The day after a Toronto Sun editorial bemoaned what it called Canada’s “milquetoast caricatures of leadership” by being “mired in centrist (politics),” a speech by American conservative writer and broadcaster Ann Coulter was cancelled at the University of Ottawa.
The reason: Intimidation. Organizers feared for her safety.
Francois Houle, the university’s academic and provost sent her a letter warning that if she were not careful, her words could result in criminal charges for inciting hate.
Ms. Coulter noted that in the U.S. she has spoken at 100 to 200 colleges without incident. She sees herself as a “victim of a hate crime,” even before she spoke. And she’ll gleefully make mileage on this on U.S. talk-radio.
The scenario hardly substantiates the Sun’s bylined editorial view that Canada is too wishy-washy to stand on “principle,” led as we are by politicians seemingly unable “to overcome obstructionism and cynicism.” We are told one to emulate is U.S. President Barack Obama, – “a leader with courage” whose healthcare legislation invoked a “racial slur” against a leading black congressman.
“Canadian political discourse doesn’t get so vile,” declared the Sun.
Maybe our politicians are more restrained than a thousand demonstrators against Ann Coulter at the University of Ottawa. It’s mindful of the 1960s, when free speech supporting the Vietnam War was verboten at many North American colleges.
Almost any opinion can be voiced at U.S. colleges these days – but not in Canada. The government prevented British MP George Galloway from entering Canada last year – ostensibly because he was a financial supporter of the terrorist group Hamas, not because he’s pro-Palestinian and hostile to Israel. Hmm.
Ann Coulter feeds on publicity, and is outspokenly conservative in a way that makes some conservatives cringe. She’s also something of a humorist. But to suggest . . . nay, to insist . . . that she preaches “hate,” is absurd.
What she (and others) really find offensive are human rights commissars who in Canada increasingly have power to decide what words, ideas and views are acceptable and “free,” and what is hateful and forbidden – witness recent celebrated cases against Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn.
As National Post writer Lorne Gunter notes, human rights bodies “protect only those individuals who are members of groups currently in favor . . . such as gays, feminists Muslims, francophones and immigrants.” Relegated to the back of the bus are “men, Christians, Jews, English-speakers, those of European descent.”
Being cancelled at the University of Ottawa because of fears for safety, plays into Ann Coulter’s hands. As reflected by Mr. Houle, why are we so fearful of free speech? So politically correct, so uneasy that Canadians are incapable of thinking for themselves and must be guided, protected, controlled? And punished if we deviate?
Ann Coulter is no threat. Nor is George Galloway, Black Panther Bobby Seal, anti-Muslim Dutch radical Geert Wilders.
So why do we pander to those who disrupt and stamp on free expression?
Instead of scolding Canadians for being “centrist” in politics, it’d be more useful if the Sun editorially advocated more tolerance for views that some find offensive, but which do not incite violence.
Meanwhile, by defying the wishes of the majority of Americans and resisting bi-partisan support in healthcare reform, President Obama may be “courageous” but also may wreak havoc in his country. We shall see . . .
TerryF98 // Mar 24, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Anne Coulter was not “prevented” from entering Canada, she was not stopped from entering the University and giving a speech, No one threatened her, no one broke windows, cut gas lines, sent death threats, put her in a gun crosshairs, spat on her called her nigger or fagot.
All some students did was assemble and protest, which is their right. The fact that she decided to run away and cower is her problem. If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen. She obviously has no conviction or she would not have scampered at the first sign of opposition.
Ms Coulter is more used to fan adoration at Right Wing universities here in the USA.
LauraNo // Mar 24, 2010 at 9:15 pm
What about the protesters right to protest? Isn’t that free speech also? I’ve seen no proof violence was imminent, more likely, in my opinion that police got nervous. I don’t see this as a problem with free speech, but Canada does have a right to decide their own interpretation of same. They seem to be more reserved in regards to well-being of society than the US is. For what it’s worth.
Rocketship7 // Mar 24, 2010 at 11:31 pm
Peter…….”anti-Muslim Dutch radical Geert Wilders”
He is not a radical, he is libertarian. Your old colleague friend Lubor Zink would not be impressed.
