Althouse: Wow, the Canadians are really helping Ann Coulter with her PR!

March 25, 2010

Wow, the Canadians are really helping Ann Coulter with her PR!

"This has never, ever, ever happened before — even at the stupidest American university. . . . 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!"

202 comments:

1 – 200 of 202 Newer› Newest»

Hoosier Daddy said...: Now of course if her name was Mahmoud Achmedinejad she would have been warmly welcomed and probably been given an honorary doctorate.

Canada's 'free speech' laws are a complete joke. their 'Human Rights Commission' is the equivalent of 'Arbeit Macht Frei' sign over a labor camp.; 3/25/10, 10:00 AM
Anonymous said...: A very fragile people up there.

They have very dainty sensibilities that must be protected from the likes of Coulter.; 3/25/10, 10:01 AM
Kevin said...: A very fragile people up there.

Don't feel smug - look at the video of the Israeli ambassador trying to give a speech at UC Irvine. Think that the students responsible were disciplined?; 3/25/10, 10:04 AM
Triangle Man said...: I wonder which American university is the stupidest one. Is there a separate list, or do we just refer to the "Most Annoying Liberal Arts School"list?; 3/25/10, 10:04 AM
Big Mike said...: What is it about Canadian winters that reduced their IQs to single digits?; 3/25/10, 10:07 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Well in fairness to the Canadians, our universities aren't much better when a conservative wants to speak on campus. The progressives tend to resort to their usual thuggish tactics of trying to shut down speech they don't like.

This is why I think there is such a divide in this country between left and right. The left sees absolutely no hypocrisy in shutting down a conservative from speaking while at the same time professing being defenders of free speech.; 3/25/10, 10:12 AM
Geoff Matthews said...: Hoosier Daddy is partly right. George Galloway was prevented from coming to Canada, but the rationale there was he was going to fundraise for Hamas, a recognized terrorist organization.

But conservatives don't riot. Do we need to rethink that position?; 3/25/10, 10:12 AM
Roman said...: i don't think it is the country or all of the people, I served along side Canadian Forces, they were good at their jobs, their biggest handicap was some of their equipment was not up to date as it should be.

The people on the left are most intolerant of views that do not comform to theirs. Just look at the treatment of right-wing speakers on campus everywhere.; 3/25/10, 10:14 AM
kathleen said...: "I wonder which American university is the stupidest one."

My vote is Harvard.; 3/25/10, 10:15 AM
Peter V. Bella said...: Free speech is wonderful. Too bad Canada does not have it. Gee, does anyone think Tea party Leaders would have been arrested in Canada for phony accusations of racist comments?

"Oh Canada..." Bah!; 3/25/10, 10:16 AM
Joe said...: Free speech is wonderful. Free Speech is over-rated...I say deny your opponents the right to speak or print or assemble...it makes the process go ever so much fastger and easier.; 3/25/10, 10:19 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: But conservatives don't riot. Do we need to rethink that position?

I don't know do we? I haven't seen much in the way of conservatives rioting in the streets and trashing the local Starbucks and torching cars but I will admit I haven't watched the news today.; 3/25/10, 10:23 AM
Christy said...: Why am I compelled to preface any comment with "I'm not a fan of Ann Coulter?" Have we fallen into such prejudging times that I worry that supporting Coulter's free speech will tar me forever?; 3/25/10, 10:25 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Free speech? It's all group think 247. Liberals gulp down the entire glass of Kool Aid and then ask for more.; 3/25/10, 10:25 AM
Big Mike said...: @kathleen, the Fighting Banana Slugs of UC Santa Cruz, hands down. They're so far out in first place that there is no second.; 3/25/10, 10:26 AM
Calypso Facto said...: Mark Steyn has been bemoaning the Canadian "no free speech for non-Islamists" for years:

In 2007, the Canadian Islamic Congress brought three suits against Maclean’s, Canada’s oldest news weekly, for running an excerpt from Mark’s bestselling book America Alone, plus other “flagrantly Islamophobic” columns by Steyn. A year later the CIC had lost all its cases and the flagrant Islamophobe had become a poster boy for a worldwide phenomenon - the increasing tension between Islam, on the one hand, and, on the other, western notions of free speech, liberty and pluralism.

And where's the Liberal outrage about those "barely veiled threats" I heard so much about the past couple days?; 3/25/10, 10:29 AM
garage mahal said...: The right are always being victimized. We have real leftists, and fake leftists causing havoc everywhere!; 3/25/10, 10:30 AM
MadisonMan said...: we don’t have a religion of free speech

What a sad statement to read. It's like it's said with pride too.; 3/25/10, 10:38 AM
raf said...: Garage illustrates the Alinsky principle of holding your opponents to their own standards. Complaining about libs is not allowed because complaining is not a conservative value.; 3/25/10, 10:39 AM
Calypso Facto said...: Ahh...it's only real victimization when it happens (or is reported to possibly have happened without any evidence or suspects) to YOU and YOURS. Abundantly clear.

I don't actually feel sorrow for "shout-you-down" Ann Coulter, mind you. I just am consistently amused by the unwillingness of some liberals in name to actually be liberal in thought or action.; 3/25/10, 10:42 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: What a sad statement to read. It's like it's said with pride too.

MadMan, if you think that is sad, check out the email that was sent to Coulter by the university ahead of her visit. In a nutshell it was celebrating the exchange of ideas but should she saying something that was offensive, she'd be subject to criminal penalties.

I'd expect that to be sent from a university chancellor in say, China or Cuba or North Korea but not in a Western democracy. Sad doesn't even begin to describe it when you can be arrested for saying something 'offensive'.; 3/25/10, 10:45 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: I love Ann Coulter and Mark Steyn. They are smart and have the guts to speak the truth.; 3/25/10, 10:45 AM
Adam said...: Apparently these loons think that Voltaire was an American. Or perhaps there's an official Canadian translation that reads, "I detest what you write, so I shall make it impossible for you to continue to do so."; 3/25/10, 10:48 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I just am consistently amused by the unwillingness of some liberals in name to actually be liberal in thought or action.

That's because you still think they're liberals and not the totalitarians that I long ago accepted as their true colors.; 3/25/10, 10:49 AM
Ah Pooh said...: Little tougher breed in Quebec - "No veil or no service from public institutions, new bill urges Quebeckers". The Globe and Mail March 25, 2010; 3/25/10, 10:50 AM
Tank said...: Ann has lost something off her fast ball. Although it's counter-intuitive, she was funnier and more entertaining when Bush was President.

The Canadians are like a gift from God to her.; 3/25/10, 10:51 AM
Michael said...: We still have free speech here but only barely. The nanny state will get to that pretty soon, just wait. We already have very radical self-censorship as shown by the incredible cowardice of the MSM with respect to the Danish cartoons. When the American press failed to print those cartoons on the front page of every paper in the country they decided then and there that free speech was an abstraction or a concept they could work around. Speech codes abound in the university and are self imposed in polite society. The freedom loving left is principally responsible since they control the old line media and are comfortable with being the gatekeepers.; 3/25/10, 10:55 AM
former law student said...: In a nutshell it was celebrating the exchange of ideas but should she saying something that was offensive, she'd be subject to criminal penalties.

I'm glad they put her on notice. As I posted the other day, Canada has a "fighting words" exception to freedom of speech:

Public incitement of hatred (s. 319[1]). Every one who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of [a crime].

– s. 319[1], Criminal Code of Canada

Unlike the professor, Canada does not think right-wing commenters' offensive remarks are merely humourous.; 3/25/10, 11:00 AM
Anonymous said...: There's an entire country as stupid as FLS? Christ.; 3/25/10, 11:07 AM
A.W. said...: I wrote this over at overlawyered, and it seems apropos:

> From the “if you strike me down, I will become more powerful” files…

> I think it would be pointless to try to convince these kinds of petty fascists to knock it off based on morality alone. If they don’t believe in free speech already, you are not likely to convince them.

> But i suggest they ask themselves this. How much free publicity did they just give Ann? How many books will this whole controversy move? if the goal is to prevent the spread of her ideas, well heckovajob there, liberal fascists. You have made her into an alluring forbidden fruit. You have made it rebellious and cool to read her stuff.

> Seriously, I never even heard of Ezra Levant until your thug human rights commission came after him.

> Btw, everyone remember this next time you hear of a liberal complain about death threats over the health care bill. That’s not to excuse it, but just to point out how selective they are in their outrage.

Kevin

> look at the video of the Israeli ambassador trying to give a speech at UC Irvine. Think that the students responsible were disciplined?

While I don’t know much about that incident, I think I have a pretty clear picture of what happened. Yes, lefty students in America act like similar idiots. But there is a key difference: before Coulter went there, a school official wrote a letter threatening her to be charged with human rights violation if she said the wrong thing.

And I seem to recall that the police have never shut her down before. If they had to crack some heads to give her freedom of speech, they were willing to do it. That is the right answer.

Hoosier

> Now of course if her name was Mahmoud Achmedinejad she would have been warmly welcomed and probably been given an honorary doctorate.

Wait, are you saying the president of iran is a woman, in secret?

Bad jokes aside, Mark Steyn points out that one of the people who complained against him for anti-muslim bigotry, is himself an anti-semite. It’s a bit like David Duke complaining that you are a racist. It makes you wonder why they don’t go after the anti-semitic imams. Oh, right, because they are scared of muslims. Which is what all of this is really about.

Personally if I was an ordinary, decent law-abiding muslim, I would be offended that they think I am so delicate.; 3/25/10, 11:08 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: There's an entire country as stupid as FLS? Christ.

FLS isn't stupid in this case, he's just saying that there is nothing wrong with people being arrested for saying something that hurts someone's feelings.

As I said, totalitarianism found a cozy home among Western liberals.; 3/25/10, 11:10 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Human Rights used to be about freedom of movement- to emigrate, freedom of worship, freedom of speech- publishing, freedom to politically assemble associate..

Now? Human Rights seem to be about something else...

