Repression continues in Canada

[renard_ruse]

Not only don't they have a right to free speech, along with severely restricted gun liberties, pepper spray isn't even legal.

In Canada all products with a label containing the words pepper spray, mace, etc., or otherwise originally produced for use on humans are classified as a prohibited weapon. Only law enforcement officers may legally carry or possess pepper spray. Any similar canister with the labels reading "dog spray" and/or "bear spray" is regulated under the Pest Control Products Act - while legal to be carried by anyone, it is against the law if its use causes 'a risk of imminent death or serious bodily harm to another person' or harming the environment and carries a penalty up to a fine of $500,000 and jail time of maximum 3 years...

 

[renard_ruse]

Why on earth would any country want to stop its people from defending themselves against criminals with non-lethal weapons?

 

[mercury14]

Not only don't they have a right to free speech, along with severely restricted gun liberties, pepper spray isn't even legal.

Your country's government is so overwhelmingly oppressive that it swoops into the most intimate aspects of your citizens' personal lives and tells them who they can and cannot marry. And you support that big government oppression, hypocrite.

[/Canadian mode]

 

[Beco]

Not only don't they have a right to free speech, along with severely restricted gun liberties, pepper spray isn't even legal.

dude, its cold up there, give a little leeway

 

[Squibbs]

Why on earth would any country want to stop its people from defending themselves against criminals with non-lethal weapons?

There are no criminals in canada.

Only in government.

 

[renard_ruse]

I vaguely remember when it was illegal in California to carry pepper spray. People fought to get it legalized.

Thankfully, its legal now in all 50 states, although it appears mASSachusetts still has some fairly repressive legislation :

In Massachusetts, residents may purchase defense sprays only from licensed Firearms Dealers in that state, and must hold a valid Firearms Identification Card (FID) or License to Carry Firearms (LTC) to purchase or to possess outside of one's own private property. It is classed as "ammunition", unlicensed possession of which is punishable by up to 2 years in prison...

 

[renard_ruse]

Pepper spray... don't leave home without it.

 

[mercury14]

Why on earth would any country want to stop its people from defending themselves against criminals with non-lethal weapons?

You can legally buy and carry pepper spray in Canada. There's just a goofy law that says the can has to call it bear spray or something.

But your country has government mandated vaginal ultrasounds, heartbeat laws, and other right-wing intrusions into the doctor-patient relationship regardless as to whether doctors or patents want those procedures done.

Or just right wing intrusions into women's vaginas.

 

[badbabysitter]

Not only don't they have a right to free speech,

Not true, and I have repeatedly asked you to show me examples of how freedom of speech is oppressed in Canada and you have not once been able to


along with severely restricted gun liberties

no, we have gun registration... big difference



, pepper spray isn't even legal.

actually it is, your article doesnt say what you think it says

 

[badbabysitter]

Why on earth would any country want to stop its people from defending themselves against criminals with non-lethal weapons?

they're not.. read your article again

 

[khbostic]

I don t know the exact particulars,but I heard they like to limit Canadians to bolt action rifles and pump shotguns.

Elsewhere,I was surprised to read a night stick,billy club,truncheon was illegal in the State of California,in fact a felony if you dont work for a security guard co or law enforcement.

The article went on to say you better not say the baseball bat was for self protection,or defence,or anything other than to play ball with,and it d be better to keep a catchers glove and ball with the bat..

Maybe a walking stick or hiking stick would be o k.,otherwise felony for the baton,nightstick,etc...I read getting a cane may be a wise choice,like a metal questionmark shaped one for all round utility.

In martial arts,they teach throwin like red pepper fine ground in place of pepper spray.Louisiana ot sauce can be added in water guns,where pepper spray is illegal yrs ago in Detroit metro area I used to live in 30 yrs back,I carried a night stick 18 mo as a security guard there,and a service revolver,only on cetain job sites like a bank,and hospital emgcy room...

The English Nobility forebade commoners to carry metal edged weapons,so they carried quarterstaffs,which could fend off wild animals,and was the equivalent of a shepherds crookstaff.
The Irish shileleagh was a walking stick,usually oak,made like a upside down golfclub,with the head up under the hand ,and it was used to fend off whatever...The French figured with a little training,most anything could be fendedoff with a walking cane as well...

 

[Sean Renaud]

George Galloway was restricted in Canada. I doubt it's a unique situation. Freedom of Speech seems to be unique to Americans (on paper) in practice the vast majority of the West has it and no government would dream of really restricting speech.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Here's another example of freedom of speech being suppressed in Canada:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...lim-camel-alternative-flying-article-1.172308

 

[badbabysitter]

Here's another example of freedom of speech being suppressed in Canada:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...lim-camel-alternative-flying-article-1.172308

oh fer fuckssakes..

this?

