This incident is merely yet another example of a long, long string of incidents providing evidence and proof of the terrible destructiveness and hypocrisy of liberal leftism.

I don’t know why anyone would want to plunge their head into the ground like an ostrich, and not want to face the cumulative evidence of the stench of secular liberalism.

Perhaps you would prefer the term “homo sapiens”? And if we can’t know when an individual is a “human being” without the intervention of philosophy, does that make each of us susceptible to being labeled “not a human being” because someone’s philosophy has been worked into law?

Art Deco,

Is this a Marxist analysis?

The only thing that strikes me as more incredible than campus security believing they should do nothing when an official campus event is disrupted is that it is university policy that campus police should allow anti-religious or pro-choice groups to disrupt religious or pro-life events but not vice versa. My guess is that the campus police misunderstood their role. If there had been a public pro-life demonstration, and pro-choice counter-demonstrators came along, then it would not have been the job of campus police to take sides. Both sides would have a right to air their views. But in this case, the students who booked the room for the event had a right to expect campus police to protect the integrity of the event. The first duty of the police would be to make sure nobody gets hurt, but if they can expel the protestors and let the scheduled event continue, then that is their duty.

I don’t know why anyone would take this incident as any kind of evidence of anything.

Well, no single occurrence can by itself establish the existence of a trend, which sort of goes without saying. But one reason one might be extra concerned is that Canada has pretty poor support for free speech against political-correctness-monitors (aka “Human Rights Commission”), for whom truth or intent are not a defense, and in whose “court” the complainants incur no costs while the defendants/respondents have to bear their own. And note that the implied line of thought of these “protestors” is really just that of the commission.

It strikes me as incredible, in the literal sense of the term, that campus security for a university would need to be informed that presentations are not subject to being shut down willy-nilly by shouting protestors. It’s hard for me to emphasize how naive your comment is on this point. It’s simply not possible to believe that a university security department would actually have as a general rule of operation that any protestors can shut down any speech at any time, so long as they can make sufficient noise.

Hence the supposed small audience. The disruptive tactic gets some results — short and long term — and so the inept security policies rewards the continued use of this tactic.

Not that it makes a great deal of difference, of course, but you thought you might mention that.
+ + +

Actually, shout-downs like this have become distressingly common on campuses of what used to be universities. So have been confiscations or burnings of alternative student newspapers. (“It’s a free newspaper, right? So we took a lot of copies for our friends.”)

The bloody deans, David, who are not wage earners.