"Oh, (no) Canada", Coulter

[DeeZire]

....Would you care to document that? I have listened to and read Ms. Coulter and did not find it so.

Oh Ami, the great ill-informed. Here's a bit of reporting from the recent CPAC convention, where Ann Coulter was met with a standing ovation. As you will see, even the clueless have a conscience, at least for a minute or two.

But just moments later, a deathly silence filled the room as people grasped the full import of Coulter's express wish that liberal Supreme Court Justices be targeted for assassination. But Coulter quickly lured back her audience.

During Q&A, one student asked Coulter what her greatest ethical dilemma was. Coulter toyed with the audience as the hushed auditorium awaited her answer to this personal question. Then Coulter replied, "One time I had a shot at Clinton. I thought, 'Ann, that's not going to help your career.'"

...I suggest that to hate is a natural human response to that which is different and threatening to life and as such, ought be respected.

I suggest that to hate is a natural human response rooted in fear and inadequacy, which can be easily addressed by knowledge - a concept you will never, ever understand.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Canada, compared to the USA, sucks.

Well... the winters are colder, except for Buffalo NJ which is the frozen asscrack of North America, and the summers are shorter.

But the healthcare is good, the per capita is more equitable, and there's hockey.

 

[amicus]

I suggest that to hate is a natural human response rooted in fear and inadequacy, which can be easily addressed by knowledge - a concept you will never, ever understand.

~~~

Then you, DeeZire, are more of a fool that I have always thought you were.

Fear is a function to protect life...but like the Ayrabs, you worship death, may you find peace in it.

Amicus

 

[MzDeviancy]

One must remember that the First Amendment of the US Constitution is not binding on Canada.

We citizens of the USA tend to take that freedom for granted, and assume that all "right thinking" nations have the same freedom.

They don't.

Canada, compared to the USA, sucks.

In Canada, we have something called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which includes freedom of speech. However, we don't believe that freedom of speech extends to allowing nutbars the right to incite racial hatred. That's how things like Mein Kampf get written, and the nutbars amass support among other nutbars.

You may think that this means Canada is a totalitarian dictatorship, but most Canadians just view it as a reasonable limitation on a right that can otherwise be abused to a revolting extent.

 

[MzDeviancy]

~~~

Then you, DeeZire, are more of a fool that I have always thought you were.

Fear is a function to protect life...but like the Ayrabs, you worship death, may you find peace in it.

Amicus

Do you actually know any Arabs?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Well... the winters are colder, except for Buffalo NJ which is the frozen asscrack of North America, and the summers are shorter.

But the healthcare is good, the per capita is more equitable, and there's hockey.

Buffalo is in New York and is not the coldest city in the USA. I don't know what is, but it might be Nome or it might be some place in MN or ND or ID or MT. The summers are exactly the same length in both countries, running from about June 21 to Sept. 21. There is probably more hockey played in the USA.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Buffalo is in New York and is not the coldest city in the USA. I don't know what is, but it might be Nome or it might be some place in MN or ND or ID or MT. The summers are exactly the same length in both countries, running from about June 21 to Sept. 21. There is probably more hockey played in the USA.

You'll have to forgive Stella she is only an expert on ObamaCare, not Canada.

 

[TxRad]

If I'm not mistaken, the coldest place on average in the US is International Falls Mn.

 

[stephen55]

Here's what the fuss is about....

For what it's worth, here's the letter that Francois Houle, Vice-President Academic and Provost, University of Ottawa wrote to Ann Coulter.

Dear Ms. Coulter,

I understand that you have been invited by University of Ottawa Campus Conservatives to speak at the University of Ottawa this coming Tuesday. We are, of course, always delighted to welcome speakers on our campus and hope that they will contribute positively to the meaningful exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of a great university campus. We have a great respect for freedom of expression in Canada, as well as on our campus, and view it as a fundamental freedom, as recognized by our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here.

You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind.