On Monday Mr. Earle, a stand-up comedian of conventionally Trudeaupian views, goes on trial at the British Columbia “Human Rights” Tribunal for putting down two hecklers at his nightclub act. They were, alas for him, of the lesbian persuasion, and so he is now charged with “homophobia.” What a wretched embarrassment to a once free society.; 3/25/10, 11:11 AM
Calypso Facto said...: Per my earlier comment, I liked this quote best:
“I was just worried that things were going to be said about certain groups of people that were going to make them feel very unsafe and very uncomfortable and we promise our students here at the University of Ottawa a safe, positive space” said Rita Valeriano, a second-year sociology and women’s studies student.
...she said as she joined the mob that had gathered to make Ms. Coulter feel unsafe and uncomfortable in a decidedly negative space.

wv: etmento. A mint already consumed.; 3/25/10, 11:17 AM
former law student said...: FLS isn't stupid in this case, he's just saying that there is nothing wrong with people being arrested for saying something that hurts someone's feelings.

I have to be nice to Hoosier, because his only source of income is from his wife's turning tricks with construction workers in jobsite Porta-Potties.

Come get me human rights advocates!; 3/25/10, 11:23 AM
Fen said...: Well, I think we have finally learned why FLS failed out of law school.

Really man, google Steyn and the Canadian Human Rights Panel.

But be prepared: a totalitarian like yourself will cream his pants at the prospect of such censorship.; 3/25/10, 11:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Go ahead and snark at Canada. They certainly deserve it for this anti-free-speech idiocy. Snark. Snark. Snark.

However, one might also want to support those Western countries that stick their neck out to stand up for free speech.

Like Denmark.; 3/25/10, 11:29 AM
Ray said...: That's because you still think they're liberals and not the totalitarians that I long ago accepted as their true colors.

Which is why I cringe when I see people rail against "liberals"; when what pases for "liberal" thought these days is mostly statism and oligarchism with a big helping of intolerence for any alternate POV.; 3/25/10, 11:29 AM
former law student said...: google Steyn and the Canadian Human Rights Panel

And? So?

Canada prizes courtesy, civility, and getting along with others.; 3/25/10, 11:34 AM
Alex said...: You know I don't think FLS & garage have explicitly trained in Alinsky methods. It just comes natural to them.; 3/25/10, 11:35 AM
former law student said...: Canada is not simply the US with maple syrup added.

Remember it was largely settled by people who thought the American Revolutionaries were too radical, and who were just fine being subjects of King George.; 3/25/10, 11:39 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I have to be nice to Hoosier, because his only source of income is from his wife's turning tricks with construction workers in jobsite Porta-Potties.

Oh please don't hold back. Trust me FLS, I have a lot thicker skin than you might imagine and have long ago considered such taunts as befitting gradeschoolers who don't get much more rise out of me than an eyeroll.

I guess perhaps your cherished 'vulnerable groups' should follow my lead grow up but being a perpectual victim in need of protection is their only way of getting through life.; 3/25/10, 11:41 AM
Fen said...: FLS on Canada criminalizing criticism of Islam: And? So? Canada prizes courtesy, civility, and getting along with others.

Wow. Just wow.

You are the enemy. Thanks for spotlighting yourself.; 3/25/10, 11:41 AM
Alex said...: FLS - My guess is you would have sided with the Crown. Traitorous scum.; 3/25/10, 11:42 AM
Adam said...: FLS: "Canada prizes courtesy, civility, and getting along with others."

I guess the angry mob that caused the cancellation of Coulter's talk weren't Canadians, then. Probably a bunch of teabaggers in a false-flag operation.

Come to think of it, maybe FLS is a false flag. Hi, Sarah!; 3/25/10, 11:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Nothing says civility, courtesy, and getting along quite like hauling someone before a tribunal.; 3/25/10, 11:47 AM
kathleen said...: "Public incitement of hatred (s. 319[1]). Every one who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of [a crime]."

soooooo, inciting hatred against a group is against the law, but inciting hatred against and individual (Ann Coulter) is a-ok?; 3/25/10, 11:48 AM
Brian Hancock said...: You can have:

Freedom of Speech

or

Hate crimes for speech

I will take the first one 100 times out of 100 and live with a chance of being offended at one point or another.

My take if you invite someone to be a guest (and even if you pay them) you treat them with some respect and give them an opportunity to speak, even if you disagree with them.

Guess I disagree with those more "open minded" with me on that as well. Always nice to see progressives raise the bar in political discourse.; 3/25/10, 11:49 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Wow. Just wow.

Fen, and I say this with respect, courteousness and civility:

Are you really surprised FLS would hold that position?; 3/25/10, 11:51 AM
Freder Frederson said...: Human Rights used to be about freedom of movement- to emigrate, freedom of worship, freedom of speech- publishing, freedom to politically assemble associate..

You do realize that the statement that got Coulter in trouble was her assertion that Muslims should not be allowed to fly but should ride camels instead. She is hardly a defender of human rights, and a vile bigot besides.

But I am sure Ann will explain how her statement was not in the least bit prejudiced.; 3/25/10, 11:55 AM
Fred4Pres said...: I am not a big fan of Ann Coulter, but man-o-man can she play the lefties. Don't they realize they promote her every time they do this? It is so predictable how they take the bait every time. Credit where credit is do. Ann Coulter knows how to self promote.; 3/25/10, 11:57 AM
former law student said...: From The Globe and Mail, after Coulter's talk at the University of Western Ontario. Apparently Coulter never took the Dale Carnegie course:

1. Ann Coulter unplugged. The conservative provocateur mocked gay men last night, saying there are two things they can’t do – “get married to each other” (they can in Canada and some American states) and “throw a baseball without looking like a girl.”

Nice.

Ms. Coulter also told an audience in London, Ont., she thinks feminists, gays and illegal aliens all want to be black as they complain their rights are being attacked in the same way the rights of African-Americans once were.

This is just a taste of what’s to come.

Tonight, Ms. Coulter takes on the nation’s capital when she speaks at the University of Ottawa, the second stop on her three-city campus tour.

The topic of her speech – she is reportedly paid $10,000-a-talk –“Political Correctness, Media Bias and Freedom of Speech.” However, that freedom came into question yesterday when she was not exactly welcomed with open arms in Ottawa.

The university provost a letter cautioning her to be aware of “what is acceptable in Canada,” noting that “promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate but could in fact lead to criminal charges.”

The letter was leaked to National Post, which is considered friendly to the hard-right conservative cause.

Ms. Coulter, meanwhile, spoke last night at the University of Western Ontario. All long blonde hair and heavily-mascaraed lashes, she did not hold back, according to the London Free Press. A frequent contributor to Fox News – Barack Obama’s least favourite American network – Ms. Coulter took on a political science student who is Muslim.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, she had joked that Muslims denied air travel should take “flying carpets.” When the student challenged that remark, Ms. Coulter told her to take a “camel,” adding that, “I thought it was just American public schools that produced ignorant people.”

Ms. Coulter is to speak in Calgary on Thursday.; 3/25/10, 11:57 AM
Andrea said...: I really don't know why FLS continues to live in such a horrible, rude country like the United States when the wonderful, magical land of Canada, where everyone is nice to everyone else and never says anything impolite, is just right across the border. I'll bet you the reason he stays here is because he's a hypocrite who's full of shit. Oh I'm sorry, was that impolite? I should be arrested and put in a labor camp for my potty mouth!; 3/25/10, 12:01 PM
victoria said...: I think this is a great example of Ann Coulter playing the victim, which she does constantly and with great relish. I think it is amusing that she portrays herself as the lone voice of reason, but all she does is whine and complain. I think she is horrible and I question the wisdom of anyone who listens to her seriously. That said, she has a right here or anywhere to whine as she pleases. Quite honestly,the girl needs a good meal once in a while, maybe she wouldn't be so mean,get yourself a cheesburger, Ann. Come here and go to Pie and Burger, best burgers in town.

Vicki from Pasadena; 3/25/10, 12:02 PM
Adam said...: To all the legal eagles enthusing over the regulation of expression, I've got a question for you. Is the following an incitement to anger and violence against an identifiable group? Should it be banned?

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions."; 3/25/10, 12:03 PM
former law student said...: Thinking about it, Coulter's lucky to be a woman because a man who ran his mouth like her would get punched in the face from time to time.; 3/25/10, 12:05 PM
victoria said...: FLS, you are always the voice of reason over the din of the right wing rhetorical whines.

Vicki from Pasadena; 3/25/10, 12:07 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: You do realize that the statement that got Coulter in trouble was her assertion that Muslims should not be allowed to fly but should ride camels instead. She is hardly a defender of human rights, and a vile bigot besides.

So what? Are you stating that her beliefs should be subject to criminal prosecution?

Let me ask you Freder, did you think it was ok for Achmedenijad to come to Columbia University and spout his hateful rhetoric? This from a guy whose country hangs homosexuals and thinks Jews are parasites?

Or is that different?; 3/25/10, 12:09 PM
bagoh20 said...: I have never seen anyone so effectively use their detractors. Rush is pretty good too, but Coulter owes her enemies a fortune. What's amazing is that it's so easy for her and she tells them exactly what she's up to. They get played like a fiddle and end up looking like fools. Amazing!; 3/25/10, 12:10 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Thinking about it, Coulter's lucky to be a woman because a man who ran his mouth like her would get punched in the face from time to time.

I'm betting Annie can give as good as she can get. Especially from a liberal.; 3/25/10, 12:12 PM
bagoh20 said...: FLS, you should change you name to "Voice of Reason" That would be cool. It would be like The Democratic People's Republic of Korea. That always makes me laugh too.; 3/25/10, 12:13 PM
Joe said...: FLS is funny...Canada values civility and the like...that's why, IIRC, the fellow who sued Mark Steyn was an anti-Semite, and who allowed that ALL Israelis were soldiers and therefore legitimate targets of Palestinian suicide bombers. Yes, civility, as LONG as you're a fan of Western Ideals, not so much civility for its opponents.

And then the larger question, why is CIVILTY better than FREEDOM? Why is it better to be un-offended than to be free? How does a free society work, when we cannot be offended? I'm offended by Obama, but I realize that's just the price I pay for a democracy...I'm sure FLS was offended by Jesse Helms, oh well.

What folks like FLS mean is that I have to be civil to the fellow who wants to impose Shari'a Law and cut my head off, but that fellow doesn't have to be civil to ME...

