# Canadian Civil Libertarians Defend Coulter



## Gordon Nore (Mar 25, 2010)

Interesting discussions going on up here about Ann Coulter's three-city speaking tour. At one event she got into an exchange with a 17-year-old Muslim student who she told to go back on a camel to where he came from. No big surprise there. Before speaking in Ottawa the president at the UofO admonished her in a letter of Canada's hate laws. She went public with the letter, causing security to be doubled, threats made, and ultimately a canceled event.

Now the Canadian Civil Liberties Union is defending her right to speak, saying that even offensive speech needs an airing. Naturally, the who debacle has allowed Coulter to be cast as a free speech martyr. The Ottawa Citizen newspaper has an interesting editorial on the episode.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/op-ed/real+threat+civil+discourse/2723156/story.html

Other articles.




> *Coulter's free speech right defended *
> 
> Toronto Star - Joanna Smith - &#8206;33 minutes ago&#8206;
> OTTAWA&#8211;They believe her words can be racist, hateful and ignorant, but she should be free to say them - just as others should be allowed to tell her to shut up.
> ...


----------



## Scott T (Mar 25, 2010)

As an aquaintance on another board told me, even a cow has to moo once in a while.


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 25, 2010)

It's always interesting to see how quick *liber*als are to shut down speech that they don't agree with.

That word... I do not think it means what you think it means.


----------



## Carol (Mar 25, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> It's always interesting to see how quick *liber*als are to shut down speech that they don't agree with.
> 
> That word... I do not think it means what you think it means.



And in the process, she got far more coast-to-coast press in both of our countries than she ever would have dreamed of getting had her talks gone without incident.  Methinks her publishers are planning to increase the supply of her books sent to Canadian outlets now.  

Congratulations Ottawa, you've played right in to her hands.


----------



## Scott T (Mar 25, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> It's always interesting to see how quick *liber*als are to shut down speech that they don't agree with.
> 
> That word... I do not think it means what you think it means.


 
Really? You're in favour of Coulter telling a 17-year-old student that while she should by summarily banned from flying because she's a Muslim she can ride a flying carpet instead or, barring that, a camel?

Carol, it wasn't the Government that shut Coulter down, it was the University of Ottawa itself. 

I still contend she should be put on the same no-entry list as Michael Weiner.


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 25, 2010)

Scott T said:


> Really? You're in favour of Coulter telling a 17-year-old student that while she should by summarily banned from flying because she's a Muslim she can ride a flying carpet instead or, barring that, a camel?
> 
> Carol, it wasn't the Government that shut Coulter down, it was the University of Ottawa itself.
> 
> I still contend she should be put on the same no-entry list as Michael Weiner.


 
You really _are_ unclear on this "liberal" thing, aren't you?

OT: LOL at the Ann Coulter - Free! ad that displayed at the top of the page.


----------



## Scott T (Mar 25, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> You really _are_ unclear on this "liberal" thing, aren't you?


 Don't be shy, 'splain it to me.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Mar 25, 2010)

Indeed, Carol, that's been the tenor of many of the editorials on the matter. People want to confront her for her views, I'm fine with it. To raise the threat of violence is another matter, which does indeed play into her hands.



> It's always interesting to see how quick *liber*als are to shut down speech that they don't agree with.


People who threaten violence are not liberals, nor are they conservatives. Liberal ideology emphasizes open-mindedness and tolerance; conservative ideology reflects restraint. Neither philosophy, in and of itself, lends itself to the thuggery of threatening Ann Coulter up here or Democratic legislators down your way. 



> That word... I do not think it means what you think it means.


I do. Down your way it's an epithet of some sort, denoting someone who lacks restraint and is responsible for everything that ever went wrong in America. They manage to undermine the Republic even when conservatives are running the show. They dislike guns so much they grab 'em up, pose as conservatives, and shoot other liberals. Scary bunch.

Here, the word, "Liberal," is the name of a centrist party.


----------



## Grenadier (Mar 25, 2010)

Scott T said:


> Really? You're in favour of Coulter telling a 17-year-old student that while she should by summarily banned from flying because she's a Muslim she can ride a flying carpet instead or, barring that, a camel?


