Anne Coulter comes to Canada

[bloodyminded]

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.

This'd be a good time to stop digging your embarassing hole.

[Guest American Woman]

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?

It's tiresome to say the least; and why I so seldom respond to said posters. I have no desire to play that game. It's obvious what Coulter was referring to with her comment. Furthermore, when she continued to be called on it, she didn't say "I'm referring to the 1973 Paris Peace Accord," she said 'I think they did, I'll get back to you' or something similar, and of course she never brought it up again. Which is really all the proof we need that she was wrong.

[bush_cheney2004]

This'd be a good time to stop digging your embarassing hole.

Blow it out your ice hole....I'm up for anything you have on Canada's involvement...oh wait...you are a man without a country!

[bush_cheney2004]

It's tiresome to say the least; and why I so seldom respond to said posters. I have no desire to play that game. It's obvious what Coulter was referring to with her comment.

But you did respond...and continue to respond. Coulter's statements are her own, no need for your embellishment.

How many books have you sold?

[bloodyminded]

Blow it out your ice hole....I'm up for anything you have on Canada's involvement...oh wait...you are a man without a country!

Ah, a familiar refrain.

[bloodyminded]

It's tiresome to say the least; and why I so seldom respond to said posters. I have no desire to play that game. It's obvious what Coulter was referring to with her comment. Furthermore, when she continued to be called on it, she didn't say "I'm referring to the 1973 Paris Peace Accord," she said 'I think they did, I'll get back to you' or something similar, and of course she never brought it up again. Which is really all the proof we need that she was wrong.

To say the least. I appreciate it when the Coulters of the world insist upon exposing their own ignorance. It saves time.

[Guest American Woman]

To say the least. I appreciate it when the Coulters of the world insist upon exposing their own ignorance. It saves time.

[Guest American Woman]

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.

How do you know it's an official letter sent on behalf of the organization? It doesn't say it is.

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"???

I never said he wasn't acting as "Francois Houle, Vice-President Academic and Provost, University of Ottawa." Of course he was. He was acting as an individual, an individual whose job title is "Vice-President Academic and Provost, University of Ottawa. But again. Just because he signed his job title doesn't mean he was speaking as a representative of the university. He was speaking on his own behalf. He doesn't say he is speaking on behalf of the university.

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...")

Nice selective quote from the letter. Yes, he does say "we are delighted to welcome speakers on our campus....." BUT when he goes into what people are upset about, what some are questioning, he says "I" ..... "I would, however, like to inform you..." and "I therefore encourage you to educate yourself..." and "I therefore ask you ...." not 'the university' and not 'we...', but *I*.

He sent it from his work email,

So what?? Anyone who sends an email from their work place is representing their work place?

he cc'ed his colleagues, and he signed his job title to it.

Yes. HIS job title, not 'sincerely, the University of Ottawa.' So what if he cc'ed his colleagues? He didn't sign their names or claim to be representing them.

For you to somehow try to argue that he wasn't acting in any official capacity is just ridiculous beyond words.

For you to insist that he was acting as a representative of the university is just ridiculous beyond words.

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

Nowhere in the letter does it say it's an "official communication delivered on behalf of the organization." It's a letter stating the opinion of the writers of the letter, signed with their positions included. That doesn't mean they are "officially" speaking on behalf of 65,000 members. I see no mention of 'this is the way the members feel' or any mention of 'we are writing on behalf of the 65,000+ members,' or any other indication that it's anything other than what it appears to be; a letter signed by the president and executive director (or whatever) of CAUT.

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

Wrong. It's a "Houle" letter.

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.

It sure is ridiculous. For one thing, in your example, the customer is a paying customer. In the Coulter example, Coulter is being paid. So there's no comparison to offending a paying customer. If Coulter was offended in this situation, so what? As I've pointed out, the U of O's "values" obviously extend their "right to free speech value" to Houle, as well as Coulter.

Edited April 3, 2010 by American Woman

[scorpio]

withdrawn

Edited April 3, 2010 by scorpio

[Argus]

I never said he wasn't acting as "Francois Houle, Vice-President Academic and Provost, University of Ottawa." Of course he was. He was acting as an individual, an individual whose job title is "Vice-President Academic and Provost, University of Ottawa. But again. Just because he signed his job title doesn't mean he was speaking as a representative of the university. He was speaking on his own behalf. He doesn't say he is speaking on behalf of the university.

You know, your frantic efforts at making torturously illogical arguments denying the most basic, obvious parts of any opponent's position is why you have so little credibility in your arguments.

Here's a hint for you. When Judy Rebick says the UofO is notorious for having issues with free speech you know there's a problem there.

[Guest American Woman]

You know, your frantic efforts at making torturously illogical arguments denying the most basic, obvious parts of any opponent's position is why you have so little credibility in your arguments.