There is a strong tradition in Canada, including at this university, of restraint, respect and consideration in expressing even provocative and controversial opinions and urge you to respect that Canadian tradition while on our campus. Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.

I hope you will enjoy your stay in our beautiful country, city and campus.

Sincerely,

Francois Houle,

Vice-President Academic and Provost, University of Ottawa



On a tour of Canada, Ann Coulter was speaking on Monday night at The University of Western Ontario and told a Muslim student to "take a camel instead of the flying carpet" she had earlier said Muslims use for transportation. (Or words to that effect. I wasn't there.)

She was scheduled to speak at the University of Ottawa the next night but there was such a large crowd of angry protesters outside, the appearance was canceled due to security concerns. I haven't had the opportunity to read the contents of Coulter's suit against the University of Ottawa which she is pursuing through Ontario's Human Rights Commission but it's clear to me that this was likely her purpose all along.

The quote that amicus uses to start this thread went on to say...

In my view this is a warning for Ann Coulter from University of Ottawa’s Francois Houle to not be Ann Coulter. Never mind that it was a conservative group on the University campus which invited her in the first place. Liberals (no matter where they live) do not believe in the free exchange of ideas. Despite what Mr. Houle states in his condescending letter to Coulter.

Due to what has transpired, Ann Coulter’s Human Rights complaint will move to a Canadian Human Rights Commission. Coulter says she wants to test this out to see just how seriously the Canadians take violations of Human Rights. My guess is not as serious as they claim.

I think the letter was a genuine reminder to Coulter to respect Canada's human rights laws. That Coulter made a statement that is not actionable in the US but is actionable in Canada was, as is stated, likely her agenda from the beginning.

So Coulter wants to test Canada's Human Rights legislation. Good for her. My guess is that the Ontario Human Rights Commission will take the violation of human rights seriously. The question is, who's human rights were violated? The Muslim student who was told to take a camel instead of a flying carpet, or Coulter's right to say the same? As for Coulter's assertion that the University of Ottawa violated her right to free speech when they canceled the talk due to security concerns...good luck with that, Ann. If her argument is that she was denied the chance to speak simply because she is Ann Coulter, then I wish her lawyer, Ezra Levant, even more luck. Here's a few comments made by Levant about the letter to Coulter...

"I think it was an outrageous letter," Levant said.

"Because the vice-president of the University of Ottawa basically sent the message to the community that this woman is anathema, that she's unwelcome and that she may, in fact, even be a criminal, that was like throwing kerosene into the fire. And that egged on the student rioters who shut this thing down," Levant said.

I defend Coulter's right to express her views. I don't defend her choice to be a bigoted ass during a public lecture. Time will tell if the Ontario Human Rights Commission agrees. And as for Levant who is a lawyer, making an ass of oneself is part of his job.

 

[Boxlicker101]

If I'm not mistaken, the coldest place on average in the US is International Falls Mn.

I think it's either there or Frazier, CO. Of course, that would be continental USA. There might be colder places in the middle of Alaska, such as Fairbanks.

 

[sadangel]

If I'm not mistaken, the coldest place on average in the US is International Falls Mn.

It used to be but according to currentresults.com about the on average coldest it is now:

Mt. Washington, New Hampshire (27.2 ) for approx. 242 days of a year.
International Falls, MN is on average 10 degrees warmer than this. For approx 237 days a year)

 

[Boxlicker101]

It used to be but according to currentresults.com about the on average coldest it is now:

Mt. Washington, New Hampshire (27.2 ) for approx. 242 days of a year.
International Falls, MN is on average 10 degrees warmer than this. For approx 237 days a year)

According to this, it's Fraser, CO. (I misspelled the name) It may depend on how you measure the temperature, such as x many days below freezing, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser,_Colorado

 

[Zeb_Carter]

If I'm not mistaken, the coldest place on average in the US is International Falls Mn.

