Anne Coulter comes to Canada

[Guest American Woman]

And if he was expressing that view as Francois Houle, guy on the street, that's a perfectly legitimate opinion.

Since he clearly sent the letter in his capacity as a senior representative of the school, I'm not sure it's appropriate.

And I'm not sure it's not appropriate.

That's the thing. People don't agree whether it's appropriate or not, but bottom line, it's just their opinion. Whether or not the university thinks it was out of line is really all that matters in the end, because he didn't break any laws.

Whether or not he sent them to anyone else really isn't relevant. How does that make it any more or less appropriate? Either it is, or it isn't.

Edited April 2, 2010 by American Woman

[capricorn]

What deception by political parties? She's also a student of the University of Ottawa, and she was there as a student. You're making a huge leap to think she was there representing the NDP.

She is an assistant to Pat Martin, NDP MP. It doesn't take a huge leap to suspect she supports the NDP. How would you know in which capacity she was attending the protest? Because she's a student or because she is a NDP supporter? The best we can guess is that she was there for both reasons. Whatever the case, she put on a good show.

[kimmy]

And I'm not sure it's not appropriate.

That's the thing. People don't agree whether it's appropriate or not, but bottom line, it's just their opinion. Whether or not the university thinks it was out of line is really all that matters in the end, because he didn't break any laws.

You might not be sure, but the Canadian Association of University Teachers doesn't think it was appropriate:

Dear Dr. Houle:

We are deeply disturbed by your correspondence with Ann Coulter regarding her speaking engagement at the University of Ottawa tomorrow. Your admonishing her about speech rights in Canada raises serious questions about the University of Ottawa’s respect for freedom of expression and academic freedom.

Whether the University of Ottawa thinks it was out of line would be relevant if the question were Mr Houle's job safety, which as far as I know is not in any danger.

Whether the University of Ottawa thinks it was out of line is also relevant in the sense that it tells us where they really stand on the issues referred to in the CAUT letter. If the UofO doesn't see a problem with what Houle did, that doesn't reflect well on them as an institution.

Whether or not he sent them to anyone else really isn't relevant. How does that make it any more or less appropriate? Either it is, or it isn't.

Whether he sent similar warnings to other speakers is relevant to the claims of bias.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

She is an assistant to Pat Martin, NDP MP. It doesn't take a huge leap to suspect she supports the NDP. How would you know in which capacity she was attending the protest? Because she's a student or because she is a NDP supporter? The best we can guess is that she was there for both reasons. Whatever the case, she put on a good show.

Why try to guess at all? Why try to pin this on the NDP? Which is what you did. So what if she supports the NDP? That doesn't mean the NDP supports all of her views by any means, and it doesn't mean the NDP is sending her out as their representative in her private life.

The media said that she's a university of Ottawa student, and she is. When she's not at work, she's no more representing her employer than you or anyone else is representing theirs in your/their private lives.

Edited April 2, 2010 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

You might not be sure, but the Canadian Association of University Teachers doesn't think it was appropriate:

I was already aware of that, but I do my own thinking. I don't need the Canadian Association of University Teachers to tell me how to think. Furthermore, what they think doesn't matter in the end, either, since they have no impact on the outcome of his actions. And that was my point.

Whether the University of Ottawa thinks it was out of line is also relevant in the sense that it tells us where they really stand on the issues referred to in the CAUT letter.

The U of O stated that the policy is to support free speech, so perhaps they support his right to free speech and say how he feels, too. Seems some are ok with Coulter speaking her mind but not so ok with Houle speaking his.

If the UofO doesn't see a problem with what Houle did, that doesn't reflect well on them as an institution.

I disagree. As I said, the U of O likely believes in Houle's right to say what he wants, too.

Whether he sent similar warnings to other speakers is relevant to the claims of bias.

Not in and of itself. There's a first time for everything, there's no getting around that fact, and by your logic, that would make all "firsts" automatically "bias."

