Anne Coulter comes to Canada

[waldo]

...and she gets to say all of it because of "free speech"...except in Canada it would seem. No wonder they flee to the USA!

hey BC... Al Pieda attacks Ann Coulter at the University of Arizona... USA! USA! USA!

[bush_cheney2004]

filty American brown-shirts!!! How dare they... uhhh.... carry on...

Ah! Progess, and admission that the Canadian "brown shirts" effed up. Steyn makes the case better than I:

The quality of your argument is only important if you want to win by persuasion. But it’s irrelevant if you want to win by intimidation. I’m personally very happy to defend my columns in robust debate, but, if Canada believed in robust debate, we wouldn't have these "human rights" commissions or university administrators like the wretched M Houle in the first place. The morons who shut down Ann Coulter last night don't care that they made her point for her, anymore than those Muslim agitators in the streets of London fretted about the internal contradictions of threatening to kill anyone who says they're violent.

Freedom of speech is in grave peril in Canada. In the Coulter fracas, almost all the major societal institutions behaved poorly:

1) François Houle symbolizes a decadent academy that is the very antithesis of honest enquiry and intellectual debate that the university is supposed to represent.

2) The Ottawa Police have declared that there is no equality before the law. If you belong to certain groups, they'll stand by as the mob shuts you down.

3) The dinosaur media are vast lumbering eunuchs too cowed by political correctness to do even elementary research. Fatima Al Dhaher, the poor wee thing traumatized by Ann Coulter's camel joke, turns out to be a Jew-hater who wants to eliminate the State of Israel, and belongs to a group who regard Jews as "subhuman" "zionazis/kikeroaches". But that's too complicated for the media to fit into their Sesame Street narratives.

Between them, the media, the law and the education system are actively shriveling Canada's liberties. It doesn't lead anywhere good: Ghost of a Flea's title - "Fascist Canada" - is no exaggeration. If you say, "Oh, c'mon, if you're not a troublemaker like Coulter or Levant or Guy Earle or Douglas McCue, Canada's very pleasant", well, so were large parts of Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain. But they were not free, and few pre-Trudeau Canadians would have entertained trading ancient liberties for soft totalitarianism euphemized as "diversity".

[bush_cheney2004]

hey BC... Al Pieda attacks Ann Coulter at the University of Arizona... USA! USA! USA!

hey, waldo....Ann Coulter got to speak....in the building....imagine that!

[waldo]

Ah! Progess, and admission that the Canadian "brown shirts" effed up. Steyn makes the case better than I:

effectively anyone that goes beyond your lame assed one-liner routine, makes any case better than you ever could. Notwithstanding, of course, Steyn's rally call has no basis since his buddy Levant called the show off

[waldo]

hey, waldo....Ann Coulter got to speak....in the building....imagine that!

look BC... Levant... he's over there - go git em!

[Shwa]

Steyn makes the case better than I:

Hardly. I doubt you would have drawn such a wide generalization based on a single, meagre case. I have read your stuff, you are not that dumb.

At least we know one thing with Coulter, she has no balls, so that dispels the Man Coulter myth.

[bush_cheney2004]

effectively anyone that goes beyond your lame assed one-liner routine, makes any case better than you ever could. Notwithstanding, of course, Steyn's rally call has no basis since his buddy Levant called the show off

I do OK...much better than you and "climate change". It's not just Steyn who has been saying this for years. A-Houle amply demonstrated the larger mindset of curtailed liberty and prior retraint.....

...and that sucks!

[nicky10013]

You seem to be doing your level best to be disingenuous.

First off, Shady referenced the Flickr photoset in response to the claims by the CBC writer that there were 20-50 vocal protesters, and you insist on having Shady prove that he himself was in Ottawa, as if Shady's presence on the scene were relevant to anything.

Then when confronted with the photos and the narrative provided by the protester, you ask what was actually illegal.

Well, falsely pulling a fire alarm is illegal. As is trespass. The protesters boast that they infiltrated the building through side entrances and evaded security guards, so certainly it was trespass.

But that's completely beside the point.

The point was, Kady O'Malley's claim as to the well-behaved nature of the protesters was refuted.

The protesters themselves explaining that they'd infiltrated the building, and at one point over-ran the security staff, and documented the whole episode with photos.

And with the evidence the protesters have provided, it appears that the cancellation of the event is entirely reasonable. Clearly the security had been compromised by people hostile to the event. We don't have proof that they intended any violence, but assuming their intentions to be completely peaceful would have been a big assumption that could have put peoples' safety at risk.

