Anne Coulter comes to Canada

[Michael Hardner]

..and somebody needs to put a sticker on Houle's ass..."Kick me....I'm a PC Rube".

He's a senior bureaucrat, so I don't think he cares either way beyond how it affects his job. They kickproof those guys pretty early on.

[bush_cheney2004]

He's a senior bureaucrat, so I don't think he cares either way beyond how it affects his job. They kickproof those guys pretty early on.

Oh...I think he cares a whole lot right now. He is probably drafting an apology with lots of help just in case.

[capricorn]

Ok, so you like countries where religious prejudice thrives, but you wouldn't visit them ?

Who said anything about liking them? As for religious prejudice, it's not confined to one or a set of countries, it's found the world over, even in our beloved Canada.

[Michael Hardner]

Oh...I think he cares a whole lot right now. He is probably drafting an apology with lots of help just in case.

Right, so he's PC like a weathervane...

[Guest American Woman]

I remember when a complaint was filed with Elections Canada by the president of a conservative campus organization against Michael Moore for 'trying to interfere in a Canadian election,' with the goal of Michael Moore being banned from ever being able to enter Canada again: "There's no excuse for a foreign socialist millionaire to show up in our country and try to spread his propaganda."

I'm guessing not a lot of other people remember it, just like not a lot of people will remember Coulter and her "grievance." While it's generating a lot of internet chatter today, ultimately it's much ado about nothing.

[charter.rights]

This is gonna be fun to watch! My guess is that Francois Houle retracts his remarks and makes an apology. However, I'm not sure that'll be sufficient enough for Ann to drop grievance with the HRC.

Btw, you should have seen the smile on Ezra Levant's face when she announced this to the crowd!

Alas, she is not a Canadian and therefore not protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The best that she can do is complain to the American Ambassador and ask him to take it up with our Foreign Affairs Minister.

Although she can still be arrested for hate speech, and she is not a member of an identifiable group worth recognizing. I mean stupid people really aren't all that special.

[Guest American Woman]

Oh...I think he cares a whole lot right now. He is probably drafting an apology with lots of help just in case.

I sincerely doubt it. I don't think Coulter holds any influence in Canada politically or otherwise, so I think very few people could care less if she was insulted or not. That includes Houle, I'm sure. I just don't see this as a big deal, any more than the complaint filed with Elections Canada against Michael Moore was a big deal.

[Michael Hardner]

Who said anything about liking them? As for religious prejudice, it's not confined to one or a set of countries, it's found the world over, even in our beloved Canada.

Ok, fine then, you 'admire' those countries - at least as much as their devotion to free speech goes.

And I'm not sure why you don't want to go there if you think that the religious prejudice is at the same level here as it is there.

Yes, these statements are meant to lead you somewhere...

[capricorn]

Alas, she is not a Canadian and therefore not protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I think you're wrong. My interpretation is that anyone on Canadian soil is protected by the Charter. One example, refugees are not Canadians but are protected by the Charter. And I would wager foreign inmates in our jails can claim Charter protection.

[capricorn]

Ok, fine then, you 'admire' those countries - at least as much as their devotion to free speech goes.

Will you please quit putting words in my mouth.

Yes, these statements are meant to lead you somewhere...

And your interventions are meant to lead us where? A dead end is what I see.

[Wild Bill]

She has already won even if nothing else happens, playing her cards very well. Another poke in the eye for Canada at her next engagement. The funny part is that their very actions to try and prevent contoversy has caused even more.

Exactly! This professor labeled her simply by sending his cautionary email. I'm willing to bet the bottle of Tequila I've put up for that crazy Tory at the airport that no one will find any cases of leftwing speakers ever having been "cautioned" by an HRC spokesperson. In the world of the politically correct, only right wing folks can speak evil.

Coulter will no doubt drop the case when she finds out just how long a process is involved! Meanwhile, she has had her fun. Because she is a high profile American, she will get a lot of coverage on CNN. The entire world will wonder just what the hell is going on in Canada with HRC star chambers. It will be internationally embarrassing, as well it should be. The best way to handle such worms as the HRC is to pull off the rocks and expose them to the light of day.

