New president named to fill Allan Rock's shoes: Speech-regulation-law administrator Jacques Frémont

The next president will be: Jacques Frémont. From Allan Rock's overt Zionism to a new social engineering for speech regulation. Progress never ends.

The U of O put out its announcement today: HERE.

The media are invited to attend a ceremony on Friday: LINK.

Mr. Jacques Frémont's official U of O bio is HERE.


At first sight, the new direction could signal a coming SPEECH CODE (code of conduct) for campus...? Mr. Frémont is a champion of expressly victimless "hate speech" provisions in provincial human rights codes:

Interviewer: "Imagine the situation where... a young man who is intimidated by his classmates because he's Muslim, for example, in what way will the addition you are making to the Quebec Charter of Rights help him, will protect him?"

JF: "Technically, if it's one young man who gets intimidated because he's Muslim, that's already covered by the Charter -- you are quite right. It's when we have general statements -- general, hateful statements, inciting hatred, etc. -- where there is no particular, individual victim -- it's the group in general that is the victim -- that's what we're targeting with this addition."

National Post View: Quebec hate speech bill would re-establish bureaucratic despotism:::

The bill takes its inspiration from recommendations made public by the QHRC in November 2014. Jacques Frémont, the commission’s president, explained that he planned to use the requested powers to sue those critical of certain ideas, “people who would write against … the Islamic religion … on a website or on a Facebook page.”

Frémont is an unabashed legal activist, who sees the QHRC’s mandate as “provoking a social change” and “making the law.” ...

The details of Bill 59 are chilling. Article 6 would “give the QHRC the power to initiate legal proceedings before the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal without having to wait for complaints from the public.” Article 3 allows members of an identifiable group as well as people outside the group to make complaints triggering suits for hate speech before the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal.

Canada: The Spanish Inquisition Makes a Comeback:::

• Some readers will remember the disputes during the last decade when the journalists were hauled before the farcical "Human Rights Commissions" of Canada and asked to explain why they had ever said anything that the state commissars did not agree with. Best of all is that the members of the Commission do not have to wait for anybody to complain to them before they act.
• The Commission is allowed to head out all by itself and search for things that are offensive. One must wonder whether it may just – wholly unforeseeably – be a government department which continuously finds work to justify its existence?
• The Tribunal is planning to keep a publicly available list of people found guilty of "hate speech" — like a sex-offender database. Presumably this means that members of the public can check that they are not living in the proximity of anybody who is likely to express him-or-herself with words.
• I am sure that Monsieur Fremont will agree that the safest thing to do is either not to report an attack on the Canadian Parliament or to ensure that all papers or individuals who mention such an attack are immediately fined $10,000 and put on the Hate-Speech-offenders list for doing so.
• The Human Rights Tribunal will be able to decide on each occasion how much money it wants. Might it not in fact be more convenient for the Tribunals if they simply put all writers on a system of direct-debit and levy the fine on absolutely everyone after any terrorist attack?
• We had hoped that the country had learned that for most of the civilized world, blasphemy laws are meant to be a thing of the past. But after the latest events in Quebec, we will no longer be fooled. The whole world will be able to see that in Canada blasphemy laws are a thing of the future.

Student's-Eye View reports Allan Rock sham to circumvent Senate and BOG

Only a former politician could devise such a sham at a university: "our 'professional training' here is not an 'academic program'... it's just a money-maker to support our academic mission..." ah hummm.

New Interview with Allan Rock

November 10, 2014

by Student's-Eye View

La Rotonde has published a new interview with U of O President Allan Rock (see here).

Security and Policy Institute (SPI)

The university’s new “SPI” program was unveiled at a posh reception at the end of last summer, and has been criticized as a project of geopolitics and globalization, in part due to its funding that comes from Symantec, a major U.S. company with military ties in the U.S. and Israel.
La Rotonde asked President Rock why the SPI program was not presented for approval to the university’s Senate or Board of Governors. His reply is as follows (free translation):

“It’s a service offered by the Centre for Continuing Education. The Centre’s objective is to offer non-credited professional training. Programs are not approved by the Senate because the programs are not academic. It’s not an academic activity in the sense that it would have to have approval of the Senate because a degree is awarded. [The training] is aside from the central mission of the university and it’s a means of generating revenue to help us in our main mission, which is the academic programs. According to us, we don’t need approval from the Senate or Board.”

