Nativist speaker Faith Goldy shut down at Wilfrid Laurier University

Wilfrid Laurier University (WLU) in Waterloo, Ontario became infamous when it threatened action against grad student Lindsay Shepherd for showing in a short video clip of Jordan Peterson in a language class Shepherd t.a.’d, despite Shepherd disagreeing with Peterson’s views. (See my reports here.) Since then Shepherd has become a free-speech activist and somewhat of a media personality, though perhaps she hasn’t acted as wisely as she could.

Shepherd organized a series of talks at WLU on controversial speech (the “Unpopular Opinion Speaker Series”), and her first invitee was Faith Goldy, an anti-immigration nativist whom I’m comfortable calling a white supremacist. Wikipedia gives some details:

Goldy drew criticism in March 2017, when she posted on Twitter a video of herself in Bethlehem, expressing shock that she could hear an Islamic call to prayer in the city, and suggesting that “Bethlehem’s Christian population has been ethnically cleansed.”

In June 2017, Goldy broadcast on Rebel Media “White Genocide in Canada?”, analyzing the Canadian government’s foreign immigration policies with regard to the Third World and the effect of those policies on the demographic composition of Canadian society. She posited that the European population in the country was being replaced as a result. In response to the broadcast several corporate entities withdrew their financial support from Rebel Media.[19]

According to Winnipeg Free Press columnist Dan Lett, Goldy seemed to be working to provide mainstream respectability to the far right demonstrators in the course of her reporting on the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, arguing that they suggested a wider “rising white racial consciousness” in America and referring to a manifesto by white supremacist Richard Spencer, which Lett described as including “calls to organize states along ethnic and racial divides and celebrates the superiority of ‘White America,'” as “robust” and “well thought-out.”  These broadcasts, together with her interview on The Krypto Report, were central to the resignation of Brian Lilley from The Rebel, and Goldy’s own subsequent dismissal.

In December 2017, Goldy recited the white supremacist Fourteen Words slogan [JAC: the slogan is “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children”] in an interview with alt-right YouTuber Millennial Woes and stated that she did not believe doing so was controversial.

Goldy is not exactly the person I’d invite to kick off a “controversial ideas” seminar, as she’s an out-and-out racist, but I suppose Shepherd, who characterizes herself as a liberal, could be using this as a test case. And, indeed, according to the CBC News, WLU refused to ban Goldy from speaking on campus (her topic was supposed to be “Ethnocide: Multiculturalism and European Canadian Identity”):

Goldy previously worked for Sun News Network and The Rebel Media. She was let go from her job with The Rebel last August after she went on a podcast for the Daily Stormer, an American neo-Nazi and white supremacist website.

Laurier president Deborah MacLatchy issued an open letter to students, staff and faculty on Tuesday morning saying the school will not censor Goldy.

“I want to state very clearly that I personally and absolutely reject the ideas and values attributed to this speaker and that they are in no way aligned with or reflective of the core values of our university,” MacLatchy said.

“It is my sincere hope that the organizers of, and participants in, this event take seriously the responsibilities and accountabilities that accompany free expression and will engage in civil discourse that is free from hate.”

Well, that’s as good as can be expected.  But of course there were the usual calls by faculty and students to deplatform Goldy, rescinding her invitation, and the hashtag site #nonazisatlaurier was created to support this. As for Shepherd, she noted that the event was supposed to be a debate, but nobody could be found who wanted to debate Goldy. The talk was still scheduled, and Shepherd explained her views further:

Shepherd added she was looking forward to hearing Goldy speak because she wanted to understand why Goldy views the world the way she does.

“I certainly do not share most of Faith Goldy’s views. But does that make someone not worth listening to? No. I think we can all find common ground with some people and let’s actually listen to their arguments before writing them off,” she said.

“Just because I want to hear that, it doesn’t make me some kind of skinhead,” Shepherd said, noting there will be a question and answer period where those in attendance can challenge Goldy and her views.

“I actually don’t know where she stands on a lot of things, so it will be very useful for me to be able to ask her questions, too.”

Well, Goldy was deplatformed—not by the university but by the students, who pulled a common trick: setting off a fire alarm five minutes after the event was scheduled. Goldy didn’t get to say anything. A report by the CBC this morning gives details:

The talk was set to start at 7:15 p.m. ET. At approximately 7:20 p.m, a fire alarm was pulled and police evacuated the building, preventing anyone from entering the Paul Martin Centre.

Event attendees then moved to Veterans’ Green park, on the other side of campus, where Lindsay Shepherd, the organizer of the event, announced the talk was cancelled.

Shepherd, the co-founder of the campus group Laurier Society for Open Inquiry, said she’s “super disappointed” at the outcome.

According to Goldy’s Twitter account, the fire alarm was pulled before she was even introduced and presented on stage.

Here’s Goldy’s tweet; you can hear the alarm:

Shepherd’s reaction:

“My view of these college leftists is more damaged than it used to be,” Shepherd said to CBC News, assuming the person who pulled the fire alarm was someone who opposed the talk.

“I had faith that we’d have a nuanced discussion where people can challenge the speaker at the end — obviously that was too much to hope for,” said Shepherd.  

More than 175 people wanted to attend Goldy’s talk, which extended the room’s capacity. Shepherd said she had to turn away an additional hundred.

And here’s Shepherd and Goldy speaking impromptu outside the venue:

Once again, I find the speaker’s views repulsive but also find the students’ deplatforming odious. Invited speakers allowed to talk by the University should not be shut down. If people were allowed to question Goldy after her talk, and demonstrate peacefully, which they were, then why is she so dangerous? Is expressing her views so injurious to Canada that she can’t be allowed to speak? I doubt it.

As happens so often, this involves the Left deplatforming the Right. I’d of course be equally opposed to the reverse situation, and will be glad to write about it if someone sends me news items about deplatforming of Left-wing speakers by conservatives. As the FIRE Disinvitation Database shows, though, nearly all college deplatformings and disinvitations over the past few years have been done by the Left. Our side should know better.

h/t: jekman

129 Comments

  1. Merilee
    Posted March 21, 2018 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    Sub

  2. Mark Reaume
    Posted March 21, 2018 at 10:51 am | Permalink

    sub

    So weird to see this happening in my hometown.

  3. eric
    Posted March 21, 2018 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    “My view of these college leftists is more damaged than it used to be,” Shepherd said to CBC News

    It’s worth pointing out that the free speech club that invited her was founded by a college leftist, the speaker series was developed by a college leftist, and her invite came from a college leftist.

    So while I fully agree with PCC that the people who pulled the fire alarm should be condemned, let’s also remember that Goldy’s portrayal of the ‘left’ is not really much more accurate than her other statements. She’s showing a heavy amount of confirmation bias and painting with an overbroad brush.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted March 21, 2018 at 10:54 am | Permalink

      All good points. Sometimes we on the left eat our young – something the right never does but then again, at least we have progress as a result.

    • glen1davidson
      Posted March 21, 2018 at 11:07 am | Permalink

      What “Goldy’s portrayal of the ‘left'” would that be?

      Glen Davidson

      • eric
        Posted March 21, 2018 at 11:12 am | Permalink

        What I quoted. She’s disappointed by the college left. It’s pretty clear she’s associating ‘college left’ with the attempt to censor her, but does not associate the college left with inviting her there to speak in the first place. Both may be true, but considering one of those while ignoring the other shows confirmation bias.

        • Adam M.
          Posted March 21, 2018 at 11:15 am | Permalink

          Well, that was Shepherd’s portrayal.

    • Posted March 24, 2018 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

      You seem to assume that these were the words of the invited speaker, but they were of Shepherd who did the invitation. As far as I know, Shepherd has left-leaning views, but apparently she does not (anymore) identify herself with the Left.

  4. Diana MacPherson
    Posted March 21, 2018 at 10:53 am | Permalink

    It’s also odious that the person pulled the fire alarm, diverting emergency services unnecessarily and putting others at risk.

    • Posted March 24, 2018 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

      I think he should be seeked and, if found, punished.

  5. glen1davidson
    Posted March 21, 2018 at 10:57 am | Permalink

    A very inauspicious beginning to the Unpopular Opinion Speaker Series.

