Anne Coulter comes to Canada

[Born Free]

No they don't, this little event will not significantly increase the number of people who know who Coulter is. There will be a some small articles in the of papers that most people won't even read.

By next week everyone will have moved on to important stuff and Ann will return to her GOP nest with her fellow extremists and live happily ever after living up to all expectations.

[Pliny]

Good point. That's true as well. I just hope that they really are the minority.

They aren't.

[Smallc]

They aren't in the same league when it comes to this kind of game.

That's because they aren't playing a game. She might be, but that just makes her look like a childish fool to many, and I've heard as much from quite a few people on both sides of the spectrum.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's because they aren't playing a game. She might be, but that just makes her look like a childish fool to many, and I've heard as much from quite a few people on both sides of the spectrum.

Then why was she invited to Canada, if not to play the "game"?

CTV.ca opinion....Coulter won:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100326/coulter_opinion_100327/20100327

[punked]

Then why was she invited to Canada, if not to play the "game"?

CTV.ca opinion....Coulter won:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100326/coulter_opinion_100327/20100327

Win or lose it is how you play the game.

[bush_cheney2004]

Win or lose it is how you play the game.

Right...that's why she won. UofO is minor (bush) league.

[Smallc]

Then why was she invited to Canada, if not to play the "game"?

Because Ezra Levant was trying to make a point. He made it, but he, like her, is an idiot.

The University wasn't playing games.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

Because Ezra Levant was trying to make a point. He made it, but he, like her, is an idiot.

The University wasn't playing games.

So it was a game....and your team lost!

[Smallc]

So it was a game....and your team lost!

I don't have a team, and if I do, they aren't playing a game.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't have a team, and if I do, they aren't playing a game.

Don't worry...you can play vicariously with the American teams...as always.

[jbg]

Because Ezra Levant was trying to make a point. He made it, but he, like her, is an idiot.

The University wasn't playing games.

I don't think Levant or Coulter are idiots. The fact is their opponents, i.e. Houle and the Student Union in Coulter's case and the Alberta Human Rights Commission in Levant's case have taken major public relations baths.

[Guest American Woman]

bloodyminded, on 27 March 2010 - 08:35 PM, said:

But we shouldn't mistake the loudness of her admirers with the fact that they remain an unintelligent minority about whom everybody is laughing.

Good point. That's true as well. I just hope that they really are the minority.

Most people don't even know who Coulter is, and of those who do, at least half are as disgusted with her as her fans are enamored of her. I don't think she's ever had any influence, as I can't see where she's ever had any effect on anything. In that respect, she is nothing more than entertainment value for those who already think as she does.

[Wilber]

So why wouldn't you cross the street to listen to someone at the top of their game? She might have some pointers for you.

I find her a little bit cold, a little stark, a little bit shrill... but her lip doesn't quiver for sympathetic support and that's what I like.

I'm not interested in her game, I just don't see why others are afraid of it.

[Argus]

You never answered my question. So, the University should require the same security for ALL political events regardless of attendance, or none at all?

I'm not sure I understand the point of your questions. Security should not be an issue unless we're dealing with political leaders who might draw terrorists. Why would we need security because someone rents a hall, gets on a stage, and talks about their views? I mean, honestly, what kind of a world do you live in?

The UofO has all sorts of idiots speaking there at any given time. I don't like them and I think their words are so much excrement, but I'm not about to drive over there, go into the hall and assault them, nor even shout at them. They're idiots and not worth any efforts. As to those people who feel the need to show up at such speeches in order to shout and throw things - I really can't tell you where they're coming from.

Law and Order is the job of police. If people want to shut down a perfectly legal event the police should arrest them - all of them - and put them into prison for a while. There really isn't any ifs, ands or buts about it. Disrupt and shut down an event on campus, go to prison, and if you're a student, be expelled by the university. Simple, practical, and it would both put an end to such things and send a message to their students that free speech is important and that trying to stop it is unacceptable.

[Argus]

Nothing was thrown, there was no trespassing,

It has already been posted several times that there indeed was trespassing - as testified by the protestors themselves. Are you blind or dishonest?

[Argus]

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

Police told her they feared violence. That is the ONLY reason they would have given her, in their own words "options" which included moving to a larger building.

[Argus]

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.

-k

I think David Warren had it pretty well pegged in his column today.

That e-mail was sent not only to Coulter but copied to colleagues. It is assumed the man was trying to bully Coulter, but I doubt that was his principal motive. Instead, the tone is more typical of many I've seen from "ersatz men," preening themselves on their "progressive consciousness" as part of the process of self-advancement within an academic environment that has been radicalized and "feminized" (in the sense of, poisoned by leftist and feminist ideological indoctrination)

Confronting the Mob

[jbg]

It has already been posted several times that there indeed was trespassing - as testified by the protestors themselves. Are you blind or dishonest?

No, he/she/it is juvenile or stupid.

[Argus]

That must be why the Federal government payed our 100,000 dollars in the Rank v. Jenkins case two years ago, after moving protesters away from places where the president was speaking right? Freedom of speech means freedom of speech. They can remove that man in a private place but they can not stop what he is saying, or assault him for saying what he wants too say. A security group removing someone or asking them to leave is a different thing then an angry mob punching someone in the face. Sorry Argus. The law of the United states disagrees with you Argus.

