# Ann Coulter accuses Canadian univ. provost of"hate crimes"against Conservatives



## CougarKing (23 Mar 2010)

Makes me wonder what would happen if she and Jack Layton were in the same room.
 :blotto:

AFP link



> OTTAWA (AFP) - *Firebrand US conservative Ann Coulter has accused a Canadian university provost of "hate crimes against conservatives" and called for a human rights probe of the matter, a local paper said Tuesday.
> 
> The American right-wing pundit and author is in Canada for a trio of speeches.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Mar 2010)

Coulter is an ass, but she's a clever, publicity savvy ass.

Francois Houle, provost of Ottawa university is just a silly twit who, dimwit that he is, fell into her trap and made a fool of himself and advanced *her* agenda, as did the President of the Ottawa U students' association (or whatever it is) who refused to allow posters for the event to be posted in the Students' Union (or junior common room or whatever it is called at Ottawa U).

These silly twits played right into Coulter's hands, giving her bags of free publicity. Who needs posters in the Students' Union when your speech is advertized, wall-to-wall, in the mainstream media? All because some idiot sent you an ill-crafted (he got the hate speech rules wrong), even threatening E-mail.

Fools! All of them ... including Coulter, who is a fool but a media savvy one.


----------



## Rifleman62 (23 Mar 2010)

The episode was on the local radio station in San Antonio this am. As if this does not happen at U of C Berkeley.


----------



## HollywoodHitman (24 Mar 2010)

The sound of this woman's voice to me is as bad as the sharpest nails ever, being grated down the longest chalk board ever. If people stopped listening to this wingnut, and some of the others out there, they'd go away.


----------



## Evocatus (24 Mar 2010)

Only in America and increasingly in Canada, can a fool like Ms Coulter earn a dime.

I suspect that the fact that she is 30 lbs underweight, garners her more attention; 60 lbs the other way, and as human nature would have it, she would solicite no attention.


----------



## gaspasser (24 Mar 2010)

I viewed the news report last night on this wingnut, and I even thought I think she is on the short list for a fig.11, she's pretty smart...she's got all of us talking about her (free advertising!) and making tons of $$ while doing it.
Personally, her kind are not welcome here! 

  Our Colours Don't Run


----------



## helpup (24 Mar 2010)

She is a Twitt,  I think her opinions are shades of lunacy.  However as was pointed out she is very media savy to the point that I wonder if she is even espousing her beliefs or are her triades a line of occupation for her.  She plays the part as it gets her fame, money and notoriety.  The more offside her rants can be with eye poking sh#ty sticks, the more attention/ fame and hence money she makes.  Her looks just enhance her ability to make money.....

Anyhow food for thought, on a who cares news item........... ( errr obviously people do care and feed the media machine, also her pocket books. )


----------



## Shec (24 Mar 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Coulter is an ***, but she's a clever, publicity savvy ***.
> 
> Francois Houle, provost of Ottawa university is just a silly twit who, dimwit that he is, fell into her trap and made a fool of himself and advanced *her* agenda, as did the President of the Ottawa U students' association (or whatever it is) who refused to allow posters for the event to be posted in the Students' Union (or junior common room or whatever it is called at Ottawa U).
> 
> ...



Compliments once again ER for isolating the real issue and cutting to the chase.  Fool or not her post event characterization of  U of O as "bush league" is bang-on with respect to the 
handling of this silliness and she will be the one laughing all the way to the bank.   One can only hope that as an  institute of higher learning, U of O and its students, will learn something about the art of issues management from this affair.


----------



## Yrys (24 Mar 2010)

Right-winger Ann Coulter silenced by angry protesters at University of Ottawa 

...
oulter expressed her outrage at the unfolding of events in Ottawa 
in interviews with the U.S. media. "This has never happened before," 
she told The Washington Times Tuesday night. "I go to the best schools, 
Harvard, the Ivy League and those kids are too intellectually proud to 
threaten speakers."

Calling the University of Ottawa a "bush league" institution, Coulter said 
"their IQ points-to-teeth ratio must be about 1-to-1." 

...
When answering questions from students, Coulter told a 17-year-old 
Muslim student to "take a camel" instead of a the flying carpet she has 
previously suggested Muslims use for transportation.

And earlier on Tuesday, she protested, with a bemused smile, that she 
was the real victim. "I've been a victim of a hate crime," she said in a 
CTV interview of Houle's letter. "I think he's accusing me of criminal 
proclivities."
...
Her "camel" comment on Monday was obviously a joke, she said on CTV.
She has said worse things, including "not all Muslims may be terrorists, 
but all terrorists are Muslims," and that Canadians ought to be grateful 
the U.S. didn't roll over them. That was after former prime minister Jean 
Chretien refused to follow George W. Bush into the war in Iraq.

Coulter told CTV she made the remark when "the French-speaking influence 
was a little bit more dominant in Canada." Asked to comment on the Harper 
Conservatives, Coulter said she didn't pay much attention to Canadian politics, 
but judged they were not her cup of tea.

"If they support same-sex marriage and socialized medicine, no they are not 
conservative enough," she said. 
...


----------



## 40below (24 Mar 2010)

Coulter is crazy as a s**thouse rat and has curiously large hands and a pronounced Adam's apple for what that's worth, but as I was flipping through the channels devoting time to this story last night, I was thinking that I can't imagine any Canadian university issuing a pre-emptive letter like this if it were a left-wing crazoid coming to campus to speak.


----------



## gcclarke (24 Mar 2010)

I think what the provost did was a fair thing to do. I mean, frankly, she's gone on record in the past stating things that could very well be construed as either advocating genocide or wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group, both of which are indictable offences liable to imprisonment of up to 5 and 2 years respectively, under sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada. 

She may be media savvy, but that's due to the fact that the media can be idiots at times. It's one thing to report her claim that this is indicative of "hatred against conservatives". It's another thing entirely to not point out that this was only done because she herself has done things that might break this law in the past. 

What she's doing is like accusing someone of hatred when they point out to a couple who are well known for engaging in public displays of affection that they might want to take it easy during their upcoming trip to Dubai. 

Anyways, I look forward to living in a world where people like Nazi Barbie aren't given a platform to spew their vitriol beyond a soapbox on a street corner. The protests were, in my not so humble opinion, a decent alternative.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Mar 2010)

Whether she's an idiot or not, whether she's an ass or not are immaterial in this instance. We in Canada do not limit speech through threats of violence. I'm reasonably certain that Ms Coulter is smart enough to know what lines she can cross where, and that her speech in Calgary, while controversial, won't qualify as hate speech. What the UofO Provost and student body did diminishes all of Canada.

One question that has not been answered though, is does the Provost send warning letters to equally provocative left wing speakers?


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Mar 2010)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> Makes me wonder what would happen if she and Jack Layton were in the same room.
> :blotto:



I'm not given to political theatre, but I'd pay money to see that!


----------



## observor 69 (24 Mar 2010)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> One question that has not been answered though, is does the Provost send warning letters to equally provocative left wing speakers?




Looks like this one never even got a chance to receive a warning letter:

"If publicity was the goal of Coulter's Canadian tour, the trip has already been a smashing success.

She even got a mention in the House of Commons, with New Democrat MP Olivia Chow accusing the government of hypocrisy in allowing her into the country, after having given the boot to an ideological opposite.

Chow said the decision last year to bar British MP George Galloway, who has expressed pro-Palestinian views, shows the Tories have a double-standard on freedom of speech.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney defended keeping Galloway out by noting his financial help to a terrorist group, Hamas.

"Hogwash," responded Chow.

"George Galloway has no criminal record. He can travel the United States, all over the world. What the minister is doing ... people he agrees with, fine come; people he doesn't agree with, you can't come."

LINK


----------



## Greymatters (24 Mar 2010)

40below said:
			
		

> I was thinking that I can't imagine any Canadian university issuing a pre-emptive letter like this if it were a left-wing crazoid coming to campus to speak.



For extreme viewpoints from right-wing US wackos - preemptive warning letter prior to arrival
For university students who post suggestions to kill non-muslim Canadians and make anti-Jew remarks - three year tolerance window and then a slaponthewrist suspension...


----------



## RangerRay (24 Mar 2010)

The reason why Galloway didn't come to Canada:

<a href="http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2010/03/olivia-chow-in-cheap-headline-rush-my.html">Olivia Chow's Cheap Stunt: 'My Favorite Fascist Was Barred; How Come Coulter Gets In?' </a>



> *And Galloway was not banned from Canada.  He dodged a speaking engagement in Canada last year knowing full well that if he attempted to enter Canada he might have found himself detained for violating Canada's Anti-Terrorism Act.* That's because Galloway had just come from Gaza, where he'd made a great public show of delivering bags of loot to Hamas boss Ismael Haniya, whose gangsters murdered their way into power in Gaza and have since busied themselves with "arbitrary arrests and detentions, torture, maimings by shooting, and extrajudicial executions" of suspected anti-Hamas Palestinians.



He decided to stay home because he figured he'd end up in one of our Club Feds for breaking our laws...no one banned him.