    It’s just as inauspicious that there is a lot of students at a university opposed to learning and to allowing others to learn.

    Glen Davidson

  6. BJ
    Posted March 21, 2018 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    Test cases have been used by highly respected legal advocacy groups for decades, from the ACLU to gay rights organizations to abortion advocacy groups. The best test case for a commitment to free speech is inviting a speaker that is widely agreed by almost all people to be reprehensible. As the old canard goes, if you won’t defend the right to express ideas you hate, you won’t defend the idea of free speech at all. If the rights of someone most of us agree is odious aren’t protected, people anyone might find odious can (and, as we have seen lately in both Canada and across Europe, will) be abridged. And we know just how many people and views are considered unacceptable by some groups, especially on college campuses.

    Many people will say this is an intentionally provocative speaker meant to provoke a response, and thus prove a tendency toward censorship, and that this is somehow a dishonest tactic. Just as with legal test cases, this is exactly what should be done. The dedication to free speech must be tested, and if the test is failed, we know there is a problem.

    • John Dentinger
      Posted March 21, 2018 at 11:26 am | Permalink

      Small note: it may be an old saw, but it’s not a canard, IMO.

      • BJ
        Posted March 21, 2018 at 11:29 am | Permalink

        You’re absolutely right. I can’t believe I used that word. It’s not an unfounded claim, and I should have used “cliche” or “saying.”

        Thanks for pointing that out. It’s just one of those phrases that comes to your mind and you end up using it 🙂

        • Posted March 21, 2018 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

          Besides, “canard” means “duck” in French, and I have a thing for ducks.

          • BJ
            Posted March 21, 2018 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

            Well, anything that references ducks should be welcome on a Jerry Coyne website 🙂

            I think my brain was trying to access “that old chestnut,” but found the RNA encoded with “that old canard.”

            • Merilee
              Posted March 21, 2018 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

              Quack🤓

    • Posted March 24, 2018 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

      I wonder, why didn’t any of the outraged leftists, e.g. the one who ultimately decided to pull the alarm, volunteer to debate the invited speaker? With the friendly audience, he would most likely become the hero of the event.

      • Uta
        Posted March 26, 2018 at 10:44 pm | Permalink

        Plenty of people showed up to debate – the room was NOT full of Goldy supporters (there were a couple dozen or so). Most ppl hadn’t heard of Goldy til that morning, but knew a good show when they saw one. Free publicity for someone who lives off of youtube videos. Who knows who Lindsay “invited” to debate. Can’t imagine why a debater wouldn’t want their name and location all over the dark corners of the internet when youtubers get all the video footage pumped out. Must just be scared of Goldy’s intellect.

  7. Historian
    Posted March 21, 2018 at 11:09 am | Permalink

    “’I certainly do not share most of Faith Goldy’s views. But does that make someone not worth listening to? No. I think we can all find common ground with some people and let’s actually listen to their arguments before writing them off,’ she said.

    Thus we have Lindsay Shepherd’s rationale for inviting Goldy. What we have here is an expression of incredible naiveté by this young person. Just what common ground might she find with an undoubted white supremacist? Maybe she can next invite one of the Nazis who marched at Charlottesville. Certainly Shepherd could find out Goldy’s views by looking at her videos and writings. Extremists do not have a problem finding “platforms” to express their views.

    Despite saying all this, Goldy should have been allowed to speak once invited. There should have been no effort to block her talk. But, Shepherd blundered in inviting Goldy. This is like a Jewish group in Germany in the 1920s inviting Hitler to speak to find “common ground.” Extremists like Goldy need no help from so-called liberals to spread their poison.

    • eric
      Posted March 21, 2018 at 11:21 am | Permalink

      Godwin’s law strikes again!
      IMO Goldy /= Hitler. People seem to forget that a main reason Hitler rose to power wasn’t merely that he spoke bad ideas rhetorically effectively, it’s that he had his thugs beat and kill people who opposed him, suppressing opposition thought via coercion and intimidation. Goldy is clearly not doing that. In fact the reverse analogy is more apt; it is the students who are acting ‘like Hitler’, at least in so far as they are the ones using force to suppress opposing ideas.

      • Historian
        Posted March 21, 2018 at 11:34 am | Permalink

        My point is that if a person finds another person’s views repugnant, the former has no obligation to give the latter a forum to spread such views. Hence, I do not know how much Goldy’s views mirror Hitler’s. I was simply making an analogy to the foolishness of a group inviting a speaker whose views are crystal clear regarding the group.

        Yes, Hitler’s thugs intimidated his opponents. But, it is also true that Hitler’s rhetoric managed to win over millions of Germans (perhaps) a majority to his ideology.

        • eric
          Posted March 21, 2018 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

          If your point is that Shepherd wasn’t obligated to invite Goldy…okay, point taken. So what? Does anyone disagree with that?

          The value in having someone’s whose views are clear yet opposite yours speak is that (a) you never know, you might learn something you didn’t know or hear and argument you weren’t aware of, (b) it prevents the students from rosily misinterpreting that person’s position (i.e. prevents revisionism); (c) it provides opportunity for live back-and-forth on important social points, (d) it may give the students themselves an opportunity to try out their thoughts and arguments against the speaker, and (e) it provides an object lesson on the meaning and defense of free speech better than any academic or hypothetical lecture on the subject.

          Does this all mean that Goldy was the one true perfect choice of speaker? No. Lots of other candidate speakers may have been better choices. But I submit to you that an “Unpopular Speaker Series” has failed in it’s mission if it’s going to limit invites to speakers you and I and Jerry would think make sound and solid public policy points. Taking on repugnant ideas is part of the point.

          • Posted March 21, 2018 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

            I think there has to be some sort of personal limit to the need to hear someone else’s point of view. For example, I have no interest in debating a flat-earther. It is not like I might hear a valid point. The chances of that are so low as to make any involvement a waste of time.

            Perhaps what is needed is for the person or organization providing the platform to establish some minimum level of interest in the speaker and their subject. If that minimum is not met, the event is cancelled.

            • Davide Spinello
              Posted March 21, 2018 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

              OK, but no one was forced to go listen. It is not a mandatory class (unlike the horrid “sensitive training” and “implicit bias training”). People can stay home, go have a drink, study, do anything else you can think of. Instead since they are little authoritarian professional victims with the understanding of the world shaped by their gender studies cult leaders, they have to go and de-platform.

              • Posted March 21, 2018 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

                Perhaps what I am really suggesting is that it might work better if those that are interested in hearing a particular speaker could add their names to a list before the event. This would make it clear that deplatforming a speaker is denying the rights of these people. It would allow the college administration to focus on protecting the rights of those on the list and make it harder for them to state they are for free speech but fail to act to protect that right.

                One of the problems with these controversial speakers is that the AL can pretend that there’s no one at the college interested in hearing the speaker. Of course, there are likely people that show up to the event for that purpose but by that time the AL are in full rage mode and it’s too late.

            • Posted March 21, 2018 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

              I think there has to be some sort of personal limit to the need to hear someone else’s point of view

              I missed the bit where somebody said it was compulsory to go and listen to these speakers.

              Of course there should be a personal limit, but it’s your personal limit. Personally, would be quite interested to go and listen to a flat Earther (mainly for the laughs, I admit) so why should your personal limit stop me from hearing them?

              Perhaps what is needed is for the person or organization providing the platform to establish some minimum level of interest in the speaker and their subject. If that minimum is not met, the event is cancelled.

              Isn’t that something like what actually happens? In this particular case though, there appears to have been a lot of interest in the talk.

              • Posted March 21, 2018 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

                Seems someone doesn’t understand the meaning of “personal”. Yes, we each have such a limit. I don’t want to hear the flat earther but you do. No problem.

            • eric
              Posted March 21, 2018 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

              Isn’t the minimum level of interest established by the number of students who show up? In this case 175 people showed up to hear the speaker. Out of 15,000 students that isn’t a popular musical act or stand-up comedian level of popularity, but it’s probably not bad for invited academic speaker type events. And the administration can, without any other measure being necessary, do as you suggest and point out that 175 students were denied an opportunity to hear a speaker they came to hear.

