Queens University Hires Thought Police

[Dan]

Queens University's has recently hired "facilitators" to listen in on student conversations in public areas and in students residences and monitor them for any thing they deem to be inporitate or hate speech (both of cores will be defined by Queen's).

As of now they claim it is only being done so there "facilitators" can correct the student's comments when they hear them (well listening in on them of course).


Is any one else remninded of the Thought Police from the book 1984 or outraged about this? If i was a queens student i would be portesting this attack on free speach.


One of many sources: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=987741

[Horus]

wow... my friend just convinced me in putting Queen's as my 3rd choice, well you can forget about it now >.>

[md]

While on the one hand I think it's a stupid idea (and down right illegal if done poorly), I also don't see why they can't do it (again, if done well).

Public space means anyone can see you, photograph you, record you, listen to what you are saying, talk at you, etc. You have no right to privacy when you are in public. If queens wants to do what will surely amount to a huge waste of time and money and pay people to stand in public places and correct people when they are wrong, good for them. It'll end in lawsuits which they will probably lose, and a whole lot of bad publicity. Hopefully both will keep anyone else from doing such a monumentally stupid thing again.

That being said, there are certain activities which while you may not have a right to keep private you should have a right to keep out of the hands of public and/or private law enforcement services.

[Unforgiven]

I'm an American, so maybe I'm viewing this from a different perspective, but I can't imagine anyone thinking this wasn't just downright absurd.

You might be an idiot to think you have privacy in your conversations in a public space, but to actually hire people whose specific purpose is to eavesdrop on students? Time to protest, and time to deliberatly flood them with bad data. Spread rumors in public about innocent, but notable things or something. Make sure it's not worth their while to continue it.

[Dan]

Unforgiven @ 25th November 2008, 8:25 pm wrote:

I'm an American, so maybe I'm viewing this from a different perspective, but I can't imagine anyone thinking this wasn't just downright absurd.

Nope you see it just like us (or at least me and most of the poeleop i have talked to about it). The problem in Canada is there are some poorly thought out hate speech laws and a humans right commission witch is gone too far, mostly due to some groups trying to push hate speach laws to protect there religion or political view point from cirtiizum. These extremists are trying to censor free speech in Canada for there own benefit and not for how the hate speech laws where intended (tho personally i think we need to get ride of hate speach laws all together).

I strongly disagree with any one making racist or discriminatory comments but i would fight for there right to say them.

[Insectoid]

Wow...just, wow...

Exactly like 1984. Lol, my tone-deaf sister just applied there for vocals.

Honestly, if some stranger told me not to swear in public, or talk about how much I hate my chem teacher, I would likely tell them to <sexual word> off. What are they going to do?

[jbking]

I think there may be a logical contradiction in the existence of such a group as on the one hand they "will not foist their views" but at the same time "respect" is what this is founded on. Huh? Is ignorance not allowed to be respected at all? I'm not saying ignorance is good but shouldn't it be tolerated as an opinion someone may have and they are entitled to have?

I'd likely have more than a little fun trying to figure out what would these "facilitators" do all day since any look any gives another person may be viewed as negative and thus worthy of some discussion. Could a facilitator report on another facilitator having a view that isn't politically correct? What happens then?

Maybe I've been away from schools for too long, but this seems beyond nuts to me.

[Insectoid]

I admit, it would be a nice job. You get paid for talking to people and sitting around all day! Sure, everyone would hate you, but it's easy money!

[Dan]

jbking @ 25th November 2008, 9:02 pm wrote:

I'd likely have more than a little fun trying to figure out what would these "facilitators" do all day since any look any gives another person may be viewed as negative and thus worthy of some discussion. Could a facilitator report on another facilitator having a view that isn't politically correct? What happens then?.

They take them back to the Ministry of Love (Miniluv) for retraining and they get some time in Room 101.

[[Gandalf]]

Dan @ 2008-11-25, 8:43 pm wrote:

Nope you see it just like us (or at least me and most of the poeleop i have talked to about it). The problem in Canada is there are some poorly thought out hate speech laws and a humans right commission witch is gone too far, mostly due to some groups trying to push hate speach laws to protect there religion or political view point from cirtiizum. These extremists are trying to censor free speech in Canada for there own benefit and not for how the hate speech laws where intended (tho personally i think we need to get ride of hate speach laws all together).