As for Ms. Coulter, a rep from the BC Civil Liberties Union was on the radio today, and I agree with what he says: as long as she isn't yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded room, or urging people to commit a crime, she should have the right to make an @$$ of herself.  He also felt the UofO played right into her hands with that silly letter, which I also agree.

I somehow doubt that Michael Moore and Al Franken would get a letter asking them to be respectful, etc., etc.


----------



## GAP (25 Mar 2010)

Here's the links to the 2 part interview with Coulter on PowerPlay .

Power Play: Ann Coulter, commentator, part on

Power Play: Ann Coulter, commentator, part two


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (25 Mar 2010)

Ann Coulter is not an ass.  She's an entertainer.  By the reaction she's receiving, she's a good one.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Mar 2010)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> As for Ms. Coulter, a rep from the BC Civil Liberties Union was on the radio today, and I agree with what he says: as long as she isn't yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded room, or urging people to commit a crime, she should have the right to make an @$$ of herself.  He also felt the UofO played right into her hands with that silly letter, which I also agree.



Actually you have the right and moral duty to yell "FIRE" in a crowded room if you know or believe there is a fire present. 

Ann Coulter, Ezra Levant, Mark Styen, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Kathy Shaidle and all the others are shouting a warning that our liberties are being eroded (and in Ms Coulter's case, a crowd of Brownshirts shows up to prove her point), and it's time "we" rose up and did something to take back our rights and freedoms.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (25 Mar 2010)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Ann Coulter is not an ***.  She's an entertainer.  By the reaction she's receiving, she's a good one.



Couldn't agree with you more. When I think of people like Ann Coulter and their antics it reminds me of this story I heard years ago about this young 19 year old boxer down in the States who was just starting out.

Apparently, prior to one fight he was interviewed by a local radio station. Also being interviewed was a professional wrestler. The boxer was interviewed first and he made a few bland comments and such. The wrestler on the other hand started off by making comments about how he was "he was the greatest wrestler ever," etc. 

So off to their separate fights they go.

During his fight this young boxer noticed his lack of audience. The reason he soon found out was because everyone was over watching the wrestler! The light came on and from then on prior to his fights he would make these outrageous statements about how he was going to defeat his opponent and it worked and his career took off.  Being one damn good boxer also helped. 

Of course this young, unknown boxer was some guy named  Cassius Clay,  AKA Muhammad Ali.

Coulter is using the same tactic: make a bunch of outrageous statements and people will flock to see her and/or read her books. The kerfuffle in Ottawa is a perfect example, her next appearance in Calgary (tonight) had to be changed because of increased ticket sales. One smart cookie who is laughing all the way to the bank.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (25 Mar 2010)

Evocatus said:
			
		

> Only in America and increasingly in Canada, can a fool like Ms Coulter earn a dime.
> 
> .... 60 lbs the other way, and as human nature would have it, she would solicite no attention.



Obviously you never heard of or watched Oprah Winfrey.


----------



## SeanNewman (25 Mar 2010)

You guys have to understand that Fox News-types (and CNN-types) are there for entertainment as much as news anymore; there is a reason Stephen Colbert is so successful satirizing them.

They are like a combination of Borat and Howard Stern, making outlandish over-the-top statements just like a shock-jock would on the radio.  

Sadly, as backwards as this is, Al Jazeera is the closest thing remaining to an un-biased "the facts maam, just the facts" news agency.


----------



## TheHead (25 Mar 2010)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> The reason why Galloway didn't come to Canada:
> 
> <a href="http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2010/03/olivia-chow-in-cheap-headline-rush-my.html">Olivia Chow's Cheap Stunt: 'My Favorite Fascist Was Barred; How Come Coulter Gets In?' </a>
> 
> ...



Rangerray, just curious do you have a better source saying that Galloway wasn't banned? I'd like to use it in a debate on another board but I'm so far striking out looking for one.


----------



## leroi (26 Mar 2010)

Professors across Canada are pretty upset about Anne's poor treatment/discrimination; here's a letter they wrote to Mr. Houle:

I'm seriously bothered by it; please don't hesitate to keep the letters flowing, if you have strong feelings about it.

http://www.caut.ca/pages.asp?page=878

March 22, 2010

Dr. Francois Houle
Vice-President Academic and Provost
University of Ottawa
Room 217A Tabaret Hall
550 Cumberland
Ottawa, Ontario
K1N 6N5


Dear Dr. Houle:

We are deeply disturbed by your correspondence with Ann Coulter regarding her speaking engagement at the University of Ottawa tomorrow. Your admonishing her about speech rights in Canada raises serious questions about the University of Ottawa’s respect for freedom of expression and academic freedom.

The purpose of a university is aptly captured in the University of Toronto’s statement on the “Purpose of the University”:

Within the unique university context, the most crucial of all human rights are the rights of freedom of speech, academic freedom, and freedom of research. And we affirm that these rights are meaningless unless they entail the right to raise deeply disturbing questions and provocative challenges to the cherished beliefs of society at large and of the university itself.

Ms. Coulter certainly does raise disturbing questions and provocative challenges. While many of us profoundly disagree with her, a university should welcome controversial speakers and vigorous debate, not seek to restrict discourse or speakers.

We feel you owe an apology to Ms. Coulter and, even more importantly, you owe the University of Ottawa community an assurance that the administration of the University strongly supports freedom of expression, academic freedom and views the role of the university as fostering and defending these values.


Yours truly,


Penni Stewart                            James L. Turk
President                                   Executive Director


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Mar 2010)

For what it's worth, I think Ann ain't had it in a few years.... >


----------



## leroi (26 Mar 2010)

TheHead said:
			
		

> Rangerray, just curious do you have a better source saying that Galloway wasn't banned? I'd like to use it in a debate on another board but I'm so far striking out looking for one.



TheHead, here's a fairly good explanation of Galloway's banning Hoax (unfortunately some of the links no longer work): 

http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/04/bank-accounts-frozen-court-summons.html

Here's a piece from Ezra Levant explaining why Galloway was denied entry to Canada:

http://ezralevant.com/2009/03/george-galloway.html

And another from Martin Levin:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/shelf-life/galloway-at-bay/article1138004/

Chow is conflating 2 separate issues.


----------



## Teeps74 (26 Mar 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Actually you have the right and moral duty to yell "FIRE" in a crowded room if you know or believe there is a fire present.
> 
> Ann Coulter, Ezra Levant, Mark Styen, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Kathy Shaidle and all the others are shouting a warning that our liberties are being eroded (and in Ms Coulter's case, a crowd of Brownshirts shows up to prove her point), and it's time "we" rose up and did something to take back our rights and freedoms.



Whaaaa? Are you serious? The most serious errosion of American rights was the passage of the Patriot Act. The idiots you name are fear mongers who have not a clue amongst them.


----------



## vonGarvin (26 Mar 2010)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Whaaaa? Are you serious? The most serious errosion of American rights was the passage of the *Patriot Act*. The idiots you name are fear mongers who have not a clue amongst them.


"Patriot Act"?  Never heard of it.

Unless you mean the USA PATRIOT ACT, otherwise known by its full name:  Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001'


And though I'm certain you meant erosion of human rights, asserting that Ms. Coulter, Mr Levant, Styen, etc al are all "idiots" is slanderous, just so you know.  Or libellous. I can't remember which is which.  In any case, it's still ad hominem.
I know that Ms. Coulter has a bunch of post nominals.  I also know that this doesn't necessarily mean that one is not an idiot, but even if she is, she's rather successful.


----------



## Teeps74 (26 Mar 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> "Patriot Act"?  Never heard of it.
> 
> Unless you mean the USA PATRIOT ACT, otherwise known by its full name:  Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001'
> 
> ...



ROFL you are funny. I call them idiots, because they are idiots. I would welcome a slander case on a subjective term like "idiot"... I seriously doubt that it would ever see the inside of a court room. 

I would also argue, that anyone who maligns 1.6 billion human beings for the actions of a few thousand to be an idiot. Anne Coulture went on record at Western as an idiot in this little exchange:



> “As a 17-year-old student of this university, Muslim, should I be converted to Christianity? Second of all, since I don’t have a magic carpet, what other modes do you suggest,” Al-Dhaher said to loud and sustained applause.
> 
> “I thought it was just American public schools that produced ignorant people,” Coulter replied, prompting her own round of applause.
> 
> ...



http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/03/22/13322641-qmi.html

I could call that something else... Starts with a "b" ends with a "t" and has an "i", "g", and an "o" in between.

So, to be clear, yes, I am calling them all out as idiots. Fire away.


----------



## vonGarvin (26 Mar 2010)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> I would also argue, that anyone who maligns 1.6 billion human beings for the actions of a few thousand to be an idiot. Anne Coulture went on record at Western as an idiot in this little exchange:
> 
> http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/03/22/13322641-qmi.html
> 
> ...


You are anything but clear.  You are calling her a bigot.  Why would it be bigotry to suggest to a person from the middle east to ride a camel?  Would it be bigotry to suggest to a person from Europe to ride a horse?

Re: the exchange at my alma mater, the question posed was nothing more than grandstanding by some young idealistic student (and good for her).  Ms. Coulter replied in kind.  Tie game, by my count.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Mar 2010)

<slight tangent>
Libel (in Ontario, anyway) = "Defamatory words in a newspaper or in a broadcast"

Slander = "the broadcasting of spoken defamatory words"

Typing here looks like it would best fit the "harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing" pigeonhole, therefore it would be libel.
</slight tangent>

Let the discussion continue...


