I’m sorry for shamelessly copy/pasting this comment from Fark, but Dr. Mojo PhD said it better than anyone else.

“Of course it was. I’ll repeat it from another thread, because it bears repeating (and I’m too lazy to type it out again) The sponsors decided to take the protests and claim they could “turn violent” for publicity and attention (The move followed boisterous demonstrations outside that sponsors of the appearance feared could turn violent.) The protesters were doing nothing violent, of course, and the sponsors and main attraction, Coulter herself, are liars. Mr. Levant, on the advisory board of the International Free Press Society [one of the sponsors of the tour], said University of Ottawa has “proved the point of the whole tour.” “And isn’t it ironic that it takes a provocative American coming to Canada to reveal the shortcomings in Canadian free speech?” Indeed, that is the definition of a publicity stunt. Protesters exercise their own right to free speech by protesting, the sponsors shut it down, and then claim that the protesters exercising their charter rights are somehow the government limiting free speech. Not only that, but the government and indeed the the leftists in government had the opposite view: “In terms of putting limits on what she … should say or shouldn’t say, I’m not sure that helps,” said Ottawa Centre New Democrat [leftist party] MP Paul Dewar. Liberal MP Scott Brison told Coulter’s political opponents to “vote with your feet.” “If you don’t agree with what she has to say, then ignore her.”

In fact, Coulter is such an outrageous liar that she claimed the Provost of the Ottawa U. threatened to criminally prosecute her — “The provost of the U. of Ottawa is threatening to criminally prosecute me for my speech there on Monday” — a power he does not have. Coulter has subsequently claimed she will hire Levant to file a hate speech claim on her behalf — how odd that Levant and Coulter will happily use the laws they claim to hate in an effort to squelch private citizens protesting when it suits them, and classify those same private citizens protesting as a “limitation on free speech” It bears repeating: Protesting a person is not a government infringing on their speech. So Esquire, spare me the lectures on how us unwashed, dirty Canadians don’t know what free speech is. We put it in practice and you responded by making her a martyr rather than report the facts.”

Again, sorry for shamelessly copy/pasting this Dr Mojo PhD. But you’re awesome, and the only good person to explain this. I salute you and hope you forgive me.

But snipzor, why weren’t the protesters arrested and prosecuted? They were being “uncivil” and “and expressing hatred towards” Coulter, the very “crimes” she was warned not to commit while on Canadian soil. I agree that if they were in US, and the protesters didn’t do anything violent, then they would have been protected by the First Amendment. But this Canada! They’re more “civil” than the ugly Americans. Why did the authorities let such criminality go unpunished?

Finch, your intellectual… fuck dishonesty, your lack of intelligence is not shocking anymore. Read our constitution, and the laws. Also, Coulter wasn’t arrested, nobody threatened to arrest her, you are full of shit.

Here’s the relevant text of the letter that sent to Coulter. It sure sounds like a threat to me. Or, let me put it this way, in the United States I assure you that you could take that letter to a federal court and get an injunction against any government official that wrote a letter like that.

Here’s the text:

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.

Boy, oh boy that sounds like a threat to me.

Yea, he totally threatened her with arrest, a power, he does not carry. So essentially, you are still stupid.

What’s sad about you, snipzor, is that you really typify the Left. You really can’t debate an issue without resorting to personal insults and vulgarity. You give off plenty of heat, but no light. And, worse of all, you somehow walk away from debates that you’ve lost with a feeling of moral superiority. That’s quite a trick.

You are aware that I defused your claims right? Of course not. Perhaps you are self-delusional, something which is backed by your deafening silence in the previous thread after you posted the lie of a story meant to implicitly justify the recent series of death threats and attempted assassination to democratic politicians.

The fact is, I have no patience for you. You’ve lied so poorly, that zero seconds of research can be used to defuse your lie.