              In terms of your list, I don’t think it’s a good idea to necessarily identify which students by name want to see the speaker. That creates privacy issues. Just sell tickets (or give them away just to ensure there aren’t more people coming than seats available) and count how many are taken.

              Now if you want to talk selection criteria, for a free speech club with a bunch of members the simplest way to do this would be for members to submit names and then have the club vote on top X where X = number of speaker engagements they’ll support. it’s their club, and their speaking event. Even if a speaker is unpopular with the campus community at large, they still have a right to invite speakers their club members want to hear.

              • Posted March 21, 2018 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

                As I’ve already mentioned, the problem when people just show up to hear a speaker is that they don’t act as a deterrent to those that would disrupt and allow the administration to know ahead of the event that there are people who plan to listen to the speaker.

                I didn’t say that signing up for the event would be mandatory. Perhaps could choose to sign up anonymously (ie, their names are known to the administration or the signup mechanism but not made public) or simply show up to the event.

              • eric
                Posted March 21, 2018 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

                Paul, isn’t your concept inferior to just using tickets? Having some people anonymously sign up will undercount audience numbers, while using tickets to track numbers counts audience sign-ups exactly (though may overcount actual attendance) and is equally anonymous. If you want to count actual attendance, you can have doorpeople use clicker/counters. But that method may undercount interest if there is an intimidating crowd at the door or someone pulls the fire alarm 5 minutes into the event. Which is probably why many groups use both methods to count audience.

                In any event, as I pointed out the administration didn’t need any new sign-up mechanism to use exactly the argument you want them to make. Whatever mechanism they used, they counted 175 people as showing up to hear her. There’s your argument that the fire alarm prevented interested students from hearing the speaker. No new/extra measures necessary.

              • Posted March 21, 2018 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

                I’m ok with tickets. The details clearly need to be worked out. Perhaps some experimentation will determine the right path. It may depend on who is sponsoring the event and who is allowed to attend.

                My point was to find a way to establish going in that there is a subset of the larger invited group (students and faculty, the general public) that have expressed firm interest (not necessarily agreement) in what the speaker has to say.

                I believe one of the strongest arguments we have with the deplatformers is that they are actively depriving people’s rights. They are told that now, of course, but the group is hypothetical, allowing them to pretend that no one wants to hear the speaker.

                Free speech ought to be an even stronger argument but the deplatformers think they do support free speech (but not “hate speech”) so it has less sway with them.

              • Posted March 21, 2018 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

                175 + the 100 or so they turned away at the door.

              • darrelle
                Posted March 22, 2018 at 8:23 am | Permalink

                What you all have been discussing in this thread seems like it might be a good methodology for an organization that arranges lectures and or debates to figure out which speakers would be a good draw. If, of course, maximizing attendance numbers are a high enough priority for them.

                But with respect to the issue here, de-platforming, it is completely irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if no one shows up or if it’s packed like sardines in a can. People who don’t want to go don’t have to. People who prevent others who do want to hear the speaker(s) from being able to do so are wrong in at least 5 different ways. Hitchens said it about as well as anyone has in his popular address about free speech at an event in Canada. I think the de-platformers should suffer negative legal and or administrative consequences for their actions, depending on exactly what they’ve done. Many of them would probably benefit from being put in a time-out and having their phone taken away from them for a month.

              • Posted March 22, 2018 at 9:58 am | Permalink

                It is not irrelevant. The de-platformers believe (or say they do) that they are protecting the rights of certain groups of people. As it stands, the de-platformers believe they are merely exercising their free speech rights and protecting certain segments of society. If it can be shown that there are people that want to hear the speaker, and who don’t necessarily agree with the speaker, it can be shown that their de-platforming efforts are a denial of those persons’ rights.

              • darrelle
                Posted March 22, 2018 at 10:36 am | Permalink

                I disagree.

                “As it stands, the de-platformers believe they are merely exercising their free speech rights and protecting certain segments of society.”

                I can believe that some of them do think they are merely exercising their free speech rights. That doesn’t mean that they are correct about that. And in this case and many others they are not correct about that. Also, many of these people claim that they do not agree with the degree of free speech that Jerry, for example, is a proponent of and that the US legal system upholds. Beside being incorrect it is hypocritical of them to claim that they are merely exercising their free speech rights.

                The issue is not just denying the rights of people who want to hear the speaker. But in consideration of your argument about their rights, it is irrelevant whether or not anyone would actually exercise their right to hear a speaker in any particular instance. Rights of any kind are not subject to whether anyone thinks they might want to exercise them in any specific future instance. Having to show intent to exercise a right in a particular future instance or by default cede that right to others is not how rights are generally conceived of.

                But there is also the right of the speaker to speak. Whether or not anyone wants to hear them is also irrelevant in this case. Nobody has to listen. The speaker can address an empty room if no one wants to listen to them.

                In this specific case there is also the rights of the people, or the person, that organized the event.

                Just in case, let me clarify that I am not confused about the differences between legal, philosophical, political, ethical, etc, “spheres” of free speech despite the prevalent use of the word “rights.” Where appropriate I mean the word in a legal sense, and where appropriate I mean it in the non-legal sense of the considerations we individuals that make up society should, generally speaking, afford each other.

    • BJ
      Posted March 21, 2018 at 11:30 am | Permalink

      So you disagree with the idea of test cases? They’re a tried and true tactic, and the best way of demonstrating the limits of rights in the eyes of the public and/or the law.

      • Historian
        Posted March 21, 2018 at 11:40 am | Permalink

        Jerry was merely speculating that this could be a test case. I see no evidence that this was Shepherd’s motive for inviting Goldy. In any case, I think Shepherd made a mistake. I see no reason for liberals to provide forums for white supremacists. Certainly, a fellow traveler of Goldy could have arranged a test case.

        • Davide Spinello
          Posted March 21, 2018 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

          Why does the motivation matter? What matters is that no one was forced to go listen to her.

        • Simon
          Posted March 21, 2018 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

          Faith Goldy, the white supremacist who openly discusses the issue of Asian students displacing white students at the top of the academic tree. I don’t think white supremacist means what some people think it means.

        • Simon
          Posted March 21, 2018 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

          The most blindingly obvious reason is to find out if the person actually is a “white supremacist”,which is very debatable in this case, and to hear in person what their opinion actually is. You may not agree with their solutions, but they might open your mind to the fact that they are responding to an actual problem which you may have discounted. Clinton would have done well to have paid more attention to what actually motivated those “deplorables”. Blind arrogance about conservatives has been a fault of the left for quite a while.

          • Posted March 22, 2018 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

            I believe it was Quillette had an article recently mentioned a study that found conservatives could accurately describe the positions of their opponents, but progressives could not.

    • Liz
      Posted March 21, 2018 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

      I completely agree with all of your comments. It is naive. It’s a college for learning. What is the point of having her there? To educate” or “inspire” the students? It’s a poor choice of a speaker. If she did want her there to “test” free speech, that’s almost irresponsible in her role as an educator. Those students should be in their dorms doing homework and writing papers. They come out to listen to this woman say, “Convince and convert people to the truth.” Did anyone else hear that? That’s the makings of a cult leader. Those students don’t know any better and the role of the educator is to guide them in the right direction. Not leave them vulnerable and waste their time with this just to “test” free speech.

      • eric
        Posted March 21, 2018 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

        What is the point of having her there?

        To understand the people you object to.

        To prevent/undermine attempts by revisionist supporters to downplay or revise their sides’ more odious opinions.

        To be able to debate them in front of students.

        To give the students a chance to debate them via Q&A.

        To provide and object lesson in what support of free speech means in practice.

        ***

        Personally, I think #2 is often underrated. Extremist groups don’t just include speakers like Goldy, they often also include supporters who will downplay or minimize the extremist’s more ridiculous or offensive positions when they paraphrase those positions. Getting the ‘primary source’ up on stage can cut thorugh the B.S. excuses and let students hear the whole horrible truth those extremists espouse. No, this Islamic guy doesn’t respect women, he really does think they should be silent. No, this person doesn’t just think affirmative action is discriminatory, they really do think nonwhites are inferior. IMO one of the best ways to sway people against extremism is sometimes to hand the extremist the mic in a ‘friendly’ environment where they will be relaxed and truthful, and let them bury themselves with their own words.