I have no idea what you're blathering about.

Do you?

[Argus]

Edumactate all us from the 3rd world. Please, explain how we're specifically being anti-free speech. I've yet to see a coherent argument, just accusations that we love dicators.

I haven't seen any accusation you love dictators, just that you love to dictate and in your sanctimonious way, feel reassured of your moral superirity by telling people what's best for them.

If you haven't seen a coherent argument you haven't been reading. A number of them have been posted. You might do a google on Noam Chomsky, who wrote a rather notorious and insulting letter defending his signing a petition on behalf of a Holocaust denier. Noam Chomsky isn't a man generally given to affection for Hitlerites, as I understand it, but he does seem to have a reasonable grasp on freedom of speech.

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

[Argus]

I am not assuming anything I am saying someones first too free speech was stifled and Palin sat back and watched it. I hope those as mad about Coulter, express their rage at Palin as well. I bet they wont though.

Repeately heckling an organized meeting does not constitute free speech. He was escorted out, as he should have been. I can't say if he was assaulted. I did view the video, but not closely, and saw no sign of a "beating". It might well be that someone punched him without cause and if so they ought to be arrested. But don't confuse being permitted to continuously shout at someone on the stage with free speech.

[Argus]

There's no suggestion, and indeed, evidence to the contrary, that the situation WASN'T going to work out for the best. Reporters who were there said there 20-50 protestors max who were peaceful.

In fact, A single reporter quotes A single unnamed "friend" who was outside, suggesting there were 20-50 active protestors. At the same time in the same report it suggests there were over 600 people out front, even though apparently only 100 tickets had been sold. Furthermore, all other reports I'm aware of, including from the university, the protestors, and other reporters, put the number of protestors considerably higher.

Do you honestly think the police would have advised them to go elsewhere if there were only "20-50" protestors? Get real.

The organizer, the young woman from the Young Conservatives at U of O claimed there were 2,000. Nobody has been able to find the "facebook threats" Ezra Levant said that they funneled to the police of which the police have been distancing themselves of. Not to mention the conversation between the MP and an organizer with the organizer claiming that the event was likely to be cancelled while people were in the early stages of lining up.

So, with all those facts,

I'd like to again point out, deferentially, of course, being you're a self-identified major intellectual from a prestigeous university, that you apparently don't understand what a "fact" is. Here's a hint for you. Someone suggesting and anonymous friend overheard a suggestion to an MP that the speech might be shut down does not equate to "fact". Furthermore, your imagination about the police "distancing themselves" when in fact, the police have, as usual, simply not chosen to hold daily press conferences on a minor issue, is also nothing one can remotely be described as a "fact".

Now it might well be that some young tory, (again anonmyous!) misreported the actual number of protestors, but like most of your few actual facts, that would be rather irrelevent.

As for Francois Houle, not to say what he did wasn't stupid, but did it really honestly limit her right to speak?

No it did not. But it most certainly was an effort to intimidate her into political correctness by a person who works for a government institution.

It may have had less to do with threatening her with legal action than to have his point across that he doesn't agree with what she has to say which is entirely in his right to do in accordance with his ability to speak freely.

And I'm once agan forced to point out, Mr. Intellectual, that you are confused about the rights and obligations of freedom of speech. Mr. Francois A-Houle has the right to say he doesn't agree with her. But he does not have the right to make that statement in any way, shape or form, on behalf of the University of Ottawa. Not unless the UofO has decided, as an institution, to categorically say they taking a political stand on one side or another of whatever the topic at hand was.

As for him sending out letters to other organizations who plan events, I don't see how that really matters as much.

Apparently you have no problem in the univeristy or other government institutions trying to intimidate and threaten those who try to give opinions which are controversial.

[Argus]

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

In fact, if you're a true conservative, you simply require a fact to be something which is proven.

Whereas you and Mr. Intellectual seem to feel anything you want to believe automatically assumes the status of "fact".

[g_bambino]

[D]on't confuse being permitted to continuously shout at someone on the stage with free speech.

It seems some posters here have an extremely difficult time trying to comprehend that simple distinction, assuming, that is, that they try at all...

[Argus]

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.

Few do. The turnout at student elections is tiny. Almost no one knows who these people are, nor cares. The turnout at the election which put Wolfe in was something around 5% I believe. So if you figure there were multiple candidates, he probably got the support of somewhere around 1-2% of the electorate. By comparison, about 6% of people believe Elvis is still alive.

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

.

The student body, by and large, could not possibly care less who these people are. They know they're all letist agitators and shrug them off. If the student body had a choice they wouldn't fund such associations at all. The money is forced from them in the same way tuition is.

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.

Not much less or more, arguably, than the pro-choice side, and certainly more than Israeli Apartheid Week.

The point is that in terms of fairness, Canadians generally feel that both sides of an issue deserve to be heard. That a heavy-handed leftist "administration" will do its best to fund and accomodate one but dissuade and diminish another strikes most of us as blatantly unfair and a violation of the principles of freedom.

Personally I don't think ANY group should get money extorted from students, and that facilities the university makes available to such groups should be on a first-come, first-served basis and given out even-handedly.