Anne Coulter comes to Canada

[GostHacked]

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.

No, that is not what you have been saying. You were saying that violence DID happen. You eluded to the cops needing to take things into their hands because windows and such was broken.

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.

Since there was no damage and no arrests, looks like it was way more peaceful as any other protest I've seen. For all they know she was already there at the venue. Cops did their job at breaking it up. The only thing that was damaged here was Coulter's ego.

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

Alright I will clarify. It's obvious that they were not prepared for the amount of protesters.

But at the same time, I will say it was all fabricated anyways. So they were not prepared on purpose.

[Shady]

Burning A book can be viewed as speech.

LOL! I love it! Now you're defending burning books! Oh, the irony is too delicious.

Anyways, this is what you sound like!

Eminem to be Banned form Performing in Canada

A Canadian woman has complained about certain lyrics performed by rapper Eminem. This has lead to Ontario's Attorney-General trying to have the rapper turned back at the border so he cannot perform.

The concern is particularly strong over the song "Kill You", and the lyrics "I invented violence you vile, venomous, vomital bitches." It is argued these violate Canada's laws of expression and incite violence against women.

Link

Look in the mirror. All of you. You're no different.

[capricorn]

Here is a view that I can agree with.

When targeted at specific visitors, this is just another form of bullying and censorship. University officials do not send emails to muslim speakers at Israeli Apartheid Week events that spread hate across Canadian campuses. They do not ask Christian evangelicals that speak on campus about how atheists like myself are depraved and immoral to watch what they say. To be fair, they also do not ask Richard Dawkins to restrain himself.

Ironically, by singling out Coulter for this warning, they may have helped incite hate against her, giving her exactly what she wanted. She is now pursuing a human right case alleging that Houle helped insight hateful protesters at her event. I suppose she’ll claim conservatives or Christians as an identifiable group which should be protected by hate speech law.

She claims to have received death threats, and actually I believe it, having attended her talk at the University of Western Ontario. Clearly she’ll lose in front of the human rights commission, but when

she does it will make a valid point about the hypocrisy with which our hate speech -- and free speech -- laws are applied. How can they be applied to protect one identifiable group (say those with “muslim

ideas”) while condemning another (say those with “conservative” ideas)?

---

In conclusion, my friends on the left in Canada would have done well to have simply ignored Coulter or protested peacefully without simultaneously insisting she had no right to here. Instead, they hand delivered her victory, through administration bullying, threat of censorship and quite likely a death threat or two. They ought to have known she was setting herself up precisely for this, coming to Canada sponsored by the International Free Press Society, and having her presentations opened by Ezra Levant, who will now be making her human right complaint to the very commission that once tried to crucify him.

http://westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=3025&start=1

A reasonable, unbiased and well articulated opinion, IMO of course.

Edited March 26, 2010 by capricorn

[ironstone]

Ottawa U looks so bush league just as Coulter described it.What else can you say about a university that does not allow real free speech and host's a yearly event called Israel Apartheid Week?

Ann Coulter actually comes out ok here since she gets lots of publicity and she has indicated she may file a complaint with the Human Rights Commission.Now we know in advance that the HRC plans to take no action on her behalf since that's not part of their real agenda.Wink wink

She exposes lame ass Ottawa U(PC U?) and will show Canadians how useless the HRC is.

[Sir Bandelot]

Look in the mirror. All of you. You're no different.

yes but we are different than you, because we are decent and moral.

[Born Free]

Ottawa U looks so bush league just as Coulter described it.What else can you say about a university that does not allow real free speech and host's a yearly event called Israel Apartheid Week?

Ann Coulter actually comes out ok here since she gets lots of publicity and she has indicated she may file a complaint with the Human Rights Commission.Now we know in advance that the HRC plans to take no action on her behalf since that's not part of their real agenda.Wink wink

She exposes lame ass Ottawa U(PC U?) and will show Canadians how useless the HRC is.

An interesting opinion but its all poppycock.

[Muddy]

yes but we are different than you, because we are decent and moral.

I am sure thats how the Stalin and Hitler supporters thought too.Decent and Moral! Gulags anyone?How about a nice concentration camp for those who disgree with the left.

[Born Free]

So much for "born free".

Wazza matta? Cant answer a simple question can you?

Wrong....moral arguments are a waste of time. Whose morals?

...and you continue to deny your claim to the moral highground.

Nope....more than different....more freedom of expression....and more ways to do it.

...were just more civilized..

[Shady]

yes but we are different than you, because we are decent and moral.

Fighting against fundamental rights and freedoms isn't decent and/or moral.

[bush_cheney2004]

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

So it's legal to pull false fire alarm at the UofO just for fun?

[ToadBrother]

So it's legal to pull false fire alarm at the UofO just for fun?

In the name of stopping Coulter, it sure seems to be.

[bush_cheney2004]

Wazza matta? Cant answer a simple question can you?

I did answer your simple question...try something harder.

...and you continue to deny your claim to the moral highground.

No, I have never needed the moral ground of any elevation around here.

...were just more civilized..

So are silent monks.

Edited March 26, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[ironstone]

Does anyone remember which Ottawa university wanted to have those conversation minders?What happened with that?The idea was to have students listening in on conversations to ensure that the subject matter met left-wing politically correct type guidelines.

Free speech...left-wing style.