It's all related to racism and colonialism and the reverence for "The Other." If you are "The Other", then almost anything is OK, because of racism, colonialism, and Structural Violence and Oppression.; 3/25/10, 12:13 PM
SteveR said...: Honest Canadians understand that their ability to require courtesy and civility in speech, (among other things)is in large part due the economic largesse provided by the United States and the security of being a good friend of a country that values true freedom and will fight for it. Which guarantees we'll fight for them.

While disturbing, this mostly comes across as silliness, like children tucked away in a warm safe house complaining to mom about someone getting more than their fair share of jellybeans.

How can you possibly maintain that a college student needs to be sheltered from a speaker they are not required to hear while at the same time making them take classes from (arguably) equally as "offensive" teachers, in order to graduate?; 3/25/10, 12:16 PM
Joe said...: Thinking about it, Coulter's lucky to be a woman because a man who ran his mouth like her would get punched in the face from time to time. Sounds like an incite TO VIOLENCE, where is your "civility" FLS? I demand that Ann Althouse BAN FLS, IMMEDIATELY....these are dangerous times, and I feel uncomfortable with all this talk of punching people in the mouth.; 3/25/10, 12:16 PM
bagoh20 said...: FLS and Vicky, do you guys ever ask yourself: Wait, what am I defending here? Pretty hard to answer yes or no, isn't it?; 3/25/10, 12:16 PM
Big Mike said...: As I posted the other day, Canada has a "fighting words" exception to freedom of speech.

But FLS, you and your compadres post fighting words all the time, and you've directed more than a few at me, personally. If you applied the "fighting words" limitation to yourself, would you ever post at all?; 3/25/10, 12:20 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/25/10, 12:21 PM
A.W. said...: FLS

> Canada prizes courtesy, civility, and getting along with others.

That’s not true. if you are a muslim saying anti-semitic crap, they don’t care. But if you are not a muslim, and say something anti-muslim, then the very same anti-semitic muslim can take out a complaint against you with the human rights commission. No need for clean hands there.

> Remember it was largely settled by people who thought the American Revolutionaries were too radical, and who were just fine being subjects of King George.

Actually I agree with that, to some degree, although you seem to fail to understand the way the American revolution was really a civil war by proxy.

The only thing is, you seem to think that’s a good thing.

> From The Globe and Mail, after Coulter's talk at the University of Western Ontario. Apparently Coulter never took the Dale Carnegie course:

And just to think if she wore a burqa and said it about jews, she would have been okay!

> Thinking about it, Coulter's lucky to be a woman because a man who ran his mouth like her would get punched in the face from time to time.

And then her attacker would be arrested for assault and battery. Funny how you casually support using violence to suppress your opponents.

Andrea

> I should be arrested and put in a labor camp for my potty mouth!

Don’t you mean the Death Camp of Tolerance? (That’s a South Park reference, in case you are not a fan.); 3/25/10, 12:27 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: She was not actually banned by the student council, to my knowledge.

And students exercised their freedom of speech to protest the vile hate monger Ann Coulter.

As far as speech laws, they are different in different countries. She had a fair warning.

Not surprised to see the Althouse-Coulter alliance as Ann veers more to the hard right.; 3/25/10, 12:33 PM
Triangle Man said...: Way to hoist them with their own petard. I'm not sure if the tactic evokes Alinsky or Phelps more, but it worked!; 3/25/10, 12:33 PM
kathleen said...: FLS=VOR; 3/25/10, 12:35 PM
Phil 314 said...: I will not shed a tear for Ms. Coulter AND the actions of the University and the students are stupid.

Public incitement of hatred (s. 319[1]). Every one who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of [a crime].

FLS;
So if I understand your interpretation of this correctly If I hate you, anything you say is wrong and illegal; 3/25/10, 12:40 PM
Joe said...: She was not actually banned by the student council, to my knowledge.

No she was shouted down...no need to ban if you can't speak.

And students exercised their freedom of speech to protest the vile hate monger Ann Coulter.

No they surrounded the hall and prevented people from exercising THEIR Freedom to Assemble and Coulter's Freedom to speak.

Let's turn that around, shall we Alpha...Obama shows up at Madison, and 10,000 screaming, chanting Tea Partiers, surround the venue and won't let the POTUS in?

Were we just "exercising our Freedom of Speech?"

And of course she had fair warning... why so did MLK and the Freedom Riders, "come down hee-yuh Bwah an' stir up our Negroes an' we-all gonna LYNCH ya." So I guess it's all good as long as you receive "fair warning", eh Alpha?

You and Jeremy make it too easy, sometimes.; 3/25/10, 12:43 PM
David said...: I am starting a cheeseburgers and milkshakes for Ann Coulter fund.

My grandparents were Canadian. They would have contributed.

Ann Coulter was a star student and law reviewer at Michigan Law School. She was smart enough to find the better alternative to reviewing bond indentures.; 3/25/10, 12:44 PM
Martin said...: As a Canadian who works for a university, I must say that I was saddened and appalled, but in no way shocked or surprised, by the treatment meted out to Coulter by the Provost of the U of Ottawa.
But I'd like to add that the small group of students who succeeded in getting the lecture cancelled by, um, knocking over a table do NOT represent "Canadian" values.
In my experience, very few Canadians are aware of our "human rights tribunals" and they are shocked when they find out that we do not, in fact, enjoy the free speech protections that our American friends have.
To FLS & Vicky and anyone else who thinks they'd prefer Canadian "civility" over the 1st amendment: put up or shut up (or should that be put up AND shut up?). You can probably immigrate here no problem. Depending on where you live in the States, you might find it a little colder, but we really are a polite bunch, so that could warm you.
In my experience, most Americans who claim to want to emigrate to Canada change their minds when they realize that they will probably earn less money up here and pay more of what they make in taxes.
And then there's the incessant Celine Dion... Sorry 'bout that...; 3/25/10, 12:45 PM
Michael said...: Alpha Liberal: Achtung!!!; 3/25/10, 1:05 PM
Michael said...: FLS: Auchtung!!!; 3/25/10, 1:07 PM
MadisonMan said...: You can probably immigrate here no problem.

I have always heard that it's hard for a USA citizen to immigrate. You have to have a job waiting for you, and you have to be more qualified for the job than any Canadian. That was my understanding, at least, based on nothing more than things I've heard that might not be true.; 3/25/10, 1:09 PM
Arturius said...: I would think the most effective way to demonstrate disapproval of Coulter (or any conservative speaker) would have been to ignore her appearance altogether. I can’t imagine the room would have many listeners, this is a Canadian University after all. How many conservatives could they possibly have? I’m more amazed there were enough that they could afford to have her for a speaking engagement.; 3/25/10, 1:14 PM
Michael said...: Not only are the lefties on this blog against free speech, they appear to misunderstand the concept entirely. Must be fresh out of college.

Plus very humorless.; 3/25/10, 1:15 PM
Alex said...: Arturius - lefties want to live in a world that is "free of conservatives". They are quite eliminationist in their mindset. Yeah there, I just called them Nazis.; 3/25/10, 1:18 PM
Synova said...: Actually... what I heard was that some students gathered to protest her, anyone who had a ticket was passed through and admitted, someone pulled a fire alarm but they did not evacuate the building, there was never any violence or more than a single security female-person keeping the calm outside...

And they told Coulter she was canceled.

So... as much as the hypocricy of rabid haters closing down Coulter for being a rabid hater is sort of fun to point out... it's likely that the students weren't any more unruly than normal students tend to be and it's really all about the threatening letter and feelings of a single man responding to no threat at all but the sort of whimpy one he managed to orchestrate himself.; 3/25/10, 1:18 PM
Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...: I've always viewed Coulter as engaging in a strategy of epater le bourgeois, only from the right instead of the left.

It's kind of fun to see the stolid burghers of academia fulminating about her, in an exact mirror image of hicks from the sticks allowing their buttons to be pushed by the latest jejune artist showing a desecrated Virgin Mary.; 3/25/10, 1:50 PM
A.W. said...: Alpha

> She was not actually banned by the student council, to my knowledge.

Nah, just threatened with prosecution. That’s all.

> And students exercised their freedom of speech to protest the vile hate monger Ann Coulter.

They went a little further than that.

> As far as speech laws, they are different in different countries. She had a fair warning.

Still doesn’t make it right, if true. and its not clear that it is true.

> Not surprised to see the Althouse-Coulter alliance as Ann veers more to the hard right.

Not surprised to see you apologize for fascism, as you are on the left.; 3/25/10, 2:05 PM
Calypso Facto said...: Speaking of "speaking":

Now, in the name of good ol' Chicago style politics, brick throwing is met with gunfire.

wv: defaca. Defecation + caca = Exactly the level of our political discourse right now....; 3/25/10, 2:05 PM
wombat said...: Coulter would tweak the weak...minded and pc-possessed, NOT the weak and dispossessed. She's not my favorite and her provocateur schtick is predictable, but the fact of imbecilic to venal reaction to her very presence by the self-described Tolerant classes serves good purpose.; 3/25/10, 2:19 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Free speech is free speech.

The Progressive liberals ideology of free speech and free expression is anything goes, even hate speech, disgusting tactics and violence as long as it is liberals saying and doing it. everyone else must be debased and threatened with investigations and prosecution. free speech means free Progressive speech only.; 3/25/10, 2:20 PM
Roger J. said...: Excuse me but did I miss something?
FLS post at 11:23 about HD's wife turning tricks seems to me to be over the top. I dont mind being called a dumb ass, tea bagger, ass hole, nazi or anything else; I have been harrassed by experts--but when comments start about other commenter's families, and calling commenters wives prostitutes, that seems to me to cross a line that most sensible people understand. I dont mind trading jibes with Jeremy or any other commenters--but I do make an effort to keep families out of the comments.

If I missed something in that exchange, I apologize--if I didnt, FLS: you are genuinely a craven coward and motherfucker to boot. And I gotta tell you: HD is far more patient than I would be.; 3/25/10, 2:24 PM
Beaverdam said...: I'd do her.; 3/25/10, 2:41 PM
Cedarford said...: Hoosier Daddy said...
Now of course if her name was Mahmoud Achmedinejad she would have been warmly welcomed and probably been given an honorary doctorate.
Canada's 'free speech' laws are a complete joke. their 'Human Rights Commission' is the equivalent of 'Arbeit Macht Frei' sign over a labor camp.

