Anne Coulter comes to Canada

[Guest American Woman]

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

I think a lot of people are disappointed that there was no violence, because there's really nothing to get all hot and bothered about otherwise; so they have a need to make the protest into something it wasn't.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think a lot of people are disappointed that there was no violence, because there's really nothing to get all hot and bothered about otherwise; so they have a need to make the protest into something it wasn't.

The protest was wildly successful in shutting down Coulter while she made a laughing stock of the UofO...in Canada!

[Guest American Woman]

The protest was wildly successful in shutting down Coulter while she made a laughing stock of the UofO...in Canada!

Most people who believe she made a laughing stock of the U Of O already supported Coulter and therefore nothing has changed. By the same token, there are also those who are laughing at the big deal some are making out of the letter and the protest, and most of those people already found Coulter disgusting. So again, nothing has changed. So you see her not giving her speech as a victory for Coulter, while the protesters see her not speaking as a victory for them. It's all relative.

Overall, Coulter is nothing more than entertainment. She's never going to have any affect on anything that matters; she has no power or influence in that regard.

Edited March 28, 2010 by American Woman

[Wilber]

Those who believe she made a laughing stock of the U Of O already supported Coulter and therefore nothing has changed. By the same token, there are also those who are laughing at the big deal some are making out of the letter and the protest, and those people already found Coulter disgusting. So again, nothing has changed. So you see her not giving her speech as a victory for Coulter, while the protesters see her not speaking as a victory for them. It's all relative.

Overall, Coulter is nothing more than entertainment. She's never going to have any affect on anything that matters; she has no power or influence in that regard.

I think Coulter is a joke. I also think the U of O made itself a laughing stock. Coulter couldn't have done it without them.

[bush_cheney2004]

So you see her not giving her speech as a victory for Coulter, while the protesters see her not speaking as a victory for them. It's all relative.

Nope...event Coulter detractors admit that she ran circles around the UofO which came off looking very badly....truly minor league. Canadian media has many opinions to this embarrassing point.

Overall, Coulter is nothing more than entertainment. She's never going to have any affect on anything that matters; she has no power or influence in that regard.

That's all she ever was...which makes the fiasco in Ottawa that much embarrassing. A-Houle tried a "pre-emptive strike", and it blew up in their faces.

[Guest American Woman]

I think Coulter is a joke. I also think the U of O made itself a laughing stock. Coulter couldn't have done it without them.

I didn't actually intend to speak in absolutes, so I've edited my post to read "most," and I stand by that. Most people's reactions are based on how they already felt about Coulter. But perhaps your reaction is influenced by how you feel about Canada's hate law; at any rate, I should have included that as another factor in people's reactions as I'm sure that influenced some, too.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think Coulter is a joke. I also think the U of O made itself a laughing stock. Coulter couldn't have done it without them.

Right....ats CTV put it....Coulter saw a wide open net and slapped the puck in for a BIG SCORE! Coulter wins the Cup!

[Muddy]

The U of O ran into an accident of it`s own making. Coulter strikes me as many things. Entertainer,comedian ,inflamatory and sometimes profound. She did nothing to Houle and the UofO! They kicked their own reputation to pieces . best thing that ever happened to Coulter.

[Guest American Woman]

Wilber, on 28 March 2010 - 04:35 PM, said: I think Coulter is a joke. I also think the U of O made itself a laughing stock. Coulter couldn't have done it without them.

Right....ats CTV put it....Coulter saw a wide open net and slapped the puck in for a BIG SCORE! Coulter wins the Cup!

So CTV thinks Coulter is a joke? Interesting.

[bush_cheney2004]

The U of O ran into an accident of it`s own making. Coulter strikes me as many things. Entertainer,comedian ,inflamatory and sometimes profound. She did nothing to Houle and the UofO! They kicked their own reputation to pieces . best thing that ever happened to Coulter.

