Anne Coulter comes to Canada

[Argus]

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.

From what I have read of commentators, including one from the University of Ottawa law department, nothing Coulter has said comes near stepping over the line established by Canada's hate speech laws. Besides which, whatever happened to the presumption of innnocence? You think it's okay to stop a speech because someone MIGHT say something illegal? Really?

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.

Well, fortunately, most of us are smart enough to realize that if we start setting limits on who gets to speak their mind based on how popular their opinion is or what any particular group of us thinks of it we will soon not have the ability speak our mind at all.

I'm sure you have all kinds of dumb opinions and beliefs, but it wouldn't occur to me that you ought to be banned from "spewing them".

"I"m a proud liberal! So of course, I think anyone who dares try to express an opinion I don't like should be banned, and then arrested, and maybe even killed! Burn them! Burn their books! Put them in camps!"

Ah yes, how very "liberal".

[nicky10013]

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.

You really live in a paranoid world and I feel sorry for you. It just doesn't happen that way. If you think it does, I'd like a stat on how conservative organizations are hit with "security fines." If the situation is bad as you conservatives think then one of you wingnuts must've come up with a statistic proving it. Just like the an Ottawa Citizen op-ed can claim that pro-life groups are hunted all over Canadian Campuses with no citation.

[Argus]

Which university did you go to?

Two in Ottawa, neither of which has an enviable reputation.

[nicky10013]

"I"m a proud liberal! So of course, I think anyone who dares try to express an opinion I don't like should be banned, and then arrested, and maybe even killed! Burn them! Burn their books! Put them in camps!"

Ah yes, how very "liberal".

Funny, Harper thinks the same way. Still waiting for the denunciation.

[nicky10013]

Two in Ottawa, neither of which has an enviable reputation.

Carleton and U of O? Or some community college run out of the back of a strip mall.

[Argus]

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.

I fully realize it. However, the university is the host, and in accepting the event on their permises as having an educational/enlightening purpose they should accept the obligation to ensure at the very least that their own students don't disuprt or harrass the presentation, speech, display or whatever.

"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.

You are again ignoring the fact the university has to approve of the speech or presentation, and that it decides, not the organizer, whether security is needed - to control its own students.

Besides, as I've already stated, if the university would simply expell any student who disrupts an event on campus there would be far less need of security.

[nicky10013]

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.

If there really were threats do you honestly think in today's world of instant communication that these threats would've been found by now? Of course they would have. None of them have surfaced in anywhere but the claims of the organizers.

[GostHacked]

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?

I would guess it was suggested to prevent the mob from actually taking it to the next step and start F.S.U. Also there is the possibility of this unruly mob rushing the gate. If overwhelmed the security guards would have moved aside and called back up. Which looks like they were overwhelmed and called back up.

They simply were not prepared for the amount of protesters that showed up. I am going to say like others that this was a well calculated and orchestrated PR stunt. I would not put it past her to pull something like this just so she can claim foul. Most people who are smart don't put themselves into these kinds of situations.

[Argus]

They are. If you're found doing things that are illegal, you're kicked out.

Virtually never happens if your misbehaviour is considered "political" in nature. If you're caught drilling a hole into the ladies room you'll be kicked out. If you're caught vandalizing a hall to stop a speeech by a "nazi" you'll be given a talking to.

The fact that you're equating peaceful protest to illegal activities readily shows the true respect you have for free speech

I'm all for peaceful protest. But protesters who break into buildings, pull fire alarms, and advise what eggs and fruits to bring to throw at speakers are not my idea of peaceful. Nor does disrupting a speeech equate to free speech in my understanding. I am not suggesting most of those at the Coulter event ever did that, btw. But clearly it was the fear of what they would do which prompted the police and seecurity types to suggest cancelling the speech.

and how you're just trying to use it as a political football to damage the centre left.

I don't think any of the protestors involved in this could be described as being anywhere near the centre.

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

blah, blah blah. I've already told you I have no intention of biting on your desperate attempts at diverting the subject of the discussion. And why.

