Anne Coulter comes to Canada

[Guest American Woman]

American Woman, on 03 April 2010 - 04:16 PM, said: 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.

Can't refute what I said, eh? Of course not, because it's a fact.

The university did not ask him to write the letter. He clearly wrote it on his own. He said "I," not "we" not "the university." The university, in giving its statement, never said he was representing the university and he never claimed to be representing it. He was not, by mere employment, "representing" the university. I'm guessing too, if you were to act on your own and claim to be "representing your employer," your employer would be quick to point out that you were in no way "representing" them.

As I said, you can't refute what I said, because it's true. But please. Try to come up with better insults. This one is just ... well, let's just say "silly" would be a big improvement.

Edited April 4, 2010 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

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.

There's a huge difference between our laws, too; so of course the president of Columbia couldn't warn him about illegality. In Houle's case, he could warn about illegality as it was relevant. But the bottom line is that the president of Columbia was no less accommodating than Houle was. He was obviously as "biased" against him as people are saying Houle was against Coulter.

Furthermore, as I've pointed out, the student of a conservative university organization filed a complaint with Election Canada against Michael Moore, with the intent of keeping him out of Canada. Yet that's been ignored every time I've brought it up, even as people criticize U of O students for not allowing posters of Coulter to be put up.

By allowing Houle to speak his mind, the U of O was respecting 'freedom of expression' for both parties; for both Houle and Coulter. And by protesting, the students were expressing their same 'freedom of expression.'

Yet according to so many here, Coulter is the only one whose rights to say whatever she wanted should have been allowed/respected.

[jbg]

By allowing Houle to speak his mind, the U of O was respecting 'freedom of expression' for both parties; for both Houle and Coulter. And by protesting, the students were expressing their same 'freedom of expression.'

I think that even if he was speaking for himself by using "I" his position lends credibility adn threat to what Houle was saying.

If someone warns someone else that their speech may constitute a crime, and that person happens to have an official role, that is hardly the mere expression of a right to speak freely. The way the President of Columbia handled matters with Mahmoud Ahmejenejad (sp), i.e. stating that the speaker's views were uncivilized and anathema, would be an expression of opinion.

As for the mobs, I believe that the lack of proper crowd control may well have been deliberate. In short, no one was going to make it easy for Anne to give a public speech at the U of O.

[Smallc]

http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20100403003041479

I guess according to some of you here, free speech doesn't exist in the US.

[Dithers]

http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20100403003041479

I guess according to some of you here, free speech doesn't exist in the US.

He's obviously a dirty, fanatical left wing commy. Therefore the very same treatment for him amounts to patriotism.

Get real.

[kimmy]

Can't refute what I said, eh? Of course not, because it's a fact.

It's not a fact. Nor is your ridiculous claim that the CAUT letter is just the personal opinions of Penni Stewart and James Turk a fact. Not surprisingly, every article I've seen regarding the CAUT letter recognized it as a statement from the CAUT, not the opinion of two people. It's the opinion of two people who just happen to have the complete authority to state that opinion on behalf of their organization.

Likewise Houle.

The university did not ask him to write the letter. He clearly wrote it on his own.

If the letter had come from some guy in the campus IT department, you'd have a point, because that guy would obviously not have any sort of authority to speak on behalf of the university. Houle, on the other hand, does.

He said "I," not "we" not "the university."

Yeah, right after he welcomed her to "our campus", he started writing "I" instead of "we". So what? As the senior exec for academics at the university, he has the authority to speak on this issue whether he's saying "I" or "we".

The university, in giving its statement, never said he was representing the university and he never claimed to be representing it. He was not, by mere employment, "representing" the university.

He was clearly sending the email as Provost and VP Academic. With a job title like that, any reasonable person would believe that he is de facto representing the university.

I'm guessing too, if you were to act on your own and claim to be "representing your employer," your employer would be quick to point out that you were in no way "representing" them.

So if Houle was acting independently of the university, why has his employer not issued any sort of statement to clarify that Houle's letter was not representative of the university?

I forgot to ask earlier: who are these "many people" who support Houle on this? I have yet to see a single expert opinion, or any professor, or academic group, or a single columnist of any note, endorse what Houle did. Among credible observers, there's almost universal agreement that it was poor judgment and at-odds with the purpose of a university.

Those writing in support of Houle, as far as I can tell, seem to be people who are just happy that somebody told the mean woman to watch her mouth.

-k

[bloodyminded]

http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20100403003041479

I guess according to some of you here, free speech doesn't exist in the US.

Nice catch, smallc.

[Shady]

He's obviously a dirty, fanatical left wing commy. Therefore the very same treatment for him amounts to patriotism.

Get real.