 
Tolerance is a two way street.  Even if you don't like what the other guy has to say, you should still respect his right to say it, as long as what he says isn't in violation of the laws of the land.  You don't have to agree with it, and you can certainly fight against it using whatever *legal* means, but at least you must respect someone's right to say as they please.  

The ignorant crowd who screams "Ann Coulter is a hate mongering bigot and should be forbidden from ever speaking again!" needs to understand the old phrase of "pot...  kettle...  kettle...  pot..."

On another note, in some countries, the Liberal party is actually a very conservative one...


----------



## Carol (Mar 25, 2010)

Scott T said:


> Carol, it wasn't the Government that shut Coulter down, it was the University of Ottawa itself.




...which is funded by the Province of Ontario, the employees of the University of Ottawa are Provincial employees, btw.

But..either way, I never intended to mean it was Ottawa the seat of government that shut her out, I was referring to the city/uni itself.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Mar 25, 2010)

Grenadier said:


> Tolerance is a two way street.  Even if you don't like what the other guy has to say, you should still respect his right to say it, as long as what he says isn't in violation of the laws of the land.  You don't have to agree with it, and you can certainly fight against it using whatever *legal* means, but at least you must respect someone's right to say as they please.



I suspect that much of the crowd were young students, idealistic, full of piss and vinegar. I also suspect they were outraged by the camel comment. I`m not excusing threatening behaviour, but passions run high in these settings, and this is a good opportunity for university educators to educate. In a university setting, one should be open to a `universe` of ideas.

As for respect for opposing views, Coulter herself has never demonstrated that, which makes her highly suspect as a guest speaker in a college or university. She is polarizing. She is a lightening rod.

Probably the best thing to do, if one loathes Coulter as much as I, is not to bother showing for her speech. Don`t spend the money. Don`t give her the satisfaction.


----------



## blindsage (Mar 25, 2010)

I'm just confused where are all the ACLU haters now?  It's the CCLA so it's different?  They're defending somebody you like so it's different?  



CoryKS said:


> It's always interesting to see how quick *liber*als are to shut down speech that they don't agree with.
> 
> That word... I do not think it means what you think it means.


Sooo, the CCLA isn't liberal to you?


----------



## Gordon Nore (Mar 25, 2010)

blindsage said:


> I'm just confused where are all the ACLU haters now?  It's the CCLA so it's different?  They're defending somebody you like so it's different?
> 
> Sooo, the CCLA isn't liberal to you?



When it comes to speech, I tend to see civil libertarians as free speech (or 2nd Amendment) absolutists, which is a rare species. Many people across the political spectrum 'say' they believe in free speech, myself included, but when the rubber hits the road, many of us find exceptions.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 25, 2010)

Gordon Nore said:


> Liberal ideology emphasizes open-mindedness and tolerance; conservative ideology reflects restraint.



Well, I think it's a two-way street, and neither liberals nor conservatives have acquitted themselves very well.

I still remember the attempts at passing 'hate radio' and 'hate speech' laws made by liberals in the USA, aimed at shutting down people like Rush Limbaugh.  They're all for free speech, but not from him.

Likewise, I remember the demonstrations against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he was invited to speak at Columbia University by conservatives.  Seems freedom of speech is not for those who say bad things about the USA and Israel.

Both sides paint the other as 'intolerant' and the truth is, they both are. It just depends upon whose ox is being gored.

And yes, it kind of sounds like Coulter is playing the media like a fiddle.

I have liberal friends who send me emails and tweets telling me the latest outrage about this conservative said this and that hater said that, and I have conservative friends and relatives who send me emails telling me about the latest outrage by this liberal politician and that liberal media talking head.  Meh.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Mar 25, 2010)

Gordon Nore said:


> When it comes to speech, I tend to see civil libertarians as free speech (or 2nd Amendment) absolutists, which is a rare species. Many people across the political spectrum 'say' they believe in free speech, myself included, but when the rubber hits the road, many of us find exceptions.



Ooops. That would be the 1st Amendment.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Mar 25, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Well, I think it's a two-way street, and neither liberals nor conservatives have acquitted themselves very well.
> 
> I still remember the attempts at passing 'hate radio' and 'hate speech' laws made by liberals in the USA, aimed at shutting down people like Rush Limbaugh.  They're all for free speech, but not from him.
> 
> ...