        • Liz
          Posted March 21, 2018 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

          Definitely. The second one is important because sometimes there aren’t people who object. The students who went outside were cheering her on. The professor who invited her should have tried much harder to educate her. There was no attempt on her part to try to educate her so what does that say to the kids? She’s (the speaker) controversial and I am going to do nothing other than to let her try and convert you. “Convert to the truth” are the speaker’s words. I hope the students can think for themselves. The ones who were outside clearly couldn’t, though.

          • Davide Spinello
            Posted March 21, 2018 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

            There is a simple solution to non-compulsory activities: don’t participate.

          • Posted March 24, 2018 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

            I suppose the students outside did think for themselves, and you think they didn’t because you do not like their thoughts.

      • Simon
        Posted March 21, 2018 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

        Professor Pimlott, is that you? What is this “right direction” you speak of?

    • Posted March 21, 2018 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

      Sorry Historian, you kinda missed this point:
      “Unpopular Opinion Speaker Series”
      There is no blunder.
      Perhaps the next series will be more to their liking:
      “The Warm and Fuzzy Opinion Speaker series”

    • Posted March 22, 2018 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

      “Just what common ground might she find with an undoubted white supremacist? ”

      Just how familiar are you with Goldy’s views? Cuz that was the whole point behind Shepherd inviting Goldy, to become more familiar with them.

      We have Murray labeled a ‘racist’ by people who’ve never read The Bell Curve; Damore a ‘misogynist’ by those who never read his memo; Peterson ‘alt-right’, etc.

      And ever were someone — especially a young person like Goldy — truly a white supremacist, it behooves us to find out what concerns led them to that. For, as Steven Pinker recently observed, the Regressive Left is driving young people into the arms of the Right.

  8. Ken Kukec
    Posted March 21, 2018 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    Assuming the accuracy of the summary in Jerry’s post, Ms. Goldy’s views are anathema to me. But (as a prosecutor once whispered to me as I was calling a character witness for a widely reviled client) even snakes have mothers — and even the most repugnant among us have free-speech rights.

    • naveen1941
      Posted March 21, 2018 at 11:27 am | Permalink

      The snakes are the most repugnant? Whose point of view is this? Is this taken from the Genesis the first chapter of the Bible?

      • BJ
        Posted March 21, 2018 at 11:32 am | Permalink

        Right?!? I’m sick of the anti-serpentesism. Ken should know better.

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted March 21, 2018 at 11:41 am | Permalink

          Precissssssely. The sssssssnakes don’t appreciate the bigotry of the anti-sssssssspatine crowd.

          • Adam M.
            Posted March 21, 2018 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

            😀

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted March 21, 2018 at 11:49 am | Permalink

        Far be it from me to be an ophidian-phobe. I hereby renounce my comment and the prosecutor on whom it was based.

        • Posted March 24, 2018 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

          It is not your fault, and not even of the prosecutor – I guess he was just not enough sensitivity-trained.

  9. Posted March 21, 2018 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    Jerry, it’s time to retire the term “white supremacist”. In 2018, it exists only as a pejorative, the purpose of which is to elicit memories of Bull Conner and his police dogs.

    Today, we have “white nationalists” and/or “white separatists” and that’s pretty much it. There is nobody out there anymore claiming that whites are “supreme” over all and should rule over all. Even the hardest-line white nationalist will readily admit that Asians, on average, are the smartest people on earth.

    Today’s white nationalists believe that the peoples of Northern Europe should have places to live and develop without the influx of foreign genes and cultures. They are content for blacks and Asians and other peoples to live peacefully in other places, as they please.

    Yes, there are people who hate blacks and Jews among the white nationalists, just as among the Left there are so many who have a vicious hatred of whites.

    White Leftists, in particular, seem to be consumed by a level of self-hatred that looks to me like mental illness.

    A Jewish person who hated Jews the way many white Leftists hate their own people and ancestors would be vilified by almost all other Jews.

    It is my belief — and limited observation — that the majority of white nationalists do not, on a personal level, hate blacks or Jews or anyone else. Most of them treat people of other races and religions with civility. They are certainly far better-mannered than, say, the self-righteous, violent, Antifa Left.

    Isn’t the position held by white nationalists more or less the position of the Jewish people regarding their own culture? Don’t the Japanese and Chinese mostly think this way? Don’t many black activists in our country believe exactly this same thing?

    Of course, nobody on the Left will agree with any of this or alter their way of thinking one iota. It just doesn’t fit their world view. Confirmation bias rules.

    • yazikus
      Posted March 21, 2018 at 11:40 am | Permalink

      It is my belief — and limited observation — that the majority of white nationalists do not, on a personal level, hate blacks or Jews or anyone else. Most of them treat people of other races and religions with civility. They are certainly far better-mannered than, say, the self-righteous, violent, Antifa Left.

      To my knowledge, antifa hasn’t murdered anyone, as have the white nationalists. Perhaps your limited observations are just that. Limited.

      • Historian
        Posted March 21, 2018 at 11:45 am | Permalink

        Quite true. There is no difference between white nationalists and white supremacists. This is a mere tactic by the white supremacists to entice new members by making them less guilty in joining their cause.

        • Posted March 21, 2018 at 11:48 am | Permalink

          “White nationalism” also ties in better with Trump’s rhetoric which these people are clearly trying to leverage.

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted March 21, 2018 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

          It’s like how when JW’s visit your door. They size you up & see if you’re ready for the full on Watchtower or if they’ll instead hand you a pamphlet that eases you into the whole organization with “family” and “health” stories. In the end, it’s the same organization.

          • yazikus
            Posted March 21, 2018 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

            Milk before meat, and all that.

          • Liz
            Posted March 21, 2018 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

            I’ve never experienced them size me up. I size them up and then I break them down.

      • Davide Spinello
        Posted March 21, 2018 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

        Antifa is a fascist group.

        • yazikus
          Posted March 21, 2018 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

          No, not really.

          • Davide Spinello
            Posted March 21, 2018 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

            Antifa is a group of masked cowards that use violent actions to prevent people from freely speaking.

            It is a fascist group.

      • Posted March 22, 2018 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

        “To my knowledge, antifa hasn’t murdered anyone, as have the white nationalists.”

        Eric Clanton gave it his best effort.

        And I assume you’re referring to the white nationalist (singular), James Fields. Who was charged with manslaughter, not murder, may not have actually struck the woman who died (she died of a heart attack), and who may well have panicked after being attacked by the antifa mob.

        • yazikus
          Posted March 22, 2018 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

          Fields was certainly a highly publicized case, but up here in the PNW we get cases of white-nationalist linked murders more often than I’d like to see.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted March 21, 2018 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

      You can call chickenshit “chicken salad”; doesn’t make it anymore palatable.

    • pck
      Posted March 21, 2018 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

      I say let’s do away with the euphemisms altogether, just for the sake of clarity, and call you a racist who strives for genocide.

      • Posted March 21, 2018 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

        Someone who strives for genocide is more than racist. Genocidist?

    • darrelle
      Posted March 21, 2018 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

      Nope.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted March 21, 2018 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

      I dunno, not wanting to mix your DNA with non whites seems pretty racist to me but almost as bad, it’s just an ignorant understand of human evolution and genetics.

    • Posted March 21, 2018 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

      You can retire whatever words and phrases you desire. I, for one, will continue to use “white supremacist” to describe those that think that white people are better than non-white people. It is pretty simple really.

    • Michael Fisher
      Posted March 21, 2018 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

      garyaustintx. You’ve put forth your “white supremacist” / “white nationalist” bullshit on at least two previous occasions on WEIT going back as far as August 2017. EXAMPLE

      Your technique is usually to make a right-leaning drive-by comment & then not respond to further comments in your thread. You were even asked directly by PCC[E] if you yourself were a white supremacist. And crickets…

      Instead of saying, “today we have white nationalists” at least have the bottle to say that YOU are a white nationalist! Why do you play these games? I find your style of commenting dishonest – commit to a position & say what yours is. Please.

