Red Pill Sydney Screening update
Nov 29, 2016 — A response from the WSU Sceptic's 2IC.
Dear Mrs Brackenreg,
My name is Gordon Gregory and I am a student attending Western Sydney University currently undertaking a Bachelor of laws degree at the Campbelltown Campus. I am also a member of the Campbelltown Student Campus Council as well as a member of the Western Sydney University Sceptic Society. However, I am writing to you today simply in my capacity as a student of this institution.
Recently, the Sceptic Society sought permission to screen a documentary made by an American film maker named Cassie Jaye. The film that she produced is called “The Red Pill”. A decision has been handed down on this request by “the Executive” as conveyed by Mr Paul Clarke. The request has been denied.
This is a regressive step. It is also a deliberate double standard. As a student here, I was forced to suffer through the film, “The Hunting Ground”. That film purported to be an accurate depiction of “rape culture” on American campuses. That film was openly called out as a propaganda piece in an open letter signed by nineteen (19) professors at Harvard Law School. It was also used as part of a campaign in this university. I refer to the RESPECT.NOW.ALWAYS campaign.
It rather appears that when the university wants to push a narrative, then there is no impediment. Yet when a counter-point to that narrative wants to be aired, then no stone is left unturned in denying permission for this to occur.
As a law student at this institution, it might, perhaps, be useful for me to point out something in Constitutional Law; that is an implied right to political expression. I won’t bore you with a treatise on the evolution of this freedom. I will however, leave you with a quote to ponder.
His Honour, Chief Justice French, stated the following in Hogan v Hinch
“The range of matters that may be characterised as ‘governmental and political matters’ for the purposes of the implied freedom is broad. They are not limited to matters concerning the current functioning of government. They arguably include social and economic features of Australian society. For these are, at the very least, matters potentially within the purview of government.”
It would appear that the High Court of Australia takes the view that social commentary falls within the range of what the court would consider political expression. Does this not strike you as at odds with what the university has decided?
I am also reminded of placing this in a historical context. When first wave feminism began, they often encountered opposition from the establishment for the airing of their views. Consider this in the context of the mens’ rights movement.
Lastly, I will leave you with a quote from Einstein;
“Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.”
Post Scriptum: I am including some links to media articles addressing in further detail some of the ideas presented above.
Cassie Jaye on The Bolt Report: https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=RHBvbkWPzm8
The Hunting Ground: Journalism or sensationalism? | FACTUAL FEMINIST: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uTqR-PUf4Y
How The Hunting Ground Blurs the Truth: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/doublex/2015/06/the_hunting_ground_a_closer_look_at_the_influential_documentary_reveals.html
19 Harvard Law Professors Defend Law Student Brandon Winston, Denouncing His Portrayal in “The Hunting Ground”: http://hlrecord.org/2015/11/19-harvard-law-professors-defend-law-student-brandon-winston-denouncing-his-portrayal-in-the-hunting-ground/
Keep fighting for people power!
Politicians and rich CEOs shouldn't make all the decisions. Today we ask you to help keep Change.org free and independent. Our job as a public benefit company is to help petitions like this one fight back and get heard. If everyone who saw this chipped in monthly we'd secure Change.org's future today. Help us hold the powerful to account. Can you spare a minute to become a member today?I'll power Change with $5 monthly