Anne Coulter comes to Canada

[nicky10013]

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

The event space. Whatever the event, be it a club party, a controversial speech etc. if you need security, you pay the same rates as everyone else. Sorry, the right isn't being "fined" by anyone. Like Shady, you're just inventing issues to make this seem 100x worse than it really is.

[Shady]

No one's freedom of speech was violated in Ottawa.

Yes it was. You can continue to deny that facts, but it doesn't make it true. Mob rule prevented a speaker speaking to people who wanted to attend said event to hear her speak.

She cancelled her own event

Now you've resorted to making things up. It's complete nonsense to keep insisting that she cancelled her own event. She didn't cancel the event, it was cancelled when liberal fascist thugs overran security, and created an unstable environment in which to speak.

Ann Coulter has faced various forms of violence directed toward her in the past, by similar liberal fascist thugs. So to contend that there wasn't any reason to cancel the event is to be completely disingenious. Which basically sums up nicky, who continues to defend thugish, anti-free speech behavior all for ideological reasons. He doesn't like her, so he doesn't care that she wasn't allowed to speak.

And we must not forget Francois A-Houle's participation in all of this. I'm still waiting to find out if he sent similar letters to the Black Panther speaker, and the anti-Israel speaker from previous visits to U of O.

[Argus]

Diden't bother checking out any of that. Why should I? I'm not a fan of Coulters, and whether Coulter is credible or electable or loveable or whatever is irrelevent to this discussion.

The point is, in case you forgot, that she came to give a speech, and people who didn't want others to hear that speech forced a cancellation. Which you are defending.

[Argus]

I'm not being disingenuous. The cops themselves said that there were no security issues

I'm still waiting for a cite to show this.

[GostHacked]

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"?

Simple math. There were more people present (protesters and supporters) than the hall has capacity for.

[nicky10013]

Yes it was. You can continue to deny that facts, but it doesn't make it true. Mob rule prevented a speaker speaking to people who wanted to attend said event to hear her speak.

Now you've resorted to making things up. It's complete nonsense to keep insisting that she cancelled her own event. She didn't cancel the event, it was cancelled when liberal fascist thugs overran security, and created an unstable environment in which to speak.

Ann Coulter has faced various forms of violence directed toward her in the past, by similar liberal fascist thugs. So to contend that there wasn't any reason to cancel the event is to be completely disingenious. Which basically sums up nicky, who continues to defend thugish, anti-free speech behavior all for ideological reasons. He doesn't like her, so he doesn't care that she wasn't allowed to speak.

And we must not forget Francois A-Houle's participation in all of this. I'm still waiting to find out if he sent similar letters to the Black Panther speaker, and the anti-Israel speaker from previous visits to U of O.

I'm not making a thing up. Quote me one police officer that said there was a threat. You can't because there wasn't one. According to everyone except the event organizers, there were no violent protestors, just loud ones and 50, not the 2,000 the Young Conservative campus group organizers claimed. So there we already have a loose grip on reality from those on the right.

I've also never said she doesn't have a right to speak. However, you equating protestors with Nazis presumes that they don't have the right to protest. So who then is in favour of free speech? If it isn't me, it CERTAINLY isn't you.

You also seem to fail to realize the complete and utter ridiculousness of the term "liberal fascist." Which is why shakeyhands posting of the nazi rally is hilarious. Please, do me a favou. Look up liberalism and then go look up fascism. We'll all have a good laugh when you realize how stupid you sound.

Edited March 26, 2010 by nicky10013

[Argus]

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.

I have been and what I know is that Univesities are indeed filled with the children of Liberal elites. There are also a good deal of youths whose parents can't be so-described,of course.

As for the residents, the academics who control universities, I would say that great majority fall rather comfortably into the description of Liberal elites.

[Argus]

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

That's the way it appeasr to be. Logically, the university should provide security for any event on its property. If the event is pure entertainment, that is, a band or concert, that would be a different sitution. But any event which falls in line with the universities avowed duty of educating and enlightening ought to be held freely.

Also, the great majority of those who pose a danger of unruly behaviour are themselves students. The reason they feel free to cause trouble and break rules (and windows) is because the universities have, by and large, abrogated any responsibility to police their behaviour. What the students should be told, right at the start of every semester, is that they are there as guests, and that if their conduct violates university regulations they can be expelled at any time. Harrassing and disrupting an event held on the university would certainly qualify.

[nicky10013]

I'm still waiting for a cite to show this.