I can’t speak to Canadian law, but in the United States if a government official sent a letter like that it would not be a defense to say, “I don’t have the power to effect an arrest.” The threat is being made under color of law (because it is being sent on government letterhead) and, therefore, would be punishable under 42 USC Sec 1983. That makes sense to me. A government bureaucratic who threatens a citizen’s right to free speech shouldn’t be able to escape culpability by hiding behind an organization chart.

You really got with that post, snipzor. But you forgot to insult my intelligence. Oh, and dropping the f-bomb a time or two would have really strengthened your argument, too.

Snipzor, do you think you could express your opinions without the vulgarities? Or is this another Canadian thing that the rest of us could never understand?

But they didn’t arrest her, students protested her and she left. Her apologists said she was being threatened, there are no reports of any threats. So what we’ve got here, is not a situation in which there is no free speech, but rather a situation in which free speech is wonderfully exhibited by students in that university against a bigot in which no tolerance would be extended to.

So there is no government intervention, just student intervention. And the letter, is a warning, that bigotry will not be tolerated in either the legislative sense, or the sense of the populace. So your arguments in regards to this, are garbage. Worthless. And if anything at all, a wonderful example of conservative victimization.

Felixw:

Snipzor believes that your IQ is directly proportional to how often you use the f-bomb. That’s why Joe Biden is a f**ckin genius in his book!

The Left doesn’t want to debate. They want to intimidate people into silence. So they form a mob. Or verbally assault people with vulgarities. If people disagree with Coulter, they should respond to her views. Only tyrants respond to freedom of speech with intimidation tactics.

If you want the debate portion, it ended with the first post from the good Dr. I suggest reading it.

“Lie” is a word that have long lost it’s meaning since the Liberals redefined the word ‘Is’. It’s a lie when a conservative says it, but it’s not a lie if a liberal should say essentially the same thing.

You know that cultural belief that, in a group, the first person who yells ‘fart’ is actually the same person who just farted? “to lie” is suppose to be a strong condemnation…be careful how you use it.

Let’s disagree without being disagreeable…freedom of speech does apply to all of us…

While I support the student’s right to protest and am pleased by their passion, I really hope the lady who thinks “universities are not the place for provocateurs” is not allowed to teach.

I could go through the list of all the “provocateurs” who spoke or participated in events at my college and I was there in the relatively calm 80s. Things were even more “provocative” in the decades, prior. It’s part of the educational process and it used to be that conservatives were the ones complaining about “provocateurs”, but apparently in Canada, the shoe’s on the other foot.

As far as I’m concerned, the students have every right to protest, but Ms. Cole’s statement is as shameful, as anything “provocateur” Coulter might say. (and it’s not about laws, but education)

But, snipzor, the point is that the Canadian government is being inconsistent. First of all, the letter didn’t say anything about “bigoted” speech. It said that it is illegal to “promote hatred against any identifiable group” and that individuals exorcising their right to free expression must do so with “respect and civility.”

Coulter never violated those standards; in fact, she never got a chance to. But the protesters did violate those standards. They expressed hatred toward Coulter and did so without an semblance of respect or civility. So why didn’t the government intervene and stop them?

You are applying the Canadian standard to Coulter, and the American standard to the protesters. They were in Canada. Shouldn’t the Canadian standard of “respect and civility” apply to everyone equally?

And, snipzor, when you respond, I recommend at least 3 f-bombs and 2 insults to my intelligence. You need to make up for your earlier post when you left them out.

“Take a camel.”

That’s what all the fuss is about? That’s funny!

This is my last post for the night, because the amount of hypocritical bullshit from the right-wing is unbelievable. Actually, no I still expect it.

Answer this question (Actually, don’t bother). Was she arrested? No, she wasn’t. She was protested by +2000 students who didn’t want her already exhibited bigotry towards anyone who isn’t part of the majority. They didn’t tolerate her crap, and essentially demonstrated that through their right to free speech. Coulter left, played the martyrdom card, as you are buying in so much despite supposedly hating her (Yea, how long did that lie last?). That’s it, that’s all, I’m tired of your red herrings. I know I won’t get anywhere with a bunch of right-wing idiots, because you refused to bother doing factual research.

