppose the bombing of Israel by Hamas?

Let me repeat: Islamaphobia is not at all in the same category as Anti-Semitism. That the York prez lumps them together is quite revealing about his biases.

The goal is not agreement or endorsement of each others’ ideas, it is to create safe spaces where people can come together to articulate their views — without fear and without being shouted down.

I’ll give you another example happening right here at York.  Next week, the York Centre for International and Security Studies is hosting an event that will examine the idea of academic boycotts.  Speakers will explore the topic in a reasoned way in an academic forum.  These two examples share one common element: faculty involvement.

After having read the rest of the speech, I am very skeptical about the nature of this conference. It seems like such an open-and-shut case that boycotts (like those proposed by the British UCU or by the Ontario branch of CUPE) should not take place.

Toronto CUPE Members Challenge Their Leader

Background: Sid Ryan, leader of the Ontario branch of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), has long supported having his union pass resolutions urging the boycott of Israel, Israeli academics, and Israeli educational institutions (see here). Now, members of the University of Toronto chapter of the union have struck back with a call for removing Ryan from the leadership of their union. My own thoughts are that the board members who supported Ryan should also be removed. Here is their letter, which is brilliant (thanks again to Robert for the pointer). And here are some excerpts:

These actions, which approve a boycott of Israeli academic institutions, both violate the authority with which they have been entrusted and, worse, undermine academic freedoms.

CUPE national, as well as the University of Toronto Education Workers, CUPE local 3902, have disapproved of this motion and decision, and for good reason. The most urgent matter of concern to the union is the ratification of reasonable contracts across Ontario. The primary mission of the union is to ensure the fair employment and treatment of its members. The current leadership has overreached its mandate, recklessly and irresponsibly dabbling in complex international politics. This leadership has demonstrated its resolve to continue in this fashion even though it is not competent to do so, it has not been elected to do so, and it is not in its jurisdiction to do so. These actions have harmed our union.

Many have pointed out that singling out predominantly Jewish institutions for this boycott suggests a discriminatory policy. The experience at York University campus only last week demonstrates how quickly anti-Israel positions can translate into anti-Semitic slogans. ...

It is ironic that this censorial activity is led by a man who is quick to claim for himself the mantle of human-rights activist. Freedom of thought is a most fundamental human right, yet it seems to be a right that Sid Ryan has no trouble trampling on. Sid Ryan seems to think that he and his closest colleagues have the right to determine which academics we ought to listen to and which ought to be censored. That tells us all we need to know about Mr. Ryan's estimation of his own moral and intellectual capacities, and how little he values those of others....

The boycott of academic institutions is an attack upon this freedom, which an enlightened union should be supporting, rather than limiting. For Mr. Ryan's boycott limits the freedom not only of the academics he wishes to prevent from speaking (in this case, Israeli academics), but also of those who might wish to listen (Canadians)....

We do not consent to have our wages used to support resolutions on which we have not been allowed to vote, which violate the spirit of the union's constitution and which compromise our integrity at a most fundamental level....

Mark Steyn's Testimony before a Standing Committee of the Ontario Provincial Parliament

Last year, Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine were dragged before the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal because Maclean's published an excerpt from his book in which he quoted statements made by some radical Muslim imams. Some Muslim students at Osgoode Hall Law School were offended by the publication and went after Maclean's and Steyn before several provincial Human Rights inquisition bodies. The case raised serious issues about freedom of speech.

A couple of weeks ago, Steyn was asked to testify before a standing committee of the provinical parliament, investigating, inter alia, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal [The full testimony from Steyn and others from the same day, along with the questions and answers, is here; h/t to Robert]. At one point during his testimony, Steyn hit the nail on the head:

[T]ruth is no defence. No one was disputing the truth of what I wrote, nobody was arguing that it was libellous or seditious or false, for all of which there would be appropriate legal remedy. In essence, the plaintiffs were arguing that they'd been offended. Well, offensiveness is in the eye of the offended. I have no way of commenting on that one way or another. It's not possible in a legal sense to mount a defence to the accusation that you've offended somebody, which is why the human right not to be offended should not exist in free societies. That's the first and most basic thing that this system fails in.

As Scoop said in an earlier comment,

Oh well, who needs freedom of speech. What the world needs is freedom from hurt feelings. Perhaps it is time to revisit our constitutions.

Life, liberty, and the promise of state intervention should your sensitivities be challenged! That is a rallying cry for the ages.

Geert Wilders Is Welcome to Speak in Clinton, Ontario, ANYTIME!

This is an open invitation to Geert Wilders of "Fitna" fame.

