# Ann Coulter, you really aren't welcome here **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [March 24, 2010, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-you-really-arent-welcome-here/533589 "2010-03-24T05:56:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![lalenin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3da27b/32.png) [@lalenin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lalenin)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2010, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-you-really-arent-welcome-here/533589/21 "2010-03-24T14:49:38Z")
> [@MsWhatsit](#): > > Uh-huh. Who did that in this case? From [this article](http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100323/coulter_canada_100323/20100323?hub=BritishColumbiaHome): “The University of Ottawa cancelled a speech by U.S. firebrand conservative Ann Coulter late Tuesday, just moments before its scheduled start, because organizers feared protesters would turn violent.” ---
**Author:** ![lalenin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3da27b/32.png) [@lalenin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lalenin)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2010, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-you-really-arent-welcome-here/533589/22 "2010-03-24T14:53:17Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > shame on those University types for violently reminding the troll that she is in a different country with different laws that limit her ability to promote hatred against a group of innocent individuals! > > How violently she was treated! Seems like you missed [this article](http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100323/coulter_canada_100323/20100323?hub=BritishColumbiaHome): “The University of Ottawa cancelled a speech by U.S. firebrand conservative Ann Coulter late Tuesday, just moments before its scheduled start, because organizers feared protesters would turn violent.” ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2010, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-you-really-arent-welcome-here/533589/23 "2010-03-24T14:55:23Z")
Shame on the petty politics of Universities and student councils. This is the same kind of brilliance than had the Queen’s Student Council cancel Barenaked Ladies due to misogyny. The protesters are equally stupid in letting their self righteous zeal provide the perfect avenue for Coulter to avoid attending while taking the moral high ground. Basically people are stupid. Besides the brilliant provost apparently doesn’t understand that hate laws are directed to incitement and that the Supreme Court of Canada has set the bar pretty dam high to get someone thrown in jail over being a jackass. Coulter is not is the same league as Keegstra. > [@](#): > > Section 319(1): Public Incitement of Hatred > The crime of “publicly inciting hatred” has four main elements. To contravene the Code, a person must: > • communicate statements, > • in a public place, > • incite hatred against an identifiable group, > • in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace. > Under section 319, “communicating” includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; a “public place” is one to which the public has access by right or invitation, express or implied; and “statements” means words (spoken, written or recorded), gestures, and signs or other visible representations. > All the above elements must be proven for a court to find an accused guilty of either: > • an indictable offence, for which the punishment is imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or > • an offence punishable on summary conviction. > Section 319(2) defines the additional offence of communicating statements, other than in private conversation, that wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group. > Section 319(3) identifies acceptable defences. Indicates that no person shall be convicted of an offence if the statements in question: > • are established to be true > • were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds it was believed to be true > • were expressed in good faith, it was attempted to establish by argument and opinion on a religious subject > • were expressed in good faith, it was intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2010, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-you-really-arent-welcome-here/533589/24 "2010-03-24T15:00:11Z")
> [@lalenin](#): > > From [this article](http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100323/coulter_canada_100323/20100323?hub=BritishColumbiaHome): > > “The University of Ottawa cancelled a speech by U.S. firebrand conservative Ann Coulter late Tuesday, just moments before its scheduled start, because organizers feared protesters would turn violent.” There’s no statement in any article from university officials about violence, and the fact that university officials thought the protesters might get violent does not mean the threat of violence existed. From the OP’s link: > [@](#): > > “We were called to ensure the crowd left in an orderly fashion,” said Ottawa police Sgt. Rob Gilchrist. No arrests were made and no injuries were reported. Storm in a teacup. Stupid woman says inflammatory things, people are surprised when other people are inflamed. ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2010, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-you-really-arent-welcome-here/533589/25 "2010-03-24T15:02:41Z")
> [@lalenin](#): > > From [this article](http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100323/coulter_canada_100323/20100323?hub=BritishColumbiaHome): > > “The University of Ottawa cancelled a speech by U.S. firebrand conservative Ann Coulter late Tuesday, just moments before its scheduled start, because organizers feared protesters would turn violent.” “[O]rganizers feared protesters would turn violent.” Well as I’ve said, the organizers in this case _wanted_ to believe the protesters would turn violent, since it’d then allow them to scream censorship. There’s no indication that it’s an accurate assessment. ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2010, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-you-really-arent-welcome-here/533589/26 "2010-03-24T15:08:40Z")