Rock further explained that the upper administration of the university approved the SPI program.
One would think that programs that are not academic do not belong in a university, but then again one might think the U of O is not much of a university.
For comparison with the President’s statement, S. 17 of the University of Ottawa Act, 1965, the Ontario statute that governs the U of O, establishes that the university Senate is “responsible for the educational policy of the University and… has power, (a) to control, regulate and determine the educational policy of the University…; [and] (b) to determine courses of study…”

Student Code of Conduct

The spectre of a student code of non-academic conduct has returned to U of O.
La Rotonde asked for Mr. Rock’s comments about the possible re-introduction of a student Code. His response (free translation) was as follows:

“It’s up to the Working Group to decide exactly what they will recommend. I think it was in 2007-2008 that the university proposed the code of conduct, and it was not well-received. There were inadequate consultations, and all that, but I would rather not prejudge the Working Group’s report. It’s up to them to decide what their judgment is concerning the appropriate steps at present. And I imagine it’s possible that they will recommend a code of conduct, but we will have to wait for the report.
I think the most appropriate thing for me to do is wait for the Working Group’s report and to not influence their analysis or pre-judge what they will recommend. It’s up to them [the members of the Working Group] to analyze the current situation and come up with their recommendations. And naturally, we will make their report public, and we will have a discussion — we will decide what to do, but it’s not up to me to judge. I will wait for their report.”

Meanwhile, the SFUO has begun organizing to oppose the re-introduction of a student Code, according to a recent article in The Fulcrum.

Final solution applied to student Marc Kelly at the University of Ottawa – Neanderthal practice

In our liberal democracies university administrations do not shoot students. They may contrive false criminal charges and encourage police to arrest students [LINK]. They may arbitrarily apply trespass law to bar registered students from their studies and from Xmas parties [LINK, LINK]. And campus police wear bullet proof vests and bash students around. But at Canada’s university the administration does not shoot students.

The worst university administrations can do to “undesired elements” of the student body is what was done at York University in the case of Dan Freeman-Maloy: Unilateral deregistration from the student’s study program combined with an enforced physical ban from campus.

In the case of Freeman-Maloy this led to a legal precedent in the Supreme Court of Canada in which a university president can be sued for malfeasance in public office, and it led to a settlement victory for the student [LINK].

Now the Rock administration at the University of Ottawa has applied this final solution to scholarship mathematics student Marc Kelly. No specific reasons were given.

The administration’s death sentence was delivered by president Rock’s new hand-picked VP-Governance Diane Davidson [see letter HERE].

The administration’s action was vigorously opposed by the student federation’s Student Appeals Centre (SAC) but this protest stirred no visible emotion in the administration’s executive officer for governance [see exchange HERE].

In the latest development, the SAC is supporting an official appeal to the university’s Senate Appeals Committee [see appeal letter HERE].

Will the Rock administration come to its senses and stop attacking students in futile efforts to curb creative political expression?

Why not celebrate and protect student activists instead?

Why not encourage criticism and an open campus atmosphere rather than be this Neanderthal about unconventional student political participation?

The Geneva Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are examples of evolution. Why not evolve Mr. Rock? Let us move away from final solutions.

[Editor's note: No, that is not a photo of Marc Kelly, Allan Rock, or Diane Davidson!]

1984 is Coming to a Campus Near You

The University of Ottawa’s Allan Rock administration has sent out this (below) remarkable memo to all U of O staff, conveniently at a time when students are off working.
..
In the face of decades of legal precedent-setting decisions that have established the collegial governance principles that apply to North American universities, it has done this without any of the required department-faculty-and-senate consultations and evaluations.
..
The memo (below) describes the immediate implementation of a new surveillance and reporting managerial system in which all university members are required to participate.
..
The system is akin to the reporting protocols systematically implemented at community levels in totalitarian states. History shows that such systems have a chilling effect on dissidence and reinforce a culture of deference to authority that is antithetical to academic freedom.
..
Barely a year after the university’s failed attempt to install a “student code of conduct,” “Canada’s university” becomes possibly the first academic institution in North America to implement such a policy.
..
The memo (below) has a distinct 1984 feel and substance and is signed by the Rock administration’s VP-Governance Nathalie Des Rosiers who, in what can only be interpreted as exceptional circumstances of irony, is the designated General Counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
..
In the new system, anonymous “disclosures” of “any incidents of wrongdoing” are sent “directly to the Office of the VP-Governance” and “it is the duty of each employee to immediately report any incidents.” The note (below) states “we are all responsible for promoting ethical behaviour…”
..
Strange, when, on this blog, I reported with documentary evidence various university executives lying, fabricating student complaints, falsifying documents, supporting state war crimes, and protecting those who committed these wrongdoings, I was threatened with a lawsuit by the university, disciplined for using the university images of the executives (see VIDEO), and ultimately fired.
..
It seems to me, that if the University of Ottawa were serious about “provid[ing] the tools” to “encouge[] ethical behaviour in all [its] spheres of activity,” it would, for example:
..

