Anne Coulter comes to Canada

[nicky10013]

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

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

Well, at least one that we know of.

One example doesn't prove a rule.

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

I'm sorry, but picking out one example from york and trotting out an example of "lefties" in Victoria isn't exactly a sure thing in terms of a proving that this happens all over Canada's campuses. I don't claim that it doesn't happen, I just said I was skeptical. Asking for citations isn't lazy or juvenile, just an attempt to bring academic honesty to the debate. Claiming that pro-life groups all over Canada are treated poorly without providing a citation is lazy and juvenile.

Edited March 27, 2010 by nicky10013

[kimmy]

One example doesn't prove a rule.

I don't claim it's a rule. However, it's an example that demonstrates the sort of political bias that you have been dismissing as Argus being paranoid.

I'm sorry, but picking out one example from york and trotting out an example of "lefties" in Victoria isn't exactly a sure thing in terms of a proving that this happens all over Canada's campuses. I don't claim that it does, I just said I was skeptical. Asking for citations isn't lazy or juvenile, just an attempt to bring academic honesty to the debate. Claiming that pro-life groups all over Canada are treated poorly without providing a citation is lazy and juvenile.

Again, if you are skeptical of the claim I don't see what's preventing you from spending 30 seconds with Google to find out for yourself, and I am confident that anybody skeptical of the claim made in the Ottawa Citizen editorial can do the same. UVic is hardly the only example, it's just one that I knew right off the top of my head.

-k

[nicky10013]

I don't claim it's a rule. However, it's an example that demonstrates the sort of political bias that you have been dismissing as Argus being paranoid.

Again, if you are skeptical of the claim I don't see what's preventing you from spending 30 seconds with Google to find out for yourself, and I am confident that anybody skeptical of the claim made in the Ottawa Citizen editorial can do the same. UVic is hardly the only example, it's just one that I knew right off the top of my head.

-k

I said it before and I say it again, it's not the job of the person who reads a point to prove that it's real, it's the job of the person that writes it. I never turned in a paper and told my prof to cite it.

[nicky10013]

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

We're forgetting that the protestors didn't. Let's remember, she cancelled her own event.

[kimmy]

We're forgetting that the protestors didn't. Let's remember, she cancelled her own event.

I did not say otherwise. However, you were responding to a message in which Argus says that pulling fire alarms, tresspassing, and throwing stuff at speakers are not peaceful protest. Your response seems to indicate that you believe those actions are protected by the charter.

Let's recap:

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.

So are you saying that pulling alarms, trespass, and pelting people with stuff examples of protected free speech and assembly, and if not, then what were you trying to say with your response to Argus?

-k

Edited March 27, 2010 by kimmy

[nicky10013]

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.

You never answered my question. So, the University should require the same security for ALL political events regardless of attendance, or none at all? So what happens if someone gets injured. Should the university and the organizers be liable? Then there's the option of the university picking up the tab, but that would have to come from a larger taxpayer subsidy. I sat on my college's board of directors and every dollar is put towards research and faculty. So the money has to come from somewhere. Would you be comfortable footing the bill?

The fact that you completely ignore these incredibly serious questions surrounding freedom of speech and safety indicates that these issues are clearly too complex for you to understand. Furthermore, the fact that you won't even entertain the notion of the shortcomings of our current government in terms of freedom of speech shows what I've been saying along. This is nothing but a partisan attempt on your part to smear the centre-left. It doesn't take an einstein to figure that out, hence my "egotistical" retort above. If you actually want to have a discussion on freedom of speech, I'd be glad to have it. However, if the smartest thing you can come up with is that security for speakers who are universally known as controversial is an impediment to freedom of speech, you can have it on your own. It doesn't make sense and we both know it.

[kimmy]

I said it before and I say it again, it's not the job of the person who reads a point to prove that it's real, it's the job of the person that writes it. I never turned in a paper and told my prof to cite it.

Footnoting easily verified claims and common knowledge might be standard practice for an academic paper, but it's hardly standard practice for a newspaper editorial or a message board.

Are you demanding a cite because you don't actually believe the claim? Or are you just demanding a cite because you don't want to acknowledge the point?

-k

[nicky10013]

I did not say otherwise. However, you were responding to a message in which Argus says that pulling fire alarms, tresspassing, and throwing stuff at speakers are not peaceful protest. Your response seems to indicate that you believe those actions are protected by the charter.

Let's recap:

So are you saying that pulling alarms, trespass, and pelting people with stuff examples of protected free speech and assembly, and if not, then what were you trying to say with your response to Argus?