You are welcome to speak in Clinton, Ontario (pop 3200) anytime. Just let me know when you can be here, and I will arrange a hall. I might even be able to collect some funds to help defray the costs of making the trip.

The Frightful Growth of Anti-Semitism on University Campuses

Almost since the beginning of this blog, I have been writing about what I thought was a minority of wacko academics in the United Kingdom who kept trying to institute boycotts of Israeli scholars [here is an early example]. In response to their position, which seemed like little more than thinly veiled anti-Semitism, I sought and obtained affiliations with two different Israeli academic institutions.

Two recent developments in Canada really concern me.

1. The York University student federation, holding a meeting to discuss appropriate responses to an ongoing strike at the university, diverged from its agenda to pass a resolution condemning Israel's attack on Gaza. Did this body ever do or say anything about the eight-year rain of rockets fired from Gaza at Israel? no. Did the resolution say anything about Hamas' charter calling for the destruction of Israel? no. Did the resolution say anything about Hamas' use of civilians as human shields? no. All it did was condemn Israel. What is worse, it was passed unanimously!.
2. A friend writes that something similar happened at McMaster University: "[a friend] in Hamilton just told me about a hate fest yesterday at McMaster in which, among other things, Israel was described as undemocratic and Hamas was praised as a democratic, progressive force. Not one pro-Israel academic on the faculty panel, the same bs from top to bottom."

What is happening? I am just plain flabbergasted. I cannot believe how ignorant I have been to miss the significance of this growing trend of anti-Semitism and hatred on North American campuses. It makes me both sad and angry.

Do these people hate/fear Jews so much that they ignore the continued threats to the existence of Israel? Why are there so many alleged scholars who ignore the lack of freedom and the lack of democracy in Gaza, Syria, and elsewhere in the world and focus on Israel instead?

Even if Israel should not have launched its settlements in Gaza and the West Bank after the 1967 war (I'm not persuaded they shouldn't have promoted the settlements, given the continued threats to Israel's existence), that is no excuse for the total one-sided blind support of terrorists; that is no excuse for promoting explicit anti-Semitism.

Update: the full text of the resolution as it was sent to me by CAFI is below the fold:

Intellectual Bullying on Canadian Campus

From correspondence disseminated by the Canadian Academic Friends of Israel,

According to several students who were present, at Laurier this week a professor, equipped with a microphone, spontaneously lectured in the main thoroughfare of a campus building against Israel’s move on Gaza. When a student asked him a question, the professor answered that anyone who did not agree with his view did not deserve to study at that university.

No matter what your views on the conflict, I hope that we all agree that this attitude is antithetical to academic values. I hope too that we would all be prepared to stand up to it and the sense of intimidation it creates for those students with other views.

CUPE's Anti-Israel Resolution: Update from UWO

I wrote on Friday about being appalled by the CUPE proposed resolution that Israeli academics should be banned from Canadian universities. Several of my friends circulated that posting to many people, and there were some interesting comments on the posting.

1. In the comments to the posting, Nick Rowe wondered how effective the CUPE resolution would be if many academics at Canadian universities do as I have done and seek affiliation with universities in Israel. These affiliations are, for the most part, comparatively easy to arrange.


2. A former Dean of Social Sciences has written to me, "...there is no way university faculties in Ontario would pass anything even resembling such a motion. And even if they did, you would have a lot of company through the barricades!"
   
   I hope he is right. But given last year's outrage by some of my colleagues when our university president accepted an honour from the JNF, I'm not sure how much company there would be going through the barricades. Also, I worry about what position some of our faculty unions might take on any boycott resolution.


3. The current president of The University of Western Ontario wrote, to me, "... CUPE does not set policy at our University.  Israeli academics will continue to be welcome at Western."

Despite assurances that "CUPE does not set policy at our University...", there is good reason for concern.

First, even if CUPE does not set policy, it can make life difficult for the university.

Second, the resolution by CUPE, if passed, would further encourage those anti-western and anti-Israeli colleagues, several of whom are active in faculty unions throughout Ontario, to take up their cause. As I have written before, this cause is both anti-Semitic (how many scholars from other countries with egregious human rights violations have been boycotted by Ontario universities?) and antithetical to to academic freedom.

German Politician Opposes Ban on Israeli Scholars

Some very encouraging news:

"BERLIN – German Education Minister Annette Schavan voiced her adamant objection to recent elements in the European academia calling to ban Israeli researchers for political reasons.

Schavan, who will visit Israel later this week in order to mark a year of Israeli-German technological cooperation, told Yedioth Ahronoth that Germany's position on the matter is clear, and that Berlin only wishes to strengthen the ties between respective research teams."