[nicky10013]

I fully realize it. However, the university is the host, and in accepting the event on their permises as having an educational/enlightening purpose they should accept the obligation to ensure at the very least that their own students don't disuprt or harrass the presentation, speech, display or whatever.

You are again ignoring the fact the university has to approve of the speech or presentation, and that it decides, not the organizer, whether security is needed - to control its own students.

Besides, as I've already stated, if the university would simply expell any student who disrupts an event on campus there would be far less need of security.

Expelling a student for protesting is tantamount to blocking THEIR right to freedom of speech.

Furthermore, the university has no mechanism to censor what people say. Deciding on whether an event needs security or not comes down to size of the crowd, whether the substance of the event is likely to produce violent actions (possibly protests) and substance abuse. Those are the biggest factors in deciding whehter it may be necessary or not. So now you're taking that process and by the University wanting to keep people safe during an event where you KNOW there are going to be heated debates and protests and treat it as censorship because the university would like security?

Hypothetically, what if someone was to be hurt at the event, what would you say then? Security isn't something that you skirt because you think it's a fine. The procedures are there to ensure people's safety.

Edited March 26, 2010 by nicky10013

[Argus]

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.

Only a moron would fail to note that such a demand, when only applied to "controversial" speakers, was a deterrance to free speech, and a punishment and fine for anyone daring to say anything the mainstream doesn't approve of.

[Argus]

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.

Your acquaintance with the definition of "fact" seems to be curiously elastic. Leveant certainly has a hard-on for HRCs but that has nothing to do with the UofO. And it's only your interpretation that the police have "disowned" anything or that organizers lied about anything.

[Argus]

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

They have done so. You didn't like their answer, or disbelieved it. The police clearly stated they gave "options". Maybe they ought to clarify why they felt that need.

[Argus]

You really live in a paranoid world and I feel sorry for you. It just doesn't happen that way.

In what way have I erred? You yourself have posted that if the speech is controversial (in the estimation of the university) the organization must hire security - the amount of which is determined by the university. How does this differ from what i've posted?

Other tham my putting it rather baldly, of course.

[nicky10013]

Virtually never happens if your misbehaviour is considered "political" in nature. If you're caught drilling a hole into the ladies room you'll be kicked out. If you're caught vandalizing a hall to stop a speeech by a "nazi" you'll be given a talking to.

At my school vandalization is handled by a fine and note in your permanent record. That's just for someone we knew who was spraypainting a building. I'm sure pulling a fire alarm gets you kicked out. However, that doesn't prove anything. Levant himself said it wasn't due to the fire alarm that this thing was cancelled. No one even knows if it was a protestor or not. Keep fishing.

I'm all for peaceful protest. But protesters who break into buildings, pull fire alarms, and advise what eggs and fruits to bring to throw at speakers are not my idea of peaceful. Nor does disrupting a speeech equate to free speech in my understanding. I am not suggesting most of those at the Coulter event ever did that, btw. But clearly it was the fear of what they would do which prompted the police and seecurity types to suggest cancelling the speech.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh so here it is. You don't believe in completely free speech either. The main point in protesting is to disrupt and protesting is protected by freedom of speech and assembly.

I don't think any of the protestors involved in this could be described as being anywhere near the centre.

Well when you're that far to the right everything in the centre looks icky and leftist.

blah, blah blah. I've already told you I have no intention of biting on your desperate attempts at diverting the subject of the discussion. And why.

Thanks for proving that this is purely partisan and you have absolutely no desire to debate the full ramifications of freedom of speech from both sides of the spectrum.

[nicky10013]

In what way have I erred? You yourself have posted that if the speech is controversial (in the estimation of the university) the organization must hire security - the amount of which is determined by the university. How does this differ from what i've posted?

Other tham my putting it rather baldly, of course.