Edited April 2, 2010 by American Woman

[Argus]

I disagree... I'd expect that there would not only be "Tory" (not sure why the CPC gets to carry on that name) staffers at a rally but even MP's.

Not acting like crazed lunatics like the ndp staffer.

And this might surprise you but the word Tory has been the unofficial nicname for the Conservative Party for a very long time - long before the Progresive Party existed, then merged with the Conservative party to form the "Progressive Conservatives".

[capricorn]

Why try to pin this on the NDP? Which is what you did.

Yes, I did. And if a worker in a Conservative MP's office was found among a group that protested a left wing speaker, the opposition parties would pin it on the Conservative party.

When she's not at work, she's no more representing her employer than you or anyone else is representing theirs in your/their private lives.

I should hope she's not representing her employer. She gets paid by the Government of Canada so technically she is a public servant.

[Argus]

Why try to guess at all? Why try to pin this on the NDP? Which is what you did. So what if she supports the NDP? That doesn't mean the NDP supports all of her views by any means,

Actually it does. The NPD is a Socialist party with Communist influences. You are not permitted to have different opinions on major policy issues if you are to have any kind of official position within the NDP. Everyone must tow the party line from A-Z. No variations are acceptable. Differ on a policy issue like abortion or whatever, and you're out of the party.

In any event, the point is the media went wacko during the Reform Party days and established to their evident satisfaction, that any and all controversial positions or actions taken by any member of the Reform Party, their staff or family, members of their riding associations, former candidates, volunteers, or anyone in any way related to the party reflected on the party itself and all members thereof.

They have not really changed that position much with regard to the Tories.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, I did. And if a worker in a Conservative MP's office was found among a group that protested a left wing speaker, the opposition parties would pin it on the Conservative party.

So does that make it right? Because it sounds to me, from what you're saying, as if you would be in agreement with the opposition if a worker, who was also a university student, were found among other university students protesting a left wing speaker at their university. For the record, I would disagree with that scenario, too.

I should hope she's not representing her employer. She gets paid by the Government of Canada so technically she is a public servant.

And there's no reason to believe she is representing her employer. That was my point. Yet even though she is a university student who attended an event at her university, the fact that she's a student there is now being cast as 'incorrect' and 'hiding the truth,' the first flat-out false, and the second nothing but a grasping-at-straws allegation.

Edited April 2, 2010 by American Woman

[ToadBrother]

Actually it does. The NPD is a Socialist party with Communist influences. You are not permitted to have different opinions on major policy issues if you are to have any kind of official position within the NDP. Everyone must tow the party line from A-Z. No variations are acceptable. Differ on a policy issue like abortion or whatever, and you're out of the party.

The Communist line is B.S. Whatever Communist influences there were on the CCF were most certainly long gone decades ago. The Marxist-Leninists, you might note, formed their own parties. And there certainly have been NDP members who have been outspoken to the point of humiliating their own party (I'm sure the name Svend Robinson comes to mind soon enough). The NDP is no worse than the Tories at enforcing orthodoxy. For the Liberals, it's different because they essentially straddle the center, and there have certainly been some outspoken anti-abortion Liberal MPs out there.

In any event, the point is the media went wacko during the Reform Party days and established to their evident satisfaction, that any and all controversial positions or actions taken by any member of the Reform Party, their staff or family, members of their riding associations, former candidates, volunteers, or anyone in any way related to the party reflected on the party itself and all members thereof.

They have not really changed that position much with regard to the Tories.

The problem was that there were so many nuts getting nominations. I knew a guy who was in the local riding association who was 65 at the time and described himself as the kid in the room. He complained that there were a lot of cranky old social conservatives. They ended up selecting a guy who actually stood up in an all-candidates meeting and said that allowing abortions to continue was a violation of his religious liberties. He's still, a decade or so later, MP for my riding, though since Harper took the reigns, his outbursts have become less frequent. Now maybe he's reformed (pun intended), or his has orders from on high to not be controversial. That muzzling has gone on a lot in the last two elections. The Tories are run from the top-down, and if you want the leadership to give the nod to your nomination, you keep your mouth shut.

