Ann Coulter is not dangerous,but Canada's intolerance is.

[virgogal]

From today's Boston Globe. I'm half Canadian and much of the information came as a surprise to me.

Oh Canada !!!!!!

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/03/27/canadas_clampdown_on_free_speech/


Edit: The header came directly from The Globe's print edition.

[Oregone]

1. Wow.

[Warpy]

2. The writer got it exactly backwards

and needs to read about how the horrors of both Rwanda and Bosnia started.

Hate speech, especially over the airwaves, is extremely dangerous. It kills.

[Maru Kitteh]

5. +1

[baldguy]

7. The law doesn't stifle free speech in any way.

It merely forces the speaker to take direct responsibility for her words.

[Riftaxe]

25. Then why stop at preventing speech,

perhaps humanity would be better served if people with dissident views were rounded up and sent away to a nice gulag somewhere? If that were ever to come to pass, I imagine you would prefer to be the arbiter of what is/is not hate speech, rather then the subject?

[Caretha]

34. It's the students campus

they had every right to protest have Coulter as a speaker, as in "they have free speech rights too".

She is the one who cancelled. The reason? Because Coulter can't stand the heat & she's a quitter.

[Warpy]

47. Hate speech and dissident speech are two different things

and shame on you trying to conflate them.

[Riftaxe]

52. Then surely you can enumerate the exact

point where they diverge for us.

[SidDithers]

53. Why don't you go and look up what Canada's laws are...

instead of asking others to do your homework for you.

Sid

[Riftaxe]

56. If you had bothered to read...

You would be aware I was not addressing the main article but a subsequent reply. So your implication that i am to lazy to look up Canadian statutes is unwarranted.

Now as to the post that you apparently take such umbrage with, it is a reply to a person who believes that hate speech is part of mainstream speech (perhaps they do not understand the definition of dissident).

[KittyWampus]

54. Hate Speech= nullifying other human beings. Dissident Speech= attacking ideas.

[Riftaxe]

58. What does a 85% Nullified person look like?

Why prevent speech that completely "Nullifies" a person, why not at 85% of nullification.

Most importantly who gets to decide? Personally i don't believe the concept of "I know it when i see it..." is a very good basis for law, since it invites rampant abuse as opposed to something that is quantifiable.

[Warpy]

55. Dissident speech focuses on what people do.

Hate speech focuses on what people are.

Get it yet?

[Riftaxe]

59. I assume you mean "by what they are" is

by what they think then? Does not that alarm you even a little bit?

[Warpy]

60. You know what they say about people who ASSume

Just read the original statement.

[proteus_lives]

29. Yeah because hate didn't exist in those countries before the hate speech.

Nothing about generations of hate and distrust between the different countries had anything to do with it.

:eyes:

[Warpy]

48. Muslims and Christians were living next door

and got along just fine until the hate radio started in Bosnia. No, they didn't like strangers who were the "other," but they got along fine with the people they knew. Once the hate started, that was over.

The same was true of Rwanda, a country where Hutus and Tutsis were largely integrated. Until the hate radio started.

Hate kills. Please learn some history about this.

[Cleita]

40. I agree. It has nothing to do with real freedom of speech.

Coulter is hateful and should be upbraided for inciting racism and hatred towards minority groups every time she tries to stir the pot of anti-muslim bigotry.

[SidDithers]

3. Meh...

it works for us.

Edit: and the writer was connected with the Western Standard and Ezra Levant. Levant is one of the leading idiots of the Canadian Right. Take that for what it's worth.

Sid

[Canuckistanian]

28. I noticed that

If he worked with Ezra Levant (who is now apparently Ann Coulter's press agent and legal advisor), then his objectivity should be questioned.

[Donnachaidh]

35. and LeVant just happens to have a book out on Free Speech

Doesn't that tie in just all hunky dory like?

[Cleita]

41. Eh, you have idiots on your right too?

I hope you do a better job of making them look like the stupid people that they are than we do.

[rcrush]

4. Half Canadian?

[virgogal]

9. Mom was a Canadian. Why the question?I would think the answer

would be obvious,like half French or half Chinese.

[rcrush]

11. I dont know

Sounded strange for a second. I wasnt sure if that was accurate or not. I was trying to think if you could be Half British or not. Uhh nevermind... :rofl:

[Bluebear]

12. I'm half German and half Ohio originally

:silly:

[gratuitous]

21. Originally?

What are you now?

Hee, hee, hee.

[On the Road]

37. Well, I'm Half German-Ohio

so I know how you feel.

[underpants]

6. Canadians are subject to the same media as the US are they?

they have the opportunity to see but it has to be closer to the truth than the bubble we live

[dipsydoodle]

8. Would be the same in the UK

Inciting racial hatred is illegal.