Source here.

Will the Canadian Union of Public Employees Support the Boycott of Israeli Academics?

I was absolutely stunned when I read about this on Rondi Adamson's blog.

CUPE Ontario's university workers committee will bring a resolution to its annual conference supporting a ban on Israeli academics doing speaking, teaching or research work at Ontario universities as a protest against the December 29 bombing of the Islamic University in Gaza.

"In response to an appeal from the Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees, we are ready to say Israeli academics should not be on our campuses unless they explicitly condemn the university bombing and the assault on Gaza in general," said Sid Ryan, president of CUPE Ontario. "It's a logical next step, building on policy adopted by our provincial convention in 2006."

I am appalled and dismayed by this resolution. Has this union done or said anything about the more than 6000 rockets fired at Israeli citizens by Hamas from Gaza? Has this union done or said anything about the total destruction of the Gazan economy perpetrated by Hamas?

As most readers of EclectEcon know, I have formally sought and received affiliation with both Bar Ilan and Haifa Universities in Israel. If this resolution passes, will I be banned from teaching and working at The University of Western Ontario?

United Nations' Duplicity about Human Rights in the Middle East

Jeff Jacoby is a brilliant columnist for the Boston Globe (i.e., I agree with most of what he says, but he says it so well). For example, see this about the Bush Regime deregulation myth.

But the purpose of this posting is to encourage you to read his well-written, compelling essay about the position of the United Nations on human rights in the Middle East. It is appalling that columns like this must be written time and again. It is appalling that anyone who cherishes human rights would think otherwise.

UN's obsession is grotesque and Orwellian

By Jeff Jacoby

THE PRESIDENT of the UN General Assembly, Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann of Nicaragua, has denounced the policies of a certain Middle Eastern nation. They are "so similar to the apartheid of an earlier era," he said, "that the world must unite against them, demanding an "end to this massive abuse of human rights" and isolating the offending nation as it once isolated South Africa: with a punishing "campaign of boycott, divestment, and sanctions."

Of which country was he speaking?

Was it Saudi Arabia, where public facilities are segregated by sex, and where a pervasive system of gender apartheid denies women the right to drive, to dress as they choose, to freely marry or divorce, to vote, to appear in public without a male "guardian," or to give testimony on an equal basis with men?

Was it Jordan, where the law explicitly bars Jews from citizenship and where the sale of land to a Jew was for decades not only illegal, but punishable by death?

Was it Iran, where homosexuality is a capital crime — at least 200 Iranian gays were executed last year - and whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, asserted at Columbia University that there are no homosexuals in Iran?

Was it Sudan, where tens of thousands of black Africans in the country's southern region, most of them Christians or animists, have been abducted and sold into slavery by Arab militias backed by the Islamist regime in Khartoum?

It was none of these. The General Assembly president, a radical Maryknoll priest who served as Nicaragua's foreign minister during the Sandinista regime in the 1980s, was not referring to any of the Middle East's Muslim autocracies and dictatorships, virtually all of which discriminate against ethnic and religious minorities. He was speaking of the Jewish state of Israel, the region's lone democracy, and the only one that guarantees the legal equality of all its citizens - one-fifth of whom are Muslim and Christian Arabs.

D'Escoto's call for Israel to be shunned as a pariah and strangled economically came on the UN's Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, an annual occasion devoted to lamenting the rebirth of Jewish sovereignty in the 20th century, denouncing the national liberation movement — Zionism - that made that rebirth possible, and championing the cause of the Palestinian Arabs. The event occurs on or about Nov. 29, the anniversary of the UN vote in 1947 to partition Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. There are impassioned speeches, in which Israel's sins are enumerated and condemned, and the statelessness of the Palestinians is bewailed. Unmentioned is the fact that Palestine's Arabs would have had their state 60 years ago had they and the Arab League not rejected the UN's decision and chosen instead to declare war on the new Jewish state.

Like so much of what takes place at the UN, the obsession with demonizing Israel and extolling the Palestinians is grotesque and Orwellian. More than 1 million Israeli Arabs enjoy civil and political rights unmatched in the Arab world — yet Israel is accused of repression and human-rights abuse. Successive Israeli governments have endorsed a "two-state solution" - yet Israel is blasted as the obstacle to peace. The Palestinian Authority oversees the vilest culture of Jew-hatred since the Third Reich, and wants all Jews expelled from the land it claims for itself - yet Israel is labeled an "apartheid state" and singled out for condemnation and ostracism.