Isn't that where Rocky and Bullwinkle are from?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Isn't that where Rocky and Bullwinkle are from?

No, that's Frostbite Falls.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

No, that's Frostbite Falls.

You are correct, how easily we forget.

 

[stephen55]

You're also not allowed to shout, "Fire!!" in a non-burning theatre....

So free speech is not really free speech? Unless I pounding on a pulpit or in a public debate or what I say is the truth? Who decides if it's true?

Canada's restrictions on free speech have nothing to do with the truth of what's being said. Anyone is free to stand up and loudly proclaim that the world is flat. What the courts feel is not allowed is inciting hate against (insert religion, colour, sexual orientation or ethnic background of your choice, or any combination as you see fit) simply for the purpose of inciting hate. You're free to have an opinion and voice it all you want as long as you don't break the law. The letter that Ann Coulter received from the Academic Vice President and Provost of the University of Toronto was simply a reminder of this. She's perfectly free to stand up and say she doesn't agree with Canadian law but she's not free to incite hate. That she is free to do that in her own country is another matter.

Up to now, Canadian courts have been very reluctant to imprison someone for this, despite what Americans may think of the laws in the first place.

As MzDeviancy pointed out, The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990)."

http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1996/1996scr1-458/1996scr1-458.pdf

I'm only aware of a few case where someone actually got prison time and one of those was that of Ernst Zundel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Zündel

Another was the case of The Heritage Front....

The most notable was a complaint to be considered by the Commission against the Heritage Front, operators of the most notorious hate line in this city. In 1994, before a Human Rights Tribunal, Wolfgang Droege and the Heritage Front accepted a consent order admitting that its messages were likely to expose persons to hatred or contempt and agreed to cease and desist from transmitting the messages. Soon after the consent order, the Federal Court Trial Division found Wolfgang Droege (leader of the Heritage Front), Gary Schipper (i.e. the voice of the hate line), Kenneth Barker and the Heritage Front guilty of contempt of court for continuing to play hate messages on a newly established Equal Rights For Whites hate line. All of the individuals involved served time in prison and the Heritage Front was fined $5,000. (The Front never paid the $5,000 fine)

Note that in this case the court ordered prison time for contempt of court, in that these guys agreed in court to shut down but didn't. I'm not sure of Zundel's case but he was warned many times and kept going anyway. No matter what your personal views on freedom of speech, if you thumb your nose at a court, you're looking at doing time.

Canadian Human Rights Commissions cannot order jail time. That responsibility falls only to a provincial Supreme Court. The commissions can order payment of damages and insist on future compliance with legislation. Anyone found guilty of violating Human Rights legislation by a Human Rights Commission has every avenue of appeal that everyone else has. Complaints to a commission are usually settled by an apology and perhaps a small fine. Needless to say, many of the apologies are as heartfelt as that given by Tiger Woods, but that is not for the commission to get upset about.

 

[amicus]

In Canada, we have something called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which includes freedom of speech. However, we don't believe that freedom of speech extends to allowing nutbars the right to incite racial hatred. That's how things like Mein Kampf get written, and the nutbars amass support among other nutbars.

