Ann Coulter

[franko]

Ann Coulter. Need we say any more? Yes? OK . . . ideologue, idiotic controversial, defender of [her own] truth, etc. The president of the student's association at Ottawa U is reveling in the fact that she was shut down [and shut up], saying that there is no place for such thought on the campus of a university, and that collective thought trumps individual rights to hear her speak [yes, he actually said that].

So . . . was Ottawa U right to shut her down [and for all the "she chose not to speak" rhetoric, her talk was shut down] or should she have been able to continue her lecture? What was/is the proper response to someone do dogmatic?





OTTAWA–They believe her words can be racist, hateful and ignorant, but she should be free to say them – just as others should be allowed to tell her to shut up.

Ann Coulter would be hard-pressed to find diehard fans among Canadian civil liberties groups, but they argue the cancellation of a speech by the mouthy American right-wing pundit reflects poorly on the University of Ottawa and the rest of the nation.

That idea has been embraced by officials at the University of Calgary, Coulter's next stop Thursday, who said she will be treated with respect.

Alan Harrison, the provost of the University of Calgary, said security will be increased because of what happened in Ottawa.

Harrison said he wants to ensure that everyone is safe and that Coulter receives the same respect for her views as anyone else would.

Coulter said she has no concerns about her safety while in Calgary.

"I’ve heard that (Calgary is a more conservative city). Already I feel safer and look at how nice all of you are."

David Eby, executive director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association added, "We are firm believers that even ignorant ideas need to be heard and discussed.

"We don't succeed at eliminating racism or dealing with the issues of multiculturalism if we suppress the ability of people to speak their minds." Toronto Star, more



One incontrovertible lesson to come from Ann Coulter's aborted speech in Ottawa Tuesday night, and indeed from the national reaction to her Canadian speaking tour this week, is that the U.S. pundit didn't even have to open her mouth to ignite a controversy about freedom of speech in Canada.

Warned by campus authorities to censor herself or face the full brunt of Canada’s speech laws before she even arrived; subjected to fairly intense on-campus protests with students calling her hateful and demanding she not be allowed to speak; the talk was cancelled, citing security concerns.

Ann Coulter had come to talk about political correctness and freedom of speech; about the double standard applied between conservatives and liberals. She made a most powerful statement without even showing up.

The entire spectacle could not have been better scripted to serve Ms. Coulter’s cause had she planned it herself. The University of Calgary, where she will speak tonight, announced on Wednesday it was relocating her talk to a larger venue, with attendance having doubled since Monday (it will beef up security, too, but insists she’s free to speak her mind).

In an interview with the National Post after the incident at the University of Ottawa, Ms. Coulter seemed every bit as convivial and unflappable as she does whenever she appears, as she does with considerable frequency, on American television political panels — the happy arch-conservative warrior who drives earnest left-wingers mad. She cracked jokes at every turn. Still, she insisted, she was serious about her promise to see University of Ottawa provost François Houle — whose name, sounding like “hole,” she had great fun modifying — charged by Canada’s Human Rights Commissions, for promoting hatred against her, a white, Christian, female, conservative, since she’s certain no left-wing speakers have been similarly threatened.

“All I thought about” after the cancellation, Ms. Coulter says, “was how much this helps my complaint with the human rights commission.”

Ms. Coulter says Human Rights Commissions are “horses--t,” because of their silencing of free speech, but at the very least her own case against Mr. Houle, she says, “drives the point home.”

It was Mr. Houle who wrote in advance of the planned speech, warning, “Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges.”

How much responsibility Mr. Houle bears for the absurdity that followed it — from book-burning protesters to Ms. Coulter’s HRC parody play — remains a matter of debate. The university issued a statement yesterday insisting it was Ms. Coulter’s side who called things off and the school has “always promoted and defended freedom of expression” — though they didn’t specify whether they shared Mr. Houle’s narrow interpretation of that term.

Organizers said there were threats made on Facebook; the website features a comment from some angry woman who “want to throw rotten veggies and eggs at her evil barbie mask,” and another fellow asking “Can’t we just tar and feather her? [url=http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/25/kevin-libin-in-calgary-ann-coulter-s-cancelled-talk-a-powerful-draw.aspx
]National Post, more[/url]

[Polarice]

I don't understand how the even let her into the country.

[Skilly]

I had no idea who Ann Coulter was ... I first that it was that woman on CBC News (whats her name?) ... so I googled and I recognize her now. Good looking ..

The proper response, would have been to offer her no warning, and let her speak. If she broke any Canadian Laws, then you could persue charges. But it was playing into Ann Coulter's hand to kick up a ruckass, before she did anything wrong.

[Skilly]

Here is her response, directly from her website, to all this hoopla ....

