[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt wrote:

I hate that term - hate speech. (guess this is my own little hate speech). Incitement to violence - good idea to make it illegal. Libel, slander, have civil remedies. But we don't need no stinking hate speech laws. Especially when it apparently OK for one of the Coulter protesters to have the term "kikeroaches" (guess who she's referring to) on her website - no problem, since no prosecution.

For me, it's not just incitement to violence that should be illegal, I also think that baseless lies based on absolutely nothing but personal feelings are pretty close to the line. Unfortunately, civil law doesn't really cover a foreigner slandering an entire nation. Under a very broad definition, Coulter's comments about Canada doing nothing after 9/11 could be construed as hate speech.
A baseless lie invented for nothing more than to foster hatred. Same with the Ottawa "incident". I'd bet dollars to donuts that not everywhere she speaks in the US is she warmly welcomed. Then, you add in the insult of her filing a complaint with the CHRC over a letter reminding her of current speech laws in Canada and you get to see just how petty and self-serving she really is.
She can be petty and self-serving all she wants in the US, that's her home and she's quite welcome to stay there. We have enough of those types of our own without importing the morons. The example of "kikeroaches" being used on a protestor's website illustrates that point to a "T".

[andyt]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

andyt wrote:

I hate that term - hate speech. (guess this is my own little hate speech). Incitement to violence - good idea to make it illegal. Libel, slander, have civil remedies. But we don't need no stinking hate speech laws. Especially when it apparently OK for one of the Coulter protesters to have the term "kikeroaches" (guess who she's referring to) on her website - no problem, since no prosecution.

For me, it's not just incitement to violence that should be illegal, I also think that baseless lies based on absolutely nothing but personal feelings are pretty close to the line. Unfortunately, civil law doesn't really cover a foreigner slandering an entire nation. Under a very broad definition, Coulter's comments about Canada doing nothing after 9/11 could be construed as hate speech.
A baseless lie invented for nothing more than to foster hatred. Same with the Ottawa "incident". I'd bet dollars to donuts that not everywhere she speaks in the US is she warmly welcomed. Then, you add in the insult of her filing a complaint with the CHRC over a letter reminding her of current speech laws in Canada and you get to see just how petty and self-serving she really is.
She can be petty and self-serving all she wants in the US, that's her home and she's quite welcome to stay there. We have enough of those types of our own without importing the morons. The example of "kikeroaches" being used on a protestor's website illustrates that point to a "T".

Freedom of speech is about the uncomfortable edges - we don't need it for speech nobody finds offensive. So I certainly would not want to make anything I've heard Coulter say illegal. Americans make up all kinds of bullshit about us, probably they think we do the same to them. Gotta be big boys and girls and just suck it up, not go crying to daddy every time somebody says something we don't like. I can't see any way around it - either we allow people to say things that really piss us off, or we kiss democracy goodbye.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Oh hey, I'm not arguing that so much either. Some of us DO do the same thing to them.
However, as a well known pundit, or whatever she wants to call herself, stating that Canada bailed on the US after it was attacked by al-queda is a statement designed for one reason and one reason only and goes beyond mere rhetoric. There is intent to damage relations between our countries with many of the things she says about Canada. It's not about hurt feelings, it's about slander on a national level.

[Psudo]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

it looks like those comments were the favourite of the poster, not the actual author.

The author of the article, not Coulter herself. I guess there were two relevant authors and I should have specified which.

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Maybe Ms. Coulter can explain why then the costs of medical services keeps increasing. IF the great free market can give you cheaper consumer goods, then why can't the almighty free market system provide cheaper health care?

Because the market hasn't been allowed much freedom in health care. No buying health insurance across state lines, laws that require health insurance to cover things the customer may not want (sex change operations, hormone replacement surgery, abortions, homeopathy and similar hokum, etc), over-regulation of pharmaceutical research (the FDA should only ensure safety, not effectiveness), things of that sort abound in the US system and drive prices up.

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Then, we have this bit of shit from the airhead that is CLEARLY anti-Canadian:

Quote:

"There is also something called, when you're allowed to exist on the same continent of the United States of America, protecting you with a nuclear shield around you, you're polite and you support us when we've been attacked on our own soil. They [Canada] violated that protocol."

Wow how white of her to allow us to exist as a nation. We should all bend over to kiss her ass. And you wonder why most of us don't want her here.