    • Michael Fisher
      Posted March 21, 2018 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

      @garyaustintx And HERE FROM JANUARY where you performed your “white supremacist” signature tune, garnered SIXTEEN comments, but you’d left the building – no gig & no ticket refunds. With no statement from you about your personal position. What are you Gary?

  10. Patrick
    Posted March 21, 2018 at 11:30 am | Permalink

    I agree with every conclusion PCC(E) makes above.

    I fully sympathize with and Shepherd with respect to the initial mistreatment she suffered from a couple of Laurier’s more censorious professors. That said, I am growing concerned with her motives.

    Having gone to school at the University of Waterloo (which essentially abuts WLU’s campus – the schools are neighbours), I am very confident that there is no sizable market there for Goldy’s white Catholic nationalist views. From what I know about Shepherd, I also believe that she substantially or completely disagrees with Goldy as well.

    Given this, and the current free-speech climate, the only possible reason for her invitation of an insipid, hateful buffoon such as Goldy was to provoke a guaranteed overreaction from the student body and use it to prove a point and/or increase her own relevance.

    The following outcomes of this stunt were all foreseeable at the time of invitation:
    1)At least a few students would over-react to the presence of a white nationalist giving a speech on white genocide, and interfere with the talk in some way
    2)Goldy would get increased fame and relevance, and be made an undeserving champion of free speech
    3)Shepherd would gain increased fame and relevance, and get to again champion of free speech
    4)The censorious left would yet again be proven not to take free-speech seriously (we already knew that)
    5)Immense anger and division would occur at WLU
    6)All of us would have to spend time defending the free speech rights of a religious-nationalist white supremacist moron. This is not fun, and unfortunately allows some of the less scrupulous to smear us with some kind of fallacious “guilt by association”

    Shepherd must have known that all 6 things would happen, and that it was worth causing them all to happen in order to prove a point about the censorious left and increase her own relevance.

    Now, the main problem here is of course the silly overreactions by the students, and their ant-free speech attitudes. That is the reason we are in this mess in the first place, and it is the reason Goldy was invited to WLU as well. We need to defend free speech at all costs.

    I just think that we need to consider criticizing the strategies and motives of a few of those who seem to be positively trying to provoke censorship in order to get in the headlines again. It is always hard to tell who genuinely wants to defend free speech and who just wants to create situations for it to be defended.

    • Patrick
      Posted March 21, 2018 at 11:33 am | Permalink

      Should read: “I fully sympathize with and support Shepherd with respect to the initial mistreatment she suffered from a couple of Laurier’s more censorious professors.”

  11. Posted March 21, 2018 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    It seems to me that those who would give a platform to controversial speakers in order to make a “free speech” statement would be better off starting with some more middle-of-the-road speaker and topic. Perhaps some in the Authoritarian Left would enjoy an exchange of ideas if they actually tried it. How about a discussion of free will? Or true immigration reform?

    And why are there no people monitoring the fire alarms? Just another example of where the college administration pays lip service to free speech but is not willing to vigorously defend it?

    • yazikus
      Posted March 21, 2018 at 11:43 am | Permalink

      With speakers like these – one wonders if the free speech movement will soon be seen as the free speech for terrible ideas movement. I honestly think a lot of those selecting the invitees are far more interested in generating controversy than fostering a meaningful exchange of ideas.

      • Liz
        Posted March 21, 2018 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

        That might be the case here. I don’t see how this speaker is in any way in the students’ best interests.

    • DW
      Posted March 21, 2018 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

      Middle of the road speakers get shut down, too. Look at Dave Rubin, a guy who was literally a member of the Young Turks gets protested. Richard Dawkins gets deplatformed. Ayn Rand acolyte Yaron Brook’s talk gets stormed by Antifa. (While I find Rand’s philosophy rather stupid, it is about as far from fascism as one can be)

      I don’t know anything about this Faith Goldy woman, but I don’t understand why anyone cares. Heck, let her show up in an SS Uniform, talk to a room, then leave. No one is compelled to listen.

      • Posted March 21, 2018 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

        I agree but just wanted to point out that it doesn’t further the free speech cause much to give platforms to wackos. I wholeheartedly support the right of wackos to speak and for people to give wackos a platform if they want to.

  12. JB
    Posted March 21, 2018 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

    Generalizing this situation: the cost for disruption needs to be an order of magnitude higher than the cost to organize the event, rather than the reverse. Any group of radicals can ruin it for everyone by holding everyone else hostage. This is a recipe for control (socialism is just that).

    Looking at other events where speakers have been de-platformed, it should be noted that the protestor(s) are violating the rights of the venue provider and the attendees. The violators should thus be forced to pay for the costs and can be arrested for physically preventing or detaining attendees. This occurs easily with private property.

    But sanction is not to be. I suspect the playbook by many administrations is “let the crazies do your work for you” and “decry their methods but make it possible for crazies to continue”: i.e. plausible deniability. Sometimes this behavior become obvious and then the university actually has to act on their supposed principles. “I need some muscle over here”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kVGtqp7usw

    The contrast is clear: freedom vs. power. As the results of leftism become more disastrous (pensions, public debt, bad incentives, attack on knowledge), “free speech” must simply be gotten rid of (along with the 2nd Amendment as well).

    There are a number of associated themes:

    Self determination vs. mandated ‘identity’

    Censorship vs. free exchange of ideas

    Self defense vs. a target of political forces

    Knowledge vs. authority

    Sound money vs. state central banking

    Local education vs. federal control

    etc.

    I also disagree that there is a such a thing as “regressive left”. The outcome (and worse) is already baked into the philosophy of leftism. There is no way that “centralized authority over resources” is going to end well.

    • yazikus
      Posted March 21, 2018 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

      Local education vs. federal control

      Would you mind expanding on what you mean by this? Having been to private, public, international & home schools, I can tell you which of these taught science and which did not. Hint: it wasn’t the ‘locally controlled’ schools.

      • JB
        Posted March 21, 2018 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

        Which institution taught science isn’t the issue. Freedom vs. power is. Centralization of power means that people in the future would have little chance to become educated, as the central authority will eventually use it’s universal control over speech and debate to prevent challenge to it’s authority and any discussion of “truth” in opposition to that authority.

        • yazikus
          Posted March 21, 2018 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

          Which institution taught science isn’t the issue. Freedom vs. power is.

          I disagree very much. Access to factual information and scientific knowledge is freedom and power. Those who would try to limit and obscure that information are taking freedom away from the populace. It isn’t the ‘central authority’ who is leaving people without education, it is a network of sham ‘charter schools’, private schools and home schools campaigning on a platform of ‘school choice’.

          • JB
            Posted March 21, 2018 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

            I’ve read this view a number of times. The immediate approach of supporting Federal Education suffers from long-term losses. It makes no sense to win the battle and lose the war.

            “It isn’t the ‘central authority’ who is leaving people without education, it is a network of sham ‘charter schools’, private schools and home schools campaigning on a platform of ‘school choice’.”

            The degree to which you believe this is exactly the evidence that the “centralized authority” propaganda is working. A centralized authority simply will not be constrained by your vision of the future and once the power transfer has happened, the political changes will occur. It already is happening in Universities.

            In my view, you have a chance to escape small time criminality. You haven’t that chance if the Federal Government is the criminal organization running a surveillance state. Take a look at the “national education” of say, Soviet Russia in the 1920s or of N. Korea today.

            • yazikus
              Posted March 21, 2018 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

              Or hey, we could look at Finland. You know, the number one educational system in the world. You seem to think I’ve bought into some conspiracy lie- but it sounds like you yourself have perhaps gone down the conspiracy rabbit hole. For our democracy to function, I believe we need an educated electorate. The public school system in the US, while flawed, is the best chance we have of that. If DeVos’s efforts come to fruition, we’ll see less educated people overall, which will be a net-negative for the country as a whole.

              • JB
                Posted March 22, 2018 at 2:48 am | Permalink

                “Or hey, we could look at Finland. You know, the number one educational system in the world.”

                Finland is a good example of “decentralization” in terms of it’s size.

                Finland is 73% Lutheran and culturally homogeneous, with a population of 5.5 million. The U.S. is a has a heterogenous population of 330 million people with a wide variety of beliefs and races across a landmass 11x the size.