-k

I'm not being disingenuous. The cops themselves said that there were no security issues. The picutres themselves showed absolutely no raucus activity that everyone here is saying happened. The pictures are just of a lot of people standing in line. Pulling a firealarm is illegal, and even if it was a protestor which there is no evidence it was, the fire alarm was reset and people continued to file into the building afterward and Ezra Levant himself said that the fire alarm had nothing to do with the cancellation.

If anyone is being disingenuous, it's Shady. I'm not the one ignoring completely any evidence to the contrary that some conservative witch hunt is going on.

Who restricted her speech? That seems to be the one question no one is willing to answer. No one. Her own team cancelled the event. Why? Clearly it was a publicity stunt. Provide me with footage or pictures to the contrary and I'll change my tune, however, I've seen nothing that backs up antyhing that has been said.

Edited March 26, 2010 by nicky10013

[GostHacked]

Well whoever said ALL universities were bastions of left thinkers, looks like her speech in Alberta went off without incident. But she already likes the western cowboys anyways.

[nicky10013]

Well whoever said ALL universities were bastions of left thinkers, looks like her speech in Alberta went off without incident. But she already likes the western cowboys anyways.

Of course it did. Because people who say universities are for Liberal Elites have no chance of actually getting to a university. The people that have actually been know better.

[Argus]

Like I said, universities have guidelines. You have to present an event plan. If it's deemed contraversial, you have to provide security otherwise the university won't let you the space.

So let me get this straight. If you're going to give a speech which is acceptable to almost everyone, the university is fine with that. But if you're going to give a speech which some people don't agree with then the university will in effect, fine you and make it much more difficult for you to rent any space.

Or as someone said, because people who support Israel don't riot, break windows or attack people, universities have no problems with presenting anti-Israel speakers. But since those who don't like Israel WILL riot, break windows and attack people universities are adamant that such people pay many hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to security people in advance.

And you think that's just fine.

How about this. I'm a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, a former cabinet minister. I decide that any speech from a Tory is liable to offend people, and as such they have to hire at least twenty or thirdy cops (at $60hr each) before being allowed to speak on my campus. On the other hand, no one is going to cause trouble if there's a Liberal Party speaker, so I require no security deposits from them.

You're okay with that, too, I presume.

[Argus]

The cost is the same for everyone regardless.

No, actually it isn't. The cost is only for those whose speech some people might take offense to.

[ToadBrother]

No, actually it isn't. The cost is only for those whose speech some people might take offense to.

So, to put it more succinctly, a rabble of ill-mannered malcontents basically assures a policy of financial penalty for unpopular speech.

[Argus]

Furthermore, the Police have denied there was any threat.

No, they haven't. You're simply making things up.

[Argus]

If they were, there was no evidence of it. The only person who brought it up was Levant. They were "acting on police advice" due to threats but the Ottawa Police have specifically said that the crowd wasn't unruly and they weren't made aware of any threats.

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/03/ann-coulters-adventures-in-ottawa-so-what-really-happened-last-night.html

Perhaps you meant to post a cite which supported your statement that the police "specificially said that the crowd wasn't unruly and they weren't aware of any thrats". Certainly the one you did post does not contain any evidence to support your statement. The only quote from the police there was "We gave her options" -- including, he said, to "find a bigger venue" -- but "they opted to cancel ... It's not up to the Ottawa police to make that decision."

I know you ae a learned man, so perhaps you could tell me why, given there were no threats and there was no unruly crowd, the police felt it neccessary to involve themselves to the extent of "giving them options"?

Edited March 26, 2010 by Argus

[Argus]

Does this make it any better what the Conservatives are trying to do? No it doesn't. You complete ignored the fact that this is another example of the same "double standard" that conservatives whine and complain about.

It appears you have run out of arguments regarding this and are attempting to deflect the conversation onto the broader topic of government security, privacy and confidentiality issues. I'm not exactly sure why. Despite the horrified reaction of the media to Harper's penchant for micromanaging information the previous Chretien government was every bit as bad, and Chretien was absolutely ruthless in his vengeance tactics against anyone who dared speak up publicly against him. Of course, he wasn't a conservative, so perhaps no one on the Left took any notice of it.

[nicky10013]

So let me get this straight. If you're going to give a speech which is acceptable to almost everyone, the university is fine with that. But if you're going to give a speech which some people don't agree with then the university will in effect, fine you and make it much more difficult for you to rent any space.

Or as someone said, because people who support Israel don't riot, break windows or attack people, universities have no problems with presenting anti-Israel speakers. But since those who don't like Israel WILL riot, break windows and attack people universities are adamant that such people pay many hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to security people in advance.