She feels treated like crap when she goes there, so she treats you like crap. You're doing the same thing back to her. I don't agree with either of you, but if fairness is equality than you're treating each other pretty fairly.

Being well-known doesn't change one's rights.

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Finally, she can bitch and whine all she wants, but the police did not cancel her speaking engagement in Ottawa, the university didn't cancel it, the gov't didn't cancel it..SHE DID.

She didn't walk into a riot organized to keep her out. That's not exactly self-deterministic.

andyt wrote:

I hate that term - hate speech. (guess this is my own little hate speech). Incitement to violence - good idea to make it illegal. Libel, slander, have civil remedies. But we don't need no stinking hate speech laws. Especially when it apparently OK for one of the Coulter protesters to have the term "kikeroaches" (guess who she's referring to) on her website - no problem, since no prosecution.

You've got my vote.

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

I also think that baseless lies based on absolutely nothing but personal feelings are pretty close to the line. Unfortunately, civil law doesn't really cover a foreigner slandering an entire nation. Under a very broad definition, Coulter's comments about Canada doing nothing after 9/11 could be construed as hate speech.
A baseless lie invented for nothing more than to foster hatred.

Speaking of extra-jurisdictional, hate-spawning slander, what about the 9/11 truth movement having been started by a baseless lie by a French author about American Jews? I'm about as radically opposed to that lie as is possible, but I don't doubt that Frenchman's right to spread whatever crackpot lie he wants. I'm just ashamed that members of my same species so often believed his lies.

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

There is intent to damage relations between our countries with many of the things she says about Canada.

What about the various anti-American things Canadians say? Isn't that the same thing? Both are protected freedom of speech, and rightly so.

[bootlegga]

Psudo wrote:

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

There is intent to damage relations between our countries with many of the things she says about Canada.

What about the various anti-American things Canadians say? Isn't that the same thing? Both are protected freedom of speech, and rightly so.

There's a huge difference between someone saying they hate Dubya (Lord knows Coulter never fails to tell us how much she hates liberals) and Coulter saying we didn't do anything for the US after 9/11.

One is an opinion and one is an outright lie.

[bootlegga]

Scape wrote:

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2010/03/30/FreeSpeechScam/

Quote:

"They're always accusing us of repressing their speech. I say let's do it. Let's repress them. Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment." -- Ann Coulter

God bless the University of Ottawa students who did something in one night that millions of Americans have spent years hoping for -- they shut up Ann Coulter!

But don't call this a "free speech" issue. Coulter -- the ridiculously rabid right-wing American commentator, and federal Conservative Party activist Ezra Levant played the media like a cheap fiddle to make it appear she was muzzled -- not at all.

Coulter and Levant -- not the police, not the University of Ottawa -- cancelled her speaking engagement last week -- not because of a riot, or because violent protesters bashed down the doors -- but because it was a great publicity opportunity.

And most media bought it, hook line and sinker -- reporting that no matter how offensive Coulter's views are, they should be tolerated in a free and democratic society, especially at a university, blah, blah, blah.

What rubbish!

Well played, Ann

I strongly believe in free speech, including from obnoxious and blatantly intolerant people like Coulter and Levant. My blog is full of comments severely criticizing me and others -- and I welcome it.

But I also support the free speech of protestors to express their views -- legally and without violence -- which is exactly what happened.

It was Coulter and Levant who shut down their own event, denying anyone else their free speech right to say Coulter's views are repugnant.

The facts are clear for those who dig deep enough and avoid idiotically simplistic editorials and bad reporting.

But not for the Ottawa Citizen, which could barely contain itself: "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."

That's based on Levant's own self-serving inaccurate accounts, like this one: "2,000 people right now are pressed against the front doors, pressed against the police, refusing to allow people to come in," Levant said, adding that police and security had advised them it would be "physically dangerous" for Coulter to speak.

Or Coulter's gripping version: "The police called off my speech when the auditorium was surrounded by thousands of rioting liberals -- screaming, blocking the entrance, throwing tables, demanding that my books be burned."

No, the police didn't. No, 2,000 people were not pressed against the doors or the police -- ever.

What Ottawa Police spokesperson Constable Alain Boucher actually said was that they were concerned the venue was too small for the disorganized event, with an estimated 1,500 people inside and out, most waiting patiently to be admitted.

