Slow day and this is an interesting debate, so I have had time to read up on this woman ...
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 ...
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.
) think she represents the right, she is nothing more then a talking head for the shallow end of the pool. Those on the right AND left who think she is important or take her seriously swim there. To know what really goes on with people who matter, if you have the right "credentials", you get an invitation, pay a grand or two to go to some hotel convention center to hear some known speakers and meet people you NEVER heard off in the main stream media. Then if you are even more "connected" and of some importance, you get to have lunch with the right people. Same thing for the left. 
