Anne Coulter comes to Canada

[Shady]

Something I freely admit. I still say it sounds like him.

Hmmm. That sounds like prejudice.

[Smallc]

Hmmm. That sounds like prejudice.

Prejudice assumes I come to the conclusion without knowledge or reason. In order for me to say that what is claimed sounds like him, I must have some knowledge of him.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Smallc

[Shakeyhands]

Oh, I see, it SOUNDS like something he would say. But you can't verify it. Seriously, stop embarrassing yourself. Btw, I heard that you said all conservatives should be killed. I can't verify it though. But it sounds like something you might say.

all those eyes rolling Shady... It's almost as bad as not being able to prove that theCoulter people folks faced a real threat isn't it!

[bloodyminded]

This coming from the people who ended up giving her everything she wanted. For her controversy sells and you "intelligent" and "enlightened" people gave it to her spades. Bravo for playing right into her hands.

First of all, I made no remarks whatsoever about who IS "intelligent and enlightened"--only about those who decidedly are not: people who admire Coulter. That's not even a contoversial observation, beyon the scattering of knuckledraggers who consider her wise and "satiric." (See? they don't even understand that "satire" is a real word with a real denotation.)

Second, how am I, personally, one of the "people who gave [what she wanted] to her in spades"? I was not involved in this ridiculous controversy.

Having said that, I agree with you to a degree, that some of her opponents DID play into her hands.

So we agree that she's a manipulative, unprincipled media whore. That's a good first step.

[bloodyminded]

One doesn't have to be one of her admirers to realize that most of the laughing is at the U of O and not be happy about it. I wouldn't cross the street to listen to her but it seems she is a lot smarter than Houle and the Students Association. They aren't in the same league when it comes to this kind of game.

No, I agree with you completely. One has to lack principle, and be willing to manipulate circumstances for personal gain, in order to win such a battle. Obviously, the less decent person will usually triumph at such matters.

[Wilber]

No, I agree with you completely. One has to lack principle, and be willing to manipulate circumstances for personal gain, in order to win such a battle. Obviously, the less decent person will usually triumph at such matters.

If you insist on creating the circumstances, don't be surprised if they are manipulated in a manor that doesn't suit you.

[nicky10013]

That's an example of inflaming the public?

The only people it inflamed were the brownshirt leftist fascists who can't stand free speech. 99% of the rest of Canadians couldn't care less about any of it. And did you ever think that maybe he has a point that if organizing a conservative speaking tour at universities causes such an "incident", then perhaps there actually might be a problem with the political environment on campuses?

I believe the term is enflame. Also, isn't calling people who don't agree with you "brownshift leftist fascists" an attempt, in the same vein as you accuse Francois Houle, of trying to intimidate people into not speaking? Wouldn't that make you as anti-free speech as you claim the U of O and it's president to be?

[bush_cheney2004]

I believe the term is enflame. Also, isn't calling people who don't agree with you "brownshift leftist fascists" an attempt, in the same vein as you accuse Francois Houle, of trying to intimidate people into not speaking? Wouldn't that make you as anti-free speech as you claim the U of O and it's president to be?

No...it is simply the reversal of identical rhetoric to good effect. But you already knew that.

[nicky10013]

No...it is simply the reversal of identical rhetoric to good effect. But you already knew that.

No, I honestly think it's hypocritical, but hey, that's my position.

[kimmy]

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.

"Constitutionally" is kind of beside the point. If Seamus Wolfe has the power to bar posters for events he doesn't like from the Ottawa campus, then I guess he has that power. If students unions have the power to ban pro-life groups from campus, I guess they have that power.

However, whatever the legal aspects of the issue may be, the conclusion is obvous: for these people, fighting views they disagree with is more important than the principle of free speech.

They give weaselly statements supporting free speech or opposing censorship, then go on to demonstrate that they don't actually

"We support free speech, but..."

"We don't believe in censorship, but..."

...but, I don't agree with Ann Coulter and I don't agree with pro-life clubs, and I'm the students union president, and I can use my powers to suppress them.

Wyly said earlier:

having no tolerance for the intolerant, and that's a bad thing?...no, that's a good thing and I'm happy to be include myself as one, I will never ever tolerate racists/bigots/Nazi's ...

...and the only difference between Wyly and Seamus Wolfe (and other student union executives using their station to muzzle views they don't agree with) is that at least Wyly is honest.

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 truth is, very few people on most campuses care about student politics at all. (The students union elections drew a turn-out of well below 10% during the year I attended university.)

Most students are there to study and enjoy, not to effect social change. Those that do feel motivated toward student politics, either to vote or especially to run for office, are not likely involved because they're fired-up about the status quo.

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.

One campus pro-life club I'm aware of conducted fund-raisers for womens' shelters. I'm sure that their supporters also feel they're voicing an important view on an important social issue. Surely on merit that's more substantial than a lot of clubs.

