I just read this interesting rebuttal to my post on the VPL by Spartikus over at The Exile blog.
Spartikus posits two topics for discussion:
- A pattern has alleged to which exactly 2 examples have been cited in support (one of which was, you know, cancelled).
- VPL actively seeks speakers, rather than passively approving speakers who approach them
With topic #1, Spartikus asks “What is the ratio of furor creating to non-furor creating events at the Library?” Well, I have no answer for that question, as I am aware of the array of speaking presentations that VPL regularly hosts. What I will say is that I am confident that a little digging would produce a longer list of past controversial speakers that should never have been hosted at a public facility. Secondly, the ratio should not be used to negate the poorly thought out selections by the VPL administration, as Felton and Exit International could be have easily set off warning bells with a simple Google search. That is, unless you have an activist element from within the confines of the VPL hierarchy that serves specific agendas rather than the public interest…
…which leads me into topic #2 and the question of whether “VPL sought Felton and EI out to appear rather than what is actually the more mundane case (as it is for the vast majority of VPL events) – that Felton and EI approached VPL to use their rooms and VPL approved.” To this, I will reference City Librarian Paul Whitney’s remarks to open the evening that Greg Felton spoke:
“Freedom of Speech and Intellectual Freedom can be difficult and complicated subjects… And we know there are community members, and particularly from the Jewish community, who are angry, hurt and offended that this event is taking place. For that I am very sorry.
Intellectual freedom is not always an easy principle to uphold, but libraries have a basic responsibility for the development and maintenance of this principle. For this reason, librarians have the reponsibility to acquire and make available a wide range of books and materials, including those which express controversial or unpopular ideas. This responsibility means that librarians recognize the right of individuals and groups to criticize their selection. However, freedom of choice within the library cannot be limited by the personal views or any group or individual.
Upholding the principle of intellectual freedom can also, at times, put you in the position of appearing to support points of view that you do not believe in. The role of the public library, however, is to provide a forum for an open and public exchange of contradictory views and to make available materials that represent a wide range of views.
This is especially true during Freedom to Read Week when libraries often present books that people might not feel free to read. The Vancouver Public Library felt this could be the case with local author Greg Felton’s new book The Host and the Parasite and under the auspices of Freedom to Read Week scheduled this evening’s presentation.”
There seems to be absolutely nothing “passive” in this statement describing the reasoning behind booking Greg Felton. In fact, it is quite the contrary, and Whitney seems clear in describing the active and “difficult” decision made by VPL.
Further, Janice Douglas, VPL’s Director of Youth Services and Community Relations, told Terry Glavin that booking Felton “seemed like a good idea at the time.”
I believe that decisions made within public bureaucracies are answerable to the citizens that they are supposed to serve by way of the Board of the VPL, which is responsible for monitoring organizational policies and procedures.
I have placed calls to some Board members to get a recap of yesterday’s proceedings, and will report back as soon as I hear something.
“What I will say is that I am confident that a little digging would produce a longer list of past controversial speakers that should never have been hosted at a public facility.”
I would love to see such a list. And what other types of speakers do you think should not be hosted at the library? While spartikus’ characterization of the library’s booking procedure may be wrong, what do you think about Paul Whitney’s sentiments re: the library as a centre of debate and upholder of free speech? Seems reasonable, even laudable to me, as long as it is done reasonably.
What I will say is that I am confident that a little digging would produce a longer list of past controversial speakers
If you’re going to advocate some sort of punitive or corrective action then, yes, I’m afraid you do have to produce such a list to show that it’s an ongoing problem (I would dispute that it is a problem, but the roles of libraries in our society is a different subject).
There seems to be absolutely nothing “passive” in this statement describing the reasoning behind booking Greg Felton.
I see nothing in Whitney’s statement that shows Felton was specifically sought out (a call or an email to the VPL Marketing Director who contacted you in the previous post could sort that out, perhaps?). Indeed, a different interpretation might be there was no philosophical or legal reason to prevent Felton speaking, remembering this occurred during Freedom to Read Week. Felton has not (yet) been charged with any hate crime and – apparently unlike EI – does not advocate breaking the law. What I do know Felton is guilty of is atrocious scholarship.
Again, this enters in the sphere of the role of libraries. Yes, VPL is a department of the City of Vancouver. But it’s also, er, a library. And a public space. And it’s staff also have a responsibility to the traditions and principles of their profession – even occasionally when that conflicts with the law of the land. I may write a follow up post on this. Or not
Until then:
If members of the public had no right whatsoever to distribute leaflets or engage in other expressive activity on government-owned property (except with permission), then there would be little if any opportunity to exercise their rights of freedom of expression. Only those with enough wealth to own land, or mass media facilities (whose ownership is largely concentrated), would be able to engage in free expression. This would subvert achievement of the Charter’s basic purpose as identified by this Court, i.e., the free exchange of ideas, open debate of public affairs, the effective working of democratic institutions and the pursuit of knowledge and truth. These eminent goals would be frustrated if for practical purposes, only the favoured few have any avenue to communicate with the public.
-Supreme Court of Canada, Ramsden v. Peterborough
So, in your little world of what’s acceptable and what’s not, who gets to make the decisions? I lived for many years in Oregon, which has had a voter-approved physician-assisted suicide law in place for several years — used very sparingly, I might add. The major forces fighting that law have been fundamentalist Christians. I personally find some of them extremely offensive, and to me much of what they have to say is clearly hate speech. Yet they sometimes spoke, and continue to speak, in library meeting rooms. Perhaps they should be excluded, since they offend me.
You seem to have absolutely no idea what free speech means. It means that occasionally, people like Felton, who I regarded as a bit of a buffoon but did draw an audience, get to speak in a public forum. It means that a group like Exit, which is advocating a practice which is already in place in several US states and in Europe, gets a chance to be heard.
That’s what democracy entails. Too bad you can’t handle that. Perhaps you’d feel better in, say, Iran?
Hey, Spartikus!
Where do you get off saying Greg Felton is guilty of atrocious scholarship! Much like Jonathan Ross you are long on condemnation and short on evidence.
Point out one error in Mr. Felton’s analysis of the history of the zionist occupation of America!
Go on!
In what way was Mr. Felton a buffoon? He had to put up with an army of hecklers and a cowardly librarian who didn’t even have the balls to mention him by name in the introduction he gave. How does that make him buffoonish?
As for Ross who started this scree, what “warning bells” about Felton would have been sounded? Put up or shut up, since the kind of drive-by slandering you epitomize is unacceptable!
What misfortune?
Did you not understand what Greg Felton was saying? How are you any better than Jonathan Ross, who resorts to lazy insults? Felton gave a great speech and deserves credit for not overreacting to the Zionist hecklers that attempted to disrupt the event?
I was there and would love to set you straight.
“Where do you get off saying Greg Felton is guilty of atrocious scholarship! Much like Jonathan Ross you are long on condemnation and short on evidence.
Point out one error in Mr. Felton’s analysis of the history of the zionist occupation of America!”
I’ll start with the phrase “Zionist occupation”. It’s an error. A big, fat error. Wow.
Gee, were you even there?
Greg Felton provided a meticulously argued case that the U.S. IS under zionist occupation. Hell, Ariel Sharon admitted it!!
It’s not enough for you toe CLAIM he made a mistake. Accusations are cheap. He provided a wealth of data. Which once did you, could you, not understand?