Article content continued

Men’s Issues Awareness events at the University of Toronto and elsewhere have been blocked, disrupted and effectively shut down. Alternatively, the university administration censors these events by permitting them to proceed only if the campus club pays hundreds of dollars in “security fees” to cover the real or potential risk posed by obstructionists who disagree with the club’s viewpoint. Last week’s physical blocking of a pro-life display at the University of Alberta, with disruptive protesters hiding it from view entirely, is the latest example of mob censorship that is condoned by university presidents.

Disruptive protesters, who silence their opponents by making it impossible for the public to hear or see a controversial message, claim that they are merely using their own free expression rights. But even a Kindergarten student can tell the difference between making her own painting, and placing a sheet of paper on top of the painting of the girl sitting beside her. University students who cannot grasp this simple distinction have likely been educated beyond their intelligence. Put simply, preventing someone else from communicating her opinion is not the same as expressing your own.

Those who obstruct and disrupt their opponents’ events claim that the opinion which they have silenced is so obviously wrong that it doesn’t deserve a hearing. But who should get to determine which opinions are sufficiently odious to warrant being censored by a small mob of “protesters” or “activists”? Should people, if they feel “very” hurt and offended, be allowed to silence the peaceful expression of messages they disagree with?