Ann Coulter's Answer to Canada!

[PoliticalChic]

In the interests of accuracy, my friend, you may wish to re-analyze your post.

As it stands, it is, of course, not true.

The origin of the episode remains the letter from the provost of the U. of Otttawa, as:

"widely disseminating his letter to at least a half-dozen intermediaries before it reached me -- in advance of my visit in order to recommend that I familiarize myself with Canada's criminal laws regarding hate speech.
Apparently Canadian law forbids "promoting hatred against any identifiable group," which the provost, Francois A. Houle advised me, "would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."
Welcome to AnnCoulter.com

Now, when one compares the above with your frenzied statement "The Canadian government has had nothing to do with this." it remains to be asked, who would bring charges or even arrest Ms. Coulter???

Would it be the private police of the university who might impose some penalties on Ms. Coulter for infracting 'Canadian law'?

Or do you, in that fevered imagination, contemplate a vigilate army doing so???


Or is it possible that you are totally in error, and the laws of Canada are in some direct way related to "The Canadian government" ?

And, if that is the case, exactly what variety of blowhard would that make you, eh?

One who comprehends the paragraph you posted.

In the interests of accuracy, read it again.

Usually you write a more coherent post.

Aside from your attempt to cloud the issue, and the palpable petulance, are you still standing by your original thesis that "The Canadian government has had nothing to do with this."?

If so, how do you account for the phrase "criminal charges" in the provost's letter?

 

[Samson]

Having said that, to equate Canada and Europe with Iran and China displays an ignorance that absolutely staggering and is so ridiculous that it shouldn't even be dignified with a response. Iran and China imprison, torture and kill those who speak out against the government. Surely conservatives aren't so stupid as to realize the same thing is happening in Canada and Europe?.

Um...actually, I wouldn't go so far as to lump Canadan Social Norms in with European Ones.......The next week, Coulter flew to London and gave her schpeal despite some protesters.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

bill meher.
George carlin......

....just off the top of my head..

i actually should have said which woman on the left. There are several men who make their living being nasties both on the left and right. But i can think of no woman on the left who rise to the level of ann coulter's viscious harrangues.

If i gave an example, and if it was a black woman, then would you say, "oh!, i should have said which white woman on the left???"

slammed that one shut !

 

[Toro]

Usually you write a more coherent post.

Aside from your attempt to cloud the issue, and the palpable petulance, are you still standing by your original thesis that "The Canadian government has had nothing to do with this."?

If so, how do you account for the phrase "criminal charges" in the provost's letter?

It is you who is clouding the issue.

If I tell you that what you are saying or doing is a criminal act, it does not mean that the American government is going to charge you for it. That is me merely telling you my interpretation of the law. It has nothing to do with what the American government is going to do.

The fact that the provost of a university says that what she is saying constitutes hate speech does not mean it is hate speech. That is his opinion. It has zero, zip, nilch, nada to do with the Canadian government.

 

[Samson]

In the interests of accuracy, my friend, you may wish to re-analyze your post.

As it stands, it is, of course, not true.

The origin of the episode remains the letter from the provost of the U. of Otttawa, as:

"widely disseminating his letter to at least a half-dozen intermediaries before it reached me -- in advance of my visit in order to recommend that I familiarize myself with Canada's criminal laws regarding hate speech.
Apparently Canadian law forbids "promoting hatred against any identifiable group," which the provost, Francois A. Houle advised me, "would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."
Welcome to AnnCoulter.com

Now, when one compares the above with your frenzied statement "The Canadian government has had nothing to do with this." it remains to be asked, who would bring charges or even arrest Ms. Coulter???

Would it be the private police of the university who might impose some penalties on Ms. Coulter for infracting 'Canadian law'?

Or do you, in that fevered imagination, contemplate a vigilate army doing so???


Or is it possible that you are totally in error, and the laws of Canada are in some direct way related to "The Canadian government" ?

And, if that is the case, exactly what variety of blowhard would that make you, eh?

One who comprehends the paragraph you posted.

In the interests of accuracy, read it again.

Usually you write a more coherent post.

Aside from your attempt to cloud the issue, and the palpable petulance, are you still standing by your original thesis that "The Canadian government has had nothing to do with this."?

If so, how do you account for the phrase "criminal charges" in the provost's letter?

The Canadian Govt. did not bar Coulter's visit.

The porovost merely warned her about Canadian Laws that she, an Unwary US Citizen may want to consider.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I believe Ann Coulter does not lie nor does she intentionally tell any untruth. Her scholarship is generally impeccable.

Impeccable? Scholarship? I don't think you are allowed to use her name and "scholarship" in the same sentence. You typed that with a straight face, didn't you?

Sweet fail Peeps...

 

[MaggieMae]

Bill Meher.
George Carlin......

....Just off the top of my head..

