If you want to discover the limits of free speech nowadays, talk about sex and gender, says Joanna Williams, whose upcoming talk on free speech and gender ideology has been cancelled by an Ontario public library. She writes for Spiked:
On social media, on a university campus or in the public square, try saying that a woman is an adult human female, men cannot become women and there is no such thing as a transgender child. The response will be immediate and, sadly, predictable. There will be protests, perhaps police intervention and, almost always, censorship.
This was the point I planned to make in a public lecture organised by Canada’s Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship (SAFS) later this week. This open lecture, free for anyone to attend, was to be held at the London Public Library in Ontario. Not any more. In an irony clearly lost on the library’s managers, they have cancelled my talk about censorship. They have stopped me from saying that discussions of sex and gender are routinely censored. In doing so, they have stopped members of the public from discussing one of the most fundamental issues of our time. And they have clearly proven my point.
The London Public Library has provided a textbook illustration of contemporary censorship. Email exchanges between SAFS and the library managers reveal the bureaucratic ways in which censorship is now often enforced. The library’s managers first asked Mark Mercer, the SAFS president and event organiser, to provide an “assessment” of the event by reviewing the lecture content and presentation slides. I am delighted to report that Mercer, a philosophy professor at Saint Mary’s University in Halifax, did not give in to this request. In making such demands, institutions reveal their double standards: some people get to speak freely without having to submit their work in advance, while others need to be monitored and pre-approved. Having to submit transcripts of public lectures hands enormous power to bureaucrats. They get to act as both judge and jury in determining what can be said or heard.
Keen for the event to go ahead, Mercer sent the library managers links to filmed clips of other talks I had given. Here we saw a second censorious tactic come into play: delay. It took nine days for the library’s meetings and events coordinator to reply with a default non-response: “As per the library’s policy governing room rentals, we are not able to approve the rental request.” This was a political decision hidden behind ‘policy’. It made it seem as if censoring this event is merely a case of ‘computer says no’. When in reality, it was actual people objecting to the views of a particular speaker.
Eventually the library explained that that SAFS annual lecture would likely pose “a risk or likelihood of physical danger to participants or the audience or misuse of the property or equipment”; that it could “negatively impact or impede the ability of others to enjoy the services and facilities of the library, and/or library operations”; and that the lecture was “likely to be in violation of library policy, including, but not limited to, the library’s rules of conduct, charter of library use or workplace harassment and sexual-harassment prevention policies”. Weaselley bureaucratic excuses for censorship, in other words.
Thankfully an alternative venue was found for the talk.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
That country is far down the WEF rabbit hole. Castreau re-elected by fraud. Full on Rona fascism. Total compliance to the Rona-Queer-Trans regime of non-science. Worried about not being worried enough about warmtarding – rather idiotic from a country that lives or dies off of hydrocarbon and natural resources. Disciples of the execrable CBC which makes the BBC look honest and balanced. No surprise that the fascists will jail you (as they did a student in Renfrew Ontario, near Ottawa), for even mild and scientifically based objections to the Queer-Tran-mental illness cult. F*em.
Canada has cynically allowed wokeness to proliferate, because the self-proclaimed elitists who have always run it can use it to control the population. What better way to manipulate people than to have a volunteer not-so-secret police to batter down the ‘awkward squad’ and drive them from their careers, homes and lives?
And on the topic of the Cult of Woke insanity that it’s impossible to get away from, I’m going to have to start making a list of companies to boycott. Adidas are the latest to drop a clanger here, though I did spy a man modelling a dress for Levis somewhere too..
“A celebration of self-expression, imagination, and the unwavering belief that love unites, the collaboration explores fluidity, color, and patterns. This partnership is one part of our effort to honor the LGBTQIA+ community alongside our Global Purpose partner Athlete Ally.”
The swimsuit, identified as Pride Swimsuit – Pink, is primarily comprised of recycled and renewable materials, according to Adidas.
“We’re all unique, but we’re all connected by love,” the description read. “That’s the message of this adidas swimsuit, designed in collaboration with Rich Mnisi. The exuberant print brings joyful energy to your day at the beach.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/adidas-pride-swimsuit
Why shouldn’t men wear swimsuits?
The text of the ad is more objectionable: What does love (as a concept) have to do with buying ugly swimsuits in order to show off one’s penis in a way a certain group of people apparently considers attractive? What’s the proper place of this kind of minority-pleasing soft porn with regards to a recreational sport for the general population (including children)? Lastly, since when is a desire to molest strangers sexually on public toilets love, especially even a kind of love that would spiritually unite the molestors with anyone not of their own kind?
Well I’m glad you said it was ugly because even if a woman modelled it I’d still think it’s hideous.
It looks like a My Little Pony puked on the guy.
It’s actually no more revealing than ‘budgie smugglers’, and they’ve always been an accepted men’s swimwear item, though they do seem more popular when you go to certain other countries on holiday…in my own non-pervy observations anyway.
The show off one’s remark was mainly about the posture on the photo which made it pretty clear that the swimsuit wasn’t what people were supposed to look at, ie, this is the usual, sexualized marketing just not targetted at heterosexual men. I remember a time when this wasn’t commonplace which wasn’t that long ago (must be a little over 15 years) and I’d really prefer it to go away again. Maybe with the help of some law against false advertising: Sexualized posturing of women or men must not be used to market products other than women or men.
God Almighty that marketing guff is some of the worst I’ve seen. Utter garbage.
If I ever bought Adidas they’d be off my shopping list. I do have an old Adidas t-shirt but it’s a cheap fake so that’s alright.
It’s noteworthy that the people who weren’t able to approve the room rental don’t actually justify their decision as in Your talk will be about X. X is a violation of policy Z because …, they just quote a bunch of generic rules, some of which have clearly no relation to the issue (misuse of property or equipment) and claim that approving of the room rental would likely result in an unspecified violation of some or all of them. That’s probably a CYA-technique to avoid getting sued for (unfair) discrimination, as they can always claim that they didn’t really claim anything (and hence, there cannot be any disputed claims).
Freedom if speech isn’t as widely held a value as I grew up believing.
Another example of a minority, some I admit have good reason for their Transgender condition, but others in the group with mental health issues, controlling free speech and trying to force their opinions on the rest of us. Too many people seem to think they have a right to do this, so we need more people like Joanna Williams to put us straight.
Censorship is alive and well in Canada.
The Trudeau Liberal govt has provided almost $600 million CAD to the media which has effectively shut them up from challenging the govt.
Bill C-11 now allows a govt-appointed agency to, in effect, control the internet in Canada.