Quite so. That is why I believe there are very few true free speech absolutists -- I'm as guilty as the next on that score.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 25, 2010)

Gordon Nore said:


> Quite so. That is why I believe there are very few true free speech absolutists -- I'm as guilty as the next on that score.



I try not to get sucked in, but I've had my moments too.

I was living in Colorado when the KKK came to town.  I stayed away; I'm not interested in what they have to say, and I'm not interested in playing into their hands by going downtown and protesting or fighting them.  There was a riot, a young girl was nearly killed.  No point to it.

I was living in Wisconsin years later, same thing.  Only this time, the town involved put on an alternative event at the same time as the hate rally elsewhere in the city and invited everyone to come.  It was a huge success, and the KKK had very few people to scream at on their bullhorns.  They eventually left.

I hate that Fred Phelps and his people are allowed to gather near funerals for servicemen and scream the obscenities and abuse and hatred that they do; but I cannot be one of the 'patriots' who tries to intimidate, assault, or prevent them from behaving badly either.

There are lots of things people say that I disagree with; some things which I hate; some things which make my blood boil.  But in order to support the notions that I claim are sacred to me about my nation, I have to suck it up and move on.  The right to free speech means the right to say things I don't want to hear.

Freedom is not necessarily fun all the time.  It can be damned hard work.


----------



## Carol (Mar 25, 2010)

Free speech: Right, as stated in the 1st and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution to express information, ideas, and opinions  free of *government restrictions* based on content.

Passing hate crime laws to restrict Rush Limbaugh:  violation of the first amendment

A private university's choice of speaker is not covered under first amendment protection.


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 25, 2010)

funny, people defending Anne Coulter's right to free speech and to say what she wants and feels

when people like her would turn around and take every one of your rights away in a heart beat if they could. You think she'd respect you? Hah!

I've known lots of religious conservative nutters like her.

and btw I've seen her, and often think, No wonder she is pretty. She must have been born with most of her good qualities on the outside. =]


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 25, 2010)

Carol said:


> A private university's choice of speaker is not covered under first amendment protection.



I agree.  However, attempts made to stifle speech that others do not wish to hear as opposed to simply not listening to it are not the actions of a person who supports the notion of freedom of speech, as one might suppose a university would do.

And in any case, Canada has no first amendment.


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 25, 2010)

just read the article in the toronto sun.

and in it apparently this is what she said about us after bush won his second term in office.

2004 George Bush won a second term as a president of the United  States after a race in which some democrats lamented they'd move to  Canada if Bush defeated Al Gore. Weeks later, Ann Coulter appeared on  Fox. Here's what she said:

"The worst Americans end up going (to Canada). The Tories after  the Revolutionary War, the Vietnam draft dodgers after Vietnam and now  after this election we even have blue states moving up there . . .


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



They better hope the United States doesn't roll over one night  and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same  continent. 
They don't even need to have an army, because they are protected,  because they're on the same continent with the United States of America  , , , we're their trading partner. We keep their economy afloat." 



Yeah, like I'm gonna respect someone like that *rolls eyes*


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 25, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> funny, people defending Anne Coulter's right to free speech and to say what she wants and feels
> 
> when people like her would turn around and take every one of your rights away in a heart beat if they could. You think she'd respect you? Hah!
> 
> ...



The Klan, the Neo-Nazis, and other hate groups have long marched, demonstrated, and exercised their free speech rights in the USA.  As you say, they would clearly deny some of us those same rights if given the opportunity.  And yet, the ACLU has consistently defended them in court, defended their right so say the most vile and hateful things.  And rightfully so, too.

The fact that you think little of Ann Coulter is no reason to restrict her freedom of speech, even if you feel she'd deny you that same right if she could.

The fact that you think it's OK to deny freedom of speech to people with whom you do not agree does not speak well for your dedication to liberty.  Liberty is not just allowing civil liberties to those we agree with.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 25, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> Yeah, like I'm gonna respect someone like that *rolls eyes*



Respecting a civil liberty is not the same as respecting the opinion of the person uttering garbage like hers.  It is important to be able to separate the right to speak from what is being said.


----------



## Carol (Mar 25, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree.  However, attempts made to stifle speech that others do not wish to hear as opposed to simply not listening to it are not the actions of a person who supports the notion of freedom of speech, as one might suppose a university would do.



