If you read the straight-up news reports from the event, it's pretty clear that the intent of the protesters was to prevent the speech from happening in the first place. I read someone suggest today that it would probably be smoother to have Mahmoud Ahmedinejad speak at a Canadian university than Ann Coulter. It's a little bit of hyperbole, sure, but I frankly don't think it's that far from the truth.
He sent her a not-so-veiled threat that if she said something he (or other lefty protester types) didn't like, she could expect consequences.
Was it a threat or a warning? It's not that he doesn't want her to say something that he doesn't agree with; it seems that he and others were concerned that her talk would include hate-speech, which given her track-record, isn't a very far-fetched concern. If this happened to an American right-winger who wanted to talk about health care then I would agree with what you're saying, but this is someone who promotes discrimination. You're not allowed to incite hatred against a specific group of people in Canada, and saying that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to fly on airplanes incites hatred.
Of course the protesters wanted to stop the speech, but was the cancellation really down to them? I watched the video on the article you linked to, and people were pushing and yelling, but I didn't see sticks, stones, tar, or feathers. The police say that they gave her other options which were not accepted. The organizers could have found a bigger venue like the police suggested but the organizers are the ones who decided to cancel the event. If I recall correctly, when Concordia had that kerfuffle with Benjamin Netanyahu's speech, he ended up speaking at a different venue. Ann Coulter chose not to do that.
Was it a threat or a warning? It's not that he doesn't want her to say something that he doesn't agree with; it seems that he and others were concerned that her talk would include hate-speech, which given her track-record, isn't a very far-fetched concern.
It was Ezra Levant who was her Canadian wingman for the speech (and will be the other stops on the tour)! He's familiar with Canadian hate speech laws ten ways to Sunday. She didn't need an academic from the University of Ottawa to school her on them.
I think there was an enormous amount of disorganization and confusion. And there was real uncertainty about the intentions of the protesters or how they would react if, for example, they spotted Coulter. All these things weighed upon the final decision and responsibility must be apportioned accordingly. I realize that doesn't make for a satisfyingly clear and concise story but it not only accords with the evidence it is in line with how things typically unfold in situations like these.
Of course, it's also typical that people create narratives that explain what happened in a way that bolsters their ideological or partisan interests. That's already happening in this case. All I can say is that, having been in the thick of it all, I find those stories utterly unconvincing.
If a university is hosting a speech, to me, they have some responsibility to ensure the venue and security are appropriate for it. But then, maybe Coulter's bodyguard was too quick to pull the trigger on the cancellation. There are two sides, and like Gardner says, lots is unclear. The nice thing about the HRC complaint - if she goes through with it, and oh I hope she does - is that now she has to make her case. So, we'll see.
It was Ezra Levant who was her Canadian wingman for the speech (and will be the other stops on the tour)! He's familiar with Canadian hate speech laws ten ways to Sunday. She didn't need an academic from the University of Ottawa to school her on them.
Maybe Houle is a self-important hot-head who thinks that other people need to be schooled by him. Even if that is true, I don't think that his letter was discrimination or that he should be held responsible for all the people who chose to protest her speech or for the speech being canceled.
I do agree with Gardner that it's difficult to get to the bottom of what really happened and who's to blame for the cancellation, but what Coulter's saying about the whole thing reeks of B.S. I mean, really, where are all these updates online where people said that they were going to bring sticks and stones to hurt Ann Coulter?
All very possibly true. My point is, that anything that goes even a little towards eroding the credibility of, and exposing the Human Rights Commissions in Canada as shams is something I'm going to be in favour of.
And one other thing that cannot be argued, which is the flip-side of your second paragraph: it's Coulter who absolutely did the schooling in this instance, not the U of O.
And the other thing is that I just don't think it's a university's place to be sending out "warning" letters to people who are coming to speak on campus. I see where the Canadian Civil Liberties Association agrees with me on that, and I'm usually in their corner.
When you travel to another country, you need to be aware of its laws. Everyone knows this.
He sent her a not-so-veiled threat that if she said something he (or other lefty protester types) didn't like, she could expect consequences.
Rita Valeriano was one of several protesters inside the hall who, with chants of “Coulter go home!”, shouted down the International Free Press Society of Canada organizer who was addressing the crowd.
Valeriano, a 19-year-old sociology and women’s studies student, said later that she was happy Coulter was unable to speak the “hatred” she had planned to.
“On campus, we promise our students a safe and positive space,” she said. “And that’s not what (Coulter) brings.”
If you read the straight-up news reports from the event, it's pretty clear that the intent of the protesters was to prevent the speech from happening in the first place. I read someone suggest today that it would probably be smoother to have Mahmoud Ahmedinejad speak at a Canadian university than Ann Coulter. It's a little bit of hyperbole, sure, but I frankly don't think it's that far from the truth.
Reply
Was it a threat or a warning? It's not that he doesn't want her to say something that he doesn't agree with; it seems that he and others were concerned that her talk would include hate-speech, which given her track-record, isn't a very far-fetched concern. If this happened to an American right-winger who wanted to talk about health care then I would agree with what you're saying, but this is someone who promotes discrimination. You're not allowed to incite hatred against a specific group of people in Canada, and saying that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to fly on airplanes incites hatred.
Of course the protesters wanted to stop the speech, but was the cancellation really down to them? I watched the video on the article you linked to, and people were pushing and yelling, but I didn't see sticks, stones, tar, or feathers. The police say that they gave her other options which were not accepted. The organizers could have found a bigger venue like the police suggested but the organizers are the ones who decided to cancel the event. If I recall correctly, when Concordia had that kerfuffle with Benjamin Netanyahu's speech, he ended up speaking at a different venue. Ann Coulter chose not to do that.
Reply
It was Ezra Levant who was her Canadian wingman for the speech (and will be the other stops on the tour)! He's familiar with Canadian hate speech laws ten ways to Sunday. She didn't need an academic from the University of Ottawa to school her on them.
As usual, I rather like what Dan Gardner has to say on the matter:
I think there was an enormous amount of disorganization and confusion. And there was real uncertainty about the intentions of the protesters or how they would react if, for example, they spotted Coulter. All these things weighed upon the final decision and responsibility must be apportioned accordingly. I realize that doesn't make for a satisfyingly clear and concise story but it not only accords with the evidence it is in line with how things typically unfold in situations like these.
Of course, it's also typical that people create narratives that explain what happened in a way that bolsters their ideological or partisan interests. That's already happening in this case. All I can say is that, having been in the thick of it all, I find those stories utterly unconvincing.
If a university is hosting a speech, to me, they have some responsibility to ensure the venue and security are appropriate for it. But then, maybe Coulter's bodyguard was too quick to pull the trigger on the cancellation. There are two sides, and like Gardner says, lots is unclear. The nice thing about the HRC complaint - if she goes through with it, and oh I hope she does - is that now she has to make her case. So, we'll see.
Reply
Maybe Houle is a self-important hot-head who thinks that other people need to be schooled by him. Even if that is true, I don't think that his letter was discrimination or that he should be held responsible for all the people who chose to protest her speech or for the speech being canceled.
I do agree with Gardner that it's difficult to get to the bottom of what really happened and who's to blame for the cancellation, but what Coulter's saying about the whole thing reeks of B.S. I mean, really, where are all these updates online where people said that they were going to bring sticks and stones to hurt Ann Coulter?
Reply
And one other thing that cannot be argued, which is the flip-side of your second paragraph: it's Coulter who absolutely did the schooling in this instance, not the U of O.
Reply
When you travel to another country, you need to be aware of its laws. Everyone knows this.
Reply
Leave a comment