[kimmy]

I was already aware of that, but I do my own thinking. I don't need the Canadian Association of University Teachers to tell me how to think. Furthermore, what they think doesn't matter in the end, either, since they have no impact on the outcome of his actions. And that was my point.

Well, everybody's got opinions. Not all of them are formed with the same basis of understanding of the facts and principles involved.

So, on the one hand we've got a group of 65,000 members that has been shaping university policies and fighting for academic freedom for over 50 years. And on the other hand, there's ... well, you. If the subject is academic freedom or what's appropriate conduct for a member of the university administration, I think most people would agree their opinion is more pertinent than yours.

The U of O stated that the policy is to support free speech, so perhaps they support his right to free speech and say how he feels, too. Seems some are ok with Coulter speaking her mind but not so ok with Houle speaking his.

It's odd that you understand the distinction between "Ellen Ocran: concerned citizen" and "Ellen Ocran: aide to MP Pat Martin", and yet you don't seem to recognize the difference between "Francois Houle: concerned citizen" and "Francois Houle: Provost and VP Academic for the University of Ottawa".

There is no question that Francois Houle, private citizen, has the right to say all of that. The question is whether it is appropriate for Francois Houle, senior representative of his university, to say what he said.

We are all well aware that there are many instances where a message that is entirely legal and protected is still completely inappropriate for someone's profession. I'm sure we're all aware of cases where judges and policemen and medical people and teachers and others have said things that would be entirely fair comments coming from a guy on the street but are completely unacceptable coming from representatives of the judicial or law enforcement or medical or educational professions.

And, as the CAUT letter explains, a university official cautioning a guest speaker about what she can say is at odds with the fundamental values behind what a university is supposed to represent.

I disagree. As I said, the U of O likely believes in Houle's right to say what he wants, too.

McDonald's corporation is probably a big supporter of free speech too, but I bet they don't let their employees greet customers with "hey, fatty, you should order a salad."

When you're acting in an official capacity as a representative of your employer-- and it is beyond question that Houle was doing so when he issued this letter-- you're expected to act in accordance with your employer's policies, or chances are you're not going to be employed for much longer.

So if the University of Ottawa's policy is to caution guest speakers to mind their mouths, then Houle was acting in accordance with their policy and we should be asking the U of O to explain how it reconciles this policy with the principles of academic freedom and the exchange of ideas that are supposed to be fundamental values of universities.

And if he wasn't acting in accordance with U of O policy, I think it's reasonable to request them to explain what that policy actually is, issue some sort of statement regarding the issue, and if appropriate, a reprimand to Mr Houle.

Not in and of itself. There's a first time for everything, there's no getting around that fact, and by your logic, that would make all "firsts" automatically "bias."

I guess we would have to know why it was a "first".

Usually firsts occur for just a few reasons:

-never had the opportunity to do it before.

-change of policy, told to do something that hadn't been done previously.

-circumstances changed in a way that make something a better decision than it had been previously.

We know it wasn't Houle's first opportunity... the Israeli Apartheid event just a couple of weeks prior had guest speakers, for instance... so it looks like one of the latter two. If there was some official change of policy at the university, I'd be interested in hearing about it. If Houle evaluated the circumstances and found them to be different with previous guest speakers, I'd be interested in hearing about that as well. Whatever the case, I think it is entirely reasonable to expect this person and, or, this university, to explain the situation.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

Well, everybody's got opinions. Not all of them are formed with the same basis of understanding of the facts and principles involved.

Never said they were. But some are. Differing opinions are.

So, on the one hand we've got a group of 65,000 members that has been shaping university policies and fighting for academic freedom for over 50 years. And on the other hand, there's ... well, you.

Yes, of course. Because naturally the president and the executive director of CAUT represent the opinion of all 65,000+ members when they write a letter and sign their name to it. By the same token, of course I'm the only one seeing things differently. Oh wait. There's the University of Ottawa, which hasn't reprimanded Houle or asked for an apology. Along with many, many others. Unless you think I'm the only one to hold the opinion I have? In which case I choose #1 in your previous post.

