Anne Coulter comes to Canada

[bloodyminded]

Your post is not reasoned judgement - more a generalization.

How is my remark about Coulter a "generalization"? You mean, she "generally" hates all liberals, but not in every single case? That may be true...but you'd have to search far and wide to find her defending any liberal, any at all.

I don't even know what she believes, as I assume her to have careerism always in mind, cashing in on hateful screeds which are unaccountably admired by some conservatives.

And not nearly all conservatives, fortunately.

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

The majority or minority is exceedingly difficult to ascertain, as the majority of Americans don't seem to be doctrinaire "left" or "right," but often hold to ideas that traverse the spectrum. The majority apparently strongly distrust corporations, but are pro-capitalist; lots of people will, say, support the death penalty but also support abortion rights (and vice versa). The anti-war sentiment ebbs and flows, so is too not a simple matter. There are similalry common trends all over the place, of course, not only in America.

As to the left's influence: it would appear there is a cultural influence of liberal/leftist thought in a cultural sense: in the realms of art and entertainment.

Which begs the question, I think, as to why so many artists and entertainers lean leftwards.

[Guest TrueMetis]

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

What ever happened to an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?

[Guest American Woman]

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

He was never charged, much less found guilty.

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.

It is during an election, I realize that, but since he was never charged, much less found guilty, I'm wondering where the claim that "he broke Canada's laws" is coming from. As for Coulter, no one said anything about her breaking your election laws; she was warned regarding your hate laws.

It was in Calgary.

So in other words, if it were a conservative suggesting not to vote liberal, all would have been well and fine.

My point is, either one believes in free speech or one doesn't. I find it all too predictable that people who defended Coulter and her right to free speech in spite of Canada's hate laws are declaring Moore guilty and the complaints justified.

[Pliny]

How is my remark about Coulter a "generalization"? You mean, she "generally" hates all liberals, but not in every single case? That may be true...but you'd have to search far and wide to find her defending any liberal, any at all.

She would defend any American from a foreign threat left or right. But she also knows that left wing socialist ideology is antithetical to America's concept of individual freedom.

I don't even know what she believes, as I assume her to have careerism always in mind, cashing in on hateful screeds which are unaccountably admired by some conservatives.

And not nearly all conservatives, fortunately.

She actually says what she believes. A refreshing difference from the egocentric position of trying to please everyone.

The majority or minority is exceedingly difficult to ascertain, as the majority of Americans don't seem to be doctrinaire "left" or "right," but often hold to ideas that traverse the spectrum. The majority apparently strongly distrust corporations, but are pro-capitalist; lots of people will, say, support the death penalty but also support abortion rights (and vice versa). The anti-war sentiment ebbs and flows, so is too not a simple matter. There are similalry common trends all over the place, of course, not only in America.

It has been ascertained. If you want to obfuscate what's left and what's right then I can see how you could become confused.

As to the left's influence: it would appear there is a cultural influence of liberal/leftist thought in a cultural sense: in the realms of art and entertainment.

Which begs the question, I think, as to why so many artists and entertainers lean leftwards.

And so many billionaires. Like Bill Gates and George Soros.

My opinion on that is that they wish to help. They don't mind paying a few hundred thousand or a million dollars or millions of dollars in taxes. It's no skin off their nose and they can feel self-righteous about it.

But deep down they wish to help and that is why the left has any popularity at all.

Unfortunately, they think of help in terms of government programs as being the most effective way to help those less fortunate than they. the problem with helping is the helper exceeds himself and determines what the best help is and provides that. This is do-gooding, nannyism and never resolves the problem because the problem was never determined.

[bloodyminded]

She would defend any American from a foreign threat left or right. But she also knows that left wing socialist ideology is antithetical to America's concept of individual freedom.

Hillary and Bill Clinton are not "left wing socialists." Nor is Senator Franken. Nor are the majority of her targets. She's a partisan Republican, who told us that she gazes upon George W. bush with "dewy eyes." (her words.)

She calls Pinochet the "Good General."

Any supporter of Pinochet is, by definition, opposed to freedom.

She actually says what she believes.

A liar, or a psychopath. My choice is the more generous one.

It has been ascertained. If you want to obfuscate what's left and what's right then I can see how you could become confused.

And who is the Grand Authority which has ascertained it? When and how did this apparently objective truth come out?

Edited April 4, 2010 by bloodyminded

[jbg]

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."

The venue controls the ground and meeting area.

[Guest American Woman]

The venue controls the ground and meeting area.

I've read that after what happened at the U of O, the University of Calgary beefed up security and moved the venue to one with double the capacity. So evidently they initially didn't plan for a big enough venue or enough security, same as U of O. But I doubt if you would blame their initial shortcomings in that area on "trying to make things difficult for Coulter to speak." Sometimes the unexpected happens, and any problems that result aren't due to purposely trying to make things difficult.

[Pliny]

Hillary and Bill Clinton are not "left wing socialists." Nor is Senator Franken. Nor are the majority of her targets.

Well what's a left wing socialist then if Bill, Hillary and Al do not define them? I take it you believe them to be right wing or minimally centrists.

She's a partisan Republican, who told us that she gazes upon George W. bush with "dewy eyes." (her words.)