Or that people appreciate said freedoms of their own.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 25, 2010)

OK, I was going to skip this thread, but what the Hell.

Firstly one of my friends was very involved in bringing Ann up here to speak, secondly I am a member of the conservative movement up here.

Ann does not, as far as I can tell, in anyway represent main stream people on this side of the border or south of the border. She represents a hard right group. Quite frankly a group that sometimes scares me.

As for her being a Christian, so what? Hell Im an atheist and I would like to see nothing better then all of the worlds religions go the way of the dodo, but Christianity and all other religions are not illegal, she can think whatever she wants. If she wants to worship a Pineapple, I have no problem with it just so long as she gets no special treatment because of it. 

I disagree with a great deal of what she says, but as long as she is not telling people to go out and kill other people, she should be able to say as she wishes.

Jacklyn, yes she had a bit of an anti Canadian rant there, but she was playing up to an American audience. Seriously? Check out some of our serving politicians and some of their anti American rants. Ann at least is not an elected official. 

I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.


----------



## Ramirez (Mar 25, 2010)

Carol said:


> ...which is funded by the Province of Ontario, the employees of the University of Ottawa are Provincial employees, btw.
> 
> But..either way, I never intended to mean it was Ottawa the seat of government that shut her out, I was referring to the city/uni itself.


 
From what I read it was Coulter's handlers in conjunction with the university that made the decision to cancel the speech so Coulter censured herself.  

 As for Coulter trying to use Houle's letter as a breach of human rights against her.

 1) it was a private email no matter how misguided

2) it was leaked to the National Post a conservative newspaper,  by who else except Coulter's people, had they not done that no one would have been the wiser of the university administrator's letter.


----------



## JDenver (Mar 25, 2010)

My opinion is that we shouldn't miss the point on this one.

No one actually prevented her from speaking.  

The University didn't.  The Ottawa police didn't.  There were piles of people peacefully protesting her appearance.  So many people, in fact, that police and her own security were worried about what COULD happen.  So, they canceled it.  How is THAT a violation of free speech?

She fanned the flames, made everything public, got all up in arms about it so that she could have more press, which is basically why she exists - to vacuum up publicity.

[At least things here are civil.  I was just on another board where guys were going berserk; why are there women's groups at universities anyways?!  why can muslims say whatever they want but no one else can?!  

Ugly stuff.]


----------



## Ramirez (Mar 25, 2010)

I have to add the hypocrisy here is apparent, none of the conservative commentators in Canada who are now such champions of free speech defended George Galloway's right to free speech when the Harper government banned him from entering the country.

It also occurs to me that those demonstrating university students were also exercising their right to free speech, if Coulter was cowed into not appearing that is her problem, not a matter of free speech being censured in Canada unlike the Galloway situation where he was censured by the government.


----------



## Ramirez (Mar 25, 2010)

JDenver said:


> My opinion is that we shouldn't miss the point on this one.
> 
> No one actually prevented her from speaking.
> 
> ...


 
Exactly, apparently no one wants to recognize the university students' right to free speech , only poor Ann deserves that consideration.


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 25, 2010)

Maybe I am just not as nice as you guys. 

and maybe that comes from suffering a lifetime of abuse.

I just know that you can't always be nice, because the world isnt nice.

now I draw the line when sometimes people - and my dad was one of em - saying "let the US torture prisoners at guantanamo bay because they would have done the same to our side" I dont believe in torture.

But I'm not saying go out and do anything to Ann Coulter. I just dont believe the welcome mat should be rolled out with all the trimmings because I know if people like her could, they wouldnt be treating us very well either.

I just love the way they cry out 'respect our free speech' and they try to hide behind the charter of rights and freedoms (or the american equivalent) while they actually promote the opposite view. In reality they dont respect the charter.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 25, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> In reality they dont respect the charter.



If you don't respect the charter on the grounds that they don't respect the charter, that condemns both parties.

The right to freedom of speech either exists or it does not.  If it is not recognized because the person speaking is loathsome, then it does not exist.  Period.

You would deny a right to someone based on your belief that they would deny you that same right.  That makes you both the same.


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 25, 2010)

i would deny her right? I didnt say ban her. I just wouldnt spread out my arms and wrap her in a hug.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 25, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> i would deny her right? I didnt say ban her. I just wouldnt spread out my arms and wrap her in a hug.