The process of discontinuing HRC hearings is likely already started. It will be done slowly, so as to minimize any embarrassing fuss. Also likely is that the existing laws for REAL COURTS will be strengthened at the same time. Real courts have checks and balances to ensure fairness for both sides. The problem with the HRC system is that they DO NOT have the same fairness! I'm thinking of that restauranteur in Burlington who was forced into the absurd position of having to serve a customer who smoked medical marijuana in the lineup to enter his facility, while the fact that it was directly beside children and families also waiting to be served could cost him his business license! I haven't heard how the case ended up. Perhaps it's still pending. Originally it was reported that he intended to "cave" to the pothead who made the complaint for the simple reason that as the accused he had to fund his own defense with the HRC and he simply couldn't afford it! Then he found out that if he did he would be in violation of his restaurant license. Talk about your rock and a hard place!

The HRC system as it stands is really just a tool for the politically correct to exert force upon anyone who offends them. Providing a defense for those who can't afford one on their own is one of the fundamental principles of a civilized nation. To NOT do the same with an HRC case is not only unfair but simply cruel!

The worst thing about this affair is that Ann Coulter is hardly a good example to drive this issue! Yet that knob in Ottawa handed it to her on a platter!

Edited March 23, 2010 by Wild Bill

[M.Dancer]

Alas, she is not a Canadian and therefore not protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Like much of your posts, this is demonstrably false.

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

Rights and freedoms in Canada

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Fundamental Freedoms

Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

( freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

© freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

By everyone, they mean everyone in Canada.

3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

When it says citizens, it means citizens only.

And finally...

Equality Rights

Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

[Michael Hardner]

And your interventions are meant to lead us where? A dead end is what I see.

So, you pointed out that crazy countries allow hate speech against religious minorities right ?

Now explain whether you want Canada to follow the same tack or not.

[capricorn]

So, you pointed out that crazy countries allow hate speech against religious minorities right ?

Look, I made my view known in the simplest terms possible. Yet, you continue to use terminology to try to shape my view into what you want it to be.

Now explain whether you want Canada to follow the same tack or not.

No thanks. Go find someone else to play your silly game of words.

[Michael Hardner]

Look, I made my view known in the simplest terms possible. Yet, you continue to use terminology to try to shape my view into what you want it to be.

Ok, then let me step back.

Here's your quote:

Think of some of the rabid opinions from whack jobs from other countries about westerners and about anyone who is not muslim

What is your opinion on how they legislate freedom of speech in those other countries, I ask you ?

[Jack Weber]

I sincerely doubt it. I don't think Coulter holds any influence in Canada politically or otherwise, so I think very few people could care less if she was insulted or not. That includes Houle, I'm sure. I just don't see this as a big deal, any more than the complaint filed with Elections Canada against Michael Moore was a big deal.

Yes and no...

There obviously is a small,fringe,rabidly conservative/libertarian element in this country that not only welcomes the rhetoric of someone like Coulter,but actually applauds it and cheers it on.Check out the dilly bars at Free Dominion(which links with Free Republic..speaking of totally over the edge kooks).Tye love this stuff.Not just because they believe the things Coulter says,but she has the happy by-product of sticking a thumb in the eye of PC Leftist wimps.

The rest of us sane people see Coulter for what she is.A bitter ideologue trying to sell books and image.

[Sir Bandelot]

Gee, I would have thought a conservative would know that...

It's just that when I saw the media clip, I thought I was watching comedy central.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[Jack Weber]

Oh, I get the point. Ezra Levant, thinking that HRCs are panel for Conservative Witch Hunts and is revelling in the fact that he's going to use the same process that pinned him down to pin down someone from the UWO in litigation he KNOWS is bogus. If he's against HRCs, he should be against them. Not use them for revenge. The man is a hypocrite.