You people continue to conflate two seperate issues. Free speech vs free protest. Anyone is allowed to protest. Peaceful protest. As far as I've read, Obama's buddy Bill Ayers' speech was cancelled due to peaceful protest. And the event was cancelled long before he was going to speak. However, Ann Coulter's speech was given the green light by the University. And the protest which silenced free speech was anything but peaceful. It was thuggish, might-makes-right behavior.

On a side not, comparing Ann Coulter to Obama's buddy Bill Ayers is completely ridiculous. Ann Coulter says offensive things once in a while. Obama's buddy Bill Ayers on the other hand...

Ayers was a co-founder of Weather Underground, a radical anti-war group that claimed responsibility for a series of bombings, including explosions at the Pentagon and US Capitol that didn't kill anyone. He was a fugitive for years. After surrendering in 1980

Link

[Dithers]

Your idol Anne ran in the face of protests that were entirely peaceful.

If she can't take the heat of her demented worldview being challenged, then yeah, run.

The actions of the two are not being compared, althogh Anne's advocacy of violence does border on criminal. What is being compared is the right to peacefully protest. Even those who deign to protest neo-conservative views have that right.

[bush_cheney2004]

http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20100403003041479

I guess according to some of you here, free speech doesn't exist in the US.

Did Mr. Ayers all get an A-Houle letter ? Nope.

[Shady]

entirely peaceful

Now you're just resorting to lies. Flipping tables and chairs, burning and destroying books, and over-running security isn't "entirely" peaceful.

[Guest American Woman]

I think that even if he was speaking for himself by using "I" his position lends credibility adn threat to what Houle was saying.

Nothing wrong with his position adding credibility. As for "threat," Houle's 'warning' added nothing to the threat she would have been under due to Canada's laws. Houle had no more authority to act in that regard due of his university position than the next person would have. If Coulter felt "threatened" by what he said, it's no different from how she's made others feel with her outrageous, hateful comments. I keep repeating that Houle had as much a right to say what was on his mind as Coulter has. The idea that he should be less able to speak his mind because of his position is a form of 'censorship.' So again, anyone who thinks Coulter should be free to speak her mind should be supporting Houle's right to speak his.

If someone warns someone else that their speech may constitute a crime, and that person happens to have an official role, that is hardly the mere expression of a right to speak freely.

I don't see how working at the university would give Houle an "official role" in Coulter's speaking there, but the fact remains that Coulter didn't have the "right to speak freely," as Canada's hate law would be applicable to her, with or without Houle's "warning."

The way the President of Columbia handled matters with Mahmoud Ahmejenejad (sp), i.e. stating that the speaker's views were uncivilized and anathema, would be an expression of opinion.

From what I've read, there were conditions to Ahmadinejad's being allowed to speak at Columbia after he was denied the right to speak the previous year. Furthermore, the president demanded that Ahmadinejad answer certain questions, which I see as no different from requesting someone to speak civilly. The president of Columbia made accusations regarding Ahmadinejad and what he would say before he even spoke which mirrors Coulter's complaint that she was reprimanded before she even uttered a word of her speech. There were also many protests, which again mirrors what happened to Coulter. No one, to my knowledge, complained about the protesters.

As for the mobs, I believe that the lack of proper crowd control may well have been deliberate. In short, no one was going to make it easy for Anne to give a public speech at the U of O.

The organizers of the event would be responsible for enough security for proper crowd control, so I can't begin to understand why it would have been "deliberate."

[bloodyminded]

You people continue to conflate two seperate issues. Free speech vs free protest. Anyone is allowed to protest. Peaceful protest. As far as I've read, Obama's buddy Bill Ayers' speech was cancelled due to peaceful protest. And the event was cancelled long before he was going to speak. However, Ann Coulter's speech was given the green light by the University. And the protest which silenced free speech was anything but peaceful. It was thuggish, might-makes-right behavior.

What you're saying is that the President of a university cancelling a speech by a radical left-winger doesn't speak of anything.

But when a radical right-winger chooses to cancel her own appearance, based on utterly unsubstantiated, totally unproven claims of danger, that is "thuggish" behavior...by left-wingers.

In the former example, free speech was stopped before it could begin, by the university's president.

In the latter, the speechifier's own organizers cancelled. It was not imposed from without. (You say it was, but offer no evidence.)

[Shady]

The organizers of the event would be responsible for enough security for proper crowd control

Right. So people who purposely acted in non-peaceful ways (flipping tables, over-running secirty) have no responsiblity for silencing free speech. It's all on security.

[Shady]

based on utterly unsubstantiated, totally unproven claims of danger, that is "thuggish" behavior...by left-wingers

I just don't understand why you people have to keep resorting to lies. We've seen the link to the blogs, with the commentary and photos. We've seen the pics in the newspapers of the extremely angry anti-Coulter demonstrators. Please stop lying.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Shady

[Dithers]

Now you're just resorting to lies. Flipping tables and chairs, burning and destroying books, and over-running security isn't "entirely" peaceful.

