Free Speech in Canada, a myth?

[Jack Weber]

yes, very well done... clearly, Levant and Coulter should have been open to the possibility of receiving that kind of motivational... inspirational... message from attendees at UofO. Very well done, indeed.

In an informed,intellectual manner??

Absolutely...

Being shouted down by a bunch of ideological thugs???

Nope...That's just being a bunch of simple minded cowards..

By the way,Waldo...You're not playing the game properly!

Please see the instructions....

[Pliny]

Yes. It's a myth.

It is very well evidenced on these threads regarding Ann Coulter that free speech is a myth.

The reason why we have hate laws is because the government feels we cannot discern what hatred is on our own and they must be the ultimate arbiter in making the decisions of what is and what is not hatred.

Sigh, we Canadians are so lazy.

Gosh, does wyly hate Ann Coulter? Apparently not according to our hate laws since he isn't being charged. She is the hater and we all must hate hate and associate it with the hated Nazi's and Fascists of yesteryear, lest we forget.

Nazi's and Fascists were authoritarian socialist political groups that existed prior to WW II. Apparently, they wanted government to engineer all aspects of the social and economic activity in their countries in a totalitarian dictatorial fashion. That involves laws being made which governments love to do. It is their raison d'etre, so to speak. Is this the cause of Ann Coulter?

The problem that I see is that when laws are made we should all agree to them. If we can't get at least 80% agreement they should not be laws. Let's take the hate laws for instance. Well, we all hate something, I personally hate brussels sprouts, hating things like that gives us some reality on what hate is. There should be a law against growing brussels sprouts as far as I am concerned. That's how passionate I am about the issue. I doubt I could ever get 80% approval to pass such a law so I don't try. I just let people who want to grow them or eat them do as they please. I can't even get a rally together to go to brussels sprouts farms and protest. Those brussels sprouts farmers are relentless and just keep on perpetrating their crap on me. I see it in the supermarkets when I go grocery shopping. Those Brussels sprouts farmers need to be stopped, in my view. I guess that would contravene our hate laws though.

What I would like to know is what laws Ann Coulter is suggesting we make to engineer society the way she likes it? I know the left wants to engineer society the way they like it and they make laws that people disagree with all the time. Recent Health care legislation in the US is a perfect example of how the left likes to make laws that people don't agree with. there was of course some support from the public for Obamacare and I think everyone wanted some kind of health care reform. Let's face it though that Obamacare in the form it was passed, and the procedure used to pass it, was vastly disapproved of. A lot of hate was generated by that and some Democrats even got threatening phone calls and were called names. The reasoning behind the Democratic push for Obamacare is that Americans would learn to love it, they just didn't know it yet. that's in keeping with the left's disdain for the intelligence of the masses (whom government educates, by the way).

Now if there were hate laws in America I suppose that the Democrats could be charged with inciting hatred against themselves for doing what they did, as wyly and waldo do here on the forum by calling the general public stupid, too stupid to know even what hate is. Apparently, our government agrees and we have hate laws to make such determinations for us thanks to the lib-left like wyly and waldo.

It is so easy for the left to lose their Canadian identity of being polite and peaceful when they see something they hate - we can only do so collectively though. As for individuals, like Ann Coulter, standing alone and hating is the crime. She might turn her hatred into a collective rabble. So we must collectively rabble against her before her rabble gets too big.

Thank God for the law! I'm sorry did I say God! I didn't mean to offend, really. Don't take it the wrong way.

[waldo]

Well done sir.

yes, very well done... clearly, Levant and Coulter should have been open to the possibility of receiving that kind of motivational... inspirational... message from attendees at UofO. Very well done, indeed.

In an informed,intellectual manner??

Absolutely...

Being shouted down by a bunch of ideological thugs???

Nope...That's just being a bunch of simple minded cowards..

since Levant shut er down, I guess we'll never know what the actual meeting would have been like - right? As for being, as you say, "shouted down by a bunch of ideological thugs", hows that equate to your video's gut punch, physical... or literal? At what point does a raised challenge, constitute an ideological thug labeling? And at what point does an unwillingness to engage (per Levant) constitute a display of simple minded cowardice?

[Jack Weber]

Yes. It's a myth.

It is very well evidenced on these threads regarding Ann Coulter that free speech is a myth.

The reason why we have hate laws is because the government feels we cannot discern what hatred is on our own and they must be the ultimate arbiter in making the decisions of what is and what is not hatred.

Sigh, we Canadians are so lazy.

Gosh, does wyly hate Ann Coulter? Apparently not according to our hate laws since he isn't being charged. She is the hater and we all must hate hate and associate it with the hated Nazi's and Fascists of yesteryear, lest we forget.