As for Coulter's claim that the police "had been warning my bodyguard all day that they were putting up [messages] on Facebook: 'Bring rocks, bring sticks, you gotta hurt Ann Coulter tonight, don't let her speak,'" Boucher confirmed that the police were monitoring the situation - although how, exactly, he didn't specify - but was unable to provide any example of such a threat, as he did not have that information, although he assured me that if a complaint were lodged, the police would "surely" investigate, but he didn't know whether or not that had occurred.

You'd think the guy would know. You'd also surely think that if these threats really were coming in, the police would've stepped in and shut it down. They didn't. No one has been able to find these threats.

Lets be honest, they never existed.

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

[GostHacked]

Diden't bother checking out any of that. Why should I? I'm not a fan of Coulters, and whether Coulter is credible or electable or loveable or whatever is irrelevent to this discussion.

It's quite relevant. Why would it not be? What she has already said is completely relevant to what she was going to say at UofO. Coulter delivers every time with her idiotic and I'd say hateful speech. She has a well proven track record that indicates she would be doing more of the same.

The point is, in case you forgot, that she came to give a speech, and people who didn't want others to hear that speech forced a cancellation. Which you are defending.

Personally I would not allow her to spew anything out of her mouth. But that's just me. So I'll say I am happy she was not given the chance to do her shtick. Sorry shtick is a wrong thing to apply to her, it's not christian enough.

Edited March 26, 2010 by GostHacked

[nicky10013]

I have been and what I know is that Univesities are indeed filled with the children of Liberal elites. There are also a good deal of youths whose parents can't be so-described,of course.

As for the residents, the academics who control universities, I would say that great majority fall rather comfortably into the description of Liberal elites.

Which university did you go to?

[nicky10013]

That's the way it appeasr to be. Logically, the university should provide security for any event on its property. If the event is pure entertainment, that is, a band or concert, that would be a different sitution. But any event which falls in line with the universities avowed duty of educating and enlightening ought to be held freely.

Also, the great majority of those who pose a danger of unruly behaviour are themselves students. The reason they feel free to cause trouble and break rules (and windows) is because the universities have, by and large, abrogated any responsibility to police their behaviour. What the students should be told, right at the start of every semester, is that they are there as guests, and that if their conduct violates university regulations they can be expelled at any time. Harrassing and disrupting an event held on the university would certainly qualify.

You don't seem to understand that universities don't put these events on. Professors or student groups. No matter what, the groups or the presenters have to pay. The university has never had to pay. Any expectation to the contrary is stupid.

"Jeez, I'm going to go and deliver a speech, charge 25 bucks a person and have the university pay student's money (which should be spent on education) for security.

[Argus]

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.

It's happened in a number of locations, and there are so few pro israel events held at universities and they are so small and quick that there is rarely time to get together for a good riot.

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

Did you reallize you put those together in the same paragraph? You might want to separate such statements in future so no one laughs at your unintential irony.

[Argus]

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?

That wasn't an argment. It was an opinion which lacks any supporting evidence.

[nicky10013]

so, the great majority of those who pose a danger of unruly behaviour are themselves students. The reason they feel free to cause trouble and break rules (and windows) is because the universities have, by and large, abrogated any responsibility to police their behaviour. What the students should be told, right at the start of every semester, is that they are there as guests, and that if their conduct violates university regulations they can be expelled at any time. Harrassing and disrupting an event held on the university would certainly qualify.

They are. If you're found doing things that are illegal, you're kicked out. The fact that you're equating peaceful protest to illegal activities readily shows the true respect you have for free speech and how you're just trying to use it as a political football to damage the centre left.

As with everyone else on the spectrum "do as I say, not as I do." You should be LIVID with Harper over FOI requests and the shutting down of public inquiries, parliament and firing people that provide contrary ideas to what he believes in. But, you don't. You just point back to Chretien as if to suggest that because the Liberals did it (lest we forget, Harper was elected on accountability, not furthering the Liberal trend of closed government), that it's OK for Harper to do it as well.

But now you've changed your tone. It's about speech and nothing else, so lets see the denunciations of Harper start! Let me guess, that won't happen. This is more about partisanship than the actual principle of freedom of speech.

[nicky10013]

It's happened in a number of locations, and there are so few pro israel events held at universities and they are so small and quick that there is rarely time to get together for a good riot.

Did you reallize you put those together in the same paragraph? You might want to separate such statements in future so no one laughs at your unintential irony.

It's not irony. It's just facts. Only a moron would try to equate paying for security in an attempt to keep people safe to a fine.