Make no mistake: In likening Israel to apartheid-era South Africa, the UN is engaged not in anti-racism but in anti-Semitism. In the 1930s, the world's foremost anti-Semites demanded a boycott of Jewish businesses. Today they demand a boycott of the Jewish state.

"No good German is still buying from a Jew," announced Hitler's Nazi Party in March 1933. "The boycott must be a universal one . . . and must hit Jewry where it is most vulnerable." Seventy-five years later, the president of the General Assembly urges the world to throttle Israel's 6 million Jews with "boycott, divestment, and sanctions." There is no significant difference between the two cases — or the animus underlying them.

When the UN adopted its odious "Zionism is racism resolution" in 1975, US Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan minced no words. "The United States," he declared, "does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act." Where is such a voice of moral outrage today?

What about Something for Older Researchers?

I cannot count the number of times I have seen announcements of research funds available for young scholars, blah, blah, yadda, yadda. Here is just one example:

This program recognizes, promotes and supports outstanding new faculty researchers whose work is particularly innovative, impacts [sic] positively on the learning environment in the department in which they study, and has the potential to be of significance to society at large. The program is intended to help attract and retain bright young minds at Canadian Universities and institutes and to help young researchers launch their scholarly careers and enable them to carry their research forward.

What about a research funding programme specifically designed for old farts who need serious refreshing before they go completely over the hill and down into the valley of death?

And aren't all these programmes for "younger" scholars counter to the anti-discrimination mandates of the various human rights commissions? Maybe I should file a complaint, eh?

UCU Slapped for Discrimination and Hypocrisy:Brit Academic Union Backs Off Proposed Boycott of Israeli Academics

For more than the past four years that I have been following the issue, the various morphs of the British academic union, UCU, have flirted with several different attempts to boycott Israeli academics. No matter what the political views of the people supporting this boycott, it always struck me as very thinly-veiled anti-semitism, as I have often said here. Now, it seems, the supporters of the boycott have been called out for being discriminatory and for hypocritically abandoning their own principles. From Engage,

In response to a legal challenge from a group of members, the University and College Union (UCU) has dropped its proposed boycott of Israeli academics.

In May of this year, the annual Congress of the union passed a motion to “disseminate the testimonies” of a UCU delegation to Palestine, and to use these testimonies to “promote a wide discussion of the appropriateness of continued educational links with Israeli academic institutions.” This was widely interpreted as a call to boycott Israeli universities. In addition, the motion demanded that Ariel College in the West Bank “be investigated under the formal Greylisting Procedure” – a prelude to boycotting the College.

After the motion was passed, two Oxford professors, Michael Yudkin and Denis Noble (both members of the UCU for more than 40 years), pointed out that any academic boycott would violate a core principle that has been accepted in the profession for nearly a century – that academics do not discriminate against colleagues on grounds of race, sex, religion, national or ethnic origin, or other personal characteristics. UCU’s own rules clearly outlaw discrimination on such grounds. “It’s considered such an important professional principle”, said Yudkin “that the union’s rules set it out twice”. The two professors assembled a group of twelve UCU members from universities all over England, and sought legal advice from the well-known London solicitors, Mishcon de Reya. After obtaining an opinion from two eminent QCs, Michael Beloff and Pushpinder Saini, that the boycott motion was contrary to the union’s rules and unlawful, the solicitors wrote to the UCU to say that the twelve members would sue unless the union dropped all discriminatory actions.

The union has now agreed on a “programme of work” to implement the motion. The “testimonies” and “wide discussion” have been abandoned, as has all mention of Ariel College. Instead the programme of work, which groups Zimbabwe, Colombia, the Palestinian territories and Burma, proposes to “commission an independent report on academic freedom”, which the union will “publicise widely once finished”.
..

Queen's University Ridiculed for Thought Police

Political correctness has run amok at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario.

Queen's University in Kingston, Ont., continues to contort itself hilariously over a pilot program to hire and train a half-dozen "facilitators" to eavesdrop on conversations in public areas of student residences and provide instant, on-the-spot political reeducation where necessary. ....

Perhaps Mr. Deane [Academic Vice-President] needs a "facilitator" of his own to help him understand why his words immediately strike so many as creepy and totalitarian. Indeed, one sentence -- "Freedom of speech and thought is impossible without respect, consideration and a commitment to mutual understanding" -- is exactly the sort of pro-forma boilerplate that inevitably gets sputtered out by human rights commissioners before they bring the boom down on some poor conservative-minded fellow who had the temerity to speak his views.

I find this development at Queen's distasteful and scary. I hope it doesn't spread. For more, see this.