Fair enough.  Sounded like you were saying the opposite, my bad.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Mar 25, 2010)

Very important point made that no one ordered Coulter not to speak -- the letter from the VP of UofO was, at the very least, a naive move that backfired. She is partly the author of the escalation of this debacle. 

Also, Coulter's lambasted Canada before, as in the following video of an interview with a CBC reporter in which she erroneously maintained that Canada participated in the Vietnam war. It also includes the comments that blade alluded to above.






I could give a fiddler's fart that Ann doesn't like Canada or insults us. If Coulter and her ilk ever began to look fondly upon us, I would feel we were doing something very wrong. If somebody up here wants to spend Canadian $ to bring her here, that's there prerogative. Defending her right to speak is not the same as defending what she says. I think it's ludicrous for Canadians to invite someone who regards us with such condescension, but that's their problem.


----------



## Ramirez (Mar 25, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Firstly one of my friends was very involved in bringing Ann up here to speak, secondly I am a member of the conservative movement up here.
> 
> Ann does not, as far as I can tell, in anyway represent main stream people on this side of the border or south of the border. She represents a hard right group. Quite frankly a group that sometimes scares me.
> 
> ...


 

 Is your friend Ezra Levant Ken?  I have to ask why your friend would think it would serve any useful purpose to bring Coulter to Canada?

 I can't believe he would think she would have anything constructive or interesting to add to the discourse up here, he must have known it would deteriorate into the side show it has ended up as.

 Was he just being mischievious? Rabble rousing, pot stirring?

 Surely in the vast galaxy of conservative commentators he could have found someone with more gravitas and intelligence that might actually sway some people into the conservative camp instead of just polarizing the populace.


----------



## blindsage (Mar 25, 2010)

I honestly sometimes think Ann Coulter is Andy Kaufman's final and greatest joke.


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 25, 2010)

I think she is scary.

I just found this about her.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/912606.html

I even just listened to a little interview she gave on the tv. In which she said we're a nice 'little' country. Say what? 

Its just - scary what people like her would do if they ever got the chance.


----------



## Carol (Mar 25, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> Exactly, apparently no one wants to recognize the university students' right to free speech , only poor Ann deserves that consideration.



Which "no one" are you referring to, and which "right to free speech" are you referencing?


----------



## Ramirez (Mar 25, 2010)

Carol said:


> Which "no one" are you referring to, and which "right to free speech" are you referencing?


 
I was referring to the columnists in the Canadian papers....as for which "right to free speech" am I referencing......there is more than one right to free speech?


----------



## Carol (Mar 25, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> I was referring to the columnists in the Canadian papers....



Ahh...much clearer....thanks 



> as for which "right to free speech" am I referencing......there is more than one right to free speech?



(Sorry this is going to sound wicked ignorant) Do you folks have a legal/chartered right to free speech?   Or were you saying so in reference to an overall freedom?  

Sorry for the questions...I'm finding the conversation interesting and just want to be clear that I'm not interpreting something the wrong way.


----------



## Ramirez (Mar 25, 2010)

Carol said:


> Ahh...much clearer....thanks
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 We have a charter of rights and freedoms , not sure how free speech is addressed in it though.


----------



## Ramirez (Mar 25, 2010)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectio..._of_Rights_and_Freedoms#Freedom_of_expression


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 25, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> Is your friend Ezra Levant Ken? I have to ask why your friend would think it would serve any useful purpose to bring Coulter to Canada?


 
 Nope! Someone else!

Folks think of something. You can hire anyone to speak for any event.
I think Ann is 10K a pop. Pay her fee, sell 800 tickets @ 25? 50? $75 dollars, rent a hall, hire security, advertise, and you make a good bit of coin.

This has very little to do with politics and much to do with making $$. I've seen many famous people speak, everyone of them were paid good money to do it. I've organised events and paid speakers, its all very easy to do. Do it right, and you can end up with a years salary in your pocket. do it wrong and you can lose your shirt.

There was a great deal of money spent organising this event, someone owes the organisers a good bit of coin. If I'm the organiser I'm making a phone call to the University, to the city, to the studnets and to my lawyer. I want my expenses covered.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Mar 25, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> i would deny her right? I didnt say ban her. I just wouldnt spread out my arms and wrap her in a hug.



