No Galloway-Yes Coulter
 

So our lovely immigration minister banned George Galloway from entering Canada last year, yet Ann Coulter is fine to come here and speak to our university students, now I'm all for free speech but come on, ban one let the other in, even with the comments she's made about this country i nthe past like '[Canadians] better hope the United States does not roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent', or her insisting that we sent soldiers to help fight the Vietnam War, then telling the CBC she would get back to them, but of course she didn't because she was wrong.

Now we have hate speech laws here, and some of the things she has said i nthe past have been controversial, possibly bordering on hate speech, comments like
Those are just a few examples, many more can be found here
Ann Coulter - Wikiquote

I guess my question is, does Jason Keeney have a double standard on who he allows to speak i nthe country i nthis situation? I mean Galloway banned, Coulter allowed, I don't know, I reckon he does, I know myself I'd never go see Coulter speak, bt maybe that's just me and this is a non issue. Or maybe I'm just tired of al lthe threads about US health care and I want something else to be at the top of the politics forums haha.

Well, you know, if you support the plight of the Palestinians, you're an anti-Semite.

But it's okay to hate on Muslims, because they're anti-Semite too.

I hope this "logic" isn't what's at play, but sometimes I wonder.

So what did Galloway say to get banned? I see it was because of "his views on Afghanistan", but I doubt it was for his views. I'm pretty certain it was for the way he spoke on those views. Without his speech to measure next to Coulter's, I'd say the thread's dead, Zed. The thread's dead.

CBC News - Canada - British MP barred from Canada
There is no speech to measure, otherwise I would have posted said speech in my first post.

Okay, so I saw dozens of YouTube videos where he called upon the Afghans to rise up and kill his countrymen and Canadians. That's a bit different than Coulter's sarcasm.

Love how you call Coulters 'sarcasm', guess hers is sarcasm because it fits your point of view and Galloways obviously doesn't, so as I said in my first post, there is a double standard, and maybe you don't know seeing as you're American, we have laws against hate speech here which some of Coulters comments obviously are.

I'm still laughing over that 'sarcasm' comment, too funny.
So that's sarcasm? Sounds like something else to me.
As for Galloway talking about Afghans killing Brits, how is that any different from:

First of all, don't for one second assume you know my position because "I am an American" or that I agree with Coulter.

Actually, I agree with you on that one statement. It was definitely over the line. Of course, she is merely reversing what she believes to be the mantra of radical islam "To kill the leaders and convert the people to Islam". Again, it's a play on words but is definitely over the line.

There is a fundamental difference here. Coulter is not calling on the killing of Canadians, Galloway is. I can see why a leader of a nation would not welcome someone whose encouraging people to kill his citizens. Certainly you can at least see that?

Anyway, clearly, you have your mind made up about this. Why create a thread and invite discussion? Why not just blog about it?

Never said I know your position because you're American now did I, try reading it again, I was saying we have laws against hate speech here, something I didn't know if you knew we had or not, sorry for trying to explain somehthing, it won't happen again.

Oh I can see that, but I also don't see why they'd want someone who seems to think we're lucky to exist on the same continent as the US speaking in this country, or someone who doesn't seem to understand the basics of history about wether or not Canada sent troopps to fight in Vietnam.
Ummm why start a thread on anything here? Most people who start threads here have thier minds already made up, see anything pan has started in the last year, be a pretty shitty forum if everyone had your attitude about thread starting, oh well my minds made up, I'll just blog it.

Not that I agree with banning either person from Canada for their views, I am a bit incredulous that you cannot see the difference in kind -- rather than scale -- between Coulter's quotations and Galloway's (alleged, because I cannot find any quotations) remarks.

The more troubling issue for me is that a University authority and student union president are actively thwarting and interfering in this talk. If our universities are supposed to function as a free and open exchange of ideas, why are these authority figures attempting to thwart such an exchange through 'hate speech' chill, as it were. Quite frankly I would be embarrassed to be a student at th

Oh I can see the difference, my main point is the double standard, Pro-Palestinian, no can't enter the country, he's bad mouthed the perfect Israel, and we all know Israel never does anything wrong, like forge passports to kill someone. Anti-Islam, fearmongering, welcome, welcome to our country, why yes we know we're lucky to exist on the same continent as the great USofA, thank you for allowing it Mrs. Coulter, it all just seems wrong to me, then again Jason Kenney doesn't exactly appear to be the brightest minister on the hill.