[janedum]

10. HATE is not "free speech", it's a MENTAL ILLNESS. Ann Coulter should be in an mental institution.

[Posteritatis]

24. Let's not medicalize opinions any more than people already like to. (nt)

[proteus_lives]

31. You're wrong.

And you want to lock-up people with opposing positions. Scary.

[polly7]

13. No thanks, we don't need to 'look south' when it comes to free

speech. We have our own laws and they're working just fine. They're only of interest to most people when crybabies like Annie Coulter use them to protest the non-ability to preach her hate. Inciting hatred, genocide, demonizing victims ........... keep it home. Our hate speech law forbids that dangerous kind of talk meant only to recruit and enflame, so suck it up Annie and quit your crying.

Oh ............ and 'intolerance' / restriction for the calling for things like genocide and hate to whole groups of people is far less dangerous than the pie-hole it comes from.

[Bitwit1234]

14. Isn't Canada it's OWN sovereign state. Are they subject to Coulter's

rules. Why in the devil does Coulter have the right to tell them what to do. The right wing spin machine can tell the press, the cable and network TV what to do, but they can't tell Canada. If I was from Canada I wouldn't have even allowed this blot on the land even dirty my country by setting foot it in.

[Oregone]

16. Depends on who you are asking

:)

They are still part of the Commonwealth

[polly7]

17. Neither would I, but they let in Bush .................. go figure. n/t.

[provis99]

15. Jordan Michael Smith is a right-wing kook; a friend of David Frum.

He has no credibility, and deliberately lies in the article. The opponents of the Human Rights Commission are not the Liberals, they are Stephen Harper's Christian Fascist Conservative Party.

[polly7]

19. You are right, there. Harper would love get rid or many of our social

programs if he could get away with it. Gawd I can't wait until he's gone.

[murphyj87]

69. David Frum

David Frum was a New Democrat before as Conservative of any kind.

[Onceuponalife]

18. I agree with the editorial

The best way to handle offensive and unpopular speech is to silently protest with signs, stand up and face away from the speaker or sit and conspicuously fold your arms across your chest like the Hollywood folks did at the Oscars when McCarthyite rat fink Elia Kazan spoke.

Trying to vocally and forcefully prevent someone from speaking is taking a page from the tea baggers playbook and just pours gas on the fire. Preventing speech to one is preventing speech to all. I can see why Germany prohibits anti-semitic speech and Nazi logos and slogans. They have a violent history of oppression and mass murder they are trying to recover from. Canada has no such excuse.

[polly7]

20. The protestors have the right to free speech as well as anyone else.

Do you object to anti-war signs and demonstrations? If I remember correctly, many were arrested for wearing certain T-shirts, carrying certain signs .................. the author was wrong, Canada doesn't need to look south for anything. We have a law that common-sensically says inciting hatred against groups of people is illegal. Anyone that intends on doing that should probably think twice ............ of they may get (gasp!!!!) a fine and maybe a little community service. Talk about making mountains out of molehills. Her visit was co-sponsored by the Claire Boothe Luce Instititute, an American conservative org. Maybe they need to look south, instead of north, where we're very tolerant ............... just not for the hate that harms those who may be different.

[Onceuponalife]

27. Read the first paragraph of my post again

I was very clear that I do support people carrying signs. I wear many political tee shirts myself. What I was speaking against was when people try to shout down speakers or disrupt speeches. The right and the left both practice this and it is helping to kill civil discourse. That is not supportive of free speech. So anyone who engages in that kind of conduct and turns around and says they support free speech is a liar. Of course Canada has the right to ban anyone they want to from speaking but why was she invited in the first place? Everyone knows what she is about. I'm not surprised that she cancelled because she is a coward who hides behind TV minitors and her keyboard. My post is commenting specifically to the editorial and I agree with the writer that Canada's free speech laws with arbitrary exceptions cut out of it is bad law. That is all.

[Spazito]

23. Hmmm, interesting..

You feel Coulter should be free to spew offensive and unpopular 'speech' but think Canadians shouldn't exercise their right of the same free speech and right to protest. No double standard there, nope, no way.


Coulter is free to spew offensive and unpopular crap, she did so the night before Ottawa in the city of London. Coulter was the one who canceled her appearance, no one else. I guess she couldn't handle Canadians utilizing their right to protest and, yes, even use offensive and unpopular speech if they chose to do so.

Offensive and unpopular speech is NOT hate speech or Coulter would have been accused of that in both her London and Calgary appearances. She was not. Coulter saves her hate speech for her U.S. audience, isn't that special!

I would prefer the hate-filled woman to stay on her side of the border and, hopefully, now she will do so.

