Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: fanfan
Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of examples of stupid and offensive ideas out there, and I’m all for confronting those who express those ideas, but any confrontation ought to be spontaneous and it ought to be limited to truly private individuals rather than agents of the state posing as private individuals. That is what I object to, and what Queen’s students should be outraged by. Don’t think that the experiment will end with interrupted conversations either. Eventually someone will resist the counsel of a “student facilitator” by telling them to take a hike, probably in words that will themselves be offensive. What will happen then? Will the “student facilitator” simply respect the right of his interlocutor to have a different opinion and desist, or will the “offender” be subject to further investigation and sanction, perhaps even expulsion?

The stench of "Big Brother" is all over this.

6 posted on 11/24/2008 12:00:55 PM PST by Captain Rhino (The best way to calm the delusions of grandeur in the energy cartel is to stop needing their energy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Captain Rhino; Cindy; All
FR-Related

Section 13, the controversial hate speech provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act, should be repealed, according to an independent review by University of Windsor law professor Richard Moon.

8 posted on 11/24/2008 12:08:40 PM PST by fanfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson