Anne Coulter comes to Canada

[Shady]

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.

Two wrongs don't make a right. So this is all you guys got? This is your pathetic defense?

[Dithers]

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.

No, what I despise is peopel like you outright lying. You depict the protest as brutally violent without a shred of evidence (because it is non-existent) then resort to saying a pulled fire alarm is equivalent to a grave secutiry threat.

Nobody said pulling an alarm is appropriate. A complete figment of your imagination there.

WHat is a figment is your pipe dream of violent protests. Well, that is not entirely accurate. You are intentionally and maliciously lying, which is a step beyond living in a fairy tale world.

[bloodyminded]

Two wrongs don't make a right. So this is all you guys got? This is your pathetic defense?

No, it's a defense against the factually incorrect statements (made by Coulter herself, as well as some posters here) that such a thing could never happen in America, only in Canada.

At any rate, you haven't yet proven any "wrong" in the U of O case.

[Dithers]

Two wrongs don't make a right. So this is all you guys got? This is your pathetic defense?

Defense to what? You said the protests were violent. You lied.

End of story. Move on.

[Shady]

You depict the protest as brutally violent

There you go again. Can you make even one post without lying? Nobody here characterized the protest as "brutally violent." That's your premise, your lie, and your strawman.

[Guest American Woman]

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

"Actively" campaigning?

And since Coulter had made hateful comments, the "warning" regarding Canada's hate law was entirely legitmate.

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.

"Big fat foreigner" .... "tubby ass" ..... quite the intelligent conversation there. I feel as if I'm back in Jr. High .......

[Guest American Woman]

No, it's a defense against the factually incorrect statements (made by Coulter herself, as well as some posters here) that such a thing could never happen in America, only in Canada.

Coulter said she has been speaking regularly at university campuses for a decade. While she has certainly been heckled, she said this is the first time a speaking engagement has had to be cancelled because of protesters.

“This has never, ever, ever happened before — even at the stupidest American university,” she said.

Organizers, not university cancelled Ann Coulter: U of O

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

The fire alarm stunt is proof positive of a desire to stop Coulter's appearance by any means necessary.

And it worked!

(But it also backfired...Coulter is getting more press than ever....this thread has long legs too! ...now passing 100 pages)

Edited April 4, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[bloodyminded]

"Big fat foreigner" .... "tubby ass" ..... quite the intelligent conversation there. I feel as if I'm back in Jr. High .......

It does seem unneccessary, and smells faintly of partisanship.

[bush_cheney2004]

It does seem unneccessary, and smells faintly of partisanship.

Yep...just like comments about Coulter's larynx and sexual orientation.

[Smallc]

Yes, just like that.

[kimmy]

"Actively" campaigning?

Mr. Harper "has a big pair of scissors in his hands and wants to snip away at the social safety net that distinguishes from ." He suggested a Conservative victory in the June 28 election would "be such a blow to those of us trying to get rid of Bush."

"You've got four days after it [Fahrenheit 9/11] opens to get people out to the polls to make sure that Mr. Harper does not become your next prime minister."

The law reads:

"No person who does not reside in Canada shall, during an election period, in any way induce electors to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate unless the person is (a) a Canadian citizen; or ( a permanent resident."

...so this seems pretty cut-and-dried.

And since Coulter had made hateful comments, the "warning" regarding Canada's hate law was entirely legitmate.

The difference being that the complaints regarding Moore came *after* he broke Canada's laws.

"Big fat foreigner" .... "tubby ass" ..... quite the intelligent conversation there. I feel as if I'm back in Jr. High .......

They're just factually accurate statements.

Not much different from descriptions of Coulter as "that blonde bitch", discussions of her Adam's apple, or the speculation that she may be a dude.

-k

Edited April 4, 2010 by kimmy

[bloodyminded]

Yep...just like comments about Coulter's larynx and sexual orientation.

Yes, but I was only expressing faint surprise that someone as intelligent as Kimmy might like Coulter, whose admirers tend to be unintelligent. But no doubt there are a handful of exceptions to the general brigade of drooling, elitist knuckledraggers.

[kimmy]

Yes, but I was only expressing faint surprise that someone as intelligent as Kimmy might like Coulter, whose admirers tend to be unintelligent. But no doubt there are a handful of exceptions to the general brigade of drooling, elitist knuckledraggers.

I don't like Coulter. I don't think I've ever said a kind thing about Coulter. I've said at least a couple of times in this thread alone that I think she's an idiot.

My disagreement with what happened at U of O is not because I like her, any more than the CAUT's statement regarding what happened at U of O is because they like her, or any more than the ACLU's defense of KKK's right to speak is an endorsement of their beliefs.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

The law reads:

"No person who does not reside in Canada shall, during an election period, in any way induce electors to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate unless the person is (a) a Canadian citizen; or ( a permanent resident."

...so this seems pretty cut-and-dried.

Jesus...this thread just keeps on giving. This time it's yet another example of stupid ass gag laws in Canada!

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, but I was only expressing faint surprise that someone as intelligent as Kimmy might like Coulter, whose admirers tend to be unintelligent. But no doubt there are a handful of exceptions to the general brigade of drooling, elitist knuckledraggers.

Then I guess you missed on both accounts. Better luck next time.