[Onceuponalife]

30. No, I never said Canadians don't have the right to free speech

which I assume you mean the right to shout Coulter down and try to prevent her from speaking. I support the right of people to feel that way, I just don't think it is wise and is, in fact, counter-productive.

Here in the States, one can be prosecuted for inciting SPECIFIC acts of violence, but not general, hateful speech that does not solicit specific acts of violence. And yes I support this. The truest test of free speech is supporting even the most vile, disgusting speech. Thus the famous quote, "I may not agree with you but I will support to the death your right to say it." I fully agree with that which is why I support the ACLU and other groups that defend the most noxious speakers (like the KKK). Not because I agree with what they say but because I recognize that doing anything else will open the door for any future administration to try to ban speech that they don't like.

As best as I can recollect, I don't remember Coulter, O' Reilly, Hannity or Savage or any other of those assholes ever inciting specific acts of violence. So, yeah, I support their right to say stupid things. If they ever cross the line to incite specific acts I will be first in line to call for their prosecution under hate crimes laws.

[Caretha]

36. How did they shut her down exactly?

She cancelled her speech at the University of Ottawa. She shut herself down. Quit spinning, it's making me dizzy.

[Onceuponalife]

61. They didn't as far as I know

They were obviously planning, too, though, which I voice my opposition to. You have nothing to say about the substance of my post and my stance on free speech I guess...:eyes:

[Spazito]

38. Hmmm, this isn't violent I guess...

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

[Onceuponalife]

64. We didn't do any of that stuff after she made that statement

so, no, she didn't incite any specific violent act. In fact, people just ignored her statement for the silliness that it was. What I'm talking about is something like how Tom Metzger of WAR (White Aryan Resistance) incited his followers to kill a black man in Portland, Or. Metzger was convicted in a civil suit brought by the Southern Poverty Law Center of inciting the violent act. Justice was served.

Saying we should do this or that is a far cry from saying go out and kill a random black man, knowing that your audience is likely to do just that.

[madrchsod]

22. the globe...is`t that a right wing paper?

canada has different laws than the usa...i guess the globe did`t realize that

[Bluebear]

33. It's supposedly a "liberal" paper, but I don't think there is any liberal press anymore.

[CommonSensePLZ]

45. The "liberal media" is about as real as the Loch Ness monster nt

[CommonSensePLZ]

46. Ann can say angry hate speech? Boo-hoo

I don't know enough about Canada, but the author says this about Canada's Freedom of Speech laws:

"Canada’s constitution guarantees freedom of speech — but there are two limits. First, laws prohibit incitement of hatred of people based on their color, race, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation. Second, it is illegal to communicate by phone or Internet any material “that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.’’"

Meaning that Canada has legalized political correctness. America has always been a nation at war with itself: For one thing we were made by people escaping persecution that then expanded and incorporated many new culture and as such hold an ideal of tolerance and unity, but on the reverse of that sword is human ignorance, our tendencies to shallowness and categorizing, all of which lead to prejudice, with that with pride and a love of attention and you have Ann Coulter.

But the students used their own freedom of speech to protest her. In America we are a capitalist society, our Supreme court just past a law that says people and corporations are the same (ha!) so if these people are paying money to go to this school, why should they have to be inconvenienced by Ann trying again to draw attention to herself? And I do mean inconvenienced, it sounds to me like if she showed up it would be a media circus.

Still, the bleeding heart in me feels sorry for her (even though she doesn't deserve it). If she wants to spread ignorance to those who'll listen she should be able to I suppose, but for the "she's just trying to express freedom of speech and they're OPPRESSING HER! Wah!" people, what if she was just going there to make armpit farts into the microphone? When do you allow for common sense restriction on what someone desperate for attention calls "freedom of speech"? When is it important for communication to have real value and not just be sounds coming out of us? When are empty, negative remarks and prejudices just not allowed? When is it accepted that prejudiced beliefs shouldn't have as much authority as true and indisputable facts?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Neither are dangerous, both are wrong.

[proteus_lives]

32. The writer has it right.

Canada is intolerant when it comes to speech.

[SOS]

62. Factually incorrect

Coulter spoke freely the night before at the University of Western Ontario in London.
She was perfectly free to tell a teenage Muslim student to "take a camel" instead of the flying carpet she previously suggested Muslims use for transportation.
In the past, Coulter has suggested that Canada not be "allowed to exist" and has advocated that the US should "crush" Canada.
She's 'tough" when she's safely tucked away in a Fox News studio.
In Ottawa she was faced with thousands of protestors.
When the coward Coulter saw her reception, it was her promoter, Ezra Levant, who pulled the plug on the speech.
The Canadian authorities had nothing to do with her turning tail and running away.
And now she can use her own milquetoast behavior as a fraudulent reason to attack Canada.