If the subject is academic freedom or what's appropriate conduct for a member of the university administration, I think most people would agree their opinion is more pertinent than yours.

This is the best you've got? Most people agreed with Bush and Blair regarding Iraq, too, so I guess that makes your opinion less pertinent than theirs. See how ridiculous that line of argument is?

It's odd that you understand the distinction between "Ellen Ocran: concerned citizen" and "Ellen Ocran: aide to MP Pat Martin", and yet you don't seem to recognize the difference between "Francois Houle: concerned citizen" and "Francois Houle: Provost and VP Academic for the University of Ottawa".

Nothing odd about it at all. I've never said Houle is representing the university, either. I don't think when he signed that letter he was any more representing the university as a whole than the president and executive director represented CAUT as a whole with their letter.

There is no question that Francois Houle, private citizen, has the right to say all of that. The question is whether it is appropriate for Francois Houle, senior representative of his university, to say what he said.

And evidently the U of O does feel it was appropriate to say all of that in that they aren't reprimanding him or asking for an apology.

We are all well aware that there are many instances where a message that is entirely legal and protected is still completely inappropriate for someone's profession. I'm sure we're all aware of cases where judges and policemen and medical people and teachers and others have said things that would be entirely fair comments coming from a guy on the street but are completely unacceptable coming from representatives of the judicial or law enforcement or medical or educational professions.

I disagree. Again, he was not speaking as a representative. Just because he works for the university doesn't mean his opinion represents the university, and I think a lot of people can make that distinction.

And, as the CAUT letter explains, a university official cautioning a guest speaker about what she can say is at odds with the fundamental values behind what a university is supposed to represent.

It's not a "CAUT letter" any more than Houle's letter was 'a university letter.' Furthermore, I (along with many others) think that not allowing Houle to speak his mind because of his position is at odds with free speech. 'Let Coulter speak, but Houle best shut his mouth' makes no sense to me, and in that regard I agree with the university's response. It's no different from the president of Columbia speaking his mind. It's odd that you don't see that.

McDonald's corporation is probably a big supporter of free speech too, but I bet they don't let their employees greet customers with "hey, fatty, you should order a salad."

That's right. They'd be fired. Yet you are ok with the president of Columbia greeting Ahmadinejad the way he did; you didn't use your ridiculous McDonald's scenario and claim he was out of line. Quite the opposite. So I think you yourself have refuted the nonsense of that example as an appropriate comparison to the issue we are discussing.

When you're acting in an official capacity as a representative of your employer-- and it is beyond question that Houle was doing so when he issued this letter-- you're expected to act in accordance with your employer's policies, or chances are you're not going to be employed for much longer.

Yet he is still employed, isn't he? And that's been my point all along. That the U of O obviously believes in his right to free speech too.

So if the University of Ottawa's policy is to caution guest speakers to mind their mouths, then Houle was acting in accordance with their policy and we should be asking the U of O to explain how it reconciles this policy with the principles of academic freedom and the exchange of ideas that are supposed to be fundamental values of universities.

Try to wrap your head around this. Just because the U of O feels that Houle had a right to speak his mind doesn't mean that it's the university's "policy to caution guest speakers to mind their mouths." It simply means that it believes he had a right to speak his mind. It doesn't mean that they agree with his opinion, it just means that they think he had a right to say it. No where in that letter does Houle say he speaking for the university, that he is following their "policy" by informing Coulter of Canadian law. Just as the president and executive director of CAUT didn't say they are representing CAUT/the opinion of all its members in the letter they wrote. They simply wrote a letter and signed their names along with their positions, same as Houle.

And if he wasn't acting in accordance with U of O policy, I think it's reasonable to request them to explain what that policy actually is, issue some sort of statement regarding the issue, and if appropriate, a reprimand to Mr Houle.

