Anne Coulter comes to Canada

[punked]

See my above post. It's not like Houle's letter stopped her. She got it and continued to plan to speak.

Don't you know if your a conservative you ignore all facts you don't like then make up "facts" you do.

[bush_cheney2004]

See my above post. It's not like Houle's letter stopped her. She got it and continued to plan to speak.

But why did A-Houle's letter exist at all? What could possibly give them license to do such a thing?

[punked]

But why did A-Houle's letter exist at all? What could possibly give them license to do such a thing?

So what? You just told me individuals have a right to say what they want too who they want? Last month the supreme court ruled also organizations, and corporations have the same right.

Edited March 27, 2010 by punked

[bush_cheney2004]

So what? You just told me individuals have a right to say what they want too who they want? Last month the supreme court ruled also organizations, and corporations have the same right.

A-Houle can write letters all he/she wants, but that right stops at the point of prior restraint on another's speech. You understand what the concept of "prior restraint" is, right?

[punked]

A-Houle can write letters all he/she wants, but that right stops at the point of prior restraint on another's speech. You understand what the concept of "prior restraint" is, right?

Yes and I understand it only applies too government actions that prevent communications from reaching the public not individual actions and that it only applies to United States. So they had ever right too write that letter.

Edited March 27, 2010 by punked

[nicky10013]

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

Constitutionally, there is a massive difference. It's unfortunate, because due to the fact that people who haven't gone to university, and indeed, a lot of people who have gone can't understand the clear distinction between the administration and the student body. In the end, the people who are elected to a student union are empowered under the constitution that governs it the ability to portion out money to student groups in the best way they see fit. You may not agree with it, but then again you didn't elect them either. These are fairly big issues and get around campus, yet they're still being elected. So, if the situation was really that bad, you'd think that the student body would elect people to right the wrongs that have been put in place. I mean, it's pretty much exactly like the Federal Government before the CPC was elected. The government wouldn't recognize pro-life positions or funnel money into pro-life organizations yet that didn't limit the right of pro-lifers to organize, hold rallies, raise money etc. It's the same situation here. You can't make everyone happy.

The second side to "you can't make everyone happy" and a side I think lost in the debate over "freedom of speech" is what value pro-life groups bring to campus. At least from my experience, there are applications for money for student groups on campus. They're weighed not only on their theoretical merit but what type of services they provide to the greater campus community at large. What would a pro-life group bring other than rallies to end abortion? On the other hand, as an example, there may be a board game group that wants money to buy the games which would belong to the college (and food and beverages) and time in a student space every week. In terms of money, and attendance, what's the better use of the money in the community? Often times it's the board game group. We had one that was incredibly successful. On the other hand, I was told I was hosting an event at my pub before I even approved it, of a christian pro-life group which drew maybe 8 people.

And then there's the OTHER side of the issue as well. Some campus groups just don't like touching political hot issues. The group I was a part of tried specifically to get people away from hot button issues such as abortion, or the war and towards the politics of the school in that how we could provide better services (in terms of cheap TTC passes, or more parties or better clubs) for less money. No money was given to any political group though all were allowed to have access to space.

There are so many different sides of this issue and you never know which one is right. I ran in and won 3 elections at my school as well as being appointed as the manager of my pub. I know college politics well enough to know that no story is the straight story. So when I hear that all these schools banned these clubs for political reasons I kind of just laugh it off. It depends on where the story is coming from and the reasons behind it because it's all a distortion of the truth. Since we don't know exactly who is covering these stories and why, and until you get the other side (because perusing through a lot of these articles it seems that you only get the spokespeople from the pro-life side whose job it is to stir up outrage) of course I'm going to be skeptical about what actually happened.

The only place you'll get the real skinny on what happened and why is from the meeting minutes of these councils.

[nicky10013]

But why did A-Houle's letter exist at all? What could possibly give them license to do such a thing?

Does it even matter? Even if it was a stupid thing to do it didn't stop her from speaking. So, I ask again, where's the breach in freedom of speech?

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes and I understand it only applies too government actions that prevent communications from reaching the public not individual actions and that it only applies to United States. So they had ever right too write that letter.