You and Glen Beck are mislabeling Geert.
MSheridan // Mar 25, 2010 at 1:28 am
I am a fervent believer in free speech and wouldn’t muzzle Coulter if I could. My understanding is that she was not forbidden from speaking, and am not sure exactly how Mr. Worthington thinks her freedom of expression is being trampled upon. So she got a letter warning her “to be careful” and then decided not to continue when there were some nonviolent student demonstrations. And?
However, although I refuse to directly quote her, I think this discussion would benefit from a link to the story in the Toronto Sun that does contain a few quotes, so that interested people can see for themselves the sort of talk all the fuss is about.
kevin47 // Mar 25, 2010 at 2:53 am
“Anne Coulter was not “prevented” from entering Canada,”
Who said she was?
“No one threatened her,”
Francois Houle threatened her. Seriously, did you read the post?
“What about the protesters right to protest? Isn’t that free speech also?”
It is. It is also stupid speech. 1,000 students didn’t have anything better to do that protest the appearance of a political hack? That said, freedom of speech does not exist in Canada. That’s not hyperbole. It is literally so.
“I’ve seen no proof violence was imminent, more likely, in my opinion that police got nervous.”
Right. And so the freedom of expression is at the beck and call of those who would threaten violence. If you threaten violence, you can get an event canceled. If you don’t, it won’t be canceled. See the problem?
“I don’t see this as a problem”
Oh.
“with free speech, but Canada does have a right to decide their own interpretation of same.”
It does indeed. But it cannot simultaneously exert itself against free speech while hoping to have a meaningful impact on international policy. If Canada wants to side with Cuba, China and Iran on this, shouldn’t we call this out?
“They seem to be more reserved in regards to well-being of society than the US is. For what it’s worth.”
Does “it” refer to the sentence prior? Because that sentence is an awkwardly worded assertion of nonsense. It is worth nothing at all.
What do you mean by “more reserved”, and what do you mean by “well-being of society”? How does the Canadian reservation w/r/t well-being and free speech differ from American notions, and why is their claim superior?
kevin47 // Mar 25, 2010 at 3:04 am
“My understanding is that she was not forbidden from speaking, and am not sure exactly how Mr. Worthington thinks her freedom of expression is being trampled upon.”
She was threatened with criminal charges. You really can’t understand how one might infer the trampling of free speech from the threat of criminal charges leveled against one who, um, speaks? Or are you trying to do some hair splitting thing between freedom of speech and freedom of expression?
“So she got a letter warning her “to be careful” and then decided not to continue when there were some nonviolent student demonstrations. And?”
So are you just operating on the assumption that anyone reading your comment will not have read the post above? The letter of caution clearly had nothing to do with the student protests. I don’t get what point you are trying to make.
However, although I refuse to directly quote her, I think this discussion would benefit from a link to the story in the Toronto Sun that does contain a few quotes, so that interested people can see for themselves the sort of talk all the fuss is about.
So, much ado about nothing, not worthy of a threat of criminal action. Is that your point? Good, we agree.
A Revolution has come for you…traffic | Definitive Internet Marketing News // Mar 25, 2010 at 3:29 am
[...] Canada’s Free Speech Problem | FrumForum [...]
ptensioned // Mar 25, 2010 at 6:58 am
Hi kevin47 –
Perhaps we disagree in our interpretation of Mr. Houle’s letter to Ms. Coulter. Where you see threats and intimidation, I see a well meant request to keep thing civil and a reminder that Canadian speech laws differ from their American counterparts in some very meaningful ways.
If Mr. Houle had the power to enforce or prosecute the law, or were he a member of the government, I might understand your view. As it stands, Ms. Coulter was free to completely ignore the letter and carry on as planned. She was also free to review Canadian free speech laws and decide for herself if what she planned to say was illegal in this country. She did not. Instead, she saw this as yet another opportunity for self-promotion and the creation of false controversy.
