Coulter is a b****, but I don't think it was appropriate the way things went down at U of O.

The way the Provost sent her that email that was essentially a veiled legal threat should not have been done. It wasn't his business whether someone sued her or dragged her before a human rights commission.

And I wouldn't be surprised if she were afraid, because lets be honest, people hate her more than they hated Gail Shea and Jean Chretien and people got close enough to pie these people despite being VIPS. It's a given that if someone wanted to kill her, or seriously harm her they could.

And given the way SOME groups of people she's offensive to react when offended I wouldn't be surprised if at sometime someone DID.

I've never heard of her before, but, judging by the quotes listed, she sounds pretty stupid.

Originally Posted by ytpos

I've never heard of her before, but, judging by the quotes listed, she sounds pretty stupid.

They're very select quotes. She's a polemic. She says offensive things to add a sharp point to her opinions, some of which are intelligent some of which aren't. I don't agree with a lot of them, but I don't think she's stupid at all. She discovered a niche and she makes a lot of money because of it.

Those who are saying that this limits free speech in Canada make no sense, in my opinion at least. If anything it enhances it. These students are using their freedom of speech to let Coulter know that racism is not acceptable in Canada.

Originally Posted by arathbon

She discovered a niche and she makes a lot of money because of it.

That makes it all the more sickening. I'm sorry, the last time I checked, making money off spewing hate wasn't on the list of cool things to do. Somewhere beneath all the shit that comes out of her mouth are REAL POLITICAL ISSUES - issues that get watered down because she can't shut her trap.

Originally Posted by manu

i think it is a "different view" and she should be allowed to say what she wants to say and we all dont have to agree...that is what debate is for

Uhhh what? How is this a "debate"? You can dictionary the definition of it but I'm sorry as much as I respect free speech this is taking things a bit too far. Her comments are not based on any scientific or theoretical basis nor do they even remotely contribute to or constitute a rational argument. She has more then once attacked people from minority backgrounds & Political viewpoints that don't fit within her distinctly neocon agenda.

I find it funny & sad when the Liberals start beating the "Don't discourage free speech" drum at her intentional rabble rousing. I wouldn't personally mind stuff like Richard Dawkins for example because he tries to make rational arguments, this is something else and not "debate".

Originally Posted by Werd

Those who are saying that this limits free speech in Canada make no sense, in my opinion at least. If anything it enhances it. These students are using their freedom of speech to let Coulter know that racism is not acceptable in Canada.

There's as difference between protest and doing it to the point of shutting down someone else's free speech. Now this situation is borderline. While I don't doubt most of the protesters wanted to register their discontent with Coulter, and many of them were hoping she wouldn't come, I doubt most of them wanted to intimidate her.

What's more disturbing is other universities that have at time, cancelled events because they were afraid of riots.

Originally Posted by arathbon

There's as difference between protest and doing it to the point of shutting down someone else's free speech. Now this situation is borderline. While I don't doubt most of the protesters wanted to register their discontent with Coulter, and many of them were hoping she wouldn't come, I doubt most of them wanted to intimidate her.

What's more disturbing is other universities that have at time, cancelled events because they were afraid of riots.

It was Coulter's people who chose to cancel the speech. It was probably a political move. They know that the only things Canadians hate more than racism is people screwing with constitutional rights, and they played their cards accordingly.

Universities have the right to protect their infrastructure and community from riots. If someone who is coming to the university is so controversial that there's a distinct possibility of a riot breaking out, it is their prerogative to cancel the event. This isn't just for Ann Coulter. I personally wouldn't want Richard Dawkins speaking at McMaster, because of the risk of crazy religious people burning down whatever building he's in and calling it a "crusade". There's no point in universities opening themselves and their student/staff populations up to this kind of unnecessary danger.

Originally Posted by Kathy2

It's important to note that it was her decision not to speak. It's not like the students had guns or anything. They just had signs.

I'm very confused as to why people are so against what the U of O students did. Coulter is racist and she says racist things. Why is that okay? Why are people wrong for protesting racism? I don't understand.

Looks like that girl from UWO is a hater herself.

http://blazingcatfur.blogspo t.com/...fended-by.html

Originally Posted by sniderj

It was Coulter's people who chose to cancel the speech. It was probably a political move. They know that the only things Canadians hate more than racism is people screwing with constitutional rights, and they played their cards accordingly.

No one is arguing that Coulter cancelled the speech. But basically the University had said 1) We're not gonna stop you from coming but we hope someone sues you and 2) Well we're not really sure we can actually protect you if things go south. Now it could very well be a political move, but people have pointed out, people were starting to make questionable suggestions, that were starting to approach threats.

