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

[Redeye]

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.

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]

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.
We wish we could blame only the students for shaming the university. But the administration was complicit in the successful campaign to shut down Coulter's much publicized talk on campus.
It began when the university's vice-president academic and provost, François Houle, sent Coulter a bizarre e-mail, in which he made it perfectly clear that he detests her polemical style and that she should watch her back, lest she find herself facing "criminal" or "defamation" laws. He told Coulter -- in the most condescending of tones -- that the University of Ottawa has a tradition of "restraint, respect and consideration" and therefore that is why he feels it is necessary to invoke what "may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression."
Can anyone imagine an academic leader from Princeton University writing to a TV personality and saying, essentially: "You know, our students are very sensitive, so please when you visit don't say anything that will make them uncomfortable"? Would the vice-president of Harvard do this? Of course not.
The principal effect of Houle's foolish letter was to empower, albeit unwittingly, the student mob who came out Tuesday night to chase Coulter from campus. After all, Houle in so many words called Coulter a hatemonger and made it plain that her kind was not welcome.
The humiliating episode is a giant gift for a publicity-hound like Coulter. In an interview with a U.S. newspaper that had got wind of the incident, Coulter noted that students at serious universities are too "intellectually proud" to shut down speakers they don't agree with. She visits liberal campuses all the time without fearing for her safety. But at the University of Ottawa, she quipped, "their IQ points-to-teeth ratio must be about 1-to-1."
That smarts, but the University of Ottawa deserves the rebuke.
The shutting down of Ann Coulter is only the latest example of totalitarianism on Canadian campuses. At Concordia University in Montreal, thugs famously prevented Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu from speaking. At many campuses, pro-life student groups are harassed and denied official club status. When pro-choice student leaders at Toronto's York University learned that other students had organized a debate over the ethics of abortion, they promptly cancelled it, even though the event had been booked and the flyers printed.
Notice that this ongoing, organized effort to eliminate speech deemed politically unacceptable comes exclusively from the campus left. No one hears of conservative student groups physically interfering with left-wing speakers. A lot of conservative-minded students (and others) were unhappy with the recent Israel Apartheid Week, for example, but no one threatened to assault the organizers or disrupt the event.
We have no love for a buffoonish provocateur like Ann Coulter. It says something about the maturity and calibre of some University of Ottawa students that Coulter is the dignified party in this dispute.

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

While America has been battered by the ObamaCare Putsch, other events of interest have gone a bit under-reported. One such was an e-mail written by François Houle, Provost of the University of Ottawa, to Ann Coulter in anticipation of her giving a speech on his campus. Its content was publicized by FiveFeetofFury.com [1] and others, including columnist Mark Steyn [2]. The e-mail threatened criminal prosecution under Canada’s hate speech laws or suits for defamation if she promoted “hatred.” More than a few observers believe Houle’s e-mail directly encouraged students at his university to violently prevent Coulter from delivering her speech, thereby violating the hate laws with which he threatened her. Coulter has filed a complaint with Canada’s Human Rights Commission and seems to be enjoying her ironic counterattack immensely. I’d like to send an open letter to Provost Houle in reply to his e-mail.

    Dreary Provost Houle:

    You have written Ann Coulter to warn her that “promoting hatred against any identifiable group” can lead “to criminal charges” or defamation suits in Canada. You said she should “weigh [her] words with respect and civility in mind.” You claim “restrictions to freedom of expression … lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.” There is, however, nothing civilized about threatening legal penalties if a speaker offends official sensibilities. There is nothing meaningful, reasoned or intelligent in government-censored discussion. Reason and intellect rightly rebel at restrictions on the expression of thought and, quite pragmatically, we require free debate to discover truth. How can we know what is true without questioning and open discussion of alternative ideas? Restricted freedom of expression creates a cave of winds where official thought is ritualistically repeated, brainwashing the uncritical. Isn’t there a Volvo somewhere on your campus with a “Question Authority” bumper sticker on it?