Agreed....Coulter went from a scourged "bitch" who had insulted Canada ad nauseam to a hero for "freedom of expression". And just for added measure, she bitch slapped the eastern liberal elite on her way out.

[Guest American Woman]

Agreed....Coulter went from a scourged "bitch" who had insulted Canada ad nauseam to a hero for "freedom of expression". And just for added measure, she bitch slapped the eastern liberal elite on her way out.

Really? So in Canadians' eyes she went from "bitch" to "hero?" Could you give me some credible/meaningful evidence to back up your statement?

Edited March 28, 2010 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

Really? So in Canadians' eyes she went from "bitch" to "hero?" Could you give me some credible/meaningful evidence to back up your statement?

We've already been over this....hate Coulter all you want....UofO dicked up for the essential purpose of a university campus.

The publicity, both here and in the U.S., was gift wrapped by a ham-fisted letter from Francois Houle, the vice-president academic and University of Ottawa provost.

That letter, basically informing Coulter of Canada's free speech laws, gave her more press than virtually any controversial statement she could have managed to make.

And that's impressive, considering the source. Even more impressive is the condemnation of Houle's letter from both the left and the right.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100326/coulter_opinion_100327/20100327/?hub=TorontoNewHome

Edited March 28, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

We've already been over this....hate Coulter all you want....UofO dicked up for the essential purpose of a university campus.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100326/coulter_opinion_100327/20100327/?hub=TorontoNewHome

No, we haven't already been over this because I don't want one OP as a source. I don't care about one OP. As I said, I'd like some "credible/meaningful" evidence. Which apparently you can't provide, because your statement was off the wall. I truly doubt Canadians who were angered at her over her statements now see her as a hero, and I've seen no evidence that says otherwise. That's all in your head.

And for the record, I don't "hate" Coulter as I don't care enough to have any strong emotional feelings about her, so spare me your drama.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, we haven't already been over this because I don't want one OP as a source. I don't care about one OP. As I said, I'd like some "credible/meaningful" evidence. Which apparently you can't provide, because your statement was off the wall. I truly doubt Canadians who were angered at her over her statements now see her as a hero, and I've seen no evidence that says otherwise. That's all in your head.

No it's not...clearly some Canadians are entralled with the thorough thrashing that the leftist meatheads have taken on this matter. To deny that is just silly.

And for the record, I don't "hate" Coulter as I don't care enough to have any strong emotional feelings about her, so spare me your drama.

Okay....91 pages and counting. LOL!

[Guest American Woman]

No it's not...clearly some Canadians are entralled with the thorough thrashing that the leftist meatheads have taken on this matter. To deny that is just silly.

Sure, "some" Canadians are enthralled. I've never denied that. You do know how to read, right? Because what I've denied is that this has made people change their opinions for the most part. I've denied your claim that while before she was seen as a bitch, she's now seen as a hero by Canadians. And since you've not been able to provide any proof, methinks you're the "silly" one.

Okay....91 pages and counting. LOL!

Ummmm.... the 91 pages (and counting) aren't even close to being all about me, much less my emotional feelings about Coulter. :lol: But thanks for the laugh.

Edited March 28, 2010 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

Sure, "some" Canadians are enthralled. I've never denied that. You do know how to read, right? Because what I've denied is that this has made people change their opinions for the most part. I've denied your claim that while before she was seen as a bitch, she's now seen as a hero by Canadians. And since you've not been able to provide any proof, methinks you're the "silly" one.

Okay...we know where this kind of typical AW circle jerk ends up....a proof is a proof!

Ummmm.... the 91 pages (and counting) aren't even close to being all about me and my feelings about Coulter. :lol: But thanks for the laugh.

...it's not all about you, believe it or not.

[Guest American Woman]

Okay...we know where this kind of typical AW circle jerk ends up....a proof is a proof!

Yep. We sure do. It ends up with you not being able to provide any proof.

...it's not all about you, believe it or not.