Actually, Ezra Levant wrote that the Human Rights Commission and s 319[1] were the brainchild of aggressive progressive Jewish lawyers working for the Canadian Jewish Congress.

On this point, I agree with Mr. Soharwardy and Mr. Elmasry: I blame the Jews.

A generation ago, illiberal elements in the "official" Jewish community pressed Canadian governments to introduce laws limiting free speech. The targets of those laws were invariably poor, unorganized, harmless neo-Nazi cranks and conspiracy theorists such as Ernst Zundel and Jim Keegstra — nobodies who were turned into international celebrities when they were prosecuted for their thought crimes.

But now come Mr. Elmasry and Mr. Soharwardy and their ilk, using the very precedents set by the Canadian Jewish Congress.

Before Mr. Soharwardy went to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, he went to the Calgary Police Service and demanded that they arrest me. He's done that three times now, and they've rejected him every time. But he only had to ask the willing enforcers of the human rights commission once.

'The Canadian Jewish Congress is a major part of the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s thought crime system, a system that’s rigged against the CJC’s political enemies.'

Ezra Levant's complaint is not that Islamoid extremists are improperly using the Canadian legal system Jews created to criminalize their detractors - it is that the system was put in place to begin with.; 3/25/10, 2:44 PM
Dark Eden said...: "Canada prizes courtesy, civility, and getting along with others."

Ann Coulter, Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant were not treated with courtesy or civility and the powers that be certainly did nothing to get along with them.; 3/25/10, 2:52 PM
hombre said...: fls wrote: I'm glad they put her on notice. As I posted the other day, Canada has a "fighting words" exception to freedom of speech:

...

Unlike the professor, Canada does not think right-wing commenters' offensive remarks are merely humourous.

Many disturbing the peace statutes in the US have "fighting words" provisions.

Canada's position is not really a reflection on "right-wing commentors." Canada apparently has considerable apprehension about the irrational and violent propensities common to lefties and Muslims who are confronted with opposing points of view.; 3/25/10, 2:59 PM
Cedarford said...: The ideological roots of Canadian hate speech codes, orginally passed in 1971 (Section 13) under the liberal Trudeau Administration, are with Jewish Marxist Herbert Marcuse and with the Jewish Bolsheviks.

Much campus censorship rests on philosophical underpinnings that go back to social theorist Herbert Marcuse, a hero to sixties radicals. Marcuse argued that traditional tolerance is repressive—it wards off reform by making the status quo . . . well, tolerable.

In certain countries, it went well past college campuses as various lobbies embraced the idea of criminalizing their critics. One such lobby was the Canadian Jewish Congress.

Marcuse, in his 1965 work "Repressive Tolerance", argued that toleration of free speech hindered social progress. And that not just campus protests, but laws, needed to be put in place to shut down incorrect thinking and help destroy repressive, established institutions that used free speech to perpetuate their power.

Marcuse approved of laws the Soviets had passed against counter-revolutionary thinking (thought crime, as Orwell put it). ANd glowingly cited the post WWII laws in the Soviet Bloc and many West Eiropean nations to make any expression of Nazi thought illegal. Or question aspects of the persecution of Jews. Or criticize Israel in any way(Austria made criticism of Israel illegal until the 90s).

Marcuse said such laws would be a useful template to create new laws that would make all racist, bigoted speech illegal while still allowing vocal activism against American warmongering against progressive nations, Southern repressors of the Negro, and capitalism..among other targets..

All Coulter faces is an insidious historical movement with it's roots in the Jewish Bolsheviks of 90 years ago. NOthing new.; 3/25/10, 3:09 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: FLS, you called HD's wife a whore? You are a low life, despicable, deplorable, disgusting, detestable, sub human.

You are not fit to interact with fully developed human beings. I put you in the same category as alpha, Jeremy, and DTL- a Purple Shirted Nazi. Are you getting your talking points and ideas from Andy Stern now? You operate on the SEIU standard of lowlife behavior? That is what thugs do. Go after the families first.

You sir are a... there is not a vile enough word in the English language I can think of to describe you.; 3/25/10, 3:16 PM
Blue@9 said...: I was going to say, did FLS miss the second semester of Con Law? "Fighting words" aren't protected under the First Amendment either (Chaplinsky).

The difference between our two nations isn't in a fighting words exception, but rather that Canada has hate speech laws akin to university speech codes. Fighting words tend to convey immediate threats to individuals ("I'll kick your ass!"; what Canada bans in addition to that are generalized hate comments against groups, comments that don't necessarily convey an immediate threat ("Koreans suck."). Most Americans find it abhorrent that you can go to jail for casting aspersions against a group, but FLS and Canadians seem rather okay with that notion.; 3/25/10, 3:31 PM
Blue@9 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/25/10, 3:31 PM
Unknown said...: I used to like Mark Steyn, but, after his issues with Canadian Human Rights, a lot of the spunk went out of him. I think he figured he had rights in Canada and it really did him in to find out he really didn't.

As for Ann Coulter, she can take on 20 National Socialists at a time blindfolded and with one hand tied behind her back.

former law student said...

Canada is not simply the US with maple syrup added.

Remember it was largely settled by people who thought the American Revolutionaries were too radical, and who were just fine being subjects of King George.

Partly true. some Loyalists migrated north after the Treaty of Paris, most notably Captain James Rogers, brother of Robert, but there were more than enough Englishmen there in 1775 to fight Richard Montgomery, Dan Morgan, and Benedict Arnold when they tried to liberate the place.; 3/25/10, 3:37 PM
Jeremy said...: Tells you how much classier the Canadians are than the idiots who allow this degenerate piece of shit to speak about anything.

She's disgusting and even the wing nuts here know it...they just don't have the guts to admit it.; 3/25/10, 3:37 PM
Jeremy said...: Petey - You REALLY need to get yourself lined up with a good shrink and whatever meds he or she can send your way.

Do you start drinking the instant you wake up or are you in the midst of a complete break down?; 3/25/10, 3:42 PM
Jeremy said...: Only the tea bagging wing nuts who follow Queen Ann's lead would spend this much time defending someone like Ann Coulter.

It makes you look like fools.; 3/25/10, 3:44 PM
victoria said...: bagoh, are you deliberately trying to be stupid? You are giving the people in Los Angeles a bad name. Question isn't yes or no.I will defend to the death Ann Coulter's right to be a lame @#$%^. However, I would question anyone's intelligence if they actually received any edification or wisdom from anything she says. She is a lying, whining rightie, which is about as bad as it gets.

Vicki from Pasadena; 3/25/10, 3:46 PM
victoria said...: Oh, and next time, spell my name right.

Vicki from Pasadena; 3/25/10, 3:47 PM
Jeremy said...: victoria said..."I will defend to the death Ann Coulter's right to be a lame @#$%^. However, I would question anyone's intelligence if they actually received any edification or wisdom from anything she says. She is a lying, whining rightie, which is about as bad as it gets."

I seldom find much to agree with here, but you're absolutely correct.

Coulter has as much right to speak as the Canadians have to tell her to take a hike.

*How many here would even attend a function to hear Ann Coulter?; 3/25/10, 3:55 PM
A.W. said...: Jeremy spoke in... class today...

> Tells you how much classier the Canadians are than the idiots who allow this degenerate piece of shit to speak about anything.

Right fascism is classy, and freedom is degenerate.

As for defending her content, I don’t pay much attention to what coulter actually says because I frankly never found it very interesting or insightful. And for the purposes of this controversy I don’t care. Its all protected.

I am reminded of Ezra Levant’s brave stand for freedom of speech. You know what his crime was? He published a factual article on the controversy over the dutch mohammed cartoons, and (gasp) included the cartoons in the article so people could see them for themselves and evaluate the issue for themselves. Crazy I know. And for that he is hauled before the Canadian human right commission.

And so they are asking him, “what is your intent in publishing those cartons.” He could have said, “I was reporting on the controversy and you can’t really do that without showing the cartoons.” But he didn’t want to win narrowly, so he said something like this, instead, “whatever the forbidden thought is, I had it. whatever the worse possible intent is in your mind, I had it. because I believe it is my absolute right to publish those cartoons for whatever purpose I want.”

If you weren’t such a fascist you would understand that. you would understand that it doesn’t matter what Coulter’s intent was. She could have been reading mein kampf and telling everyone that hitle was right and they should kill all the jews, and I would be offended but for the purpose of freedom of speech, I wouldn’t care.; 3/25/10, 4:04 PM
Harsh Pencil said...: Jeremy,

I haven't seen anyone here defend Ann Coulter. I've heard them defend free speech and attack the fact that of friends up north don't believe in it.

I guess I shouldn't expect a community college teacher making, what, $10,000 a course? to be able to see such distinctions.; 3/25/10, 4:07 PM
Alex said...: Let me guess. Jeremy/Victoria have no problem with hate-monger Ward Churchill TEACHING and speaking at universities.; 3/25/10, 4:14 PM
Jeremy said...: A.W. said..."Right fascism is classy, and freedom is degenerate."

The Canadians are now "fascists"...because they don't want to endure Ann Coulter's brand of hate speech?

Well, than what would you call the American Enterprise Institute...who just canned David Frum, one day after saying the GOP screwed up?

Frum's parting shot: "I have had many fruitful years at the American Enterprise Institute, and I do regret this abrupt and unexpected conclusion of our relationship."

NOTE: "abrupt and unexpected conclusion of our relationship."

This is getting funnier by the minute...; 3/25/10, 4:22 PM
A.W. said...: Jeremy

> The Canadians are now "fascists"...because they don't want to endure Ann Coulter's brand of hate speech?

When it is backed up with threats of prosecution, yes.; 3/25/10, 4:31 PM
Sofa King said...: Is the AEI an organ of government? No? Then they have every right to exclude anyone who doesn't share their views.

Is the Canadian government an organ of government? Yes? Then they have an obligation to protect even vile, unpopular speech.

This is grade-school level civics stuff.; 3/25/10, 4:40 PM
effinayright said...: Some idiot calling himself a former law student wrote: "I'm glad they put her on notice. As I posted the other day, Canada has a "fighting words" exception to freedom of speech:

Public incitement of hatred (s. 319[1]). Every one who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of [a crime].

Snork! Then why was Mohamed El Masri not charged with a crime when he said that all Israelis over 18 years of age are a valid terrorist target?

