I will start this post off by saying that I am most emphatically NOT an Ann Coulter fan. I find her speech bombastic, stupid, often needlessly insulting, and mostly pointless.
Nonetheless, I think this is just wrong:
OTTAWA — Even before she opened her mouth for the first of three speeches this week on Canadian soil, American right-wing antagonist Ann Coulter had already scored a victory of sorts.
Coulter, who was to speak at the University of Western Ontario on Monday night, received a pre-emptive and private caution about the limits of free speech in Canada from the provost of the University of Ottawa, where she appears Tuesday.
The letter was immediately leaked to select conservative news organizations, with Coulter telling one that the university was “threatening to criminally prosecute me for my speech.”
Here’s the text of the letter:
Dear Ms. Coulter,
I understand that you have been invited by University of Ottawa Campus Conservatives to speak at the University of Ottawa this coming Tuesday. We are, of course, always delighted to welcome speakers on our campus and hope that they will contribute positively to the meaningful exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of a great university campus. We have a great respect for freedom of expression in Canada, as well as on our campus, and view it as a fundamental freedom, as recognized by our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or “free speech”) in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here.
You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind.
There is a strong tradition in Canada, including at this university, of restraint, respect and consideration in expressing even provocative and controversial opinions and urge you to respect that Canadian tradition while on our campus. Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.
I hope you will enjoy your stay in our beautiful country, city and campus.
Sincerely,
Francois Houle,
Vice-President Academic and Provost, University of Ottawa
As I understand it, Coulter’s speech in Ottawa was shut down this evening because of “security” concerns.
But that’s not even the issue that bothers me.
In this country, the idea of a political pundit being sent a warning letter like that by the head of a public University would, I hope, be rejected out of hand. Our good friends to the north would do well to remember something that Thomas Jefferson said:
“There are rights which it is useless to surrender to the government and which governments have yet always been found to invade. These are the rights of thinking and publishing our thoughts by speaking or writing; the right of free commerce; the right of personal freedom.
Are you really happy with what you’ve given up Canada ?
I can tell you that I’m not happy when you violate the rights of one of my countrymen, even one I vehemently disagree with.
Nope.
Viscerally, I wouldn’t mind seeing Ann Coulter take a brick in the face. Ideologically, VP Houle is within his rights to send whatever personal letters he pleases. Politically, Canada is far too caught up in “correct” speech. We are broken as a free country and we need to unfuck ourselves.
Um, we haven’t “given it up”. The only country in the world with extensive protection of freedom of speech is the United States. In Canada, protected speech includes opinions that do not extend to displaying hatred on a public platform. It’s not all that dissimilar to the United States. In Canada, much as in the United States, if someone uses a public platform to encourage people to commit a crime then their speech is not protected (the ol’ “fire in a crowded theatre” test by Holmes). The difference is that in Canada hate speech is considered to incite crime, and a lot of what Coulter says is hate speech.
I can still say whatever I think about the government, or people, or religion. I just can’t get up there and say “I wish someone would kill all the fags.”
There’s a difference between being censored or threatened into silence, and simply being warned about preexisting hate speech laws. Now, for the record, I strongly disagree with Canada’s limitations on free speech and believe that they ought to be repealed. But nonetheless, the claim that Canada has no freedom of speech is rather insulting in its misleading and entirely untrue nature.
If Coulter’s speech was, as reported, shut down by violence and threats thereof, that’s contemptible thuggery. All should condemn in.
The fact that it was wrong doesn’t make Coulter even a little more right, though. Coulter advocates violence against wrong-thinkers all the time. She says she’s joking. (1) Don’t believe her, and (2) even if she is, she does it to an audience parts of which she knows (and, I suspect, hopes) will take it seriously.
Hate speech laws are a crime against individual liberty
Words have consequences.
Coulter knows this better than anyone; she’s made a career out of it and has become a celebrity because of it. She has every right to say whatever she wants in the same way that the University of Ottawa students have every right to rally and protest. The only true difference between Anne and the protesters (besides to obvious left and right) is that the protesters were willing to embrace the consequences of standing up against ideals they disagreed with, whereas Anne didn’t have the spine to back up her own convictions, left without saying what she wanted to say and played the victim card.
She complains that she was threatened to shut-up despite not having a chance to speak, then calls uOttawa students violent when there wasn’t a single act of violence toward her (only strong political and moral opposition). I’ve seen many protests on campus and have yet to see any violence at all and when they are deemed to dangerous, it isn’t because of violence, but because of the sheer size of the crowd that shows up that causes potential risk of injury.
I guess what I’m saying is if you’re going to put yourself out there with a mission to stir things up and cause controversy, don’t be insulted when you get what you asked for. I personally believe that Anne Coulter is a puppeteer who says and does things with purpose and with self-interest alone; politics are her theatre and we are her little puppets who rise to the occasion showing up at protests and going to battle in on-line forums, adding to her celebrity and feeding the fires of anger, misunderstanding and hate. Don’t think that she doesn’t love every second of it!
Anne Coulter is reaping the fruits of her labors.
I disagree with much of what Ann Coulter says.
I will defend to the death her right to say it.
“Free speech” is an asset for those who have something meaningful to say.
“Free speech” is not a reasonable excuse for offending entire communities or for being controversial just for the sake of causing controversy.
Live and let live!
the principle of free speech is one of the bedrocks of our democracy – and something that we americans cherish and hold sacred
be that as it may – i’m not sure that anything ann coulter has to say is worth breaking a sweat over, much less defending to the death
and when in rome…or ottawa
Ann Coulter, Al Sharpton — who cares what they say, though they are entertaining from time to time. By the way, doesn’t it look like Ann’s doo is easier to maintain?
Katie if I knew what “community” you represented or what “controversy” you sought to avoid I would offend and stir up to no end, just to prove to you how survivable are those verbal volleys. Lemming-like comformity and reflexive retreat are not what build and create a strong and vital society or the economy that underpins it.
Katie: Who gets to decide what qualifies as “meaningful”, and how do we protect the rest of us against their monopoly on censorship?
(And by your own standards of “not offending entire communities” and “live and let live”, you oughtn’t traipse into a den of libertarianism like this one and cut loose with trite comments about not hurting people’s feelings. You certainly haven’t contributed anything meaningful to the discussion; your pathetic arguments have been dealt with long ago.)
I support Anne’s right to be a complete idiot. I also support the right of the people of Canada to tell her to f-off.
Bluntobject, have I offended your libertarianist sensibilities with my “trite comments”? I thought this was a forum supporting an individual’s rights to free speech. If you argue that no single person can define what is meaningful and what isn’t then what right do you have saying that my opinion or contributions aren’t meaningful when in fact my beliefs are very meaningful to me and to those who agree with me.
Also, I feel the need to point something out to you, Bluntobject. Being “blunt” means that you get to the point quickly without beating around the proverbial bush. A blunt object, on the other hand, is something with a soft or rounded tip, like a prick. So I guess what I’m saying is that I wholeheartedly have to disagree with your hypocrytical attitude and general flacid arguments.
Vast Variety, thanks for the support and I hope you’ll also support my right to tell the dildo to f-off.
Peace.