I think I just said that....."Ummmm.... the 91 pages (and counting) aren't even close to being all about me and my feelings about Coulter." After you made it all about me. All 91 pages (and counting ....)....... :lol:

[kimmy]

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.

We're talking about a students union that banned posters for Coulter's speech, lobbied to have the university revoke the venue they'd booked for her, we're talking about students unions that ban clubs they don't agree with, and you don't see how any of that demonstrates an opposition to freedom of speech? Come on.

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?

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

Wolfe successfully banned posters publicizing the event from being posted, and he lobbied the university to revoke the booking that had been made for her. So Wolfe and the U of O SU prove by their actions that they (despite their claims to the contrary) are opposed to free speech.

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.

You interpret student apathy as tacit approval for the sort of tactics employed by Wolfe and his ilk.

I interpret student apathy as a sign that most students believe student politics is utterly unimportant.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

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.

No, you're the one who missed the point. The fact is, every campus has many clubs who provide no value at all to anybody other than the club members. Trying to rationalize the banning of pro-life clubs as potentially a decision based on utilitarian considerations falls flat on its face as a result. It's inane and you can only make yourself look ridiculous by pursuing that line of argument.

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?

The examples I provided were not simply clubs denied students union funding, they were clubs that were denied official club status on campus, barred from using student space for their meetings, participating in student events such as Welcome Week. And, while coming up with the cites for your request of campuses where pro-life clubs had been banned, I came up with plenty more incidents where the clubs themselves were not banned, but their displays were banned, posters removed, or materials confiscated.

If Seamus Wolfe and his ilk are going to use their power to silence opinions they disagree with, they will simply have to deal with accusations of supporting censorship and opposing free speech.

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.

Then it's not relevant to students unions that have banned pro-life clubs from official club status or using campus space, then, is it.

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.

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.

That they might have the legal power to bar groups they disagree with from campus does not change the fact that they're attempting to muzzle opposing voices. It's not consistent with the free exchange of ideas that's supposed to be one of the founding principles of higher education.

They can apparently do what they want, but what they want to do proves what sort of people they are.

Indeed, the ability of the council to deny funding is just as much an act of free speech as a protest. Is it not?

It's an act of free speech that says: "we oppose free speech."

-k

[Wilber]

Agreed....Coulter went from a scourged "bitch" who had insulted Canada ad nauseam to a hero for "freedom of expression". And just for added measure, she bitch slapped the eastern liberal elite on her way out.

I doubt this made Coulter a hero to anyone who didn't worship her already. She is not the issue, the actions of the U of O are.

[kimmy]

They were still going to let her speak!

Houle was going to let her speak (and watch her real close.) Wolfe tried to have her venue revoked.

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.

I don't actually recall specifically what Columbia's president told Makmood, other than that he holds his views to be reprehensible. If there was more to it than that, perhaps you could draw attention to parts you feel particularly relevant.

If Makmood was warned that he might be arrested if he said something deemed inappropriate, then sure, they're exactly the same. If that's the case, then sure, I think that's an obvious attempt to intimidate a guest speaker and completely contrary to the principle of free exchange of ideas that universities are supposed to cherish.

Did Columbia's president say that he thinks Makmood is an idiot and an asshole, or did he say that he'd be watching for ways to sic the cops on Makmood based on the content of his speech? Because to me there's a pretty substantial difference, though one that may be lost on some people.

-k

Edited March 28, 2010 by kimmy

[Guest American Woman]

Did Columbia's president say that he thinks Makmood is an idiot and an asshole, or did he say that he'd be watching for ways to sic the cops on Makmood based on the content of his speech? Because to me there's a pretty substantial difference, though one that may be lost on some people.

Of course Columbia's president didn't say he would be watching Ahmadinejad's speech for "ways to sic the cops on him" (and Houle didn't say that, either); there's a pretty substantial difference between American and Canadian laws, which is what Houle was telling Coulter. Though that may be lost on some people.

