It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Coulter to file human rights complaint

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Coulter to file human rights complaint


www.cbc.ca

Conservative pundit to go to Human Rights Commission over Ottawa treatment

Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter said she will file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission over the way she was treated by the University of Ottawa.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   
This is hilarious, really hilarious! She states that our country has no free speech because people spoke out in protest and her speech was canceled... It takes so much intelligence to find out what happened here.

She could have spoke anyway had her "security" not been "compromised" (both common American government words)... Real people who have something important to say, say it regardless of their "security". MLK knew he was a target for his movement, knew he was hated, yet he went and spoke everywhere he could.

Coulter is a joke, paid to inflame and defame, just for ratings and for government dis-info...

Keeping the peace,

Magnum

www.cbc.ca
(visit the link for the full news article)

[EDIT] to add this video of Ann Coutler's interview with Evan Soloman

[edit on 10/3/26 by Magnum007]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:55 AM
link   
So Coulter is complaining because Houle advised her that Canada has anti-hate laws, and thus, she was fully informed?

Deny Knowledge!



Too funny.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   
She's #ing kidding, right ?


Oh man...This is so funny I almost peed myself reading...Thanks for the laffs Magnum


Om a serious note tho, this is just a dummy spit...Didn't get her own way so she bitches and moans about it...

Tell you what tho, she would come to serious physical harm if she tried to speak publicly in Australia...We don't tolerate imbeciles like her...

A case in point...People associated with Westboro Baptist Church were planning to spew their hate at a memorial service for Victoria's bushfire victims in 2009 saying the people who died deserved it as they were sinners, etc...Thing was, they were stupid enough to announce it on Facebook...

They were threatened with violence if they dared show their faces outside that memorial, and personally knowing some of the people that threatened them (who lost loved ones in the fires), they would have had the living # beaten out of them if they'd showed up...And that's if they were lucky, believe me...

Quite sensibly they didnt protest...

Again, congrats to those people who protested against this pathetic excuse for a human being and stopped her speaking earlier in the week



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Magnum007
 


Nice thread OP, very funny stuff. I can't believe the gall of those silly canadians protesting such a morally upstanding person like Coulter speaking at a rally. That poor, poor woman, having her rights
ts stepped on like that. Welcome to the club Ann.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
again, I have to say: We must step back and look at the bigger picture.

Take who she is out of the picture and replace it with you and what would you do? Seriously, what would any of us (US Citizen) do if we were told what she was told?

It is the principle of the thing. She is being presecuted for what she says-not what she does. Now, if she would have spoken and said something they didn't approve of-fine, use their laws.

But to protest and invited guest before they even spoke is not: Deny Ignorance-but rather encourages it.

I did S&F though as I think the topic needs to be discussed-in general terms and not at the personal level. JMO.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
So Coulter is complaining because Houle advised her that Canada has anti-hate laws, and thus, she was fully informed?

Deny Knowledge!



Too funny.


Exactly what I was thinking. I was accused by a woman for explaining to her that the fact that she was possibly doing something wrong (needed further investigation to make sure) could result in a certain fine. She complained to the ethics commissioner and they came to the conclusion that I was simply explaining the law to her and the possible penalties... Sheesh...


Originally posted by Retrovertigo
She's #ing kidding, right ?


Oh man...This is so funny I almost peed myself reading...Thanks for the laffs Magnum



No problem mate. I'm sorry for the people who died in the Bushfires, especially the ones you knew... Ignorance really makes this world look bad. Blaming people for their "sins" making them deserve death by fire? That's just



Originally posted by ghostsoldier78
reply to post by Magnum007
 


Nice thread OP, very funny stuff. I can't believe the gall of those silly canadians protesting such a morally upstanding person like Coulter speaking at a rally. That poor, poor woman, having her rights
ts stepped on like that. Welcome to the club Ann.


lol... We silly Canadians can be quite tough sometimes!!!


[edit on 10/3/26 by Magnum007]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Much as I hate her, I think anti-hate laws are ridiculous but thats because I believe in free speech... never forget "though I disagree with what you say I would defend to the death your right to say it.."

Let her speak her mind, if she acts like a retard she'll be exposed for her true self, whats the harm. Anything she said would just be detrimental to her self any way. Audience would probably be full of people against her, like in the Simpsons episode 'why would they come to the concert just to boo us?'



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
again, I have to say: We must step back and look at the bigger picture.

Take who she is out of the picture and replace it with you and what would you do? Seriously, what would any of us (US Citizen) do if we were told what she was told?

It is the principle of the thing. She is being presecuted for what she says-not what she does. Now, if she would have spoken and said something they didn't approve of-fine, use their laws.

But to protest and invited guest before they even spoke is not: Deny Ignorance-but rather encourages it.

I did S&F though as I think the topic needs to be discussed-in general terms and not at the personal level. JMO.


I tend to disagree with some of what you say...

She hasn't been persecuted, her right to speech was not denied; someone in some "security" group said it was not "safe" to speak in Ottawa. She was free to speak.

The thing with the letter/email being sent to her is simple: someone was reminding her of the law concerning hate speech in Canada. There was no threat whatsoever, it was a reminder that in this country, certain speech is not tolerated because of the incidents it may cause later. We have to remember that there are laws/or judgements that are close to being "un-constitutional" but that are for the greater good. Here are a few:

Arrest
Speech inciting genocide (hate speech)
Temporary Detention for investigation
and the list goes on...

