Allan Rock - Coward

[Argus]

Many will remember Allan Rock as a pretty typical Liberal Party hack. He was a man of no apparent substance, but filled with a towering sense of ego and self-righteousness. I'm not entirely sure how he wound up getting the .offer of presidency of the University of Ottawa, but it certainly wasn't due to academic excellence or achievement, nor to any particularly versatile or noteworthy intelligence. Can we say pork?

Anyway, everyone will remember the fuss over Ann Coulter's visit to the university last year, and the prominence of the email sent to her by a previously unknown university bureaucrat named Francois Houle. Houle took enormous heat over that email over an extended period of time. And during that entire time Allan Rock never said a word in his defense.

Well, a provincial access to information request has turned up the fact that Alan Rock told him to write that email, and even dictated much of the substance. Rock, it emerges, despises Coulter - which his hardly a surprise. But rather than denigrate his own position he delegated the job of warning her to Houle.

You know, maybe because I'm not a Liberal Party scuz, I would find it awfully hard to let a subordinate take the extended heat for what I ordered him to do without stepping forward. But then being a coward and letting others take the blame is just part and parcel of being a respected member of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Globe

[kimmy]

Nice. I notice that Mr Rock is getting PR advice from Earnscliffe, which is a name that should be familiar to people who remember Paul Martin Time.

“An invitation to Ms. Coulter to return to the campus would demonstrate good faith on the part of the university and an unqualified commitment to freedom of expression,” he wrote in an e-mail to senior university officials on March 24.

Clearly Rock recognizes the perception that their commitment to free expression is less than unqualified.

-k

[Shwa]

You know, maybe because I'm not a Liberal Party scuz, I would find it awfully hard to let a subordinate take the extended heat for what I ordered him to do without stepping forward. But then being a coward and letting others take the blame is just part and parcel of being a respected member of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Ah, so you would be the type of general who would lead his troops into battle by being first out in front? Many generals died that way. The Army has since learned.

Hey I am not condoning the behaviour, especially if you are forcing someone to publicly express an opinion they do not share. That is indeed scuzzy. But power has its privledges regardless of ideological stripe or university affiliation and, well, what would you expect? Many an underling have willingly thrown themselves upon the explosive memos of their bosses.

But I am sure Houle will expect a little something extra at Christmastime though.

[naomiglover]

Clearly Rock recognizes the perception that their commitment to free expression is less than unqualified.

-k

Hey Kimmy, what is your position on Galloway being banned from entering Canada to give his speech? What about Jewish Defense League (JDL) who was behind the pressure to stop Galloway from entering into Canada? What about the fact that JDL has been branded a terrorist organization?

Tell me you're not one of those who champions freedom of speech selectively.

Edited June 30, 2010 by naomiglover

[Jack Weber]

I'm not...I think Galloway should have been allowed to speak.Not because I believe in anything he says.This is a guy who saluted Saddam Hussein's "indefatiguability"...But it's better to expose nutters like that than to shut them up because one does'nt like what they say or represent.

Same goes for Coulter...I thought that Arab woman at UWO showed alot of retraint after taking those comment from the classless Coulter.It is precisely the way you publicly expose someone for what they are.In eseence,she allowed Coulter to hoisted herself on her own petard.Of course the avid followers of Coulter will cheer her on gleefully,but that says more about them than anything else.Of course,in Coulters case she usually has the pat response of "It was just a joke" as if that covers her idiotic statements.It's really just a polite way of saying "STFU and deal with it!".Add in her clueless comments on basically starting a redux of the Crusades in that Arab world by forcing Muslims to convert to Christianity or die in the process,and it's fairly obvious that this woman is one of the great minds of the 8th century...HOWEVER...She has every right to spew her goofy ideas in public,and the actions of the simpering bedwetters at the University of Ottawa should be ashamed of themselves.They simply are not equipped with the intellectual fortitude to deal with a boorish person like Coulter.So they hide behing hate speech garbage and dress themselves in some sort of misplaced cloak of societal good...

Allan Rock is clearly a mental midget who falls in line with the above description...

Edited June 30, 2010 by Jack Weber

[lukin]

I'm not...I think Galloway should have been allowed to speak.Not because I believe in anything he says.This is a guy who saluted Saddam Hussein's "indefatiguability"...But it's better to expose nutters like that than to shut them up because one does'nt like what they say or represent.