I strongly disagree with any one making racist or discriminatory comments but i would fight for there right to say them.

How about an alternative perspective... Even freedom of speech shouldn't be boundless. I definitely don't agree with their implementation, but in general some things should be protected against. Say (poor example, but you get the idea) someone is running towards you, and a bystander says "That guy stole my <insert valuable possession>!" So you tackle the supposed theif. It turns out, they were running to catch the bus, and you get charged with assault or some such.

[Dan]

Gandalf @ 25th November 2008, 9:44 pm wrote:

How about an alternative perspective... Even freedom of speech shouldn't be boundless. I definitely don't agree with their implementation, but in general some things should be protected against. Say (poor example, but you get the idea) someone is running towards you, and a bystander says "That guy stole my <insert valuable possession>!" So you tackle the supposed theif. It turns out, they were running to catch the bus, and you get charged with assault or some such.

Well i don't think when most people talk of free speech they literally mean freedom to talk, make sound, harass people or do other acts resulting in physical harm, at least i don't. For example people should not be allowed to come over to your house and yell and make noise as long as they can on your properity in the name of free speech and like in your example free speech should not be ment to apply to scamming, harasing and or in any direct way intenaly causing harm to others. For example i don't think spam and telemarketers should be convered by free speech.

However i don't think hate speech from an individual repseting only them self does cause harm to others. It defently does not psychically harm them and i don't see how it should be diffrent then none hate based inusatling psychologically. There is a line however between some on making perjustist comments and harassment but even there hasrment should be just as bad and just as illegal with or with out hate speech.

In my home or on public property/spaces i should be able to say anything i wat to my firends as long as it is not disturbing the peace (ie. scream and yelling for no reaosn) and not hurting peoleop (ie. yelling "Fire"). If it is private property that is another matter, however Queens University is a public University recving funds from the government and the residence of many of theses students so i would consider it both some of theses students homes and public space.

[Zeroth]

Well, we need to separate the concept of "hate speech" and "free speech". The reason why there are protections against hate speech is because of one specific factor: they often incite hate violence. People confuse the purpose of hate speech laws, just as you guys did here. The boundary between legally allowed speech, and hate speech is whether or not the hate speech could conceivably incite violence from a reasonable person. For the purposes of the law, a reasonable person may be someone that was raised with the views, or may be particularly susceptible to convincing arguments. Saying something along the lines of, "I hate ____ because they smell" is not illegal. I hate that kind of speech, but I would fight to the death for someone's right to say that. However, saying something like, "Death to all ____", that would in fact fall afoul of hate speech. Its like the line between free speech, and yelling "Fire!" falsely in a crowded movie theater. The line of freedom lies on the side of the safety of society and citizens. Speech that could foreseeably cause harm to people is illegal.

However, it must be noted that revolutionary speech, though it is directed at ousting authority, is in fact, in many places, and used to be in the states, legal. Because making revolutionary speech illegal would have cheapened the actions of the american forefathers that started the civil war.

So, Dan, maybe you should rethink your view of hate speech laws. They are there to protect visible and invisible minorities, and have unfortunately been abused. However, the way they were originally written and intended did not have the wiggle room that they now have; that is what the Human Rights Tribunals have been used for, to expand the definitions of hate speech. Unfortunately, that is what happens in a society like ours. We can't oppress special rights groups, but the mistake we make is that we also have to kowtow to them. There are certain things that are acceptable, for example better accessibility, better access for all special interest groups like disabilities. However, when the demands of special interest groups affect the rest of use negatively beyond taxes, thats the limit.

Now, onto the topic at hand. Theres a certain reasonable expectation of privacy that we have. We expect, within reason that though our conversations are not technically private that no one purposefully eavesdrops on us or violates our personal space. That is what these "facilitators" do.

Another problem is that by being interrupted and "corrected" this acts a very overt social measure. They likely don't identify themselves as facilitators, so its just some random noseybody interrupting and correcting you. The important thing that needs to be considered is not just the legality -of which it is most certainly legal- but the social effect it has on the student body. It doesn't matter about intention... this is a measure that is specifically designed to control the student body. The student body should fight against this, using a variety of techniques, ranging from code, from seemingly dangerous but really innocent discussions, to out and out protests. The university has no right, though it is technically legal, to control the student body that way. Letters should be written to alumni, to politicians and businessmen. They should emphasize a simple fact that the university wants to control the student's minds, and this is highly immoral, no matter the cause. I do not care if by listening in on every conversation they could stop the next shooter. You cannot stop every shooting. It is a sad, sad, very regrettable part of life. I don't care if it stops crime, or hate speech, or terrorism. Exerting control of such a kind, even for such reasons is immoral and prone to abuse.