That remains to be seen....Coulter will be satisfied with the considerable mileage obtained by A-Houle's decidedly stupid exercise of his/her right to send threatening e-mails. "Prior restraint" is not just applicable to the USA...see "gag order" and "Gomery Hearings".

[bush_cheney2004]

Does it even matter? Even if it was a stupid thing to do it didn't stop her from speaking. So, I ask again, where's the breach in freedom of speech?

Did Coulter get to speak? What were the contributing elements that prevented such speech? What portions are shared by UofO, Coulter, protesters, and A-Houle?

[Guest TrueMetis]

That remains to be seen....Coulter will be satisfied with the considerable mileage obtained by A-Houle's decidedly stupid exercise of his/her right to send threatening e-mails. "Prior restraint" is not just applicable to the USA...see "gag order" and "Gomery Hearings".

You've got a whacked view of what threatening means.

[bush_cheney2004]

You've got a whacked view of what threatening means.

So does A-Houle.

[punked]

That remains to be seen....Coulter will be satisfied with the considerable mileage obtained by A-Houle's decidedly stupid exercise of his/her right to send threatening e-mails. "Prior restraint" is not just applicable to the USA...see "gag order" and "Gomery Hearings".

Again it applies to censorship by the government. An individual sending a letter does not apply too prior restraint regardless of wither or not it applies in Canada (which has not yet been shown too be the case).

[bush_cheney2004]

Again it applies to censorship by the government. An individual sending a letter does not apply too prior restraint regardless of wither or not it applies in Canada (which has not yet been shown too be the case).

Correct....so not only did A-Houle not have the power to do so, he/she chose to add the treatening enforcement action.

Clearly a brain fart that helped give rise to this circumstance.

[punked]

Correct....so not only did A-Houle not have the power to do so, he/she chose to add the treatening enforcement action.

Clearly a brain fart that helped give rise to this circumstance.

Yes A-Houle informing Coulter of Canadian laws contained within the Charter of rights and freedom has nothing too do with prior restraint, and was not a violation of anyones freedoms. We agree.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes A-Houle informing Coulter of Canadian laws contained within the Charter of rights and freedom has nothing too do with prior restraint, and was not a violation of anyones freedoms. We agree.

Not for me (or you) to adjudicate. The letter clearly is a source of embarrassment for the UofO.

Methinks he/she shall not be exercising this right anytinme soon.

[bush_cheney2004]

From the Winnipeg Free Press:

WHEN conservative rabble-rouser -- and that's not necessarily a bad thing -- Ann Coulter was booked for a speech at the University of Ottawa, the provost of that font of learning dropped her an email of advice. Among the words of wisdom from Francois Houle: "There is a strong tradition in Canada, including at this university, of restraint, respect and consideration in expressing even provocative and controversial opinions and I urge you to respect that Canadian tradition while on our campus." In other words, the university will allow any expression of opinion as long as it is certain those opinions would be approved by a triumvirate consisting of, say, Olivia Chow, Maude Barlow and Svend Robinson.

Coulter, who is as at least as much a performance artist as she is a pundit, saw the wide-open net and fired in the puck. Rather than giving her speech to a handful of supporters, balanced by a handful of slogan-shouting lefties, she cancelled the speech on the grounds that Ottawa police could not guarantee her safety from a mob, apparently visible to nobody else but her, of club-carrying, rock-flinging, tar-and-feathering pinkos. So Coulter, who was hoping to be a bit controversial, succeeded beyond expectations and Houle, who was hoping God knows what, succeeded in looking like a jackass.

-- Buzz Currie

[punked]

Not for me (or you) to adjudicate. The letter clearly is a source of embarrassment for the UofO.

Methinks he/she shall not be exercising this right anytinme soon.

Maybe no but that doesn't mean they didn't have the right too do it or that infringed upon Coulters rights by doing it.

[Topaz]

For once for all, free speech doesn't exist. IF it did, then those politicans seating in question period wouldn't be saying to each other " if the member thinks that way, let them say it outside of this room, in the hallway!" Then you get sued for what you said. Coulter gone back home, probably ended up on Hannity, running down this country.

[bush_cheney2004]

Maybe no but that doesn't mean they didn't have the right too do it or that infringed upon Coulters rights by doing it.