Again, we may disagree on whether the existing Canadian speech laws actually allow for fair and free expression (I believe they do, while you appear not to). But that is not the issue here. Nobody with the power to do so has threatened criminal action against Ms. Coulter. At no point has she been prevented from speaking. She simply decided not to show up, and used a very mildly worded letter as an excuse to forment conflict.
It is an example of the worst of the escalating commercialization of political views. This is not about free speech. This is about profiting from controversy and conflict.
Derek // Mar 25, 2010 at 8:32 am
Coulter has a great gig going, she makes money from insulting minorities and trying to demonize fellow Americans, and then she gets to play the role of victim, when normal people get tired of her mindless act. Forgive me for not getting all broken up about her right to insult being infringed, if it ever was.
Drug Abuse – The oxycontin Express : Vanguard Trailer « anti smoking blog // Mar 25, 2010 at 8:47 am
[...] Canada’s Free Speech Problem | FrumForum [...]
sinz54 // Mar 25, 2010 at 10:20 am
ptensioned:
Evidently Canadian speech laws are like some of the “speech codes” on American campuses: There is a list of “forbidden words” you cannot say.
In one of Coulter’s speeches at CPAC here in the U.S., she called John Edwards a “f****t”, which is a derogatory term meaning a gay person. And that’s likely why she was going to be protested in Canada.
It’s stuff like that which makes me glad I’m a citizen of the U.S., and I’m also glad I no longer go to college campuses. Gays have no special right not to be demeaned by others. You’re an adult, you are supposed to be able to deal with put-downs. (I’ve taken plenty, right here on FrumForum, by other posters who equate disagreement with stupidity or evil.)
My view is that one should have the freedom to spew forth anything he or she desires, provided it’s not an open call for violence or panic.
TerryF98 // Mar 25, 2010 at 10:25 am
Sinz
“My view is that one should have the freedom to spew forth anything he or she desires, provided it’s not an open call for violence or panic.”
They why do you actively campaign for people to be banned on this forum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Independent // Mar 25, 2010 at 10:52 am
TeaBagged hits Sinz54 with a level dose of potent “You Hypocrite” medicine.
Unfortunately, I have to say I agree with TeaBagged. Hypocrite on Hyper Drive, sinz54. That much two-faced manuevering before coffee should be outlawed on FF.
MSheridan // Mar 25, 2010 at 11:26 am
kevin47, I read your posts and had been going to respond, but then saw that ptensioned had already said in post 8 pretty much everything I’d been going to say. I’ll fully sign on to the arguments given in that post.
TerryF98 // Mar 25, 2010 at 11:28 am
Freedom of speech is for everyone, not just for people who agree with you. You should defend the right of your opponent even more vigorously. I defend Anne Coulter, she has the right to say what she likes. As long as it is not hate speech or bigotry. The problem of course is ones own definition of those items!
I defend anyone here to say what they like, I do not like flagrant cursing because it lowers the tone of the discussion. But is people feel the need then go ahead.
I defend the right of the tea party folk to say what they like. I am not keen on the calls for violence or racism, in calling people nigger or fagot as racism and homophobia are bigotry.
kevin47 // Mar 25, 2010 at 12:16 pm
“Where you see threats and intimidation, I see a well meant request to keep thing civil and a reminder that Canadian speech laws differ from their American counterparts in some very meaningful ways”
It doesn’t really matter whether you call it a threat or a reminder, though the latter interpretation seems awfully obtuse. The problem is that Canada uses the force of government to inhibit free speech. The threat is implicit.
“If Mr. Houle had the power to enforce or prosecute the law, or were he a member of the government, I might understand your view.”
I would be willing to bet that, if he put in a call to their speech police, prompt action would be taken. That’s how it works in country’s where freedom of expression isn’t protected. Those with power hold all the cards, and the provost of a major university is certainly in a position of power.
“As it stands, Ms. Coulter was free to completely ignore the letter and carry on as planned.”
No. If what you are doing is illegal, then you are not free to do it. Again, this isn’t a University of Ottawa problem. This isn’t a Francois Houle problem. This is a fundamental reminder of how our constitutional rights are superior to the imaginary ones afforded Canadians.