What about the "thousands of rioting liberals" err, protesters outside? "I wouldn't call them rioters. They were people there to voice their concerns," Boucher said.

Another officer estimated there were perhaps 200 protestors at most -- a student account said just 30 to 40.

So, was it a terrible assault on free speech? Or did some opportunistic right wingers convert their poorly-planned event into a cause celebre to sell tickets to other speeches while gaining international headlines for a fading demagogue?

The answer is obvious.

Levant's hypocrisy

As to free speech, consider that the totally hypocritical Levant actually applauded when his federal Conservative government banned an elected British member of parliament from entering Canada to speak!

George Galloway -- an outspoken pro-Palestinian MP whose views are often outlandish and always provocative -- was actually prohibited from entering Canada for a speaking event.

Not by a small group of protestors on one campus but by Canada's government, which strongly defended its ban on the absurd grounds that Galloway was a "threat to national security."

Really? One lone elected British member of parliament? Who was admitted into the United States on the same trip? What total garbage.

But Levant's defence of free speech disappears unless it involves himself or Coulter. When the Conservatives banned Galloway, Levant showed his true colours:

"I don't see this as a free speech issue; I see it as a sovereignty issue -- keeping out an undesirable foreigner who has no right to be here, and who boasts about violating our criminal code. Good riddance," Levant said.

Eek! A pie!

Of course, by not admitting Galloway into Canada, at least the renegade MP didn't have to deal with the sort of terrible threats facing Ann Coulter in Ottawa -- threats made openly on Facebook!

Here's what gruesome plans the Facebook fascists were hatching, according to Levant himself: "Vanessa Alexandra Peterson wrote: 'I wonder what the security would be like. I want to throw rotten veggies and eggs at her evil Barbie mask.' Saif Latif wrote: 'Somebody needs to throw a pie at her during her speech like they did at the University of Arizona.'"

Rotten veggies! Eggs! Even a pie! That's enough to make any gun-loving, military-backing, tough-talking freedom fighter crumble and run!

But let’s compare that to one of Coulter's more thoughtful free speech comments on violence:

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

That would be the convicted and executed right-wing domestic terrorist who blew up a federal government building in Oklahoma City with a truck bomb in 1995, killing 168 innocent people.

But hey, she realized her mistake and apologized: "Of course I regret it. I should have added 'after everyone had left the building except the editors and the reporters.'"

And then there are Coulter's free speech contributions to a tolerant world. Like when she said of Islamic nations: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

Lessons learned

To recap, a right-wing American lunatic with a history of opposing free speech, making racist comments and espousing violence shuts down her own event and then blames a handful of student protestors for trying to exercise their right to tell her off.

A Conservative Party activist -- and the event's promoter -- then spins the story to a gullible media who mostly buy his codswallop and spread it around the world.

So whose free speech was really violated? I'd say it was that of the student protestors who were legitimately exercising their rights and are now being denounced for doing so, not the right-wing hypocrites who took advantage of them for their own gain.

SNAP!

[Psudo]

bootlegga wrote:

One is an opinion and one is an outright lie.

Even so, neither Canada as a whole nor any individual Canadian loses health or property for her having said it. In what way is it a crime?

Police and campus security warned Ann Coulter's private security not to try to contain the aggressive opposition to her speech or "be charged and face criminal prosecution." [source: Canada's National Post] Security was declared impossible to Ann Coulter by representatives of law enforcement. She didn't decide against the speech, she was shut down.

By what reasoning the National Post editorial "idiotically simplistic" but Bill Tieleman's thoughtful and complete? How is Tieleman's cherry-picking of a handful of the worst-sounding Coulter quotes a more accurate depiction of her views, style, and sense of humor than the scores of quotes from the Right-Wing News article I linked to earlier? I think the idiotic simplicity comes from the "She's pure evil!" advocacy from Tieleman.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Nice try Psudo, that incident took place in Calgary, NOT OTTAWA. Here is what happened in Ottawa, from the NP as well

Quote:

Then she said what she really thought of the student protesters who surrounded Marion Hall, making it unsafe, in the view of her bodyguard, for the pundit to attempt entry.

