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.

“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…

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.

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.