You may think that this means Canada is a totalitarian dictatorship, but most Canadians just view it as a reasonable limitation on a right that can otherwise be abused to a revolting extent.

~~~

You appear to be so immersed and saturated by Liberal theology that you appear incapable of independent thought. Racial hatred is a factor in human history as far back as history has been recorded.

It is quite alright to hate, even based on race or ethnic groups that reject basic human liberty and freedom. Islam is a despicable religion as is Christianity, in fact every formal religion has its' own theology of racial, ethnic and regligious bias and hatred and most conflicts can be traced to religious conflict over who hate who the most.

You are either ignorant of history of have been absorbed by those who truly believe that Lions should lay down with Lambs an live in peaceful harmony. The world and indeed nature has never been and never will be the Utopian harmonious relationships you dream of.

Grow up up; only children believe life is fair and equitable to all.

Amicus....a voice of reason in a cacophony of conflicting faiths.

 

[DeeZire]

...It is quite alright to hate, even based on race or ethnic groups that reject basic human liberty and freedom....

.. says Ami, flush from the inspiration and exhilaration of a KKK rally.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Originally Posted by amicus
...I suggest that to hate is a natural human response to that which is different and threatening to life and as such, ought be respected.

I suggest that to hate is a natural human response rooted in fear and inadequacy, which can be easily addressed by knowledge - a concept you will never, ever understand.

I am inclined to agree with Amicus, that hate is a natural response to that which is seen as threatening. I can go to the mall and see hundreds of strangers, and I will not hate them because they are not threatening to me. Being different is not necessarily being threatening, and will not result in hatred.

If a new family were to move in next door, I would probably help them do so, and loan them my hand truck, and drive to a storage space in my pickup truck and help them some more. That would be a good neighbor thing to do, and I consider myself to be a good neighbor. I would do this regardless of their race or religion, even if the women in the family were wearing burkas. I consider people, generally speaking, to be just people.

However, if I were to discover they were terrorists or child molestors or other terrible persons, I would develop a hatred of them. In other words, it would be more knowledge of the people that would result in hatred.

 

[MzDeviancy]

~~~

You appear to be so immersed and saturated by Liberal theology that you appear incapable of independent thought. Racial hatred is a factor in human history as far back as history has been recorded.

It is quite alright to hate, even based on race or ethnic groups that reject basic human liberty and freedom. Islam is a despicable religion as is Christianity, in fact every formal religion has its' own theology of racial, ethnic and regligious bias and hatred and most conflicts can be traced to religious conflict over who hate who the most.

You are either ignorant of history of have been absorbed by those who truly believe that Lions should lay down with Lambs an live in peaceful harmony. The world and indeed nature has never been and never will be the Utopian harmonious relationships you dream of.

Grow up up; only children believe life is fair and equitable to all.

Amicus....a voice of reason in a cacophony of conflicting faiths.

That's your grand reasoning? "It's always happened and will always happen, therefore it should be tolerated"?

I see. Well, I'll be sure to go out and commit murder, molest a child, and establish an autocracy where anyone who disagrees with the government dies, because those have all been happening since the beginning of recorded history, so obviously they're permissable as well.

Liberal idealism for most people who espouse it is not about believing that human nature can be perfected; it's about believing that we have to work on the things that are inherently flawed in our nature - like racism - and that if we do, we can maybe work out a decent existence for everyone.

As for you saying what's possible, political realists like you were unable to conceive of Western Europe not degenerating back into war as soon as they'd recovered economically from World War II. And yet, lo and behold, they haven't. Further, political scientists now say that war has become "unthinkable" between the Western European states. I'm not sure to what extent I believe in the democratic peace theory, but I wouldn't presume to say that it's impossible that that peace will one day extend around the world. It may be unlikely, but I certainly think it's better to work toward peace rather than use history as an excuse to indulge our own penchant for spouting hateful rhetoric.

And on a sidenote, Amicus, you have a lot of nerve calling out JackLuis, Boota and others for their mouths just because they swear. You may not cuss, but what comes out of you is a million times more offensive.

 

[Boxlicker101]

That's your grand reasoning? "It's always happened and will always happen, therefore it should be tolerated"?

I see. Well, I'll be sure to go out and commit murder, molest a child, and establish an autocracy where anyone who disagrees with the government dies, because those have all been happening since the beginning of recorded history, so obviously they're permissable as well.

Liberal idealism for most people who espouse it is not about believing that human nature can be perfected; it's about believing that we have to work on the things that are inherently flawed in our nature - like racism - and that if we do, we can maybe work out a decent existence for everyone.