Yeah. Nobody threatened violence. From all reports, nobody _was_ violent. If organizers feared protesters would turn violent, their fears were based in fantasy. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2010, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-you-really-arent-welcome-here/533589/27 "2010-03-24T15:17:55Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > What I can’t figure out is what motivates people to be like this. How can anybody go through life being nearly universally reviled? I don’t get what motivates people like this. It’s one thing to be hated for your opinion, it’s another altogether to make yourself hated by intentionally provoking people. She cries all the way to the bank. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2010, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-you-really-arent-welcome-here/533589/28 "2010-03-24T15:26:05Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > What I can’t figure out is what motivates people to be like this. How can anybody go through life being nearly universally reviled? You get used to it. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2010, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-you-really-arent-welcome-here/533589/29 "2010-03-24T15:37:17Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > What I can’t figure out is what motivates people to be like this. How can anybody go through life being nearly universally reviled? I don’t get what motivates people like this. It’s one thing to be hated for your opinion, it’s another altogether to make yourself hated by intentionally provoking people. Her and a few others make a very good living being professional trolls. I do not think she is actually stupid (ala Palin/Bachman) so my only question is if she actually, in her heart, believes her own bullshit or just peddles it because it sells? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2010, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-you-really-arent-welcome-here/533589/30 "2010-03-24T15:42:32Z")
Bitter? You? Never! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2010, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-you-really-arent-welcome-here/533589/31 "2010-03-24T16:10:44Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > It’s her bread and butter. She has a schtick that makes mucho buckos for her. When it stops working, she’ll try something else. If she thought she could make more money sucking up to the left, she’d do it. I don’t think she seriously believes half the crap she says. She _is_ sucking up to the left. She’s entertainment. She sets herself up as the person the left loves to hate. She’s Shannon Doherty. Or, for the younger readers, she’s Spencer Pratt. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2010, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-you-really-arent-welcome-here/533589/32 "2010-03-24T16:20:53Z")
> [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](#): > > But that’s the thing, you _don’t_ take her seriously. She says things that on the surface match your political philosophy, so you can just shut your brain off and laugh. (I say _on the surface_ because I’m quite sure you don’t, for example, believe we should invade “their” countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity; you can just claim over-the-top conservative humour licence.) Do you think Ann Coulter provides a valuable voice in the public debate? > > (bolding mine) > Both of you will have to spell it for me here, because I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I’m talking about the inherent danger of having what is necessarily a rather subjective law on the books that criminalizes speech. The temptation is always to use said laws as a weapon against those extreme voices who are currently out of step and out of favour with the authorities that be. The natural consequence is that those so penalized get to play the victim card and get an even wider platform for their hateful views - having exactly the opposite effect to that intended. This is the reason I tend to be against such legislation, even (or perhaps especially) where the “target” is truly vile. It is not a valuable protection for the public and it has the potential to do far more harm than good - not in a scary-government “1984” thought-police style, but more likely in a bumbling road-to-hell-paved-with-good-intentions style. As in this case, where foolishly _threatening_ a person with Canada’s hate speech laws by insinuation _before they have even said anything_ allows her to position herself as the “victim” for free, and gets her (and her views) all the attention she undoubtedly craves. Far better to let her say what the hell she wants, and then either laugh at it or ignore it. Does anyone seriously expect Ann Coulter to inspire students at Ottawa U to riot against minorities? It is to laugh. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2010, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-you-really-arent-welcome-here/533589/33 "2010-03-24T16:25:05Z")
Moved from The BBQ Pit to Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share. **Gfactor** Pit Moderator ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2010, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-you-really-arent-welcome-here/533589/34 "2010-03-24T17:04:20Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I’m talking about the inherent danger of having what is necessarily a rather subjective law on the books that criminalizes speech.. All laws are necessarily subjective. ---
**Author:** ![ZomZom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zomzom/32/5620_2.png) [@ZomZom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZomZom)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2010, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-you-really-arent-welcome-here/533589/35 "2010-03-24T17:08:05Z")
Could someone produce a list of things she’s said that make people hate her so much? ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2010, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-you-really-arent-welcome-here/533589/36 "2010-03-24T17:10:53Z")
Oh she’s a shock monkey. She throws out stuff like “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity” in reference to Islamic terrorists. That might be one of her more coherent sentences. When asked by a Muslim student at Western, the day before the U of O’s tempest in a teacup, about what mode of transportation she should be able to take given Coulter had suggested Muslims not be allowed to fly and use “flying carpet instead” she replied "“take a camel”. Classy. ---
**Author:** ![zoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zoid/32/336_2.png) [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2010, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-you-really-arent-welcome-here/533589/37 "2010-03-24T17:16:23Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I’m talking about the inherent danger of having what is necessarily a rather subjective law on the books that criminalizes speech. The temptation is always to use said laws as a weapon against those extreme voices who are currently out of step and out of favour with the authorities that be. The natural consequence is that those so penalized get to play the victim card and get an even wider platform for their hateful views - having exactly the opposite effect to that intended. > > **This is the reason I tend to be against such legislation,** even (or perhaps especially) where the “target” is truly vile. It is not a valuable protection for the public and it has the potential to do far more harm than good - not in a scary-government “1984” thought-police style, but more likely in a bumbling road-to-hell-paved-with-good-intentions style. > > As in this case, where foolishly _threatening_ a person with Canada’s hate speech laws by insinuation _before they have even said anything_ allows her to position herself as the “victim” for free, and gets her (and her views) all the attention she undoubtedly craves. Far better to let her say what the hell she wants, and then either laugh at it or ignore it. Does anyone seriously expect Ann Coulter to inspire students at Ottawa U to riot against minorities? It is to laugh. bolding mine I agree she should have been allowed to speak no matter what kind of jackassery she spews. There was IMHO no real threat of violence. But - as **Grey** pointed out, that law as written requires communication **• in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.