As terrible as this may sound, I truly did think she was just a fictional character on the Boondocks before I read this thread.

Originally Posted by Shmowen

1) Even if she intended another statement, she still did not show respect for the murder victim, nor did she realize the wrongness of that act - I don't care what political argument you're trying to put forward, but making statements like that is just down-right stupid and spiteful. There are many more legitimate and logical ways to make points without slandering the murder of an individual.

While it wasn't sensitive, it was a very well played reductio ad absurdum.

2) Witty? Hm.....I think responding to the question "I don't have a magic carpet" with "Then ride a camel." is not evidence of wit.

You're missing the whole context on this one.

Coulter has said all terrorists are Muslims and has suggested all Muslims be barred from airlines and use flying carpets.

When the student said she didn't have a flying carpet, Coulter told her to "take a camel."

Coulter was saying in her two comments that she doesn't give a rats arse about what muslims would do in lieu of air travel.

Being witty involves intelligence - being racist, however, involves ignorance.

Oh no! All that humor based on stereotypes has to go.

3) Being a great public speaker does not necessarily mean that you are an intelligent individual deserving of praise. For example, Adolf Hitler was a great public speaker, and yet no one would use that as evidence for the righteousness of his character.

Yes, but yet people still read Mein Kampf when they want to get an idea of what Hitler and his followers were thinking.... Do you see what i'm saying? I don't think she's a great person but certainly, as I have said, there are reasons why those who disagree with her would want to hear her speak.

Side note: this is the same woman who suggested that the Americans should nuke Afghanistan. Dare I say more?

There's a lot of people who think it would've been easier to nuke the al-Qaeda camps and bin Laden with them instead of being involved in a long protracted war.

Originally Posted by c.erl

Coulter has no arguments...she engages in the ever popular conservative sport of "left-bating". These 'pundits' drag leftists into arguments and consistently put them on the defensive, riling them up, making them angry and ensuring their arguments are discredited because of the level of emotionality that ensues.

A rightist who is constantly putting a leftist on the defensive doesn't need to make points that validate their arguments, just ensure the other side looks foolish.

Great minds must think alike, on the bus today I was thinking about conservative baiters and came home and lo and behold you were talking about "left-baiting".

It's done by both sides. Why? Because it works.

Originally Posted by Rossclot

Two things:

1) Canada doesn't have "freedom of speech". That is the USA. Canadians have freedom of expression, which is different, and it is laid out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Also, check section 319 of the criminal code. If she said that in a public place, then it fits the 4 requirements to be prosecuted. She CAN be arrested for what she said. Imagine how conservatives would react if she was arrested; it would give them so much ammunition.

The crime of "publicly inciting hatred" has four main elements. To contravene the Code, a person must:

communicate statements,
in a public place,
incite hatred against an identifiable group,
in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.

There would be a breach of the peace with Ann Coulter regardless of what she said on that occasion. And

Section 319(3) identifies acceptable defences. Indicates that no person shall be convicted of an offence if the statements in question:

are established to be true
were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds it was believed to be true

One or both of those provisions would protect her. Canadian courts generally wouldn't convict in a situation like this. They tend to lean towards protecting free expression.

In addition, Freedom of Expression is indeed different from freedom of speech. The main difference is freedom of expression actually provides a much broader protection to other forms of expression.

2) Second, Coulter decided on her own not to speak. She wasn't stopped. People are allowed to protest, that is their right. Ann has the right to see the protest, and continue on her talks.

Ann generally DOES go on in spite of protests and tends to thrive for them, throwing insults and taunts right back at them.

I think that this situation was unfortunate. The attitude of the University and police were unfortunate, however. When there such a large protest, its in danger of turning violent, the university administration wants you locked up, and the police say they won't guarantee your safety I don't think anyone would go through with a speech due to the danger.

From the Star

OTTAWA–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.