The same asshole/thug filed a complaint against Mark Steyn to get him charged with a hate crime!!!

Steyn had to spend big bucks defending himself, but ElMasri is still walking unmoloested around Canada.

And what about Michael Moore, who openly lamented that the 9/11 terrorists carried out their murders in a blue, not a red, state? Does he get letters from Canadian officials when he gives speech up there?

It's no wonder you're a "former" law student -- you have the reasoning power of a cherrystone clam.; 3/25/10, 4:49 PM
Roger J. said...: Its the J man--how they hanging there bro

thanks for your usual insightful commentary; 3/25/10, 4:54 PM
Big Mike said...: @Jeremy, so you know that Ann Coulter was going to offer up hate speech before she actually said anything?

You can read minds! Wow!

I tried reading your mind but there was nothing there.; 3/25/10, 4:56 PM
Jeremy said...: Harsh Pencil said..."I haven't seen anyone here defend Ann Coulter. I've heard them defend free speech and attack the fact that of friends up north don't believe in it."

Oh, give me a fucking break.

Canadians believe in free speech, they also just think there are specific people who say horrible, hurtful things for no other reason than to sell their books...and paying someone like is a waste of money.

Maybe a few of the many disgusting quotes attributable to your heroine of free speech may be the reason they chose to forgo the opportunity to have her sully their campus:

Start off by addressing the charge that Canadians are being "fascists":

Coulter - "My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism."

Talking to a disabled Vietnam vet:
Coulter - "People like you caused us to lose that war."

Coulter - "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."
(Her ONLY regret.)

Coulter - "Congress could pass a law tomorrow requiring that all aliens from Arabic countries leave....We should require passports to fly domestically."
(Even the National Review found this offensive enough to fire her ass.)

Coulter - "I don't think there's anything offensive about any variation of faggy, faggotry, faggot, fag.” (Run that piece of "free speech" by any of your gay friends)

Yet here, you've got people calling the Canadians fascists, fragile, stupid, intolerant, and anything else their little minds can conjure up...because they just feel the need to defend "free speech?"

B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.

This is the same crowd that whines and bitches every time our own President gives a speech...because he uses a fucking teleprompter.

Or says or does literally anything they don't agree with...which is everything.

For YOU or anyone to think this is an exercise in defending "free speech" is nothing but a crock.

But of course, you already know that.; 3/25/10, 5:01 PM
Roger J. said...: While I really do love Canadians (except for the damn brown gravy on fries) I dont think they should be held responsble for the actions of their government--Having spent nearly 20 years visiting out canadian neighbors I find them to a person hospitable, gracious, and wonderful people.

Their government? not so much

but we could say the same about the United States of America; 3/25/10, 5:02 PM
Roger J. said...: Jeremy--wipe the drool off your chin--its unsightly; 3/25/10, 5:03 PM
Jeremy said...: A.W. said..."When it is backed up with threats of prosecution, yes."

They evidently have "laws" that address such speech or behavior.

University of Ottawa provost Francois Houle - To Coulter:

"educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada”

“promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges.”

So there you have it (along with the rest of the wing nuts here) -

The Canadians don't want nor need anyone (especially when paying for the opportunity) to promote "hatred against any identifiable group."

And I would assume that includes blacks, Muslims, gays or any other "group" Ann feels the need to denigrate.

Does that clear it up for you?; 3/25/10, 5:06 PM
Big Mike said...: I haven't seen anyone here defend Ann Coulter.

Well let me fix that. I love the way Ann Coulter turns the liberals' own words back on them. I think the skill with which she is able to use liberals' own actions to demonstrate that they demand one thing from everybody else, but do whatever is expedient in their own case (in other words, she had a field day with Geithner's taxes!) is a neat variant of Alinsky's rule #4, and her ability to heap scorn and ridicule on liberals as a consequence is Alinsky rule #5.

I love it!

I've got only three reservations about Ann Coulter. The first is that sometimes she tries too hard, and goes past the bounds of good taste. This puts her in the same mud puddle as our own Jeremy, victoria, and Alpha, but from the other side so it gives the left wing loonies something to screech about. Second, her mind is too sharp for most to follow -- she makes connections that other people can't comprehend (not that our own resident trolls Jeremy, victoria, and Alpha would bother trying to comprehend, even if they were capable, which they aren't). Finally, she's too skinny. She needs to eat more.; 3/25/10, 5:08 PM
Beau said...: In a nutshell it was celebrating the exchange of ideas but should she saying something that was offensive, she'd be subject to criminal penalties.

Your paraphrasing is incorrect.
What he said was,'promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges' to distinguish for her the difference between speaking in the US and Canada.

It's not about offending but promoting hate. There is a distinction. That said, the Human Rights Tribunals take on cases that don't come anywhere near promoting hate speech.

The event was canceled because the venue couldn't provide the security they needed because it was poorly planned. Too bad the provost didn't put his energy into the operational side of things instead of lecturing Coulter.; 3/25/10, 5:13 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Jeremy,
I see you got your Nazi talking points today. How much do the Purple Shirts pay you to promote their filth all over the place? Or is it MoveOn.Orgasm who pays you? Maybe the KOS killers, or DumbocraticUnderwear? My DumbDemocrats? You are way to predictable.

BTW, you too are an indescribable sub-human low life. The kind of person people would avoid if they saw you collapse on the street.; 3/25/10, 5:17 PM
Roger J. said...: And again Jeremy--no we dont want to suck your dick, but Barney Frank is probably available; 3/25/10, 5:20 PM
Unknown said...: Harsh Pencil said...

Jeremy,

I haven't seen anyone here defend Ann Coulter. I've heard them defend free speech and attack the fact that of friends up north don't believe in it.

I'll defend her. She's read your Uncle Saul's book and she takes the lead out of your collective pencils every time she goes after people like you. She isn't afraid of you and she doesn't back down.

The "students" in Ottawa were afraid of her because your so-called ideas won't stand up to scrutiny and everyone knows it. So you have to resort to the Internet equivalent of shouting people down, but it doesn't really work. If that weren't true, little Jeremy would be able to get through a post without invective.; 3/25/10, 5:30 PM
bagoh20 said...: Victoria,

FLS was clearly arguing that Coulter's speech being suppressed was just fine with him and you called him a "voice of reason".

Don't blame me for lumping you in. You praise that crap and them run from it when called to confirm your position.

I respect your clarified position on the matter, but being an ass with the insults when someone asks you a legitimate question, is hardly a high platform from which to attack another woman's speech.

I like to hang glide from the mountains above Pasadena. If I ever crash in your yard, Please don't bring that attitude. I'll probably need some love and pain meds.; 3/25/10, 5:32 PM
Jeremy said...: Pulling comments you don't like...Ann?; 3/25/10, 5:36 PM
Jeremy said...: Harsh Pencil said..."I haven't seen anyone here defend Ann Coulter. I've heard them defend free speech and attack the fact that of friends up north don't believe in it."

Oh, give me a fucking break.

Canadians believe in free speech, they also just think there are specific people who say horrible, hurtful things for no other reason than to sell their books...and paying someone like is a waste of money.

Maybe a few of the many disgusting quotes attributable to your heroine of free speech may be the reason they chose to forgo the opportunity to have her sully their campus:

Start off by addressing the charge that Canadians are being "fascists":

Coulter - "My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism."

Talking to a disabled Vietnam vet:
Coulter - "People like you caused us to lose that war."

Coulter - "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."
(Her ONLY regret.)

Coulter - "Congress could pass a law tomorrow requiring that all aliens from Arabic countries leave....We should require passports to fly domestically."
(Even the National Review found this offensive enough to fire her ass.)

Coulter - "I don't think there's anything offensive about any variation of faggy, faggotry, faggot, fag.” (Run that piece of "free speech" by any of your gay friends)

Yet here, you've got people calling the Canadians fascists, fragile, stupid, intolerant, and anything else their little minds can conjure up...because they just feel the need to defend "free speech?"

B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.

This is the same crowd that whines and bitches every time our own President gives a speech...because he uses a fucking teleprompter.

Or says or does literally anything they don't agree with...which is everything.

For YOU or anyone to think this is an exercise in defending "free speech" is nothing but a crock.

But of course, you already know that.; 3/25/10, 5:39 PM
mesquito said...: 'In Ottawa, the president of the student federation barred a volunteer organizer from putting up posters advertising the upcoming appearance.'

'"The federation does not support Ann Coulter speaking on our campus," said student president Seamus Wolfe. "We're trying to work with the administration to see if we can ask her to do her speaking event somewhere else."'
***
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2710026

When the Stalinist Angela Davis came and spoke at my campus, it sickened mn. But it never occurred to me to ban her.; 3/25/10, 5:39 PM
Fen said...: Hossier: Fen, and I say this with respect, courteousness and civility:

Are you really surprised FLS would hold that position?

Yes. I thought he was just another Useful Idiot for the Left.

Now I see he's a Little Eichmann. Libtard Bitch is moving up in the world, I guess....

So let see: Alpha, FLS and Jeremey all support of the criminalization of speech.

And isn't it ironic that if the laws they support were applied to them we'd never hear from them again.

And yes, when I say Little Eichmanns, I mean they are fair game when the walls come down.

The only good fascist is a dead one.; 3/25/10, 5:41 PM
Fen said...: What he said was,'promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges' to distinguish for her the difference between speaking in the US and Canada.

Pure PCBS.

In Canada, criticizing geese for flying south is "'promoting hatred against any identifiable group"

Politically Correct Bull Shit; 3/25/10, 5:45 PM
Jeremy said...: Petey - "I see you got your Nazi talking points today."

Now I'm a Nazi?

Peter, you REALLY need to get some help. I don't know if it's the booze or the meds but you appear to be taking a quantum leap into never-never land.

Maybe if someone were to tea bag you...would that help?

Talk to Michael, he seems open to suggestion.; 3/25/10, 5:48 PM
victoria said...: Alex, I have no problem with anyone with a point of view speaking in public. That is the American way. To be anything less is not true to the principles of democracy. Just because they are hate filled does not preclude them from being able to express their positions. I listen to hate mongers such as Cheney and his detestable daughter and Karl Rove spew out hate filled, lying rhetoric on television. The people at Fix(fox) news consider these people valid and I welcome their vitriol. Just makes me happier every day that we voted them out of office and in to public life. Maybe they will fade away, and soon.