    You pompously proclaim that Canadian law prohibits promoting hatred for an “identifiable group.” While I find it hard to believe that Canadians, with a history of loving freedom and sacrificing in its defense, have sunk so low as to criminalize free speech, it is apparent that this is indeed the sad case. Since I don’t reside north of the 48th, I can, for now, disregard this restriction. And so, I hereby promote hatred for an “identifiable group.” That group is the politically correct, mealy-mouthed, oppressive, petty, puffed-up, would-be-Hitlers that wish to destroy freedom of speech. They blight your otherwise dandy country and are, unfortunately, rising to power in every corner of the once Free World. I hate this “identifiable group,” which includes you, Provost Houle. I urge any and all to hate you and your kind, to loathe you, to taste bile at the thought of you, to shudder at your approach and rejoice at your departing, to see your shadow and draw back as from a viper. May your children hate you, your neighbors hate you, your mom, dad and Aunt Ida hate you. May your dog and his fleas hate you. I urge all people to band together into societies, clubs and fraternal associations to hate you. I beg them to relentlessly revile you, to rename fungal diseases and offal-eating insects after you, to, when they step in something loathsome, look at their shoe bottom and think of you. I urge the world’s artists to illustrate their hatred of you in paintings, sculpture, and, dare I say it, cartoons. May they be joined by the world’s writers whom I implore to write epics of hatred of you, the world’s musicians to compose songs of hatred of you, and the world’s dancers to choreograph interpretive dances of hatred of you. May Wal-Mart sell inexpensive T-shirts and coffee mugs embellished with “I H8 [insert your picture here].” I entreat the Founding Fathers to rise up from their graves and with Canada’s departed patriots meet in convention to solemnly resolve to hate you in a document I suggest be titled: “Hey Dummy, What Part of Free Speech Being Fundamental To Liberty Don’t You Get!” At Christmastime, may the citizens of communities all around the world gather together in their public spaces, join hands in great circles, smile upon each other, and, while swaying rhythmically, harmoniously chant “We Hate Hou-le! We Hate Hou-le!” I beseech all the creatures that walk the land, all the fish that swim in the sea, and all the birds that flit through the sky to hate you. May the dirt beneath your feet hate you. May burning hot hatred of you grow till it provides an economical substitute for fossil energy. May amoeba evolve enough wit to hate you.

    If there be life on other planets, may it construct complex vessels and span the vasty depths of cold space to land in your back yard and sneer at you through your windows. If there is an afterlife, may all the departed, be they gazing down from Heaven, glaring up from Hell, or peering sideways from Purgatory, hate you. May every generation till the end of time hate you. And, if mankind becomes extinct, may the last learned men, before they, too, fade away, devise a self-perpetuating automaton to carry on hating you through the long, long eons till the very heat death of the universe. Then, I suppose, we can, wherever our spirits find final rest, stop hating you and just resent you.

    I feel comfortable promoting hatred of those who want to criminalize speech. They deserve hatred and hatred isn’t always a bad thing. Hatred of evil can motivate us to defend that which is good. Besides, hatred is an interior phenomenon that has no arms or legs to injure anyone. Hatred vocalized may anger, it may spoil someone’s day, it may put a frown on your face, but it has no physical impact. Threats of violence, such as a shouting mob armed with rocks and sticks demanding entry into a hall reserved for an opponent’s speech, and actual physical violence, such as that mob toppling tables and setting off blaring fire alarms to make the speech impossible, are hurtful and should be criminalized. No respected voice on Coulter’s side of public debate advocates the kind of violence her opponents employed. Coulter and those who assembled to listen to her were only trying to exercise a little free expression, something once thought a blessing of liberty. In the topsy-turvey world of Houle, however, the speaker and her audience are the criminals and the mob the victim.

    You and yours, Provost Houle, have imposed your tyrannical policies under the cover of niceness, smarmily invoking respect and polite concern for the feelings of others. As the baying protestors at your university proved, this is a lie. That you have been raised high in academe, an institution once dedicated to education, inquisitive thinking, and free speech, is ghastly. It has taken centuries of struggle to establish the right of free speech. That you and yours, citizens of a free nation who should damn well know better, have decided to destroy it is abominable.
    Yours with the most sincere hatred,
    Ed Morrow

    PS: Now, I doubt if my little jibes have punctured your hide, Provost Houle. And that is the point. In keeping with the old adage that your mother probably taught you shortly after you hatched, sticks and stones will break your bones, but words will never hurt you. If you find someone’s words hateful, respond with your own words, not threats of criminal prosecution or thuggish mobs shouting for the silencing of those they oppose.

Ed Morrow is an author and illustrator who lives in Vermont. Morrow’s books include “The Halloween Handbook [3],” “599 Things You Should Never Do [4],” and “The Grim Reaper’s Book of Days [5].”

Article printed from The Daily Caller – Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment: http://dailycaller.com

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

URLs in this post:

[1] FiveFeetofFury.com: http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2010-03-21-0007/

[2] Mark Steyn: http://www.steynonline.com/content/blogsection/14/128/

[3] The Halloween Handbook: http://www.amazon.com/Halloween-Handbook-Ed-Morrow/dp/0806522275

[4] 599 Things You Should Never Do: http://www.amazon.com/599-Things-You-Should-Never/dp/0809233681/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_4

[5] The Grim Reaper’s Book of Days: http://www.amazon.com/Grim-Reapers-Book-Days-Unconventional/dp/0806513640/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1

 

[Rogo]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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."