Same goes for Coulter...I thought that Arab woman at UWO showed alot of retraint after taking those comment from the classless Coulter.It is precisely the way you publicly expose someone for what they are.In eseence,she allowed Coulter to hoist herself on her own petard.Of course the avid followers of Coulter will cheer her on gleefully,but that says more about them than anything else.Of course,in Coulters case she usually has the pat response of "It was just a joke" as if that covers her idiotic statements.It's really just a polite way of saying "STFU and deal with it!".Add in her clueless comments on basically starting a redux of the Crusades in that Arab world by forcing Muslims to convert to Christianity or die in the process,and it's fairly obvious that this woman is one of the great minds of the 8th century...HOWEVER...She has every right to spew her goofy ideas in public,and the actions of the simpering bedwetters at the University of Ottawa should be ashamed of themselves.They simply are not equipped with the intellectual fortitude to deal with a boorish person like Coulter.So they hide behing hate speech garbage and dress themselves in some sort of misplaced cloak of societal good...

Allan Rock is clearly a mental midget who falls in line with the above description...

How many of Ann Coulter's books have you actually read? Did you get a grasp on "there" and "their" yet. I guess it takes a mental midget to idnetify other mental midgets.

Edited June 30, 2010 by lukin

[Jack Weber]

How many of Ann Coulter's books have you actually read?

"sniff...sniff...

Someone talked bad about my favourite political commentator...I must defend her!!!

sniff...sniff..."

Here I am,defending Coulter's right to speak,and one of the resident ideological bedwetters of the right tries to attack me....

Edited June 30, 2010 by Jack Weber

[nicky10013]

How many of Ann Coulter's books have you actually read? Did you get a grasp on "there" and "their" yet. I guess it takes a mental midget to idnetify other mental midgets.

As far as I'm aware nothing he said doesn't hold true in terms of things she has said or written about. Secondly, who is really the mental midget in this equation. Instead of disputing the actual points of his post, you went after his grammar, as though that just because he spelled something wrong discounts the merit of the argument.

[Jack Weber]

As far as I'm aware nothing he said doesn't hold true in terms of things she has said or written about. Secondly, who is really the mental midget in this equation. Instead of disputing the actual points of his post, you went after his grammar, as though that just because he spelled something wrong discounts the merit of the argument.

His second query of me is showing a serious puntuation error...(Fixed for the grammar/punctuation NAZI's)

"Ah hope that Fox News North comz on the ahr soon!!!Thehn Ah wont hav to tawk to thoz Godless Soshalists at Em El Dubya NO MOR!!!!

Anne Coulter speekz da trooth,and anybody dat dusent beleev dat is a Komunist!!!"

Edited July 1, 2010 by Jack Weber

[lukin]

As far as I'm aware nothing he said doesn't hold true in terms of things she has said or written about. Secondly, who is really the mental midget in this equation. Instead of disputing the actual points of his post, you went after his grammar, as though that just because he spelled something wrong discounts the merit of the argument.

You can't honestly critique an author's work without reading that author's writing. You can't go on what you heard. Jack just repeats what he hears. He has no proof, and he can't respond with facts. He just goes by what he has heard like a little, uninformed child.

As for Jack's grammar; normally I could care less. However, Jack seems to criticize many people as mentally weak, or a mental midget. Not knowing how to use "their" and "there" properly is not a spelling mistake, it's mental midgetness.

Edited June 30, 2010 by lukin

[Argus]

Hey Kimmy, what is your position on Galloway being banned from entering Canada to give his speech?

Why is it that every discussion you enter into has to involve Jews or someone who hates Jews that you want to protect and embrace?

Not that I'm suggesting anything about YOU of course...

[bush_cheney2004]

His second query of me is punctually incorrect,as well...

"Punctually" eh? Oh the irony! LOL!

[Remiel]

"Punctually" eh? Oh the irony! LOL!

What exactly do you expect to gain by jumping on the Bad Grammar Bandwagon?

[August1991]

Hey Kimmy, what is your position on Galloway being banned from entering Canada to give his speech? What about Jewish Defense League (JDL) who was behind the pressure to stop Galloway from entering into Canada? What about the fact that JDL has been branded a terrorist organization?

Tell me you're not one of those who champions freedom of speech selectively.

I'll leave Kimmy to defend herself but I think the English expression "two rights don't make a wrong" applies here.

---

It is more important to note that I have told several students (and their parents) that I would not study at the University of Ottawa, because I would not want a U of O reference on my resume, even from its law school.