They already explained what their policy is. They believe in freedom of speech. Evidently not just for Coulter, but for Houle, too.

I guess we would have to know why it was a "first".

Yes. The fact that it's a first, if it is, means nothing in and of itself.

I sincerely doubt that there has never, ever been a conservative speaker at the U of O before Coulter, so the claim that there's a bias towards conservatives, if no such letter has ever been sent in the past, is disproved by that very occurrence (or nonoccurence).

As for your going on and on about U of O "policy," as I've already stated, the "policy" seems to be freedom of speech for Houle as well as Coulter; the statement issued by the U of O supports that.

Edited April 3, 2010 by American Woman

[bloodyminded]

That's right. They'd be fired. Yet you are ok with the president of Columbia greeting Ahmadinejad the way he did; you didn't use your ridiculous McDonald's scenario and claim he was out of line. Quite the opposite. So I think you yourself have refuted the nonsense of that example as an appropriate comparison to the issue we are discussing.

Sure, and in fact, a far better, and more obviously apt analogy would be in watching how the same university president reacts to brutal dictators in other scenarios:

For example, when Musharraf spoke at Columbia, the same university president greeted him warmly and complimentarily (which is the norm in such situations).

I can only assume it's because the brutal military dictator Musharraf is a coalition ally; whereas the less-powerful Ahmadinejad was an official Enemy of the State.

In other words, the university president's stark distinction in behavior seems to have more to do with servility-to-power than with principle. It doesn't matter how the tyrants behave; only whether they are official allies or not.

[Argus]

The Communist line is B.S. Whatever Communist influences there were on the CCF were most certainly long gone decades ago. The Marxist-Leninists, you might note, formed their own parties.

I bet you would be hard-pressed to find an NDP MP who couldn't quote various passages from Marx and wasn't well-versed on Communist and Marxist ideology. Come on. It's pretty well known that there are a lot of his admirers in that party. Yes, I know there's a Communist and a Marxist Leninist party, but they are jokes, and no one with ambition is going to go near them.

The NDP no longer have an official platform consisting of nationalizing key sectors of the economy, but that doesn't mean many of them don't want to control just about everything in sight.

NDP and nationalization

And there certainly have been NDP members who have been outspoken to the point of humiliating their own party (I'm sure the name Svend Robinson comes to mind soon enough). The NDP is no worse than the Tories at enforcing orthodoxy.

Nonsense. As I've said before, You can be pro or anti choice and be a Tory. You can be in favour of or against capital punishment. You can be opposed to gay rights or support them. The Tories are inclusive enough to accept differences of opinion. The NDP are not. You can't be an NDPer who is opposed to gay rights and gay marriage. It's simply not permitted. Any NDP MP who spoke at an anti-abortion rally on Monday would be an independant MP by Tuesday. There is a check-list of politically correct beliefs you have to support in order to be a member in good standing of that party.

The problem was that there were so many nuts getting nominations.

Any new party is going to have a lot of people who are not natural politicians joining its ranks. I think many liked the fact that Reform had a lot of real people in it, and yes, some of them were characters, but you knew what they stood for and they did reflect an opinion base in Canada. Most politicians are drones. You don't know who they are or what, if anything, they stand for or believe in.

Edited April 3, 2010 by Argus

[kimmy]

Yes, of course. Because naturally the president and the executive director of CAUT represent the opinion of all 65,000+ members when they write a letter and sign their name to it.

Whether all 65,000 members agree with the position or not, the letter is an official communication on behalf of their organization, sent by the leaders of the organization. So yes, the CAUT letter does represent the members.

Nothing odd about it at all. I've never said Houle is representing the university, either. I don't think when he signed that letter he was any more representing the university as a whole than the president and executive director represented CAUT as a whole with their letter.

(...)

I disagree. Again, he was not speaking as a representative.

You have got to be kidding me. That is utterly ridiculous.

If he was acting as "Francois Houle, regular citizen" and not "Francois Houle, Vice-President Academic and Provost, University of Ottawa"

...then why did he sign the letter "Francois Houle, Vice-President Academic and Provost, University of Ottawa"???