Such drama. "Frantic," "tortuously illogical" and a claim that I have "so little credibility." Way to refute what I said!

Here's a hint for you. When Judy Rebick says the UofO is notorious for having issues with free speech you know there's a problem there.

And here's a hint for you. Judy Rebick's opinion, and I quote, that "the University of Ottawa is a bit notorious in being very restrictive in speech issues" has nothing to do with whether or not Houle was representing the university with his letter, and his reference to "I" would further indicate that he wasn't.

Houle didn't say he was representing the university. The university didn't say that he was representing them. And that's a fact.

[Argus]

Houle didn't say he was representing the university. The university didn't say that he was representing them. And that's a fact.

You are a silly woman. Go and darn some socks or something.

[jbg]

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.

Maybe, to quote Ezra Levant, "[he] just [doesn't] think that Canada needs to be open to any dime-store bigot from around the world."

I think the point is that Canada prides itself as being a country where free speech rules, and that laws that proscribe it are contrary to their self-described legacy of liberty.

[Smallc]

I think the point is that Canada prides itself as being a country where free speech rules, and that laws that proscribe it are contrary to their self-described legacy of liberty.

Well, that's one opinion, but I also believe that Canada prides itself on being an inclusive place, and as part of that, we've decided that there are limits to how free speech can be.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Smallc

[jbg]

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.

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.

THere is a huge difference between the expression of opinion by the President of Columbia about Imadinnerjacket and warning him (or her) about illegality, or allowing mobs to interfere with free and safe access.

[Smallc]

or allowing mobs to interfere with free and safe access.

The police didn't stop the protest, so it couldn't have been too bad. Peaceful assembly and freedom of expression go hand in hand here.

[ToadBrother]

Well, that's one opinion, but I also believe that Canada prides itself on being an inclusive place, and as part of that, we've decided that there are limits to how free speech can be.

Yes, hauling comedians into a fake court because he got into an argument with drunk and abusive lesbians, and where even if he wins, he gets stuck with the bill, without even the civil remedy of seeking legal costs is a sign of an inclusive country.

Free speech limitations are a sign of intellectual cowardice, nothing more.

[jbg]

Well, that's one opinion, but I also believe that Canada prides itself on being an inclusive place, and as part of that, we've decided that there are limits to how free speech can be.

With all due respect (and I usually respect your views despite my diametrical opposition to many of them) there is no more inclusive country than the U.S. Or else how did a member of a once-ridiculed and/or feared minority wind up being popularly elected President. Remember, in your country Kim Campbell was elected party leader of a dying party and was not elected in her own right.

We have a much better diversity record than Canada has.

[Smallc]

We have a much better diversity record than Canada has.

That is very disputable. You have a record.....whether it's better or worse is another matter.

[Smallc]

Yes, hauling comedians into a fake court because he got into an argument with drunk and abusive lesbians, and where even if he wins, he gets stuck with the bill, without even the civil remedy of seeking legal costs is a sign of an inclusive country.

You can take the decisions that the HRC makes to a superior court. I'm not sure about the Canadian HRC, but that is the case for the provincial ones, like with any provincial administrative authority, of which the HRCs aren't the only example.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Smallc

[nicky10013]

With all due respect (and I usually respect your views despite my diametrical opposition to many of them) there is no more inclusive country than the U.S. Or else how did a member of a once-ridiculed and/or feared minority wind up being popularly elected President. Remember, in your country Kim Campbell was elected party leader of a dying party and was not elected in her own right.

We have a much better diversity record than Canada has.

In terms of politics...maybe. The real diversity records are the employment rates and wage rates of visible minorities.

Edited April 4, 2010 by nicky10013

[bush_cheney2004]

In terms of politics...maybe. The real diversity records are the employment rates and wage rates of visible minorities.

Your use of the term "visible minority" only proves jbg's point. Why does Canada continue with such "racist" language?

[Smallc]

In terms of politics...maybe.

Although, it must be remembered that the current Governor General was sworn in and the only complaints related to her possible separatist relationship, and not her ethnicity.

[ToadBrother]

You can take the decisions that the HRC makes to a superior court. I'm not sure about the Canadian HRC, but that is the case for the provincial ones, like with any provincial administrative authority, of which the HRCs aren't the only example.

The history of these fake courts is that if they feel at all that the person they're pursuing is going to challenge them, as happened with Macleans, they kill it dead. They are, like all those that fear free speech, ultimately pathetic cowards who don't want to have to justify their judicial intrusions to a court.

If these things are so damned important, why aren't they in the judiciary, as opposed to some bizarre quasi-world, in other words legislatively created pseudo-courts?

[jbg]

You are a silly woman. Go and darn some socks or something.

I happen not to agree with the person you are attacking on this thread. Her posts, though, are serious and thoughtful ones, even if I disagree with them.

That attack was needless and should be withdrawn.