Coulter Sparks Outrage in Canada

[deception]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100324/national/coulter_speech_cancelled

OTTAWA - Hundreds of screaming students succeeded in what few thought possible Tuesday night - they silenced incendiary right-winger Ann Coulter.

Organizers for the American's tour of Canada scrubbed her much-anticipated speech at the University of Ottawa when students crowded the entrance before her arrival. A spokesman for the organizers said about 2,000 "threatening" students posed a security threat to the darling of the American right, and she was advised against appearing.

"It would be physically dangerous for Ann Coulter to proceed with this event," said conservative political activist Ezra Levant inside Marion Hall.

"This is an embarrassing day for the University of Ottawa and their student body . . . who chose to silence her through threats and intimidation."

The announcement was greeted with shouts of "Shame" and "We want Ann" from about 100 people who had managed to get into the hall.

Outside students celebrated: "Nananana, nanana, Goodbye Ann Coulter."

About 10 Ottawa police cruisers were called to the scene, but there was no violence.

Coulter 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."

There were early signs the evening would not go smoothly.

A crush of bodies greeted organizers about 90 minutes before Coulter's 8:15 p.m. speaking time as about 1,000 showed up for the 400-seat hall.

At about 7:30 a fire alarm was triggered.

Then hundreds of protesters arrived, mostly students carrying signs and chanting. There was no accurate head account, but one student said the protesters accounted for about several hundred while one event organizer estimated 2,000.

"Ann Coulter should go back to where she came from because we don't want her back here," shouted Ellen Ocran, a University of Ottawa student in a shouting match with a Coulter backer.

A protest organizer, international studies student Mike Fancie, said he was happy they were able to stop Coulter from speaking.

"What Ann Coulter is practising is not free speech, it's hate speech," he said. "She's targeted the Jews, she's targeted the Muslims, she's targeted Canadians, homosexuals, women, almost everybody you could imagine."

Levant blamed the bedlam on university academic vice-president Francois Houle, who had written Coulter to warn her that Canadian laws make provisions for hate speech.

"Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges," he warned her in the letter, which Coulter quickly leaked to the media.

The university has refused to comment since, but Levant said Houle's not-too-subtle advice to Coulter emboldened students to block her appearance.

Coulter was in the middle of a three-city tour of Canada which began at the University of Western Ontario in London on Monday, and ends in Calgary on Thursday.

The event in London went without incident, but not without controversy.

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."

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 Conservatives have a double-standard on freedom of speech.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney defended keeping Galloway out of the country 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."

Levant said the protest proves another point, that was the reason for the tour in the first place.

"The point of the tour was to demonstrate that the state of freedom of speech in Canada is in jeopardy, especially on university campuses," he said.

Coulter is a best-selling author and syndicated columnist who has been called one of the leaders of the angry right wing in the United States, along with talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck. She embraces the outrage she triggers although she has often dismissed the ensuing controversy by suggesting she was trying to be humorous.

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.

And she summed up the harsh reaction to her with another smile.

"I am dangerous," she said.

 

[Chocolove]

so basically shes a stupid bitch.

 

[DaRizzle]

die bitch

 

[Vacant.]

She needs to kill herself.

 

[deception]

so basically shes a stupid bitch.

cosign.

 

[speeds]

There is a lot of anti-Muslim BS going on at some universities and having that bigot speak is fuel to the fire.

 

[deception]

i love how the coulter and more accurately the neo con blowhards in canada are playing victim, yet coulter told a 17 year girl to fly on a carpet.

 

[Denny Crane]

So much for free speech.

 

[speeds]

So much for free speech.

Students protesting a hateful warmongering idiot is an attack on free speech?

 

[Denny Crane]

Don't show up.

Protest outside.

That's free speech.

Squashing it though? You tell me.

I'm no fan of hers, FWIW.

 

[speeds]

Hate speech is forbidden by the OHRC. The students heroically prevented her from violating the CCC.

 

[Denny Crane]

Nazis were allowed to march in Skokie Illinois. Free speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie

 

[speeds]

Nazis were allowed to march in Skokie Illinois. Free speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie

Different country.

 

[Denny Crane]

I repeat, free speech.

Different country, sure, but not free speech.

 

[speeds]

I repeat, free speech.

Different country, sure, but not free speech.

Ok.

 

[Denny Crane]

So, she's had a number of books #1 on the NYT Best Seller's List.

You guys burn books?

 

[speeds]

So, she's had a number of books #1 on the NYT Best Seller's List.

You guys burn books?

For heat.

 

[Denny Crane]

Just wondering what you guys consider speech.

 

[speeds]

Just wondering what you guys consider speech.

We consider it but we're too polite to break the silence.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm genuinely interested. Seems like a slippery slope.