Vicki from Pasadena; 3/25/10, 5:53 PM
Jeremy said...: mesquito said..."When the Stalinist Angela Davis came and spoke at my campus, it sickened mn. But it never occurred to me to ban her."

That's because you're not as smart as the Canadians.

Duh.; 3/25/10, 5:53 PM
Jeremy said...: Fen said..."Politically Correct Bull Shit"

Call it what you want, dipstick, but if it's a "law," it's a "law."

You also think hate crime laws are nothing more than PC...but thinking people don't agree.

The next time you're in a movie theatre, scream "FIRE" and if someone is injured...see if there are any consequences.

You really need to read more and talk less.; 3/25/10, 5:56 PM
Fen said...: Jeremy: Now I'm a Nazi?

Oh don't flatter yourself. At best, you're a Little Eichmann.

But I really think your politics is mere tribalism: you need a football team in your city to root for so you'll quit transfering that energy to politics. Because you'll forgive anything the Dems do and denounce anything the Repubs do to support your "team".

Because your entire self-worth is tied into being a Democrat who "cares". I would recommend an implant to correct your insecurity, but then you have no balls. So why bother.; 3/25/10, 5:57 PM
garage mahal said...: Oh look. It's the brave hippie killer.; 3/25/10, 5:58 PM
mesquito said...: Wll, Jeremy, I'll grant that I'm probably not as smart as a Canadian. But my momma once told me, "Mesquito, if it's easy, it ain't tolerance." I'm afraid liberals' moms don't tell them that.; 3/25/10, 5:59 PM
bagoh20 said...: "So let see: Alpha, FLS and Jeremey all support of the criminalization of speech."

If they didn't just spend this thread admitting it, I would have assumed it anyway. Liberals don't hold freedom very high as a value. It's more of an obstacle judging from what they say. The highest liberal value is equality, but since that is physically impossible and really just for the proletariat anyway, control moves to the top.

Coulter needs to be controlled, held down and duct taped, then strung up to warn the rest of us.; 3/25/10, 6:00 PM
A.W. said...: Jeremy

> They evidently have "laws" that address such speech or behavior.

Yes, fascist laws.

> The Canadians don't want nor need anyone (especially when paying for the opportunity) to promote "hatred against any identifiable group."

Except as I said repeatedly, the law is not evenly enforced. Mark Steyn was prosecuted for supposedly inciting hatred against Muslims, but his accuser had said horrifically anti-Semitic crap.

And even if it was evenly enforced, it would still be wrong. Government should never be in the business of regulating the content of speech with only the most narrow of exceptions.

I mean take her comments about Muslims. Well, it is a religion after all, that does teach certain things, and I can’t think of a more vital area of rational debate than whether it is compatible with free society. We never have any problem noticing that the religion of the Vikings led to their war-like culture. And we don’t have any problem noticing that early Mormonism led to bigamy, and indeed there are bigamists who to this day maintain that THEY are the real mormons. But if you dare suggest that Islam breeds hate, you are a hater. We want to pretend all faiths are rational and healthy when anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together knows that not all religions are created equal.

And I am not saying Islam is a hateful religion. But I am maintaining our right to debate that issue, which necessarily includes a lot of statements that you would apparently classify as hate speech and suppress like the little fascist you are.

Indeed the trial of mark steyn was so ridiculous that one of his charges stemmed from him supposedly comparing Muslims to mosquitos. The only problem? The offending statement was a direct quote (and marked as such) from a European imam, who meant it as a compliment.

But really this is healthy. This reveals more clearly than ever that many on the left are out and out fascists, who don’t believe in free speech, who don’t believe in the free exchange of ideas.

Peter

> BTW, you too are an indescribable sub-human low life. The kind of person people would avoid if they saw you collapse on the street.

Well, just don’t say that in Cannuckistan. You could be arrested for promoting hatred of fascist morons. (humor intended); 3/25/10, 6:00 PM
Fen said...: garage: garage mahal said...
Oh look. It's the brave hippie killer.

Oh look, its the perv that filches little boys. Go fuck yourself for a change, sicko.; 3/25/10, 6:00 PM
Jeremy said...: A.W. said..."Yes, fascist laws."

Who the fuck are YOU to tell Canadians what laws they should have...or what YOU think they represent?

The law I referenced isn't outlandish in any regard. It's no different than laws in America that prohibit specific kinds of speech or behavior.

Can I assume you've never heard of hate crime laws? Or how about screaming "FIRE" in a crowded theatre?

They just decided it wasn't worth the money or the risk of having this disgusting piece of shit speak, and possibly say something that would harm an individual or their reputation.

Speakers are canceled on a regular basis...for all kinds of reasons.

Get over it.; 3/25/10, 6:05 PM
A.W. said...: Jeremy

> Canadians believe in free speech, they also just think there are specific people who say horrible, hurtful things for no other reason than to sell their books...and paying someone like is a waste of money.

Lol, you keep pretending this is about payment, rather than criminalization.

> Yet here, you've got people calling the Canadians fascists, fragile, stupid, intolerant, and anything else their little minds can conjure up...because they just feel the need to defend "free speech?"

Ah, so suppression of speech is freedom of speech. Who knew? You do know that 1984 was a cautionary tale, right? right?

> This is the same crowd that whines and bitches every time our own President gives a speech...because he uses a fucking teleprompter.

Now why did you go and kill that straw man?

> Now I'm a Nazi?

Well, if the jackboot fits... certainly you are a fascist.

> Call it what you want, dipstick, but if it's a "law," it's a "law."

Well, there were laws in Germany that said that all Jews would be sent to the ovens. Yeah, it can be a law and still evil.

> The next time you're in a movie theatre, scream "FIRE" and if someone is injured...see if there are any consequences.

Notice you don’t even consider the possibility that there might actually be a fire.

But that is a limited exception and is content neutral. You want to expand it to ban points of view you just don’t like.; 3/25/10, 6:08 PM
Jeremy said...: A.W. - Get lost.

You're an idiot.; 3/25/10, 6:10 PM
Jeremy said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 3/25/10, 6:10 PM
bagoh20 said...: Jeremy said: "Call it what you want, dipstick, but if it's a "law," it's a "law.""

Great argument! Sign says: "Whites only" Jeremy says: That's a law, so I like it.

You are really pathetic, especially growing up in this, of all, countries. The idea that the suppression of human rights is fine because it's a law. That's genius.; 3/25/10, 6:11 PM
Fen said...: Libtard: Who the fuck are YOU to tell Canadians what laws they should have

Idiot. No one is telling Canadians what laws they have.

We're simply calling you out as a fascist pig for supporting such laws.

Ya know, when I was a liberal, one of my mentors taught me the quote "I may not agree with what you say but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it."

Democrats no longer believe this.; 3/25/10, 6:12 PM
Jeremy said...: Bag-O-Shit - "Liberals don't hold freedom very high as a value."

Right.

Between you, A.W., Petey and a few others...you're in a tight race to back of the I.Q. bus.

"Liberals" are who founded this country, you idiot.; 3/25/10, 6:13 PM
X said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 3/25/10, 6:13 PM
Fen said...: It's not "speech" the Canadians are opposed to, it's the kind of "speech" that could be construed as “promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges.”

Jeremy, this is so rich. Under Canadian law, you would be in jail most your life.

What a hypocrite.; 3/25/10, 6:14 PM
A.W. said...: Jeremy

> Who the fuck are YOU to tell Canadians what laws they should have...or what YOU think they represent?

Oh, so freedom, fascism, its all a matter of opinion and in our great diversity, we shouldn’t even put down those who advocate for fascism. Mmm, okay. In fact, I suspect you would say I was engaged in hate speech when I say that Cannuckistan’s laws are fascist, right?

> The law I referenced isn't outlandish in any regard.

Actually it is.

> It's no different than laws in America that prohibit specific kinds of speech or behavior.

No, those laws would be declared unconstitutional before you blinked. I mean in America you can burn our own flag. In America, Nazis can march through Jewish neighborhoods.

> Can I assume you've never heard of hate crime laws?

American hate crime laws require that an actual crime occurs, independent of the viewpoint of the speaker. Then if the crime is motivated by various kinds of “hate” they bump up the punishment. But the words themselves are not criminalized. If they do criminalize mere words, those laws are unconstitutional. And they have to be strictly viewpoint neutral in both language and enforcement. RAV v. St. Paul. This is black letter law, you fascist.

> They just decided it wasn't worth the money or the risk of having this disgusting piece of shit speak

Again, you continue to disssemble. They did more than that. They threatened her with prosecution if she said the wrong things.

Why can’t you tell the truth about what was going on up there? Oh, right, because it might expose this entire fascist thing.; 3/25/10, 6:17 PM
bagoh20 said...: Libtard: Who the fuck are YOU to tell Canadians what laws they should have"

God damn, it is just hopeless and apparently contagious. Sadly, I give up.; 3/25/10, 6:17 PM
Anonymous said...: The left has always talked about the "inherent contradictions" in capitalism or democracy. I would like to point out the "inherent contradiction" of yelling, screaming hate at someone to stop them from speaking about...hate.; 3/25/10, 6:18 PM
A.W. said...: Jeremy

> A.W. - Get lost.

> You're an idiot.

Translation: "Wah, wah, wah, you just intellectually b--ch slapped me."; 3/25/10, 6:19 PM
Fen said...: Libtard: "Liberals" are who founded this country, you idiot.

Irony. Libtard Jeremy thinks the "liberals" of the Left have any relation to the classic liberalism of the Revolution.

Newflash "idiot", Conservative are heirs to the Founders, not today's "liberal". You guys identify with Stalin, as demonstrated in this thread.; 3/25/10, 6:19 PM
hombre said...: You also think hate crime laws are nothing more than PC...but thinking people don't agree.

The next time you're in a movie theatre, scream "FIRE" and if someone is injured...see if there are any consequences.