That is the real issue: the potential for abuse. Let it start happening for innocent stuff, and then they move to more threatening stuff like speech about politics. Once you let the government define what is allowed speech(beyond reasonably moral reasons like hate speech as explained above), then it opens the door for more abuses. What was allowed one day would be illegal the next, and it would all be up to bureaucrats.

[Dan]

Zeroth @ 25th November 2008, 10:14 pm wrote:

Well, we need to separate the concept of "hate speech" and "free speech". The reason why there are protections against hate speech is because of one specific factor: they often incite hate violence. People confuse the purpose of hate speech laws, just as you guys did here. The boundary between legally allowed speech, and hate speech is whether or not the hate speech could conceivably incite violence from a reasonable person. For the purposes of the law, a reasonable person may be someone that was raised with the views, or may be particularly susceptible to convincing arguments.

This is what hate speech SHOULD be, however if you look at some of the cases in canada lattey, esptaly in the humman rights comission, it's not what it is being interpited as. For example the canadian humman rights commission has activetly tryed to censor web pages in canada (1) or just take a look at the list of controvecies on wikipeida (2). There is also a big problem with them allowing cases to go threw when they clearly are not vaild costing the person who the complaint is aginsted to take masive legeal fees even tho in the end the commission find for them such in the case of the complaint against maclean's magazine (3) or one where a paper reprinted the comic of muhumide and had a complaint aginsted them (unfrontly i don't have a source for this one).

Zeroth @ 25th November 2008, 10:14 pm wrote:

So, Dan, maybe you should rethink your view of hate speech laws. They are there to protect visible and invisible minorities, and have unfortunately been abused. However, the way they were originally written and intended did not have the wiggle room that they now have; that is what the Human Rights Tribunals have been used for, to expand the definitions of hate speech. Unfortunately, that is what happens in a society like ours. We can't oppress special rights groups, but the mistake we make is that we also have to kowtow to them.

This is basicly what i side in my reply to Unforgiven, and i do know what the hate speech laws where initened to do and even then i still disagree with them. I don't think any sain person would go out and hurt a group becues they hured some one telling them too. If this logic was ture it should also be aginsted the law for me to tell some one that commiting a crime is a good thing. Imagen all the peoleop that could be charged if talking about drugs in a postive light was a crime. I am for laws stoping companys, buiness and collective groups from discrmating aginsted minorites or any one realy but invidual peoleop should be be allowed to say what ever they want about them on there own behalf. For example wallmart should not be allowed to not sell to group X but a wallmart empolye should be able to say comments about group X when not on the job (how ever wrong thos comments may be).

Zeroth @ 25th November 2008, 10:14 pm wrote:

There are certain things that are acceptable, for example better accessibility, better access for all special interest groups like disabilities. However, when the demands of special interest groups affect the rest of use negatively beyond taxes, thats the limit.

This does not have much to do with free speech and is also a bit wrong, many public builds are required to be accessible but that does not allways get payed for by the goverment or by taxes. Also most schools public and private have to run a department to deal with accessibility witch does not nessarly get a goverment grant or payed for by the goverment. Not sure what this has to do with free speech tho as i am all for peoleop being allowed to say the goverment should not spend any tax money on the disable but very much aginsted the idea or the goverment doing that. I even think peoleop should be allow to aruge the point that disbaled peoleop should be killed off or startized even tho i think it is exteramly wrong but they have the right to say there arugment.

[Zeroth]

Quote:

This is basicly what i side in my reply to Unforgiven, and i do know what the hate speech laws where initened to do and even then i still disagree with them. I don't think any sain person would go out and hurt a group becues they hured some one telling them too. If this logic was ture it should also be aginsted the law for me to tell some one that commiting a crime is a good thing. Imagen all the peoleop that could be charged if talking about drugs in a postive light was a crime. I am for laws stoping companys, buiness and collective groups from discrmating aginsted minorites or any one realy but invidual peoleop should be be allowed to say what ever they want about them on there own behalf. For example wallmart should not be allowed to not sell to group X but a wallmart empolye should be able to say comments about group X when not on the job (how ever wrong thos comments may be).