[Argus]

Because there were 400 more people wanting to get in than they had seating for according to the CBC.

why would that concern the police? Do you think the police commonly intervene with planning advice based on anything other than security considerations?

In any event, few of those milling around had tickets. Therefore, there was no need to present options. The hall was big enough to seat all those with tickets. Why, then, did the police feel the need to present options?

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.

It would have caused "a big stir"? Which concerned the police? I would think, though of course, not an expert on policing, that the only reason the police would have been concerned enough would be if "big stir" meant "violent riot" of some degree.

But I'm only operating out of basic, obvious logic. So what do I know.

[Argus]

The event space. Whatever the event, be it a club party, a controversial speech etc. if you need security, you pay the same rates as everyone else. Sorry, the right isn't being "fined" by anyone. Like Shady, you're just inventing issues to make this seem 100x worse than it really is.

If you need security? Which is not determined by you but by the university on your behalf, based on whether they think your words will be controversial or not....

Ah yes, universities are certainly the home of free thinkers.

Just ... don't be too free with your thinking unless you can hire people with guns and nightsticks to protect you.

[Argus]

Simple math. There were more people present (protesters and supporters) than the hall has capacity for.

Simple math indeed. The hall was more than adequate to seat the number of people with tickets. Tickets were not available at the door, they had to be prearranged. The job of the police, then, was simply to not allow in those without tickets. So where is the problem? Why the need to give options or try to tell the organizer he had to move?

[nicky10013]

That wasn't an argment. It was an opinion which lacks any supporting evidence.

Fact. Her book isn't doing well. Fact. Levant ever since his own run in with the HRCs has been rallying against them. Fact. Ottawa Police have disowned the arguments of Levant and Coulter as to why the event was shut down. Fact. Organizers blatantly lied about the violence of proetests and their numbers.

Now, considering those facts, based on the principle of aukums razor being that the simples explanation is usually the right one, what is more likely, that the police and the university are lying despite the fact that we know the organizing team has been playing it loose with the truth or that this was all set up for publicity. It's my argument, you can disagree with it, but it's clear what makes the most sense.

[nicky10013]

Simple math indeed. The hall was more than adequate to seat the number of people with tickets. Tickets were not available at the door, they had to be prearranged. The job of the police, then, was simply to not allow in those without tickets. So where is the problem? Why the need to give options or try to tell the organizer he had to move?

That's a question that the organizers should answer, not the police.

[Argus]

You also seem to fail to realize the complete and utter ridiculousness of the term "liberal fascist."

It should be silly but it's not. Rather, it's ironic, in that we have left wingers behaving in pretty much the same way as the people they decry.

"I hate fascists!"

And yet, you are behaving like one.

[Argus]

You'd think the guy would know. You'd also surely think that if these threats really were coming in, the police would've stepped in and shut it down. They didn't. No one has been able to find these threats.

Lets be honest, they never existed.

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

The only quote there was that the police "were emonitoring the situation" which you have somehow translated as "Nah, there's no problem at all." You also seem to have taken the very normal and predictable close-mouthed non-disclosure by a single cop to this single interviewer as an indication there were no threats whatsoever. Which is rather odd, I would think, and not particlarly realistic.

[M.Dancer]

That's a question that the organizers should answer, not the police.

Why? The police say the offered suggestions. The first thing we should know is why the police felt they needed to offer suggestions.

We also know that the police suggested they move the venue. Why did the police suggest that?

What would have happened in the view of the police if they didn't move the venue?

Why weren't the police comfortable with allowing the guests in to capacity and then closing the doors?

[GostHacked]

That's the way it appeasr to be. Logically, the university should provide security for any event on its property. If the event is pure entertainment, that is, a band or concert, that would be a different sitution. But any event which falls in line with the universities avowed duty of educating and enlightening ought to be held freely.

Come on, Coulter does not enlighten or educate anyone.

Also, the great majority of those who pose a danger of unruly behaviour are themselves students. The reason they feel free to cause trouble and break rules (and windows) is because the universities have, by and large, abrogated any responsibility to police their behaviour. What the students should be told, right at the start of every semester, is that they are there as guests, and that if their conduct violates university regulations they can be expelled at any time. Harrassing and disrupting an event held on the university would certainly qualify.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/ann-coulter-speech-cancel_n_510939.html

About 10 Ottawa police cars were called to the scene, but there were no incidents.

I've read several other reports of the same, nothing happening. No damage, no arrests, no windows broken.

Edited March 26, 2010 by GostHacked