I actually should have said which woman on the left. There are several men who make their living being nasties both on the left and right. But I can think of no woman on the left who rise to the level of Ann Coulter's viscious harrangues.

If I gave an example, and if it was a Black Woman, then would you say, "OH!, I should have said which white woman on the left???"

No, "woman" is sufficient. Actually, I just thought of one: Wanda Sykes, but she isn't as universally known as Ann Coulter. (So there.)

 

[PoliticalChic]

"If it becomes apparent that civility is futile, I'll adjust my responses to reflect the intellectual acuity of my opponent."
I don't believe that anyone reading my posts will find that there is and problem with my "intellectual acuity ," nor do I believe that you find there to be any fault there as well.

I hope you've noticed the differences between the post I directed toward Coulter and my most recent response to you. If not, then perhaps I do have a problem.

Your statement comes across rather as a vapid excuse for your less than intellectual post, the one with the gesture that is so common in school yards and street corners.

It does? I simply can't imagine how I'll ever be able to live with that. In all seriousness, did you truly expect me to offer a point-by-point breakdown and analysis of Coulter's drivel? My response was at least as intelligent as anything uttered by Coulter and has the additional advantage of being more concise.

No, it seems that you were unable to compete in the arena of ideas, and the result was a somewhat jejune cartoon.

If you are afraid to joust on a higher level, merely continue in that vein and I will read that as your capitulation.

I'll do my best to hold back the tears if it ever comes to that. I haven't forgotten about the lackluster quality of your posts regarding my religion and I hardly believe that you'll have an easier time attempting to defend a buffoon like Coulter. Grandiloquence is not an adequate substitute for a cogent argument.

"I haven't forgotten about the lackluster quality of your posts regarding my religion ..."

Ah, now I see.

Actually I don't recall my said arguments, but I certainly can understand you recalling such, and taking it personally.

(But if they were of 'lackluster quality' you wouldn't take them so personally, eh? They must have been pretty good.)

Try to remember, each of us is no more than a collection and assembly of electrons here on the USMB.

But, I avoid the vulgar.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Before any amendments were passed there was probably as much debate as there was in the Federalist Papers which formed the basis of the original Constitution. It should be no surprise to anyone that the same types of ideological debates have continued over time, and right up until today. Ironically, I believe it is precisely that type of debate that the framers hoped would establish a middle ground. And THAT is what remains perfect about the Constitution.

Ah, the old Maggie has returned!

Good to see this one.

"...continued over time..." An excellent vertex for this discussion!

The preeminence of my perspective was the period of the ratification of the Constitution, until the Civil War.

For the Progressive, from the Civil War to the present.

The salient point is that the pendulum swing is beyond that of a normal lifespan. Thus, we must apply more than individual experience to decide the benefits of each.
That said, then you do confess there ARE benefits of "each," yes?

"...establish a middle ground..." is impossible!
100%, of course not. But the reason separation of power is explicit in many clauses of the Constitution is an attempt at finding middle ground. Without that attempt, a dictatorship (or monarchy) would have taken place almost immediately. "We the people" are the operative words in the Constitution, meaning no distinction between political persuasion or any other characteristic. (Of course, that had to be expanded upon almost immediately, however.)

Either one or the other will prevail...and the benefits of conservativism, free market and the superiority of the individual have been shown to benenfit society, while progressivism, socialism and statism, as seen in the totalist supremacies of the past century have resulted in torture, mass murder, enslavement and poverty.
One or the other prevails in almost all election cycles because the one outgoing has been deemed NOT to be of benefit to the people. And I wouldn't be mentioning regimes that promote torture, mass murder or poverty as being exclusive of liberalism. I think you could just casually ask your average Iraqi trying to pick up the pieces from our great adventure in "liberating" them about that.

I appreciate your endeavor of linking modern liberalism to an assumed interest by the Founders, but I fear this is more founded in your desires as a good person, than in any real desire by true progressives to fulfull the promise of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
I simply believe "freedom" means different things to different classes of people.

No, my friend, there are too many syncretic inconsistencies between the two.

For one, the source of our "inalienable rights."

We believe that all are born with them, and they come from, as stated in the Preamble,
“Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Locke stated as much.

Woodrow Wilson essay “Socialism and Democracy” ‘Limitations of public authority must be put aside; the state may cross that boundary at will.’ The collective is not limited by individual rights.

I don't know if you saw the seminar at Hillsdale College called "Reviving the Constitiution," but if you wish to see it, you can on line, or you can purchase the DVD. An excellent presentation.

If things on a daily basis quiet down, I would love to watch the DVD. Thanks for the heads up.

1. "...then you do confess there ARE benefits of "each," yes?" Yes. But, while I oftimes run on too long, the space restrictions of a message board require a more black-and-white argument. No?