[nicky10013]

We're talking about a students union that banned posters for Coulter's speech, lobbied to have the university revoke the venue they'd booked for her, we're talking about students unions that ban clubs they don't agree with, and you don't see how any of that demonstrates an opposition to freedom of speech? Come on.

Wolfe successfully banned posters publicizing the event from being posted, and he lobbied the university to revoke the booking that had been made for her. So Wolfe and the U of O SU prove by their actions that they (despite their claims to the contrary) are opposed to free speech.

The thing no one knows is how binding that ban is and what buildings it applies to. It would be interesting to find out how wide ranging their power is in terms of banning things like posters.

You interpret student apathy as tacit approval for the sort of tactics employed by Wolfe and his ilk.

I interpret student apathy as a sign that most students believe student politics is utterly unimportant.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

I agree that underwhelming participation is a problem but you can't just say their decisions don't matter based on election turnout. Any time anyone disagrees with anything that a student union or council does they can just turn around and say well, it's not really legitimate since you only had a certain percentage show up.

No, you're the one who missed the point. The fact is, every campus has many clubs who provide no value at all to anybody other than the club members. Trying to rationalize the banning of pro-life clubs as potentially a decision based on utilitarian considerations falls flat on its face as a result. It's inane and you can only make yourself look ridiculous by pursuing that line of argument.

Clubs may be unimportant to you but to other people they put a lot of work into it. Depending on turnout and reception, something like a board game club could be entirely more important to the community than a pro-life club. Because, like it or not, in the end it's about the money being put to the best use and just because you don't like the outcome, doesn't mean it's inane. Indeed, I think arguing that a point doesn't matter simply because you don't rate the importance of an organization simply because you think the point of the group is silly is entirely short sighted.

The examples I provided were not simply clubs denied students union funding, they were clubs that were denied official club status on campus, barred from using student space for their meetings, participating in student events such as Welcome Week. And, while coming up with the cites for your request of campuses where pro-life clubs had been banned, I came up with plenty more incidents where the clubs themselves were not banned, but their displays were banned, posters removed, or materials confiscated.

If Seamus Wolfe and his ilk are going to use their power to silence opinions they disagree with, they will simply have to deal with accusations of supporting censorship and opposing free speech.

So? Depending on their constitution they have the ability to do that. Like I said, it doesn't deny access for an organization to the rest of the university. You don't need "official clubs status" to be a campus group. Where's the beef?

Then it's not relevant to students unions that have banned pro-life clubs from official club status or using campus space, then, is it.

Nope.

That they might have the legal power to bar groups they disagree with from campus does not change the fact that they're attempting to muzzle opposing voices. It's not consistent with the free exchange of ideas that's supposed to be one of the founding principles of higher education.

They can apparently do what they want, but what they want to do proves what sort of people they are.

It's an act of free speech that says: "we oppose free speech."

-k

They're not denying speech, they're just saying they don't agree with it and they would like it to be taken elsewhere. Money and clubs status isn't a a pre-requisite for the ability to be able to speak your mind. I've always brought this up yet you never seem to address, the fact that student space isn't the be all and end all of campus space that could be used for organizing events.

[nicky10013]

Of course Columbia's president didn't say he would be watching Ahmadinejad's speech for "ways to sic the cops on him" (and Houle didn't say that, either); there's a pretty substantial difference between American and Canadian laws, which is what Houle was telling Coulter. Though that may be lost on some people.

Bingo.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yep. We sure do. It ends up with you not being able to provide any proof.

I don't have to provide any further proof....Coulter was invited to speak at three campuses depite insulting the country beforehand. I bet Coulter was even suprised...just another notch on her lipstick case.

I think I just said that....."Ummmm.... the 91 pages (and counting) aren't even close to being all about me and my feelings about Coulter." After you made it all about me. All 91 pages (and counting ....)....... :lol:

We were doing fine without you....welcome to the party (late).

[bush_cheney2004]

Bingo.

Still...who got to speak...and who did not get to speak? DUH!