I think you are reading into this too much. As I read further on the situation, Galloway was banned from entry for providing financial support a listed terrorist organization(Reference). Now, you can make the argument that Hamas is not a terrorist organization, or that the evidence for support is not adequate to support CBSA's conclusion of financial support. But Galloway was not banned for his speech.

Did I say he was banned for his speech though? Check my post #4 I posted this quote to show Cimarron why he was banned
No where in this thread have I said he was banned for his speech, that would be Cimarron who has said that.

My apologies for the misread of the thread, but then I have to ask "Where is the comparison?"

If you are not speaking to the comments or viewpoints expressed by Mr. Galloway, then there is no analysis to be made as to why he was barred from entry and Ms. Coulter will not be.

Edit: Not to say I don't think Ann Coulter's talk is not an important issue to discuss, but for the reasons I outline in my first post, not your Galloway v. Coulter analysis of government action.

I hope it's not, either, because everyone you just mentioned is semitic...

Anti-Semite refers specifically to hostility and prejudice against Jews.

Who is this Ann Coulter "Guy" anyway? ...I'm just sayin' :shakehead:

My hat is off to Mr. Coulter for filing a hate-speech complaint against the University of Ottowa.
I wish Mr. Coulter the best of luck! Perhaps some Canadian PC chickens have come home to roost.

Seems she's not welcome in Ottawa
Coulter's circus comes to town, but can't perform - Inside Politics

Yes, the effects of the hateful email written by the University's VP has incited the potential for even more Canadian mob-violence and hate-crimes.

Canadian mob violence, nice considering there was no mention of violence in the article, I mean what were they going to be doused with maple syrup and pelted with beavertails.

"Levant later wrote this message on Twitter: "Cops advised that proceeding with Coulter event in face of protesters would be dangerous to her and crowd.""

How does this not imply violence against Ms. Coulter was, at the very least, a possibility?

That said, she won't get far with her complaint to the human rights commissions in Canada. If you're not the right kind of victim they don't want to here from you. The whole system is a farce of Kangaroo trials. But that's neither here nor there.

The Mr. Houle and his partner in crime, U of O Student President, were certainly successful in generating a campaign against her talk. I am much more concerned that they would seek to prevent the free exchange of ideas at their school. We would not accept such behaviour in other institutions, why is it acceptable here?

I believe the phrase was "the POTENTIAL for even more Canadian mob-violence and hate-crimes." Geez... count to ten, breath.... in... out...

yah, so I didn't think she was a political, but more of an entertainer like Colbert, but harsher:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...lter-real.html

Silent Jay,

You framed the entire OP as if there was some sort of equivalency to their "transgressions". As I did not know who Galloway was, I assumed you acted in good faith and that this was basically a free speech double-standard. I immediately requested that you provide speech of his to compare. However, you did not act in good faith - you left off a critical piece of information. Galloway provided material support to Hamas - an organization listed in Canada as a terrorist organization.

So, while I did make an assumption that he was banned for his speech, that assumption was based on a belief that you had provided us with all of the information - which you had not. Furthermore, you didn't even provide "speech" of Galloway to compare to Coulter's.

In spite of that fact, we had already begun to debate the "speech" of Coulter, so I continued on that path - the path you set up in your OP and the path that you chose in your responses.

You are attempting to do a bait and switch and blame me for saying he was banned for speech. The fact is that it was a disingenuous OP that created that assumption.

Ummm you asked for a speech yes, and I showed you why he was banned in the post after that, but hey this thread is dead so why are you posting here? I never left it out, I figured the Canadians knew why he was banned, and looking at Baraka's post he did, sorry if you didn't, a simple Google search would have told you why. But nowhere did I say what they did was equal, merely one was banned and the other wasn't banned.

There wasn't a speech of Galloways to compare, look at post 4 it shows why he was banned, not my fault you assumed it was for speech, nowhere have I said he was banned for his speech or that he was banned for anything compared to Coulter, you made those assumptions on your own without knowing what was going on.

Blame you, not blaming you for anything, maybe you shouldn't assume things, like I actually care enough to blame you for anything, are all your posts all about you? seems to be a trend, me, me, me, me, and I'm not baiting and switching anything, and calling something a fact, doesn't make it one, my op is what it is, you've already called it a dead thread, yet continue to post, so....

---------- Post added at 09:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:00 AM ----------

Oh sorry I missed a word potential Canadian mob violence, nice considering there was no mention of violence in the article, I mean what were they going to be doused with maple syrup and pelted with beavertails. Like we have so much mob violence here, I mean every day its on the news, mob kills old lady with beavertails, mob douses baby in syrup, just such a regular occurance there must have to be more.