OH, CANADA!
March 24, 2010

Since arriving in Canada I've been accused of thought crimes, threatened with criminal prosecution for speeches I hadn't yet given, and denounced on the floor of the Parliament (which was nice because that one was on my "bucket list").

Posters advertising my speech have been officially banned, while posters denouncing me are plastered all over the University of Ottawa campus. Elected officials have been prohibited from attending my speeches. Also, the local clothing stores are fresh out of brown shirts.

Welcome to Canada!

The provost of the University of Ottawa, average student IQ: 0, wrote to me -- widely disseminating his letter to at least a half-dozen intermediaries before it reached me -- in advance of my visit in order to recommend that I familiarize myself with Canada's criminal laws regarding hate speech.

This marks the first time I've ever gotten hate mail for something I might do in the future.

Apparently Canadian law forbids "promoting hatred against any identifiable group," which the provost, Francois A. Houle advised me, "would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."

I was given no specific examples of what words and phrases I couldn't use, but I take it I'm not supposed to say, "F--- you, Francois."

While it was a relief to know that it is still permissible in Canada to promote hatred against unidentifiable groups, upon reading Francois' letter, I suddenly realized that I had just been the victim of a hate crime! And it was committed by Francois A. Houle (French for "Frank A. Hole").

What other speakers get a warning not to promote hatred? Did Francois A. Houle send a similarly worded letter to Israel-hater Omar Barghouti before he spoke last year at U of Ottawa? ("Ottawa": Indian for "Land of the Bed-Wetters.")

How about Angela Davis, Communist Party member and former Black Panther who spoke at the University of Zero just last month?

Or do only conservatives get letters admonishing them to be civil? Or -- my suspicion -- is it only conservative women who fuel Francois' rage?

How about sending a letter to all Muslim speakers advising them to please bathe once a week while in Canada? Would that constitute a hate crime?

I'm sure Canada's Human Rights Commission will get to the bottom of Francois' strange warning to me, inasmuch as I will be filing a complaint with that august body, so I expect they will be reviewing every letter the university has sent to other speakers prior to their speeches to see if any of them were threatened with criminal prosecution.

Both writer Mark Steyn and editor Ezra Levant have been investigated by the Human Rights Commission for promoting hatred toward Muslims.

Levant's alleged crime was to reprint the cartoons of Mohammed originally published in a Danish newspaper, leading practitioners of the Religion of Peace to engage in murderous violence across the globe. Steyn's alleged crime was to publish an excerpt of his book, "America Alone" in Maclean's magazine, in which he jauntily described Muslims as "hot for jihad."

Both of them also flew jet airliners full of passengers into skyscrapers in lower Manhattan, resulting in thousands of deaths. No, wait -- that was somebody else.

Curiously, however, there was no evidence that either the cartoons or the column did, in fact, incite hatred toward Muslims -- nor was there the remotest possibility that they would.

By contrast, conservative speakers are regularly subjected to violent attacks on college campuses. Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, David Horowitz and I have all been the targets of infamous campus attacks.

That's why the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute (a sponsor of my Canada speeches) and the Young America's Foundation (a sponsor of many of my college speeches) don't send conservatives to college campuses without a bodyguard.

You'd have to be a real A-Houle not to anticipate that accusing a conservative of "promoting hatred" prior to her arrival on a college campus would in actuality -- not in liberal fantasies of terrified Muslims cowering in terror of Mark Steyn readers -- incite real-world violence toward the conservative.

The university itself acknowledged that Francois' letter was likely to provoke violence against me by demanding -- long after my speech was scheduled, but immediately after Francois disseminated his letter -- that my sponsors pony up more than $1,200 for extra security.

Also following Francois' letter, the Ottawa University Student Federation met for 7 1/2 hours to hammer out a series of resolutions denouncing me. The resolutions included:

"Whereas Ann Coulter is a hateful woman;

"Whereas she has made hateful comments against GLBTQ, Muslims, Jews and women;

"Whereas she violates an unwritten code of 'positive-space';

"Be it resolved that the SFUO express its disapproval of having Ann Coulter speak at the University of Ottawa."

At least the students didn't waste 7 1/2 hours on something silly, like their studies.

At the risk of violating anyone's positive space, what happened to Canada? How did the country that gave us Jim Carrey, Mike Myers, Martin Short, Dan Aykroyd and Catherine O'Hara suddenly become a bunch of whining crybabies?

Want to hear my favorite Canadian joke? OK, here goes: Francois Houle! I never get tired of that one.

After Tuesday night, the hatred incited by Francois' letter is no longer theoretical. The police called off my speech when the auditorium was surrounded by thousands of rioting liberals -- screaming, blocking the entrance, throwing tables, demanding that my books be burned, and finally setting off the fire alarm.

Sadly, I missed the book burning because I never made it to the building.

