Behold That Liberal Tolerance
By Mitch Berg
Free speech is just too edgy for Canada:
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 a speaking engagement has had to be cancelled because of protesters.
“This has never, ever, ever happened before — even at the stupidest American university,” she said.
Anyone who can make Havana Denny Dease look like a stalwart of civil liberty has got serious problems.
Coulter remarked on the reception she has had since entering the country.
“Since I’ve arrived in Canada, I’ve been denounced on the floor of Parliament — which, by the way, is on my bucket list — my posters have been banned, I’ve been accused of committing a crime in a speech that I have not yet given, I was banned by the student council, so welcome to Canada!”
I may have to put that 0n my bucket list too.
That, and being Olberman’s “worst person”. That’d be fun.
March 24th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Given the number of people Coulter has denounced, I think it is precious to see her offended at being denounced on the floor of the Canadian Parliament.
I happen to like our neighbors to the north, always have. I haven’t seen any support for her statement claiming her posters have been banned; I’d like to see that fact checked.
She was NOT accused of committing a crime, she was advised by an official of the college that Canada has hate crime speech laws which would apply if she made statements in Canada, in this case, at the college, similar to the offensive statements she has made in other venues.
For someone like you Mitch who extolls the virtues of dissent, I think it inconsistent for you to not equally extoll the right of the students attending that campus to protest Coulter, which they appear to have done peacefully, if a bit noisily. Same standards should apply to Canadian College protesters that you apply to oh, say tea partiers – some of whom have protested with some (not all) signs that were offensive, for example.
I think the college may have gone way overboard with their assertion that Coulter was in any way threatened by the students. If she were willing to give her speech, and the 100 or less students wanted to listen, she should have been allowed to do so. If being banned by the student council precluded Coulter from speaking, that is the right of student government at that school, then so be it – but I think it is a bad decision for many reasons. At the very least the school should have tried to provide her a non-school venue reasonably close, so that the students (or anyone else) could still here Coulter, if the student council opposition was an internal problem for the school.
If, after being advised of the laws in that country, Coulter chose to violate them, then – let her deal with the consequences. She’s a grown woman, and a lawyer; that should have been HER decision.
I would side with you if you are asserting that preventing her from appearing was wrong, that it constituted prior restraint, and therefore censorship.
From what I’ve seen of Coulter, however much she may complain, I’m guessing she loves every minute of this, so I am perhaps less sympathetic than I would be for someone else who was genuiniely aggrieved.
March 24th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Dog:
“Given the number of people Coulter has denounced, I think it is precious to see her offended at being denounced on the floor of the Canadian Parliament.”
We think it is “precious” too… considering that Coulter does not denounce anyone from a seat of governmental power and authority, much less at the tax payer’s expense.
Duh.
(How many seconds until someone smugly comes in and says, “Thank the Goddess”?)
March 24th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
…or “the gods”, or “Mother Earth”, or some other idol.
March 24th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
A) They played right into Coulter’s hand. Geesh, this is what she wants. She is a bit of a wacko, so this is exactly what she wants, when she should be ingnored.
B) I read about this on the Huffington Post, and read the comments. MANY of the liberals there say that they need to shut down speakers they don’t like. They are not shy about their liberal fascism.
March 24th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Given the number of people Coulter has denounced, I think it is precious to see her offended at being denounced on the floor of the Canadian Parliament.
I don’t think the “denunciation”is the problem.
I happen to like our neighbors to the north, always have. I haven’t seen any support for her statement claiming her posters have been banned; I’d like to see that fact checked.
Feel perfectly free. It is perfectly in line with how many universities treat conservative speakers, newspapers and events.
She was NOT accused of committing a crime, she was advised by an official of the college that Canada has hate crime speech laws which would apply if she made statements in Canada, in this case, at the college, similar to the offensive statements she has made in other venues.
Which is one of the reprehensible bits.
There’s a bunch of subtext to this story; it’s not all about Coulter. Are you at all familiar with how Canada’s “Human Rights” laws work? I’m guessing not. Do you know anything of the Ezra Levant case, or the actions against Mark Steyn? Since it involves actual free speech, the left hasn’t taken it up, so again I’ll guess not. Levant, a publisher of a small conservative magazine, got hauled into “Human Rights” court and had his freedom and livelihood threatened because an Imam in Calgary didn’t like what he wrote about the Mohammed cartoon controversy. Check out the story. This is what Coulter was attacking; the university was obliging enough to state its support for this heinous abuse of human rights in black and white.