Not even a bear hug? :uhyeah:


----------



## Scott T (Mar 25, 2010)

Carol said:


> ...which is funded by the Province of Ontario, the employees of the University of Ottawa are Provincial employees, btw.
> 
> But..either way, I never intended to mean it was Ottawa the seat of government that shut her out, I was referring to the city/uni itself.


 Oops.


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 25, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Fair enough.  Sounded like you were saying the opposite, my bad.



*laughs* Oh no! Dont mean that. Wouldnt ban her. What I think is, Ok, let her talk. but considering what she believes in and she really aint here for anything good dont like...Oh I dont know. Fix her a turkey dinner or something while she's here. or take her home and bake her a sweet potato pie. let her come let her talk but dont go overboard with the welcome....like wrap her in a hug :uhyeah:



SensibleManiac said:


> Not even a bear hug? :uhyeah:



maybe if a bear was doing the hugging....Kidding!


----------



## Ramirez (Mar 26, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Nope! Someone else!
> 
> Folks think of something. You can hire anyone to speak for any event.
> I think Ann is 10K a pop. Pay her fee, sell 800 tickets @ 25? 50? $75 dollars, rent a hall, hire security, advertise, and you make a good bit of coin.
> ...


 
All this over a frickin concert tour?  Tell your buddy to book Deep Purple instead next time!


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 26, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> All this over a frickin concert tour? Tell your buddy to book Deep Purple instead next time!


 
Dude she's a stunner, she can book whomever she wants....


----------



## Ramirez (Mar 26, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Dude she's a stunner, she can book whomever she wants....


 

The digital age demands pictures.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 26, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> The digital age demands pictures.


 
If you know where to look, they're all over the net....


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 26, 2010)

Carol said:


> Ahh...much clearer....thanks
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It falls under "Freedom of Expression", but hate-speech is not covered or protected, and in some cases (ex advocating genocide) can be considered criminal.

Inciting hatred or advocating violence against a group of people is not protected speech and is a criminal offense.  However I suspect it is a rather hard thing to get yourself charged with under ordinary circumstances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada


----------



## Ramirez (Mar 26, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> If you know where to look, they're all over the net....


 
huh? PM me.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Apr 1, 2010)

As I understand it, Coulter was specifically told that _hate speech_ is illegal in Ottawa, and that she could be arrested for _hate speech_--not for her conservative views. There's a big difference.

But it's the CCLA who are the liberals. I can't stand Coulter myself, but I defend her right to express her imbecilic ideas. The ACLU defended Rush Limbaugh's right to privacy, too.


----------



## Scott T (Apr 1, 2010)

While the Canada's Charter doesn't have a freedom of speech clause, it does guarantee your freedom of expression.

Coulter and her ilk can express whatever views they wish, they just have to be a little more circumspect as to how they go about it.


----------



## CoryKS (Apr 1, 2010)

Phoenix44 said:


> As I understand it, Coulter was specifically told that _hate speech_ is illegal in Ottawa, and that she could be arrested for _hate speech_--not for her conservative views. There's a big difference.
> 
> But it's the CCLA who are the liberals. I can't stand Coulter myself, but I defend her right to express her imbecilic ideas. The ACLU defended Rush Limbaugh's right to privacy, too.


 
That's precisely the problem with hate speech laws - all the controlling party has to do to suppress dissent is to declare certain viewpoints to be hate speech.


----------



## Andrew Green (Apr 2, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> That's precisely the problem with hate speech laws - all the controlling party has to do to suppress dissent is to declare certain viewpoints to be hate speech.



Hate speech laws are rather hard to really breach.  Holding a racist view is not going to trigger any legal action, but trying to recruit others and encourage violence against a group might get you in trouble.

So you should be ok with saying "Elbonians are pigs", but putting out fliers on the best ways to beat or kill a Elbonian, that might get you a visit.

To be honest, I'm rather ok with the fact that someone that promotes genocide isn't legally protected.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Apr 2, 2010)

> That's precisely the problem with hate speech laws - all the controlling party has to do to suppress dissent is to declare certain viewpoints to be hate speech.



I disagree.

Saying you're against same sex marriage is a viewpoint. Calling John Edwards a "F@&&0T" as Anne Coulter did, is hate speech.