Nazi's and Fascists were authoritarian socialist political groups that existed prior to WW II. Apparently, they wanted government to engineer all aspects of the social and economic activity in their countries in a totalitarian dictatorial fashion. That involves laws being made which governments love to do. It is their raison d'etre, so to speak. Is this the cause of Ann Coulter?

The problem that I see is that when laws are made we should all agree to them. If we can't get at least 80% agreement they should not be laws. Let's take the hate laws for instance. Well, we all hate something, I personally hate brussels sprouts, hating things like that gives us some reality on what hate is. There should be a law against growing brussels sprouts as far as I am concerned. That's how passionate I am about the issue. I doubt I could ever get 80% approval to pass such a law so I don't try. I just let people who want to grow them or eat them do as they please. I can't even get a rally together to go to brussels sprouts farms and protest. Those brussels sprouts farmers are relentless and just keep on perpetrating their crap on me. I see it in the supermarkets when I go grocery shopping. Those Brussels sprouts farmers need to be stopped, in my view. I guess that would contravene our hate laws though.

What I would like to know is what laws Ann Coulter is suggesting we make to engineer society the way she likes it? I know the left wants to engineer society the way they like it and they make laws that people disagree with all the time. Recent Health care legislation in the US is a perfect example of how the left likes to make laws that people don't agree with. there was of course some support from the public for Obamacare and I think everyone wanted some kind of health care reform. Let's face it though that Obamacare in the form it was passed, and the procedure used to pass it, was vastly disapproved of. A lot of hate was generated by that and some Democrats even got threatening phone calls and were called names. The reasoning behind the Democratic push for Obamacare is that Americans would learn to love it, they just didn't know it yet. that's in keeping with the left's disdain for the intelligence of the masses (whom government educates, by the way).

Now if there were hate laws in America I suppose that the Democrats could be charged with inciting hatred against themselves for doing what they did, as wyly and waldo do here on the forum by calling the general public stupid, too stupid to know even what hate is. Apparently, our government agrees and we have hate laws to make such determinations for us thanks to the lib-left like wyly and waldo.

It is so easy for the left to lose their Canadian identity of being polite and peaceful when they see something they hate - we can only do so collectively though. As for individuals, like Ann Coulter, standing alone and hating is the crime. She might turn her hatred into a collective rabble. So we must collectively rabble against her before her rabble gets too big.

Thank God for the law! I'm sorry did I say God! I didn't mean to offend, really. Don't take it the wrong way.

My prescription for your brussel sprout problem is ...

Barbecued meat!!!....Stat!!!

Good grief..I find myself in general agreement with conservatives on this issue...

I have to go and punish myself...

[Jack Weber]

since Levant shut er down, I guess we'll never know what the actual meeting would have been like - right? As for being, as you say, "shouted down by a bunch of ideological thugs", hows that equate to your video's gut punch, physical... or literal? At what point does a raised challenge, constitute an ideological thug labeling? And at what point does an unwillingness to engage (per Levant) constitute a display of simple minded cowardice?

Agreed on the latest move by Levant.He looks pretty wimpy...A raised challenge inside the auditorium at Uof O would be a far better remedy to the offending situation of Coulter than acting like a bunch of ideological thugs on the outside...The crowd of protesters Levanted/Coultered themselves...They had a real chance to confront these people and they blew it...

You're still not playing the game properly...See instructions...

[ToadBrother]

And? Perhaps you need to go back and examine the final verdict of the particular case you're talking about. You don't like the laws. That's fine, you have a right to voice that opinion. That said, the limits have been prescribed and are reasonable by the measures of many. The laws prevent the threat (or promotion) of violence or genocide against a identifiable group as listed and other laws protect those groups from discrimination.

Do you have any evidence at all that 1. there is a threat of violence or genocide against any minority group in this country and 2. that hate laws could at all prevent such a threat?

Now if you want to talk about the provincial human rights laws, some of those I have a problem with, but I (and I think many) consider discrimination or threats against groups to be outside of what is reasonable.

That's the thing about censorship. It always seems reasonable to those advocating it.

You didn't really answer the question though. You said all or nothing...then you went on to put limits on speech that YOU consider reasonable. You can't have it both ways.

I don't think there should be a limit on speech. If speech causes harm, you charge for the harm. That's the point of the "theater" test.

[Shwa]

It is very well evidenced on these threads regarding Ann Coulter that free speech is a myth.

How so? Has anyone here been charged with anything or are you referring to a group of people shouting down an ignoramus? It doesn't seem that one group - exercising their freedom of speech against another group - exercising their free speech, constitutes anything other than what most people here want. Coulter wasn't shouted down at Western or in Calgary. So how does one protest equate with the evidence that free speech in Canada is a myth?

