Canadian Provost warns Ann Coulter about the dangers of "free speech" - Page 2

Can I get a list?

Personal use pot is a misdemeanor. Gay men can marry gay men. Gay women can marry gay women. Those are the big ones.

Forgive Seabass - part of the Canadian identity is either looking for ways we're better than America, or viewing Canada as a mini-America that doesn't rival its 'big brother'. I'm in the former crowd as well. There are places in America I'd love to visit, and I've known many Americans who are cool people. Obviously, America has contributed a lot to culture (it's overly-saturated, even) but damn, it seems like everyday reasonable Americans have to confront this shit, like what Coulter spews, on a daily personal basis. I don't know how they do it, and still say they love their country, but they have my compliments for their perseverance.

I've expressed that sentiment often myself. Fox News in gyms? People you work with echoing the previous night's talking points? Gah! I'd go bonkers.

How does this differ from the states that aren't Alabama?

Oh, sure.

Event canceled.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1509793/

Looking at a map there's still a number of states that carry mandatory sentences for marijuana use including Massachusetts, New Jersey, Nebraska, Virginia, and Maryland. And only ten states with it decriminalized. So, I'd say the average pot user in the US is more terrified than the one in Canada.

One thing this situation has brought to light is that apparently the rest of the world hasn’t cottoned onto the fact that George Galloway is a despicable, profiteering, vaguely sociopathic son of a bitch. He’s like some fucking Leftist crusader abroad and it just makes me laugh so much.

I still don’t get quite why attempting to curb ‘hate speech’ is a bad thing. Canada seems a little stricter than over here but the ‘hate speech’ legislation here is essentially to stop extreme racism and acts which could incite violence.

That's what free speechers in the states always forget. They aren't protected from saying what they want, they're only protected from the government creating a law that says they can't. There are still consequences for saying dumb ass shit.

This is not a free speech issue. This is a public safety issue. I heard a rumor that some members of the 'Young Liberals' which is the youth wing of The Liberal Party of Canada were organizing people to possibly storm the university, if coulter gave the speech. The university obviously did want a riot on their hands so this was a sensible decision. Coulter should have kept her mouth shut, I mean you really have to go out of your way to say something so offensive that the people who invited who payed for you to give the speech end up booing you and walking out in the middle of the speech.

She spews in Calgary today, actually. Levant must be squealing orgasmically in delight.

Racism is crossing the street to avoid some black kids, Extreme Racism is corralling a bunch of people into burning down the houses of said black kids.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s we had the National Front organising truly vicious and horrific attacks on Indian communities within England. There membership was slowly curbed by the Hate Crimes act and they sort of died a death in the mid 90s. Now they've sort of reformed as a legitimate political party and the only thing stopping them from being as vicious as they used to be is the threat of legal action.

Regional civil liberties groups.

This is embarassing for Canada on a number of fronts, not the least of which is the front where we are paying attention to Anne Coulter; it's frankly mortifying that the university admin. decided to play into the hands of Anne Coulter and the National Post. I also think it's embarassing that this has left the impression that Coulter isn't free to express herself in Canada; the laws mostly deal with inciting violence. Moreover, the laws aren't used very often or with much success.

I'm not embarrassed. Fuck her.

No it's not. At all. She can what she wants, She just won't be provided a platform for her to shit in public like in the US and call it "free speech".

For my position...this article is pretty definitive.

http://www.vancouversun.com/entertai...188/story.html

Coulter's appearance has shown how sheltered progressives can be. Macleans has run articles calling her a "free speech hero", because she has the guts to state her belief that Arabs deserve lesser rights. Another columnist bemoans how students are only discussing the fact of what Coulter said, instead of debating the content of her words - which is fucking absurd, like the discourse should actually move to "Well, are Arabs often too dangerous to allow on airplanes?" And this columnist doesn't actually intend to play into the Neo-Cons' hands. Has nobody had a racist Uncle before? You know, he doesn't keep his mouth shut and he's generally an embarrassment? Ugh.

http://oncampus.macleans.ca/educatio...reactionaries/

But the consequences should be market and socially driven.

The government fining me for speech deemed hateful is repressive. If I spout some pablum about how Pandas are the superior species and thus should be in control of the means of production (who do you think runs China?), and because of this, Caucasians are disruptive to Pandan culture and people should look to separate the two cultures, then let me spout off.