Disagreeing with the Israeli policy of building new settlements in disputed territory is expressing your viewpoint.  Saying that Jews "need to be perfected," as Coulter did, is hate speech.

Saying you want airport security to profile young Muslim-appearing males is a viewpoint.  Telling a Muslim woman she should "take a camel" instead of flying, as Coulter did, is hate speech.

Hate speech is usually defined as speech that specifically disparages a person or group based on some characteristic such as religion, race, gender or sexual orientation.  It's not at all the same as dissent.


----------



## CoryKS (Apr 2, 2010)

Phoenix44 said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Saying you're against same sex marriage is a viewpoint. Calling John Edwards a "F@&&0T" as Anne Coulter did, is hate speech.
> 
> ...


 
Well, if calling John Edwards a ****** is hate speech, then I would also want all those witty freethinkers who called our last president "Chimpy McBushitler" rounded up too.  Somehow, I doubt it would work both ways.  That, again, is the problem.


----------



## Scott T (Apr 2, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> Well, if calling John Edwards a ****** is hate speech, then I would also want all those witty freethinkers who called our last president "Chimpy McBushitler" rounded up too. Somehow, I doubt it would work both ways. That, again, is the problem.


Calling the Shrub "Chimpy McBushitler" (btw, I like that. Can I use it?)wouldn't be hate speech anymore than you calling me an @$$hole would be, however openly calling for his assassination would definately have some hate-speech laws violated.


----------



## Blade96 (Apr 2, 2010)

so what was her speech like and what did she say in it? anyone know?


----------



## blindsage (Apr 2, 2010)

Would saying you think all child molesters should be thrown in prison for life or killed be considered hate speech?  Would saying that religion leads to suffering and should be eradicated be considered hate speech?  Would saying that skinheads are a plague on the earth be considered hate speech?  

Wouldn't hate speech laws be considered hate speech, since they are specifically prejudiced against certain individuals and their speech?


----------



## CoryKS (Apr 2, 2010)

Scott T said:


> Calling the Shrub "Chimpy McBushitler" (btw, I like that. Can I use it?)wouldn't be hate speech anymore than you calling me an @$$hole would be, however openly calling for his assassination would definately have some hate-speech laws violated.


 
In the example I was responding to, it was stated that calling someone a bad name is hate speech.  By that argument, calling someone "Chimpy" or, for that matter, "Shrub" would also be hate speech.  Though I'm sure that there will always be an excuse why _our_ name-calling isn't hate speech.  And that's the whole point - by allowing a person or person(s) to define what speech is acceptable, you allow them to control the debate according to their biases.


----------



## girlbug2 (Apr 2, 2010)

Phoenix44 said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Saying you're against same sex marriage is a viewpoint. Calling John Edwards a "F@&&0T" as Anne Coulter did, is hate speech.
> 
> ...


 
The problem with defining hate speech that way is that it's too broad. If you "disparage" somebody, what does that really mean anyway...anything said that is negative about that person, if they happen to be a different gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation than yourself, could be called hate speech. But the same Wikipedia definition of hate speech goes on to say that hate speech is forbidden by law because it may "incite violence or prejudicial action against the individual". 

So how does telling the muslim woman that she should "take a camel" incite violence or prejudicial action against her? I can see that an already prejudiced person may say to themselves, Yeah, she should take a camel. Yes it may reinforce an already bigoted person to continue to feel bigoted. But I don't see it directly inciting violence or prejudicial action.

I dont' even know what "perfecting" means in this context, so I won't comment on that.

As to the foul slur that John Edwards was called, once again...it may reinforce somebody's feelings of bigotry against him, but I don't see a direct connection to that by itself inciting violence against him or prejudicial action taken against him.


----------



## JDenver (Apr 2, 2010)

blindsage said:


> Would saying you think all child molesters should be thrown in prison for life or killed be considered hate speech?



No, that's not an ethnic group and not targetted to a group based on genetic disposition; women, gay, etc.  However, you certainly couldn't say, 'we should kill pedophiles when we see them, they deserve to die'.  That promotes hatred, a fairly straight forward definition of hate speech for me.



blindsage said:


> Would saying that religion leads to suffering and should be eradicated be considered hate speech?  Would saying that skinheads are a plague on the earth be considered hate speech?