The content of the letter makes it clear that he is speaking on behalf of the campus. ("We are, of course, always delighted to welcome speakers on our campus...") He sent it from his work email, he cc'ed his colleagues, and he signed his job title to it. For you to somehow try to argue that he wasn't acting in any official capacity is just ridiculous beyond words.

Just because he works for the university doesn't mean his opinion represents the university, and I think a lot of people can make that distinction.

It's not a "CAUT letter" any more than Houle's letter was 'a university letter.'

It *is* a CAUT letter: it's an official communication delivered on behalf of the organization.

Houle's letter is a "University of Ottawa" letter for the same reason.

Furthermore, I (along with many others) think that not allowing Houle to speak his mind because of his position is at odds with free speech. 'Let Coulter speak, but Houle best shut his mouth' makes no sense to me, and in that regard I agree with the university's response. It's no different from the president of Columbia speaking his mind. It's odd that you don't see that.

That's right. They'd be fired. Yet you are ok with the president of Columbia greeting Ahmadinejad the way he did; you didn't use your ridiculous McDonald's scenario and claim he was out of line. Quite the opposite. So I think you yourself have refuted the nonsense of that example as an appropriate comparison to the issue we are discussing.

I'll address Makmood v Columbia in my next post, since bloodyminded jumped in on that too.

However, the comparison to a McDonalds worker representing his employer isn't ridiculous at all. When you're on the job, you may still have the constitutional right to free speech, but your employer expects you avoid saying things that are at odds with the employer's values.

A judge has the right to free speech, but when he is in the court-room, he can't just say anything that pops into his head. He might think a witness is a lying idiot, but if he voices that opinion during testimony, the whole trial may be ruined. It is one thing for a guy to say "all you people ought to go back where you came from" and it is quite another if the guy saying it is an on-duty RCMP officer. There have been teachers fired for spreading views that were at odds with the curriculum or deemed potentially intimidating to students.

And if the university really values the free exchange of ideas, then an official of the university warning a guest speaker to watch her mouth certainly appears to be at odds with that value.

Yet he is still employed, isn't he? And that's been my point all along. That the U of O obviously believes in his right to free speech too.

Try to wrap your head around this. Just because the U of O feels that Houle had a right to speak his mind doesn't mean that it's the university's "policy to caution guest speakers to mind their mouths."

When the caution to mind her mouth came in an formal communication from a high ranking university official, that's highly debatable.

It simply means that it believes he had a right to speak his mind. It doesn't mean that they agree with his opinion, it just means that they think he had a right to say it. No where in that letter does Houle say he speaking for the university, that he is following their "policy" by informing Coulter of Canadian law. Just as the president and executive director of CAUT didn't say they are representing CAUT/the opinion of all its members in the letter they wrote. They simply wrote a letter and signed their names along with their positions, same as Houle.

They wrote a letter, signed their job titles to it, posted it on their organization's website, and sent it to Houle's boss, Allan Rock. For you to somehow not grasp that this was an official communication on behalf of their organization, is mind-boggling.

And for you to not grasp that Houle's letter was likewise an official communication on behalf of his employer... I'm just speechless.

I sincerely doubt that there has never, ever been a conservative speaker at the U of O before Coulter, so the claim that there's a bias towards conservatives, if no such letter has ever been sent in the past, is disproved by that very occurrence (or nonoccurence).

Then we find ourselves looking for some other rationale for what prompted Houle's warning.

-k

[kimmy]

That's right. They'd be fired. Yet you are ok with the president of Columbia greeting Ahmadinejad the way he did; you didn't use your ridiculous McDonald's scenario and claim he was out of line. Quite the opposite. So I think you yourself have refuted the nonsense of that example as an appropriate comparison to the issue we are discussing.

We already covered this. I think I already said that if all Houle had said is "personally, I think she's an idiot," I'd have been fine with that. Personally, I think she's an idiot too.