[ToadBrother]

How so? Has anyone here been charged with anything or are you referring to a group of people shouting down an ignoramus? It doesn't seem that one group - exercising their freedom of speech against another group - exercising their free speech, constitutes anything other than what most people here want. Coulter wasn't shouted down at Western or in Calgary. So how does one protest equate with the evidence that free speech in Canada is a myth?

It's evidence that those students have no respect for the concept. Shouting down someone you disagree with is hardly a demonstration of respect for probably the most important liberty in our society. These students are cowards, a gang of fools who only served, through unimaginable stupidity, to give Coulter even more press. They are simpering morons, pure and simple.

[Jack Weber]

It's evidence that those students have no respect for the concept. Shouting down someone you disagree with is hardly a demonstration of respect for probably the most important liberty in our society. These students are cowards, a gang of fools who only served, through unimaginable stupidity, to give Coulter even more press. They are simpering morons, pure and simple.

That bares constant repeating...

[g_bambino]

The debate on whether or not these particular groups are equal has already taken place though. Are we going to revisit it and decide that it is in fact ok to advocate killing homosexuals? Nothing is gained in a debate by people hurling insults or threats.

This is a red herring, though: Individuals (not groups) are equal before the law; thus, a homosexually-aligned person should be, and is, as far as I know, as protected from threats of violence as anyone else. That is something completely different to expecting the law to stop people from criticising homosexuality because it causes gay people some offence.

[c/e]

Edited March 26, 2010 by g_bambino

[waldo]

Now if there were hate laws in America I suppose that the Democrats could be charged with inciting hatred against themselves for doing what they did, as wyly and waldo do here on the forum by calling the general public stupid, too stupid to know even what hate is. Apparently, our government agrees and we have hate laws to make such determinations for us thanks to the lib-left like wyly and waldo.

another long and winding ramble, hey Pliny? You're certainly very quick off the mark to castigate certain posters for your narrow-minded selectively drawn interpretations - hey? On a personal note, in regards your stupid reference, my like assessment is also quite selective. I certainly reserve that assessment for select MLW treatment... hopefully you've not felt left out. Why you be hatin so much, Pliny?

JW... as to the video content... my reservations hold more to how contrived speech is shaped and how the audience is purposely manipulated, knowingly or otherwise. The gunny's audience of the, "phony tough & the crazy brave"... will he shape them, mold them into "killers". Ah yes... the American Tea Party movement played out in a Hollywood vingette!

[g_bambino]

Shouting down someone you disagree with is hardly a demonstration of respect for probably the most important liberty in our society.

Lack of respect is probably the kindest way to put it. I said earlier that it is merely another form of censorship. It is, of course, a tactic employed not only by "the left".

[ToadBrother]

This is a red herring, though: People (not groups) are equal before the law; thus, a homosexually-aligned individual should be, and is, as far as I know, as protected from threats of violence as anyone else. That is something completely different to expecting the law to stop people from criticising homosexuality because it causes gay people some offence.

If someone makes a death threat, ie. "I'm gonna kill all the fags!", then, under the "theater" principle, the authorities certainly have the option of charging him with uttering threats. Hate laws, it strike me, like human rights tribunals/commissions, seek to take things that clearly do not meet the standard of dangerous criminal behavior and make them crimes.

Does anyone here seriously think that Mr. Canada or Lictor should be charged for the crap they spew?

[blueblood]

yes, very well done... clearly, Levant and Coulter should have been open to the possibility of receiving that kind of motivational... inspirational... message from attendees at UofO. Very well done, indeed.

The protesters had as much right to yak and spew nonsense the same as Coulter did, but that's not the point.

The point is that these protesters engaged in "debate" similar to our lead IPCC cheerleader. That style being to shout down anyone that disagrees with them and thus silencing the debate, hell lets throw intimidation and thuggery in there to boot since you obviously condone that behavior. As we can tell by my favorite poll, that style of debate is completely useless. (22-7, ouch).

We have reports from the protesters themselves that they compromised security, and the lecture had to be shut down from advice from the police. By being suggested to shut down the lecture from police, Coulter makes her point without having to speak. Had those students gone on the news the next day and ripped her apart, the students would have had a far easier time convincing people to gravitate to their cause.

Ann Coulter has made the UofO and their various student associations the laughing stock of the free world.