2. "...separation of power is explicit in many clauses of the Constitution is an attempt at finding middle ground..."
Not so. The separation of powers is based on an understanding about the nature of man, i.e. man is both good and bad, and this nature is kept in check by keeping a consolidation of power from one person or branch. The liberal idea is based on a belief that man is perfectible, especially by the right kind of laws or government.

Leon Trotsky wrote in his 'Literature and Revolution' :
"The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training... Man will make it his goal...to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will"
New Soviet man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


3. "And I wouldn't be mentioning regimes that promote torture, mass murder or poverty as being exclusive of liberalism."
First, remember the distinction beween classical liberalism, much like conservativism, and progressivism, which is the parent of modern libealism. One honors the individual, the other the state. And communism, fascism, socialism, progressivism, are all totalist, and are the ones that are responsible for some 100 million deaths in the last century.

It is a red herring, pun intended, bringing up Iraq.

4."One or the other prevails in almost all election cycles" Not even close to true. Are you ready to posit that the electorate is regularly a) attuned, b) not swayed by the media, c) not more interested in the lastest perceived scandal as interpreted by the press, or the attributes of a candidate?

This election may be different. One hopes.

5. "freedom" means different things to different classes of people." How to address this?
I think a clearer distinction would be between liberty and equality. Folks would gravitate to one or the other as the more important. And that is a different debate.


Thank you, this has been fun.

 

[Foxfyre]

I believe Ann Coulter does not lie nor does she intentionally tell any untruth. Her scholarship is generally impeccable.

Impeccable? Scholarship? I don't think you are allowed to use her name and "scholarship" in the same sentence. You typed that with a straight face, didn't you?

Well I posted a bit of her bio which establishes her credentials. Are yours on a par with hers so that you are credible to critique her scholarship?

And as so far, nobody has been able to come up with a quotation of hers in its full context to establish her as using hate speech, I will add to that challenge one to you. Find me an example of anything she has said or written in its full context that would demonstrate inadequate or sloppy research.

 

[Modbert]

Well first, to determine who is whacked out of his or her mind, you would have to demonstrate that you understood the sentences you bolded. I don't believe you do.

Oh, I understand the sentences alright. I don't think you understand any of the concepts you seem to be sprouting off about however.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well first, to determine who is whacked out of his or her mind, you would have to demonstrate that you understood the sentences you bolded. I don't believe you do.

Oh, I understand the sentences alright. I don't think you understand any of the concepts you seem to be sprouting off about however.

Well perhaps you're right. But at least I can and have explained why I speak of such concepts. But I'll have to admit that not one has included such an insightful observation as 'whacked out of his or her mind' presented as a valid argument. You've definitely got me there.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I, on the other hand, see the censorship of Canada, or of the EU, as akin to that of China, Iran, etc.

This is the kind of American conservative nonsense that drives me up a wall.

I was not in Ottawa, so I - like you - really have no idea what happened. But I'm willing to give Coulter the benefit of the doubt, because I have seen this happen on Canadian universities before where the Left shouts down those with whom they disagree. Universities are supposed to be bastions of free speech and free thought, and when a band of thugs shouts down someone - anyone - on campus, it diminishes the purpose of a university.

Having said that, to equate Canada and Europe with Iran and China displays an ignorance that absolutely staggering and is so ridiculous that it shouldn't even be dignified with a response. Iran and China imprison, torture and kill those who speak out against the government. Surely conservatives aren't so stupid as to realize the same thing is happening in Canada and Europe?

In Canada, there is a widespread belief that American conservatives are ignorant, racist rednecks. People like Anne Coulter merely reinforce that opinion. I spend not an inconsiderable amount of time disabusing Canadians that American conservatives are not redneck racists, but its hard to contradict that they aren't ignorant.

"Oh, Canada, glorious and almost free..."

So you would like to split hairs and say that Canada is almost a freedom of speech zone, and therefore should not be linked to Iran and China?

Bogus. Don't tell me that I can't express my viewpoint, unless you wear the label of censorship.

Mark Steyn in Canada faced similar thinking: “In Canada, the official complaint about my own so-called "flagrant Islamophobia"—filed by the Canadian Islamic Congress—attributes to me the following "assertions":
America will be an Islamic Republic by 2040. There will be a break for Muslim prayers during the Super Bowl. There will be a religious police enforcing Islamic norms. The USS Ronald Reagan will be renamed after Osama bin Laden. Females will not be allowed to be cheerleaders. Popular American radio and TV hosts will be replaced by Imams.
In fact, I didn’t "assert" any of these things. They are plot twists I cited in my review of Robert Ferrigno’s novel, Prayers for the Assassin. It’s customary in reviewing novels to cite aspects of the plot. For example, a review of Moby Dick will usually mention the whale. These days, apparently, the Canadian Islamic Congress and the government’s human rights investigators (who have taken up the case) believe that describing the plot of a novel should be illegal.” . A Dark Day for the Enlightenment by Bruce Bawer, City Journal 20 January 2010