----------



## leroi (26 Mar 2010)

Teeps, I't s larger than the personalities and credentials of the individuals mentioned by Thucydides; there are university professor who believe and teach that 9-11 never happened; these professors don't get any warning letters to watch what they say; in 2008 student union's across North America were linking with other groups to ban Jewish scholarship from campus (ridiculous because Jewish scholars are just as diverse in their thinking as any other university/western thought/group; some are pro-Palestinian); Why is it universities are not sending warnings out to professors many feel are contemptible and who I believe are undermining Canada?

Because university values/western values are based on dialectical expression; we wouldn't have advanced as a culture had we not allowed freedom of expression and research because it births thought and innovation. (I'd also argue that that's partly the reason some more totalitarian regimes are over here stealing our technology through espionage; their regimes don't allow freedom of expression or thought, they don't fund diverse research; and therefore can't innovate and invent; they can mechanically mass produce our ideas, though, and sell them back to us as product).

Allowing the Ann Coulters of the world to speak is critical. We sidestep an important opportunity to examine our commitment to enshrined classical liberal and democratic values like freedom of expression if we throw everyone into a pot labeled "idiot."

Some time in the near future, one of these "unpopular voices" is going to say something--something we might not want to hear-- that may sound an alarm in the west and may end up being our salvation--if we let them speak.

Ann Coulter is one of these boundary pushers who tests the limits of the values we hold dear.  Even if I don't personally like what she has to say, I would fight for her freedom to say it.

Incidentally, Salman Rushdie was honoured in India yesterday and part of one speakers words were an apology that India was one of the first countries, out of fear to stand up to a tyrant, to ban the _Satanic Verses_. (Without even having read the book!!!) The speaker also mentioned the possibility that had the world community been more vehement, initially, in denouncing Khomeini's fatwa to censor Rushdie, we may not have moved on to find ourselves in a world characterized by jihadic threat and body scans. From censorship-fatwa to violent-jihad is a slippery slope.


----------



## Teeps74 (26 Mar 2010)

I stand by both of my statements. Maligning an entire religion because of the actions of a few, at the very least is idiocy (and I am being extremely generous in that assessment).

Having served alongside of Muslims in the Canadian Forces, and worked with ANP and ANA, I find her (and their) treatment of our Islamic allies in the Coalition in Afghanistan and our brethren in uniform HIGHLY offensive, and idiotic.

She has full right to open her mouth and prove my statements correct. Bigotry and idiocy are not crimes in North America, and we value free speech as a hallmark of our society. Free speech however goes both ways, and attempting to silence the counter point is against free speech and everything we hold dear... This is a concept that apparently eludes most on the fringes of both the left and right of the political spectrum.

At no point in time did I suggest we need to shut her up... In point of fact, we need her on camera and on-line as much as humanly possible. The ideas she (and others) present must be debated, so that we as a species grow and educate ourselves beyond our xenophobic tendencies. We can not debate them if we silence them.


----------



## Redeye (26 Mar 2010)

I'll side firmly with Teeps here.  The folks mentioned make a living on scaremongering, spreading what is essentially falsehoods, either by distorting truth or putting things into a context chosen to essentially rewrite history.  Glenn Beck makes his living shilling the revisionist historical ideas of man whose views were so far out that his fellow Mormons rejected him - W. Cleon Skousen.  Rush Limbaugh is a pathetic vitriolic hypocrite whose racism is thinly veiled.  Coulter - well Ezra Levant tried to call her a satirist.  I hope that she is because what she claims to believe is nonsensical, but if she's trying to do satire she sucks at it.

The idea that these people decry losses of liberty when they support politicians who have plunged nations into debt, into wars, into recessions, who are in the process of rewriting history to suit their theocratic Weltanschauung - is ridiculous.  It's disturbing because the people who listen to them don't seem to have any clue that they're being fed a steady diet of idiotic bullshit.

As for bigotry, Coulter suggesting someone from the Middle East ride a camel, in the context which she said it, was inflammatory (of course, that's her schtick) and smacked of bigotry.  Hardly a decent response to the question, though it was pointed.  And hardly the first time she's spewed a raftload of stupid shyte about various groups.


----------



## SeanNewman (26 Mar 2010)

Mid Aged Silverback said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, I think Ann ain't had it in a few years.... >



You know you still would...

[Crickets]


----------



## vonGarvin (26 Mar 2010)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I'll side firmly with Teeps here.  The folks mentioned make a living on scaremongering, spreading *what is essentially falsehoods,* either by distorting truth or putting things into a context chosen to essentially rewrite history.  Glenn Beck makes his living shilling the revisionist historical ideas of man whose views were so far out that his fellow Mormons rejected him - W. Cleon Skousen.  Rush Limbaugh is a pathetic vitriolic hypocrite whose racism is thinly veiled.  Coulter - well Ezra Levant tried to call her a satirist.  I hope that she is because what she claims to believe is nonsensical, but if she's trying to do satire she sucks at it.


So, they lie?  Putting things into context that fits your own point of view is called persuasion.  


			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> The idea that these people decry losses of liberty when they support politicians who have plunged nations into debt, into wars, into recessions, who are in the process of rewriting history to suit their *theocratic *  Weltanschauung - is ridiculous.  It's disturbing because the people who listen to them don't seem to have any clue that they're being fed a steady diet of idiotic bullshit.


Here we go.  G W Bush started 9/11, caused AIDS and all things bad.  There is no move afoot by Ms. Coulter to force a theocracy on us.  Or by the others for that matter.  I suppose that I don't realise that I'm being fed a steady diet of bullshit then.  Well, pardon me whilst I go back to the south bound end of this north bound bull and get another spoon ful.


			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> As for bigotry, Coulter suggesting someone from the Middle East ride a camel, in the context which she said it, was inflammatory (of course, that's her schtick) and smacked of bigotry.  Hardly a decent response to the question, though it was pointed.  And hardly the first time she's spewed a raftload of stupid shyte about various groups.


Yeah, she's over the top.  So is Borat (or whatever his name is).  Michael Moore is another of Ms. Coulter's vein, but he gets Oscars, and Ms. Coulter is first reminded of freedom of speech laws, and then is muzzled.  Now *that *  is comedy!  But I disagree that suggesting someone from the middle east ride a camel is bigotry.  Have you ever been to the Middle East?  I have.  I've seen them riding camels and donkeys.  But, you're right, it was inflammatory, equally so to the loaded question asked of her.  To be fair, the 17 year old moslem student could have retorted "My camel was stopped at customs, so can I borrow your broom?"


Now I have to go find me some more bullshit.  My mind is weak and I cannot bear to think thoughts for more than ten minutes.  I hope Rush is on soon!


----------



## vonGarvin (26 Mar 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> You know you still would...
> 
> [Crickets]


***



(Yeah, that's a tumbleweed)


----------



## Teeps74 (26 Mar 2010)

Speaking of falsehoods. Coulture was NOT muzzled at all.


----------



## vonGarvin (26 Mar 2010)

Deleted due to calming effect of listening to Rush Limbaugh


----------



## leroi (26 Mar 2010)

Here's Coulter speaking about the non-event in Ottawa from Calgary last night:

Just thought some here might like to hear what she HERSELF has to say about what happened in Ottawa.

From _The O'Reilly Factor_

http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/

leroi's last word: if universities don't issue warnings to professors--which they don't--who teach students things like: Canada invaded Haiti (the recent aid mission was a cover up for an attempted invasion by Canada so don't donate any money) and, Afghanistan is also an invasion by Canada; 9-11 never happened the way we've been told; or this gem; 9-11 was orchestrated by George Bush, then university administration has no business warning Ann Coulter regarding what she can and cannot say in a pre-emptive strike DESIGNED to limit her freedom of expression. I won't even get into campus communists co-opting student fee financed papers for propaganda purposes and walls plastered with hate posters of a demonized Prime Minister Harper done up in the artistic stylized trope of Nazi Propaganda posters; or attitudes toward CF members and their leadership.

Universities in Canada have become scary places in the last 10 years and that's why it's important that alternate voices from the other end of the political spectrum CRITICALLY be heard.

Promise, that's my last word ...


----------



## Redeye (26 Mar 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> So, they lie?  Putting things into context that fits your own point of view is called persuasion.