You're full of it, as per usual. I would normally chalk it up to intentional ignorance, but given your track record, it is quite obviously malicious. There were no incidents of violence.

They were vocal, and angry, which is normal considering the venom she spews.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Dithers

[bush_cheney2004]

You're full of it, as per usual. There were no incidents of violence.

They were vocal, and angry, which is normal considering the venom she spews.

...don't forget the fire alarm....very illegal! (even in Canada)

Edited April 4, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Dithers]

...don't forget the fire alarm....very illegal! (even in Canada)

Ahha, so now we have it. The grave security threat posed to Anne Coulter was a pulled fire alarm.

She obviously had to flee in the face of such a danger. Fire alarms are well known to be a leading factor in death in Canada, which explains why highschool children who pull firealarms are imprisoned for a term of no less than five years.

[bloodyminded]

I just don't understand why you people have to keep resorting to lies. We've seen the link to the blogs, with the commentary and photos. We've seen the pics in the newspapers of the extremely angry anti-Coulter demonstrators. Please stop lying.

Where was the violence?

Hell, where can you find even reports to the police of violence, for that matter?

[Shady]

Ahha, so now we have it. The grave security threat posed to Anne Coulter was a pulled fire alarm.

Fire alarms are well known to be a leading factor in death in Canada

Why do you defend inappropriate behavior, especially direct towards somebody's free speech rights? I don't understand it.

Look, I know you dislike Ann Coulter. But please be reasonable. We can't go around condoning the pulling of fire alarms everytime somebody we don't like is trying to speak.

[Dithers]

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Fire-alarm-at-hotel-gives-unwanted-wake-up-call-?urn=nfl,204155&cp=7

I would liek to commend the New York Jets for braving this grave threat to their wellbeing. They are truly national heroes for having to go through a pulled firealarm. Sources believe that that the perpetrator must have originated in Canada, seeing as how such a despicable act would only ever be contemplated in such a third world hell hole.

[Smallc]

Now you're just resorting to lies. Flipping tables and chairs, burning and destroying books, and over-running security isn't "entirely" peaceful.

I've heard that there were death threats received in Wyoming...by those accounts, the protest in Canada (protected by the Constitution - no one was arrested, so it must have bee quite peaceful) was more peaceful.

http://www.trib.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_cb380aac-9ac6-55bc-aabf-ea5592f8e030.html

Edited April 4, 2010 by Smallc

[bloodyminded]

Ahha, so now we have it. The grave security threat posed to Anne Coulter was a pulled fire alarm.

She obviously had to flee in the face of such a danger. Fire alarms are well known to be a leading factor in death in Canada, which explains why highschool children who pull firealarms are imprisoned for a term of no less than five years.

This must also be the locus of the "hate crime" Coulter claims was made agaisnt her.

[kimmy]

Furthermore, as I've pointed out, the student of a conservative university organization filed a complaint with Election Canada against Michael Moore, with the intent of keeping him out of Canada. Yet that's been ignored every time I've brought it up, even as people criticize U of O students for not allowing posters of Coulter to be put up.

Since Moore was actively campaigning against the Conservative Party of Canada during an election, it was an entirely legitimate complaint.

There is a lot of debate regarding the restrictiveness of Canada's rules regarding how election campaigns may be contested, and whether these rules are reasonable restrictions on free expression. However, a big fat foreigner campaigning against a Canadian party is clearly opposed to the spirit of those rules, and if Moore was unwilling to respect the rules, keeping his tubby ass out of the country during the election was entirely reasonable.

By allowing Houle to speak his mind, the U of O was respecting 'freedom of expression' for both parties; for both Houle and Coulter. And by protesting, the students were expressing their same 'freedom of expression.'

Yet according to so many here, Coulter is the only one whose rights to say whatever she wanted should have been allowed/respected.

Nobody is disagreeing that Francois Houle has the right to express himself. There is widespread agreement, however, that it is inappropriate for a university official to request a guest speaker limit the contents of her speech.

If Houle wished to express his opinion of Coulter, he should certainly have done so as a private individual.

-k

Edited April 4, 2010 by kimmy

[bloodyminded]

Why do you defend inappropriate behavior, especially direct towards somebody's free speech rights? I don't understand it.

Look, I know you dislike Ann Coulter. But please be reasonable. We can't go around condoning the pulling of fire alarms everytime somebody we don't like is trying to speak.

I agree, it is inappropriate.

So, let's just run wiht it, make promiscuous generalizations about some entity called "the left" that, as a community of ideologues, pulled a fire alarm.

I mean, it's not as if it was just one single person who pulled the fire alarm. That couldn't be.