So who decides what you say might be hate speech?

 

[speeds]

Ok.

Canadian Criminal Code, Bill C-250, 319 (2):

Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

 

[speeds]

Pretty sure Timothy McVeigh wasn't Muslim so either Coulter is ignorant, which she pretends to be, or is intentionally promoting hatred of Muslims, which she is.

 

[Denny Crane]

I get the statute, but my question remains.

Who decides that someone is promoting hatred?

Other questions come to mind as well.

Aren't the protesters promoting hatred toward Coulter? I mean, look at your own words as well, though those are in private conversation...

What about speaking about government or politicians?

 

[barfo]

Aren't the protesters promoting hatred toward Coulter? I mean, look at your own words as well, though those are in private conversation...

Coulter is not a group.

Blondie is a group.

barfo

 

[speeds]

I get the statute, but my question remains.

Who decides that someone is promoting hatred?

Other questions come to mind as well.

Aren't the protesters promoting hatred toward Coulter? I mean, look at your own words as well, though those are in private conversation...

What about speaking about government or politicians?

Naturally the debate about what is and isn't legal is ongoing and heated as it would be in any Westernized nation.

The CHRT (Canadian Human Rights Tribunal) is tasked with dealing with accusations of discrimination though several provinces have their own commissions or tribunals, including the HRC (Commission) which mostly deals with employment issues.

As with any Western free speech laws the debate over what is and isn't acceptable is largely dealt with on a case-by-case basis in HRC hearings. The HRC has been roundly criticized for being easily swayed in favour of the accuser and can serve like an appeals court if the case is dismissed by a proper court such as the SCOC. In some cases the Attorney-General can also weigh in. The HRC has also been criticized for allowing too much and giving voice to hate speakers like Nazis.

Section 13 of the CHRC (HR charter -- hate speech) has also been criticized as being too broad and difficult to enforce. There is currently a movement to scrap it or amend it to deal strictly with realistic threats and incitement of violence.

 

[Denny Crane]

I think most of her work is crap, but I don't at all think she's an idiot.

She has written at least one scholarly book, reviewed by a terrific and smart fellow in his own right, William F. Buckley Jr. here:

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1200/article_detail.asp

 

[speeds]

^ If not an idiot than willfully ignorant. Or a boldfaced liar.

Horsefaced, rather.

 

[Denny Crane]

Naturally the debate about what is and isn't legal is ongoing and heated as it would be in any Westernized nation.

The CHRT (Canadian Human Rights Tribunal) is tasked with dealing with accusations of discrimination though several provinces have their own commissions or tribunals, including the HRC (Commission) which mostly deals with employment issues.

As with any Western free speech laws the debate over what is and isn't acceptable is largely dealt with on a case-by-case basis in HRC hearings. The HRC has been roundly criticized for being easily swayed in favour of the accuser and can serve like an appeals court if the case is dismissed by a proper court such as the SCOC. In some cases the Attorney-General can also weigh in. The HRC has also been criticized for allowing too much and giving voice to hate speakers like Nazis.

Section 13 of the CHRC (HR charter -- hate speech) has also been criticized as being too broad and difficult to enforce. There is currently a movement to scrap it or amend it to deal strictly with realistic threats and incitement of violence.

Two sayings by two of our most famous legal minds (Supreme Court Justices):

"One man's obscenity is another man's art" -- Justice William Brennan

"I know pornography when I see it" -- Justice Potter Stewart

The common thing between these sayings and our discussion is that we've tried to have laws against pornography, and those are very much in conflict with the concept of free speech.

The second quote is particularly relevant because I don't think we (in the USA) want anyone to judge what kind of speech is permissible - especially govt. officials. In particular, the whole idea of being able to speak truth to power, or even assail (verbal assault) political officials is regarded as downright sacred.

On the other hand, another Justice (Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.) wrote:

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

The thing here is that one would have to shout fire in the theater and there would have to be actual injury before the speech would be considered in a court. See Brandenberg v. Ohio.

My own considered opinion is that in a free country you have to put up with allowing hate speech, but if you are opposed to that speech, you fight it with your own speech.

Of course there are other kinds of speech that include Libel and Slander that are civil (not criminal) offenses. In other words, you can be sued for spreading falsehoods that are damaging to someone. But in the case of public figures (along the lines of S2's own rules), the level of proof is much higher - the whole idea of chilling effect on free speech being considered. Chilling effect being "that guy is so rich he can bury me with the best lawyers in court" or "if I speak out against the govt. they'll put me in jail one way or another."

 

[Denny Crane]

^ If not an idiot than willfully ignorant. Or a boldfaced liar.

Horsefaced, rather.

I would say she's incredibly smart and deliberately inflammatory.

 

[speeds]

She is a liar, though. Not a genius trait.