• encourage informed and signed whistleblowing, supported with strong whistleblower protection for all its staff and students,

• post its CURIE insurance policy on the web and make the additionally insured fully informed of their coverage, e.g. regarding SLAPP suits,

• make representations to have Ontario universities fall under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Ombudsman and voluntarily submit itself to this jurisdiction,

• follow the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, rather than regularly have requests appealed, Orders emitted against it, and Complaints filed and retained,

• disclose all of the financial and administrative reports of the University of Ottawa Foundation and host a public forum on the Foundation’s mandate,

• make all of its corporate and private contracts public, including those with donors involving building names and other exchanges,

• not name buildings after CEO’s who have participated in any questionable corporate behaviours at home or in other jurisdictions, and publicly review building name attributions in the light of any public disclosures of such questionable activities,

• make all research grants and contracts public

• install a strict policy disallowing all non-token gifts to executives, such as “cultural” trips to explore potential exchange programs with states involved in on-going violations of the Geneva Conventions and persistent disregard for UN resolutions,

• install a Board of Governors membership policy that disallows media bosses and all private sector leaders that could be perceived to represent potentials for conflicts of interest in a democratic society with a free press,

• have all its appointments of top officers and full professors be subjected to public scrutiny and approval by referendum of the entire university community,

• have all its faculty deans be assigned by elections, with 50% student voices, as is done in many countries,

• pay all student representatives on all committees and councils the same average wage value as the professors for their work on these governance bodies,

• immediately disclose its contracts and agreements with the developers and owners of the surveillance software ClearView Connects™ (see below).

..
MEMO:

From: UOStaff-l en francais on behalf of Communications uOttawa
To: UOPERS-L@LISTSERV.UOTTAWA.CA
Sent: Tue 6/9/2009 10:49 AM
Subject: Règlement 92 sur la fraude et la divulgation d'actes fautifs / Policy 92 on Fraud and Safe Disclosure
..

Honesty, integrity and transparency are the values that inspire confidence and the constituents of good governance.

In keeping with best practices in place at public sector organizations, an institution of the scope of the University of Ottawa must provide the tools the University and its employees need to respect these values, maintain the quality of the work environment and protect the University’s resources.

As employees of the University, we are all responsible for promoting ethical behaviour and for respecting for the laws, regulations, polices and procedures necessary for the proper functioning of our institution.

With this in mind, the Board of Governors has approved Policy 92, Policy on Fraud and Safe Disclosure. This policy is to be administered by the Office of the Vice-President, Governance and applies to all University employees, including members of the Board of Governors and persons acting on behalf of the University.

Under Policy 92, it is the duty of each employee to immediately report any incidents of wrongdoing related to University activities. To assist with reporting, we have introduced ClearView ConnectsTM, a tool that allows employees to report quickly, anonymously and in complete confidence any incidents of theft, misappropriation of funds, falsification of documents, vandalism, unethical behaviour, etc.

ClearView ConnectsTM is available 24/7 online or by phone. The system forwards the disclosure directly to the Office of the Vice-President, Governance, which will deal with it as soon as possible and in accordance with Policy 92.

To obtain more information on the reasons behind Policy 92, its scope, the responsibilities of members of the University community, reporting procedures, investigation procedures, ClearView ConnectsTM or any other related matter, please visit www.uOttawa.ca/disclosure.

Your cooperation is essential in order to maintain an organizational climate that encourages ethical behaviour in all our spheres of activity. We are fortunate to work in an exceptional environment, and, with your help, the University of Ottawa can continue to experience the highest standards of honesty and integrity.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Nathalie Des Rosiers
Acting Vice-President, Governance
..
..
LINK TO FIRST MEDIA REPORT:
..
Ottawa Citizen - Academics blast university snitch line