Again?


one...her rights were never suppressed

two..she got an email telling her in an unofficial capacity that her speech might not be welcome

three.. Ann cancelled the event.. no one else.... the only who suppressed her right to free speech.. .............................was herself

four.. this has been debunked so many times, even the Koch brothers couldnt make a good spin out of it anymore

 

[Boxlicker101]

oh fer fuckssakes..

this?

Again?


one...her rights were never suppressed

two..she got an email telling her in an unofficial capacity that her speech might not be welcome

three.. Ann cancelled the event.. no one else.... the only who suppressed her right to free speech.. .............................was herself

four.. this has been debunked so many times, even the Koch brothers couldnt make a good spin out of it anymore

Are you really sure of that? According to this, it was the U. of Ottawa that canceled the event:

Security at the University of Ottawa scrapped the right-wing darling's talk when more than 2,000 students showed up to protest her telling a Muslim student Monday to "take a camel" as an alternative to flying.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...rnative-flying-article-1.172308#ixzz2YP4eYvAo

And the NY Daily News is certainly not a supporter of Coulter.

 

[badbabysitter]

Are you really sure of that? According to this, it was the U. of Ottawa that canceled the event:

Security at the University of Ottawa scrapped the right-wing darling's talk when more than 2,000 students showed up to protest her telling a Muslim student Monday to "take a camel" as an alternative to flying.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...rnative-flying-article-1.172308#ixzz2YP4eYvAo

And the NY Daily News is certainly not a supporter of Coulter.

according to absolutely every other source...it was her

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ann-coulters-speech-in-ottawa-cancelled/article4352616/



http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...speech_cancelled_after_thousands_protest.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2010/03/23/ottawa-coulter-speech.html

I could go on and on and on

fact is.. she got a mean email, some protestors showed up,,, then she cancelled

that's it, that's all

she threw a fit and then threatened to make a complaint to the Humans Rights Council...which never happened either


probably for the best, since the lawyer she chose had to later apologize for calling the Romany a race of degenerate subhumans and criminals

 

[Boxlicker101]

according to absolutely every other source...it was her

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ann-coulters-speech-in-ottawa-cancelled/article4352616/



http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...speech_cancelled_after_thousands_protest.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2010/03/23/ottawa-coulter-speech.html

I could go on and on and on

fact is.. she got a mean email, some protestors showed up,,, then she cancelled

that's it, that's all

she threw a fit and then threatened to make a complaint to the Humans Rights Council...which never happened either


probably for the best, since the lawyer she chose had to later apologize for calling the Romany a race of degenerate subhumans and criminals

The second link says the U. cancelled the speech.

OTTAWA—Security officials have scrubbed American right-winger Ann Coulter’s speech at the University of Ottawa after a boisterous protest prompted concerns for her safety.

The first one said she did. The third one didn't say, but did go into some detail about how the government might arrest her if they didn't like what she said.

I believe the latter is pretty much the definition of censorship.

 

[Sean Renaud]

To be fair that cunt should be censored and the fact that we don't speaks more about our ignorance than anything else.

 

[badbabysitter]

The first two links say the U. cancelled the speech. The third one didn't say, but did go into some detail about how the government might arrest her if they didn't like what she said.

I believe the latter is pretty much the definition of censorship.

the opening line in the first link said she did.. read it again

the security officals in the second link, if you read, were HER secuirty..read it again

dude.. no matter how the right spins it.. SHE cancelled the event

that's it, that's all

http://voices.yahoo.com/ann-coulters-ottawa-speech-cancelled-her-own-staff-5711408.html

http://www.vancouversun.com/about-v...niversity+Ottawa+cancelled/2718311/story.html

I could go on all day in this vein

and the bit where the government might arrest her? more spin abby.. the email was sent in an unoffical capacity stating that hate speech laws were different in Canada... AnnCoulter interpreted this as oppression

no matter how the right spins this.. she bailed


what also is never mentioned is that rest of her speeches went on in Canada without a problem..oh poor oppressed Ann

 

[Boxlicker101]

To be fair that cunt should be censored and the fact that we don't speaks more about our ignorance than anything else.

No, Ann Coulter, Louis Farrakhan, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore and some others deserve to be stifled, but the Constitution protects almost any kind of speech, not just people talking about Apple Pie and Motherhood.