And here you are assuming that hate speech has no effect on rational individuals. I didn't go indepth on this, but I can now, if you want. Essentially, what hate speech does is that it incites hatred against some group, for any reason. Basically, speech that could, repeated enough times, with enough of an emotional content to it(like right-wing radio shock jocks) to cause someone or someones to take action. Take for example the tragic case of a man entering a Unitarian church, killing one person, fatally wounding a second, and injuring six more, before being wrestled to the ground and disarmed. (Source)

Yes, some people abuse the hate speech laws. But the intent, to protect groups, like the Jewish people, or African-americans from further marginalization, hatred, or violence is a very admirable goal. As my source shows, allowing people to say anything in the name of "freedom of speech" does in fact cause significant harm to people. There is a very large segment of the population that can and are deluded by hate speech, or that are encouraged to put their beliefs into action by hate speech. This is why the hate speech laws exist, because they could conceivably affect the public in the wrong direction. Could cause racist or sexist laws and regulations to be put in place, like Prop 8 in California.

/offtopic.

[Dan]

Zeroth @ 25th November 2008, 11:24 pm wrote:

And here you are assuming that hate speech has no effect on rational individuals. I didn't go indepth on this, but I can now, if you want. Essentially, what hate speech does is that it incites hatred against some group, for any reason. Basically, speech that could, repeated enough times, with enough of an emotional content to it(like right-wing radio shock jocks) to cause someone or someones to take action.

Even if i was to assume that hate speech could some how effect an indivdual to commit a voilent act why would it or should it then only be limmited to speach aginsted minority groups or race, etc. If that logic is true i could make a rational invidual do anything if my speech had the same properitys. Why should "kill every one who uses windows!" be any more illgeal then "kill every one who is X" (where X can be what ever race or minority you like)? In any case i don't accept that a rational and stable person could realy be inflcuded into commiting a vilionet act threw speach alone and i think they would have to be unstable to start with at some level. As for your source, i don't blive any stable or sain person can kill some one like that and in all likey houd if hate speech did not set them off somting else would have, the problem here is not enought effort being done to try and diangoise, support and treat peoleop with metal disbalitys that could lead to this kind of thing.

Zeroth @ 25th November 2008, 11:24 pm wrote:

Yes, some people abuse the hate speech laws. But the intent, to protect groups, like the Jewish people, or African-americans from further marginalization, hatred, or violence is a very admirable goal.

Acuatly it's not, and in fact it is rasitst in it's own way. We should not be protecting group X from marginalization or violence we should be protecting all peoleop. To set it up only to protect minoritys is just resverse discrimation and if it is done with that kind of mind set it is no whonder it is take advantage of, it is humman rights not minority rights. As for hate, i don't think we have any right to say who or what peoleop can or can not hate. Just hating somthing is alot diffrent from actacting on that hate.

Zeroth @ 25th November 2008, 11:24 pm wrote:

This is why the hate speech laws exist, because they could conceivably affect the public in the wrong direction. Could cause racist or sexist laws and regulations to be put in place, like Prop 8 in California.

There is a big diffrence between allowing sexist or perdusit laws and allowing hate speach, there should be exteramly hard to change laws blocking laws being made that are jedusit or hatefull (and there are in canada, in fact some peoleop whondered if the consertives motion to ban gay marige would be over turned by our highest court if it did pass. Lucky they where not even able to get the issue reopened to even try to pass the motion.). As for volice, hasrment, death threats, etc we allready have laws agisted them and it is the peoleop commiting the atacks that should be charged not the ones who suggest it.


You talk as if hate speech laws are the only thing hold us back from some one standing up on a soap box and make us all commit genoiced, the fact is even with this crazyness from queens and a few cases each year hate speech laws ever never enforced or used in cases where they would be nessary in your view and we are not running all over kill every one. I liken hate speech to video games, both of witch have been claimed to cause vilonece but neither of witch realy have been proven too on there own.

Now hate speech endorced by the goverment, groups and business is another thing and i am very aingsted letting orginsations commit hate speech but i think individuals should be able to if they are sad enfound to want too. (I also think peoleop should be able to walk around naked if they want to but i think thats a topic for a diffrent day )