In short: If I were in Canada, I could be hauled into court for writing, for example, “Islam’s treatment of women is groaningly unenglightened”. Someone would have to complain to the authorities; free speech is subject to the whim of society’s least-tolerant members!
Sound good to you?
For someone like you Mitch who extolls the virtues of dissent, I think it inconsistent for you to not equally extoll the right of the students attending that campus to protest Coulter, which they appear to have done peacefully, if a bit noisily.
Well, no. They didn’t. One of them set off a fire alarm in the building, which scuppered the speech (partly due to procedure – you can’t let people into a building with an active alarm – and partly due to the lily-livered administration, who feared more “trouble”. As if that was Coulter’s fault).
Anyway, that’s a strawman. I didn’t say anything about them having no right to protest. Not at all. They are idiots, of course, but that’s their right.
I think the college may have gone way overboard with their assertion that Coulter was in any way threatened by the students. If she were willing to give her speech, and the 100 or less students wanted to listen, she should have been allowed to do so.
Yeah, but she wasn’t, and they weren’t. The Administration saw to that.
If being banned by the student council precluded Coulter from speaking, that is the right of student government at that school, then so be it – but I think it is a bad decision for many reasons.
No. Not “so be it”. It is a decision that repudiates the idea of free speech, and actively stifles dissent and the “diversity of thought” that so many liberals flap their gums about.
And it’s not just the “controversial” Coulter. The utterly mild-mannered Dinesh D’Souza was basically chased off campus at Columbia by protesters and an administration who said they were afraid of confrontation (but never wanted D’Souza to appear anyway). Do yourself a favor and watch the movie “Indoctrinate U” someday for the whole litany of universities stomping on free speech (but only by conservatives). It’s a damning indictiment for anyone that’s not too addled by PC to think for themselves.
At the very least the school should have tried to provide her a non-school venue reasonably close, so that the students (or anyone else) could still here Coulter, if the student council opposition was an internal problem for the school.
I’ll say this for the record: Any “student council” that stifles dissent should be immediately dissolved, because in stifling free speech they completely and eternally void their legitimacy.
>o?If, after being advised of the laws in that country, Coulter chose to violate them, then – let her deal with the consequences. She’s a grown woman, and a lawyer; that should have been HER decision.
Well, the university administration saw to that, didn’t they?
I would side with you if you are asserting that preventing her from appearing was wrong, that it constituted prior restraint, and therefore censorship.
Well, good – because that is all it was.
From what I’ve seen of Coulter, however much she may complain, I’m guessing she loves every minute of this, so I am perhaps less sympathetic than I would be for someone else who was genuiniely aggrieved.
Of course. She provokes. And the woeful state of speech rights in Canada is a subject that deserves provocation.
Although it’s just as bad on many campuses here.
Wish you coulda made the MOB party. You would have met Katie Kieffer, who ran a small conservative paper at Saint Thomas, sponsored a Coulter visit, and spent four years fighting their uber-liberal administration for the privilege of not being actively censored. It might have been enlightening.
March 24th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
They played right into Coulter’s hand. Geesh, this is what she wants
To be fair, if I were to be invited to give a speech in Canada (fat chance), I’d do the same. Canada’s speech laws are an abomination in a “free” country, and need to be attacked from every side.
March 24th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Deegee blurted: “Given the number of people Coulter has denounced, I think it is precious to see her offended at being denounced on the floor of the Canadian Parliament.”
Look at you, all fascist and smug!
March 24th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
I would find it quite amusing if the bien pensants in this country finally made good on their threats to decamp to Canada and then found themselves afoul of the Canadian (un) free speech laws.
March 25th, 2010 at 11:41 am
“That, and being Olberman’s “worst person”. That’d be fun.”
Mitch, didn’t Ed already make that claim to fame?
Chuck, Liberal Fascism indeed.
Deegee, you wear it well.
March 25th, 2010 at 11:41 am
So what the female commentor Dog suggested was that the woman was asking for it.
Didn’t we analyze this sort of claim against women back in the 80s and find it ridiculous?
Dog… a little more reading for you:
http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2010/03/24/oh,_canada!?page=full&comments=true
March 25th, 2010 at 11:51 am
And from Steyn:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGFlZjc2MmUyZDZhMmQ1NjZmOTMxYTMxNTM0MDFkMzQ=
March 25th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
One more sign of nonsense in Canada… don’t be a stand-up comedian and be offensive:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080626/comic_humanrights_080626/20080626?hub=CTVNewsAt11