No One Censored Ann Coulter: Her People shut down the speech

[justinsb]

The call was ultimately made by her own bodyguard. No doubt so she could complain about being censored after a letter from the University president warned her to watch what she said because of Canada's hate crimes laws.

http://justinbeach.blogspot.com/2010/03/facts-and-ann-coulter-have-never-gotten.html">More here - with video.

[Grimm]

1. Technically, the (new) claim is that there was a reasonable fear of violence due to a lynch mob

The CBC does a great job of debunking that one:

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/03/ann-coulters-adventures-in-ottawa-so-what-really-happened-last-night.html

The favourite part is at the end - it describes the threats of violence that "scared" the organizers into canceling.

He points to these two comments, in particular: "I want to throw rotten veggies and eggs at her evil barbie mask," which appears on page 10 and was posted on March 20, and "Can't we just tar and feather her?" posted the following day, which can be found on page 8.

A quick scan reveals that, amid the myriad ensuing discussion threads debating the best way to respond to her then upcoming appearance on campus, there are also several references to pie-ings, and one that suggests the poster would like to "dip her in gravy and lock her in a room with a wolverine high on angel dust," which, I have to say, sounds a wee bit logistically difficult to necessitate a last minute cancellation for security reasons, but I leave it to readers to judge whether any of the comments constitute threats to her person or public safety.

Rotten eggs and pie. That was the enormous threat to Ms. Coulter's safety. This whole debacle smells like nothing more than a PR stunt to me for Coulter and Levant to sell their junk. Sad thing is it's probably working.

[justinsb]

2. Only her ego could create any fear

No speaker, no matter how controversial, has ever been physically attacked in the history of Ottawa University or (as far as I know) at any university in Canada. Further we have had only two political assasinations of any kind in the history of the country:

1) Louis Real - who was technically convicted of a crime and hanged, only in hindsight is it viewed as an assasination

and

2) Pierre Laporte during the FLQ uprising in Quebec in 1970

Only Coulter's massive ego could generate the idea that Canadians were going to abandon their basic culture and their nearly spotless history to create a threat to her.

At any rate, Coulter shut herself down - no one else.

[daleo]

3. One more

Thomas D'arcy McGee (1867).

[justinsb]

5. Thanks

I forgot McGee - dumb of me since I was just reading about him last week.

[IntravenousDemilo]

6. Maybe in the hindsight of revisionists Riel is considered to have been assassinated.

Honestly, this is the first time I've ever heard Riel's execution, however unjust it may have been, as an assassination.

[iverglas]

7. kind of the reverse of me ...

... when I was a wild-eyed undergraduate, describing the death of Laporte as an execution. ;)

(To be fair to me, I was arguing a POV in a legal history course, and making the point that history is written by the victors, with Dresden in support ... and afterward was patted approvingly on the head by the prof, a lovely old man who was a refugee from pre-war Germany, and told I must be a lawyer.)

[iverglas]

4. only two things anybody needs to know about her

She lies. Every time she opens her mouth.

She is a provocateur. Just like Ezra Levant. Nothing they do is because of anything they believe in. They don't give a flying fuck about any principles they pretend to be espousing (like freedom of speech).

Their speech -- just like the actions of the scum who went to "town hall" meetings on healthcare in the US with semi-automatic rifles festooning their bodies -- has two aims only.

The first is to put the people they they pretend to hate, but really simply wish to keep in an oppressed and exploited state and/or wish to exclude from power, on notice that they are running this show. It is to occupy the public spaces and intimidate.

The second is to provoke the people they pretend to hate into reacting in a way that they can portray as being opposed to freeeeedumb, rather than what it is: being opposed to scum and the scummy things they say and the scummy things they do.

Oh, well, yes, they're also aiming to pick up followers along the way. To validate and reinforce the notions of lesser scum, some of whom may actually hate their targets, hence framing their speech as hate is a good hook. (Framing it the old way -- those people are inferior to us and not fully human and so don't have rights, the way it was always framed against women and people of colour and anybody else who needed oppressing and exploiting -- doesn't work so well in this century.) They need followers to vote for the people and policies that will keep them rich and powerful.

Ann Coulter doesn't hate women or Muslims or anybody else. Ezra Levant doesn't give a flying fuck about freedom of speech. They and all the rest like them are just playing to win by whatever means seems likely to work.

[shockedcanadian]

8. Good points Iverglas...

Iverglas, you made some excellent points, and I commend you for the way you think. I think you have hit the nail on the head when you talk about the provocateurs, far too many in today's day and age. Like you, I feel that far too many people say things without the conviction or honest belief in the words or their actions, they do it foe the REACTION, not for honest brokerage of discussion. Hell often it is to financially profit from the attention, which in itself is unconscionable in my opinion.

I will say this, and I come from a position of personal persecution by Canadian Intelligence so this greatly influenced how I think because I am a victim of this arbitrary and highly subjective "hate" mantra (I would be glad to expand if you don't already know the basics of my situation). If we had a similar First Amendment as they have in the U.S, it would cut down immensely in the costs of the spy police, there would be a greater focus on legitimate threats; not manufactured threats, off centre idealogies or "opinions" as they currently focus on to some degree.

Furthermore, it would grealty cut down on the ease of convenience in which an organization can target you. For instance, let's say someone working for CSIS thought you were an undesireable; they simply didn't like you. But, they cannot pin any threat on you...simple, no problem, they say they overheard you making a racist comment, problem solved, welcome to the "black list". Now I am grossly overstating it, but in broader terms it happens. Do we really want someone to make this decision on behalf of the Canadian people?

Think of it in these terms, you post something on this discussion board that is deemed "hate speech", simply because you critized the Canadian government. Who is the one to decide that this is hate speech? I can assure you this, you won't be told you are blacklisted, but good luck building a career. You will have no defense, you will just be the victim of the character assassination, lost opportunities etc. This method was used by the old East German intelligence police, and it is being used with vigor here in Canada.

SO ultimately, if given a choice, as I posted somewhere else, I would much rather have to deal with and listen to (if I chose to) the likes of COulter and Ezra, than to have to deal with someones subjective opinion as to what threat my words represent.