                “If DeVos’s efforts come to fruition, we’ll see less educated people overall, which will be a net-negative for the country as a whole.”

                I agree … short term. But longer term I think decentralization is better.

                I think you make my argument in an indirect way. DeVos is a good example of the problem of centralized control of policy: it can be very poor depending on the individual. That’s too much power.

    • phoffman56
      Posted March 21, 2018 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

      I’m not sure where your “centralized authority over resources” (your quotes) came from.

      Look carefully at present-day Norway, its economy, its social system, its enormous public trust fund, its lack of corruption, etc. and let us know your answers to:

      Is this an example of “centralized authority over resources”?

      Is it seeming to “end well” or end badly there?

      Specifically with respect to North Sea oil, you could ask yourself which people are better off because of that resource, the Brits or the Norwegians.

      On oil, this is quite apart from the travesty for the vast majority of Middle Easterners, Venezuelans, Nigerians, even USians and Canucks, on the subject of what untrammelled capitalism has accomplished. Anyhow, Tex Rillerson will retire comfortably, if with his tail between his legs.

      • JB
        Posted March 21, 2018 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

        I think you make my argument: “On oil, this is quite apart from the travesty for the vast majority of Middle Easterners, Venezuelans, Nigerians, even USians and Canucks, on the subject of what untrammelled capitalism has accomplished.” — except I disagree that this is “untrammeled capitalism”, it **is** centralization of power, exactly the issue noted above in the original post. Clearly if another country comes in and buys a product under the land of the local population where the local population earns nothing from it, a forceful political usurpation of rights has occurred.

        • phoffman56
          Posted March 21, 2018 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

          Of my examples, Venezuela is the only one which could be regarded as a form of your “centralized authority over resources” which is obviously entirely different than how Norway operates. The rest are something in between untrammelled/crony capitalism and some timid attempts of politicians to appear to be supporting their populaces properly.

          If your phrase is simply to ‘warn’ against the stupidity and evil of Chavez and his successors, I could not agree more. But I suspect it is more the naivety of a ‘freedom in economics’ USian who has been taken in by the cleverness of corporations in trotting out extreme examples and empty slogans in order to maintain a system of economic and political injustice which is the worst in the western world, and which overly influences the rest of the world.

          Tell us the answers to my question re Norway.

          • JB
            Posted March 21, 2018 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

            Ahhh yes: The “crony capitalism” argument where the losses are “socialized” but the gains privatized: in essentials the real problem of socialism and not of capitalism!

            Recall that capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production and thus the private ownership of the risk of failure. It is **not** capitalism when banker bailouts and confiscation of natural resources occurs. Those are examples of theft.

            ****

            “Of my examples, Venezuela is the only one which could be regarded as a form of your “centralized authority over resources” which is obviously entirely different than how Norway operates.”

            — There are likely hundreds of examples (depending on your size qualification) where centralized authority over resources has caused widespread destruction (and democide), and it is not limited to Venezuela. Consider https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

            Some examples:
            Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Bulgaria, Cambodia, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, East Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, N. Korea, Laos, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Peru, Phillipines, Poland, Romania, USSR, Vietnam, Yemen, and Yugoslavia. Also consider the pension obligations in Illinois and New Jersey, not to mention the 130 trillion (not a typo) of present-value obligations of the U.S. government. https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/01/17/you-think-the-deficit-is-bad-federal-unfunded-liabilities-exceed-127-trillion/#1d188f7a9bf8

            ****

            ‘ “Look carefully at present-day Norway, its economy, its social system, its enormous public trust fund, its lack of corruption, etc. and let us know your answers to:

            Is this an example of “centralized authority over resources”? ‘

            It depends what you mean, given the nuance noted above. The rarity of the people earning something from which they are supposed to own is the cautionary tale, as is central banking (where one cannot even own their own money: take a look at the US dollar bill — is it yours? Really?)

            ****

            The economic argument is strong. Namely that under socialism there is no way to consistently produce wealth. One cannot know the wealth-enhancing (or destroying) position of “3 tractors, 100 bales of hay, 10 horses, 5 delivery trucks, and 100 acres of corn to be produced in 3 months” without knowing the prices of the corn, water, labor and all the input capital goods (and the prices of their components and repair). There are literally trillions of prices which contribute to the communication of this information, including risk and insurance, etc.

            That means that “socialism” as a general economic policy is impossible.

            • phoffman56
              Posted March 21, 2018 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

              You quote one question and begin:
              “Norway …
              Is this an example of “centralized authority over resources”? ‘
              It depends what you mean…….”

              I asked you what you meant.

              The rest of what you wrote here can be judged by readers, no need for me to reply: I think Norway provides a straightforward counterexample to what appears to be your opinion on general economic/political basics.

              And I asked a 2nd question re Norwegians, unanswered as far as I can see, though your answer has become less interesting. at least to me.

              • JB
                Posted March 22, 2018 at 2:50 am | Permalink

                “I think Norway provides a straightforward counterexample to what appears to be your opinion on general economic/political basics.”

                Here you are on shaky ground: there is a market in Norway, there are prices and profits, and those prices are market determined. The government of Norway is funded by profits (revenues net of costs for labor, equipment, R&D, and other costs). At best, Norway can be described as a mixed economy. That is the point regarding nuance.

                Wikipedia: “As of 2013, the Government of Norway is the largest shareholder in Statoil with 67% of the shares, while the rest is public stock. The ownership interest is managed by the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy.”

                As far as whether Brits or Norwegians are better off, I will note that the claim was **centralized control** was the problem. Clearly the Norwegian citizen has far MORE control over the disposition of their share of resources (i.e. decentralized control) than did the Brit. I understand that the argument is not always on the side of socialism vs. capitalism, but I feel like you are making my case.

              • phoffman56
                Posted March 22, 2018 at 7:57 am | Permalink

                “That is the point regarding nuance.”

                Great, I now seem to understand your attitude at least towards macroeconomics. And that seems to be far less than (I suspected and mistakenly implied) the Republican Usian naive/misleading propaganda, despite your list of aphorisms (nuance?) such as the original “centralized authority over resources”.

                That 4 word blurt now seems to mean negativity towards that control being in the hands of a few executives of large corporations (e.g. Brits’ treatment of their nearly depleted North Sea oil versus Norwegians’) and maybe positive towards a reasonable democratic control, the latter often characterized by those execs and their lackeys as some kind of commie plot, and swallowed whole by tens of millions of USians and some others as well.

  13. jaxkayaker
    Posted March 21, 2018 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

    The heckler’s veto is alive and well, unfortunately. A better choice, if one is unwilling to engage, is to ignore, as with creationists. Shutting them down suggests fear of their speech due to an inability to refute it. Let them reveal their absurdity, give them enough rope and they’ll hang themselves with it.

  14. Jeffrey Shallit
    Posted March 21, 2018 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

    I just want to point out that, to the best of my knowledge, we do not know who pulled the fire alarm, or what their motivations were.

    Although it is quite possible it was done by someone opposed to Goldy, it’s also possible it was done by one of Goldy’s allies, as a means of attracting attention and sympathy, to be followed by a rescheduled version of her talk at some later date.

    • Posted March 21, 2018 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

      Well, I’ll bet you $25 that if they find the perp, it’s not one of Goldy’s allies. You on?

      • Jeffrey Shallit
        Posted March 21, 2018 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

        Not at even odds. I rate the likelihood of the two possibilities at something like 3 to 1.

        • Michael Fisher
          Posted March 21, 2018 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

          You’re saying you want to put $8 in the pot to PCC[e]’s $25 & winner [if there’s one] takes $33? Mean! 🙂

    • Davide Spinello
      Posted March 21, 2018 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

      As far as we know it could be Spectre and the Mossad.

    • Uta
      Posted March 26, 2018 at 10:21 pm | Permalink

      just saw this comment. I’d put at least odds it was Goldy’s crowd who pulled it. I was there. About 100 Goldy audience-would be’s inside the hall (where the alarm was), not able to get into the talk. All the protesters outside (doing, like, poetry and stuff). Security in between. Worst thing protesters seemed to do was call Goldy a Nazi (which isn’t -quite- accurate). Hyperbole! The horror!