That is TBD...if it ends up costing thousands of dollars in case fees and a settlement, the practical impact will be a stern university letter to all such A-Houles not to do it again.

What happened at the UofO is more important than Coulter scoring more "bitch" points and media revenue, it goes to the heart of what a "liberal university" means.

Again, here is the University of Ottawa's motto (from a former Catholic founding, no doubt):

Deus Scientiarum Dominus Est - "God is the Lord of Knowledge"

...which makes this whole fiasco just that much more ass-slapping funnier!

[bush_cheney2004]

....Coulter gone back home, probably ended up on Hannity, running down this country.

No...just the eastern liberal crybaby part of Canada.

[punked]

That is TBD...if it ends up costing thousands of dollars in case fees and a settlement, the practical impact will be a stern university letter to all such A-Houles not to do it again.

What happened at the UofO is more important than Coulter scoring more "bitch" points and media revenue, it goes to the heart of what a "liberal university" means.

Again, here is the University of Ottawa's motto (from a former Catholic founding, no doubt):

Deus Scientiarum Dominus Est - "God is the Lord of Knowledge"

...which makes this whole fiasco just that much more ass-slapping funnier!

Just because she sues does not mean she is right. This is an example of you moving the goal posts.

Edited March 27, 2010 by punked

[bush_cheney2004]

Just because she sues does not mean she is right.

I never said it did....that is not up to you or I. In many ways, Coulter has already won.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I never said it did....that is not up to you or I. In many ways, Coulter has already won.

How so? The vast majority of Canadians probably don't know who the hell she is.

[punked]

I never said it did....that is not up to you or I. In many ways, Coulter has already won.

Goal post moved.

[capricorn]

By the way, if you stand up at a movie theatre and start screaming at the movie, or if you start shouting at the opera or at the ballet or at a book reading or a museum lecture on dinosaurs you'll be tossed out too. Free Speech does not mean you can go wherever you want and interupt with your incoherent shouts of anger or denial.

You mean sort of like this?

When All Hell Breaks Loose

As you may know, on the last Thursday of every month, we take our program to the Munk Centre, usually with a focus on international affairs. We've been doing that for 10 years.

But last night, given that it was Budget Day in Ontario, we thought we'd focus on the province instead, while keeping to our regular "last Thursday of the month" venue.

The program started smoothly enough. I eyeballed the audience and it looked like every other audience we've had --- nothing particularly different.

But just a few minutes into my interview with Minister Duncan, all hell broke loose.

At first, one member of the audience rushed the stage where we were located and began shouting questions at Duncan.

At first, I thought this was simply the act of one rude person, so I tried to interrupt her, assure her that there would be time for questions later, but that this was not the way we were going to do business.

Shortly thereafter, another half dozen protesters joined the first, continued to scream at the minister, and it became abundantly clear that this wasn't a case of a few rude audience members, but rather an orchestrated protest.

They'd cleverly entered the hall with their protest signs hidden under their coats, and blended in nicely.

---

When it was obvious the protesters had no plans to stop, I walked off set to Dan Dunsky, our executive producer, asked him what he wanted to do, and he calmly said, let's go to a break and get this back on track. That's the protocol.

I still haven't seen the video of last night's program, but I do know that there was a moment when I wasn't clear whether the minister's safety was in jeopardy. There were two OPP officers in attendance, watching in the wings. But they made no move to intervene, one assumes, because they concluded this was a boisterous protest, but no danger to the minister's safety.

I wasn't so sure, and I think I actually at one point stood between Duncan and the protesters. As did one of our guests, Janet Ecker, a former finance minister. Having seen her share of protests during her days in the MIke Harris government, Ecker was concerned that Duncan was vulnerable, both because he was tied to his chair by a microphone, and because the police still had not yet arrived.

In fact, the police, I'm told, were urged not to intervene, lest pictures of demonstrators being hauled off by the cops show up all over YouTube.

Regardless of what you thought of yesterday's budget, I don't believe guests who agree to appear on The Agenda ought to get beaten up.

---

The sad part of this whole episode was, the screaming was so off the charts, the protest so objectionable, it was impossible for me to hear what the protest was all about.

http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=3&action=blog&subaction=viewpost&blog_id=43&post_id=12272

Sounds like a whole lot of incoherence and anger there. Why is not quite clear.