Ann Coulter would be hard-pressed to find diehard fans among Canadian civil liberties groups, but they argue the cancellation of a speech by the mouthy American right-wing pundit reflects poorly on the University of Ottawa and the rest of the nation.

That idea has been embraced by officials at the University of Calgary, Coulter's next stop Thursday, who said she will be treated with respect.

Alan Harrison, the provost of the University of Calgary, said security will be increased because of what happened in Ottawa.

Harrison said he wants to ensure that everyone is safe and that Coulter receives the same respect for her views as anyone else would.

Coulter said she has no concerns about her safety while in Calgary.

"I’ve heard that (Calgary is a more conservative city). Already I feel safer and look at how nice all of you are."

David Eby, executive director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association added, "We are firm believers that even ignorant ideas need to be heard and discussed.

"We don't succeed at eliminating racism or dealing with the issues of multiculturalism if we suppress the ability of people to speak their minds."

The incendiary celebrity conservative commentator was scheduled to deliver a speech at the University of Ottawa on Tuesday, but organizers decided to cancel the event over concerns for safety after a disputed number of protesters crowded the building.

The university moved yesterday to distance itself from the choice to cancel the event by issuing a statement that put the final decision in the hands of event organizers.

"We have a long history of hosting contentious and controversial speakers on our campus," university president Allan Rock said in a statement posted to the school's website Wednesday.

University of Toronto law professor Brenda Cossman said some of what Coulter says actually might be construed as hate speech under the law, but that has more to do with what she sees as a larger problem with freedom of expression here.

"I think her views are completely beyond the pale, offensive, obnoxious, uninformed, provocative, all of those things – except she should be allowed to say them and she shouldn't face criminal prosecution," Cossman said.

Coulter's fame and infamy in the U.S. has faded a bit since her days at the height of the Bush era, but her speech was making headlines before she even entered Canada.

That is because a top administrator at the university sent her an email warning her Canadian laws make provisions for hate speech.

The email was leaked and Coulter went on to accuse the university of inciting hatred against her.

This is not the first time a university has been caught in the crossfire over free speech.

Concordia University in Montreal saw its reputation badly damaged when rioting students played a role in shutting down a speech by Benjamin Netanyahu, now Israel's prime minister, in September 2002.

"I don't think that it helps the university's reputation as a place of dialogue and discussion and a movement toward truth," Eby said of the events in Ottawa.

Ottawa Police Services spokesman Const. Alain Boucher said officers had safety concerns because there were about 1,500 people in the lobby outside a venue with just 175 seats and shared those concerns with campus security, event organizers and Coulter's bodyguard but left the decision to them.

Alyssa Cordova, of the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, one of the organizers, said the decision was made after police informed them they could not guarantee the safety of Coulter or their officers.

Abby Deshman, policy director with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said universities have a responsibility to ensure the safety of the controversial figures invited to speak on campus.

"I don't think a university can anticipate everything, but ... sometimes more security is going to be needed to ensure that both sides of the debate are heard."

Eby agrees, saying protesters have the same rights to speak as Coulter does.

"Part of free speech is recognizing that yes, Ms. Coulter has the right to speak, but so do all the people who are offended by what she says have the right to come out and to protest and to say that she is wrong and to put forward their own ideas."

I'm kind of confused why everyone thinks this protest was so dangerous.
From what I've read about it, there was just students holding signs and chanting. I didn't read anything about anyone making any kind of threats or anything like that.

From what I've read, what the students did was very peaceful and the safest way to get their message across. Maybe I've been reading very biased sources though..

It seems people defending her (not necessarily on this website) are using the "free speech" argument, but it applies to both sides. She chose not to speak. The students have every right that she does.

The thing about Ann Coulter is the only people who take her seriously are the right winged nut jobs who are just like her and already agree with her. She's not convincing anybody and she doesn't do what she does to have an intelligent conversation. I mean common, what rational thinking person would take someone who says Muslims should ride on their magic carpets seriously. I don't think she takes herself seriously, I mean she has no dignity she's just an attention whore. She looooooooooves all the protests against her. That's why I don't get all mad when she talks.