A priceless Jeremy legal analogy. LOL!; 3/25/10, 6:22 PM
garage mahal said...: Fen has a weird preoccupation with cocks. Is there something you want to tell us? You never told us about your hippie killing story either. How did that all go down?; 3/25/10, 6:23 PM
mesquito said...: Jusw for the record, "fire in a crowded theatre" was the magic phrase Oliver Wendell Holmes uttered when sending a war protester to prison for espionage.; 3/25/10, 6:27 PM
X said...: Tell me if you've heard this one before..

Jeremy, Ann Coulter, the Canadian Prime Minister, and a rabbi walk into a burning Toronto bar and tell the bartender to suck their dicks...; 3/25/10, 6:27 PM
hombre said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 3/25/10, 6:28 PM
nrn312 said...: Now of course if her name was Mahmoud Achmedinejad she would have been warmly welcomed and probably been given an honorary doctorate.

Galloway was barred from Canada.

link; 3/25/10, 6:31 PM
traditionalguy said...: The lost truth here is that free speech is highly valuable because it exposes people's ideas. Forewarned, forearmed. Sadly that great known benefit of free speech is not enough for those that operate in Big Lie territory where a mere drop of truth will expose their propaganda edifice to powerlessness like Kryptonite to Superman. They must stop all speech out of fear of losing the power of their lies. Ask Google about China.; 3/25/10, 6:34 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 3/25/10, 6:34 PM
hombre said...: It is funny, that the only people who use that word in full here are people like you, alpha, and other cretins. It is curious that the rest of us refrain from the usage.

Yes, but the cretins use it for a good cause. Surely that makes it acceptable.

WV "gastessy" = I'm embarrassed that I can't think of something for this on a Jeremy thread.; 3/25/10, 6:40 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: And I gotta tell you: HD is far more patient than I would be.

Roger, thanks. I had to learn patience and self control as part of earing my 3rd degree black belt ;-)

Actually there are two possibilities to explain FLS's less than classy comment about my beloved Mrs. Hoosier. The first is that he was attempting to demonstrate by example albeit a personal one, the need for restrictive laws on speech because he probably thought I would be enraged that he said my wife was a whore and I'd tell him I'd remove his teeth with my fist if I ever met him. Then he could claim victory and call me a hypocrite.

See, earlier he quotes the Canadian law which forbids 'speech which incites hatred against an identifiable group which may result in a disturbance of the public peace, ie; violence.

See, I as an individual would not be considered a 'group' since that term is generally accepted as consisting of more than one. I don't even have a sibling. Then again his comment would not have incited hatred against a group but rather anger of an individual. Thus if we were in Canada, I would not be able to have him prosecuted under that law so I would have no choice but to kick the living shit out of him in order to satisfy my wife's honor.

If we were in Canada that is.

Thus his attempt to make point about the need for restrictive speech laws fails on all counts.

The second possibility is that FLS is simply a classless asshole. I will leave it up to him to clarify which possibility it is.; 3/25/10, 6:41 PM
Beau said...: What he said was,'promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges' to distinguish for her the difference between speaking in the US and Canada.

Pure PCBS.

Yep, go to Canada and publish your opinion that the holocaust didn't happen and is BS propaganda. Just make sure you bring a supply of KY for the prison romance you're gonna have while your there.; 3/25/10, 6:56 PM
A.W. said...: Jeremy

> The next time you're in a restaurant, start calling anybody who's black "nigger"...and see what happens.

What are you suggesting?

Are you saying that calling a black man a n----r is a crime? It is not. Words are not crimes, at least not in the land of the free.

Or do you buy into the stereotype that black people will just fly into an uncontrollable rage at hearing the word and pound you? Any random black people sitting down at a nice restaurant?

It isn’t true. And even if violence followed, guess what? There is no “he called me a bad name” defense in the law. Nor should there be. I don’t know about you, but my momma raised me right, to recognize that it was immoral to strike a person merely because of what they say.; 3/25/10, 7:13 PM
Eric said...: Yep, go to Canada and publish your opinion that the holocaust didn't happen and is BS propaganda.

If you do it from a mosque nobody'll do a damn thing.; 3/25/10, 7:24 PM
Fen said...: The second possibility is that FLS is simply a classless asshole

To be precise: The only reason FLS, Alpha, Jeremy, Garage et al are Democrats is because they needed moral permission to hate people who don't believe what they believe.

So its hysterical to see their faux outrage re "promoting hatred against any identifiable group"

Garage: [...]

Go away little child molestor.

Does your parole officer know you are violating the terms of your release by posting on the net? He should be told.; 3/25/10, 7:25 PM
Fen said...: "go to Canada and publish your opinion that the holocaust didn't happen and is BS propaganda"

Eric: If you do it from a mosque nobody'll do a damn thing.

Ding! We have a winner.

Nicely done.; 3/25/10, 7:27 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I don’t know about you, but my momma raised me right, to recognize that it was immoral to strike a person merely because of what they say.

Dalton: Be nice. It's nothing personal.

Steve: Being called a cocksucker isn't personal?

Dalton: No. It's two nouns combined to elicit a prescribed response.

Roadhouse, 1989; 3/25/10, 7:32 PM
Eric said...: I loved Roadhouse.

"Somehow I thought you'd be bigger."; 3/25/10, 7:35 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: We all know who the real racists are in society- the left. The Progressives. The Democratic Party. Remember, it was the Democrats who suppressed Black people for over forty years with welfare and housing projects. It was the Great Society programs that finally broke the back of the great Black Middle Class in large urban areas. It created great swaths of abject poverty, social destruction, and a loss of industry, manufacturing, and good jobs.

Don't know why you limit it to 40 years. Yes, LBJ's Great Society is the biggest reason for the Black underclass and esp. the destruction of the Black family.

BUT, the Democratic party has been involved in suppression of Blacks for almost all of its 200 year history. It was founded by slave owners, fought for slavery in the Civil War, imposed Jim Crow, staffed the Klan, resegregated the federal government (Wilson), provided almost all of the votes against the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s, etc.

So, what was new there with LBJ?; 3/25/10, 7:41 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Let me also point out that, even down here in the U.S., Coulter has to travel with body guards when on a speaking tour. This is a result of the type of violence that the left is accusing the tea parties of engaging in, but do engage in themselves.; 3/25/10, 7:43 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Tells you how much classier the Canadians are than the idiots who allow this degenerate piece of shit to speak about anything.

Well that's fine and good and Canada is within their rights as a sovereign nation to pass and enforce such laws. Just don't get moralistic that they have free speech and welcome a free exchange of ideas.

What you may not realize is that once you start banning 'offensive speech, you're well past the slipperly slope and are in full throttle to being a police state. For example, I can take offense at your constant offers to put your testicles in my mouth and have you arrested. Or I can take offense at someone whose work of art depicts an icon of my relgion in a pornographic setting.

See how it works Jeremy? If Coulter can be arrested for her nasty comments about gays, Muslims etc., I can start making my list for the cellblocks because your side has just as many 'degenarate pieces of shit' as the right.

Want to play that game or do you just want to admit that you, like others just want to ban speech you don't like?; 3/25/10, 7:44 PM
garage mahal said...: Fen
Stop talking about cocks and little boys every other post you fucking perv. Seriously. Why is it that it's always front and center in your mind.

Now tell us about your hippie killing story. C'mon, this is something we'd all love to hear.; 3/25/10, 8:15 PM
Blue@9 said...: Who the fuck are YOU to tell Canadians what laws they should have...or what YOU think they represent?

We live in America and are protected by the US Constitution. We can say whatever the fuck we want about Canada, you, or any other hippie douchebag. You can say whatever you want about me. And neither of us will go off to mommy gov't to complain about hurt feelings. See how that works?; 3/25/10, 8:37 PM
Blue@9 said...: Oh, and who are WE to tell Canada what to do? Who the fuck is Canada to tell us what to do? It's not as if you can ever get into a discussion with a Canadian without getting an endless droning lecture about how Canada is sooo superior and how they're less violent and more friendly. Fuck Canada.; 3/25/10, 8:40 PM
former law student said...: The only reason FLS, Alpha, Jeremy, Garage et al are Democrats

Excuse me?

I am a registered Republican, and have been for years. Before that, I belonged to no other party.; 3/25/10, 8:50 PM
former law student said...: My points:

1. Canada is not the same country as the US.

2. Canada prizes a different (but largely overlapping) set of values from the US.

3. Coulter violated Canadian values to the point where prudence dictated that her prospective host warn her where the limits of free speech in Canada were.

4. I tested the limits of free speech in America on Hoosier Daddy, making me no better than Ann Coulter. But I was prepared to be cuffed and punished for my offensiveness.; 3/25/10, 9:07 PM
Big Mike said...: I tested the limits of free speech in America on Hoosier Daddy, making me no better than Ann Coulter. But I was prepared to be cuffed and punished for my offensiveness.

Can I sell tickets so people can watch Hoosier cuff you?; 3/25/10, 9:26 PM
Big Mike said...: I'm trying to imagine FLS as a Republican.

Funniest thing I've read all day.; 3/25/10, 9:27 PM
former law student said...: Can I sell tickets so people can watch Hoosier cuff you?

If you donate the funds for the relief of some natural disaster, sure.

I'm trying to imagine FLS as a Republican.

Some time in the 90s, I took a political quiz to find where I sat on the left-right spectrum.

I tested a little to the right of Colin Powell.; 3/25/10, 9:44 PM
Cedarford said...: Blue@9 - "We live in America and are protected by the US Constitution."

No, the Constitution is just a piece of paper. America is protected by the Will of it's people and it's willingness to enforce what it wants by putting it down on pieces of paper as well as communicating expected norms not on any piece of paper to others - from family rules to etiquette in social groups to national cultural norms.

And by the willingness to commit Americans to go in harms way with weapons - or send Missy to bed without dinner if she is acting like a hissy bitch brat.

We don't live our lives much differently than citizens of other nations who happen to be bereft of our "Sacred Parchment".

For most of our history, factors like "2 big oceans", "controlled immigration", "tariffs to help develop America as a technologically and scientifically advanced nation" were far more important in protecting us and making a strong, prosperous and free country than the lawyers "Sacred Parchment".; 3/25/10, 9:45 PM
Synova said...: "Ya know, when I was a liberal, one of my mentors taught me the quote "I may not agree with what you say but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it."

Democrats no longer believe this."

As recently as 10 years ago it was a common sig-quote all over the internet. Guaranteed, when you saw it, it was in the signature block of a confirmed liberal.