And you want the EU excused as well?
"January 20, 2010—the Dutch establishment’s most serious effort yet against Wilders gets under way, as he is forced to go to criminal court to defend his right to speak his mind. Wilders is, of course, not the first European to face legal action for criticizing Islam; such luminaries as Oriana Fallaci and Brigitte Bardot also appear on that honor roll."
A Dark Day for the Enlightenment by Bruce Bawer, City Journal 20 January 2010

"Italian writer Oriana Fallaci—after writing of the contradiction between Islam and the Western tradition of liberty—was being sued in France, Italy, Switzerland, and most other European jurisdictions by groups who believed her opinions were not merely offensive, but criminal. " https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=08

And, as for your valient defense, as in "I spend not an inconsiderable amount of time disabusing Canadians that American conservatives are not redneck racists" you might wish to pass this on to your oh-so-enlightened friends:
"On the bright side, Steyn states “It’s a different situation in America, which has the First Amendment and a social consensus that increasingly does not exist in Europe.”
But nowhere is it more evident that Jefferson was correct in stating that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

We must be eternally aware of any restrictions on our rights of free speech, whether it be regulation of the internet, of talk radio, or any communication." Ibid.

 

[Ravi]

Canada's freedom of speech rules are not America's freedom of speech rules.

But they are certainly entitled to interpret freedom of speech as they please...for their citizens and for their guests.

Jeesh, next PC will be calling for the UN to set rules for all nations.

 

[Samson]

Canada's freedom of speech rules are not America's freedom of speech rules.

But they are certainly entitled to interpret freedom of speech as they please...for their citizens and for their guests.

Jeesh, next PC will be calling for the UN to set rules for all nations.

 

[kyzr]

Note to self: Don't go to Canada, my politically incorrect tendencies will get me arrested.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Well I posted a bit of her bio which establishes her credentials. Are yours on a par with hers so that you are credible to critique her scholarship?

And as so far, nobody has been able to come up with a quotation of hers in its full context to establish her as using hate speech, I will add to that challenge one to you. Find me an example of anything she has said or written in its full context that would demonstrate inadequate or sloppy research.

I didn't say anything about hate speech. I was referring to her lies. No, I do not think she is intelligent. I think she is a partisan rube who relies on sensationalism to get attention. Who cares where she went to college? Shrub went to Yale, didn't he, and he's a complete moron. Going to college doesn't make you automatically smart. And no, she does not do research before she speaks. Listen to anything she "claims" to know everything about. Completely laughable.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Find me an example of anything she has said or written in its full context that would demonstrate inadequate or sloppy research.

She exclaimed that Canada fought in Vietnam alongside the US (they did not) and ARGUED when told she was wrong. She's a mental lightweight.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Canada's freedom of speech rules are not America's freedom of speech rules.

But they are certainly entitled to interpret freedom of speech as they please...for their citizens and for their guests.

Jeesh, next PC will be calling for the UN to set rules for all nations.

ROFLMNAO... Wow... that's HEAVY!

So, one has the freedom to speak... if one is in America.

Understand kids... Because your Rights are a purely function of what the US Government says that your Rights are...

Recognize the humanist point of view?

'If you go to Canada... you only have the rights that the CANADIAN government says ya have.'

Which is certainly a confusing point; where one considers that the British Crown felt the same way about the Rights of our founding Father's... yet, here we are a separate and sovereign nation, from Great Britain.

Here's a clue; our rights and their inherent responsibility, are endowed to us by our Creator; and this is without regard to what a government has to say on the issue; which necessarily includes the Canukistani Government or the subjective interpretation of the Progressive Academics... (read: fascists).

 

[Ravi]

Canada's freedom of speech rules are not America's freedom of speech rules.

But they are certainly entitled to interpret freedom of speech as they please...for their citizens and for their guests.

Jeesh, next PC will be calling for the UN to set rules for all nations.

ROFLMNAO... Wow... that's HEAVY!

So, one has the freedom to speak... if one is in America.

Understand kids... Because your Rights are a purely function of what the US Government says that your Rights are...

Recognize the humanist point of view?

'If you go to Canada... you only have the rights that the CANADIAN government says ya have.'

Which is certainly a confusing point; where one considers that the British Crown felt the same way about the Rights of our founding Father's... yet, here we are a separate and sovereign nation, from Great Britain.

Here's a clue; our rights and their inherent responsibility, are endowed to us by our Creator; and this is without regard to what a government has to say on the issue; which necessarily includes the Canukistani Government or the subjective interpretation of the Progressive Academics... (read: fascists).

Yes, you are obligated to follow the rules as a guest of another country. If you don't like it, stay in your bunker.