Its reputation has been tarnished, and its law school has become a signal of inferior quality, like a fake Rolex bought on Canal Street is worse than a cheap Casio.

Edited June 30, 2010 by August1991

[YEGmann]

I'll leave Kimmy to defend herself but I think the English expression "two rights don't make a wrong" applies here.

What wrong? Galloway is inadmississible to Canada because of his financial support to terrorist groups as it is defined by Canadian laws.

His speech was actually delivered and presented. He monitored the presentation from the US.

Edited July 1, 2010 by YEGmann

[kimmy]

Hey Kimmy, what is your position on Galloway being banned from entering Canada to give his speech? What about Jewish Defense League (JDL) who was behind the pressure to stop Galloway from entering into Canada? What about the fact that JDL has been branded a terrorist organization?

Tell me you're not one of those who champions freedom of speech selectively.

I'm certainly not one who champions freedom of speech selectively. (Not like George Galloway himself, for instance.)

I think that by far the best way to deal with George Galloway him would be to allow him to speak to Canadians so that they can see for themselves what a giant douchebag he is.

I certainly wouldn't want to protect George and his supporters from themselves by forcing them to keep their mouths shut. I encourage them to express themselves loudly and enthusiastically.

-k

[Jack Weber]

I'm certainly not one who champions freedom of speech selectively. (Not like George Galloway himself, for instance.)

I think that by far the best way to deal with George Galloway him would be to allow him to speak to Canadians so that they can see for themselves what a giant douchebag he is.

I certainly wouldn't want to protect George and his supporters from themselves by forcing them to keep their mouths shut. I encourage them to express themselves loudly and enthusiastically.

-k

Correctomundo!!!!

Same goes for Coulter...

Same goes for this Islamofascist wing ding...

[nicky10013]

I'm certainly not one who champions freedom of speech selectively. (Not like George Galloway himself, for instance.)

I think that by far the best way to deal with George Galloway him would be to allow him to speak to Canadians so that they can see for themselves what a giant douchebag he is.

I certainly wouldn't want to protect George and his supporters from themselves by forcing them to keep their mouths shut. I encourage them to express themselves loudly and enthusiastically.

-k

At least we have one Conservative here who isn't a hypocrite. This example reminds me of something I heard on the radio yesterday. In Toronto pretty much every talk radio station (like any other city, really) staffs windbag Conservatives who tote the party line as if their lives depend on it. No people screamed louder when Coulter "wasn't allowed to speak" (which we've been over is complete BS anyways). There is an Islamic conference in the city over the weekend. Low and behold, every one of these windbags are calling for some of the crazier idiots not to be allowed even into the country, nevermind being allowed to speak.

[Argus]

No people screamed louder when Coulter "wasn't allowed to speak" (which we've been over is complete BS anyways). There is an Islamic conference in the city over the weekend. Low and behold, every one of these windbags are calling for some of the crazier idiots not to be allowed even into the country, nevermind being allowed to speak.

There is a difference between someone who speaks on conservative topics which infuriate effete liberals, and someone who supports terrorism and inspires terrorism in others. You get back to me when any of Coulter's admirers start setting off suicide bombs.

[dre]

There is a difference between someone who speaks on conservative topics which infuriate effete liberals, and someone who supports terrorism and inspires terrorism in others. You get back to me when any of Coulter's admirers start setting off suicide bombs.

Weve been over this already. Coulter does more than speak on conservative topics. She openly advocates violence as a marketing gimic to make money.

[bloodyminded]

Here I am,defending Coulter's right to speak,and one of the resident ideological bedwetters of the right tries to attack me....

Defending her right to speak isn't enough.

Ideologues demand 100% agreement.

[dre]

Defending her right to speak isn't enough.

Ideologues demand 100% agreement.

To be honest Id probably be more receptive to Anne Coulter if she didnt look like a plastic bag full of antlers Im sorta vain.

[nicky10013]

There is a difference between someone who speaks on conservative topics which infuriate effete liberals, and someone who supports terrorism and inspires terrorism in others. You get back to me when any of Coulter's admirers start setting off suicide bombs.

There's a difference because you disagree with them. That's about it.

[naomiglover]

Correctomundo!!!!

Same goes for Coulter...

Same goes for this Islamofascist wing ding...

Hey. We agree.

[Argus]

There's a difference because you disagree with them. That's about it.

No, there's a difference in both the nature and severity of the danger they pose to public order.