      And if you watch the more candid footage of the “free speech” group who staged the event, they looked clearly delighted the alarm went off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aE386IucR8
      when they aren’t busy mocking protesters and yelling “fuck white people!” at them.

  15. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted March 21, 2018 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    While Ann Coulter is shrewdly malicious, deliberately trying to offend people as provocateur, Goldy just seems to be cluelessly dissassociated from the real world, while maintaining a weird earnestness about her.

    For a good example, see her talking about the “14 words” at http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/faith-goldy-recites-the-14-words/

    • Uta
      Posted March 26, 2018 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

      I think you might have mistaken bullshit for earnest. “wuuuuh? you mean those words are baaaad? what? whhhyyy?” it’s like pretending to be confused why people get annoyed when you screech “all lives matter”.

  16. Posted March 21, 2018 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

    My goodwill with “Liberals” is used up, thanks to Dave Rubin, the liberal who invited one Trumpet after another and nods along and describes Far Right Wingers as the “New Centre”. Carl Benjamin, the “classical liberal” who made it a point to lobby for the original identitarians, Front National, and also sells Far Right Wingers as independent and centre (e.g. Luke Rudkowski, a NWO peddler, too). James Damore, who made a few nuanced points, but once set loose, runs first to various Alt Right personalities for an interview and a group hug. Lauren Southern who went completely and openly Identitarian Movement and joined European branches of this odious movement. And so on and so on.

    Now we have here Lindsay Shepherd who invites an identitarian (i.e. rebranded Neo-Fascists) to universities. Test case? I don’t believe it.

    For all I know the American Liberal is a myth much like the American Left. I am not exactly hair-trigger or overreacting. The “liberal” cosy tolerance of the Identitarian Movement goes on for years.

    The Identitarian Movement is a broad international movement, in the US context more narrow called “Alt Right”. It is in many ways a syncretism of both left and right, rebranded and designed to make fascism fashionable again.

    Political scientists descibed it, and journalists have documented its ties with the old fashioned Neo-Nazi movements. Even without their work, you can see that the brown manure in the can is the same brown sauce that was branded Neo-Fascism before: a mix of anti-Semitic New World Order conspiracy theories, a bit holocaust denial, and blood and soil “ethno-nationalism”. Typical is the fear-mongering, which is a way to make people feel threatened and by facing an (Islamic) enemy at the gates, made to see their own ethnic commonality. To make it look a bit more modern, they prefer to sell the manure with women (e.g. Faith Goldie, Brittany Pettibone, Lauren Southern), gays (e.g. Milo Yiannopolous) or lesbians (e.g. Alice Weidel).

    Over the years, too few “liberals” have cared to keep some political hygiene, and it’s now time to call it as it is: the Liberal brand is in shambles.

    As written countless times before; when invited properly, an audience has a right to listen to a speaker. I do not endorse sabotaging such events, but I don’t approve of inviting such characters in the first place. With all the metamodernist and postmodernist insincerity in the game, Lindsay Shepherd or anyone else has no more credibilty to spent anymore.

    All goodwill and tolerance is used up. If anyone invites a fascist — however rebranded — to a university, I’ll see them as a fascist sympathizer.

    • Simon
      Posted March 21, 2018 at 7:27 pm | Permalink

      How many times do people like Sargon have to disavow “alt-right” identitarians before you stop spreading that “laying the pipes” muck. Nazi under every bed, isn’t there?

      • Posted March 22, 2018 at 9:02 am | Permalink

        What I pointed out above is fact.

        – Discussing Berkeley with Luke [Rudkowksi] from WeAreChange, Sargon of Akkad Livestreams,
        Streamed live on Apr 16, 2017
        – The Great Meme War and the Battle for France, The Thinkery, Published on Apr 24, 2017

        The “distancing” of the Alt Right, clipped from a stream, Sargon of Akkad on the Alt-Right, amounts to that they don’t care enough about the “SJW” and other such differences.

  17. Tim Harris
    Posted March 22, 2018 at 7:50 am | Permalink

    I recommend reading and addressing the following article in the Guardian:

    ‘Hate speech leads to violence. Why would liberals defend it?’
    by Nesrine Malik

    There is also this from the New York Times a little time ago:

    ‘The F.B.I. reported Monday that attacks against American Muslims surged last year, driving an overall increase in hate crime against all groups….Blacks were the most frequent victims of hate crimes based on race, while Jews were the most frequent victims based on religion, according to the F.B.I. data. But the increases in attacks on these groups were smaller than the rise in attacks against Muslims and transgender people.’

    Mere statistics, doubtless, but people seem to respect statistics when Stephen Pinker uses them.

    Hate speech does not take place in some nice little protected academic vacuum, and it has serious consequences for people by creating an atmosphere in which wreaking hatred on others seems acceptable. There is no ready and easy line to draw between hate speech and incitement to crimes based on hatred. It really is no good to defend any racist’s right to free speech on the grounds that it is up to the ‘individuals’ making up the racist’s audience to decide whether they want to hate or not. We are not isolated individuals, as in particular the American myth seems to have it, but social beings caught up in the tides and pressures of our societies. And since the right of American Nazis (for what is what they are) to organise and conduct marches have been defended on this website, I should like to ask whether those who supported the right to hold such marches disagree with the (UK) Labour Government’s decision to support the decision of the Parades Commission to re-route the Drumcree parade in Ulster in 1998, and to resist the anti-agreement unionists’ efforts to use Drumcree to destroy the Good Friday
    Agreement, an agreement that has brought an uneasy peace to a troubled land. Such marches, too, do not take place in some a-historical and a-social vacuum: they are meant to foster the solidarity of one group vis-vis another, and also to intimidate that other.

    • Posted March 22, 2018 at 9:49 am | Permalink

      The slight bump in solidarity some hate group might gain from speaking doesn’t bother me much. What I find a much, much greater concern is when a large part of the population votes into power a person who is, at a minimum, white power friendly. If that isn’t bad enough, just think what might happen if such a person was also in charge of determining what is to be considered hate speech for purposes of law enforcement? Free speech sounds like a better choice to me.

      • Tim Harris
        Posted March 23, 2018 at 2:44 am | Permalink

        It’s the bump in hate crimes the article was taking about.

    • Davide Spinello
      Posted March 22, 2018 at 11:11 am | Permalink

      ‘The F.B.I. reported Monday that attacks against American Muslims surged last year, driving an overall increase in hate crime against all groups….Blacks were the most frequent victims of hate crimes based on race, while Jews were the most frequent victims based on religion, according to the F.B.I. data. But the increases in attacks on these groups were smaller than the rise in attacks against Muslims and transgender people.’

      I like the but.

      Hate speech is blasphemy law 2.0. We can spend days ages unveiling the tortuous paths that connect hate speech to attacks on certain groups (the NYT accidentally forgets how certain Imams would make uncle Adolf proud in terms of ideas they spread to their congregations,) but at the end it boils down to who decides what is hate speech. Current authoritarians in power foolishly think that they will be forever the ones deciding. They have learned nothing.

      • Tim Harris
        Posted March 23, 2018 at 2:44 am | Permalink

        Why do you like that ‘but’ so much?

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted March 23, 2018 at 11:39 am | Permalink

          Because he likes bold buts and he cannot lie.

          I’ll get my coat.

          • Tim Harris
            Posted March 24, 2018 at 6:14 am | Permalink

            !

    • Posted March 22, 2018 at 11:39 am | Permalink

      “leads to” is a causal claim. One has to show causal evidence (Bayes network?) to show more than an association.

      *Then* one can talk about the tradeoff – and the answer to : *who decides*? what power do they have?

      • Tim Harris
        Posted March 23, 2018 at 4:08 am | Permalink

        Well, perhaps, Keith, you could oblige, since you seem to know so much about it, perhaps by showing how for example the splendid march of hate speech in Ruanda, or in Myanmar, or in Indonesia in the sixties really had nothing to do with what subsequently happened.

        • Posted March 23, 2018 at 11:44 am | Permalink

          That’s a straw man.

          The question is where does one put the controls, in a way. Arrest those who commit violence. Make possession of weapons (of certain character) controlled, etc.