That's just one of them but for a political talk, that would probably be the main one. Universities can bring in speakers from all sides of the spectrum. Some are unknown which wouldn't bring the need for security. Some are rather mild which wouldn't necessitate the need for security either. For someone like Anne Coulter, where you KNOW there is going to be seriously heated debates, it's another thing entirely. She's a well known person with extremely radical views and it wouldn't shock me that she has to bring security to wherever she speaks be it at a university or other venue. It's just the way it goes. You know it and I do, I'm not the one trying to make this political.

[nicky10013]

They have done so. You didn't like their answer, or disbelieved it. The police clearly stated they gave "options". Maybe they ought to clarify why they felt that need.

Yeah well, when the organizers say there are 2,000 violent protestors when there were 50, would you believe them?

[Argus]

Carleton and U of O? Or some community college run out of the back of a strip mall.

Oh yes I went to Algonquin too. I misspent most of my 20s in various wasteful pursuits of knowledge.

Not sure how you could describe community colleges as being run out of a strip mall, however, without appearing to be a massive egotist who considers colleges and their students to be far beneath your intellectual level.

And you being such an open minded liberal type too... I'm sure you wouldn't want to do that.....

Edited March 26, 2010 by Argus

[nicky10013]

Your acquaintance with the definition of "fact" seems to be curiously elastic. Leveant certainly has a hard-on for HRCs but that has nothing to do with the UofO. And it's only your interpretation that the police have "disowned" anything or that organizers lied about anything.

The leader of the young conservative movement which brought Coulter to U of O said there were 2,000 protestors. Is that's not a lie, then please, educate me. What is?

[nicky10013]

Oh yes I went to Algonquin too. I misspent most of my 20s in various wasteful pursuits of knowledge.

Not sure you could describe community colleges as being run out of a strip mall, however, without appearing to be a massive egotist who considers colleges and their students to be far beneath your intellectual level.

No, there are some fantastic ones. There are also some shady ones out there. The implication was that you didn't have the intellectual capacity to get into any of the good ones.

[nicky10013]

Only a moron would fail to note that such a demand, when only applied to "controversial" speakers, was a deterrance to free speech, and a punishment and fine for anyone daring to say anything the mainstream doesn't approve of.

It's not about the mainstream, it's about what the security risks of bringing in a hate monger is. So what, should everyone be required to pay for the same amount of security even though some events draw 20 people, others 60 and others 800? Or should no one have to get security and leave the organizers and university liable to suits if someone is injured?

[Sir Bandelot]

A haven for war criminals, ex-nazis and racists.

Or as Coulter herself was quoted as saying when she arrived, "Already I feel safer..."

[Argus]

I would guess it was suggested to prevent the mob from actually taking it to the next step and start F.S.U. Also there is the possibility of this unruly mob rushing the gate.

Isn't that pretty much what I've been suggesting? It was not violence which cancelled the event but the anticipation of violence from the crowd made by the police and security people.

Those who say the group outside was peaceful are neglecting the fact Coulter was not there yet. How would this group of "anti fascists" have behaved when she arrived, or when she was inside speaking and they weren't allowed in? The police clearly feared violence.

They simply were not prepared for the amount of protesters that showed up. I am going to say like others that this was a well calculated and orchestrated PR stunt.

Perhaos you might want to have separated those two sentences, for the first appears to run counter to the second.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Argus

[Muddy]

This gives one pause if you believe in free speech. One of the protesters who was screaming about burning Coulter`s books on the night in question is a librarion at the U of O. If this is true,thats pretty scarey. Were the NAZI` s not into that book burning thing ! I think Stalin and his happy gang of Commies banned books too. Who were these protesters then? Very confusing!

[nicky10013]

This gives one pause if you believe in free speech. One of the protesters who was screaming about burning Coulter`s books on the night in question is a librarion at the U of O. If this is true,thats pretty scarey. Were the NAZI` s not into that book burning thing ! I think Stalin and his happy gang of Commies banned books too. Who were these protesters then? Very confusing!

Burning A book can be viewed as speech. Like burning a flag. Burning many books is a different story. There's a line there.