But, reportedly, a Canadian crowd hasn't been this excited since they opened a new Tim Hortons. Local reporters couldn't make out what the crowd was chanting, but it was something about "Molson" and a "sled dog."

I've given more than 100 college speeches, and not once has one of my speeches been shut down at any point. Even the pie-throwing incident at the University of Arizona didn't break up the event. I said "Get them!", the college Republicans got them, and then I continued with my rambling, hate-filled diatribe -- I mean, my speech.

So we've run this experiment more than 100 times.

Only one college speech was ever met with so much mob violence that the police were forced to cancel it: The one that was preceded by a letter from the university provost accusing me of hate speech.

(To add insult to injury, Francois didn't even plan to attend my speech because Tuesday is his bikini wax night.)

If a university official's letter accusing a speaker of having a proclivity to commit speech crimes before she's given the speech -- which then leads to Facebook postings demanding that Ann Coulter be hurt, a massive riot and a police-ordered cancellation of the speech -- is not hate speech, then there is no such thing as hate speech.

Either Francois goes to jail or the Human Rights Commission is a hoax and a fraud.

[Polarice]

For how she put Canada down over the years, I'm not surprised how she's being treated.

[Skilly]

Mar 25, 2010 8:23:37 GMT -5 Polarice said:

For how she put Canada down over the years, I'm not surprised how she's being treated.

Just curious ... and somewhat playing devil's advocate ... but did you see the CBC news the other night where the reporter went in to Ryerson University (a class about Canadian superiority I believe) and the students were asked to characterize Americans using one word?

I think it would be awful naive of us to think that our society does not also put down their society ... heck it isn't like she is an elected official calling our Prime Minister a "(expletive) moron" ....

Back on topic. Coulter is wrong. She would be well within her rights to say "F*** Houle". Vulgar? Yes. Hate speech? No. Legal? Yes. The last time I checked, Canada has freedom of speech (EDIT) expression. Unless Houle had a copy of her speech and had some prosecuters confirm it was "hate speech" than Coulter should have been allowed to give her speech. If you don't like the content, then don't attend ot watch the news blurbs on it .... even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was given more moral freedom than Coulter.

[Polarice]

Did you guys see this?

[The New Guy]

I personally do not like Ann Coulter. Not because of her right wing leanings (well, to be honest she's gone beyond 'leanings' and is now walking parellel to the ground) - I am known to have such leanings myself - but because of her self-aggrandizing, amero-centric view of the world (which has nothing to do with being right wing but with being an idiot - and before someone makes a crack they are not the same thing).

However in this case Francois Houle is wrong. What's worse is not just that he's wrong but he's violating the principles of the very thing he is supposed to represent. Education, particularily higher education, is founded on the back of the free exchange of ideas. Of the right of free speech. And while few (if any) of us might agree with what Ann Coulter has to say we have to (to paraphrase Evelyn Hall) defend to the death her right to say it. So long as she does not call for violence against any person or say other things that may bring about injury and death (she does not possess the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre) then she should be permitted to speak, unfettered by the likes of Houle who clearly shares more in common with Rejean than just a surname.

I wonder, since her speech was cancelled because of security issues, will those who were uttering hateful things against her and those that would go and listen to her warned of the possibility of being charged under Canadian law? Were the protesters who were throwing tables and undertaking other violent acts (assuming that part of her article is truth and not hyperbole - it's hard to tell with Ann) charged for their acts? Is this the society that we live in - one that can not tolerate thoughts different to our own? Is this the society that we want to live in? Where "collective thought trumps individual rights to hear her speak"

I don't. But what do I know? I'm just another Winston. Maybe the Proles and the Party think differently.

[BadCompany]

Mar 25, 2010 10:29:12 GMT -5 The New Guy said:

I personally do not like Ann Coulter. Not because of her right wing leanings (well, to be honest she's gone beyond 'leanings' and is now walking parellel to the ground) - I am known to have such leanings myself - but because of her self-aggrandizing, amero-centric view of the world (which has nothing to do with being right wing but with being an idiot - and before someone makes a crack they are not the same thing).

However in this case Francois Houle is wrong. What's worse is not just that he's wrong but he's violating the principles of the very thing he is supposed to represent. Education, particularily higher education, is founded on the back of the free exchange of ideas. Of the right of free speech. And while few (if any) of us might agree with what Ann Coulter has to say we have to (to paraphrase Evelyn Hall) defend to the death her right to say it. So long as she does not call for violence against any person or say other things that may bring about injury and death (she does not possess the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre) then she should be permitted to speak, unfettered by the likes of Houle who clearly shares more in common with Rejean than just a surname.

