Advantages Of No Platforming In Canadian Universities

The debate provided to students required to research in order to complete this paper was based around the choice of whether or not the concept of ‘no-platforming’ should or should not be allowed in Canadian universities. Both sides gave multiple strong points as to why they believed that their reasoning was supreme to the other sides’. In order to understand which side of the argument is more convincing, one must first understand what exactly no-platforming is and why there is problems surrounding it. No-platforming is defined as a strategy used in today’s world where a person or group of people are not given a platform to speak within a certain place. The main issue surrounding this concept is the fact that ‘silencing’ a group of people who

The side in favour of no-platforming does an outstanding job of describing the actual situation as to when a person or group should not be given a platform to speak on by responding to an argument made by the opposition. They stated that the claim that a certain speech or act is harming a certain group of people cannot be argued by any external being as only that group is able to feel the way that the speech or ideology of a speaker made them feel. This is due to the subjective experiences of the group and the fact that the group of people or the person has experienced everything in their lives through their own eyes and consciousness. To tell a person or a group of people that their claim of potential harm from a speaker is invalid is comparable to telling a person that they are not ill when they are indeed. The reasoning behind a person’s emotions and feelings come within themselves and their own experiences, clearly showing that it is not possible for another person or group of people to tell someone who believes they are being harmed that their argument is

No matter if no-platforming existed or did not, there would always be claims of harm being made by people around the world who feel as though they have been wronged. Some of these claims can be considered illegitimate, however, under the right circumstance as in order to be able to not give a speaker a platform to speak on, there must be a clear threat to the psychological state of a person or group of people or there must be a potential incitement of violence. The group in favour of no-platforming went on to illustrate the idea that the objective experiences of harm of a group of people should be the main reasoning behind no-platforming a potential speaker. If the speaker is not even able to merely meet the main social moral standards that they are expected to, then they should not be able to even speak on a platform about their