Nicky asked my how what happened at Columbia is different from what happened at U of O, and I asked whether Columbia's president had threatened Makmood with legal consequences if he stepped out of line.

Of course not, you informed me.

Well, that's the difference.

Makmood, a guy with a track record of calling for Israel's obliteration and denying the Holocaust, was (as far as I have seen) not given any warning at all as to what he could say.

Coulter, with a track record of ... making fun of Muslims, apparently, was informed that if she wasn't careful about what she said, the RCMP would be getting in her business.

You guys don't see a difference? I see a huge difference.

Houle's letter was clearly an attempt to "put her on notice" using the not-too-subtle threat of criminal charges. And not only that, but it was also not a particularly honest threat either, since virtually nothing Coulter could have said would have resulted in the law coming after her. Even the most extreme statements she's made in the past could probably not be prosecuted in Canada (I seem to recall something about assassinating Bill Clinton that might qualify...)

So it's not just an attempt at getting her to limit the contents of her speech... but a dishonest attempt. A puffed up threat with no substance, intended to either intimidate her or to appease certain elements on campus.

Sure, and in fact, a far better, and more obviously apt analogy would be in watching how the same university president reacts to brutal dictators in other scenarios:

For example, when Musharraf spoke at Columbia, the same university president greeted him warmly and complimentarily (which is the norm in such situations).

I can only assume it's because the brutal military dictator Musharraf is a coalition ally; whereas the less-powerful Ahmadinejad was an official Enemy of the State.

In other words, the university president's stark distinction in behavior seems to have more to do with servility-to-power than with principle. It doesn't matter how the tyrants behave; only whether they are official allies or not.

Actually, I believe the Columbia president's comments regarding Makmood's reprehensible views were, explicitly, centered on Makmood's Holocaust denials.

And again, nobody showed me anything at all where Makmood was told what he could or couldn't say.

In fact, I think I recall that one of the articles I read contained assurances from university officials that people *would* have the opportunity to question him on his Holocaust statements.

To me, that's how an institution that's committed to the free exchange of ideas would deal with a controversial speaker.

-k

[bloodyminded]

Actually, I believe the Columbia president's comments regarding Makmood's reprehensible views were, explicitly, centered on Makmood's Holocaust denials.

No, it was a tirade--not an inaccurate one, perhaps, but it went beyond the matter of Holocaust denial. He also pointed out, quite scathingly, that Mahmood was a "petty tyrant," and exociated him for the lack of freedom in Iran. Whatever one thinks of this, it is wholly unrelated to contentious matters of Holocaust denial.

Whereas Musharraf was given no such hostile treatment. Quite the opposite; he was warmly and graciously received.

However, Musharraf was also a "petty tyrant," differing from Mahmood only in that Musharaff was more powerful and influential as to his own nation's policies....and (most crucially) an ally of the West.

I imagine that last fact is the only one that realy matters; that this explains the difference in reception of the two men. Nationalistic servility to Power is the root cause of the disparity.

And again, nobody showed me anything at all where Makmood was told what he could or couldn't say.

In fact, I think I recall that one of the articles I read contained assurances from university officials that people *would* have the opportunity to question him on his Holocaust statements.

To me, that's how an institution that's committed to the free exchange of ideas would deal with a controversial speaker.

-k

I would feel more sanguine about the vaunted free exchange of ideas if the President of the university didn't base his behavior on principles of ideological obedience to State foreign policy.

Edited April 3, 2010 by bloodyminded

[nicky10013]

And again, nobody showed me anything at all where Makmood was told what he could or couldn't say.

-k

So where did Houle specifically point out what Coulter couldn't say? It was a warning that the freedom of speech is slightly different here than it is in the states which is true. You've claimed that it's a chilling effect on speech at the university. Well, wouldn't calling someone a petty tyrant be equally as chilling? (especially since he isn't a petty tyrant, just a puppet of the petty tyrant) It's a valid question.