No, that's not an ethnic group and not targetted to a group based on genetic disposition; women, gay, etc.  However, you certainly couldn't say, 'we should kill bishops when we see them, they deserve to die'.  That promotes hatred, a fairly straight forward definition of hate speech for me.



blindsage said:


> Wouldn't hate speech laws be considered hate speech, since they are specifically prejudiced against certain individuals and their speech?



No. I find this an interesting difference between Americans and Canadians, that is, Candians seem to understand that free speech has limits.  You can't promote hatred to women or gays just because you feel you have the 'right' to.  You don't.  Homosexual peole have the right to live full and safe lives.  Your right to free speech can't utterly intrude on another person's safety.  There are limits.


----------



## Scott T (Apr 2, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> In the example I was responding to, it was stated that calling someone a bad name is hate speech. By that argument, calling someone "Chimpy" or, for that matter, "Shrub" would also be hate speech. Though I'm sure that there will always be an excuse why _our_ name-calling isn't hate speech. And that's the whole point - by allowing a person or person(s) to define what speech is acceptable, you allow them to control the debate according to their biases.


Well, when you use a term like fa-got it points to an entire portion of society much as it does when you use the word ni-ger, and in contemporary society it is always used in a derogatory manner. On the other hand Chimpy or Shrub points to an specific individual. That's where the Coulter cow (See, that one's directed at an individual) got it wrong. In telling that particular student she can ride a camel (or the flying carpet from earlier in the exchange) she was addressing that student as a Muslim, not as an individual.

If I make a speech that says all whiteys are a waste of skin that need to be exterminated and hung by the lamp-posts by their entrails because they're white, then that's hate speech. 

Before you try to interpret Canada's laws on this particular subject in a way that suits an agenda, study it first


----------



## blindsage (Apr 2, 2010)

JDenver said:


> No, that's not an ethnic group and not targetted to a group based on genetic disposition; women, gay, etc. However, you certainly couldn't say, 'we should kill pedophiles when we see them, they deserve to die'. That promotes hatred, a fairly straight forward definition of hate speech for me.


The two parts of your comment her conflict, either it has to be something based on genetic disposition or not.  Your straight forward definition of hate speech sounds like semantics to me.



> No, that's not an ethnic group and not targetted to a group based on genetic disposition; women, gay, etc. However, you certainly couldn't say, 'we should kill bishops when we see them, they deserve to die'. That promotes hatred, a fairly straight forward definition of hate speech for me.


Again, is it based on ethnic group/ genetic disposition or not?



> No. I find this an interesting difference between Americans and Canadians, that is, Candians seem to understand that free speech has limits. You can't promote hatred to women or gays just because you feel you have the 'right' to. You don't. Homosexual peole have the right to live full and safe lives. Your right to free speech can't utterly intrude on another person's safety. There are limits.


Americans certainly understand there are limits to free speech, just not the one's you're stating.  Why can't you promote hatred?  You're drawing an arbitrary line for the sake of your argument.  Promoting hatred does not necessarily intrude on another person's safety.  If you can prove that someone has directly incited violence by their speech, you can be prosecuted in the U.S. as well.  But just going to a public place and saying you hate xyz group and others should too, is not even remotely the same as saying to a mob of angry people "there's one, let's get him" and then proceeded to attack them.  The difference for Americans is that once you limit speech in this way, based on one arbitrary standard there is a precedent to do it for other arbitrary standards.  You can't say you hate women, but you can prosecute people for saying they do?  That's called a double standard.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Apr 5, 2010)

> I would also want all those witty freethinkers who called our last president "Chimpy McBushitler" rounded up too.


 
Well, you might want them "rounded up," but it wouldn't be for "hate speech."  You're perfectly free to call the president an idiot, and you wouldn't be "rounded up" for it.  That comment refers to Bush's _personal_ idiocy, and not to any racial, religious or gender stereotype.


----------



## CoryKS (Apr 5, 2010)

Phoenix44 said:


> Well, you might want them "rounded up," but it wouldn't be for "hate speech." You're perfectly free to call the president an idiot, and you wouldn't be "rounded up" for it. That comment refers to Bush's _personal_ idiocy, and not to any racial, religious or gender stereotype.


 
Like I said - people will come up with any excuse why _their_ behavior is perfectly alright.


----------