Her security shut down the speech, not the cops, not anyone else. Period. Her "bodyguard" deemed it unsafe. But keep on believing the spin.
You are referring to Calgary where campus security and the Police(it's claimed) would not do anything to protect the "free speech" of Coulter. The thing is, the Calgary speech was obviously uneventful since we've heard nothing about it.
And just how do you expect them to protect her right to speak, by denying the people of CANADA their right to assemble and protest? Or is it only ultra-right wing fucktards that have the right to protest?(a la teabaggers and abortion clinic harrassment). Sorry but American rights and laws don't trump Canadian rights and laws in Canada.
As for your statement that everytime Coulter comes to Canada she's treated like shit. What a load of bollocks. She's been here twice since 2005. And I'm not even sure if she was here in 2005 for her interview with the 5th Estate or if it was via satellite.
And I won't argue that some Canadians do the same with the US. Carolyn Parrish opened up her yap and inserted her foot. And she paid the price for it. She got shit on by people of all political persuasion. Coulter on the other hand, gets treated like a celebrity, even when she lies through her fucking teeth just to get attention and money. And the wags like Hannity, Limbaugh et al are only too happy to perpetuate the lies as absolute fact. If that's your definition of free speech, yer welcome to it.

[Psudo]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Nice try Psudo, that incident took place in Calgary, NOT OTTAWA.

I'm sorry, I guess I confused two separate reported instances of Canadians advocating against Coulter's freedom of speech. How many separate instances are there?

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Here is what happened in Ottawa, from the NP as well

Quote:

Then she said what she really thought of the student protesters who surrounded Marion Hall, making it unsafe, in the view of her bodyguard, for the pundit to attempt entry.

You didn't provide a link to that NP article. Luckily, I'm good with Google. Here's a link and here's the quote you offer in context (emphesis is mine):

National Post wrote:

OTTAWA - After protesters at the University of Ottawa prevented Ann Coulter from giving a speech on Tuesday night, the American conservative writer said it proved the point she came to make - free speech in Canada leaves much to be desired.

Then she said what she really thought of the student protesters who surrounded Marion Hall, making it to unsafe, in the view of her bodyguard, for the pundit to attempt entry.

"The University of Ottawa is really easy to get into, isn't it?" she said in an interview after the cancelled event. "I never get any trouble at the Ivy League schools. It's always the bush league schools."

Ms. Coulter said she has been speaking regularly at university campuses for a decade. While she has certainly been heckled, she said this is the first time an engagement has been cancelled because of protesters.[...]

By your own source's admission, the protest was the root cause of the cancellation of the speech at the University of Ottawa.

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

The thing is, the Calgary speech was obviously uneventful since we've heard nothing about it.

We've heard nothing? You mean you've heard nothing because you didn't look.

You're wrong that there's no news:
Coulter's Calgary cry: 'Save the good Canadians' - CBC report
Ann Coulter: Should she limit her speech in Canada? - CBC online poll (As of this writing, 69% of CBC poll respondents say she should not self-censor, 30% say she should.)
Coulter on tour: U.S. should annex 'everything from Calgary west' - National Post
Ann Coulter speech in Calgary met, but not stopped, by protest - the Vancouver Sun (Says one protester, "I am really appalled and disappointed in Calgary and Calgarians that she was allowed to come here, she was allowed to speak.")
Controversial American political commentator ends Canadian tour in Calgary - University of Calgary website ("If we try to suppress people's views simply because we don't agree with them we're doing two things," [U of C Provost Alan Harrison] said. "We're acting contrary to what the university stands for, and also frankly, we're providing increased publicity for the person who’s spreading those views. That's not our purpose.")
[Canadian] Senator Finley Opens Up Freedom of Speech Inquiry - International Free Press Society, Canada

There has been a lot more to be heard from Calgary than "nothing." But, despite your lack of research effort, you were right on your other point: Coulter was successful in Calgary despite protester's intentions to the contrary. Sold out show, press and poll results on her side, etc.

On the other hand, the set of people who want to see Coulter's freedom to speak in Canada preserved has been shown to include 69% of CBC poll respondents, the International Free Press Society, a Canadian Senator, and University of Calgary Provost Alan Harrison. And even a subset of the Calgary protesters themselves admit to trying to prevent her from speaking freely.

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

And just how do you expect them to protect her right to speak, by denying the people of CANADA their right to assemble and protest?

Of course not. But telling her that her side is going to be the ones arrested if there's trouble is not protecting anyone's speech. The theoretical troublemakers should be arrested (or threatened with arrest) regardless of what side they're from.

