York University has suspended a student in connection with online comments that advocate “genocide” against Jews, according to The National Post. The Toronto university has ordered the student, Salman Hossain, to appear before a disciplinary panel, and in the meantime it has banned him from attending classes. The newspaper reported last week that the Ontario Provincial Police’s hate-crimes unit was investigating the student for his recent postings on an American anti-Semitic Web site, which featured his writings about Jews, Christians, and moderate Canadian Muslims, whom he calls “traitors.” Meanwhile, York’s president, Mamdouh Shoukri, issued a statement reminding students and staff members of the rights and responsibilities associated with free speech.
RSS
Follow The Ticker through your favorite RSS reader.
11 Responses to Canadian University Suspends Student for Anti-Semitic and Hate Blogging
swish - March 8, 2010 at 5:57 pm
This case seems quite different from tossing cotton balls in front of the black student union or exchanging private e-mails about the sexual attractiveness of female students. This one sounds like a genuine threat (if the information above is true).
willismg - March 8, 2010 at 8:15 pm
I’m still wondering why it’s “against the law” to have an unpopular, even vile, opinion in an open forum such as a university? I was under the impression that universities are places where the holders of such opinions are given their say, and then promptly made the subject of the ridicule that their beliefs warrant… Why are people waging war to summarily squelch any belief, no matter how asinine?
mbelvadi - March 8, 2010 at 8:23 pm
I’m fascinated by the international aspect of this. If the text is hosted on an American server, does it really break Canadian laws? Would it matter if he had typed the text while out of Canada, using non-Canadian networks/computers?As the recent bizarre lawsuit against Google employees in Italy has demonstrated, there is still a lot that needs to be figured out regarding international legal boundaries, political speech rights and commercial IP rights that vary by country, and the Internet.
laventa - March 8, 2010 at 9:33 pm
#2 willismg:In general, I agree that no opinion, however vile or asinine, should be “against the law” as you say. As a Jew, I really don’t care what others say about Jews. I have read plenty of asinine remarks on left-wing political blogs, which irritate me. But, they have a right to their asinine opinion, and when I’m in the mood and energetic, I respond. In some European countries, it is a crime, punishable by law, to deny the Holocaust in public. It is wrong to punish anyone for their thoughts and beliefs, even if they are easily refuted by historical facts.HOWEVER, if this Canadian student’s blog entry advocating “genocide”, as reported above, is accurate, then we are entering new territory that crosses the line. The support of genocide against any people clearly constitutes a violent threat.
12052592 - March 9, 2010 at 9:20 am
The Israeli and American governments don’t just talk about genocide, they actuall do it. Should we expect the Canadians to step in to suspend them?
willismg - March 9, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Sorry I brought it up…
willismg - March 9, 2010 at 1:08 pm
My previous comment is not directed to laventa, if there is any misunderstanding…
amnirov - March 9, 2010 at 2:31 pm
I don’t really think that advocating genocide is what any reasonable person would think was a threat, unless the speaker was in a position of power. Kids in Canadian universities are powerless to instigate genocide, and therefore it’s more of a cartoonish threat. Does this kid have thousands of armed militia members at his disposal?We must always protect free speech (the only exception being those few rare situations where it really is yelling fire in a crowded theatre… you’ll notice I didn’t say “like”).
davidbinder - March 9, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Words are powerful and freedom of speech is not absolute, in either the US or Canada. It is a crime in the US to use words that inflame others to violent acts. It matters not whether the speaker has the place or authority to direct those acts, it is sufficient that others act on the words. It is not true that “Kids in Canadian universities are powerless to instigate genocide.” Those kids grow up and take with them the attitudes that govern how they live. There is plenty of research that shows that children of bigots are more likely to become bigots themselves than are children of more tolerant parents. Further, university students are quite capable of acting violently at times … those who believe in genocide are certainly capable of violence against those they want to exterminate.
willismg - March 9, 2010 at 6:23 pm
I am REALLY sorry I brought it up…
zefelius - March 10, 2010 at 3:12 am
Amnirov:That seems quite reasonable.There’s also a distinction often made between direct and indirect threats, especially in the U.S. If this distinction weren’t made in our courts, then it would be much more likely that pornography would be outlawed as Dworkin and MacKinnon tried to do not so long ago by saying, among other things, that pornography was a cause of violence. Part of the reason this was ultimately rejected in the courts has to do with how difficult it is to prove indirect harm and violence (on a side note, the two also tried to argue that pornography in itself IS violence—but that’s another issue).On the other hand, if you can substantiate a direct, immediate relationship between speech and violence, then you have a case for censorship. If there is an angry mob standing outside of your home, and in that context I incite the mob to violence with my words, and you are the object of that violence, you would obviously have legal recourse against me. But this is ENTIRELY different from posting pro-violence ideologies on a blog, as the only causal relationship between that kind of discourse and subsequent violence is at best tenuous. Otherwise, by reductio ad absurdum, I could be fired from my lecturing position for teaching any radical philosopher or thinker who defends violent revolution.