How many campus clubs actually contribute anything of value to anybody other than their own membership? Every campus has a Role Playing Game club and an Anime club. What do those contribute to the campus at large? Fulfilling a need for cartoon Japanese tentacle-porn that wasn't being met elsewhere on campus? Getting morbidly obese shut-ins out of their mom's basements a couple of nights a week? Assuring a steady source of income for the guy who operates the Coke-and-Doritos vending machines in the S.U. building basement?

And then there's the OTHER side of the issue as well. Some campus groups just don't like touching political hot issues.

You're suggesting that the students unions have moved to ban pro-life groups because they're trying to *avoid* controversy? Preposterous, Nicky. What a cosmically stupid thing to say. I can only assume you're pulling our leg when you present that little nugget for consideration.

I'm sure it isn't lost on you that moving to ban one side of a debate isn't "avoiding" a hot political issue, it's wading in with your sleeves rolled up. At least 2 of the articles I referenced earlier involved legal challenges to the decision, with one costing the students union a substantial amount of money in legal fees, and the other resulting in the s.u. changing its decision to avoid a court battle. Hardly the actions of a group trying to "avoid a hot political issue".

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that taking a side in the abortion debate is one of the few ways that students unions ever get any attention at all outside of their campuses. Other than by attempting to bar speakers from campus, of course.

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.

In each article that contained statements from the student executives (and the same for the CFS decision as well) the move was justified in terms of protecting women's rights. "Opposing a woman's right to reproductive choice is counter to the student charter" or similar statements.

I don't see any reason not to take their word for it, especially when such a number of students unions take the same position, and when the CFS endorses that position.

I mean... you're not going to tell me that when they say it's about women's rights they're not telling the truth, that actually it's some ulterior motive, like the Dungeons and Dragons club buys a lot more Doritos and Coke?

-k

[kimmy]

I believe the term is enflame. Also, isn't calling people who don't agree with you "brownshift leftist fascists" an attempt, in the same vein as you accuse Francois Houle, of trying to intimidate people into not speaking? Wouldn't that make you as anti-free speech as you claim the U of O and it's president to be?

Calling someone a "brownshirt leftist fascist" doesn't carry the implicit threat that the institution will be monitoring your speech looking for the opportunity to give you legal trouble.

-k

[kimmy]

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.

By "reporters who were there", you actually mean "Kady O'Malley," right?

This report from CTV Ottawa pegs the number at "hundreds":

Hundreds of demonstrators gathered at the University of Ottawa early Tuesday night to protest Coulter's presence.

Police eventually showed up and blocked the door to the building where Coulter was scheduled to speak.

If the police themselves felt compelled to bar the door, that seems to indicate that it was not all hugs and rainbows.

So, with all those facts, what's more likely? That this is a gross breach of freedom of speech (to which Im still waiting for an answer on how the university stopped her from speaking) or a publicity stunt to pick up sagging book sales for Coulter and to give Ezra Levant a weapon to use against the HRCs?

I don't disagree that she likely decided that there was much more mileage in canceling the event than in proceeding. Francois Houle and Seamus Wolfe can pat themselves on the back for handing her a golden opportunity.

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

The president of the school sent her the textual equivalent of the "we're watching you" stare.

It might not have prevented her from speaking, but there is a strong argument to be made that it is an attempt at intimidation.

He didn't bar her from the institution, just made her aware of the hate laws in this country. 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.

If it was "Francois Houle: guy on the street" who sent the letter, it would be a complete non-issue.

However, he was acting in his capacity as a representative of the institution. He "welcomes" her on behalf of the school. He signs the letter with his job title. It is clear that this is not a guy on the street expressing his opinion, it is an official communication from a senior representative of the university.

And I think we all understand that our conduct when we're acting as a representative of our employer has much different expectations than our conduct when we're acting as private citizens.

In the end, I don't think the Houle letter mattered at all. She was clearly so frightened by the letter that she continued to plan to speak until these "last minute threats." As for him sending out letters to other organizations who plan events, I don't see how that really matters as much. The man can do as he pleases as long as both sides are equally presented with room to speak.

And I think that's a highly debatable claim when one considers that he was not acting as a private citizen but as a representative of the school.

No one can deny that the university allowed Coulter to do so.

So again, I ask, as I still haven't gotten an answer. Where's the breach of freedom of speech? All I see is a publicity stunt.

Were her rights violated? I don't believe so.

I believe, however, that the conduct of Houle and of Wolfe reflects extremely poorly on the school's supposed enthusiasm for "the meaningful exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of a great university campus".

-k

[Smallc]

CTV also said that the protestors didn't seem to pose a threat.