-k

Nothing was thrown, there was no trespassing, and I specifically said above that the idiot who pulled a firealarm will probably be kicked out of school and rightly so. Even then, as I mentioned before, Ezra Levant said himself that the fire alarm wasn't the reason they cancelled the event. So by the organizers own admission, this wasn't the act that prevented her speech.

[waldo]

Are you demanding a cite because you don't actually believe the claim? Or are you just demanding a cite because you don't want to acknowledge the point?

bowing to the prowess of the google does not constitute citation

[nicky10013]

Footnoting easily verified claims and common knowledge might be standard practice for an academic paper, but it's hardly standard practice for a newspaper editorial or a message board.

Are you demanding a cite because you don't actually believe the claim? Or are you just demanding a cite because you don't want to acknowledge the point?

-k

I dont doubt that it's happened a couple of times, but to the extent of the claims of some of the people here, I think it needs to be backed up. Even though it was an editorial, I think the Ottawa Citizen needs to print proof of it as well. Claiming that pro-life groups are harassed on campuses all over Canada is a SERIOUS claim.

Edited March 27, 2010 by nicky10013

[kimmy]

Why is it a serious claim? Serious or not, it's easy to verify...

McGill:

http://www.mcgilldaily.com/articles/4863

Carleton:

http://thegauntlet.ca/story/10874

Guelph:

http://thevarsity.ca/articles/6026

York:

http://www.catholicregister.org/content/view/1898/854/

Calgary:

http://bclaifc.wordpress.com/2009/02/11/university-of-calgary-anti-abortion-group-loses-status/

Victoria:

http://www.bccla.org/pressreleases/09UVic_pro-life.html

UBC-Okanagan (Kelowna)

http://www.the-peak.ca/article/5623

Lakehead (Thunder Bay)

http://utsfl.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/lakehead-university-life-support-club-denied/

Capilano (Vancouver) ban overturned:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08051511.html

Brochure from Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada gives student politicians tips on how to argue their case:

http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/student/snappy-answers.pdf

edit to add:

Canadian Federation of Students affirms support for students unions seeking to fight pro-life groups on campuses:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08052809.html

-k

Edited March 27, 2010 by kimmy

[kimmy]

Nothing was thrown, there was no trespassing, and I specifically said above that the idiot who pulled a firealarm will probably be kicked out of school and rightly so. Even then, as I mentioned before, Ezra Levant said himself that the fire alarm wasn't the reason they cancelled the event. So by the organizers own admission, this wasn't the act that prevented her speech.

Argus was not alleging that any of those things actually occured, he was citing things that exceeded the bounds of peaceful protest. Your response to him seems to indicate that you disagree.

For the record, I know that Coulters' people were the ones who canceled the event. I agree that they may well have overstated the reasons for doing so. However, the fact that she was advised to find a new venue by the police, the fact that the alarm was pulled, and the fact of trespassers getting inside the venue makes it a defensible decision, if a disappointing one.

-k

[nicky10013]

Argus was not alleging that any of those things actually occured, he was citing things that exceeded the bounds of peaceful protest. Your response to him seems to indicate that you disagree.

For the record, I know that Coulters' people were the ones who canceled the event. I agree that they may well have overstated the reasons for doing so. However, the fact that she was advised to find a new venue by the police, the fact that the alarm was pulled, and the fact of trespassers getting inside the venue makes it a defensible decision, if a disappointing one.

-k

The police told her to move because more people showed up than had tickets. Someone pulling the fire alarm, as mention, had nothing to do with it as claimed by Levant. So what's the big deal?

[nicky10013]

Why is it a serious claim? Serious or not, it's easy to verify...

McGill:

http://www.mcgilldaily.com/articles/4863

Carleton:

http://thegauntlet.ca/story/10874

Guelph:

http://thevarsity.ca/articles/6026

York:

http://www.catholicregister.org/content/view/1898/854/

Calgary:

http://bclaifc.wordpress.com/2009/02/11/university-of-calgary-anti-abortion-group-loses-status/

Victoria:

http://www.bccla.org/pressreleases/09UVic_pro-life.html

UBC-Okanagan (Kelowna)

http://www.the-peak.ca/article/5623

Lakehead (Thunder Bay)

http://utsfl.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/lakehead-university-life-support-club-denied/

Capilano (Vancouver) ban overturned:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08051511.html

Brochure from Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada gives student politicians tips on how to argue their case:

http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/student/snappy-answers.pdf

edit to add:

Canadian Federation of Students affirms support for students unions seeking to fight pro-life groups on campuses:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08052809.html

-k

These are all, without fail, student union decisions. I don't agree with what they do and god knows I fought against them in my day. However, what student unions do have no impact on a university's free speech policy. The way student unions work is they levy money on top of tuition fees and then portion that money out to student groups. The people who make those decisions are elected by the university students whom they represent. Though dumb, it's perfectly within these unions rights to withold funds provided it was a vote by the council. Just because they refuse to provide funds doesn't prevent these groups from organizing and gaining access to university buildings as in most cases, outside of student government offices, student unions have to apply for space from the university in the same manner as any other group.