“Instead, she saw this as yet another opportunity for self-promotion and the creation of false controversy.”
I don’t care what her intentions are.
“Again, we may disagree on whether the existing Canadian speech laws actually allow for fair and free expression (I believe they do, while you appear not to).”
The proof is in the pudding. Those who threaten violence and speak out against Jews are protected. That’s how it starts, but it well get worse over time. That’s why we have the freedom of speech in our country, without “reasonable limitations” imposed by those with the power to determine what it means to be reasonable.
“It is an example of the worst of the escalating commercialization of political views. This is not about free speech. This is about profiting from controversy and conflict.”
And, as an American, I see no problem with controversy and conflict that should negate their profitability. Canada doesn’t was controversy and conflict (unless you are Muslim), and so politely reminds speakers that Canada’s laws “differ” from the robust protections offered Americans.
Looking for Best Hypnotherapy? Go for Hypnotherapy Bolton From Bolton Wellbeing Clinic | ISelfCenter.com // Mar 25, 2010 at 3:58 pm
[...] Canada’s Free Speech Problem | FrumForum [...]
Good Wrinkle Cream Hello and Welcome to the Good Wrinkle Cream Site ! You can Use // Mar 25, 2010 at 4:52 pm
[...] Canada's Free Speech Problem | FrumForum [...]
computer dallas network security | FREE Buy and Sell Philippines … | Network Security // Mar 25, 2010 at 5:06 pm
[...] Canada's Free Speech Problem | FrumForum [...]
ptensioned // Mar 25, 2010 at 6:14 pm
kevin47 -
“It doesn’t really matter whether you call it a threat or a reminder, though the latter interpretation seems awfully obtuse. The problem is that Canada uses the force of government to inhibit free speech. The threat is implicit.”
Need I trot out the old, “Your right to swing your fist ends when it hits my nose,” trope? Without getting into a deeper debate around various concepts of free expression and the incitement of violence (neither the time or place), remember that Ms. Coulter spoke twice in Canada on this tour. Despite saying things that many Canadians strongly disagree with, she has not been censured by the CHRC. Tempest in a teapot, anyone?
“I would be willing to bet that, if he put in a call to their speech police, prompt action would be taken. That’s how it works in country’s where freedom of expression isn’t protected. Those with power hold all the cards, and the provost of a major university is certainly in a position of power.”
And I would be willing to bet that were Mr. Houle to lodge a complaint himself (which he has at no point threatened to do), it would be addressed by the CHRC in the same manner as it would be if any other Canadian citizen were to lodge a similar complaint. It’s not like he has a red phone on his desk with a direct line to the “speech police.” Your assertion that those in power somehow dictate how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is applied becomes laughable, considering the vast majority of people in ‘power’ at this point in Canadian history are conservative (big and little C), Christian, white men. Not that there’s anything wrong with that…
“No. If what you are doing is illegal, then you are not free to do it. Again, this isn’t a University of Ottawa problem. This isn’t a Francois Houle problem. This is a fundamental reminder of how our constitutional rights are superior to the imaginary ones afforded Canadians.”
But what she said ISN’T illegal. As stated above, she spoke twice in Canada without being censured. This is quite possibly the worst example to use when debating the merits of Canadian expression laws. (As an aside, looking below, you state specifically that, “Francois Houle threatened her.” You seem to be backing off that notion.)
“I don’t care what her intentions are.”
I do, because she is beating the drum of ‘free speech’ where no governmental attempt has been made to curtail hers, and she is casting the debate in Canada under a false light.
“The proof is in the pudding. Those who threaten violence and speak out against Jews are protected. That’s how it starts, but it well get worse over time. That’s why we have the freedom of speech in our country, without “reasonable limitations” imposed by those with the power to determine what it means to be reasonable.”