As fo counting to ten, really? Thats all you have, so disappointed in the great ottopiliot, he's resorted to things I said as a little kid, wow must be time to give up the smartass comments if thats all you have left.

Coulter is on my list of people to push off a bridge, given the opportunity.

I was concerned that you may be in distress and merely suggested a composure and relaxation technique. But I am honored that you think so highly of me... the "great ottopilot", Mom will be proud.

From the Drudge Report:
FLASH: Ann Coulter Ottawa speech shut down... 2000 protesters surrounding building with rocks and sticks
It seems that gangs of Canadian hate-speechers have finally abandoned their signature beaver-tails and syrup. :paranoid: it's a sign of the Apocalypse

courage.

Wait! Beavertails???? where???

You were only concerned with keeping up appearances of being a smartass, and obviously not a very effective onne at all, back to the drawing board, and don't let great go to your head.

Seriously you're going with Drudge? Good chuckle though, needed that, weathers a bit dreary here today. I mean it made it on the Hannity forums so it must be true, haha. How did they know all 2000 had 'rocks and sticks', did they take a poll? Ask everyone to show them?

Canadian hate speechers haha, thats a good one,, considering the things that comes out of Coulters mouth like telling a Muslim student to 'ride a camel' because she didn't ahve a flying carpet, we're pretty low on the scale of idiot people who preach hate.

I'll add this for you to read as well, maybe inform yourself rather than assuming you know it all
Got to love it when people get caught telling stories, 2000 seems to be 200 if lucky, oh poor Ann always trying to spin it so she looks good, and otto falls for it hook line and sinker, explains a lot really.....
Oh we still like our hockey fights, but Americans can't really follow hockey well, so we had to pussy it up for them and their virgin eyes on violence.

As for her wanting to know if any Muslim has been treated as badly as her, well I'm sure they have, or at least been discriminated against from her idiotic comments, as for Mr. Houle creating an atmosphere of hate around her, I reckon her own words have done enough, considering what she's said about Canada in the past.

Oh yes, let's blame the victim in this. I hardly call it an irrational decision for the organizers to cancel the talk, given 200 potentially violent protesters outside and no means of handling them. The U of O and it's Student Union created a hostile environment by actively opposing said talks. While Coulter is a divisive figure, you can hardly place the blame on her for an organized resistance to her talks.

How is it that the U of Calgary can ensure security (link) and the U of Ottawa cannot? Quite simply, it's a lack of will on the administration's part, and a hostile environment created by Mr. Houle and the Student's Union.

I'm sure they support free speech, but only if it's the right kind of speech.

Ever been to Alberta? If you have knowing why the U of Calgary can ensure her security should be a no brainer.
Yes just like Jason Kenney.

We already established that Mr. Galloway was not barred from entry due to free speech issues, so your underhanded comment about Mr. Kenney is not conducive to discussion. Quite simply, ensuring a speaker's security should not be an issue, regardless of the political stripe of the campus or the speaker.

Well if he was banned for his views on the Taliban and supporting Hamas, I'm pretty sure the views on the Taliban have somehting to do with speech as he's have to speak to get these views across, unless he typed them, so it wasn't underhanded at all.

My ass may be smart ... but (since you seem to enjoy name-calling) at least I'm not a whiny cry-baby smart ass. How's that?

#1 - I was mocking Ann Coulter (remember Mr. Coulter, who is this guy?)
#2 - You apparently took something the wrong way and made it personal
#3 - I was happy to oblige... your buttons are easily pushed

You're sometimes quick to slam the US, so I suppose it doesn't feel so good when it's dumped back in your lap. Regardless of 200 or 2000, it was still a group with violent intentions toward a personality delivering a speech. As far as the source, I just googled the headline and threw the first hit in to the post. It wasn't that important as far a I was concerned.

No, there obviously is not an epidemic of blood-thirsty hate-speech mobs in Canada. Except for the one that threatened Ann Coulter.

Ease up man... breath.

Firstly, the written word is still filed under free speech

Secondly, we've established he was barred from entry for second reason; material support to Hamas. He was not prevented from speaking to Canadians, as he decided to hold a video conference with Toronto-are United Church members. The sympathy for the Taliban is incidental information, and not the legal basis for barring Mr. Galloway entry. Nor did is stop him speaking to Canadians, just as such expressions of sympathy have not stopped NDP, Green, and Liberal candidates from speaking though it may not be so kind to the (re-)election chances.