Green Campus Undone: BOG member works to sabotage U of O’s eco-leadership

On the one hand, the University of Ottawa works hard to give itself an eco-veneer, with its Sustainable Development Office, its Institute for the Environment, and its Green Campus student club, but on the other hand, on the power hand…
..
Contributed by Kevin McLeod
..
The Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada's online registry of lobbyists reveals that V. Peter Harder, a member of the University of Ottawa's Board of Governors, lobbied the government of Canada on behalf of Crowflight Minerals last year regarding the firm's desire to dump toxic mining waste in Manitoba's Bucko Lake.
..
According to Harder's registration the subject of his lobbying was "Policy or Program Government of Canada approval for the federal environmental assessment of Bucko Lake Tailings Impoundment Area”. Harder's registration's states that the government departments he lobbied were the Treasury Board of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Natural Resources Canada. The lobbying was done from April 21 2008 to the end May of 2008.
..
According to Mining Watch Canada's renowned researcher and mining critic Catherine Coumans,
..
"Crowflight Minerals is very much on our radar screen because this company wants to destroy a natural water body “frequented by fish” (as per the Fisheries Act definition) by using it as a cheap disposal site for its mine tailings. The water body is Bucko Lake.
..
In 2002 a regulatory amendment of the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER) led to a schedule being added called Schedule 2. This Schedule redefines whatever natural water body that is placed on it as a Tailings Impoundment Area. Through this regulatory sleight of hand all protections that exist in the Fisheries Act and the MMER that would normally make it illegal to dump mine waste into a natural water body no longer apply to the targeted lake or river."
..
Many U of O students would be appalled to learn that when he's not supporting drastic tuition increases BOG member Harder is busy lobbying the government of Canada to allow a mining firm to destroy a pristine body of water because it’s convenient and saves millions for the firm. Harder, a BOG member appointed by the Ontario government, was not voted to the BOG by University of Ottawa staff or students and like a majority of the BOG's members is clearly out of touch with the needs and interests of university students. Harder's presence on the BOG is a reminder of how unrepresentative and undemocratic the BOG really is.
..
You can visit the Commissioner of Lobbyists online registry by going HERE.
..
[Photo credit: University of Ottawa: V. Peter Harder, BOG member]
..
ECO LINKS (Further reading)
Social Justice versus Eco-Lard
Climate Guy
Truth or Dare?

Code of Conduct Needed at U of O

.
Student activism crushed the Administration’s recent attempt to install a Student Code of Conduct: SEE LINK (video).
.
At that time, some argued that an Executive Code of Conduct was needed because of the potential for abuse of power: SEE LINK.
.
Recent and ongoing unethical abuse of power by U of O President Allan Rock is reported HERE (video).
.
The aggressive and abusive treatment by a seasoned executive officer and former federal minister of a mild-mannered undergraduate student is inexcusable. Mr. Allan Rock appeared to have the clear intent to intimidate, with disproportionate use of force.
.
In his “apology”, Rock went on to defame and blame the student: SEE LINK. The “apology” describes an event that is in sharp contrast to the voice recording.
.
Bring on The Code!
.
[Photo credit: University of Ottawa]
.
Context of Thuggery:
.
Thuggery in the Upper Administration
Thuggery in Physics
Department of Physics DTPC - video

Student Appeal Centre Report Exposes Systemic Abuse at U of O

The first ever report of the Student Appeal Centre of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO) gives the university administration and its executive an unqualified F.

The report was recently made public and describes a tyrannical administration imposing one-sided rules apparently designed to deprive students of both normal due process and unbiased treatment when contesting and appealing arbitrary and life-changing academic decisions made by professors, program directors, and deans.

In the words of the report:

“The most serious appeal cases are the ones related to intimidation, discrimination and unethical behaviour by professors or administrators […] Very rarely are these cases taken seriously nor are they handled respectfully.”

Place of higher learning? The report describes unimaginable regulatory circumstances that would be exemplary in a totalitarian state:

> complete absence of a policy against intimidation and (non-sexual) harassment of undergraduate students,

> professor’s testimony taken at its word versus required proof for student,

> strict deadlines at all stages for students versus no deadlines for the administration,

> cursory treatments and arbitrary case outcome decisions that depend more on who are making the decisions rather than the merits of the cases,

> a secret Senate Appeals Committee that will not identify its members or its chairperson, not even which academic units they represent, and

> terse final appeal decisions provided without documented rulings referring to the evidence or any indication of the grounds for the decisions.

Whereas 11 out of 15 recent cases to the Senate Appeals Committee were believed to be strong enough to win unambiguously, only 2 out of 15 cases won their appeals. The great majority of students, of course, do not take their cases all the way up to a final appeal, given the time, financial resources, and preparation that this requires.

All this is in sharp contrast to Canada’s university’s Vision 2010 mission statement and strategic plan which trumpets a “students first” self image.

The report concludes:

“For years, the Centre and its students have silently and obediently followed the rules and appeal process imposed by the administration. This simply does not work. It’s time for a change.”

The report is dedicated to the Centre’s students “who fought for fair treatment and who told us that ‘people have to know about this.’”

.

[Photo credit: University of Ottawa]

.

RELATED

METRO News covers story

Ottawa Sun covers story