Yes.  They lie.  Putting things into a context that fit your own point of view is persuasion, perhaps, but not when you omit the remaining facts that totally undermine your argument.  In the case of Rush, well, he just outright lies, profusely.  And about stupid things too.  I wonder when he's moving to Costa Rica, the idiot.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> Here we go.  G W Bush started 9/11, caused AIDS and all things bad.  There is no move afoot by Ms. Coulter to force a theocracy on us.  Or by the others for that matter.  I suppose that I don't realise that I'm being fed a steady diet of bullshit then.  Well, pardon me whilst I go back to the south bound end of this north bound bull and get another spoon ful{/quote]
> 
> There's no move afoot by her, but there is a definite movement afoot!  Are you not familiar with the Texas State Board Of Education and its impact of textbooks in the United States?  That its members seek to put creationism in science curricula?  That it seeks to essentially rewrite US history?  There are people that try to claim that the Founding Fathers of the United States wanted the USA to be a "Christian Nation".  Which is odd, since none of them ever said so, and the Constitution seems to be rather thoroughly against it, several of them outright made statements to the contrary.  They are interested in writing Thomas Jefferson, the most important secularist of the bunch, more or less out of history.  Traditonally, they've been checked by California's massive market and more liberal approach, but these ultraconservative nuts, who aren't historians, economists, scientists are manipulating the curriculum to suit their conservative POV.  It's extremely disturbing indeed.  Have a read.  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html
> 
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (26 Mar 2010)

> I've not been to the Middle East, no.  And yes, I'm quite certain they do ride camels and donkeys.  Making a factual statement "People in the Middle East ride camels or donkeys" is not an offensive, inflammatory, or bigoted statement.  When it's put in the context of what Coulter actually said, however, it becomes so.  The statement was made in response to a question about Coulter's (idiotic) suggestion that Muslims shouldn't be allowed on planes, suggesting they use flying carpets instead.  When a young Muslim women who didn't own a flying carpet asked how Coulter proposed she travel, that's when she said "Ride a camel."  If you don't find that remotely offensive, I'm honestly shocked.  And that's not even among the most inflammatory things she's said.


Then be shocked, because I didn't find it offensive in the least.


> Putting things into a context that fit your own point of view is persuasion


I'm glad we agree.


> but not when you omit the remaining facts that totally undermine your argument


Now we disagree.


> There's no move afoot by her, but there is a definite movement afoot!


And Al Qaeda wants an Islamic Caliphate.  Should I start burning mosques now? :
(for those who don't know my point of view, I'm being sarcastic.  That entire paragraph is non-sequitor)
I mean, come on.  Al Gore wants me to believe all sorts of shit.  That has bugger all to do with Barack Obama, who also happens to be a Democrat.


> I expect that you have the critical thinking skills to see that, however, and that you are able to discount the noise.  However, since the signal:noise ratio is so low, I don't get why you'd bother in the first place.


I have a very effective RF gain, thank you very much.


My point is this: Ann Coultar was censored, be it through turning off her mic or through pressure, intimidation, or whatever.  To my view, those who successfully silenced her in Ottawa, and those who "warned" her are no different than the Taliban (except that those in Ottawa are too self-righteous to blow themselves up)


----------



## Teeps74 (26 Mar 2010)

Coulture censored herself, deliberately and pre-planned. A venue suitable for only 400?! Give me a friggin break. I despise the vacuous one, but even I know she draws a bigger crowd of supporters then that, and always draws out many more. This was a deliberately staged side show. She said she would be shut down, and then forced exactly the kinds of conditions where she could claim she had to shut down... BS on the whole fiasco. 

She cancelled herself, and the only threat to her was that other voices would be heard.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (26 Mar 2010)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> I stand by both of my statements. Maligning an entire religion because of the actions of a few, at the very least is idiocy (and I am being extremely generous in that assessment).



 "because of the actions of a few." Sorry, what sand dune have you stuck your head into. In a earlier post you listed the number of Muslims at 1.6 billion. Now even if only one per cent of them are hardline jihadists that still works out to 1.6 million. And that's just the hardline crazies. Factor in the possible millions of Muslims who are supporters and you have a pretty significant number of troublemakers; again hardly a few.



> Having served alongside of Muslims in the Canadian Forces, and worked with ANP and ANA, I find her (and their) treatment of our Islamic allies in the Coalition in Afghanistan and our brethren in uniform HIGHLY offensive, and idiotic.



Please provide examples of where Coulter, Levant, Steyn, Limbaugh, et al have maligned our Afghan allies.



> The ideas she (and others) present must be debated, so that we as a species grow and educate ourselves beyond our xenophobic tendencies. We can not debate them if we silence them.



Unfortunately some of your fellow travelers in Ottawa decided otherwise.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (26 Mar 2010)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I'll side firmly with Teeps here.  The folks mentioned make a living on scaremongering, spreading what is essentially falsehoods, either by distorting truth or putting things into a context chosen to essentially rewrite history.



Please provide examples.



> Glenn Beck makes his living shilling the revisionist historical ideas of man whose views were so far out that his fellow Mormons rejected him - W. Cleon Skousen.



Prior to your post I never heard of Skousen and I've never heard of Beck mention him. Now I've haven't listened to all his shows so its quite possible I missed the relevant discussion. I know that Beck has wrote the forward to one of Skousen's books and a search of his website turns seven articles pertaining to Skousen, but that hardly makes Beck a "shill" for Skousen.  But, then maybe you listen to Glenn beck more than I do.



> Coulter - well Ezra Levant tried to call her a satirist.  I hope that she is because what she claims to believe is nonsensical, but if she's trying to do satire she sucks at it.



My copy of the "Compact Oxford English Dictionary" describes a satire as: " the use of humour, irony exaggeration or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices." I don't know about you but that's a pretty damn good description of Ann Coulter in my books.



> The idea that these people decry losses of liberty when they support politicians who have plunged nations into debt, into wars, into recessions, who are in the process of rewriting history to suit their theocratic Weltanschauung - is ridiculous.  It's disturbing because the people who listen to them don't seem to have any clue that they're being fed a steady diet of idiotic bullshit.



I believe this is what is called an  ad hominem  attack. In other words when you can't find anything else - attack the person.



> As for bigotry, Coulter suggesting someone from the Middle East ride a camel, in the context which she said it, was inflammatory (of course, that's her schtick) and smacked of bigotry.  Hardly a decent response to the question, though it was pointed.  And hardly the first time she's spewed a raftload of stupid shyte about various groups.



Inflammatory - yes, bigotry - no.  Again, referring to my COED which describes a bigot as; " a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others." Which describes you and Teeps74 just as well as Ann Coulter.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Mar 2010)

CBC correspondent Neil Macdonald, who is regularly excoriated for anti-American and anti-Israeli _bias_, gets it exactly right in this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the CBC web site:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/03/24/f-rfa-macdonald.html


> *Neil Macdonald*
> The poop on Ann Coulter
> 
> Wednesday, March 24, 2010
> ...



Bingo!

This was, and always is when Coulter is involved, ALL about political theatre. Coulter is an entertainer, and at only $10,000.—a pop, a pretty _low rent_ entertainer at that. Levant is a _gadfly_ with a very, very good cause who, as Macdonald suggests, has a wicked sense of humour – something which is almost entirely lacking in left-wing intellectuals … _*wait a second, isn’t that *_(left wing – intellectuals)_* a contradiction in terms?*_ 

It speaks volumes about the very sad state of what passes for _intellectualism_ in Canada. People like Prof. François Houle appeared to have earned their degrees at universities where _fascism_, not _liberalism_ was the preferred political philosophy.  Sadly, and with apologies to e.g. Journeyman and e.g Gilles Paquet and some others, the state of the intellects of the professorial staffs at many of our major universities is suspect. They, the professors, often appear, to me, to have been stamped out by some giant, politically correct and historically and philosophically illiterate cookie cutter. Anyway, Levant set out to provoke someone like Houle because he (Levant) knew that our universities are full of big mouthed, empty headed _numpties_ like Houle and one of them was quaranteed to rise to the bait and make a fool of himself, his institution and Canadian academe.

And it was fun to see that self righteous fool held up to ridicule.


----------



## Teeps74 (26 Mar 2010)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> "because of the actions of a few." Sorry, what sand dune have you stuck your head into. In a earlier post you listed the number of Muslims at 1.6 billion. Now even if only one per cent of them are hardline jihadists that still works out to 1.6 million. And that's just the hardline crazies. Factor in the possible millions of Muslims who are supporters and you have a pretty significant number of troublemakers; again hardly a few.
> 
> Please provide examples of where Coulter, Levant, Steyn, Limbaugh, et al have maligned our Afghan allies.
> 
> Unfortunately some of your fellow travelers in Ottawa decided otherwise.



Dear god, I am the infantry guy here... I am supposed to be the neanderthal. The 1950s called, they want their idiocy back.


----------



## mariomike (26 Mar 2010)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> The 1950s called, they want their idiocy back.



Do you think people are happier now than they were back then?:
http://berndeau.startlogic.com/1955.htm


----------



## observor 69 (27 Mar 2010)

Margaret Wente of the G&M pretty well sums it up:

"Ann Coulter sucker-punched us!
That's what a lot of people think. A loud-mouthed, trash-talking aging babe rides into town, taunts the rubes, engineers the cancellation of her own speaking engagement in a smallish room at a second-tier university, declares herself a victim and makes prime-time news for an entire week. Not bad for a fading star from the Conservative Entertainment Network."

LINK


----------



## Jimmy67 (27 Mar 2010)

Regardless of what one thinks of Ann Coulter, she has the right to speak without fear of her and her audience being intimidated. Last time I checked, this was Canada, not North Korea.

This pattern of left-wing university students shutting down debate through thug tactics is becoming a common (and disturbing) pattern, and needs to be dealt with NOW. Our freedom of speech is steadily eroding, and most don't seem to notice, or care.