She calls Pinochet the "Good General."

Any supporter of Pinochet is, by definition, opposed to freedom.

You have listened to her more than I have. Unless you haven't listened to her at all and are just parroting some left wing blog putting things in the proper left wing partisan context.

Pinochet was a dictator and spent a lot of effort fighting left wing guerilla groups.

Admittedly, his regime was brutal but he was for a free market economy and thus not by definition opposed to freedom, as you say. He just didn't tolerate any Marxist Communism which I think by definition opposes freedom.

A liar, or a psychopath. My choice is the more generous one.

Whatever. Just names-calling.

And who is the Grand Authority which has ascertained it? When and how did this apparently objective truth come out? (The Majority of Americans are conservative.)

Several polls have found this. Only about 20% of Americans describe themselves as liberal. But then again you think Bill and Hillary and Al are not left wing socialists so how could you even argue it is untrue?

[Born Free]

Several polls have found this. Only about 20% of Americans describe themselves as liberal.

Thats because the Republicans have managed to convince the unwashed ignorant public out there that liberals are the same thing as communists.

[bush_cheney2004]

Thats because the Republicans have managed to convince the unwashed ignorant public out there that liberals are the same thing as communists.

Nope....liberals are worth American scorn in their own right. We already know how they earned such scorn in Canada, and it had nothing to do with "communists".

[Shady]

the unwashed ignorant public

That's a description best suited for the smelly hippies and brownshirts who actively participate in shutting down free speech.

[Born Free]

Nope....liberals are worth American scorn in their own right. We already know how they earned such scorn in Canada, and it had nothing to do with "communists".

The scorn is all in your little mind.

You must have been looking the other way when the idiot Tea Baggers got to your part of town...

[Born Free]

That's a description best suited for the smelly hippies and brownshirts who actively participate in shutting down free speech.

Only a Sarah Palin fan would reach that conclusion.

[bush_cheney2004]

The scorn is all in your little mind.

You must have been looking the other way when the idiot Tea Baggers got to your part of town...

Tea Baggers have nothing to do with tghe Lieberal Adscam cock-up, and resulting fall from grace. Didn't need no steenkin' commies this time around....just Lieberal elitism and corruption.

[Born Free]

Tea Baggers have nothing to do with tghe Lieberal Adscam cock-up, and resulting fall from grace. Didn't need no steenkin' commies this time around....just Lieberal elitism and corruption.

How Sarah Palinish of you...

[ToadBrother]

Again, that's not what we're talking about.

I agree. It's about the idiotic belief that censoring bad ideas makes those bad things go away.

[ToadBrother]

That's really the spirit of the laws. As I've said, the HRCs in particular go too far at times, and perhaps the laws there should be more defined, but I don't see getting rid of them entirely as being good.

I don't see them doing much good at all. If it can't be tested in court, why create pseudo-courts for the purpose? If we want, for instance, sex discrimination to be illegal, put it in the criminal code. What I see the purpose of these tribunals to be is to take cases that wouldn't probably make it past the Crown Prosecutor, hand it to a group that has incredibly loose standards of evidence and testimony, with little recourse for the accused, and virtually no penalty for an accuser whose case is rejected.

How about this. The accused should have the right, if they so choose, to bump this straight to real courts (either civil or criminal depending on the nature of the charges). Then I'd see these pseudo-courts as sort of like a chance for a mediated settlement. We'd see how many drunk heckling lesbians would got after comedians if they thought they could end up in front of a real judge with real consequences for both parties. Does that sound reasonable?

[Smallc]

I agree. It's about the idiotic belief that censoring bad ideas makes those bad things go away.

That's not the idea at all. The idea is to prevent their transmission.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Smallc

[ToadBrother]

That's not the idea at all. The idea is to prevent their transmission.

First of all, it's impossible to prevent transmission. Even the truly authoritarian regimes can only make communicating banned ideas very difficult.

Secondly, you're splitting hairs. It is censorship.

[Smallc]

Secondly, you're splitting hairs. It is censorship.

Of nonsense. If the statements are true, they are not subject to the law, or if they are said without hatful intent, they are not subject to the law.

[ToadBrother]

Of nonsense. If the statements are true, they are not subject to the law, or if they are said without hatful intent, they are not subject to the law.

Why does hateful intent count? I mean, I loathe Lictor. Does that mean if I say something like "You're a vile racist and I hope someone jabs a knife into you", I can be charged with a hate crime?

[Smallc]

Why does hateful intent count? I mean, I loathe Lictor. Does that mean if I say something like "You're a vile racist and I hope someone jabs a knife into you", I can be charged with a hate crime?

I don't think Lictor is one of the groups that they were referring to....and saying that adds nothing to a conversation. What if someone follows your advice?

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't think Lictor is one of the groups that they were referring to....and saying that adds nothing to a conversation. What if someone follows your advice?

Then that person would be guilty of aggravated assault. Not very complicated.

[Smallc]

Then that person would be guilty of aggravated assault. Not very complicated.

And what of the person who made the statement? They could be charged with incitement to violence in some places. The difference is, we have the same types of laws for groups.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Smallc

[Kissinger]

Seriously? All of this over Anne Coulter?

You do realize that she literally eats this kind of attention up.