Cimarron29414

Micheal Savage was banned from Britian soley because of his speech. I do not know if that ban extends to Canada. Comparing his situation to Coulter's being allowed to come is a better comparison than Galloway to Coulter. The differences between Galloway and Coulter are obvious.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

silent_jay

Why would a ban in Britain extend to Canada? You do know they're 2 different countries with separate governments right. Yes I know you don't like the comparison I have made, you've already stated the thread is dead yet continue to post so it can't be that bad.

james t kirk

However, Palestinians, Jordanians, Syrians, and a host of others are also "Semites"

In the west, the term has been incorrectly assigned to Jews only.

Semitic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As to Ann Coulter - I wouldn't bother to see her, I've got better things to do, however, she should be allowed to speak.

I find the hard left to be just as whacky as the hard right. Both are equally out to lunch.

Baraka_Guru

I know this already. I specify between the word Semite and antisemitism.

It originated as term to describe the hostility against the Semitic races, usually in favour of the Aryan races, but due to circumstances leading up to the rise and fall of Nazi Germany, it came to be known as something you do against Jews specifically. (The Jews have had a long history of being singled out across cultures, but this came to its apex during WWII. If you haven't, you should read some of the assumptive portrayals of Jews found in the works of Chaucer that today would be considered offensive.)

The distinct use of anitsemitic is not so much a result based in an error of ethnic identification or etymology as it is a result based on a widespread failure of humanity.

This is why Ann Coulter can say hateful things about Palestinians, Joranians, and Syrians, etc., and not be considered antisemitic. Much of what she writes and says that people take issue with falls under the purview of Islamophobia.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Poppinjay

Ann Coulter is one of those people who have learned that if you say outrageous shit, people give you money. Some give it to you because they can't help but want to hate you and read your every word. Others give it to you with the response, "that's what I've been saying all along!"

james t kirk, the big difference between the hard left and hard right, is that the hard right appeals to nationalists and populists. This is a huge segment of America, but not the majority. These are folks who think John McCain was too darn smart and a traitor.

The hard left has no voice in the USA. The hard right has Rush, Beck, Ingraham.....

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

Cimarron29414

~sigh~

Yes, I understand that Canada is a separate country from Britian. You do understand that Britian is multiple nation states with quasi-independent governments, right? You know, since we are testing each other's intelligence and you just called Britian a country and all. Both Britian and Canada are subject to the crown, right? So, if there was a ban in Britian (the term generally used to describe the realm rather than England, Ireland, Canada, etc specifically), one might assume that the ban would extend to all countries in the realm, rather than one quasi-independent government.

And, I have posted because the thread has slowed down a bit, and I thought that adding that comparison (Savage to Coulter) might give others the chance to contribute - since it is a perfectly valid question of why Savage and not Coulter? Rather than appreciate my contribution, in typical Silent_Jay fashion, you attack, attack, attack. Completely unnecessary, but we each get what we want to out of this place.

As for the later part, I said "until you provide quotes to compare, the thread is dead." While you never ~exactly~ did that, you at least provided enough for the thread to continue and thus, we have all continued. You don't have to keep this level of rancor over a reasonable request. I'd love to have an actual discussion with you some day.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

silent_jay

No a ban in the UK doesn't extend to Canada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm
Attack? Really that was an attack? I always enjoy people who are generally sarcastic in their posts, complaining about being 'attacked', quite amusing really, has that dish it out, but can't take it sort of thing to it. I've got plenty out of this place in the going on 7 years I have been here.
Meh, that most likely won't happen, I tried that before with you, I remember the result, that is why you get this type of posting.

Cimarron29414

Nice edit. I've tried to contribute substance to this thread. It's not working because you are taking my mere presence personally. So, I'll leave you to it. Enjoy.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

silent_jay

Yes it was a nice edit, sometimes that happens when people have a chance to think about what they're typing and changes need to be made, I figured that was allowed as there is an 'edit' button.

I take nothing here personally, I don't know you from a hole in the ground, all I know about you is based on your posts here, which is why I said I've tried having a discussion with you before, so that is why you get this posting style, you want to have a discussion, no problem.

Ace_O_Spades

Lots of WHARRRGARBL in this thread, but I just wanted to add this:

The reports of "violence" were unsubstantiated rumors spread via Twitter and Ezra Levant's blog. Hogwash. There were even reports of a table being flipped over, which was spread via twitter to drum up "evidence" that the protest was "violent" (it wasn't, at any point).

The U of O talk was poorly organized from the start... Booking Coulter into a hall that was too small to contain the talk, even based on conservative (heh) attendance estimates.

The organizers didn't provide enough manpower to check that those who arrived for the talk were actually registered (you had to pay a fee to listen to her rant... gross).