 

[badbabysitter]

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/289589


Ottawa - As reports circulate indicating a speaking engagement by Ann Coulter was shut down over security concerns, Ottawa police are left scratching their heads. They say the event wasn't shut down, there was no riot and they know nothing about Facebook threats.

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter was in the middle of a Canadian tour this week to promote her new book. After a stop in London, ON, Coulter was supposed to head to Ottawa.

Ahead of the Ottawa appearance, however, Coulter's security detail informed her it may not be safe to speak and so the event was cancelled. Since then, Coulter has publicly lashed out at organizers and officials in Ottawa over the way she has been treated.

Despite media reports and angry words from Coulter, Ottawa police say they did not shut down the event. DigitalJournal.com spoke directly with Alain Boucher, Ottawa Police Services media relations officer, who said, "It was a decision by organizers and her own security."

He said, in no uncertain terms, "We didn't shut it (the event) down."

Furthermore, there weren't thousands of protesters as has been reported by some media outlets. In fact, the best police estimate of the crowd size is 1,500 and that is everyone. Many in the crowd were there simply to hear Coulter speak and were not there to protest. Boucher refused to be drawn into estimating the exact number of protesters.

In addition, there was no mob nor riot. "We had no fears that anything would occur," Boucher said. "When asked to leave, [the crowd] all left."
Boucher said with large crowds the police are always alert to changes in the group mood, but said the crowd did not get way out of hand and there were no arrests.

Boucher also said the Ottawa police took the protest seriously and were not undermanned. There were 10 officers visible at the scene, "plus other resources" nearby. There was "more than enough" police presence at the event. That said, the police, while taking care not to aggravate the situation, were also prepared to handle any possible escalation of crowd action.
Although it has been widely reported that police were monitoring Facebook and had informed Coulter's people of an apparent menacing tone in Facebook activity ("bring sticks, bring rocks") Boucher had no knowledge of any of this and could not supply DigitalJournal.com with any Facebook links.
Boucher confirmed "no damage was reported."

 

[Boxlicker101]

the opening line in the first link said she did.. read it again

the security officals in the second link, if you read, were HER secuirty..read it again

dude.. no matter how the right spins it.. SHE cancelled the event

that's it, that's all

http://voices.yahoo.com/ann-coulters-ottawa-speech-cancelled-her-own-staff-5711408.html

http://www.vancouversun.com/about-v...niversity+Ottawa+cancelled/2718311/story.html

I could go on all day in this vein

and the bit where the government might arrest her? more spin abby.. the email was sent in an unoffical capacity stating that hate speech laws were different in Canada... AnnCoulter interpreted this as oppression

no matter how the right spins this.. she bailed


what also is never mentioned is that rest of her speeches went on in Canada without a problem..oh poor oppressed Ann

The second link refers to security officials, not to her personal bodyguards. Whoever canceled it, and no matter how you try to spin it, Canada does have limitations on free speech. Possibly they only enforce those laws on certain people who espouse certain views.

 

[badbabysitter]

The second link refers to security officials, not to her personal bodyguards. Whoever canceled it, and no matter how you try to spin it, Canada does have limitations on free speech. Possibly they only enforce those laws on certain people who espouse certain views.

I'll keep posting there

those were her security.. as the following post declares..

spin baby pin

she didnt break any speech laws

hate speech is a crime in Canada.. being a twat is not, Ann was being a twat, and when called on it, took a fit packed up her toys and left

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'll keep posting there

those were her security.. as the following post declares..

spin baby pin

she didnt break any speech laws

hate speech is a crime in Canada.. being a twat is not, Ann was being a twat, and when called on it, took a fit packed up her toys and left

Well, I'm glad you finally admit that Canada does not have freedom of speech. That was really the only thing I was arguing.

 

[badbabysitter]

On Tuesday, US-based Ann Coulter’s speech at the University of Ottawa was canceled [by her own staff] because of fears that there may be physical violence. Since then, I’ve been thinking a lot about mainstream news coverage and am frankly startled yet again at the inability of news anchors to ask complex questions. I suppose in an era of entertainment/news reporting, expecting an anchor to be deeply informed about issues (in the way that they seem to be about Gerard Butler’s last 10 movies) is an unfair expectation.


But back to Coulter. One of the arguments I’ve heard over and over about the cancellation is the “free speech” argument: Coulter has the right to say whatever she wants. This (her supporters argue) is what free speech means and what Coulter is being denied.


What people who launch the charge of “free speech” (and other charges such as “anti-democratic”, “censorship”, and “lighten up it’s just entertainment”) fail to acknowledge and understand is the social concept of power.