[spanone]

39. i'd say the students were exercising their free speech

the media is not the friend of liberalism or democrats for that matter.

[Cleita]

42. Too bad that the Canadians don't keep out our American criminals like

George Bush and queen of lies, Ann Coulter, like they do Americans that have been convicted of drunk driving. All are dangerous but drunk drivers made an error of judgement. Bush and Coulter do what they do with malice and forethought.

[DainBramaged]

43. So you gonna tell a Country how to run itself?

We have enough shit to deal with here in America, mind our own business and stop trying to push our nation-building concepts on others.

[Nikki Stone1]

49. Isn't that what America does?

Even if it takes an army to do so?

[Onceuponalife]

65. Good thing we didn't follow your advice during WWII

[murphyj87]

70. WWII

You mean after the United States abandoned it's allies and sat on it's hands for the first three years of WWII while my father and millions of others fought from 1939-1945 instead?

[amandabeech]

44. Canada is not the U.S. and vice versa.

I say let the Canadians handle obnoxious speech the way they want, and we "southerners" handle it the way we want.

I prefer the U.S. way, but hey, I'm a U.S. citizen and I live here, so that works for me.

[upi402]

50. Canada has it right, when I look around here

I look at the results here and think Canada is avoiding the rise of fascism that speakers like her incite and foster.

[kevinbgoode]

51. I started laughing when I read this part. . .

"Coulter does not tell her readers and audiences to immediately take up violence. She is not literally dangerous. Racist, offensive, stupid, angering — yes. But not dangerous.What is dangerous is Canada’s intolerance of offensive speech."

Well, then what I'd like to know is what market value does Ann Coulter's "speech" have anyway? And isn't the "dangerous" part the idea that someone with such a worthless opinion that she needs to demean others actually receives money to stand on a stage and spout off a long tirade of willful ignorance? What does that say about the United States, where we have enough people who would PAY someone handsomely to spout Coulter's crap anyway?

Perhaps this isn't about "free speech" as much as it is about the values of a country (the United States) that actually has a market for Coulter's kind of garbage - which frankly, is readily echoed freely from any wingnut on any wingnut corner.

[fascisthunter]

57. it's OP ed... I'm not surprised to see damage control... the right has lots of money to shovel their

right wingers hiding behind people's rights to further an undemocratic fascist agenda.

[ddeclue]

63. Ann Coulter IS dangerous - she demonizes people she disagrees with.

and hey it's THEIR country and they can govern it as they see fit - if they don't want hate mongerers screwing it up then more power to them.

[Warren Stupidity]

66. Coulter is dangerous.

Coulter Beck Malkin Limbaugh Hannity O'Reilly, Savage etc - the whole gang at Hate Speak Central are dangerous shills for rightwing extremism.

[glinda]

67. Canada has every right to uphold their laws on "hate speech" just because we don't.

[Overseas]

68. I'm a lot more disturbed by Coulter being invited regularly onto US TV shows

as though she was just another regular pundit. And Michelle Malkin being invited on as though she has anything useful to say. All with the excuse that the stations are just being somehow "balanced" by inviting right wing lunatic fringe people on the air. I don't see an equivalent number of radical left wingers regularly invited to speak on air.

Coulter and Malkin have made so many hateful declarations, I'd have expected a nation that allows free speech to have recognized the right wing lunacy they represent as so fringey as to exclude them from our TV news chat shows out of good taste and for the common good. We don't have the head of the KKK on the air, and these gals are equally hateful. I really find it repulsive that they haven't been excluded as well. Not by law but just by common decency.

Even more disturbing is having Rush Limbaugh on our Armed Forces Network, all over the world. Is that really the image of the USA that we want to promote overseas? His hateful speech reinforces the worst impressions of the USA that people have around the world. And why is our armed forces network having a host that regularly condemns the very government our soldiers are fighting to defend?

Our national broadcast media is not at all balanced at this stage. We have far more venomous anti-government voices than voices for community, progressive ideas, good government and peaceful approaches to diplomacy.

This lack of balance has driven some of our desperate citizens into violence and even encouraged legislators like Grassley, who used to be more reasonable, to appear at astroturf events talking about pulling the plug on Grandma.

We have free speech (a.k.a. paid speech for those who get corporate and right wing funding) but we don't seem to care as much about responsible speech and the danger of hate speech becoming so widespread.

The informal cultural attacks on being "politically correct" (a.k.a. non-offensive) in speech have had their desired effect-- our people seem to think hours of right wing lies on our public airwaves are just fine. Kind of fun for some people. Glenn Beck spitting on social and economic justice are just colorful freedom of speech, rather than hateful declarations seeking to undermine the ideals of our democracy.