“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.”
“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.”
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.
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:
Storm in a teacup. Stupid woman says inflammatory things, people are surprised when other people are inflamed.
“[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.
Yeah. Nobody threatened violence. From all reports, nobody was violent. If organizers feared protesters would turn violent, their fears were based in fantasy.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