          Take the brownshirts: it wasn’t just that Hitler riled them up, it was that they weren’t being arrested and charged with crimes properly.

          The case law here is also important. Specificity of action vs. generalizations (as I understand it) make a big difference. This too is a useful control and a compromise. Similarly restrictions (*some of them*) for national security reasons are acceptable to me. I don’t like them in general and they are way overused, but principle is correct.

          Nevertheless, “who decides” is the crucial question to you and others who would restrict speech. In the situations above, there are roles assigned which make some sense (but can be done better).

          And *what*? For example, if one restricts certain *sounds*, my grade 10 English teacher runs into problems. Why? Because he said “niggardly”. So in particular, he said “nigger”. Is that allowed? Who will tell him what he can’t say? In this case, there is another factor – education of the young, which I admit also as a control. But if someone had made a rule, nobody can say that sound, ever, then he would have lost a teachable moment which I think has some merit. (In this case, that “niggardly” has absolutely nothing to do with the slur.)

          This is a silly example to emphasize a series point: the reason I admire the First Amendment (and wish other countries, including my own, were better this way) is because it has been taken to be about as expansive as one can go.

  18. Davide Spinello
    Posted March 22, 2018 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    Lindsay Sheperd: Why I have invited Faith Goldy to Laurier.

    • Patrick
      Posted March 22, 2018 at 11:07 am | Permalink

      The article is rather embarrassing and does reveal a sort of naivete on Lindsay’s behalf.

      Many of us already know why it is counterproductive to bring a creationist or a proponent of any other type of bankrupt idea on stage for an even-sided debate.

      It also doesn’t address why she felt this was the best choice for a first topic, or the reason she felt it was good to have the event even though there was nobody available or willing to turn it into a debate at least.

      • Davide Spinello
        Posted March 22, 2018 at 11:14 am | Permalink

        Again: why does it even matter the motive of a non compelled speech?

        Additionally, in the article she lists at least two challenging questions she had prepared that of course could not be asked.

        • Patrick
          Posted March 23, 2018 at 8:29 am | Permalink

          You’re right of course, it doesn’t matter one iota what her motive was – she should be allowed to invite any speaker that at least a few students want to listen to, and the speaker should be allowed to speak.

          That doesn’t mean it was a good idea to invite such a person. An ideologically driven person like Goldy would not be challenged by such questions; she could just say “other countries are far more homogeneous, and historically countries were more homogeneous, and history isn’t dull! Most people long for the nostalgic past!” and “Diversity doesn’t help us understand the world or each other; just look how fractious society has become! It makes us all angrier!” and then she is off the hook. Of course Shepherd should have been able to the ask these questions, I agree.

          Just as I would roll my eyes and criticize someone who invites Milo, Baked Alaska, Ken Ham, or Dan Arel, so too must I call out Shepherd for her naivete here.

          I feel guilty always telling the left what they shouldn’t do (obstruct free speech) without ever calling out certain free-speech provocateurs for their laughably bad invitations. The difference is I’d never tell Shepherd she shouldn’t have ever wanted or been allowed to do such a thing.

          • Uta
            Posted March 26, 2018 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

            not sure you’d be calling her naïve if she was a threatening looking guy instead of the wide-eyed young lady. She knew exactly what she was doing and was all “ooh look how many fans Faith has!” before the talk then switch to “I invited her because her bad ideas need challenging” after the talk. All Lindsay’s new pals are far-right. She WAS liberal when this all started in the fall – she’s just a troll now

            • Uta
              Posted March 26, 2018 at 10:35 pm | Permalink

              which, by the way, is a case study in how liberals eat their own. The left drove her away. What do you think is going to happen?

  19. Tim Harris
    Posted March 23, 2018 at 2:54 am | Permalink

    From an essay on Mari Uyehara’s web-site (via Ophelia Benson):

    ‘At Trump’s inauguration last year, an anti-capitalist and anti-fascist march called J20 resulted in mass arrests, including of journalists, medics, and legal observers. Originally, 239 people were charged with felony inciting to riot, facing up to 60 years in prison. Houses were raided. The ACLU got involved. And not a peep in an entire year from any of the so-called free-speech warriors. Ditto this past week, when a Wisconsin school administrator was fired for allowing black students to hold a discussion about white privilege in a district that is 90 percent Caucasian. How peculiar.
    Serwer theorizes that fixation on liberal college students persists because it involves the environs of scholarly elites, gives elders the opportunity to “sneer at a younger generation,” and is politically expedient for conservatives. According to FIRE, an individual-rights organization with ties to the Koch brothers, from 2000 to 2017, there were anywhere from six to 35 self-reported disinvitation attempts annually and 40 percent of them came from the right, while Heterodox Academy, an organization devoted to increasing viewpoint diversity, finds that the majority of successful disinvites came from the right, not the left. Still, libertarian website Quillette summarized these outbursts as “the psychology of progressive hostility.” Pundits like to characterize online outrage and an aversion to idea diversity as a phenomenon unique to the left, largely ignoring the death threats directed at the teen Parkland survivors for speaking out against a powerful gun lobby or the conservative dictates of Sinclair Broadcasting and Fox News. Given the myopic focus on liberals, it would seem that Free Speech Grifters are not actually interested in the free exchange of ideas, per se; they are interested in liberal caricature for clicks, social-media followings, and monetization.’

    I must say that I would like to see addressed the very genuine and very much more serious threats to free speech that emanate from powerful quarters other than certain groups of college student. The concentration solely on college students misbehaving seems rather odd if one is interested in preserving free speech.

    • Tim Harris
      Posted March 23, 2018 at 4:21 am | Permalink

      Perhaps that last sentence should read: ‘if one is genuinely interested in preserving free speech’.

      And to say a little more, what irritates me about such students as those at Wilfred Laurier who stopped the talk, is not so much the flouting of abstract and absolute principles an adherence to which allows one to feel splendidly in the right and perhaps heroic, but because tactically it is so bloody stupid and plays into the hands of the ideologues they claim to oppose.

  20. ChocolateBananaCreamPie
    Posted April 1, 2018 at 9:30 am | Permalink

    Faith Goldie is very tame. It seems anything to the right of the socialist gender bending left is alt right, hard right white supremacist bigoted racist. Mind you after witnessing the deceitful professors at Wilfred not only lie but justify their lying and persecution of Ms Shepard I could see how any centrist could look like a Nazi to any brainwashed leftist. The idea is to vilify, shame and stifle anyone who disagrees and that’s not only a shame, but it’s antithetical to a free society.

    It seems that white people are NOT allowed under any circumstances to love themselves and anyone who does and speaks their mind is a Nazi. Granted Faith Goldie made a very poor decision appearing on stormfront but a white supremacist, please. Charlottesville looked like summer theatre in the Berkshires and a poorly put on show at that. You wanna see real white supremacists look at the storm troopers running the Ukraine. The hyperbolic 0-60 language that liberals use only highlights how vacuous and disingenuous liberal ideology has actually become.

    Listening to the sanctimonious virtue signaling condescension from those professors on that secret tape qualifies what is wrong with the Marxist ideology that has infected US, European & Canadian Universities like metastasizing cancer. Politicizing and indoctrinating young minds instead of educating students is quite frankly despicable and reminds me of East Germany pre Berlin Wall. It is the fact that the left will lie and pretend to be morally superior to victimize and destroy anyone who objects. Mansplaining, Peoplekind, gender is a social construct…so funny but also terrifyingly dangerous. It’s that lying sanctimonious “the ends justify the means” recently reveled at FaceBook headquarters by Boz their senior executive. It is that kind of pompous narcissistic virtue signaling talk that actually creates “real” genocide and mass killing.

    The ideas floating around on the left these days, supported by the super super wealthy I might add, the real Fabian Socialits and Occultists that promulgate fascism and dystopian language under the guise of Antifa so funny. The mutation of both Marxism & the post modernist movement, in the wrong hands (like say the weather underground) one could actually envision the left justifying the wholesale slaughter of millions upon millions of people. One need not look to far back into history to see sanctimonious leftists like Mao, Stalin & Pol Pot justifying the mass killing of their countrymen thru simple slogans like; The Ends Justify The Means…..


%d bloggers like this: