Sunday, October 11, 2009

SSMU: Pro-aborts were victimized

The Student Society of McGill University doesn't get it.

Secondly, it is worrisome that the Deputy Provost interprets a large percentage of students being outraged and appalled at an event to be a tyranny of the majority.

Is it even a majority?

SSMU had hoped that Mendelson would consider the impact as well as content of the presentation instead of ignoring the formal intervention of students’ representative body by using the rhetoric of academic freedom.

You have freedom or you don't. That's how it works. If you want a one-sided university, then found a university that answers only to one ideology.

McGill acted as an enabler for a group attempting to violate SSMU’s governing documents.

So? The University doesn't belong to you. The University Administration is in charge of the University, not the Students Union.

The resolution regarding “Echoes of the Holocaust” was passed because the subject and format of the planned presentation violated the SSMU Constitution and Equity Policy.

And you don't run the university.

Council did not pass judgment based on individual opinions, but on the constitutionality of the event overall.

Rank hypocrisy. Of COURSE the opinions were judged! You think it's offensive to make analogies between abortion and the Holocaust.

SSMU did not censor Choose Life’s opinions, but the offensive format within which those opinions were being presented.

How do you say "abortion and the holocaust have parallels" without saying that?

Moreover, the SSMU Council, as the highest governing body of SSMU, has ultimate authority over SSMU clubs. McGill University must respect the right of SSMU to govern groups under its jurisdiction according to its constitution, by-laws, and policies.

No it doesn't. See, your union's existence is by virtue of the University's authority.

SSMU is also disturbed by McGill’s callous disregard of its need to protect students.

Protect them from what-- an idea?

The Deputy Provost has argued that the behaviour of the protestors was disappointing and appalling. SSMU understands that the disruptive behaviour of the protestors impeded on an event that the University had permitted to happen. However, the University has failed to address the concern that all other formal avenues had been exhausted, but to no avail. Vulnerable students tried to communicate their concerns to the University through the available channels: the SSMU executive, SSMU Council, AUS Council, the McGill Tribune, and The McGill Daily. There were no other avenues through which to stop this event, which they deemed victimizing, offensive, and stifling of educated debate, from happening.

So the Student were quite alright to shut down the event-- got that folks? The Student SUPPORTS this protest.

"Vulnerable students" give me a break.Vulnerable in what way, exactly? That their widdle feewings were hurt?

Well, other students' feewings may be hurt by the SSMU. Do they get protection?

Do you notice how they use "feelings" to protect their ideological dominance? THEY feel bad, therefore THEY get protection. If others feel victimized and offended, well tough luck.

The whole "feelings" rhetoric is a charade.

Part of growing up is neutralizing those feelings to engage in discussion of facts and logic. Can't neutralize those feelings? See a health counsellor.

Furthermore, it is unfair to expect these student protestors to watch a presentation calmly and to engage with a speaker when such a presentation would make them feel violated, demonized, and silenced

There's those darn feelings again! THEY feel violated, demonized and silence.

If pro-lifers feel violated, demonized and silence, well too bad!

If they feel vioalted, demonized and silence, then they should find other constructive avenues for their "feelings" such as a counter-lecture.

In his February 27, 2009 article in the McGill Reporter, “Free and Open Expression on Campus,” Mendelson said that free speech should be permitted as long as “we do not create a hostile environment for members of our diverse community.” This event created a hostile environment and should not have been permitted.

It created a hostile environment for pro-lifers, but who cares, right? The SSMU created hostility towards pro-lifers, whereas the pro-lifers had none towards those who disagreed with them.

What a farce!

It is possibly most disappointing that when students peacefully engaged in a public response to this hostile environment, they were removed through a police intervention.

Gotta love that! They were SHUTTING THEM DOWN. They violating the pro-lifers' right to assembley, right to free speech, but they're the victims!

Engage in a public response-- you just don't do it by violating other people's rights.

Students felt entirely abandoned by the McGill administration upon seeing fellow students removed from the safety of the downtown campus and handed over to the Montreal police and the public media.

No SSMU-- YOU felt abandoned. You do not speak for all students, even though you think you do.

We will continue to engage in a conversation with the McGill administration concerning their respect for SSMU and our students’ rights.

What a farce. They represent only those who agree with them.

Most importantly, as the representatives of all undergraduate students, we will hold ourselves to the highest standard of accountability to our students and to the SSMU constitution, by-laws, and policies.

LOL. "Highest standard of accountability". What a joke! They take themselves WAAAAY too seriously.