CALGARY — A journalism professor says the controversy over an anti-diversity opinion piece published in — and then pulled online from — the Vancouver Sun has nothing to do with freedom of expression.“Journalists have always had the ability to decide what to publish and broadcast and what not to publish and broadcast,” Sean Holman with Calgary’s Mount Royal University said Monday. “We’re not common carriers. We’re not the telephone system.”Mark Hecht, an instructor of geography at Mount Royal, argued in the column that showed on the weekend that more diversity means less social trust. He commended Denmark for becoming more restrictive toward immigrants.“Can Canada learn from Denmark? The jury is out,” Hecht wrote. “But the minimum requirement is that we say goodbye to diversity, tolerance and inclusion if we wish to be a society that can rebuild the trust we used to have in one another and start accepting a new norm for immigration policy — compatibility, cohesion and social trust.”The piece was removed from the paper’s website on Saturday, but not before it went to the printing press.“I am dismayed by the suppression of open and rational debate in this country,” Hecht wrote in an email Monday.Holman said he and many of his colleagues were troubled by the piece. Several Vancouver Sun journalists also denounced it on social media.Holman said newspapers have no obligation to run op-eds — columns submitted by people unaffiliated with the paper — that don’t pass journalistic muster.He said one major red flag in Hecht’s piece was that it cites the Gatestone Institute, a think tank that has been widely criticized for spreading anti-Muslim misinformation.The op-ed may help fuel anti-immigrant sentiment in Canada, he suggested.“The Vancouver Sun should not have published this op-ed. It does not meet our standard of helping facilitate the kind of rational, empathetic, informed decision-making expected of us in a democracy.”The Sun’s editor-in-chief, Harold Munro, apologized for the piece he said did not meet the paper’s journalistic standards.“The Vancouver Sun is committed to promoting and celebrating diversity, tolerance and inclusion. Our vibrant community and nation are built on these important pillars,” Munro wrote.“We are reviewing our local workflow and editorial processes to ensure greater oversight and accountability so that this does not happen again.”Hecht’s biography on the Mount Royal website says his main interests include “invasive species dispersal, invasion, colonization and evolutionary adaptation, especially as it relates to European ecological dominance.”He has a self-published book called “The Rules of Invasion: Why Europeans Naturally Invaded the New World.”Neither Hecht nor Mount Royal indicated whether he still has his job at the university.“Mount Royal, like all universities, is a place for debate, for freedom of expression and for the respectful exchange of ideas,” Jonathan Withey, dean of the faculty of science and technology, said in an e-mailed statement.“The ideas expressed in this newspaper op-ed, while protected by freedom of expression, do not represent my personal views, nor the position of Mount Royal University as a whole.”The press secretary for Alberta’s Advanced Education Ministry said the provincial government would not tell Mount Royal what to do.“Freedom of expression, within the limits of the law, on Alberta’s campuses is at the heart of the academic experience and is integral to Alberta’s adult learning system,” Laurie Chandler said in an email.“Universities have the sole discretion on the employment of professors and instructors.” Lauren Krugel, The Canadian Press
Joe Paterno Statue — a statue of legendary coach Joe Paterno in front of Penn State’s Beaver Stadium — may be the next casualty in the nasty ongoing fallout of the child sex abuse scandal.The decision whether to remove or move Joe Paterno statue is expected to be made by the school president Rodney Erickson within the next three days, a source familiar with Erickson’s plans told ESPN’s “Outside the Lines.”Much of the consternation on what to do about the statue stems from how the NCAA will perceive the actions. The school is fearful of the governing body leveling the “death penalty” on the football program.Trustees said on the show that the board had a spirited discussion about the statue in a conference call Thursday night — the same call in which the resignation of former board chairman Steve Garban was discussed. But the decision is not theirs, they said.Various tweets Friday morning said the board had voted and/or made a decision about the statue and that it would be removed this weekend. If the board had taken a vote during the call, it would have violated state law, which prohibits votes from being taken outside of declared board meetings.The trustees who spoke Friday morning said board members did discuss possibilities for the statue, including moving it from the stadium area, perhaps to the library on campus that bears the Paterno name or the Penn State All Sports Museum near the stadium. Board spokesman David LaTorre declined to comment Friday morning.The trustees have been concerned this week that the NCAA will hand down an extreme punishment, possibly the death penalty for its football program for its “loss of institutional control” during the Sandusky years. Dealing with the statue issue, and the resignation of Garban, has been needed to show the public the board was serious about “moving forward,” one trustee said.“It’s a highly sensitive decision,” another trustee said Friday. “The decision is a symbolic one. We have to be very careful about what kind of message we send.”