Goodnight.

Just finished listening to Cole’s comments on OReilly. she was also on Kelly’s court earlier in the day. Wow, I honestly hope she doesn’t speak for the Canadian government.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4123076/hannitys-america-324#/v/4122375/ann-coulter-got-what-she-deserved/?playlist_id=87651

So, what she’s really saying is, Canada have a different freedom of speech…the freedom exist as long as she (Canadian Press or the Canadian Government) agrees with it.

Before I go to sleep, allow me to remind Bias-Media one simple fact. SHE WAS NOT ARRESTED!!! Fucking shit, you guys are relentless in your ignorance.

@Snipzor

I never said she was arrested! are you going to call me a liar now?

go to sleep already so that we can have a real debate here…

@Snipzor

since you like childish games…

DID ANN COULTER GET TO SPEAK?!!!??!!! DID SHE? WELL????

For crying out loud…THAT (did an invited guest get to speak) is the issue; NOT whether she got arrested…

Here’s my favorite quote from Susan Cole:

We don’t have that same political culture here in (Canada)….We don’t have a 1st Amendment, we don’t have a religion of free speech….Students sign off on all kinds of agreements as to how they’ll behave on campus, in order to respect diversity, equity, all of the values that Canadians really care about. Those are the things that drive our political culture. Not freedoms, not rugged individualism, not free speech. It’s different, and for us, it works.

She openly disparages freedom, rugged individualism, and free speech. I think the liberals here salivate when they hear things like that.

And my point, which snipzor has steadfastly refused to respond to, is that if the letter sent to Coulter accurately states Canadian law, the protesters are the ones who should have been arrested. They were promoting hatred and failing to show respect and civility. Why didn’t the government take action against them?

You know Snipzor, when you act like a raging lunatic like that, even if you are technically correct, people aren’t going to give you much credibility.

To be fair, I think the Provst’s intent was genuine. He likely knows the student body well enough, and just wanted to give Coulter a heads up. It would be like giving Coulter a similar heads up before she heads to MSNBC as a guest for a show.

Of course, I have no proof the Provst’s intention was genuine. I like to give him the benefit of the doubt. If it were me, I’d do the same thing. Except I would probably choose different wordings…or, instead of a letter, I’d probably just give her a call. The human touch can ease any miscommunications…

@AnonymousFinch: I think you have “liberals” confused with someone else.

I hope Snipzor could sleep, he is pretty wound up!
I am tired of these stupid students who think they can disrupt free speech. If they dont like her dont see her.
They have now made Ann more popular in the last two days by there disrupt and put her in the news again and now more people will read her book and she will make more money.
If these students had half a brain.

So according to snip, free speech is whenever someone you disagree with is prevented from speaking. Wonderful how the far left ‘mind’ works.

Although I do not agree with her message, she is allowed to speak. If you watch the video on you tube of her speech, when she tells the muslim student to ride a camel, it is only a response to a question which was sarcastic in manner. It is a commical response, but it is still innapropriate. I agree that if you do not want to hear her message you should just not listen to her, and without all of this disruption, she would not have reached the same level of fame as she has now because of the students protesting. All though they were fighting for what they thought was right they had an adverse affect of what they were hoping for as “hkyplayer” pointed out. I think that she should keep this hate speech to herself and shouldn’t be speaking publicly to groups of people but it is what it is.
As far as I know, and I apologize if I am not informed correctly, but she was not banned from the school, she decided not to enter as she felt there was danger to her person. That does not mean she couldn’t have gone and spoke.
The letter from the vice principal was a warning and not a threat. The comment from the student that said a fish rots from the head down is just a rude comment from an angry student who didn’t get to hear the hate speech that he was looking for.
All in all, she is a rude and arogant American who thinks that she can say what she want and people will accept it. UofO proved her wrong, I am proud of the students for standing up. Too bad it isn’t going to get rid of her.
So yes she should be allowed to speak, but because she is a white american woman she isn’t a part of those minorities she is degrading. Go home Ann Coulter.