I wonder, since her speech was cancelled because of security issues, will those who were uttering hateful things against her and those that would go and listen to her warned of the possibility of being charged under Canadian law? Were the protesters who were throwing tables and undertaking other violent acts (assuming that part of her article is truth and not hyperbole - it's hard to tell with Ann) charged for their acts? Is this the society that we live in - one that can not tolerate thoughts different to our own? Is this the society that we want to live in? Where "collective thought trumps individual rights to hear her speak"

I don't. But what do I know? I'm just another Winston. Maybe the Proles and the Party think differently.

I agree with everything you said, except the paragraph on Houle. Houle did nothing wrong. All he did was send a letter to Coulter telling her that there are anti-hate-speech laws in Canada, and that some of the things she has been known to say could be against those laws. Whatever you think about our various Human Rights Commissions - and I think they are at best a joke, at worst legitimately dangerous - they do exist, and there was nothing wrong with Houle warning about them. Houle did not cancel the speech, the organizers did, the very people who invited her.

Coulter obviously has a schtick, and that is to be as outrageous as she can be. It seems to be working for her, if her appearance fees are any indication. But there are laws in Canada, and Houle warned her of them. You say that Coulter is not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater, and you are right. But what about wishing death, or assassination on others? Houle did nothing wrong, in my opinion.

Some Coulter quotes that could have crossed Canadian hate speech laws:

"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee."

"We need to execute people like (John Walker Lindh) in order to physically intimidate liberals."

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

"I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo."

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and people like them are simply into themselves more than they are about any kind of issue. Without coming right out and saying it, they're all about how much controversy-turned-into-attention they can generate.

Coulter's name made into the Canadian parliament? Well, you can't buy that kind of attention or advertising. Well played by Coulter.

Sad ...

[The New Guy]

Mar 25, 2010 10:48:18 GMT -5 BadCompany said:

I agree with everything you said, except the paragraph on Houle. Houle did nothing wrong. All he did was send a letter to Coulter telling her that there are anti-hate-speech laws in Canada, and that some of the things she has been known to say could be against those laws. Whatever you think about our various Human Rights Commissions - and I think they are at best a joke, at worst legitimately dangerous - they do exist, and there was nothing wrong with Houle warning about them. Houle did not cancel the speech, the organizers did, the very people who invited her.

Come on B.C. - do you think anyone who gets paid as much per appearance as Ann Coulter does not know exactly what her limits are and what she can or can not say? Of course she does. It's her business to know that and when one is as successful as Ann - well then you know your business. The letter (which, as she points out, wasn't sent to other radicals who have talked at UoO) was a thinly veiled threat that she would face prosecution if she did not behave, and nothing more. Which is wrong in my opinion (as are, more tellingly, his later statements that the freedom of speech must be subject to the will of the masses). You're free to have yours though - one of the great things about free speech (-;

As for what Ann Coulter is - do not mistake me as one who subscribes to her kooky world view. I just think the kooks have as much right as anyone to be heard.

[BadCompany]

Of course she knew what her limits were. And she no doubt was going to push them. Who sponsored/encouraged/organized her presence? Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant. What do those two have in common? They both have been victims of, and have vendettas against Canada’s various Human Rights Commissions. With good cause, I might add, but that’s a whole other story. So undoubtedly they were there to push the envelope, to goad the Ontario HRC to file “charges” against her, and in all likelihood the university as well, for encouraging/sponsoring/enabling/whatever hate speech. What better publicity for Coutler than to be hauled in front of Canada’s Human Rights Commission?? What better way for Steyn/Levant to shine the light on the HRC's hypocrisy than to have a high profile person like Coulter grandstanding in the courtroom, to the delight of CNN, Fox News and anybody else with a camera or blog? The last thing Canadians want is to be embarrassed on CNN - those commissions would be shut down in a heartbeat if Coulter was ever charged in front of one.

So if you’re Houle, knowing full-well that Coulter is here to cause a ruckus, and that the HRC in Canada have ungodly power to fine and punish you, the university, then what are you supposed to do? He didn’t ban the speech, he merely told her the truth; if she goes over the line in Canada she can and will be charged. Doesn’t matter that the HRC don’t charge other inciderary characters, that’s not Houle’s concern. He only cares about his/the university’s bacon (and back pocket). These are the commissions that once fined a McDonalds $55,000 for firing a woman who refused to wash her hands while serving customers food, who knows what they would have done to the university. So Houle covered his a**. “You can’t say I didn’t warn her; I sent her a letter, and just in case she decides to deny it I sent it to various media outlets too, as proof.”

Again, Houle didn’t cancel the speech. He allowed it. All he did was point out the truth, that she could be “charged” in Canada. Was he lying?

[franko]

I wonder if, had the diatribe talk gone on and something had happened [as nearly did] Houle could have / would have been charged with inciting a riot [ain't it great to speculate?]. As it was, there was a group of people ready to have a book-burning session [I wonder if they want her book banned -- and here I thought it was only right-wing ideologues that were like that].