I don't agree with almost anything Levant says,but if he can use these ridiculous kangaroo court HRC's to shed a little light on how they seem to designed to artificially squelch free speech by the extreme Left(who seems to live in a constant world of cultural and moral relativism and a culture of constant offense with anyone and anyting that disagrees with them).

[capricorn]

What is your opinion on how they legislate freedom of speech in those other countries, I ask you ?

I have no idea how they legislate free speech in those other countries or which ones even have freedom of speech laws. Do you?

[Sir Bandelot]

American Woman, on 23 March 2010 - 01:04 PM, said:

Women aren't included as one of the identifiable groups that the hate law pertains to: not matter how you try to make her into an identifiable group, you just aren't succeeding.

An identifiable group is defined as any section of the public distinguished by:

colour

race

religion

ethnic origin

sexual orientation

Women are indeed included, but not just women, anyone with a gender....

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/publications/report_moon_rapport/page2-en.asp

So she could claim that as a white, American, Christian, Female, of a certain age and marital status, inclined sexually towards something or another, with boney wrists....

So please explain to me, all of you, while you natter on and on about this silly person, how it is that HER comments do not qualify as hate speech, in themselves?

[msdogfood]

Though I don't think the letter was necessary, it wasn't really bad. It was simply the truth. There are some things that, by law, can't be said in Canada. There are also some things that are human rights violations. Those things though, are very specific, and not hard to avoid. We can argue about the details of some of them on the human rights side, but the criminal code rules were put in place for a reason. The promotion of genocide is one of the main things it talks about. I don't expect that she will break the law with what she says, even if there is a human rights complaint....which probably won't go anywhere.

& that's the difference that the university of ottawa meant when they sent her the letter

it needs to also be noted that Canadians have more fee speech than anyone in the us!!!

[msdogfood]

Yes and no...

There obviously is a small,fringe,rabidly conservative/libertarian element in this country that not only welcomes the rhetoric of someone like Coulter,but actually applauds it and cheers it on.Check out the dilly bars at Free Dominion(which links with Free Republic..speaking of totally over the edge kooks).Tye love this stuff.Not just because they believe the things Coulter says,but she has the happy by-product of sticking a thumb in the eye of PC Leftist wimps.

The rest of us sane people see Coulter for what she is.A bitter ideologue trying to sell books and image.

yes other wise why woud she be here at all!!.

[punked]

She is just doing this for attention and you guys are giving her it. She hates free speech and that is fine, I personally think if you believe in the first amendment it should extend beyond your boarders, Anne however thinks the constitution is a piece of paper to blow her noise in. I can not believe people like Shady who pretend to love free speech would condone this however they are hypocrites and liars.

[Jack Weber]

She is just doing this for attention and you guys are giving her it. She hates free speech and that is fine, I personally think if you believe in the first amendment it should extend beyond your boarders, Anne however thinks the constitution is a piece of paper to blow her noise in. I can not believe people like Shady who pretend to love free speech would condone this however they are hypocrites and liars.

People like Shady are intractable ideologues of the political right.But the free speech issue is another matter.As I've said before,it says more about people like Shady who tacitly agree with the callous nonsense that Coulter spews,than Coulter herself.That does'nt mean that I think someone like Coulter should be squelched by those on the equally loony left because their PC leftist sensibilities get ruffled.

[M.Dancer]

So please explain to me, all of you, while you natter on and on about this silly person, how it is that HER comments do not qualify as hate speech, in themselves?

Wouldn't know..I have never listened to ler longer than 2 minutes. But if she did, she would have to make her comments in Canada and:

◦Section 318 - Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

◦Section 319 - Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of ........

But the question isn't about hate speech but the Human rights Commission, which operates under the Canadian Human Rights Act which has broader leeway.

(a) occurred in Canada and the victim of the practice was at the time of the act or omission either lawfully present in Canada or, if temporarily absent from Canada, entitled to return to Canada;

1976-77, c. 33, s. 12; 1980-81-82-83, c. 143, s. 6.

Hate messages

13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.