As for you saying what's possible, political realists like you were unable to conceive of Western Europe not degenerating back into war as soon as they'd recovered economically from World War II. And yet, lo and behold, they haven't. Further, political scientists now say that war has become "unthinkable" between the Western European states. I'm not sure to what extent I believe in the democratic peace theory, but I wouldn't presume to say that it's impossible that that peace will one day extend around the world. It may be unlikely, but I certainly think it's better to work toward peace rather than use history as an excuse to indulge our own penchant for spouting hateful rhetoric.

And on a sidenote, Amicus, you have a lot of nerve calling out JackLuis, Boota and others for their mouths just because they swear. You may not cuss, but what comes out of you is a million times more offensive.

In all honesty, I believe Western Europe did not degenerate back into war was because they and the USA allied against the threat of the USSR, and now against the threat of Islamofacism. Even then, some of them have been involved in "brushfire wars" such as in Suez and The Falklands and Nato operations.

ETA: What's wrong with fucking profanity? This is a fucking pporn site, for shits sake.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

That's your grand reasoning? "It's always happened and will always happen, therefore it should be tolerated"?

I see. Well, I'll be sure to go out and commit murder, molest a child, and establish an autocracy where anyone who disagrees with the government dies, because those have all been happening since the beginning of recorded history, so obviously they're permissable as well.

Liberal idealism for most people who espouse it is not about believing that human nature can be perfected; it's about believing that we have to work on the things that are inherently flawed in our nature - like racism - and that if we do, we can maybe work out a decent existence for everyone.

As for you saying what's possible, political realists like you were unable to conceive of Western Europe not degenerating back into war as soon as they'd recovered economically from World War II. And yet, lo and behold, they haven't. Further, political scientists now say that war has become "unthinkable" between the Western European states. I'm not sure to what extent I believe in the democratic peace theory, but I wouldn't presume to say that it's impossible that that peace will one day extend around the world. It may be unlikely, but I certainly think it's better to work toward peace rather than use history as an excuse to indulge our own penchant for spouting hateful rhetoric.

And on a sidenote, Amicus, you have a lot of nerve calling out JackLuis, Boota and others for their mouths just because they swear. You may not cuss, but what comes out of you is a million times more offensive.

All that hatred exists today in different parts of the world and will most likely until man as a species grows up enough not to. There as been just as much hatred vented upon conservative by liberals and vise versa. It's a fact of life that people with differing opinions will discuss their points of view and in most cases it will evolve into name calling by one side or the other.

So, unless you can magically speed up the evolution of mankind it's going to be with us for awhile.

I feel fortunate to have "met" Amicus, I feel he is elegant in is prose to those who devolve to cussing and name calling.

 

[DeeZire]

....In other words, it would be more knowledge of the people that would result in hatred.

Box ... are you missing the point on purpose? Fear of the unknown is what I'm talking about.

Being different is not necessarily being threatening, and will not result in hatred.

Wrong. Take Muslims for example. You can fear all Muslims, or you can do a little research and discover that the only Muslims to fear are the extremists. You can fear all gay people until you realize that gays are not interested in screwing your kid, pedophiles are the ones who are interested in screwing your kid. The list goes on. I could go back and search your posts for examples of your over-the-top fear of Muslims, but why bother? Honestly, I think you must be pulling an Ami on us - deliberately posting offensive opinions just to get your jollies.

 

[DeeZire]

I feel fortunate to have "met" Amicus, I feel he is elegant in is prose to those who devolve to cussing and name calling.

Does "fuck you" ring a bell Zeb? I've never said it to you, but I've been on the receiving end more than once recently - courtesy of your foul mouth.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Does "fuck you" ring a bell Zeb? I've never said it to you, but I've been on the receiving end more than once recently - courtesy of your foul mouth.

And where in my post did you read that I hadn't? You read what you want not what is said. We all know that's the way you work to provoke such attacks and I'm sorry to say a fell into it.

But if you re-read my post I wasn't talking about me. So how did you get out of it I was talking about you?