Believe it or not, I actually agree with you for the most part. It’s that last (insert random small percentage here) of extreme speech that we differ on. But I strongly differ with you on this point. It is in fact against anti-Semitic rhetoric that the HRC’s and HRT’s have been most often applied. Ever hear of Ernst Zundel? How about the Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team? Or Marc Lemire? Yes, there have been some high profile cases of Muslims making claims to the CHRC, but so far the vast majority have been thrown out. To suggest that the use of the CHRC is the exclusive preserve of pro-Muslim complainants is absurd.
Additionally, the ‘thin edge of the wedge’ concept you espouse couldn’t be further from the truth. The debate in Canada at the moment (led by some prominent liberals, by the way) is currently centering on curtailing the definitions of unacceptable expression, rather than extending them.
While you may argue that this is a sign that any limits are wrong, I would counter that this is the Charter and HRA working exactly as it should. Rules that were made in 1867 are no more sacred than those made in 1977, 1982, or yesterday. Language changes, meaning changes, and therefore the wording of laws should change to accommodate. To suggest that ‘those in power’ are modifying the Charter to suit their needs is, in fact, quite offensive to me as a Canadian. Reasonable limitations are exactly that: reasonable. Ultimately, the power to make those decisions lies with the Canadian people, as we are collectively ‘those with the power to determine what it means to be reasonable.’
(“And, as an American, I see no problem with controversy and conflict that should negate their profitability. Canada doesn’t was controversy and conflict (unless you are Muslim), and so politely reminds speakers that Canada’s laws “differ” from the robust protections offered Americans.”
I see below that you accuse a poster of an “awkwardly worded assertion of nonsense.” Looking at the above paragraph, I humbly suggest that those in glass houses should not call the kettle black.)
Thank you, by the way, for a truly fun and interesting conversation. I’m coming to appreciate the exchange of ideas here more than anywhere else on the internet. Oh, and as a Canadian, I should also offer the obligatory apology. I’m not sure what for, but apparently that’s what we do…
Parks Canada Celebrates 125th Birthday | Laura James // Mar 26, 2010 at 12:58 am
[...] Canada's Free Speech Problem | FrumForum [...]
kevin47 // Mar 26, 2010 at 4:12 pm
“Despite saying things that many Canadians strongly disagree with, she has not been censured by the CHRC. Tempest in a teapot, anyone?”
Then the letter should have been wholly unnecessary.
“And I would be willing to bet that were Mr. Houle to lodge a complaint himself (which he has at no point threatened to do), it would be addressed by the CHRC in the same manner as it would be if any other Canadian citizen were to lodge a similar complaint”.
I don’t think that’s a safe bet. Someone powerful can urge action by using the media, phoning in connections, and lobbying governmental officials directly. These tools are not available to the average citizen.
“Your assertion that those in power somehow dictate how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is applied becomes laughable, considering the vast majority of people in ‘power’ at this point in Canadian history are conservative (big and little C), Christian, white men.”
Not so the rights council. At all.
“But what she said ISN’T illegal. As stated above, she spoke twice in Canada without being censured.”
Then, I am left to assume that the letter had no substantive meaning. Absent any substance, I can ONLY assume it was a threat.
“I do, because she is beating the drum of ‘free speech’ where no governmental attempt has been made to curtail hers, and she is casting the debate in Canada under a false light.”
There are limits on freedom of speech in Canada that do not exist in the United States. Most Americans are unaware of this fact. Nobody sends letters to speakers at our universities, warning them that saying certain things is illegal. The very fact that this happened is going to be very troubling to Americans.
I’ll have to examine the instances of anti-Semitic speech suppression by the Canadian HCR. I was speaking more to the recent history involving schools, and projecting that example onto how we can expect the HCR to behave.
Madmax // Mar 27, 2010 at 11:49 am
And yet, the teabaggers whose orchestrated disruptions of townhall meetings, designed to deny others the right to be heard, or the host to speak, were somehow expressions of American democracy? Let us not forget that Ann Coulter is on the record for criticizing many countries. To believe that she would be welcomed to one of them is pretty naive, and I doubt if her welcome will be any better in any foreign country, especially at institutions of higher learning, where her reputation precedes her, and where ironically, there is little or no tolerance for the American right wing.