[kimmy]

The police told her to move because more people showed up than had tickets.

That happened one time when I tried to go to a hockey game... the home team wasn't advised to move the event to a bigger arena... why did the police advise Coulter to move?

-k

[nicky10013]

That happened one time when I tried to go to a hockey game... the home team wasn't advised to move the event to a bigger arena... why did the police advise Coulter to move?

-k

The question I'd like to ask is did they flat out tell her to move or did they offer it as a suggestion, in that they said gee, if you want to fit all these people in, maybe find a bigger lecture hall?

[eyeball]

I guess the whole issue underscores how polarized our society and country is. It seems our polarization is now becoming more important than the issues that are polarizing us.

I think that's a good development, if it causes people to back up a tad and take stock of things, like David Frum has shown some recent sign of doing.

[Born Free]

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

Ummmmmmmmmm...no you didnt...but thats understandble...

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

You do now.

So are silent monks.

When was the last time you spoke with one?

[kimmy]

These are all, without fail, student union decisions.

Seamus Wolfe's effort to ban Coulter from the U of O campus was a students union decision too. His ban of posters publicizing the event was a students union decision.

Trying to create a demarcation between an official act by the university president and the actions of the students union isn't going to do anything to dissuade people from noting the anti-free-speech mood on campus, which was the point of the Ottawa Citizen editorial and has been the point of people such as Argus.

-k

[kimmy]

The question I'd like to ask is did they flat out tell her to move or did they offer it as a suggestion, in that they said gee, if you want to fit all these people in, maybe find a bigger lecture hall?

I would be fascinated to hear that answer as well.

They did not issue this sort of "suggestion" when people couldn't get into a showing of Avatar down at the local cineplex.

What's the difference? I suspect that police know (and you know, and everybody else here knows) that unlike people who couldn't get a ticket to Avatar, many of the people who couldn't get a ticket to Coulter were not going to just say "aw, shucks" and go home quietly.

-k

[nicky10013]

I would be fascinated to hear that answer as well.

They did not issue this sort of "suggestion" when people couldn't get into a showing of Avatar down at the local cineplex.

What's the difference? I suspect that police know (and you know, and everybody else here knows) that unlike people who couldn't get a ticket to Avatar, many of the people who couldn't get a ticket to Coulter were not going to just say "aw, shucks" and go home quietly.

-k

You're ignoring the other side of this. Perhaps they said these extra people just can't come in and you can stay? Automatically assuming the worst isn't exactly the best approach in attempting to answer the question.

[kimmy]

Other questions I would be fascinated to hear the answers to are:

-why did Francois Houle take it upon himself to send Coulter the warning regarding Canada's hate speech laws.

-did Francois Houle take this step when other potentially controversial speakers spoke at his institution, such as during "Israeli Apartheid Week"?

I think he owes us an explanation as to what his motivation was, why he took this step in this instance, whether this is customary when speakers arrive at the University of Ottawa, and if so, why? And if not, why just Coulter? I think these are entirely reasonable things to ask, and I am not aware of any reasonable response so far.

-k

[kimmy]

You're ignoring the other side of this. Perhaps they said these extra people just can't come in and you can stay?

Well, that's certainly how such situations are handled at hockey games and movie theatres, and never so far as I'm aware do the police feel compelled to give "suggestions" in those situations.

Automatically assuming the worst isn't exactly the best approach in attempting to answer the question.

However, anticipating that a situation might not work out for the best is undeniably part of the job of the police and security people, yes?

-k

[Pliny]

Ahaha I just had a really good image of what Shady must have looked like when calling me a liar. The proper comparison would be a 7 year old kid being told Santa Clause doesn't exist.

Santa Clause doesn't exist?

[punked]

He remember the time someone tired some of that freedom of speech thing at a McCain Palin rally and a mob beat them up? What you don't? Because it just happened, nice too see they freedom of speech only when it is their own.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/27/palin-heckled-at-mccain-r_n_515863.html