Sexism, racism, ableism, heterosexism, classism, anti-semitism, are not about individual acts of discrimination (what some conservative commentator may have specifically said to offend someone or some group). These terms do not primarily refer to acts of discrimination (expressions of prejudices like Coulter’s). They refer to systems of privilege that “normalize” a particular way of talking about and thinking about particular groups of people in society.


This is why Coulter’s speech is not just “free” (i.e. bias-free, objectively sent out into the atmosphere). The effects of her speech when launched into public space are not simply situational. They are another series of burps in the historical and currently existing framework that has normalized a particular way of thinking about Muslims, gays and lesbians, and other marginalized groups.


This is why scholars of race relations and critical feminisms would argue that so-called reverse-racism or reverse-sexism do not exist. Because of this difference, individual speech acts have different consequences in the social world.


A useful example is that of electoral franchise for (white) women in North America. While women had to agitate for the right to vote and could certainly be angry with and prejudiced against men during that period and perhaps even launch angry and hateful speech at men, women could not grant themselves the right to vote. Only men could actually grant suffrage to women because only men held the institutional positions to do so. Hence while both groups could be prejudiced against the other, only men’s prejudice against women was backed by institutional power, creating a significant difference in the impact.


The “isms” words (racism, sexism, anti-semitism) refer to power relations that are historic and embedded, and these relations do not flip back and forth. The same groups that have historically held power in the US and Canada, continue to do so.


From this framework, we can see how free speech is a slippery problem. Ironically, it seems to surface when there is a need to stifle speech that challenges social power (which is what the U of Ottawa students were doing - challenging the inequitable social power relations that Coulter’s “speech” upheld).


In a parallel way, while “left wing” voices may not receive the kind of caution that Coulter did from the Vice Provost of the University of Ottawa to be aware of Canada’s hate speech laws, here’s why it doesn’t matter: The effect of Coulter’s speech is not the same as the effect of marginalized speech.


So is “reverse”-free speech at issue here? Is Coulter the victim of censorship? Are all expressions defensible as free speech?


If freedom of speech means anyone can say or print whatever they want, why was James Frey famously fried for embellishing about his own life (in his Oprah book club book?). Why was the issue there “lying,” and not “freedom of speech?”


And not long ago, I remember a lot of hullabaloo in the news about some unkind TV ads of Stéphane Dion and puffin poop. I don’t remember that incident framed as an issue of free speech. Those were rightly characterized as “attack” ads. And no one I heard, dared defend a Conservative party’s right to free speech.


There is also a type of context-appropriate speech. For example, the morning baby-talk I know many of you use when chatting with your kitty-witty or puppy-wuppy, would probably be inappropriate at a job interview, or in a meeting, or even with friends at the pub cheering the hockey team.


The point is, we live with these types of speech limitations every day… limitations governed by social norms. When the “free speech” card is played (by those whose speech aligns with power structures, like Coulter), it is a defensive response to their perspectives and power being challenged. The “free speech” discourse protects power and privilege by acting as a shield against such challenges. If you dare challenge free speech as a normal social value, you dare challenge the founding ideals of Western-style democracy.


Perhaps we should have a discussion about the degree to which we experience and foster “free speech” in the West. Education theorist, Michael Apple makes the point when likening U.S. post 9/11 “democracy” to “compulsive patriotism.” Ironically, rather than ensuring a widening of speech freedoms by opening-up dialogue, the discourse draws boundaries around a type of speech called “free” (or “permissible”) speech that aligns with the existing values of mainstream society. Speech outside of these boundaries is a challenge to “our” way of doing things, and thus, unwelcome and even threatening.


I was at a talk last night at Simon Fraser University, by Juan Cole - a self-admitted left of centre commentator. And I would attend a talk by right-of-centre commentator Diane Ravitch. The difference in these cases is that Professors Cole and Ravitch situate their speech in an intellectual tradition - a tradition that has principles of speech (in the case of academia, those principles are research). And so the speech is an informed speech. This is the kind of speech that universities are charged with fostering. Not opinion-based speech of the “I can say whatever I want” kind.


Whether it’s humorous “jokes” about Muslims taking flying carpets instead of airplanes, or ‘real’ remarks calling for the deaths of abortion doctors and condemning gays and lesbians, all speech is not free, neutral, and deserving of utterance. You can’t just say whatever the hell you want.


University of Ottawa students embody the spirit of student activism. Thank you, students.


Özlem Sensoy, Assistant Professor

Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University