[Guest American Woman]

There were no incidents. There was no violence. Protest is also a form of freedom of speech. The protesters had every right to protest. If some people see protesters as a threat, that's their take on it, but it doesn't make it fact.

[bloodyminded]

When it comes to Ms. Coulter, we can always rely on American Woman to get to the crux of the matter.

The fact is that, at most, a tiny handful of people made errors in judgement. This pales beside the wanton nonsense of Coulter herself, of course, but there it is.

Most protesters were doing nothing more than protesting Coulter's bile...which is only rational and decent.

[bush_cheney2004]

There were no incidents. There was no violence. Protest is also a form of freedom of speech. The protesters had every right to protest. If some people see protesters as a threat, that's their take on it, but it doesn't make it fact.

We don't know if there was "violence" or not. Somebody pulled a fire alarm, jeopardizing venue safety. Maybe this is legal in Canada?

[nicky10013]

"Constitutionally" is kind of beside the point. If Seamus Wolfe has the power to bar posters for events he doesn't like from the Ottawa campus, then I guess he has that power. If students unions have the power to ban pro-life groups from campus, I guess they have that power.

However, whatever the legal aspects of the issue may be, the conclusion is obvous: for these people, fighting views they disagree with is more important than the principle of free speech.

They give weaselly statements supporting free speech or opposing censorship, then go on to demonstrate that they don't actually

"We support free speech, but..."

"We don't believe in censorship, but..."

...but, I don't agree with Ann Coulter and I don't agree with pro-life clubs, and I'm the students union president, and I can use my powers to suppress them.

You're still missing the point that the lack of support doesn't equate to the destruction of freedom of speech. A government, be it a student government or our federal government can take positions on issues that they please. Unlike the federal government they can do it in any manner that they please within the limits of the powers granted to them in their union constitution. Even then, "banning pro-life groups from student facilities" isn't at all that big of a threat because student governments generally don't have the capacity to book events that isn't specifically in their office. Case in point: if the U of O student union is so powerful and awful and banned Anne Coulter, how come Anne Coulter was able to book a space for her speech? The end result is that the student government got their speec across in refusing to support the endeavour and Anne Coulter still got to speak. What here is so heretical?

Wyly said earlier:

...and the only difference between Wyly and Seamus Wolfe (and other student union executives using their station to muzzle views they don't agree with) is that at least Wyly is honest.

So? Seamus Wolfe had nothing to do with what happened. He may be a loud mouth, but he didn't stop her from speaking.

The truth is, very few people on most campuses care about student politics at all. (The students union elections drew a turn-out of well below 10% during the year I attended university.)

Most students are there to study and enjoy, not to effect social change. Those that do feel motivated toward student politics, either to vote or especially to run for office, are not likely involved because they're fired-up about the status quo.

That's exactly my point. If the students disagreed so fiercly with what was going on in terms of censorship on campus, there would be a change against the status quo that you believe is so anti free speech. Whatever the polity, when things are generally good, voting turnout goes down and when things are bad, turnout and a desire for change goes up. Just because there's a low turnout doesn't mean you can automatically invalidate a government you don't agree with. If you can, you throw out the entire government which provides a lot of important services to campuses that essentially make student life what it is and that goes far beyond what they believe in terms of abortion. You also can't restrict or overburden their mandate by either forcing something constitutionally that would either deny or make mandatory their attention to political issues which people find contentious.

One campus pro-life club I'm aware of conducted fund-raisers for womens' shelters. I'm sure that their supporters also feel they're voicing an important view on an important social issue. Surely on merit that's more substantial than a lot of clubs.

How many campus clubs actually contribute anything of value to anybody other than their own membership? Every campus has a Role Playing Game club and an Anime club. What do those contribute to the campus at large? Fulfilling a need for cartoon Japanese tentacle-porn that wasn't being met elsewhere on campus? Getting morbidly obese shut-ins out of their mom's basements a couple of nights a week? Assuring a steady source of income for the guy who operates the Coke-and-Doritos vending machines in the S.U. building basement?

It's a good question that depends on the campus. Though hilariously trying to mock me through the example of doritos and coke, you missed the point entirely as it was just an example. The fact is that a club, no matter what it is, may provide a far better service to the community. It doesn't have to be a board game club either. There were a plethora of different clubs that provided excellent services to the community through drama, comedy, sports and more. The point wasn't to say that all board games clubs are more important to all pro-life clubs, but that certain clubs may be more popular than others and I'd rather spend student money on providing a service that's popular because in the end money is finite resource per year. Portioning out money you'd think be best served to the community is something almost no one agrees on, but yet is never a denial of freedom of speech. As I said, these groups can still organize, so where's the beef?

You're suggesting that the students unions have moved to ban pro-life groups because they're trying to *avoid* controversy? Preposterous, Nicky. What a cosmically stupid thing to say. I can only assume you're pulling our leg when you present that little nugget for consideration.

