Cycloptichorn wrote:Should a neo-nazi organization be protected from 'withholding funds' as a student organization?
I only ask to see if those who support liberty and equality believe that all speech is equal, and should be funded equally with student monies, despite people's personal beliefs about the content of the organization.
No doubt there will be a rebuttal that the Nazi group, being a hate group, wouldn't qualify as a student org in the first place; but it doesn't seem to me to be that much of a stretch from a group whose sole reason for existence is to make illegal the actions of students on the campus.
Cycloptichorn
You mean like feminists that want to make discrimination illegal, or LGB&T organizations that want to make gay bashing illegal, or blacks that want to make racism illegal?
McGentrix wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Should a neo-nazi organization be protected from 'withholding funds' as a student organization?
I only ask to see if those who support liberty and equality believe that all speech is equal, and should be funded equally with student monies, despite people's personal beliefs about the content of the organization.
No doubt there will be a rebuttal that the Nazi group, being a hate group, wouldn't qualify as a student org in the first place; but it doesn't seem to me to be that much of a stretch from a group whose sole reason for existence is to make illegal the actions of students on the campus.
Cycloptichorn
You mean like feminists that want to make discrimination illegal, or LGB&T organizations that want to make gay bashing illegal, or blacks that want to make racism illegal?
Yeah, I'd like to see you take a position on the question, McG:
'Should a neo-nazi organization be protected from 'withholding funds' as a student organization?
'
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:'Should a neo-nazi organization be protected from 'withholding funds' as a student organization?
To the same extent as other student organizations are. Student parliaments shouldn't be in the business of picking and choosing which opinions deserve subsidies from them.
Thomas wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:'Should a neo-nazi organization be protected from 'withholding funds' as a student organization?
To the same extent as other student organizations are. Student parliaments shouldn't be in the business of picking and choosing which opinions deserve subsidies from them.
Given a larger number of student organizations requesting money than there is money available to fund them all, what criteria should be used to differentiate between those organizations that receive monies each term, and those that will not?
You can argue with the fact that the student parliament has the right to choose at all which organizations rec'v monies, but it seems rather odd to me that you would seek to take away the duly elected body's ability to exercise judgement as to which organizations are more deserving of the funds.
Cycloptichorn
A university/student parliament is merely a microcosm of a municipal, state or federal body.
They have every right to pick and choose who gets money.
I can't believe this is even an issue.
I guess blindly labelling them a "Liberal College" just makes the conservatives salivate, and yield disagreement as an almost natural response.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Thomas wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:'Should a neo-nazi organization be protected from 'withholding funds' as a student organization?
To the same extent as other student organizations are. Student parliaments shouldn't be in the business of picking and choosing which opinions deserve subsidies from them.
Given a larger number of student organizations requesting money than there is money available to fund them all, what criteria should be used to differentiate between those organizations that receive monies each term, and those that will not?
I would probably subsidize as a function of the size of the membership. Maybe proportional to the size of the membership. But not on the basis of their viewpoint.
Cycloptichorn wrote:You can argue with the fact that the student parliament has the right to choose at all which organizations rec'v monies, but it seems rather odd to me that you would seek to take away the duly elected body's ability to exercise judgement as to which organizations are more deserving of the funds.
How about a duly elected Congress that votes to subsidize Republican newspapers but not Democratic newspapers? And how is the case of the student parliament any different as a matter of principle? That said, I wouldn't subsidize the printing costs of student organizations at all. In the age of personal computers and cheap laser printers, everyone can publish their own pamphlets on their own money.
Thomas wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:You can argue with the fact that the student parliament has the right to choose at all which organizations rec'v monies, but it seems rather odd to me that you would seek to take away the duly elected body's ability to exercise judgement as to which organizations are more deserving of the funds.
How about a duly elected Congress that votes to subsidize Republican newspapers but not Democratic newspapers?
I suppose that really could perhaps happen:
wikipedia about
students' union, student government, student leadership,or student council :
Quote:These not-for-profit student unions usually provide numerous services not only to their own students, but to the educational institution and community at large. Running things like newspapers, radio stations, various consumer businesses, clubs, societies and cultural groups, concerts, bars, various entertainment, athletic programs, financial support, scholarships, medical and dental plans are quite common throughout Canadian schools.
Student unions are also well known for their political involvement. Most student governments are charged by their student body to protect their best interests at the university, municipal, provincial and federal government levels.
Thomas wrote:How about a duly elected Congress that votes to subsidize Republican newspapers but not Democratic newspapers?
Many people, and not all of them necessarily "liberals," believe that this is precisely what has happened with the changes in FCC rules which have enabled huge, corporate media conglomerates which own dozens of newspapers and television stations, and hundreds of radio stations. Now, generally, it is alleged that these corporations serve a conservative, and therefore by inference, a Republican agenda (although there certainly are conservative Democrats). But one of the reasons that people justifiably described as conservatives have objected to this sea-change in FCC rules is that these corporations no longer serve the public interest, as local media outlets have done in the past.