And, I wonder how things will go tonight in Calgary. She's sure to say what a great place Western Canada is, open-minded and all that as compared with Ottawa [not the east, as she did already speak once, and . . . oh . . .was not charged with any hate cries!].

Way to go, UO, for giving here the limelight once again. And now another story for her tour in the States, and another chapter in her next book.

[Polarice]

Mar 25, 2010 12:32:05 GMT -5 franko said:

And, I wonder how things will go tonight in Calgary. She's sure to say what a great place Western Canada is, open-minded and all that as compared with Ottawa [not the east, as she did already speak once, and . . . oh . . .was not charged with any hate cries!].

Way to go, UO, for giving here the limelight once again. And now another story for her tour in the States, and another chapter in her next book.

Usually the further west you go, the more "RIGHT" the political views lean towards.

[Skilly]

Mar 25, 2010 10:48:18 GMT -5 BadCompany said:

Some Coulter quotes that could have crossed Canadian hate speech laws:

"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee."

"We need to execute people like (John Walker Lindh) in order to physically intimidate liberals."

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

"I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo."

I don't support the woman's views ... but many of these fall way outside the parameters set forth under our hate speech laws.

In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred[9] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990).


Saying you wish someone (an individual) was dead, or was hurt, is not hate speech ... it is grossly offensive however.

[habernac]

Anyone who doesn't think Coulter herself organized the cancellation of her speech in Ottawa is fooling themselves. Look at all the publicity it has created for her.

She's full of hot air. Let her speak, it will remove all doubt as to what an idiot she is.

[franko]

Mar 25, 2010 13:00:59 GMT -5 Skilly said:

Mar 25, 2010 10:48:18 GMT -5 BadCompany said:

In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred[9] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990).

Interestingly enough, York University says it is taking steps that could result in the suspension of a student after the National Post reported he was being investigated by the Ontario police hate crimes and extremism unit.

While police are investigating Salman Hossain over Internet postings that support the genocide of Jews, whom he refers to using a long list of offensive terms, the university said it had also begun to examine the student's behaviour.

"We're still attempting to get in touch with him directly. We're trying to get to a face-to-face meeting with him as soon as we're able, to confront him with this information," said Keith Marnoch, a York spokesman.

"Basically, if he acknowledges this is his writing and posting of material and so on, we would probably move swiftly with the tools at hand here which would most tangibly be an internal tribunal through our student code of conduct."

Mr. Hossain has already acknowledged to a reporter and on a website that the writings in question are his. Yesterday, he posted more vulgar comments on the Internet about Jews, Christians and non-extremist Muslims. He also refused to back down from his support for a genocide against Jews, writing, "Yes, I can call for the slaughter of an entire people." link

Suspended, but no charges laid.

[franko]

Mar 25, 2010 13:11:44 GMT -5 habernac said:

Look at all the publicity it has created for her.

She's full of hot air. Let her speak, it will remove all doubt as to what an idiot she is.

she's reveling in the free publicity.

Let her speak and ignore her and she'll go away. the U students have just added to her 15 minutes, that's all.

[franko]

Mar 25, 2010 8:12:08 GMT -5 Polarice said:

I don't understand how the even let her into the country.

we let in a lot worse, Reap.

[Skilly]

Slow day and this is an interesting debate, so I have had time to read up on this woman ...

Mar 25, 2010 10:48:18 GMT -5 BadCompany said:

Some Coulter quotes that could have crossed Canadian hate speech laws:

"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee."

That's not the entire quote.

"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee. That's just a joke, for you in the media."

She does this alot. She says something controversial and then says she was using it in the context of a joke ... I still don't think it is hate speech.

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."

Without knowing the preamble to this quote, I don't know whether it is inciting violence or not. I do know that what she says after what you have referred to seems to make the quote less inciting.

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war. "

It seems to me see if referring to the war on terror. Or getting the Taliban / Osama. I'm willing to bet if we went into our discussions on the Afghanistan war, that you will find similar discussions on civilian deaths - they are unavoidable in guerilla warfare.

The other individual snide remarks about Liberals, I have no problem with, in regards to hate speech, that is. I have heard remarks about "Newfies" and Innu which were inflammatory , (the only good Newfie/Innu is a dead Newfie/Innu for instance) ... It is ignorant, but I wouldnt classify it as hate speech, since it isn't inciting anyone to take action ...

"I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo."

This one, since she clearly expresses it as an personal opinion ("I think ..."), is permissible since she is entitled to her opinion and it falls under the whole auspices of subjects for public debate .... but it is dangerous thinking. I don't think it should be censured, but it certainly has to be rebutted and shown why it is dangerous.

