The simple argument Coulter might present if ever charges were laid would be that she is expressing in good faith a view point by argument and opinion on a religious subject.
I’d also point out that she managed to do a whole presentation at the University of Western Ontario the day before without being summarily detained and expelled from the country.
Honestly this is a collision of morons that the organizers (some International Free Press Society) are gleefully milking for all its worth.
Four legs good, two legs bad!
Not a hate story, just a Coulter story, and perhaps illustrative of her relationship with other allied countries:
AC: “Canada sent troops to Vietnam, was Vietnam less containable than Saddam Hussein?”
Interviewer: “Canada did not send troops to Vietnam”
AC: “Indochina?”
Interviewer: “Nah. Canada: Second world war of course, Korea, yes, Vietnam no.”
AC: “I think you’re wrong.”
Interviewer: “Australia was there, not Canada.”
AC: “I think Canada sent troops.”
Interviewer: “Nah.”
AC: “Well I’ll get back to you on that.”
That doesn’t make me hate her. It just makes me wonder what the fuck is wrong with the Cornell history department, since they gave her a degree.
With the exception of statements regarding her religious convictions I think it’s quite fair to say she’s engaging in more than a bit of sarcasm and hyperbole. Really, she comes across as a Howard Stern of the right. I don’t see why all the hate unless you really fail to have a sense of humor.
Yes, she spoke in my city the day before. There was a lot of criticism, of course. She is a nutjob, after all. She made some cracks about Muslims, then claimed it was a joke. Too lame.
She once said Canada was lucky the US let us exist on their continent, too. Nice.
Universities traditionally hire controversial speakers, this time of the year, makes them feel edgy and all that. But this wasn’t the university paying the fee, the sponsors, (some conservative group), and the rest was covered by an American Conservative Womens Organization. Now that creeps me out. Stay the hell out of my country with your stupid. If Canadian organizations want to pay a fat fee for this idiot I’m okay with that. But knowing there wasn’t enough support and some American Conservative Womens group made up the difference, really bugs me.
Which of those quotes seem like sarcasm to you?
These people (Coulter and Limbaugh) don’t just “make a living”, they make millions. If I thought I could be a right-wing troll and make that kind of bank, I’d certainly consider it.
Speaking as someone who last week took advantage of DC’s new gay marriage law and applied for a marriage license with my partner (I also attended HRC’s “Repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” rally in DC with the fab Kathy Griffin) so I’m no right-wing nutjob:
I remember seeing this when it happened. This is complete sarcasm, mocking PC culture that tries to control speech, thought and opinion. I am someone who was called ‘faggot’ on the playground plenty of times, so if I can get the joke then I suspect there are plenty of others, too. Some of whom may remain silent for fear of being taunted for being something else the majority doesn’t like.
I’ll take the last one, too, although I think most of these quotes are loaded with sarcasm:
Again, clearly she’s being sarcastic about not wanting to impose her moral values on others. The entire debate about government policy is about various sides trying to impose their moral values on others. The 203rd trimester is of course hyperbole, not intended to be taken seriously.
I could go on, but I really think there are a lot of thin-skinned holier-than thou reactions to her that completely take the bait and prove her point.
Obviously I have differences of opinion with her, and I have an open mind should I come across a quote showing something I haven’t seen before, but I really do think that people feel a bit too safe about being completely unhinged in their opposition to her.
Just the left wings, Ann only like right wing angels. And who cares if she believes what she spouts or is a troll, what she does is evil.
No, what she does is inflammatory, insulting and panders to the reptile part of our brain but it’s not necessarily evil. God only know why people get worked up over such obvious trolling.
It’s not like Ann is an unknown quantity; she’s spewed plenty of filth in the past.
Here’s an updated timeline of what happened -it looks like Ann’s people cancelled the speech. It also looks like Ann had no intention of attending the event - she wasn’t en route to the event when it was cancelled. Stranger and stranger.
In some ways, it might be a Canadian naivete - the American style of neoconservative who shouts ridiculous things on a tv show daily is a very strange animal to us. The best thing we could do is just completely ignore people like Ann Coulter (including not starting threads on her), but she’s just so odd.
Possibly. At least the article doesn’t paint the event as a hysterical mass of writhing lefty Canadians so I’m inclined to agree with it - the weather last night (and Ottawa) don’t really lend themselves to that.
Oh come on. 
There’s just fewer of us so fewer of them and less money to be made up here.
… and is there any legitimate fear based on the shit she’s spewed in the past that anything she’s likely to say will actually inspire U of O students or any other Canadians to engage in actual acts of violence (other than possibly against her - thought it appears that even this possibilty is largely an invention of her own)?
It is to laugh. Which would, IMO, have been the proper response to her show. Not threaten-by-insinuation legal sanctions.
You are clearly too young to remember when “All in the Family” was on. There were people, quite a few of them, who thought that Archie Bunker was speaking the truth. This was despite the fact that Lear wrote him as a buffoon, and that he always lost arguments to the Rob Reiner character. That was also in the context of a sitcom. Whether she means it or not she is speaking without any obvious winking in the context of real commentators, not comedians. You might think the 203rd trimester comment is sarcasm, but extremist anti-choice types justify attacking abortion doctors as being retroactive abortions and thus morally equivalent to what the doctors do.
I’m an extreme free-speecher, so I’m not in favor of shutting her up, but on the other hand I think she is immoral no matter if her stuff is real or fake. and she shouldn’t be excused because everyone should know it is a joke. The knuckle-draggers who are her biggest fans don’t.
I suppose you could argue that the appropriate response to someone saying, “You know, hate speech can end in criminal charges here” is to not engage in any hate speech, rather than angrily accusing the person who told you that of threatening you.
I forgot to mention, Ezra Levant was also involved in last night’s clusterfuck. Wiki’s not working for me right now, but if you’d like to look him up, he’s a self-aggrandizing professional troublemaker.
The answer to your first paragraph is in your second. These are professional troublemakers who are looking for an excuse to make trouble, which their audience finds entertaining. They thrive on this sort of manufactured “controversy” and the University can only lose by it. Handing an issue like this to them is like the University administration collectively going to the circus and handing a clown a cream-filled pie, then acting all surprised when they smoosh it all over their faces.
There never was any legitimate concern that actual Canadian hate-speech laws were going to be broken.
That the left is on the edge of rioting and violence at any moment seems to be something the right believes. You know, Bush had to be protected from those who might hurl words from their t-shirts at him. In reality, while hundreds of thousands died the left did almost nothing. Now we have teabaggers threatening violence, perhaps vandalizing offices, and carrying near the President. What better way of diverting attention than by canceling a speech because of a non-existent threat of violence, a threat some people obviously believe in for no reason. These two things will be considered equal in no time flat, just you wait.
I wish, I’m 45. As a kid, one of the nuns at my church was aghast when I told her it was one of my favorite shows. She didn’t get it, just as many of the people you referenced didn’t. And Mom didn’t like me watching Maude either. Got it on DVD, now. Mary Hartman, though, I’ll never comprehend.
Sounds like the whole danger issue may have been overstated, if not entirely trumped up. There’s a hilarious scene in “World War Z” where a character who is clearly meant to be Ann Coulter is madly boinking a character clearly meant to be Bill Maher while the zombie apocalypse is closing in. I’m not saying either is a fraud, just that they have thoughtfully cultivated their public personas. Just as Martha Stewart can’t possibly have crafted all those damn doily cozies but still values a tidy home.