[Jack Weber]

another long and winding ramble, hey Pliny? You're certainly very quick off the mark to castigate certain posters for your narrow-minded selectively drawn interpretations - hey? On a personal note, in regards your stupid reference, my like assessment is also quite selective. I certainly reserve that assessment for select MLW treatment... hopefully you've not felt left out. Why you be hatin so much, Pliny?

JW... as to the video content... my reservations hold more to how contrived speech is shaped and how the audience is purposely manipulated, knowingly or otherwise. The gunny's audience of the, "phony tough & the crazy brave"... will he shape them, mold them into "killers". Ah yes... the American Tea Party movement played out in a Hollywood vingette!

hehehe...Well I'm going to go into a dissertation of the film.That scene has to be taken into the larger context,and message,that Kubrick was trying to get across.

My point of the scene was show truly offensive behaviour,and get a guage on whether some might think that manner of speaking should be potentially against the law.I was wondering who's sensibilities might be upset by watching that scene.That's all...

By the way,Sgt Hartman does'nt make it out of boot camp...

[Jack Weber]

The protesters had as much right to yak and spew nonsense the same as Coulter did, but that's not the point.

The point is that these protesters engaged in "debate" similar to our lead IPCC cheerleader. That style being to shout down anyone that disagrees with them and thus silencing the debate, hell lets throw intimidation and thuggery in there to boot since you obviously condone that behavior. As we can tell by my favorite poll, that style of debate is completely useless. (22-7, ouch).

We have reports from the protesters themselves that they compromised security, and the lecture had to be shut down from advice from the police. By being suggested to shut down the lecture from police, Coulter makes her point without having to speak. Had those students gone on the news the next day and ripped her apart, the students would have had a far easier time convincing people to gravitate to their cause.

Ann Coulter has made the UofO and their various student associations the laughing stock of the free world.

Yep....

[Jack Weber]

Lack of respect is probably the kindest way to put it. I said earlier that it is merely another form of censorship. It is, of course, a tactic employed not only by "the left".

Absolutely...It's a tactic used by ideological extremists...

[Jack Weber]

If someone makes a death threat, ie. "I'm gonna kill all the fags!", then, under the "theater" principle, the authorities certainly have the option of charging him with uttering threats. Hate laws, it strike me, like human rights tribunals/commissions, seek to take things that clearly do not meet the standard of dangerous criminal behavior and make them crimes.

Does anyone here seriously think that Mr. Canada or Lictor should be charged for the crap they spew?

That's the way I see it...It's almost like an attempt at legislating thought.Any person who thinks in ademocratic fashion should be appalled at this.I'm quite certain my Grandfather did'nt participate in the 2nd World War to legislate thought...Quite the opposite,actually....

As for the other two...They can say whatever they want!(By the way,anyone with the name "lictor" is pretty much putting it out there in the open on what he/she is about!)

Mr.Canada provides constant comic relief...I love watching crazy people in action!!!

Edited March 26, 2010 by Jack Weber

[waldo]

Well done sir.

yes, very well done... clearly, Levant and Coulter should have been open to the possibility of receiving that kind of motivational... inspirational... message from attendees at UofO. Very well done, indeed.

The protesters had as much right to yak and spew nonsense the same as Coulter did, but that's not the point.

The point is that these protesters engaged in "debate" similar to our lead IPCC cheerleader. That style being to shout down anyone that disagrees with them and thus silencing the debate, hell lets throw intimidation and thuggery in there to boot since you obviously condone that behavior. As we can tell by my favorite poll, that style of debate is completely useless. (22-7, ouch).

you're playing out your fantasy - the debate never occurred - Levant shut er down!

your penchant for personalization is well established... in your case, there's certainly been no need for anyone to challenge you... on any level in climate change related threads. You've openly acknowledged your desire, your want, your need, to rely on others to speak for you... you're a non-issue in climate related threads - you've never engaged in a debate you so feel a need to trumpet the rights for! It would seem the poster you openly offered your proxy to has gone MIA... so keep touting that poll that you to this day refuse to even attempt to qualify arguments and positions for. Clearly you have difficulty in articulating for yourself - hence your continued whiny pissant displays; notwithstanding you haven't the balls to engage in actual debate/discussion on the subject of climate change... but don't let that stop you from rallying the cause for "free speech debate" denied!

Ann Coulter has made the UofO and their various student associations the laughing stock of the free world.

crikey, over the top... much!

[Shwa]

It's evidence that those students have no respect for the concept. Shouting down someone you disagree with is hardly a demonstration of respect for probably the most important liberty in our society. These students are cowards, a gang of fools who only served, through unimaginable stupidity, to give Coulter even more press. They are simpering morons, pure and simple.

No respect for the concept? They were exercising it! In addition to exercising their rights to peaceful assembly and association. Two other important liberties in our society that I am sure you are aware of.

