GUEST COMMENT FREE SPEECH

The March 25 blog "Free Speech and Politeness", in substantially the same content, was posted to the forum of the Simon Fraser University Retiree Association, of which I am a member. An early and thoughtful response was posted there and with the permission of the author it is copied below. It would normally appear as a comment to the original blog but blogspot comments are limited to 4,000 characters. The response follows and the format my be unusual as it was received by e-mail.

"Thanks for bringing Ozlem Sensoy's opinion piece in the Vancouver Sun to our
attention. I was a member of the Faculty of Education before I retired, so
I thought I would take up your invitation to comment on her opinion piece.

"First, her claim that Coulter's speech acts are not individual acts, but are
necessarily part of what Prof. Sensoy claims to be a "system of privilege"
places her argument into a framework that I cannot accept. Basically Prof.
Sensoy is saying that we do not act as individuals when we speak, but merely
as cogs in a system. In other words, it is irrelevant if I personally do
not use so-called hate language, for whenever I speak, because I am a white
female person of European ancestry, I necessarily am privileged and my talk
must always be viewed as the talk of a privileged class.

"Whenever someone claims that there are really no individuals, but only
members of classes, I can only assume that they have accepted a Marxist
philosophy.

"Prof. Sensoy also claims that the power relationships upon which these class
distinctions are based do not change--"these relationships do not flip back
and forth." From her perspective then, our society is in a state of
permanent stasis. Factually, this is obviously a false claim. Not only do
(a) people move from one social class to another, but also (b) social
classes change in their number and composition. Examples: (a) I happen to
have originated in a social class where nobody in my immediate or extended
family had ever graduated from high school. I not only graduated from high
school, but went on to university and even ended up with a Ph.D. Clearly I
belong to a different social class than my parents did. (b) Back in the
1970s when I did educational consulting with native people on the prairies,
only 4% completed high school. Today, over 60% of native people complete
high school and there is now also a significant percentage who acquire
university degrees. Clearly, what used to be an underclass of people who
could be defined by locale (rural) and ethnicity (native) have changed; a
significant percentage of native people are now members of a rural working
or middle class that did not exist before. So I think these kinds of
changes in Canada argue against accepting Prof. Sensoy's Marxist framework
of analysis.

"Second, moving away from Marxism to a consideration of language, Prof.
Sensoy's analysis of language is uninformed. Referring to the author (James
Frey) of an autobiography that was initially widely touted as wonderful and
then denounced as a pack of lies by the same reviewers, Prof. Sensoy asks,
why did the reviewers denounce the work as a lie, rather than saying nothing
and allowing it to exist as an exemplar of free speech. I can only say that
it is unfortunate that an SFU professor does not know the difference between
biography and fiction, between claiming something is historically factual
versus producing a novel. We ask the historian who labels a work
"autobiographical" to be true to the facts; the novelist creating a work of
art is under no such constraint. An historian is distinguished from a
novelist.

"Third, Prof. Sensoy points out that we live with various types of speech
limitations every day. She claims that one of these includes some people
forcing others to shut up--"You can't just say whatever the hell you want."

"I think Prof. Sensoy here is extending the elementary school classroom to
the entire country. While it is appropriate for a teacher in a classroom to
limit the speech of children--they should not swear at one another, call one
another names, etc.--the world outside the classroom contains people who
have grown up. Some grownups present arguments, produce satire, challenge
mundane thinking, challenge political correctness. In a democracy, there is
no Big Teacher supervising the dialogues of grownups. The closest analogue
in the past to Ann Coulter is the French satirist Voltaire--his wit was
sharp, piercing, acerbic, unpleasant, and made others uncomfortable. Today
Voltaire's work belongs to the canon of great French literature precisely
because of these characteristics that disturbed so many in his time.

"Should the university lecture hall be subject to the same constraints as the
elementary school classroom? Well, the university is no longer either in
law or in fact acting as a parent (no longer in loco parentis). >From our
students we can and should expect grownup behavior. That normally has meant
exhibiting what you, Dan, have called polite behavior. And you have provided
a range of choices as to what a grownup does. I think you've given us a
good list.

"Finally, Prof. Sensoy's justifications for preventing certain persons from
speaking to university students demonstrate a problem that has arisen in
educational circles. Political correctness has become an area of expertise
for a large group of academics in Faculties of Education. Certain groups
have been singled out as recipients of special, even reverent, treatment.
These academics are the specialists who tell us who we are to revere, and
how we are to revere these special groups. PUBLIC POLICY HAS BECOME THE
CAPTIVE OF THIS ACADEMIC ELITE. This elite now tells us who can speak in
public and who cannot speak. The students who carried sticks and threatened
violence at the University of Ottawa "embody the spirit of student activism"
and, according to Prof. Sensoy are to be thanked.

"This politically correct elite is allied with government. This elite get
grants to support their publications. This elite provides input to the
provincial educational system. This elite trains the teachers who serve in
the provincial educational system. This elite explicitly pushes their
particular notion of "social justice" in the provincial educational system.

"Now this elite wishes to silence anyone who wishes to present ideas that the
elite does not like. A few years ago, who would have thought that the
greatest danger to free speech and free thought in our society would be
housed in the university?

