Far-right pundit Ann Coulter will be in Canada this week for “a trio of speaking engagements,” including one at the University of Ottawa. In advance of her visit, a senior official at the school sent Coulter a letter warning her to use “restraint, respect and consideration” in her remarks and telling her to review the country’s hate speech and defamation laws. From the letter:I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or “free speech”) in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here.
You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind.
In the past, Coulter has bashed Canada, saying, “They’d better hope the United States doesn’t roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent.” In response to the letter, Coulter writes, “I was hoping for a fruit basket, not a threat to prosecute.”
It's interesting how this touches on our frequent discussions of the responsibility these right-wing celebrities have for their words. It's fascinating that in Canada, not only do they not have an antiquated and nonsensical 2nd Amendment to interfere with their common sense laws, they seem to have a better understanding of the ideas contained in the 1st.
What's your opinion? What do you think the danger is in trying to define violations of the "free speech" aspects of the 1st Amendment? Is it always the slippery slope - if they outlaw this today what will happen tomorrow?
Do you think the University spokesman was out of line issuing that warning instead of offering a fruit basket?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
I think it is a normal comment coming from a slave that does not know any better. The University official is just trying to be helpful and does not want to see anyone anger master.
ReplyDeleteGood little sheep. Thank you.
Just goes to show you that Canada doesn't have "free speech"
ReplyDeleteBut is it really "hate speech" (that term cracks me up) in Canada, if she doesn't say it in French, too?
ReplyDeleteMikeb: "It's fascinating that in Canada, not only do they not have an antiquated and nonsensical 2nd Amendment to interfere with their common sense laws, they seem to have a better understanding of the ideas contained in the 1st."
ReplyDeleteThis must be what Mikeb means by Canada's "better understanding of the ideas contained in the 1st."
Coulter "Mobbed" at Ottawa U
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/013624.html
When I heard Coulter was coming to Canada I figured attending the event would be worth the entertainment value, if for nothing other than to witness the unhinged reaction that was sure to follow. Ottawa U didn't disappoint.
When I arrived there was a line of a few hundred, maybe a thousand people outside the Marion building. A few of them were chanting in front of the cameras but the line was otherwise better behaved than for a typical rock concert. The size of the line was no doubt a bit of a problem because the room held no more than 400 (my estimate).
Since I had registered for the event ahead of time I had no trouble elbowing my way to the front, verifying my name was on the list, getting inside and chatting briefly with Ezra Levant.
After a while the fire alarm went off, the obvious false alarm having been dealt with we sat down expecting the event to start.
Instead Ezra announced that police told him it would be "physically unsafe" to bring Ann in due to the "unruly mob" outside. There was certainly no issue, or even noise, inside the auditorium.
Since I was inside at that point I don't know how unruly they became outside. But this is the national capital, just a few blocks from Parliament Hill, the US Embassy, the Prime Minister's Residence and countless embassies. The police surely have the capability to respond to anyone threatening a woman with dozens of TV cameras around. Instead, they chose to cancel the event instead.
After leaving the auditorium (from a side entrance, as the police insisted), I walked back out front to see what the commotion was:
A lone policewoman standing on the step asked me to leave after I took her picture. I did leave, after expressing disbelief that they canceled the event over what appeared to be a few dozen pathetic protesters chanting in front of the nearby cameras.
A truly pathetic situation all around.
Yes indeed, FishyJay, quite pathetic.
ReplyDeleteMore on Canada and Coulter:
ReplyDeleteSaved! The Precious and Impressionable Dears of the University of Ottawa
Michael C. Moynihan, Reason | March 24, 2010
If you are Drudge reader, you have doubtless now heard that conservative firebrand Ann Coulter was greeted with a heckler’s veto yesterday at a speech in Canada. For reasons of "safety," the cowardly cops and spineless administrators at the University of Ottawa cancelled the lecture, sending a martyred Coulter to perform for CBC cameras instead of a hall full of impressionable students. I don’t suspect I agree with Coulter on much of anything (especially her hagiographic treatment of ol’ Tailgunner Joe), but that’s rather beside the point. It is, instead, about the role of the university in making sure people like Coulter, once invited, are permitted to present ideas without being mau-maued.
For instance, check out this stunning letter U of O Vice President and Provost Francois Houle sent to Coulter prior to her arrival in Canada:
"Our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or ‘free speech’) in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here...Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."
It is alarming, but unsurprising, that a university provost cloaks his contempt for Coulter’s opinions in a legalistic argument about the "limits" of free inquiry. Even more depressing is that he would do so preemptively. Perhaps I’m exposing myself as a starry-eyed idealist, but is not incumbent upon university officials like Houle to encourage a free and open exchange of ideas, no matter how loathsome some thin-skinned students might find them? And if the poor dears of the University of Ottawa suspect that they might be “offended” by Coulter, might I recommend that they retire to their dorm with an Antonio Gramsci book?
Those rushing in to the breach, commenting on the injustice of it all (and it most certainly is), might want to look at the recent case of Israel Sahiri. In 2008, Sahiri, a leader of the Ugandan Jewish community (!), was prevented from speaking at the University of Ottawa campus because of his supposed "relationship to apartheid Israel." Sahiri isn’t Israeli nor was his speech about Israel. As National Post writer Barbara Kay explained, “Not only was the speech apolitical, in fact it was a multiculturalist's dream theme: about schools that feed and educate 500 Jewish, Muslim and Christian children studying together, and open to all students at the university.” But just in case, he was barred from speaking on campus, lest he spread a love for apartheid.
All of this is easy to pull off when students, like the weak-kneed, Feinian-named student body president Seamus Wolfe, declare that certain ideologies are "not welcome on campus." Sameena Topan, a conflict studies and human rights major who spoke to the Ottawa Citizen “on behalf of a group of protesters,” gloated that “we accomplished what we were here to do, to ensure that we don’t have her discriminatory rhetoric on our campus.” It is good to see that the University of Ottawa, which provides a salary to mad 9/11 truthers like Michel Chossudovsky, is teaching its students that to resolve conflicts and agitate for human rights, one only needs to prevent speech they deem “discriminatory.”