However, if people decided to boycott my products and business associates or refuse to invite me to their parties, colleges, or shindigs, those are the consequences of my speech. The discussion of ideas, even those some people deem ridiculous, is vitally important to a functioning democracy. Let the idiots reveal themselves, let the sane ones illustrate the problem with the idiots, we can discuss it, and let's move on. Let people of differing ideas reply.

Fines against speech inhibit free speech.


In response to Ryan's earlier post about the marijuana laws in Canada, it is still illegal in Canada. The maximum fines for first time offenders, 1000 dollars and 6 months, are not far off from Tennessee's law, maximum 1 year and 2500 dollar fine with a 250 mandatory minimum. Just because your police officers and district attornies don't prosecute as often doesn't mean it is now legal. If I am stopped in Town A and arrested for an ounce, but you are arrested in Town B and released with your ounce, and both towns are in the same legal jurisdiction, you can imagine the lawsuit. Half-assed enforcement doesn't mean its legal, it just means you pray when you get stopped you will get a pass. That is legally ambigious and laws shouldn't be.

Fines against marijuana inhibit legal consequences-free marijuana.

I'm just guessing, but I don't think you understand what constitutes hate-speech in this country.

My guess seems solid.

It's been decriminalized, it's not illegal. It might seem like semantics but it's a vital difference.

You also have to look at the average sentence of a Canadian who is busted for personal use versus the average sentence of a Tenneseean who is busted for personal use.

Screw that. I hate to get all Godwin on you but how did that work in Germany in the thirties?

My quick survey of the hate-speech law comes from Media Awareness Network: Online Hate and the Law. Advocating genocide is inciting violence and I can see it being legally restricted. But publicly inciting hatred is a gray area. If the hatred created is then pointed toward violent acts, then yeah legal intervention, but if that hatred created is pointed towards political action or boycotts, then that would seem to me to be clear of limitations. I am looking for a legal definition of hatred in Canada and can only come up with Hate crimes legislation. I may be missing something.

Which would be fine if what Coulter was asking for was to have people not shop at Muslim owned stores. Or to not frequent pubs that are known to be gay friendly. She's advocating that Muslims should not be allowed on planes. In essence, what she is saying is that no Muslim can be trusted to be on a plane because they all want to blow it up. How is that not inciting hatred of a group?

Oh noes, Godwin!

But you had political corruption, incitement to violence, and Hitler used both to get the president of Germany to suspend their constitution, which guarenteed free speech, 3 months after he was elected chancellor...

After we have approached Godwin's Law, do we stop and start a new game? Or are we required to take a break, give time for the zamboni to clean up, and then play again?

I think we can have some beer while they resurface.

But, seriously, letting the market decide is all well and good but at what point do you step in when it's quite clear the public has stolen the conch and intends to kill Piggy?

"The tyranny of the masses" etc.

I'm not saying she should be put in jail. But ah, that's as far as I'd go with that train of thought. I don't understand how that Vancouver Sun article cannot convince. Not all ideas are legitimate discussion. Yeah, you can say that's arbitrary or hard to discern, but life is much better for people without Ann Coulter spouting her mouth off from a legitimate podium.

Everyone has a right to live without harassment from these assholes because of their country of origin/orientation/etc.

I used to serve tables at a restaurant that catered to management and engineers of the many manufacturing plants. Quebecor guys loved the fact that we stocked Molson and Labatt's.

But I think you answered your own question: When they start moving toward or discussing killing Piggy. Then you have the incitement to violence.

That for me is the key. Everything else is just talk, and jackasses should be allowed to present themselves and save me the time of having to investigate their backgrounds in order to find their jackassery. I am far from a Coulter defender, but free speech should be just that.

What makes a legitimate podium? Is it because she is speaking at a college? Did you have the same feeling toward Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking at a Columbia?

Coulter and Ahmadinejad are not exactly on the same tier, there.

I did.

There's no way that anyone can push that free speech argument without becoming a hypocrite. The truth is that what Coulter's saying isn't very taboo in our society.