"Sincerely,
Gloria Sampson, Retired Prof., Faculty of Education"

FREE SPEECH AND POLITENESS

March 21, 2010

FREE SPEECH AND POLITENESS

Today's Vancouver Sun devoted 20 column inches to an opinion piece:
"Ann Coulter and free speech? Hardly"
By Ozlem Sensoy, of SFU
http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Coulter+free+speech+Hardly/2724188/story.html
This is 20 column inches of opinion, said to be on the topic of free speech.

I have previously blogged my views on free speech. "Free speech and incitement to hate"
Friday, April 10, 2009
http://dlmblogmissn.blogspot.com/2009_04_01_archive.html

When someone identifies themselves with a university affiliation I like to think they have a justifiable pride in their subject expertise. In my view I should not identify myself as a university professor in writings outside my field of expertise. Sensoy is with the Faculty of Education at SFU. I accept that he has a reasonable level of expertise on students and their behavior and perhaps even on free speech. Interesting that in the hard copy his university affiliation appears but it does not appear in the on line.

To say that I was merely disappointed at the lack of comprehensible substance in the Sensoy article is to stretch my politeness to the limit.

Here I wish to avoid the subject of free speech and focus simply on politeness.
I feel I learned some things even before kindergarten and one of them was politeness, and in particular politeness in the presence of guests.

I would like to think that University students have acquired some of that as they climb the educational ladder to university admission. Not that it is a requirement, more an expectation.
Some university students at the U of Ottawa seem to have missed out on it and I fear even some faculty members have also.

When a guest has been invited to give a talk or lecture at a University I believe they should be treated politely.

If you don't like their views, don't go.

If you go, don't heckle. If Q & A is invited, participate politely. Consider going even if you have strong opposing preconceptions, it is a test of why you are attending university.

If you have alternative views, there are many available options:

Sponsor a debate with opposing views, [and expect no heckling and set the rules such as Q&A after all it is your dime and you are entitled to set the rules for your meeting.]

Sponsor a lecture on the opposing view [and expect politeness from those with opposite views]

Write letters to editor [ and expect responses]

Participate in forums such as this [ and expect responses]

Start a blog or participate in comments

Start/participate in a facebook page.

Whatever you do, do not mindlessly impede others from listening to what they want to listen to and are, out of politeness, entitled to.

It would be a bonus if someone from the Education Faculty would enlighten us as to what is now considered the norm that is to be expected from students in an educational institution.

PS. Politeness dictates I copy this to Ozlem Sensoy, he did not give his e-mail so that is not possible.

One last ironic twist. The illustration here comes from a book:
BE POLITE AND KIND
by Cheri J. Meiners, M.Ed. [emphasis added]

When children are kind, courteous, and
respectful, people enjoy being around them and reciprocate with the same behavior. This book helps kids understand the importance of showing politeness, speaking kindly, using basic courtesies
(“please,” “thank you,” “excuse me”), and respecting the feelings of others. Scenarios and role-play activities help adults reinforce the book’s lessons. 40 pp., color illust., S/C, 9" x 9". Ages 4–8.

TAXES AND GOVERNMENT

Read the following press statements carefully
1. "The government is spending more that a quarter of a billion dollar on the B.C. homeowners grant.
2. " And then the government hands out another $733 million in tax relief, much of it to homeowners.
3. "The biggest oil companies in Canada are projected to receive more in corporate tax cuts than what the government plans to spend on green initiatives'

Now please think carefully about the mental image and conclusions you reach.
Perhaps it is somewhat along one of the following lines.
- The government is spending too much.
- The government is spending too much on bad ideas
- The government is spending money on homeowners
- The government is spending too much money on oil companies

All of the quotes are from the press with minor modifications to protect the guilty.

I strongly suspect that very few are aware of the subtle brain washing that is going on.

There are two broad views of government. Here greatly simplified.
Society should be the focal point of our goals.
Individuals should be the focal point of our goals.

Note that in all 3 instances the press adopts the view that the government is entitled to all, most, or a great deal of wealth and that from that wealth they dole out largess. Is this bias deliberate? Has the bias impacted your view? Have you succumbed to brainwashing.

An alternative view is that in all 3 instances the government is simply not taking away as much.

A press with the alternative bias that the government is not entitle to all, most or a great deal would say.
1a The government has reduced its take from homeowners.
2a The government has reduced its tax grab, much of it from homeowners.
3a The large oil companies are at last granted relief from high taxation.

A relatively neutral press would simply report facts.
1b The home owner grant was increased.
2b Taxes were reduced in a number of areas and the home owner grant was increased.
3b Tax rates on the largest oil companies were reduced.

Moral of the story, be alert for subtle bias in newspaper reports. I am told TV news is even worse.

NARROW OR WIDE JUDICIAL DECISION

In June 1985, an Air India flight from Canada was destroyed by a bomb.
Here it is March 2010, 25 years later and the legal mess continues with the trial of Ajaib Singh Bagri on a charge of perjury.