It was Coulter's cadre that decided to pull out because they couldn't stand the heat. It wasn't the police so there is no imposition on her "freedom of speech." She had been admitted to the country, she had spoken the night before. Sure they gave her press, but so what? The thread is called 'Free Speech in Canada, a myth?' Using any reference to Ann Coulter and her cancellation at the UofO to illustrate some connection with the lack of freedoms in Canada is weak.

[ToadBrother]

No respect for the concept? They were exercising it! In addition to exercising their rights to peaceful assembly and association. Two other important liberties in our society that I am sure you are aware of.

Forming a mob and shouting down people you don't like is not exercising free speech. If no one can hear the idea being expressed because some rabble is making it impossible, then they are showing contempt for the very concept.

It was Coulter's cadre that decided to pull out because they couldn't stand the heat.

If you were trying to talk and I stood nearby screaming at the top of my lungs, would there be much point in you talking. That's a pretty classic tactic of those who feel the guy they're protesting has no right to speak. It's what the Tea Party types have been doing down in the States, crashing town hall meetings and making any kind of peaceable debate impossible. That's not free speech, that's mob rule.

It wasn't the police so there is no imposition on her "freedom of speech." She had been admitted to the country, she had spoken the night before. Sure they gave her press, but so what? The thread is called 'Free Speech in Canada, a myth?' Using any reference to Ann Coulter and her cancellation at the UofO to illustrate some connection with the lack of freedoms in Canada is weak.

I never said the government tried to censor her. I said a rabble of pathetic, cowardly morons tried to. A person who had the courage of their convictions could keep their mouths shut long enough to let the other guy, even if the guy is a nasty piece of work whose words are vulgar and hate-filled, say their piece. Then, in a civilized society where people respect the idea of free exposition of ideas would go on the attack, break down the statements, critique the concepts.

I stand by what I say. These students are morons, loud obnoxious and ultimately cowardly types who truly believe that the sky will fall in if some American entertainer that makes her living being provocative and inflammatory is permitted to say whatever it is she has to say. They are intellectually craven.

[g_bambino]

Forming a mob and shouting down people you don't like is not exercising free speech.

This is why I said "free speech" may be a slight misnomer; or, at least, too vague to be of good use. Shouting is a form of speech, and gathering en masse with slogans and placards is a form of communication. But a crowd of people screaming until their opponent can't even be heard stifles the exchange of ideas. Hence, I think what we mean by "free speech" is actually "free debate", and debate requires some strictures in order to take place (i.e. let the other person speak).

[Shwa]

Forming a mob and shouting down people you don't like is not exercising free speech. If no one can hear the idea being expressed because some rabble is making it impossible, then they are showing contempt for the very concept.

Are you talking about Coulter or Parliament? Was anyone in the mob charged? If not, then they did not "rule." Groups of people can assemble and they can shout at each other as long as they want so long as it is peaceful. In Coulter's case, they were protesting as they had every right to. So they were exercising their rights on many fronts. Call it what you want, but they were exercising their rights.

If you were trying to talk and I stood nearby screaming at the top of my lungs, would there be much point in you talking. That's a pretty classic tactic of those who feel the guy they're protesting has no right to speak. It's what the Tea Party types have been doing down in the States, crashing town hall meetings and making any kind of peaceable debate impossible. That's not free speech, that's mob rule.

Are you talking Coulter here or Tea Party? Coulter's group pulled out because of fear, not because she couldn't speak - or didn't have the loudest amps to do so. Peaceable debate - is that what Ann Coulter's visits are all about? Peaceable debate? Come on now...

Then, in a civilized society where people respect the idea of free exposition of ideas would go on the attack, break down the statements, critique the concepts.

Sadly, idealism often times falls short in the face of reality. Besides, if Coulter's cadre had any sort of 'courage of conviction' then they wouldn't have pulled out because they were afraid would they? No courage there, just a tail tuck and flight to friendlier Calgary...

Edited March 26, 2010 by Shwa

[GostHacked]

The game is....

Who finds this offensive AND who thinks it should'nt be seen?...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V40464qXoCg

(Many thanks to the late,great Stanley Kubrick...)

FMJ is a fantastic movie. Offended? Not in the least. Drill Sergeants can deliver some tough love.

[Sir Bandelot]

The government does not dictate laws entirely on it's own, such as those that supress certain kinds of speech. They also respond to external organizations such as the Canadian Jewish Congress

That is how many laws are made in this country, not dictated by the government per se, but in response to influential lobbyists.

http://www.cjc.ca/hate-speech/

Edited March 26, 2010 by Sir Bandelot