Our universities have become Brownshirt indoctrination centres - soiled by intolerance, anti-Semitism, worship of statism, and a disdain for free thought.

Mao, Stalin, and Che would be proud...


----------



## Rogo (27 Mar 2010)

Jimmy67 said:
			
		

> Regardless of what one thinks of Ann Coulter, she has the right to speak without fear of her and her audience being intimidated. Last time I checked, this was Canada, not North Korea.
> 
> This pattern of left-wing university students shutting down debate through thug tactics is becoming a common (and disturbing) pattern, and needs to be dealt with NOW. Our freedom of speech is steadily eroding, and most don't seem to notice, or care.
> 
> ...





I think we also have to recognize that in Canada we do have these laws however that to an extent limit "free speech" and that the organizations of students opposing her speech represents students showing support for either the Canadian system or the University System. If they choose to protest a speaker on their campus because they feel it will not be condusive to the atmosphere they want to create, more the power to them.     2000 students is approximately 4/5ths of the residence students on campus.  If we tell them that it is wrong to protest or have social movements, political society where they live will stagnate. I don't think anyone would want that.       

Maybe they just didn't want her to speak. From the sounds of it there were 400 seats to hear here speak, only 100 chose to push their way in, and 2000 protested. As it appears to me, most people didn't want her there.

IMO


----------



## leroi (27 Mar 2010)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Dear god, I am the infantry guy here... I am supposed to be the neanderthal. The 1950s called, they want their idiocy back.



I broke my promise >

Infantry are not "neanderthal" (you're discriminating against your brothers/sisters ;D) but alluding to a retired member by quoting his post in the same breath that you make the statement I yellow-ed above could easily be construed as ageism, another grounds for a Human Rights violation and therefore undercuts your argument about Miss. Coulters allegedly offensive words. Besides, the continuous "chiming" on variations of the word "idiot" is going nowhere.

((((Hugs & Kisses))))  Some of us older folk from the fifties still like a good argument. Hail democracy!!!!


----------



## Teeps74 (27 Mar 2010)

Aye, a good argument is enjoyable. I am afraid the Coulture brings out all the very worst in me, as I do well and truly view her as enabling terrorists such as al'Qaeda. Idiots like Coulture try to drive us towards the all out religious war, West vs Islam that morons like al'Qaeda so desperately want.

The vast majority of Islam is not our enemy, and in point of fact, many are our friends. There are Muslim brothers and sisters in the CF today, and I do take severe offence at the bigotry heaped on them by the very vocal and ignorant.

Being of Irish Catholic decent, I suppose I can relate to the suggestion of all of my kind being a terrorist... But once people got around the idea that the IRA were not representative of Catholics, or even Irish Catholics, one starts to understand the pure evil that bigotry is.

If all else fails, and one, because of their xenophobic tendencies, can not accept Islam as just another religion like Christianity... They should remember economy of force. Narrow down the enemy to those that are the enemy, like al'Qaeda, the Taliban, HiG and the various enemy OAG in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Economy of force will allow us all to remain clear headed  and focused on where we have to go, and will not provided recruiting fodder for the enemy groups I have named above. 

Asymmetric warfare is more then just killing the bad guys, it is also gutting the recruiting mechanism and minimizing the enemy information operations campaign.


----------



## 1feral1 (27 Mar 2010)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> If all else fails, and one, because of their xenophobic tendencies, can not accept Islam as just another religion like Christianity...



I don't know how things are fairing in dear sweet Canada these days but here its different (?)

When a minority wants to change our laws and way of life to suit them, thats where I draw the line, and I am not the only one how feels that ther should be one law for all Australians.  http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/08/2839749.htm

...and here, , http://www.smh.com.au/national/muslim-leader-wants-elements-of-sharia-in-australia-20100307-pqlo.html and this is the tip of the iceberg down here.

Here is the Aussie government's take, a quote from the Rt Hon Peter Costello (from the past 'conservative' government http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/If-you-want-sharia-law-move-Costello/2006/02/23/1140670199148.html

EDITs to add what Australian muslims want/support  http://www.centraltelegraph.com.au/story/2010/03/08/aussie-muslims-support-sharia-law-trad/

Regards,

OWDU


----------



## Teeps74 (27 Mar 2010)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> I don't know how things are fairing in dear sweet Canada these days but here its different (?)
> 
> When a minority wants to change our laws and way of life to suit them, thats where I draw the line, and I am not the only one how feels that ther should be one law for all Australians.  http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/08/2839749.htm
> 
> ...



You do know the parts of Sharia that were being discussed were the family law parts right? The two articles you linked, the proponents actually say that they would not displace civil or criminal, and showed precedents already set in Aus where other groups are allowed this.

Remember that Sharia is a blanket term and does include the Whabbis and Deobans (sic... the stoning we are familiar with) but there are so many other Islamic groups that favour more moderate and modern forms of laws that are remarkably similar to our own.

In Canada we allow for religious family courts (notably the Catholics and Jewish faiths enjoy these). So long as it is regulated, and an open system, I really can not see the argument against. The keys to this being, Canadian law will supersede in a question of conflict where human rights or criminal code are at issue.

[Devil's advocate hat off]

You should also note, that it is the Islamic community that stood against Sharia in Canada, and I suspect the same could be said of Aus, though I admit, I am not familiar at all with the situation there. From my own expereince and observation, Muslims tend to not be as vocal as we "Christians" are (I loosely associate with my religion now, ergo the quotation marks). Because of this lack of voice from the silent majority, we tend to hear the idiots so much more loudly. 

In Canada, the Muslims are getting organized and are voicing opposition to extremism, violence and terrorism.

http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/

Too little too late? I do not know... I hope not. This is just one example of Muslims trying to reach out to their own. We are seeing them more and more in the press now, responding to terrorist attacks and condemning those same attacks. They are doing something the Catholic Church never did, and that is apologizing for the actions of the few. The Catholic Church never apologized for the actions of the IRA (nor should it have... Nor should Muslims have to apologize for a few extremists).


----------



## 1feral1 (27 Mar 2010)

Down here on cable/satellite we get a vast array of world news. CNNI, Sky, BBC, and Fox. I tend to watch CNNI and Fox most, and I do enjoy their programming. I get a kick out of Riley, Hanity, Greta and the rest, and just as much as out of Anmanpour etc. Its entertainment and news, discussing somwe rather hot political items, etc.

Your opinions of some which I do not agree are respected, so don't forget that.

Here is yet another bizarre incident which rocked the country (and still does) that happened in 2006..... http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/muslim-leader-blames-women-for-sex-attacks/story-e6frg6nf-1111112419114

Cheers,

OWDU


----------



## Teeps74 (27 Mar 2010)

And as always you are a gentleman, scholar, and all round nice guy Downunder. You are a good man, just in the wrong army   

Ya, that article is just plain... Well, takes all types in this world. That did make world headlines.


----------



## leroi (27 Mar 2010)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Aye, a good argument is enjoyable. I am afraid the Coulture brings out all the very worst in me, as I do well and truly view her as enabling terrorists such as al'Qaeda. Idiots like Coulture try to drive us towards the all out religious war, West vs Islam that morons like al'Qaeda so desperately want.
> 
> The vast majority of Islam is not our enemy, and in point of fact, many are our friends. There are Muslim brothers and sisters in the CF today, and I do take severe offence at the bigotry heaped on them by the very vocal and ignorant.
> 
> ...



Aye, a very worthy post; I descend from Irish Catholics too.  
I love Canada; as a mouthy female I'd probably be dead by now
had I the bad luck of being born in a different country.

And, I agree with you: the boundary-pushers of the world
test the limits of our patience; they create flashpoints.
But my argument remains, if Canadian universities don't put
limits on university professors, some of whom I believe trash-talk 
Canada, then, they can't very well write warning letters to the 
Coulter's of the world either.

But for me also, this issued is larger than being a Christian, Jew,
Muslim or any other religious affiliation.

Let the boundary pushers speak; let them "own" their words;
Don't shout them down with threats of mob violence and warning 
letters in advance. Let them speak so the good many people can
rise up and respond. If they mis-speak, then we can refute them 
on principle. I prefer the Ann Coulters of the world who are right 
out there for all to see over "some" professors who hold positions 
of authority over students and fly under the radar. To me, what they 
say is even more dangerous to Canada.

Canadian universities cannot have it both ways: demonizing Judaism
one week and banning Coulter the next. Which was part of the
reason she was invited to Canada; a punctuated (if perhaps
 over the top) response to the end of another "Israel-Apartheid-Bash-
Canada" season.


----------



## Redeye (27 Mar 2010)

Limbaugh: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rush-limbaugh/statements/ - Particularly like his "banning fishing" and "mandating circumcision" claims.  Most amusingly, some nutcase I was debating about healthcare claimed the opposite, that Obama wanted to ban circumcision.  Neither are remotely true.