I'm sure it isn't lost on you that moving to ban one side of a debate isn't "avoiding" a hot political issue, it's wading in with your sleeves rolled up. At least 2 of the articles I referenced earlier involved legal challenges to the decision, with one costing the students union a substantial amount of money in legal fees, and the other resulting in the s.u. changing its decision to avoid a court battle. Hardly the actions of a group trying to "avoid a hot political issue".

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that taking a side in the abortion debate is one of the few ways that students unions ever get any attention at all outside of their campuses. Other than by attempting to bar speakers from campus, of course.

You're taking what I said completely out of context. The group I was involved with just didn't deal with that kind of garbage. They provided space but nothing more. That's hardly a ban and it certainly doesn't restrict free speech. Of course it's not up to you, nor I to decide what these unions can do and in the end that's the point entirely. These people are elected and can support whatever policies they want. Claims to the contrary doesn't make that any less true.

In each article that contained statements from the student executives (and the same for the CFS decision as well) the move was justified in terms of protecting women's rights. "Opposing a woman's right to reproductive choice is counter to the student charter" or similar statements.

I don't see any reason not to take their word for it, especially when such a number of students unions take the same position, and when the CFS endorses that position.

I mean... you're not going to tell me that when they say it's about women's rights they're not telling the truth, that actually it's some ulterior motive, like the Dungeons and Dragons club buys a lot more Doritos and Coke?

-k

Even if we do take their word for it, how is it a breach of student's freedom of speech? I've said multiple times that lack of funding doesn't equate to the lack of speech. They still have the ability to organize and put on events. Indeed, the ability of the council to deny funding is just as much an act of free speech as a protest. Is it not?

[Guest American Woman]

We don't know if there was "violence" or not. Somebody pulled a fire alarm, jeopardizing venue safety. Maybe this is legal in Canada?

According to all media reports I've seen/read, there was no violence. You think if there had been violence it wouldn't have been reported? As for the fire alarm being pulled, you do know the difference between "illegal" and "violent," do you not?

[nicky10013]

By "reporters who were there", you actually mean "Kady O'Malley," right?

I believe, however, that the conduct of Houle and of Wolfe reflects extremely poorly on the school's supposed enthusiasm for "the meaningful exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of a great university campus".

-k

They were still going to let her speak!

How is his warning any different than the caveat placed on bringing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Columbia by their president? I remember it well. Unlike in this situation, the headline, especially in the US was "free speech gone too far?" These debates often go by not on truth but by who can scream the loudest and the right usually has that distinction. Surprise surprise, it was the right wing in the US that decried this as human rights run amok.

Edited March 28, 2010 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

We don't know if there was "violence" or not. Somebody pulled a fire alarm, jeopardizing venue safety. Maybe this is legal in Canada?

Well, when the organizer says the event wasn't cancelled due to the fire alarm as specifically stated by Levant, then that whole argument goes out the window, doesn't it?

[bloodyminded]

According to all media reports I've seen/read, there was no violence. You think if there had been violence it wouldn't have been reported? As for the fire alarm being pulled, you do know the difference between "illegal" and "violent," do you not?

But since it's not impossible that were was some unreported violence, why, that's exactly the same thing as there definitely being violence.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, when the organizer says the event wasn't cancelled due to the fire alarm as specifically stated by Levant, then that whole argument goes out the window, doesn't it?

No...clearly somebody had the intention of stopping the event...by any means necessary! The fire alarm stunt would not be trivial in any crowded venue, despite Levant's assertions.

I ask again...was it legal?

Edited March 28, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

They were still going to let her speak!

How is his warning any different than the caveat placed on bringing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Columbia by their president? I remember it well. Unlike in this situation, the headline, especially in the US was "free speech gone too far?" These debates often go by not on truth but by who can scream the loudest and the right usually has that distinction. Surprise surprise, it was the right wing in the US that decried this as human rights run amok.

Did Ima dinnerjob get a nice email letter from the provost?

[nicky10013]

Did Ima dinnerjob get a nice email letter from the provost?

I don't believe so. If I remember correctly the dean trashed him for days before the speech and directly before the speech.

However, if we believe the standard is what Kimmy previous posted:

I believe, however, that the conduct of Houle and of Wolfe reflects extremely poorly on the school's supposed enthusiasm for "the meaningful exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of a great university campus".

then the actions of the Dean of Columbia and the President of U of O are one in the same as the dean of Columbia breached impartiality in representing the meaningful exchange of ideas.

[bush_cheney2004]

....then the actions of the Dean of Columbia and the President of U of O are one in the same as the dean of Columbia breached impartiality in representing the meaningful exchange of ideas.

No...the discussion has advanced beyond this already...cleary A-Houle or the dean at Columbia have free speech rights. Which "guest" actually got to speak on campus?