I mean, you realize that racist groups rile themselves up in packs, right? They have meetings, and when members see their numbers (even if they aren't very large in the big picture), they grow in confidence. Live speaking engagements are held. The fact is that you are in opposition to some people in society. Some viewpoints need to be stifled! What can I say. Is that necessarily fascist? No. Because my viewpoint allows for mobility of people. Ann Coulter sees a Mexican person and views he or she as subhuman.

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/b...-concerns.aspx

Her entire thing is asserting white male privilege. This isn't a debatable topic like free speech topics are - she is racially prejudiced. Believe me, I used to be on the free-speech-for-all bandwagon, but then I actually met a Neo-Nazi. And others like myself, while he was harassing a black man in the street, were standing around like he must have been a joke. So naive. And I was sickened at myself when I realized it was real. I'm glad he got the shit kicked out of him that night. Ann Coulter hasn't invited literal violence against herself, obviously. But it is a war of ideology. You are helping her spread the message of current power structures, by allowing her to open up like she's doing.

But she Can speak to an audience! Anywhere in Canada! (Just not the University of Ottawa the other day.) And she's using the situation to make Canadians look repressive. Which, outside Canadian universities, is an untrue representation.

The fact that you would engage the idea of using laws to prohibit language and ideas you find uncomfortable is frankly stupid.

Who cares about what she thinks of Canada as being repressive? Fuck her. I don't like her demonizing people I know. I've heard it secondhand from a good friend about what her rhetoric has done. Maybe you need to imagine this conversation happening in real-time. If you're black, and somebody calls you a ni**er. You tell them to fuck themselves, not "well, actually racism is incorrect because _____". It's simple. Almost all white Americans, and Canadians, support universal freedom of speech! I think that's telling!

I don't care what she thinks. And I frankly wish the rest of the world didn't either. But all of that is irrelevant; for the moment, she has the eyes ears and tongues of the public. Which means the crap she's spewing has it's foot in the door.

As for your "argument ad white people" — that's the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. So fuck off with you and you're holier than thou personal morality overstepping reasoned ethical standards. It's simple.

Holier than thou? Coulter's views are able to be scientifically disproved. Many have been. All I'm exploring is why we bother allowing them to be heard in the mass media, as opposed to other disgusting views we don't allow.

I do feel better than her - not that I believe that can actually be measured, but that I'm trying to support a culture of questioning society - which existed on this message board already.

Her beliefs support power structures in place. It's ethical to protect others from Coulter's harassment. You can say she has a right to say, in public to over a thousand people, that Arabs shouldn't fly on planes - but don't Arabs have a right to not be harassed by this shit?

I think he may be referring more to people who get inspired by hate speech to go out and cause violence and harassment of the minority at the centre of it rather than the minority getting their feelings hurt ElCap

Rain Dog has it right in how he worded my argument, although I'm not sure exactly what's meant by El Capitan's criticism. Literally, anyone who is Arabic can loathe Ann Coulter. It's not about trying to appease people who believe in a certain something that others do not. She literally believes Arabs are lesser people. Coulter isn't attacking a viewpoint, she's attacking people based on their skin color and heritage. Anyone related to that heritage has no hope but to live in fear or attack her sort.

I don't get how people can act like this woman is not a piece of shit. Everything that comes out of her mouth is shit. She's a terrible human being, regardless of whether or not it's a ruse to make money. Anyone saying the kind of virulent crap that she spouts on a regular basis should be marginalized to the point where they're picking trash out of a goddamn dumpster, but no, people just keep feeding the beast and buying into this bullshit.

Absolutely not, what am I, a hypocrite? Pfft.

ElCapitan's tolerance for her shit is directly proportionate to his distance from her venomous mark.

If FOX News' charter catered to and promoted troglodytes who espoused the mindset that hispanics should find their way back to whatever border they waded across and go back to picking coffee beans and sewing ponchos, you can bet he'd be singing a different tune.

I'm a pasty white Irish-Italian hetero male. I'm the last person who needs to worry about the garbage that leaks out of Coulter's mannish gashface. But I'll be damned if I can't wrap my brain around just how disgusting it must be to live in a nation where blunt and hideous hate directed at me (with the undeniable intention to incite) goes unchecked.

Kudos to ElCapitan for transcending such petty human frailties.

Wait . . . it doesn't?

guys he's a centrist come on now it's totally fair he doesn't want to take sides