She could have spoken if she wanted to in spite of the protests but she frankly wants this fight. She decided not to speak, she wants to use this whole thing as ammunition against Canada by putting her own spin on it. It's what she does and she's good at it. I think it's stupid and juvenile but then again I also think that politics in general is stupid and juvenile so I don't really worry about it.

Originally Posted by arathbon

Great minds must think alike, on the bus today I was thinking about conservative baiters and came home and lo and behold you were talking about "left-baiting".

It's done by both sides. Why? Because it works.

On the point of such a tactic's effectiveness, I will agree. This so-called "baiting" does work, though simply to triumph in debate rather than provide a movement with long-lasting support.

It is incredibly easy to humiliate someone. It is painfully difficult to convince someone.

By belittling an opponent, particularly in an election, a candidate simply convinces the voter that said challenger is not worthy of their vote, therefore making themselves the only viable option. To sway a voter to cast a ballot for something or something is much more difficult.

That is one of the flaws of democracy...we begin to see dialogue breakdown and school-yard bullying envelope election campaigns and debates, such as the one Ms. Colter was involved in.

Were she really concerned about freedom of speech, she would have actually attempted to engage in civil discussion, not petty rightist harassment.

Originally Posted by Kathy2

I'm kind of confused why everyone thinks this protest was so dangerous.
From what I've read about it, there was just students holding signs and chanting. I didn't read anything about anyone making any kind of threats or anything like that.

From what I've read, what the students did was very peaceful and the safest way to get their message across. Maybe I've been reading very biased sources though..

It seems people defending her (not necessarily on this website) are using the "free speech" argument, but it applies to both sides. She chose not to speak. The students have every right that she does.

Apparently some people were posting stuff one facebook about bringing stuff to throw at her and the police we're telling her body guards that they couldn't "guarantee her safety".

Since when is saying racist things allowed?
Explain all the warnings I've gotten on this site. Lmao.

@Arath's long quote.

Originally Posted by lawleypop

Since when is saying racist things allowed?
Explain all the warnings I've gotten on this site. Lmao.

@Arath's long quote.

it's allowed as in not illegal, just most people don't like racism.

Originally Posted by Kathy2

It seems people defending her (not necessarily on this website) are using the "free speech" argument, but it applies to both sides. She chose not to speak. The students have every right that she does.

The protesters have a right to disagree with her and make their opinions public, but you don't have a right to infringe on someone else's rights. The point of the protests was to keep her from speaking, not to disagree with her points. One group shouldn't have the power to intimidate someone from speaking their mind, even if that person is wrong.

Roles always switch, if we allow student's to block Coulter from speaking, then what happens when a Westboro Baptist type group wants to block whoever they're disagreeing with at the moment (usually everyone) from speaking?

Basically, let everyone say what they want, don't let them keep others from saying what they want.

Originally Posted by brendanp

it's allowed as in not illegal, just most people don't like racism.

Actually, I'm pretty sure spreading hate is illegal.

I can just imagine the shitstorm that would go down if someone like ME said this shit.

Originally Posted by lawleypop

Actually, I'm pretty sure spreading hate is illegal.

I can just imagine the shitstorm that would go down if someone like ME said this shit.

Technically, it IS illegal, under the section of the criminal code Rossclot cited (318 and 319). However, it's validity is constantly called into question. Just last year (in September, I think), the Human Rights Commission found it to be "unconstitutional ", because of the conflict with Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but they have no power in terms of legalities. They can recommend that the law be reworded/enhanced/removed, which they have done several times over the years, but as of now, it stands.

So yes, it is illegal, though often overlooked because of the political shitstorm that can arise from it.

Why does everyone keep saying the students prevented Coulter from speaking? The students organized a peaceful protest, which is a right protected under our constitution just as much as freedom of speech.

I've said it before... Coulter's people cancelled the speech, not the students.