Universities have the right to protect their infrastructure and community from riots. If someone who is coming to the university is so controversial that there's a distinct possibility of a riot breaking out, it is their prerogative to cancel the event. This isn't just for Ann Coulter. I personally wouldn't want Richard Dawkins speaking at McMaster, because of the risk of crazy religious people burning down whatever building he's in and calling it a "crusade". There's no point in universities opening themselves and their student/staff populations up to this kind of unnecessary danger.

I don't think Universities should let themselves be silenced by these sorts of things. If riots work, they will only occur more as people realize they get what they want. The answer is better security, not canceling events.

Originally Posted by jo87

Looks like that girl from UWO is a hater herself.

http://blazingcatfur.blogspo t.com/...fended-by.html

That makes her a hypocrite but it doesn't make Ann Coulter any less disgusting. Now that she is found to be just as awful as Ann herself hopefully she will suffer similar backlash, although unfortunately just like Ann Coulter has followers there are many people who believe in the kind of crap that hateful Facebook group promotes.

University of Calgary apparently released a statement saying Coulter will be treated with respect. Nice of them to give her something she hasn't earned by treating others in such a way.

IMO there's a point when you give up your right to free speech and that's the point when you start spreading ignorance and hate (for whatever reasons you do it).

As for Universities the answer is not booking awful people like Ann Coulter to speak in the first place. She doesn't bring anything positive to the table whatsoever.

There was no condemnation of free speech occuring at U of Ottawa. She came to give her free speech, the students expressed theirs. She decided it would be unsafe to proceed giving her speech, yet no one was hurt. No law officials literally took her ability of free speech away by hauling her off. The University itself did not shut down the event to prevent her from speaking. So given that, this was not a case of a reduction of free speech, it was actually the opposite. It was a case of two parties who were very strongly expressing themselves, and the result was one of them backing out, electing not to express their freedom of speech.
As an aside, I believe she is an idiot, or atleast presents idiotic views, however she appears to be a shrewd business woman. She is a sensationalist. She sells books. To who? The extremist conservatives in America. Who is a fanatical and tenatious group? Conservatives (considering not abandoning their ways is a pretty big part of the ideology). So by choosing not to speak, the people who already back her will view this event as an attack by Liberals on the values of America, since they didn't want her to speak about those values (the ones that they think are the true values of America, which is of course their opinion). The result will be an increase of hatred for Canada and fear of Liberals, and finally a massive increase in sales of her books to the people who are already buying all her books. Finally, it will give her another rant filled hateful exposition to write and sell.
In the end, from our perspective (speaking generally, as obviously not all share this view), Canadians won by showing their intolerance of prejudice and hate. From their perspective, they won by showing how horrible and degrading to American values the liberals are. But in reality, she won because she's going to get the $$$... Exploitation FTW :(

I think anyone who would view Canada in a poor light based on this event probably already views Canada in a poor light for being some evil socialist entity.

Personally I'm not to torn up over idiots disliking us anyway and yes if you support Ann Coulter and her beliefs you are an idiot.

What I think does put a damper on the whole thing is the apparently hateful girl who spoke up. I hope that doesn't cast everyone who opposed Ann's comments in a negative light.

Originally Posted by sew12

That makes her a hypocrite but it doesn't make Ann Coulter any less disgusting. Now that she is found to be just as awful as Ann herself hopefully she will suffer similar backlash, although unfortunately just like Ann Coulter has followers there are many people who believe in the kind of crap that hateful Facebook group promotes.

In Canada its perfectly acceptable to be Ann Coulter as long as you bash groups that we don't like. We like to pretend we're better, but we really aren't in many respects.

University of Calgary apparently released a statement saying Coulter will be treated with respect. Nice of them to give her something she hasn't earned by treating others in such a way.

There seem to be two schools of thought on respect. Either it is always given, or only given when earned. I tend to have some sort of mix. I reserve positive respect for someone who was earned it, but I do my best never to disrespect anyone. And I think that's more of what calgary is saying.

IMO there's a point when you give up your right to free speech and that's the point when you start spreading ignorance and hate (for whatever reasons you do it).

Is she promoting people to go out and lynch people? No (or at least I hope not). That's generally within the bounds of legally protected free speech. Although with the Human Rights Commissions going after anyone who expressing politically incorrect views these days, it might be punishable by those quasi-judicial bodies.

As for Universities the answer is not booking awful people like Ann Coulter to speak in the first place. She doesn't bring anything positive to the table whatsoever.

She's a person of note. I'd support her coming the same way I'd support Michael Moore, or even Rush Limbaugh coming. She does shape the views of many people, and that alone makes her a person of interest to many interested in current affairs, even if its only to understand why people are following her.

Defending Ann Coulter, really?

People who spread bullshit shouldn't be embraced just for being a person of note.

I'm not sure what you mean by your first replay to my point, care to elaborate. I don't think anyone has said its perfectly acceptable to bash groups we don't like.