** So if I read it correctly you are free to say “all **X** are no good scum” just not “all **X** are no good scum, and all of you listening to me have the duty to go do **Y** to them” Of course I’m no expert on Canadian law and I grant that “will likely be a breach of the peace” is pretty wishy washy but I would imagine that’s why there is a court system in place to argue the specifics of a case when the need arises. Are you saying that there should be no such limitation until actual violence occurs? Not making a judgment at this point - just trying to understand the position. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2010, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-you-really-arent-welcome-here/533589/38 "2010-03-24T17:16:29Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > All laws are necessarily subjective. Some are rather more subjective than others. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2010, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-you-really-arent-welcome-here/533589/39 "2010-03-24T17:23:19Z")
> [@zoid](#): > > bolding mine > > I agree she should have been allowed to speak no matter what kind of jackassery she spews. There was IMHO no real threat of violence. > > But - as **Grey** pointed out, that law as written requires communication > > **• in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.** > > So if I read it correctly you are free to say “all **X** are no good scum” just not “all **X** are no good scum, and all of you listening to me have the duty to go do **Y** to them” > > Of course I’m no expert on Canadian law and I grant that “will likely be a breach of the peace” is pretty wishy washy but I would imagine that’s why there is a court system in place to argue the specifics of a case when the need arises. > > Are you saying that there should be no such limitation until actual violence occurs? > Not making a judgment at this point - just trying to understand the position. I’m arguing that the limitations on free speech should be most carefully circumscribed, so as to avoid having a law that does more harm to the public at large than good - but really that’s a side-issue. No actual laws were broken or enforced in this particular case. In this specific case, the problem was clearly not the content of the law per se, but rather the University official’s ham-fisted response to the alleged threat posed by Coulter. The University obviously has no law-enforcement authority, there was no “breach of the peace” likely, and so ‘reminding’ Coulter of the law merely handed to her an issue on a plate to continue her trollery. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2010, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-you-really-arent-welcome-here/533589/40 "2010-03-24T17:25:10Z")
> [@](#): > > Could someone produce a list of things she’s said that make people hate her so much? [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter). Regarding Muslims: [QUOTE=One Crazy Bitch] Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > If only we could get Muslims to boycott all airlines, we could dispense with airport security altogether. > [@](#): > > I think airlines ought to start advertising: ‘We have the most civil rights lawsuits brought against us by Arabs.’ Regarding Iran: > [@](#): > > What if they start having one of these bipolar episodes with nuclear weapons? I think our motto should be, post-9-11: raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences. Regarding John Edwards: > [@](#): > > I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I’m – so, kind of at an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards, so I think I’ll just conclude here and take your questions. Clarifying her Edwards comments: > [@](#): > > [f]aggot isn’t offensive to gays; it has nothing to do with gays. It’s a schoolyard taunt meaning ‘wuss’ Regarding _Dreams From My Father_: > [@](#): > > He says the reason black people keep to themselves is that it’s ‘easier than spending all your time mad or trying to guess whatever it was that white folks were thinking about you.’ Here’s a little inside scoop about white people: We’re not thinking about you. Especially WASPs. We think everybody is inferior, and we are perfectly charming about it. Regarding womens’ suffrage: > [@](#): > > It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950—except Goldwater in '64—the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted. > [@](#): > > If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women. > > It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and 'We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care — and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms? Regarding Jews: > [@](#): > > I don’t want you being offended by this. This is what Christians consider themselves, because our testament is the continuation of your testament. You know that. So we think Jews go to heaven. I mean (Jerry) Falwell himself said that, but you have to follow laws. Ours is ‘Christ died for our sins.’ We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all. Regarding the Iraq war: > [@](#): > > This year’s Democratic plan for the future is another inane sound bite designed to trick American voters into trusting them with national security. > > To wit, they’re claiming there is no connection between the war on terror and the war in Iraq, and while they’re all for the war against terror — absolutely in favor of that war — they are adamantly opposed to the Iraq war. You know, the war where the U.S. military is killing thousands upon thousands of terrorists (described in the media as “Iraqi civilians”, even if they are from Jordan, like the now-dead leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi). That war. Regarding the 2004 Democratic National Convention (this one is not a direct quote, unlike the others): > [@](#): > > She wrote one article that began, “Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston…” and referred to some unspecified female attendees as "corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons. Here are a couple from [another site](http://www.nowpublic.com/world/ann-coulter-quotes-coulters-controversial-comments-video-2595423.html): > [@](#): > > Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don’t hate America like liberals do. They don’t have the energy. If they had that much energy, they’d have indoor plumbing by now. And [one more](http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/funnyquotes/a/anncoulter.htm), just for kicks (regarding physician and abortion provider George Tiller, who was shot in his Church): > [@](#): > > I don’t really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester. … I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don’t want to impose my moral values on others. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-you-really-arent-welcome-here/533589.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-you-really-arent-welcome-here/533589.md?page=3)