[franko]

Mar 25, 2010 16:44:48 GMT -5 Skilly said:

I don't think it should be censured, but it certainly has to be rebutted and shown why it is dangerous.

which is why she should have been allowed on campus to speak . . . and people on the other side shold be allowed on campus to speak . . .

present your case, debate it, and let others continue discussions so they cna know what they believe and why . . . not "we're Canadian; this is what we believe; everyone else is wrong"

[four legs good, two legs baaaaad to four legs good, two legs better in a non-thinking society.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Mar 25, 2010 17:27:05 GMT -5 franko said:

Mar 25, 2010 16:44:48 GMT -5 Skilly said:

I don't think it should be censured, but it certainly has to be rebutted and shown why it is dangerous.

which is why she should have been allowed on campus to speak . . . and people on the other side shold be allowed on campus to speak . . .

present your case, debate it, and let others continue discussions so they cna know what they believe and why . . . not "we're Canadian; this is what we believe; everyone else is wrong"

[four legs good, two legs baaaaad to [four legs good, two legs better

[/i] in a non-thinking society.[/quote]
What made the radio this morning was the ovation she got in Calgary when she suggested that Alberta become the 51st state. I chuckled when I heard it.

Can you imagine being a Liberal and attending an Ann Coulter rally lecture in Calgary? I'm chuckling just thinking about it. Oh the pain ...

;D

[franko]

Mar 26, 2010 7:47:46 GMT -5 Disgruntled70sHab said:

Mar 25, 2010 17:27:05 GMT -5 franko said:

which is why she should have been allowed on campus to speak . . . and people on the other side should be allowed on campus to speak . . .

present your case, debate it, and let others continue discussions so they cna know what they believe and why . . . not "we're Canadian; this is what we believe; everyone else is wrong"

[four legs good, two legs baaaaad to four legs good, two legs better in a non-thinking society.

What made the radio this morning was the ovation she got in Calgary when she suggested that Alberta become the 51st state. I chuckled when I heard it.
;D

Cracked me up too. Alberta: Texas North . . . at least it was when I lived there. I remember the "if Quebec won't separate we will" talk.

With the influx of them easterners, it is becoming less stanch right-wing incrementally.

Can you imagine being a Liberal and attending an Ann Coulter rally lecture in Calgary?

Can you imagine being a Liberal and attending an Ann Coulter rally lecture?

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Not a Coulter fan. Haven't been since Tex stopped playing and painting.
She's a bitch.
I do agree with many of her right wing views.
Doesn't matter if we agree with her or not. If we only allowed people that agree with us to speak, there would be far fewer speeches.
If Amoudinijad is allowed to speak, even though we know that most of what he says are lies, (holocast et al.), then Ann should be allowed to speak too. What was accomplished by stopping her from speaking?
Wht next, burning her books?
Shame on U of Ottawa!

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Mar 26, 2010 8:55:35 GMT -5 Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Not a Coulter fan. Haven't been since Tex stopped playing and painting.
She's a bitch.
I do agree with many of her right wing views.
Doesn't matter if we agree with her or not. If we only allowed people that agree with us to speak, there would be far fewer speeches.
If Amoudinijad is allowed to speak, even though we know that most of what he says are lies, (holocast et al.), then Ann should be allowed to speak too. What was accomplished by stopping her from speaking?
Wht next, burning her books?
Shame on U of Ottawa!

I agree with you and Franko that she should have been allowed to speak. Hey, let her talk. If to disagree with her means you're a left wing Liberal with no nuts, well that's her opinion.

It's too bad she has to digress into an "Archie Bunker Sideshow" when people disagree with her. It tells me that she's more about her and her attention than she is about the issues. She's good at drawing attention and it's obviously paying her bills. Just my opinion.

Cheers.

[BadCompany]

Mar 25, 2010 16:44:48 GMT -5 Skilly said:

Slow day and this is an interesting debate, so I have had time to read up on this woman ...

Mar 25, 2010 10:48:18 GMT -5 BadCompany said:

Some Coulter quotes that could have crossed Canadian hate speech laws:

"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee."

That's not the entire quote.

"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee. That's just a joke, for you in the media."

She does this alot. She says something controversial and then says she was using it in the context of a joke ... I still don't think it is hate speech.




Without knowing the preamble to this quote, I don't know whether it is inciting violence or not. I do know that what she says after what you have referred to seems to make the quote less inciting.

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war. "

It seems to me see if referring to the war on terror. Or getting the Taliban / Osama. I'm willing to bet if we went into our discussions on the Afghanistan war, that you will find similar discussions on civilian deaths - they are unavoidable in guerilla warfare.

The other individual snide remarks about Liberals, I have no problem with, in regards to hate speech, that is. I have heard remarks about "Newfies" and Innu which were inflammatory , (the only good Newfie/Innu is a dead Newfie/Innu for instance) ... It is ignorant, but I wouldnt classify it as hate speech, since it isn't inciting anyone to take action ...

"I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo."