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Or is it only ultra-right wing fucktards that have the right to protest?(a la teabaggers and abortion clinic harrassment). Sorry but American rights and laws don't trump Canadian rights and laws in Canada.

Nice slander against American law, but it's not politically biased like that. Crazy right-wingers (Neo-Nazis) and crazy left-wingers (militant Communist revolutionaries) and politically indefinable crazies (NAMBLA) are all given freedom of speech in the USA, and are all arrested if they cross the line as well. Do you need links for all that?

You have a very restrictive definition of who deserves freedom of speech, I think. To quote your earlier statement:

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

For me, it's not just incitement to violence that should be illegal, I also think that baseless lies based on absolutely nothing but personal feelings are pretty close to the line.

Let's compare and contrast.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms wrote:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

By Canadian constitutional law, she's entitled to whatever thoughts, beliefs, and opinions she wants to have, and to the expression of them. No standard for honesty or accuracy is presented here.

What about the hate speech exception?

Canadian Human Rights Act, Section 3 wrote:

For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted.

Canadian Human Rights Act, Section 13.1 wrote:

It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Nothing about a truth requirement here either. Your definition of freedom of speech does not match Canadian law.

Was Coulter breaking Canadian law in her speeches? Since it was a live speech, this restriction on telephone and internet transmission of speech doesn't apply regardless of the speech's contents. If we ignore that technicality, did she "communicate [...] any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt"? "Liberals" are not a group identifiable by prohibited ground of discrimination defined in Section 3. I can find no evidence that she's spoken on homosexuality at all during her Canadian tour, but perhaps you can find something I've missed. Muslims are clearly included within the charter's prohibited grounds of discrimination; did she advocate hatred against them? There is the famous "camel answer" to consider. (What she really said: video and transcript). Watch or read it; is she advocating hatred or contempt of Muslims? The original 'flying carpet' statement was essentially repeated by the 'camel' statement, so the "repeatedly" requirement is met. To my judgment, the camel reference is a silly answer to a silly question with no malice involved, a silliness demanded by an audience who had grown inpatient with the serious answer Coulter was crafting. But I await your rebuttal.

I don't see any evidence she broke any Canadian laws. This leaves you with the argument "Why doesn't she follow Canadian laws when she's in the USA?" I think the answer to that is obvious; you don't alter your behavior to follow US laws while in Canada, do you? No one does that, and no one should have to.

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

As for your statement that everytime Coulter comes to Canada she's treated like shit.

I've only said that it has happened, not that it happens "everytime". In case you want to verify that with a text search, I would have typed that as two words. Also, I would've said "crap" because I try never to swear.

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

And I won't argue that some Canadians do the same with the US. Carolyn Parrish opened up her yap and inserted her foot.

How is that the same thing? Carolyn Parrish is a politician, where Coulter is a political entertainer and pundit with no political office or candidacy. Also, Coulter's case isn't a "foot in mouth" foolish mistake, it is the intentional expression of ideas in an admittedly irreverent, entertainer's style. I guess they're both white women and you don't like what either said, but what other similarity is there between these cases?

[GreenTiger]

The best was to deal with this bird brain is to let her say shat she wants to but give her very little coverage. Soon she will be speaking to an empty room and she will go away. We need to do the same with Sara Palin both birds need to just fade into the obscurity that they both deserve.

[Psudo]

You're right, GreenTiger: if someone says something you find ridiculous, a good response is to ignore them. But I doubt Coulter would be reduced to obscurity if her opponents universally ignored her; they are not her customer base, so her meal ticket would remain.

Ditto for Sarah Palin, but at least I agree with you that there would be no great loss if she faded into obscurity.

[IlovUSandCanada]

I personally think Ann Coulter might be the craziest bitch on Earth, but she still has the basic right to be heard. Besides, this was a college campus. It's not as if she was speaking to people who were forced to listen to her (ie: prisoners, young children, animals etc ...). If they didn't like what they heard, they could have booed or left!

[Psudo]

IlovUSandCanada wrote:

I personally think Ann Coulter might be the craziest bitch on Earth

Now that's just not true. In a world of female serial killers, terrorists, and Neo-Nazis, Ann Coulter doesn't even make the top ten percent. There is no glass ceiling on crazy.

And people call ME naive.