Rodolfo D’Onofrio has confessed that River Plate has the full support from the Argentina Government president, Mauricio Macri.Now that all the cards are on the table between Boca Juniors and River Plate, club president Rodolfo D’Onofrio revealed that his club’s intention is to play the final at the Estadio Monumental and they have the full support from Argentina’s president Mauricio Macri.The country’s leader is a renowned River Plate fan, he obviously will support the squad he supports and won’t hesitate to use his power in order to push Conmebol to organize the match at the Monumental Stadium.D’Onofrio understands that Boca Juniors has turned back on the initial agreement that both clubs reached last Saturday, in which they decided that the match would be played on the same venue after the incidents that took place.But Boca has changed its mind because they realized that they have a case against River, the idea is for the ‘Millionaires’ to get eliminated by Conmebol due to several disciplinary violations that were documented last Saturday both inside and outside of the stadium.But River Plate’s president won’t give it up that easily, he has already threatened to bust out his most powerful weapon: Argentina’s president Mauricio Macri.”Macri quiere y pretende que se juegue en #River”, aseguró D’Onofrio. ¿Será así? ➡ https://t.co/Z3n1Qe0R9O pic.twitter.com/zQD8e3xjF4— Diario Olé (@DiarioOle) November 27, 2018“Our position is to play at River Plate’s stadium. A source that is very close to the country’s president let me know that Macri’s interest is for the match to be played on Sunday,” said D’Onofrio via Diario Ole.“I’m disclosing this information because my source is reliable. The second topic here is that Macri wants the match to be played at River and there will be enough security measures to play there.”“I believe that these topics are very important because we also have the G20 approaching. In this major event, Argentina will be before the eyes of the world and it is expected to be a complete success.”“The logic here is that, if we can organize a G 20 summit, why wouldn’t we be able to organize a football match? This would be the perfect way to prove that we are fully capable of fixing what took place last Saturday.”“Macri already confirmed that he will give us all the support we need in matters of safety measures. I’m not the president’s spokesman, I’m only telling you the information that I’ve received.”“I don’t think violence can beat us, if they defeat us there we are as good as lost. The Conmebol president’s posture is to play outside the country.”“They are the ones who make the call, but we have no reason not to complain why 66,000 people have to pay the consequence of what 600 did.”Match Preview: River Plate vs Boca Juniors Boro Tanchev – September 1, 2019 It is time for one of the most intense derby games in the world, as River Plate and Boca Juniors go head-to-head tonight at 22:00 (CET).“All those people bought a ticket to watch their club and there is an obvious sports advantage.”“Then why would they be denied that opportunity? I agree with the Conmebol president, we need to dial things down because people go crazy over this,” he added.Rodolfo D’Onofrio sostuvo que “Macri nos da todo el apoyo y seguridad para que se juegue en cancha de River” https://t.co/5HR7SxtYmY pic.twitter.com/xtTKkqERuz— Agencia Télam (@AgenciaTelam) November 27, 2018“I’m not saying that River is getting stolen their chance to play as a local, they are denying 66,000 people the chance to watch their club play a final,” he continued.“This cup already lost its brightness, but what do we need? To give it the proper brightness. It’s not possible that a River-Boca match doesn’t get played because the security measures failed.”“If the proper safety would’ve been in place, none of this would’ve happened. All the crazy people who got inside the stadium would have been far away.”“Even though Dominguez gave us all a document that says the match will be played outside the country, they have only determined that it will be played on December 8 or 9.”“I think Dominguez was very hard on us, but I think he will change his mind once he sees how well organized the G 20 summit will be next weekend,” he concluded.We got a new date for the Copa Libertadores Final between River Plate and Boca Juniors.Where do you think it will be played? pic.twitter.com/gcGb4ejlrS— Ronaldo.com (@ronaldocomint) November 27, 2018Where do you think the Copa Libertadores final will eventually take place? Please share your opinion in the comment section down below.
ADC AUTHOR The Senate moves forward with its fiscal 2020 defense authorization bill Tuesday with lawmakers set to take an evening vote to advance the bill for formal debate, CQ reported Monday.A successful vote on the procedural cloture motion will allow the GOP-led chamber to begin considering amendments and debate the annual defense policy bill for full Senate approval.In its current form the Senate’s NDAA topline matches the administration’s request for defense spending at $750 billion, though some differences include border barrier funding and the structure of the proposed space force.In the Democrat-led House, lawmakers will try to pass the chamber’s lower $733 billion defense spending appropriation as part of a four-bill, nearly $1 trillion minibus package that includes spending for several federal agencies. Lawmakers will consider 57 amendments to the House bill.If the minibus package passes, the House will hold debate on its defense authorization bill after the July 4 recess, according to CQ.Each chamber will need to approve its appropriations legislation soon for congressional leaders to begin high-stakes conference negotiations.The two sides will have to reach a compromise on fiscal 2020 defense spending and many other spending issues by Oct. 1 or face another partial government shutdown.