Yes I've seen enough of your posts here to know, expect smartass comments after most of them, guess it gives your old ego a boost.
Yes I know you were mocking Coulter, not rocket science to figure it out. That was you making it personal, wow how lame, you need to learn how to do that better, at least make me laugh, that just made me feel sorry for you. Too bad Ustwo isn't still around, he could give you some lessons, he was at least funny about it, you not so much.

Are you new to the forum? Have you seen some of the nutjobs we have post here from the US? Pretty easy to make fun of it really, just thankful I'm smart enough to not base my opinions of all Americans on some of their posts.

Really this is dumped back in my lap, again that's too bad, you're not very good at this game, maybe go back to schoo land try again.
Violent intenions? Hmmmm seems the cops have a different attitude than you do, have yoyu read why the speech was cancelled, not because of violence or threats, I mean Coulters travel buddies will tell you that, but that's just because they're hoping for a nude pic of the vagina on a stick.

Threatened her, naw she wasn't threatened, she was just treated like she seems to think MUslims should be treated.....like shit.

As for blood thirsty mobs, we keep the dk's of Canada under control, and from the looks of the health care threads here, you guys have way more crazies who are looking for blood than we do, have fun with them, looks enjoyable.

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- Let's be careful with the name calling and stick with the issue.

As events continue to unfold in the aftermath of this debacle, the Canadian Association of University Teachers has issued a sharp rebuke of Dr. Houle.(link)

And the Ottawa citizen fires one off with a perfect summary in the last paragraph. (link)
I think it is interesting that you, silent_jay, are framing this conversation is such a way as to seem that Conservatives and conservatives are attempting to limit the free speech of leftists and statists, when it is quite clear in this instance that it is the left-wing students and administration who have run roughshod over Ms. Coulter's free speech.

We have seen in recent years an increasingly militant attitude from left-wing students and their puppet student organization such as the CFS. The canceling of debates, shutting down of opposing view points and a contempt for student self-governance is the norm for today's campus.

Yes I've been here... and didn't need to look farther than this very thread to back up my statement: ... and in your last post: :expressionless:

I'm not familiar with this "Schoo Land" you speak of. Is it a magical land of poor spelling and zero sense of humor? I appreciate the recommendation, but I'll pass.

Poor Mr. Coulter.

Threats end once they become actions. They showed up and demonstrated hostile intent. Is an opinion really justification for terroristic behavior? Is this another example of liberal (in)tolerance?

Sounds like freedom prevails in this utopia you imagine. I suspect there are far more Canadians that value equal rights without divisively ambiguous definitions of free speech.

Wow, you've ended at a spelling mistake, that's really lame, you really do need lessons, as for a poor sense of humour, I just generally need something funny to laugh at, and you haven't provided any of that, I mean read your posts, tell me one funny thing there, nothing to be found.

There were no threats read the articles I posted again:
Hey otto you and Coulter have something in common, neither of you let facts get in the way of a good story, as I mean you keep claiming all this violence.

Wow terroristic behaviour, you do love that word, what hostile intent, showing up is demonstrating hostile intent, or is this part of the '2000 with rocks and sticks' you tried lying about before, and has already been proven false.

So how is this 'slamming the US'
That was explaining something I wasn't sure if everyone knew, sorry I forgot no need to explain anything here, everyones a know it all, or assumes they are.

some things are easier than others to explain.

how criticizing ann coulter can be construed as "slamming the us":
conservatives imagine they *are* the united states; they're the "real americans"...haven't you heard?

the syllogism is rudimentary from here so there's no need to run the machinery.
feel free to play along at home.

on logic problems:
there's apparently in some quarters a kind of porosity that affects verbs.
for example, in some quarters it is possible to confuse the statement:

ann coulter is a joke

with the statement:

ann coulter tells jokes.


curiously, these are versions of the same problem. if you as a conservative say you *are* america then in some imaginary world you become it. so there's a pathway that blurs saying into being that's exercised through the repetition of sequences that enact conservative-style identity politics.

following this logic, i imagine it's easy for some conservatives to persuade themselves that they are judy garland. but they don't talk about it because, well, you know, that'd be like telling a joke about the extent to which you are a joke. which is different from simply collapsing being into saying. but you see the danger. o yes you do.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.....

~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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

Edit: Very well, I need coffee anyways.

Careful, it's addictive.