This one, since she clearly expresses it as an personal opinion ("I think ..."), is permissible since she is entitled to her opinion and it falls under the whole auspices of subjects for public debate .... but it is dangerous thinking. I don't think it should be censured, but it certainly has to be rebutted and shown why it is dangerous.

It’s not the judicial system Coulter would have to worry about… it’s the Canadian Human Rights Commissions, which have power to go after her for much, much less. It is these commissions, whom amongst other things once fined a CEO $4000 for saying that “he liked visible minorities.” They’ve also ordered a Catholic Priest from ever saying anything negative about gays either publicly or privately and ordered McDonald’s to pay a $50,000 fine for firing a woman who refused to wash her hands at work, while handling food. In another case a restaurant owner was ordered to allow a man to smoke medical marijuana in his restaurant… and then subsequently lost his liquor license for allowing people to smoke in his restaurant.

According to the Canadian Human Rights Commission you cannot communicate, in any way, material “that is like to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.” No mention of violence, whatsoever. In fact, according to one of their decisions “The test is, over and above the racial nature of the comment itself, whether or not the person alleging discrimination was offended by the comment.”

In other words, you just have to be offended by a comment, no matter what the comment was, or the intent behind the comment. You don’t even have to be a member of the “discriminated” group to launch a case! If you think it’s a racist comment, fire away! You or I could launch a complaint against against Coulter, whether we are Muslim or not. You would say this is unlikely, but the vast majority of human rights cases involving hate speech were launched by one man, Richard Warman, who is not Jewish, Black, gay or Muslim. But he has been awarded close to $50,000 for bringing cases to the tribunal. Even though he personally, has not been discriminated against.

When facing a Canadian Human Rights Commission:

*Third parties not involved in the alleged offences may nonetheless file complaints (Warman).

*Plaintiffs have sometimes been given access to the commissions' investigation files and given the power to direct investigators. (in some cases Warman was both the investigator, and the plaintiff)

* Truth is not a defence.

* Intent is not a requirement.

* Defendants are not always permitted to face their accusers.

*Normal standards for assuring the validity of evidence do not apply.

* Hearsay is admitted.

* The government funds the plaintiff but the defendant is on his/her own.

These are the people Coulter – and by extension Steyn and Levant – were trying to provoke. Really, it’s a win-win for them; Coulter speaks, says something stupid and…

* The commissions do nothing, in which case Steyn and Levant can blast them for being either incompent, hypocritical or both.

* The commissions accuse Coulter of hate-speech and wide up on Fox News every night. This would get then shut-down real quick.

Caught up in all this was the University of Ottawa and Houle - who again, did not cancel her speech. He merely sent Coulter a letter saying that hey, watch out, things are done a little differently up here.

[franko]

which is fine, BC, as long as he sends the same letter to others. I think it was an attempt at intimidation.

interesting that someone that says that there all Jews should be killed speaks with immunity but that she is told to watch her mouth. if she'd been ignored and she'd spoken it would be out of the news by now and she's have been forgotten, now she just gets more publicity and UO looks bad [see article following].

sad thing is, free speech is only partially free. if you agree with the students union you can speak; if not you are forbidden. posters were not allowed to be put up announcing her talk; pro-life speakers are not allowed to speak nor can the pro-life "movement" promote their beliefs.

a university campus should encourage debate not stiffle it.

University of Ottawa provost Francois Houle should apologize to American pundit Ann Coulter, says Canada's main university teachers' organization.

"We feel you [Houle] owe an apology to Ms. Coulter and, even more importantly, you owe the University of Ottawa community an assurance that the administration of the university strongly supports freedom of expression, academic freedom and views the role of the university as fostering and defending these values," officials with the Canadian Association of University Teachers said this week in a letter to Mr. Houle.

Mr. Houle's conduct has been denounced as condescending, a violation of freedom of expression and even intellectual cowardice.

. . .

CAUT president Penni Stewart and executive director James Turk added to the denunciations in their letter, saying Mr. Houle's action also "raises serious questions about the University of Ottawa's respect for freedom of expression and academic freedom."

Since the Ms. Coulter cancellation, the University of Ottawa has been widely mocked in the Canadian and U.S. media as a bastion of small minds.

The CAUT, while claiming to "profoundly disagree" with Ms. Coulter's views, said the "disturbing questions and provocative challenges" she raises should be welcomed and subjected to "vigorous debate."

The organization represents more than 67,000 academic and general staff at colleges and universities across Canada. NP

[Cranky]

Mar 26, 2010 10:30:35 GMT -5 BadCompany said:

It’s not the judicial system Coulter would have to worry about… it’s the Canadian Human Rights Commissions, which have power to go after her for much, much less. It is these commissions, whom amongst other things once fined a CEO $4000 for saying that “he liked visible minorities.” They’ve also ordered a Catholic Priest from ever saying anything negative about gays either publicly or privately and ordered McDonald’s to pay a $50,000 fine for firing a woman who refused to wash her hands at work, while handling food. In another case a restaurant owner was ordered to allow a man to smoke medical marijuana in his restaurant… and then subsequently lost his liquor license for allowing people to smoke in his restaurant.