[nicky10013]

I wasn't going to "bump" this thread to address some of the earlier comments that I didn't get to respond to. But since it's already bumped, why not.

I wanted to react to this little exchange where Nicky asked how what Francois Houle's letter is any different from what the president of Columbia U said in regards to Makmood:

...and here's the reply.

Bingo?

With AW's help we've unearthed a rather substantial difference between Houle and the president of Columbia U: one guy said he things the impending speaker is a moron, and the other guy warned the impending speaker to watch what she says or she could get arrested. That's the difference between what happened at U of O and what happened at Columbia, Nicky.

What about this talk of a "caveat" placed on Makmood, Nicky? What caveat? You said there was one, I've never heard of it, you failed to provide evidence of it, so what the hell were you talking about there? We're all aware of the "caveat" Houle placed on Coulter's speech. Where's the analog in regard to Makmood's speech at Columbia?

Now, as for the suggestion that Houle was simply providing her with friendly advice... come on.

There's only three possible explanations for that claim:

1) you think I'm stupid enough to believe it.

2) you're stupid enough to believe it.

3) you think Francois Houle is stupid enough to believe she might not have been aware of the laws.

I'm sure points one and two are highly debatable, but pretty clearly point three is ridiculous. One doesn't become the VP Academic of a major university by being that stupid.

She was touring with Ezra Levant, who of all people knows Canada's hate speech laws intimately, and the speeches were promoted as being about "Political correctness, Media Bias, and Free Speech."

You really think Francois Houle believed she needed to be told about the laws, or that the letter was sent in a spirit of good-natured advice?

Come on. He sent the letter to put her on notice.

-k

Well, considering she stubbornly still thinks Canada sent troops to Vietnam, I wouldn't put it past her to be equally stupid regarding our speech laws.

Secondly, why is it such a bad thing for a person on notice. If anything she was put on notice for, it was that we don't welcome hate speech. Putting someone on notice doesn't deprive them of their right to speak, nor does it undermine the university's values BECAUSE SHE WAS STILL ALLOWED TO SPEAK!

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, considering she stubbornly still thinks Canada sent troops to Vietnam, I wouldn't put it past her to be equally stupid regarding our speech laws.

Then you may as well join her in the Dunce Corner, as Canada most certainly did send troops to Vietnam, albeit for 1973 Paris Peace Accord purposes.

[bloodyminded]

Then you may as well join her in the Dunce Corner, as Canada most certainly did send troops to Vietnam, albeit for 1973 Paris Peace Accord purposes.

But that's not what she meant when she made the ignorant claim. As you know very well.

[Guest American Woman]

But that's not what she meant when she made the ignorant claim. As you know very well.

Of course he does. Which just shows the lengths some will go to in order to 'defend' their view. Of course it just makes them look stupid as well as dishonest, but I honestly think they believe they're giving the appearance of making a valid point.

[bush_cheney2004]

But that's not what she meant when she made the ignorant claim. As you know very well.

I have no idea what she meant, only that the statement above is false. Others have pointed this out as well. I bet that most Canadians have no frinking idea of Canada's complicity in the Vietnam War (napalm, defoliants, other war materials, combat volunteers, espionage, etc.).

http://kerfuffle.wordpress.com/2006/10/15/canadas-quiet-complicity/

[bloodyminded]

Of course he does. Which just shows the lengths some will go to in order to 'defend' their view. Of course it just makes them look stupid as well as dishonest, but I honestly think they believe they're giving the appearance of making a valid point.

Exactly! I mean, if one admires this or that pundit or polemicist, why then does one feel he or she has some vital horse in the race? Why not say, "Oh, Anne, you stepped in it on that one," and take the grand errors for what they are?

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course he does. Which just shows the lengths some will go to in order to 'defend' their view. Of course it just makes them look stupid as well as dishonest, but I honestly think they believe they're giving the appearance of making a valid point.

You of all members spend more time at this than anyone here. The fact is that Canada sent more than 200 "troops" to Vietnam, and nothing in your pretzel logic toolkit can change that fact.