Beck: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/glenn-beck/statements/

Politifact doesn't really do as an intensive review of Beck, but I've listened to the guy enough to find that his distortions of history, often quoted by the sheep that follow the guy, are both alarming and disturbing.  Beck's pretty extensively covered by a number of outlets like Media Matters For America, as well.  Factcheck.org's got some early doozies by him here: http://www.factcheck.org/tag/glenn-beck/

Coulter's mainly inflammatory, she makes so few statements of fact from what I've seen that there's not so much fact checking on her, but what there is isn't great.  http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ann-coulter/

Now, of course, there are pundits on the other side of the spectrum who have problems, but I find them to be generally much less inflammatory than these three, or Liddy, or Hannity, etc.  Maddow and Olbermann I both enjoy, and yes, they can be fairly intense too - but even if I don't agree with them I don't see the same kind of undertone.

Going back to the whole thing - I don't like the idea of someone, even Coulter, being censored - but she wasn't, she made a decision, and there's an argument to be presented that it was set up that way, though I won't go as far as to say that's actually true... but the venue chosen seems to suggest it could be possible.



			
				Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Please provide examples.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (27 Mar 2010)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Limbaugh: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rush-limbaugh/statements/ - Particularly like his "banning fishing" and "mandating circumcision" claims.  Most amusingly, some nutcase I was debating about healthcare claimed the opposite, that Obama wanted to ban circumcision.  Neither are remotely true.
> 
> Beck: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/glenn-beck/statements/
> 
> ...



Thank you for the examples. Will bookmark the two sites you linked to. Can't really say anything about left-wing commentators, may be because they are so few. However, I caught the interview between Olbermann and Perez Hilton where they did a hatchet job on the young beauty contestant that Hilton had interviewed about her views on the American family. What they said about her I consider beyond the pale, no matter what latter revelations came about her and her family. However, thats a topic for another discussion/thread.


----------



## Redeye (27 Mar 2010)

You're welcome.  They're both great websites, and they aim to be non-partisan.  Politifact in particular is excellent, because it tracks so many different people.  They flesh out and factcheck talking points in detail, and that's important because the one marvel of technology is that rumours spread around very quickly.

You're right about left-wing commentators, that's why I consider the constant whinging about the "liberal media" by the right when there's not much of one at all.  The best of them would be Rachel Maddow, in my view.  She's well-spoken, presents issues well, and pulls no punches calling people out.  Keith Olbermann has his moments, primarily in his Special Comments, particularly those relevant to the US healthcare reform debate.  He's been able to inject a lot of his personal experience with his father (who recently passed away) into it.  His commentary is biting, it's sharp, and while Politifact has caught him out a couple of times, they weren't glaringly false statements on siginificant import - well, one was I guess).  But now we're getting into all sorts of other matters, so I'll leave it at that.



			
				Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Thank you for the examples. Will bookmark the two sites you linked to. Can't really say anything about left-wing commentators, may be because they are so few. However, I caught the interview between Olbermann and Perez Hilton where they did a hatchet job on the young beauty contestant that Hilton had interviewed about her views on the American family. What they said about her I consider beyond the pale, no matter what latter revelations came about her and her family. However, thats a topic for another discussion/thread.


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Mar 2010)

Mob rules at the U of O


> Ottawa CitizenMarch 25, 2010
> 
> Ann Coulter's opinions can be obnoxious, offensive and just plain wrong. But she's spot-on about one thing: that the University of Ottawa has shown itself to be a "bush-league" school.
> The thuggery of student activists is a growing problem at Canadian campuses, but the spectacle at the University of Ottawa was truly a colossal embarrassment, for both the university and the city. Ottawa is the capital of a G8 country, yet our premier research university is evidently so insecure and insular that a talk-TV pundit from the U.S. represented an intolerable intellectual threat.
> ...


"Freedom of Speech, but only for us" seems to be the mantra of the extremist left.  Oppose her, denounce her, but don't stop her from talking.


----------



## Rogo (29 Mar 2010)

Far more people showed up to oppose her than to hear her talk, although this squashes her "free speech"... Is this not a demonstration of democracy working in a social sense.   Put this in an electoral setting. If we have a party that runs and gets 400 votes or less while another party gets around 2000, obviously the minority will not get elected. A peaceful social protest seems perfectly viable and socially acceptable in this sense because it is just an extension of people political freedoms and abilities to enact change in society, albeit a campus society.

Agree/Disagree?


----------



## Journeyman (29 Mar 2010)

Rogo said:
			
		

> Far more people showed up to oppose her than to hear her talk, although this squashes her "free speech"... Is this not a demonstration of democracy working in a social sense.   Put this in an electoral setting. If we have a party that runs and gets 400 votes or less while another party gets around 2000, obviously the minority will not get elected. A peaceful social protest seems perfectly viable and socially acceptable in this sense because it is just an extension of people political freedoms and abilities to enact change in society, albeit a campus society.
> 
> Agree/Disagree?


The problem with analogies is their risk of over-simplification.

Your model tells us that the minority, having only 400 votes, is not allowed any political voice. While the 2000 get to rule, they've gone to the point of saying the 400 have no further say within your electorate; there is no minority opposition party.

As has been noted in earlier comments concerning the perhaps equally over-simplified left/right dynamic, if the 400 disagree with a left-wing speaker they have a tendency not to go listen; your 2000, however, refuse to allow the 400 to hear a right-wing speaker simply because they disagree.

Not much of a democracy I'd say, but rather a 'might makes right' dictatorship. 

Again though, we live in reality, not analogies...

...OK, most people with lives _outside_ of academe don't live in analogies


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (29 Mar 2010)

Rogo said:
			
		

> Far more people showed up to oppose her than to hear her talk, although this squashes her "free speech"... Is this not a demonstration of democracy working in a social sense.   Put this in an electoral setting. If we have a party that runs and gets 400 votes or less while another party gets around 2000, obviously the minority will not get elected. A peaceful social protest seems perfectly viable and socially acceptable in this sense because it is just an extension of people political freedoms and abilities to enact change in society, albeit a campus society.
> 
> Agree/Disagree?



It would be a terrifying concept for me that the majority could _silence_ the minority in our democracy.  The majority do not have to agree with what is said and they don't need to take any action based on what the minority (in an issue) are saying, but they should at least be prepared to listen.

While the majority selects the government, getting elected and having a voice are two different things.  In addition, although majority rules in a election we need to worry about the tyranny of the majority.


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Mar 2010)

Rogo said:
			
		

> Far more people showed up to oppose her than to hear her talk, although this squashes her "free speech"... Is this not a demonstration of democracy working in a social sense.   Put this in an electoral setting. If we have a party that runs and gets 400 votes or less while another party gets around 2000, obviously the minority will not get elected. A peaceful social protest seems perfectly viable and socially acceptable in this sense because it is just an extension of people political freedoms and abilities to enact change in society, albeit a campus society.
> 
> Agree/*Disagree*?


We live in a liberal democractic society.  Here is but one definition of it:


> Liberal democracy is a form of government in which the state is governed by the consent of the people, and in which *individual freedoms are protected*. Liberal democracies have constitutions, which describe the legal framework of the state and the basic rights awarded to citizens.
> These rights and freedoms in a liberal democracy typically include property rights, the right to privacy, equality before the law, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and an economic policy founded on the principle of a free market.
> *Liberal democracies also tend to be characterized by tolerance and pluralism*. Widely differing social and political views, *even those viewed as extreme or fringe*, are permitted to co-exist and compete for political power on a democratic basis.


This is from here.
So, shouting down minorities is not a characteristic of our system.  If it were, do you think Canada would have altered its marriage laws to accomodate 2-3% of the population?


----------



## Teeps74 (29 Mar 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> We live in a liberal democractic society.  Here is but one definition of it:This is from here.
> So, shouting down minorities is not a characteristic of our system.  If it were, do you think Canada would have altered its marriage laws to accomodate 2-3% of the population?



Agreed.  We should never ever limit speech, so long as it does not promote violence.  People like Coulture should be kept in the spot light, all the better for their baloney to be deconstructed.


----------



## helpup (29 Mar 2010)

Rogo said:
			
		

> Far more people showed up to oppose her than to hear her talk, although this squashes her "free speech"... Is this not a demonstration of democracy working in a social sense.   Put this in an electoral setting. If we have a party that runs and gets 400 votes or less while another party gets around 2000, obviously the minority will not get elected. A peaceful social protest seems perfectly viable and socially acceptable in this sense because it is just an extension of people political freedoms and abilities to enact change in society, albeit a campus society.
> 
> Agree/Disagree?



Quantify the far more people showed up.  My understanding is the event was not well thought out or run and that many showed up for what ever side to go in but were told that they needed to register ( funny that it was not advertised about that since those signs were not allowed to be put up).  I will grant you that a larger number showed up but will counter that many of those did due to the School's "warning letter" doing a good job of informing the masses that protests will be tolerated.  

A demonstration is perfectly legal and in most cases allowed.  Demonstrations also tend to get humans into a herd mentality where relatively few people can guide the actions of many to a voilent outburst that would not normally be a part of a persons nature.  

I took issue with the attitude of many of the protesters who will espouse free speach and doing what is right in thier minds.  Many went there with the purpose of stopping someone from speaking....It wasnt suppose to be a debate (as far as I understand it)  Coulter was going to speak her utter nonsense, look foolish and try and get some sound bites.  I dont agree with 95% of what she says but I do agree she has a right to say it.  