According to the Canadian Human Rights Commission you cannot communicate, in any way, material “that is like to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.” No mention of violence, whatsoever. In fact, according to one of their decisions “The test is, over and above the racial nature of the comment itself, whether or not the person alleging discrimination was offended by the comment.”

In other words, you just have to be offended by a comment, no matter what the comment was, or the intent behind the comment. You don’t even have to be a member of the “discriminated” group to launch a case! If you think it’s a racist comment, fire away! You or I could launch a complaint against against Coulter, whether we are Muslim or not. You would say this is unlikely, but the vast majority of human rights cases involving hate speech were launched by one man, Richard Warman, who is not Jewish, Black, gay or Muslim. But he has been awarded close to $50,000 for bringing cases to the tribunal. Even though he personally, has not been discriminated against.

When facing a Canadian Human Rights Commission:

*Third parties not involved in the alleged offences may nonetheless file complaints (Warman).

*Plaintiffs have sometimes been given access to the commissions' investigation files and given the power to direct investigators. (in some cases Warman was both the investigator, and the plaintiff)

* Truth is not a defence.

* Intent is not a requirement.

* Defendants are not always permitted to face their accusers.

*Normal standards for assuring the validity of evidence do not apply.

* Hearsay is admitted.

* The government funds the plaintiff but the defendant is on his/her own.

These are the people Coulter – and by extension Steyn and Levant – were trying to provoke. Really, it’s a win-win for them; Coulter speaks, says something stupid and…

* The commissions do nothing, in which case Steyn and Levant can blast them for being either incompent, hypocritical or both.

* The commissions accuse Coulter of hate-speech and wide up on Fox News every night. This would get then shut-down real quick.

Caught up in all this was the University of Ottawa and Houle - who again, did not cancel her speech. He merely sent Coulter a letter saying that hey, watch out, things are done a little differently up here.

I call that GREAT STRATEGY. Anything that shuts down the bastion of political correctness and intimidation is a great strategy.

I can't wait to see a Conservative government take that commission to the middle of Yonge Street and take a dump on it.

[Cranky]

Mar 26, 2010 10:51:28 GMT -5 franko said:

which is fine, BC, as long as he sends the same letter to others. I think it was an attempt at intimidation.

interesting that someone that says that there all Jews should be killed speaks with immunity but that she is told to watch her mouth. if she'd been ignored and she'd spoken it would be out of the news by now and she's have been forgotten, now she just gets more publicity and UO looks bad [see article following].

sad thing is, free speech is only partially free. if you agree with the students union you can speak; if not you are forbidden. posters were not allowed to be put up announcing her talk; pro-life speakers are not allowed to speak nor can the pro-life "movement" promote their beliefs.

a university campus should encourage debate not stiffle it.

University of Ottawa provost Francois Houle should apologize to American pundit Ann Coulter, says Canada's main university teachers' organization.

"We feel you [Houle] owe an apology to Ms. Coulter and, even more importantly, you owe the University of Ottawa community an assurance that the administration of the university strongly supports freedom of expression, academic freedom and views the role of the university as fostering and defending these values," officials with the Canadian Association of University Teachers said this week in a letter to Mr. Houle.

Mr. Houle's conduct has been denounced as condescending, a violation of freedom of expression and even intellectual cowardice.

. . .

CAUT president Penni Stewart and executive director James Turk added to the denunciations in their letter, saying Mr. Houle's action also "raises serious questions about the University of Ottawa's respect for freedom of expression and academic freedom."

Since the Ms. Coulter cancellation, the University of Ottawa has been widely mocked in the Canadian and U.S. media as a bastion of small minds.

The CAUT, while claiming to "profoundly disagree" with Ms. Coulter's views, said the "disturbing questions and provocative challenges" she raises should be welcomed and subjected to "vigorous debate."

The organization represents more than 67,000 academic and general staff at colleges and universities across Canada. NP

Bingo! Houle had no right to preempt ANYTHING Coulter had to say. He nneds to be demoted to something more suited to his ummm...instincts. Maybe night janitor?

As much as I am a conservative and mostly right winger, I can't stand people like Coulter because talking heads like her make us look bad. She is no better then the Code Pinkers and ACORN nut huggers.

[franko]

Mar 26, 2010 12:45:02 GMT -5 Cranky said:

I can't wait to see a Conservative government take that commission to the middle of Yonge Street and take a dump on it.

You are going to be waiting a long long time for that . . . unless 416 - 905 starts to vote Conservative. As long as there is a minority government that commission will remain.