The cops basically came out and said they advised the organizers to cancel due to their sheer inability to manage only letting those in who had registered.

The whole U of O debacle can be blamed on poor planning by the Conservative party staffers who organized it.... NOT on the peaceful student protest that occurred (rightfully so, given the things she has said about Canada). Everything else surrounding the event, the controversy, the HRC complaint by Coulter, is just one huge publicity stunt that has been spun by her supporters.

Anyone really think Ann Coulter cares about free speech?

"They're [Democrats] always accusing us of repressing their speech. I say let's do it. Let's repress them. Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment." - Ann Coulter

Really, I would have rather she spoke, and everyone just ignored her (like I have, up until this point - these are the only pixels I will spill over that harpy).

In closing, I feel like it was an awful lot of ruckus over a law that nobody is ever charged with. Anyone shedding tears for Mr. Keegstra? Didn't think so.

__________________
Feh.

CandleInTheDark

Are you speaking of the relevant section of the Criminal Code of Canada, or section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act?

Keegstra was charged and convicted under the first; no one is crying over it because it was a valid, landmark case that was processed by actual justices in a system that generally protects the rights of the accused.

Given the uproar over the various abuses by Human Rights Commissions across the country in the last few year, I think most people would agree to thinking that Mr. Houle and his student union cronies were planning on using Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and its accompanying antics. We're not worried about the Criminal Code, and police investigations. Government bureaucrats with social justice agendas, powers that have no checks or balances, and a desire to see the number of complainants "spike" (as per Barbara Hall's comment) scares us.

If you value freedom of expression, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the rights of the accused, please ask your Member of Parliament to support to the repeal of Section 13.

__________________
Where there is doubt there is freedom.

IdeoFunk

I thought it was great to see Coulter face such scathing criticism once she had to leave her comfortable little cubbyhole that is the USA. The fact is that it's really easy for most open-minded, educated, decent people to take exception with a lot of her past remarks. Accordingly, many people rallied together (peacefully) to show what they think of such rednecked bigotry. If I was in Ottawa I would have been there too.

How this is being viewed as a legitimate threat to free-speech in Canada baffles me. AoS already pointed out the lack of logistics that led to the failing of her UofO appearance. As far as I know she went on and did her speeches in Calgary and London as well... and what do you know, all that was done without anyone even attempting to charge under section 13!

The problem with all this is that racism, xenophobia, nazism, hate-thought, etc., are still very real and surprisingly well-organized than I think a lot of people realize in both Canada and America. I find it scary. So if people want to get together in a peaceful manner and offer up their thoughts on someone with a track record as vile as Coulter's, it's just alright with me.

__________________
...out here in the perimeter there are no stars...

Ace_O_Spades

I was hoping someone would take the bait. I clearly mean S. 318 of the Criminal Code. S. 13 of the CHRA is not used to ascertain a finding of criminal guilt. All the uproar I've seen from Coulter's camp surrounds her victim complex - thinking she might be charged with a crime. The CHRA doles out financial penalties, but those do not result in a criminal record. Perhaps a legal/semantic difference, but one that, as a criminologist, irks me.

__________________
Feh.

CandleInTheDark

IdeoFunk, it all depends are whether you view the university system as a bastion of free expression, or not. The protesters are of course, free to protest in a peaceful assembly. That is not the issue.

The problem, as the letter from the Canadian Association of University Teachers spoke to, is that a member of university administration and the university's student political wing, came out to denounce and threaten the ability of Ms. Coulter to broach any subject she chose. The University of Ottawa broke the thin veil of respectability that free thought provides.

The threat to use an abusive, and increasingly de-normalized, law may not much concern the opponents of Ms. Coulter. I'm no friend of hers either. Yet it was not long ago that the left and its associated crazies were sitting on the other side of the fence, making offensive speech against the status quo.

Just remember; any tool that can be used to quiet your enemies can be used to quiet you. Not too long ago, your views were the marginalized ones, and in the future they may be again.

The use of Section 13 was not a concern in Calgary, London because no one in the administration of those universities made any such threats. But it doesn't take a totalitarian university to make and fulfill such a threat; ANY citizen could become a complainant, with no risk to him or herself, with the full weight of the government's money and abusive powers, to sue Ms. Coulter for her speech.

If that doesn't doesn't seem like a threat to our right of freedom of expression, I'd be at a loss to point out any further examples. Telescreens everywhere, perhaps?

__________________
Where there is doubt there is freedom.

Ace_O_Spades

And no, I'm not going to get into a pro/con S.13 debate with you.

__________________
Feh.

CandleInTheDark

Edit: Very well, I need coffee anyways.

__________________
Where there is doubt there is freedom.

Ace_O_Spades

Careful, it's addictive.

__________________
Feh.