In 2000, fifteen years after the bombing, Ripudaman Singh Malik and Ajaib Singh Bagri, were arrested and charged with the bombing. Their 16 month trial in 2003-2004 required the construction of a special purpose high-security courtroom at a cost of some C$7.2 million.

They were tried by a judge alone and in March of 2005, Justice Ian Josephson acquitted them.

Two conclusions were possible.
1. Establishment of culpability on the basis of "beyond reasonable doubt".
2. Establishment of culpability on the basis of "balance of probabilities".

The learned judge gave his decision on the first of these. His conclusion reflected his assessment of reasonable doubt and thus their acquittal.

Why did the judge not also add his opinion on the second?

What difference would it make even now 25 years later?
1. A further degree of clarity.
2. The possibility of successful civil actions without the high cost of additional legalities.
3. An increased confidence in our investigative and judicial system.

The aggregate cost of the investigation and prosecution was some $C 130 million.
Our society did not get its money's worth. We were and still are entitled to the judge's view on the second possible conclusion.

BOOKS TO UNDERSTAND CANADA

BOOKS TO UNDERSTAND CANADA

Sheryl MacKay the hostess on the CBC Radio 1 program North by Northwest, Weekends 6:00 - 9:00 a.m highlighted some Canadian books for visitors to the recent Olympics.
I consider myself a dedicated Canadian and a voracious reader. It is embarrassing to admit that of the 46 listed I have only read 5. Perhaps I have yet to understand Canada.

Source
http://www.cbc.ca/nxnw/
Bulletin Board
Canada Reads Vancouver Book Club - Book List:

The discussion was open to all Canadian books, any genre - what books would you recommend visitors read to understand Canada and Canadians?

Sheryl MacKay's Suggestions:

No Great Mischief - Alastair McLeod
Who Has Seen the Wind - WO Mitchell
Where the Blood Mixes - Kevin Loring
Roughing it in the Bush - Susannah Moodie
Souvenir of Canada (1 or 2) - Douglas Coupland


Jen Sookfong Lee's Suggestions:

The Stone Angel - Margaret Laurence
Dry Lips Oughta Move to Kapuskasing - Tomson Highway
Anne of Green Gables - by L.M. Montgomery
Stilt Jack - John Thompson
Saltwater City: An Illustrated History of the Chinese in Vancouver - Paul Yee
The Journals of Susannah Moodie - Margaret Atwood


Simi Sara's Suggestions:

Good To a Fault - Marina Endicott
The Jade Peony - Wayson Choy
Nikolski - Nicholas Dickner
Monkey Beach - Eden Robinson
Galore - Michael Crummey
The Retreat - David Bergen


The Audience Suggestions:

Consumption - Kevin Patterson
A Fair Country: Telling Truths About Canada - John Ralston Saul
The Diviners - Margaret Laurence
Two Solitudes - Hugh MacLennan
As for Me and My House - Sinclair Ross
Food that Schmecks - Edna Staebler
Why We Act Like Canadians - Pierre Berton
Chokecherry - Norma Hawkins
Through Black Spruce - Joseph Boyden
Beyond Forget: Rediscovery the Prairies - Mark Abley
The Cure for Death by Lightning - Gail Anderson-Dargatz
jPod - Douglas Coupland
Simple Recipes - Madeleine Thien
The Reckoning of Boston Jim - Claire Mulligan
Obasan - Joy Kogawa
Stanley Park - Timothy Taylor
Mister Got to Go: The Cat that Wouldn't Leave - Lois Simmie & Cynthia Nugent
Awake and Dreaming - Kit Pearson
To All Appearances A Lady - Marilyn Bowering
Stubby Amberchuk and the Holy Grail - Anne Cameron
Where the Blue Grama Grows - Doris Bircham
The Bishop's Man - Linden MacIntyre
The Birth House - Ami McKay
October Ferry to Gabriola - Malcolm Lowry
Ruffles on My Longjohns - Isabel Edwards
Midnight at the Dragon Caf� - Judy Fong Bates
A Curve of Time - M. Wylie Blanchet
By Grand Central Station I Sat Down and Wept - Elizabeth Smart
Visiting Hours - Shane Koyczan
The End of East - Jen Sookfong Lee

MEDALS AND OSCARS

The winter Olympics have ended in Vancouver. 86 medal events equals minimum of 258 medals and more considering team events. This month it is Oscars in Los Angeles with 96 Oscar categories.

What this world needs is to supersize: the Olympics of Politics. With 203 sovereign states, 20 top political positions, 3 medals per position gives a grand total of 12,180 medals. Now that would be truly Olympian.




An Olympian organization would be required and who better than the United Nations? As for judges the UN could easily establish a Polympian Secretariat. Naturally the UNPS would require a representative from each of the 203 sovereign states. Voting would be democratic with one vote per representative on each question.

The headquarters could be rotated among the 203 countries at 10-year intervals to keep the 203 countries interested for at least 2,030 years. Attracting a television audience and sponsors might both prove difficult. With appropriate arm twisting from the UN, the 203 sovereign states, and an uncountable number of NGO's such problems could probably be overcome.

Please do not leak this blog to the UN. They just might take it seriously.