Oh and this also from the people who will hold a Bash Isreal week and will not accept any other points of views on that topic.  Nice touch that,,,,,,, Makes me really wonder if the university crowd really understands the world they are striving to create.  A world intolerant to any view that does not go along with thier own. 


So I have to say disagree


----------



## RangerRay (29 Mar 2010)

Rogo said:
			
		

> Agree/Disagree?



Disagree.

As others have stated, the majority does NOT have the right to shut up a minority opinion because they do not like it.  Just because we have a country where mob rule is the norm of our parliamentary democracy, does not make that right.

As well, the right to free speech for the protesters stops when they impact on the rights of others to listen to someone (i.e. your rights end at my nose).  Remember, these protesters were not merrily exercising their free speech, they were intimidating those who were in attendance and being very aggressive.

Yes, she could have gone ahead with the talk if she wanted to.  But if you were advised by police and security that things were getting ugly before you gave a speech, would you go ahead with it?   I would more than likely follow the advice of the experts.


----------



## VinceW (29 Mar 2010)

Something popular that is said doesn't need to be protected it's something that is unpopular that does,those students aren't standing up for ones right to speak their mind that they don't agree with. :2c:


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Mar 2010)

The University invited Coulter to speak did they not ? Trying to expose the young minds to an opposing viewpoint is what an education ought to be about. Instead a mob descended on the hall and prevented her from speaking. Pretty bad manners.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Mar 2010)

Ed Morrow opines from the safe zone:

http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/29/this-could-get-me-arrested-in-canada



> *This could get me arrested in Canada*
> 
> Posted By Ed Morrow On Monday, March 29th, 2010 @ 12:53 AM In Opinion, Opinion:Lower Section | 9 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## Rogo (30 Mar 2010)

It was the school president representative that sent the letter and the crowd stood there to oppose in what the police described as an unorganized "peaceful protest"   her people called off her speech. Her ability to provide the speech was not infringed upon nor were her rights to perform her speech. It was that the crowd succeeded in making her feel uncomfortable enough to not continue. I was not present as I am sure most of us were not so we will not truly be able to give 100% insight. Democracy is a majority rule system and essentially it is mob rule. As for the 2-3% who benefit from gay marriage legislation, that is something I feel the majority of the population feels is correct and therefore is legislation passed in behalf of the majority.    I know in theory this seems incorrect and that my taking of "devil's advocate" has ruffled some feathers but the truth is that this is how our system is shaped and historically this is one method of showing opinion or desires. Right or wrong, protests and social demonstrations/gatherings do occur and it is far to easy to focus on the bad when someone says that we as canadians have attacked a freedom. Had this not been said in the news I feel many canadians would be taking another position.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (30 Mar 2010)

Rogo said:
			
		

> Democracy is a majority rule system and essentially it is mob rule.



Democrary is not mob rule.  Democracy does operate on the principle of majority rule, but that does not equate to mob rule.  Democratic theory and practice recognize the danger of the "tyranny of the majority" where the desires of the majority completely override the desires and rights of the minority.  If the minority can't even say their piece we have a huge problem.  If that happens, the underlying consensus that is the foundation for a democracy is eroded and eventually fails.  

Regarding this particular case I certainly support people getting together to "protest" something.  I have no doubt that there were elements of theatre going on here with both sides.  Still, I think that what we have is an administration and a student body apparently worried about what somebody is going to say and trying to stop them saying it.  They would have more effective by ignoring the whole thing - take away the oxygen and the fire goes out.


----------



## Journeyman (30 Mar 2010)

Rogo said:
			
		

> ... it is far too easy to focus on the bad when someone says that we as Canadians have attacked a freedom.


So we should focus on the inherent _good_ in having our freedoms, rights and liberties attacked?  ???

OK, the _majority_ of posters here seem to believe that the University of Ottawa and its students came off as a bunch of dickheads. Your argument, and first-year university understanding of democracy, tells us that we're perfectly justified in telling you to STFU. 

While I'd be curious to hear your response, sadly you're no longer allowed to speak because you're in the minority here.


Kidding! I don't really care about your response...but I do believe you have the right to post it, as long as you adhere to site guidelines


----------



## leroi (30 Mar 2010)

Rogo, I have friends who were present; one is on film being threatened~and it wasn't staged. Plus, not knowing Ann and living 4 hours from Ottawa but watching the prodigious, violent hatred against Ann on the internet (which would not have occurred had Houle not written his pre-emptive letter), I was afraid for her safety. Many Canadians were.

(BTW, the disgusting, hateful--astonishing by sheer volume--internet threats to Ann were far worse in violent hate speech content than anything she's ever said.)

While some will argue that she called it off herself and therefore is to blame, I would argue that the threat of violence can be as effective a silencer as violence itself.  At the last minute, the sponsors of the event were asked to shell out extra money to pay for security. What does that signal to you? 

On the other hand, I never doubted for a moment that Levant would exploit this opportunity or that there was some "stage-handling" involved. 
But that's not the point here: the university was wrong to send her that warning letter which sparked the firestorm. It wasn't very smart of them either; it doesn't take a genius to know what Levant would do with that.

Furthermore, as T6 mentioned, it was just plain bad manners to receive someone visiting Canadian soil, by invitation, in that manner.  That Houle used the word "civilized" in his insulting, condescending letter when pre- advising Ann how to behave is the epitome of hypocrisy when contrasted with the uncivilized behaviour of the receiving mob.

Note to Journeyman,  I agree that the controversy was not so polarized along left/right lines for most of Canada, but it was THAT polarized on a few universities--where this controversy has been brewing since 2008.


----------



## Rogo (30 Mar 2010)

I do not disagree, that the actions by the students could of been carried out differently. And to address the post towards the end of page 5, telling someone to stfu is disrespectful and aggressive however my freedom of speech has not been affected. If I choose now to stop talking I would not go on to blame you or the people who oppose what I have to say because the only thing anyone is guilty of on this thread is expressing their own opinions no matter how popular or unpopular they may be. 

If we flip the events what do we have, if there are 2000 students who want to protest her speech but are told not to because this may intimidate the speaker this would be in violation of their rights too. 

Inviting her to speak at UOttawa pretty much guaranteed a response from students, why should we punish students for excersing their rights where they live and learn. I know it's unfortunate that its at the expense of a highly publicized frankly outspoken individual but who are we to tell the students how to run their campus.   They don't come to your house and tell you what tv to watch or who to write an angry letter to. Why should anyone tell them how to run their campus.


----------



## Greymatters (30 Mar 2010)

Rogo said:
			
		

> If we flip the events what do we have, if there are 2000 students who want to protest her speech but are told not to because this may intimidate the speaker this would be in violation of their rights too.
> 
> Inviting her to speak at UOttawa pretty much guaranteed a response from students, why should we punish students for excersing their rights where they live and learn.



No one is saying that students dont have the right to respond, however, the response developed into a threat of violence, not reasoned voicing of protest.  Which is a bit hypocritical when these same students are claiming that the visitor is inciting hatred and violence.


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Mar 2010)

"Stop preaching hate! Death to those who preach hate! Death to all who oppose us!"  Errr, no... that's not quite right...ummm...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (30 Mar 2010)

Rogo said:
			
		

> If we flip the events what do we have, if there are 2000 students who want to protest her speech but are told not to because this may intimidate the speaker this would be in violation of their rights too.



I think you're missing the point. No one is saying the students (or anyone else for that matter) do not have a right to protest, peacefully. What happened at U of O was not in any shape or forum "peaceful". As leroi mentioned previously he had a friend who was threatened by these "peaceful" demonstrators. In other instances doors were blocked, fire alarms pulled and infiltrators were reported inside the building where they could have disrupted proceedings or worse. That's what we object to.

Secondly, I disagree with you statement that its "thier [students] campus." I'm willing to bet that U of O receives a lot of funding from the city/provincial/federal governments. In other words the taxpayers. I would also bet that many of those students are subsidized by the taxpayer so that they can attend said university. So, the way I look at it, its not so much "their" university as "ours."


----------



## Greymatters (30 Mar 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> "Stop preaching hate! Death to those who preach hate! Death to all who oppose us!"  Errr, no... that's not quite right...ummm...



But oh so familiar....


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Mar 2010)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> But oh so familiar....



I believe it's carved into the CHRC hearing room doors.


----------



## Redeye (31 Mar 2010)

This I agree with - what little I've seen about the protests at uOttawa show that there was nothing really acceptable about it.  I think often those who launch such protests don't seem to realize that their freedom of speech isn't allowed to just trump someone else's, that's not how the whole idea works.  While I'm completely fine with the fact that people were protesting Coulter's appearance, and I'd expect nothing less, they completely discredit any argument they make with behaviour like that.  And as I said above and others have said, I'd rather she speak publicly so that what she says can be torn apart publicly, anyhow!

Someone once said of protestors "I hate everything you stand for, but I will defend with my life if necessary your right to say it."  That being said, they have an obligation to uphold that same standard.