And you think that's just fine.

How about this. I'm a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, a former cabinet minister. I decide that any speech from a Tory is liable to offend people, and as such they have to hire at least twenty or thirdy cops (at $60hr each) before being allowed to speak on my campus. On the other hand, no one is going to cause trouble if there's a Liberal Party speaker, so I require no security deposits from them.

You're okay with that, too, I presume.

Why wouldn't I? I've run events and now what its like when one goes south. No matter who you support or what you believe in, the process to acquire space is the same for everyone. Where I was, it had to go through a few people who would either recommend security or require it to have an event go forward. It all depends on what the event is and the potential not for heated debate but for heated behaviour. The Israeli (both pro and against) events on our campus NEVER needed security. Indeed, the vast amount of times they go off without a hitch. It's happened maybe twice at McGill and once at York in the past 10 years that I can remember, so to assume that there's a predisposed notion for pro-palestinian groups to riot is bigoted and wrong.

The notion that groups are penalized for bringing in controversial speakers is ridiculous. Everyone knows that if you want to do something like that requires security and that you'll have to pay for it. We dealt with it all the time and we never felt penalized.

[nicky10013]

It appears you have run out of arguments regarding this and are attempting to deflect the conversation onto the broader topic of government security, privacy and confidentiality issues. I'm not exactly sure why. Despite the horrified reaction of the media to Harper's penchant for micromanaging information the previous Chretien government was every bit as bad, and Chretien was absolutely ruthless in his vengeance tactics against anyone who dared speak up publicly against him. Of course, he wasn't a conservative, so perhaps no one on the Left took any notice of it.

No I haven't. No one's freedom of speech was violated in Ottawa. She cancelled her own event to whip up publicity for her newest book that didn't do so well and Levant did it to get revenge on HRCs. How's that for an argument?

[Argus]

I'm not lying. It does, you completely disregarded my Al Gore anecdote. Why? Because it doesn't fit into your world view.

So you are equating some individuals vandalizing Gore posters with an order from the students federation banning posters of an upcoming event? I mean... really?

[ToadBrother]

The notion that groups are penalized for bringing in controversial speakers is ridiculous. Everyone knows that if you want to do something like that requires security and that you'll have to pay for it. We dealt with it all the time and we never felt penalized.

I think the deeper, more important question is why you would need security at all for someone like Ann Coulter? So far as I know she's not carrying explosives or a handgun. It's not a rock concert or hockey games where plenty of intoxicating substances will be ingested. So why precisely would one need security at all?

Who exactly will be violent at such an event?

Edited March 26, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Argus]

in this case it's neo-conservatives having no clue their social predjudices are shared by Nazi's but because they have a different label they're not the same...sorry; different label, same shit...

Funny, I was just thinking how Leftards have about the same level of intelligence and sophistication as orangutans, only generally aren't as clean smelling or literate.

[nicky10013]

I think the deeper, more important question is why you would need security at all for someone like Ann Coulter? So far as I know she's not carrying explosives or a handgun. It's not a rock concert or hockey games where plenty of intoxicating substances will be ingested. So why precisely would one need security at all?

Who exactly will be violent at such an event?

Don't ask me, I'm only speaking to my own experience. Obviously she felt she needed it despite the fact that cops said there wasn't any threat even though that's what Levant said that specifically was why the event was cancelled.

[Argus]

Almost fell off my chair. Bravo.

And here there's a cliche about Leftards having no sense of humour.

I can't imagine why that exists.

[Argus]

this is why the extreme right is anti-abortion...they're probably worried science will develop a genetic test to identify racial bigots before they're born...

They already have tests to identify severe retardation. Good things it wasn't available before you were born, eh?

[nicky10013]

Perhaps you meant to post a cite which supported your statement that the police "specificially said that the crowd wasn't unruly and they weren't aware of any thrats". Certainly the one you did post does not contain any evidence to support your statement. The only quote from the police there was "We gave her options" -- including, he said, to "find a bigger venue" -- but "they opted to cancel ... It's not up to the Ottawa police to make that decision."

I know you ae a learned man, so perhaps you could tell me why, given there were no threats and there was no unruly crowd, the police felt it neccessary to involve themselves to the extent of "giving them options"?

Because there were 400 more people wanting to get in than they had seating for according to the CBC. I'm sure one of the options was to bar those people from getting in, but apparently they would've rather caused a big stir so the right could proselytize on freedom of speech issues that were non-existent to begin with.