A person just doesn't see that any more. It's disappeared. Completely.

It is very liberal in outlook, that quote. And it still is the essence of an aggressive liberal belief in liberty and what is necessary to the expression of the human soul.

I don't know when the fascists took over, the "offensive speech isn't free speech" people took over... but they did.

I'm waiting for a similar abandonment of "well behaved women seldom make History" just as soon as someone realizes that it includes Palin.

Heart held truths are like that...

... inconvenient.

And so they have to go.; 3/25/10, 10:01 PM
Ken Pidcock said...: It's difficult to imagine a stronger argument for unrestricted free speech than the observation that, otherwise, you get rational people expressing admiration for Ann Coulter and Mark Steyn.; 3/25/10, 10:09 PM
Synova said...: "But my momma once told me, "Mesquito, if it's easy, it ain't tolerance." I'm afraid liberals' moms don't tell them that."

I just wanted to say that this is brilliant.

I don't expect that those who don't already get it will suddenly get it, though, or they'd understand it already.; 3/25/10, 10:12 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Can I sell tickets so people can watch Hoosier cuff you?

Remember, I have that self control and discipline thing from my martial arts training.

But I'm pretty sure I have the strength to physically restrain Mrs. Hoosier from turning him into pate`

I think I do anyway.; 3/25/10, 10:17 PM
Synova said...: "It's difficult to imagine a stronger argument for unrestricted free speech than the observation that, otherwise, you get rational people expressing admiration for Ann Coulter and Mark Steyn."

I do absolutely admire Mark Steyn.

That said -- this is well put and to the point. Restrictions on speech are not useful if one opposes the speech that is being restricted. Trying to restrict Ann Coulter gives her power that she wouldn't have otherwise. Restricting Holocaust deniers in Europe gives them power.

How many people do you suppose the Westborough family of pond scum has converted? Now, how many people who might otherwise be open to the idea that God punishes nations for sin have been pushed the other way, to affirm that the notion is vile and have been moved to defend homosexuals even if they wouldn't have otherwise done so?

The fear of letting people speak depends on a belief that people are stupid sheep that will listen to Ann Coulter and what she says and not have the sense of self or moral strength to dismiss the outrageousness even if they find she has moments of insight as well. It's got to be all hate of her or else, apparently, unquestioning agreement.

So who is preaching hate if in order to be a good person we're supposed to hate the proper people?; 3/25/10, 10:21 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I tested the limits of free speech in America on Hoosier Daddy, making me no better than Ann Coulter. But I was prepared to be cuffed and punished for my offensiveness.

Actually you didn't do any such thing since you asked for the HRC to come after you (look at your post). See we don't have such a group in the US (yet I will add) so your test fails yet again. Nice try though since even by Canadian standards it wouldn't rise to the level of their statute as a crime.

Why not just admit you either are a piss poor former law student who can't draw legal parallels or a classless jackass. I think we both know the answer to that. Whether you have the balls to admit it is another story.; 3/25/10, 10:21 PM
Big Mike said...: Some time in the 90s, I took a political quiz to find where I sat on the left-right spectrum. I tested a little to the right of Colin Powell.

So what happened in the intervening decade and a half? An aneurysm? A hard blow to the head? A partial lobotomy? I mean, something happened to move you to the left wing lunatic fringe.; 3/25/10, 10:24 PM
Adam said...: Big Mike,

The only explanation of FLS's reported score on the test of his political views that makes any sense is dyslexia.; 3/25/10, 10:59 PM
Ann Althouse said...: I've deleted comments writing out the n-word.

I'm preserving and editing this from long-time commenter Peter V. Bella (which begins with a quote from Jeremy):

"The next time you're in a restaurant, start calling anybody who's black "n*gger"...and see what happens."

Does that word roll off your tongue like semen Jeremy? It is funny, that the only people who use that word in full here are people like you, alpha, and other cretins. It is curious that the rest of us refrain from the usage.

We all know who the real racists are in society- the left. The Progressives. The Democratic Party. Remember, it was the Democrats who suppressed Black people for over forty years with welfare and housing projects. It was the Great Society programs that finally broke the back of the great Black Middle Class in large urban areas. It created great swaths of abject poverty, social destruction, and a loss of industry, manufacturing, and good jobs.

It was race traitors who got elected who kept heir own people down. Reliant on the entitlements of the state. The practiced the politics of poverty to keep their own jobs and their people enslaved and shackled to the welfare system.

It was the Democrats in the South who legislated and enforced the Jim Crow Laws. Even a Demcoratic Senator is a Ku Klux Klan leader. Until the mid 1960s, Southern Blacks were Republicans- those who were actually allowed to vote. Martin Luther King was originally a Republican.

Funny how the Progressives are the real racists in society. I'll bet all the boys admire you strutting down the boulevard in your Purple SEIU shirt, jackboots, riding crop, pince nez, and Death's Head Hat.

You are a disgusting subhuman being. A non-person of no worth. A total waste of oxygen and DNA. Please tell us you are not allowed to breed.

You are living proof that post natal abortion should be legalized.

Your own mother would practice it.; 3/25/10, 11:12 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Geez, who told C4 that it was Old Home Week? I haven't seen this much concentrated nonsense about teh Jooooz for ages...; 3/25/10, 11:36 PM
Alex said...: Ann obviously agrees with Peter's assessment You are a disgusting subhuman being. right?; 3/25/10, 11:38 PM
Fen said...: I've deleted comments writing out the n-word.

Just wish you would apply the same standard to other racial slurs used here. Dont know why a woman of your intelligence would apply a different standard when it involves blacks.

Do you think they are lesser?; 3/26/10, 12:00 AM
Fen said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 3/26/10, 12:02 AM
Fen said...: "I've deleted comments writing out the n-word."

Just wish you would apply the same standard to other racial slurs used here. Dont know why a woman of your intelligence would apply a different standard when it involves blacks.

Or at least just say you're doing it because net filters will block your post. You can't even spell out the n-word when cautioning against its use... makes you look ridiculous.; 3/26/10, 12:09 AM
Derek Kite said...: This issue in Canada has been almost a Rorschach test as to sanity. It looks like it has smoked out some idiots here too.

Don't bother arguing with these idiots. If someone doesn't recognize the value of free speech in a free and democratic society, they are beyond help.

Derek; 3/26/10, 12:32 AM
Kirk Parker said...: FLS,

"I am a registered Republican, and have been for years."

Well no wonder the party has fallen on such hard times!; 3/26/10, 12:35 AM
veni vidi vici said...: FLS@11:57 a.m. 3/25/10:

That extended excerpt with quotes/paraphrases from her article made one thing clear: she is a comedienne more than anything else.

If you don't recognize the parallels to Lenny Bruce and other sharp-tongued/witted players of the ethnic-stereotyping card (remember TV shows like All in the Family, or Sanford & Son, or the Jeffersons? Richard Pryor?), you might not be old enough.

Not that what she's quoted as saying isn't offensive to some/most people, sure it is. But to say that for that reason she shouldn't be permitted to speak before an audience ("Words, just words..." -- B. Hero Obama) is to overstep the bounds of polite society into incivility oneself. As David Bowie and Pat Metheny once sang, "This is not America..."

The hypersensitivity culture has radically altered people's perception of where lies the boundary between manners and the state's enforcement intervention over the past 25-30 years. Things sure ain't what they used to be.

Looks like the baby boomers rolled up the "freedom agenda" when they got middle-aged and conventional. Sad for their children, to have to live under such hypocritical exemplars as they.; 3/26/10, 2:30 AM
Kirk Parker said...: Geez, who told C4 that it was Old Home Week? I haven't seen so much concentrated nonsense about teh Jooooz in a long time...; 3/26/10, 2:44 AM
Anonymous said...: So Cedarford and Jeremy came out to play today and there were big fireworks. Sorry, I missed it.

Cedarford: Jews are richer than you are and more powerful than you are. And the women are totally hot.

Jeremy: Duh, you and fuck you, you fuckity fuck face cock-sucking, motherfucking motherfucker.; 3/26/10, 4:31 AM
A.W. said...: It seems that Ann is deleting posts with the n-word spelled out, but willing to allow you to use other euphamisms like the “n-word.” Fair enough, its her blog and someone suggested it was designed to keep her post from being filtered, and she has a right to protect herself from that, too.

So let me first reprint something I wrote to Jeremy, so if Ann deletes the original, my thought is at least preserved. That is the response I made to Jeremy at about 10 pm last night.

Jeremy

> The next time you're in a restaurant, start calling anybody who's black "n----r"...and see what happens.

What are you suggesting?

Are you saying that calling a black man a n----r is a crime? It is not. Words are not crimes, at least not in the land of the free.

Or do you buy into the stereotype that black people will just fly into an uncontrollable rage at hearing the word and pound you? Any random black people sitting down at a nice restaurant?

It isn’t true. And even if violence followed, guess what? There is no “he called me a bad name” defense in the law. Nor should there be. I don’t know about you, but my momma raised me right, to recognize that it was immoral to strike a person merely because of what they say.

Former

> I am a registered Republican, and have been for years.

Right. As republican as Bernie Sanders. There isn’t a single person, whether they like you or not, who believes you are a republican.

> 1. Canada is not the same country as the US.

And you think that somehow excuses their fascism. I mean Germany was not the same country as the United States in 1939. A few million jews murdered is just a matter of national sovereignty and cultural relativism?

> But I was prepared to be cuffed and punished for my offensiveness.

Then you are an idiot. No free society would criminalize what you said. And as foul as you have been, no one is justified in hurting you. At most you might be sued for defamation, except that 1) everyone is anonymous here, and 2) no one is dumb enough to take your childishness seriously.

Synova

> It is very liberal in outlook,

I would say it is more classically Liberal, than say, progressive. I mean just recently the supreme court said that it was okay to make and advertise a movie criticizing a candidate for office before an election. You would think the progressives would cheer striking a blow for freedom of speech. But no, it is pretty clear that the fascist wing of the democratic party is firmly in charge these days.; 3/26/10, 7:50 AM
former law student said...: the subject was criminal speech. Big Mike changed the subject to private vengeance, "self-help" if you will. That was fine with me.; 3/26/10, 7:51 AM