[Guest American Woman]

Not much different from descriptions of Coulter as "that blonde bitch", discussions of her Adam's apple, or the speculation that she may be a dude.

Which has f*ck-all to do with my posts, much less the one that you were responding to.

From your observation above, though, doesn't sound as if you think any more highly of your response than I do.

Edited April 4, 2010 by American Woman

[bloodyminded]

Then I guess you missed on both accounts. Better luck next time.

I appreciate your sincere good wishes.

[bloodyminded]

I don't like Coulter. I don't think I've ever said a kind thing about Coulter. I've said at least a couple of times in this thread alone that I think she's an idiot.

My disagreement with what happened at U of O is not because I like her, any more than the CAUT's statement regarding what happened at U of O is because they like her, or any more than the ACLU's defense of KKK's right to speak is an endorsement of their beliefs.

-k

My mistake. Sorry.

[Pliny]

The law reads:

"No person who does not reside in Canada shall, during an election period, in any way induce electors to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate unless the person is (a) a Canadian citizen; or ( a permanent resident."

...so this seems pretty cut-and-dried.

-k

It isn't really cut and dried. Did Moore "induce" electors to not vote for Harper?

How many electors were "induced". You are giving Moore more credit than he deserves. Any of his documentaries could induce voters to vote a particular way and if electors saw it during an election period then Moore could have broken the law.

I think "induce" must imply a direct influence upon how a person votes and not just a suggestion or statement about how he thinks they will or should vote.

[Guest American Woman]

I think "induce" must imply a direct influence upon how a person votes and not just a suggestion or statement about how he thinks they will or should vote.

"Induce" would have to carry the same connotation/burden of proof as "incite" regarding the hate law. I figured those defending Coulter, saying she has a right to say whatever she wants in spite of Canada's hate law, and that nothing she's ever said has violated it, wouldn't be defending Moore's right to say what he wants because of the Election Law (or whatever it's called), and that of course he did break Canada's election law, no doubt about it.

Clearly a double standard. Free speech for Coulter, but not for Moore. Benefit of the doubt regarding Coulter and Canada's law, but not for Moore.

Edited to add: I love the student's quote-- "There's no excuse for a foreign socialist millionaire to show up in our country and try to spread his propaganda."

I wonder if it would be ok if he were a foreign conservative millionaire?

Edited April 4, 2010 by American Woman

[Pliny]

The University of Ottawa being peace-loving, friendly, caring-sharing Canadians are happy to invite people to speak about issues on how to spread peace, friendly relations, and charity. Some members might protest if someone came and said peace, friendly relations and charity must use some judgment and realize limits which I think is Ann Coulter's view and she makes no bones about it to the point of being abrasive. I found her blunt and abrasive so I didn't pay much attention to her but now, because of the controversy, I am listening a little more to what she says.

Would those same people protest someone who said that all those who would impose limits on these good and moral principles should be destroyed or muzzled or thrown in jail or killed. I don't think so. This is how I see Bill Ayers position.

In my view, Ann Coulter lives in the real world where peace, love and charity are fostered and earned. They are not entitlements granted by government. The lib-left lives in that fuzzy, warm, idealistic, heaven on earth place that never will be realized but the government promises it can create.

Ann Coulter is suggesting that we, as individuals, should all use some judgment in who we call our friends - those we know like and trust, and we, as individuals, should know who our enemies are.

The lib-left, in their quest for equality thinks we, as individuals, should not make any such discriminatory judgments and it is our duty that we, as a collective, can only legitimately abandon the ideal of peace and harmony in that egalitarian quest.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Pliny

[bloodyminded]

Ann Coulter is suggesting that we, as individuals, should all use some judgment in who we call our friends - those we know like and trust, and we, as individuals, should know who our enemies are.

Anne Coulter certainly knows who her enemies are: they're "the left," which in her view is a large entity indeed.

Her judgment as to who we should call our friends is simpler still: "conservatives."

This is not reasoned judgement.

[Pliny]

"Induce" would have to carry the same connotation/burden of proof as "incite" regarding the hate law. I figured those defending Coulter, saying she has a right to say whatever she wants in spite of Canada's hate law, and that nothing she's ever said has violated it, wouldn't be defending Moore's right to say what he wants because of the Election Law (or whatever it's called), and that of course he did break Canada's election law, no doubt about it.

He was never charged and I think he can still travel to Canada.

Clearly a double standard. Free speech for Coulter, but not for Moore. Benefit of the doubt regarding Coulter and Canada's law, but not for Moore.

I think as kimmy pointed out, the law states "during an election". Coulter was not even advocating who to vote for. She is only stating her political opinion. Moore, during an election was suggesting not to vote for a particular party.

Edited to add: I love the student's quote-- "There's no excuse for a foreign socialist millionaire to show up in our country and try to spread his propaganda."

Yeah. That's a lie. He's a "capitalist" millionaire and is attempting to limit others from becoming capitalist millionaires.

I wonder if it would be ok if he were a foreign conservative millionaire?

It was in Calgary.

[Pliny]

Anne Coulter certainly knows who her enemies are: they're "the left," which in her view is a large entity indeed.

Her judgment as to who we should call our friends is simpler still: "conservatives."

This is not reasoned judgement.

Your post is not reasoned judgement - more a generalization.

The majority of Americans are conservative. The left is not that large an entity in numbers. It is a large entity in influence.