Even were one to argue that there is no clear partisan political bias, the argument that corporations uninterested in the public interests of localities are taking over broadcast and print media is a valid issue for debate.
Thomas wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:'Should a neo-nazi organization be protected from 'withholding funds' as a student organization?
To the same extent as other student organizations are. Student parliaments shouldn't be in the business of picking and choosing which opinions deserve subsidies from them.
I find myself in the unaccustomed position of agreeing with
Thomas: not only
shouldn't student governments discriminate among recognized student groups based on the positions held by those groups, but student governments
cannot constitutionally discriminate among groups based on their positions.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Given a larger number of student organizations requesting money than there is money available to fund them all, what criteria should be used to differentiate between those organizations that receive monies each term, and those that will not?
If I recollect from my own college days, student organizations had to have a certain minimum membership and have a faculty advisor (those minimal requirements, by the way, would typically be sufficient to keep neo-Nazi student groups from being recognized). Any other requirements would have to be based on factors that do not discriminate based on viewpoint.
And i'm sure those objections are binding . . . on student associations in the United States.
The Charter or Rights and Freedoms does not, as i noted, address this topic narrowly. The opening section does guarantee freedom of expression, so perhaps campus groups which feel discriminated against may attempt a court case based on a contention that their freedom of expression were being impaired. However, given Canada's historically plutocratic traditions, it might not be so easy to convince a court that one can tell a student organization what they must do with their money.
It is an interesting subject for speculation.
Setanta wrote:And i'm sure those objections are binding . . . on student associations in the United States.
Quite right, and I should have prefaced all of my preceding remarks by saying that they applied only to publicly funded US colleges and universities. I have no idea how this kind of case would turn out in Canada, and I have no desire to find out (keeping up with American law is difficult enough without learning Canadian law).
Cycloptichorn wrote:McGentrix wrote:They are using anti-choice instead of pro-life. Their choice of words hardly has any bearing on the fact that they are limiting freedom of speech. Does Canada have anything like the ACLU?
How are they limiting freedom of speech?
The student body representatives obviously have the ability to choose which groups to fund and which not to. I know it worked that way at my University. Denying a group funding is not limiting their free speech; it is just refusing to pay them for it.
Cycloptichorn
Where does this student body get their money? Do they pay the money into it or do they receive the money from the school which receives the money from other places?
I understand that, Joe. As anyone who knows me will readily understand, i have taken a greater interest in the details of Canadian history in the last six years that i previously had done. The history of government in Canada reveals a strong plutocratic streak. At the beginning of the Second World War, usually seen with justification as the end of the "Great Depression" (which means something different in North America than it does in Europe), the census found that 2/3 of all Canadians were living in poverty--yet, proportionally, there were more millionaires, and people with incomes in excess of $100,000 in Canada than there were in England or the United States.
Prime Ministers, and the Ministers they appoint have far greater power than do Presidents and their Secretaries of Departments. So, for example, when Brian Mulrooney took office, his Minister of Finance quietly enacted a rule which allowed people to put capital gains in tax-free trusts for their minor children who were, or who might become disable, and allowing them to take the interest of the trust tax-free. Those trusts can be rolled over to the children when they reach the age of 23, and can be established on the same basis for them for their minor children who are disabled, or who might become disabled, or, if they have no children, the trust can be continued for up to ten years, in order to provide income for minor children to whom they give birth who are, or who might become disabled. Quite an effective dodge for protecting capital gains--and every court challenge of which i am aware or have been able to learn of has failed. The courts have a tradition of protecting private property and after-tax income, and most income tax dodges involve trusts, which the courts don't seem to want to interfere with.
Now, i acknowledge that there is no direct correlation to this situation. However, what i have read of Canadian history (and i claim on expertise) suggests to me that the courts would be reluctant to tell such a student association what they must do with their own money.
And of course, i could be completely full of horsie poop.
Baldimo wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:McGentrix wrote:They are using anti-choice instead of pro-life. Their choice of words hardly has any bearing on the fact that they are limiting freedom of speech. Does Canada have anything like the ACLU?
How are they limiting freedom of speech?
The student body representatives obviously have the ability to choose which groups to fund and which not to. I know it worked that way at my University. Denying a group funding is not limiting their free speech; it is just refusing to pay them for it.
Cycloptichorn
Where does this student body get their money? Do they pay the money into it or do they receive the money from the school which receives the money from other places?
A university/student parliament is merely a microcosm of a municipal, state or federal body.
They have every right to pick and choose who gets money.
The average non-Christian American had no say in the direction of funds to Christian/Faith based initiatives by the Bush administration, nor did they have moch say in the initiative to implement abstinence only education or intelligent design.
Do you realize that Carleton University is mere blocks away from the American Embassy in Ottawa? Hopefully your personnel are not infected with such radical ideas ...
Like a duly elected body carrying out the mandate of the majority, within the law. The enfranchised have the choice, of course, of throwing them all out at the next scheduled election.
We often call this "democracy".
Carry on.