			
				Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> I think you're missing the point. No one is saying the students (or anyone else for that matter) do not have a right to protest, peacefully. What happened at U of O was not in any shape or forum "peaceful". As leroi mentioned previously he had a friend who was threatened by these "peaceful" demonstrators. In other instances doors were blocked, fire alarms pulled and infiltrators were reported inside the building where they could have disrupted proceedings or worse. That's what we object to.
> 
> Secondly, I disagree with you statement that its "thier [students] campus." I'm willing to bet that U of O receives a lot of funding from the city/provincial/federal governments. In other words the taxpayers. I would also bet that many of those students are subsidized by the taxpayer so that they can attend said university. So, the way I look at it, its not so much "their" university as "ours."


----------



## leroi (2 Apr 2010)

An Interesting Blog called, "Take Back Your School: The Front Line in the War Against Campus Stupidity in Canada"  talks about who some of the agitators were in the crowd, including one who is alleged to be assistant to Pat Martin, NDP.

http://takebackyourschool.wordpress.com/


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Apr 2010)

leroi said:
			
		

> An Interesting Blog called, "Take Back Your School: The Front Line in the War Against Campus Stupidity in Canada"  talks about who some of the agitators were in the crowd, including one who is alleged to be assistant to Pat Martin, NDP.
> 
> http://takebackyourschool.wordpress.com/



Which begs the obvious question.....

What would have happened if a Conservative staffer had been employed in that manner?


----------



## pbi (12 Apr 2010)

> If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind



That's a good one from old John Stuart Mill. 

It seems to me that lots of Canadians, on both ends of the political spectrum, think that "freedom of speech" means that there there should be freedom of expression of the ideas they happen to agree with, by people they agree with. The Left hides behind the fraud of "political correctness" or "sensitivity" or other such rubbish, while the Right seems to use "Patriotism" or "family values" to shut up the people they don't like.

Less those who clearly incite to violent criminal action (and I'll agree that can even be hard to pin down at times), I think that the best way to deal with expression of thought you don't like is to meet them head on in open debate. Personally, I think Coulter is a lightweight who knows how to yank her opposition's chain, but that's just me. Those students could have done a lot more for their cause by getting seats in the hall and going at Coulter in question period, but they weren't really interested in that, any more than the Tea Party nitwits in the US are interested in any other version of "US democracy" than what suits their view of things.

Cheers


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Apr 2010)

Well said, pbi!


----------



## a_majoor (18 Apr 2010)

Well once you realize who the President of U of O is, and that he indeed authourized the threat letter to Ann Coulter, then things become much more clear:

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2010/04/17/u-of-o-pres-alan-rock-oked-coulter-warning-letter/



> *U of O Pres Alan Rock OK’ed Coulter warning letter*
> April 17, 2010 — BC Blue
> 
> Ex-Liberal cabinet minister and current University of Ottawa president Alan Rock has finally come out of hiding and now admits he knew and condoned the warning letter sent to Ann Coulter by vice-president of academic affairs, François Houle. (see threat here)
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (27 Apr 2010)

A first rate institution demonstrates how free speech is done. U of O take note:

http://www.thefire.org/article/11797.html



> *University of Tennessee Acts to Preserve Free Speech on Campus*
> April 22, 2010
> 
> by Samantha Harris
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jul 2010)

More fallout on the Ann Coulter event. The Liberal party "Who's Who" list in the email chain is interesting, and it isn't hard to see what side of the free speech divide they fall on:

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/well-well-look-who-else-was-involved-in-u-of-oann-coulter-fiasco/



> *Well, well…look who else was involved in U of O/Ann Coulter fiasco*
> July 13, 2010 — BC Blue
> 
> The University of  Ottawa fallout over Ann Coulter continues as more of U of O President and former Liberal cabinet minister Allan Rock’s FOI-released emails (see earlier post here) come to light.
> ...


----------



## SeanNewman (15 Jul 2010)

If nothing else, how did someone make it to that point in their life thinking "university's" is plural for "university"?


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Jul 2010)

I used Control-F to find "_University's_" on the previous page, and found one instance:


> This week, the *university's* Assistant General Counsel wrote to notify us that the policy had been fully revised to eliminate that provision. The newly revised policy now appropriately prohibits "Engag[ing] in activities that violate state or federal law, a University contractual obligation, or another University policy or rule including but not limited to Human Resources policies and Standards of Conduct for students." Regrettably, UTK's Assistant General Counsel noted in his letter that UTK still believed the old policy to be "constitutionally defensible." Nevertheless, actions speak louder than words, and the university did take quick and thorough action to change the policy following FIRE's letter.


I have no degree in English, in fact, my degree is in German; however, that appears to be the proper possessive case of "university".


----------



## SeanNewman (15 Jul 2010)

Absolutely, and it would be correct in any possessive context, such as "The University's best program is _______".

However, what you missed in the quote was "University’s (sic) have a unique role..."

It has nothing to do with being a staff weenie either; I think I learned the plural vs possessive_* 's*_ rule in grade 4.


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Jul 2010)

Noted


----------



## a_majoor (3 Mar 2011)

Now lwt's see what happens when the shoe is on the other foot (Leftist hate speech). From a letter I received:



> http://ottawa.apartheidweek.org/
> 
> Ottawa U is hosting another Israeli Apartheid Week
> 
> ...



Given the publicly stated opinions of participants in IAW, then the same letter and warning that was sent to Ms Coulter should also have been sent to the organizers of the IAW. IF not, why not?

Don't just attempt to engage the University people, send this to your MP, local media and bloggers, and watch the fun begine. (I am eagerly waiting to see how Mr Rock and Mr Houle tie themselves in knots)


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Mar 2011)

I hope the group gets warned, but based on precedent, I fear it won't


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Mar 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I hope the group gets warned, but based on precedent, I fear it won't




Israel is, demonstrably, excluded from "hatred." Calling Israelis _Nazis_ or the IDF the _Gestapo_ is, also clearly, well within the bounds of good manners, etc, some (many? most?) of the denizens (students, faculty and 'leadership') in our, Canadian, universities.

After all, it (calling Israelis _Nazis_) is not anti-Semitism, it's not like says Jews are _Nazis_; not the same at all.  ???


----------



## Dissident (3 Mar 2011)

Please stop Mr Campbell, heads are bound to implode...


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Mar 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Israel is, demonstrably, excluded from "hatred." Calling Israelis _Nazis_ or the IDF the _Gestapo_ is, also clearly, well within the bounds of good manners, etc, some (many? most?) of the denizens (students, faculty and 'leadership') in our, Canadian, universities.
> 
> After all, it (calling Israelis _Nazis_) is not anti-Semitism, it's not like says Jews are _Nazis_; not the same at all.  ???


Sad, but bang on.


----------



## brihard (3 Mar 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I hope the group gets warned, but based on precedent, I fear it won't



'Warned' for what?

Our criminal code provisions - Section 319 if memory serves - against the 'incitement of hatred' are very limited in how they can be applied. You'll recall that Salman Hossain was able to get away with saying Canadian soldiers are fair game because he did not cross the line of specific _incitements_ of hate.

The Israeli Apartheid Week, as much as I disagree with it, is a perfectly legitimate expression of political opnions, and is not intended to wilfully promote hatred against the Israeli people. As much as they annoy me, I have to tolerate their presence on my campus as a result of living in a state where free expression is for the most part protected.

There's no right in our charter not to be ffended. The same rights that allow us to condemn Islamic fundamentalsits allow others to condemn Israel. That's how free expression works.

We're not talking about manners here- as soon as the concept of sanction is raised, we're speaking of law. They IAW crowd may be loud and crass, but they are not in contravention of our reasonable laws. We have to take the bad with the good when it comes to the manifestation of our rights.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Mar 2011)

Brihard said:
			
		

> We're not talking about manners here- as soon as the concept of sanction is raised, we're speaking of law. They IAW crowd may be loud and crass, but they are not in contravention of our reasonable laws. We have to take the bad with the good when it comes to the manifestation of our rights.


Agreed on the fact that it's legal to hold the function - gotta take the don't like with the like in a democracy.  That said....



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> 'Warned' for what?


If Ann C. got this from the U of O before her talk....


> ".... I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind ...."


... gotta wonder why groups that routinely attack Israel don't.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Mar 2011)

By the way, I agree with Brihard. I detest "hate speech" laws and the like. Freedom of expression must, always and everywhere, outweigh this, that or the other group's _right_ not to be offended. Advocating violence, against anyone or anyone's property is another matter.

It is OK, in my ideal world, to scream _"person"_ and _"yid"_ or to deny the holocaust, but it is not OK to smash a bank window whilst "advocating" for the poor and downtrodden masses. The first is bad manners; the second is a crime.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Mar 2011)

Agreed on the ideal, but I still question the fairness of warning _some_, not all.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Mar 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Agreed on the ideal, but I still question the fairness of warning _some_, not all.



Which is exactly the point.

U of O's administration is really saing "*free speech for me; none for thee*" based on the speaker's *political affiliation*, not the content of the speech. If anything, Ms Coulter is far more coherent and spews far less venom, anti-semitism and general hatred than the IAW crowd, so if what she says has crossed the line, is inciteful etc., then the IAW is clearly crossing the same line and should be getting the same warning from the same level of administration.

The fact they did not do so is a very loud and eloquent statement of the true beliefs of the U of O administration...


----------