[Smallc]

That wasn't in Ottawa, that was Queen's in Kingston.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Smallc

[bloodyminded]

.....now in Canada...again. Maybe it's just her publicist, but I think not.

You're right, that's not it. Of the people interested in politics, the less intelligent are drawn to mouth-breathers like Ms. Coulter.

Here's a sparkling sample of her talent--no doubt appreciated by her unintelligent admirers as "satire"...which it is, if "satire" means "poor writing":

“They [liberals] adore pornography and the mechanization of sex because

man is just an animal, and they are gods.”

Contradictory, you bet; but this is moot, since it's utterly, fruitlessly meaningless anyway. And it wouldn't pass muster in an intoductory composition class.

[Argus]

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

Don't be obtuse. Students have the right to speak their mind. They even have the right to rent a hall and give a speech, if they can get anyone to come to it. What they don't have the right to is to crash a speech given by someone they don't like with the intent of shutting it down. That is not freedom of speech and anyone who thinks it is ... well there's just no point in even attempting an intelligent conversation with such people.

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.

"My name is Ikbar. I wish to give speech on the glories of multiculturalism at your university."

"Welcome to the University of Ottawa, Mr. Ikbar. It'll cost you $200 to rent the hall. Thank you and have a nice day."

"My name is Joel. I wish to give a speech on the evils of muticulturalism at your university."

.... long pause.

"I want you to know that we have hate speech laws in this country, Sir, and that you can be arrested and imprisoned if you violate them. And we will be watching. Of course, we're all in favour of... "

Holds nose.

".... free speech, but since your speech might upset some of our students, and the little tykes can get out of control when someone provokes them, we require that you hire ten policemen as security guards at $60hr each and post a $5000 security deposit for the building. We'll also need to see proof of insurance from a reputable company. Now here is an agreement to have signed and notorized in triplicate. We'll need to see your agenda and speech and have information on any and all speakers at the event along with a police attestation that they have no criminal record."

Why, you're right! They get treated EXACTLY the same!

Clearly there IS free speech at the university of Ottawa!

[Argus]

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.

Well by the standards you're torturously trying to support I could punch you in the face and that would be an example of free speech too. And every time you open your mouth to say something I don't like I'd exercise my free speech again.

And you'd be perfectly fine with that.

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

I've already stated any number of times I think Coulter is a loon with a habit of saying really dumb things. That doesn't make you and your dumbass leftist goon buddies any less loonie either. And from where I sit you're more dangerous than she is.

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.

From where I sit your definition of "free speech" is "Any speech of which I approve of, or any action, including physical violence, taken against anyone who tries to say something I dissaprove of."

Like those goons at the UofO, you clearly never learned - because your mind is closed - what freedom of speech is or how important it is. Nor do you care to. Admitting free speech allows people to say things you don't like makes you squirm in discomfort. "No, no! Burn them! Witch! Witch!"

Full ramifications indeed. Phhht. Where was it YOU went to school again?

[Alta4ever]

yes but we are different than you, because we are decent and moral.

BWHAHAHAHAHA I just about spit my coffee all over the screen!

[Argus]

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.

The university made it political by supressing contrary views with their demands for expensive security. It's the university's property. It's the university's responsibility to ensure that order is kept on their property, especially by their students. It's the university's responsibility to ensure their students understand that if the place stands for anything it stands for the free and open debate and discussion of differing views and opinions. It clearly fails in all those responsibilities. If the university is a place where only safe, comfortable, mainstream thoughts are permitted to be expressed without hefty security then what is the purpose for their existence? Perhaps they should be downgraded to the status of a trade school or technical college like the ones you disparage.

[Argus]

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?

I'm not sure given the desparity of accounts. No one says fifty, that I've seen, including your comrades from the CBC. Do you support their reports when they're useful but discount them when they're not? It's difficult for someone on the scene to give a true estimation.

[Argus]

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.

You see!? I TOLD you you couldn't get away with it without sounding like a massive egotist and shredding your desperately hoped for persona as an open minded liberal.

That sounded like an arrogant snob, like the pampered son of the liberal elites having his way paid through a second rate university and strutting before the townies he imagines he's superior to.

Tell you what there, Socrates, I'll let my "intellectual capacity" stand for itself in this little discussion with a towering intellectual like yourself.

[Argus]

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

Burning books can be viewed as many things but never anything good.

I don't much like Chomsky's politics but occasionally he gets a few things right.

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky

[Argus]

yes but we are different than you, because we are decent and moral.

Oh puhleeaze!

[kimmy]

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.

uh, no. The main point in protesting is to voice an alternate viewpoint.

Protesters might use disruptive means to draw attention to their cause, but there are obviously limits. You don't have a *right* to disrupt people from the exercise of their own legal rights. Abortion protesters can't *disrupt* women from entering the clinic, for example.

If your ultimate claim is that protesters' free speech includes the right to disrupt someone elses' expression of free speech, that would be a profoundly stupid claim.

-k

[kimmy]

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.

And yet, that was the decision made by York University...

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.

It actually doesn't appear to be ridiculous at all, judging from the events at York.

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."

Well, at least one that we know of.

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.

I recall that that happened at the University of Victoria back when I lived in Victoria. The hardcore lefties running the students union used the students union charter to justify it. I would not be surprised to find other students unions have done the same.

And, as it turns out, that is the case. A couple of minutes of research on the subject verifies the claim so easily that demanding a citation seems lazy and juvenile.

-k