We must remember that sometimes the law is there to protect rather than obstruct the rights we have. A person has the right to life before another has the right to say something that incites someone else to take that life away...

Keeping the peace,

Magnum

[edit on 10/3/26 by Magnum007]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Magnum007
 


It doesn't matter how you or anyone else trys to justify it. It was pour taste for the protestors to show up, the college for allowing get out of hand and for the official to even send the warning to begin with.

And even worse if Canada as a Gov't doesn't denounce it. Again, my opinion.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Miss Coulter wimped out..plain and simple.

I really don't get where people are coming from saying anything close to her rights were violated or that the college should have done something to stop the protesters or anything like that.

Don't most public speakers have to deal with a protest of some sort?

Former President Clinton spoke at my college campaigning for Hilary, he had a group of about 10 people "protesting" (calling him names pretty much) his security walked over there, looked like they just informed them that what they were saying was questionable (some were insinuating that he should die) and they toned down that rhetoric.

I just don't get it...if she really had something to say, go and say it! I don't care that she has a history, being American, I want her to say it. I would defend her rights to say it, but she (or her staff) chose not to follow through with the speaking engagement.

Hell, all that protesting was free press for her...look at us...all talking about Ann Coulter for no damn reason...

edit to spell her name correctly.

[edit on 3/26/2010 by iamsupermanv2]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by Magnum007
 


It doesn't matter how you or anyone else trys to justify it. It was pour taste for the protestors to show up, the college for allowing get out of hand and for the official to even send the warning to begin with.

And even worse if Canada as a Gov't doesn't denounce it. Again, my opinion.


It may be of poor taste in your opinion but it was the protester's freedom to speak in what they believe in... Freedom of speech works both ways...

As far as letting it go out of hand, that's another matter altogether.

The government has nothing to say about this, she decided not to talk the government had nothing to do with her decision... One's freedom of speech was pitted against another's and one of them "won"... That's reality; it may not be right, it may not be wrong either, but that's just life...

Magnum

Magnum



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by Magnum007
 


...It was pour taste for the protestors to show up, ...and for the official to even send the warning to begin with.

And even worse if Canada as a Gov't doesn't denounce it.


It was poor taste for the students to protest?!?

Like at the G7 meetings? And Tianamen Square?

It was poor taste for the official to give her a heads up about Canadian law? Because he didn't want her to be arrested for breaking the laws of the land?

And even worse if Canada as a Gov't doesn't denounce it?!?

You're saying the Canadian government should denounce its own laws? Get real!

...I do NOT agree with Canada's laws regarding free speech - but I WILL defend EVERY nations' right to have their own laws, and WILL denounce anyone who insists that all nations write their laws to follow the US format. That means you.



**********************

PLEASE - read this.

Forget human rights, civil rights, free speech and the free press.

Forget blaming "the government." The "government" has no power anymore - only international mega-corporations do.



You are allowing yourself to be distracted by a Chihuahua nipping at your ankles - when there's a Doberman going for your throat!!!








[edit on 26-3-2010 by soficrow]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Magnum007
 



Let's be realistic shall we....

Ann isn't pissed because she didn't have the opportunity to speak her ideals;
she is pissed because she missed an opportunity to pimp her book in Canada, expand here hate base and cash in on it.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


quote: denounce anyone who insists that all nations write their laws to follow the US format. That means you. end quote] . I never said anything about Canada need to rewrite it's laws or follow US format.

My own premise is A PERSON (invited by a university) was denied the right to speak based solely on what they MIGHT say and not was said/or did. That is all.

I also meant about Canada Gov't denouncing it was that it should discourage it's people from denying others the right to speak. Total ignorance in full display. Deny Ignorance-remember...



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   
I, for one, would be quite happy to see her work the claim through the system. It would be an interesting exercise for all involved. Pity that Coulter is well known for not letting the truth interfere with a good story, but just the same...fill yer boots, Babe.

The ironic element to the whole scenario, is that the Government of Steve refused entry to George Galloway...who in fact has no travel restrictions in the US. Which only goes to show that even a prize poodle like Steve can pee on the floor.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by soficrow
 




My own premise is A PERSON (invited by a university) was denied the right to speak based solely on what they MIGHT say and not was said/or did. That is all.



Perhaps you should do a little more research. The University didn't call off her speech; her security people did when a group of students wanted to exercise their free speech and call her a hypocritical hate monger with a huge Adams apple.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Maclean's(Canada's weekly news magazine) should be quite interesting in the next couple of weeks. Mark Steyn is one of the leading conservative voices here. He is on a mission against the HRC's. Going to see how this plays out.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Magnum007
 



Here is her editorial,


Posters advertising my speech have been officially banned, while posters denouncing me are plastered all over the University of Ottawa campus. Elected officials have been prohibited from attending my speeches. Also, the local clothing stores are fresh out of brown shirts.

Welcome to Canada!

The provost of the University of Ottawa, average student IQ: 0, wrote to me — 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.


www.sj-r.com...


What other speakers get a warning not to promote hatred? Did Francois A. Houle send a similarly worded letter to Israel-hater Omar Barghouti before he spoke last year at U of Ottawa? (“Ottawa”: Indian for “Land of the Bed-Wetters.”)

How about Angela Davis, Communist Party member and former Black Panther who spoke at the University of Zero just last month?

Or do only conservatives get letters admonishing them to be civil? Or -— my suspicion — is it only conservative women who fuel Francois’ rage?

I’m sure Canada’s Human Rights Commission will get to the bottom of Francois’ strange warning to me, inasmuch as I will be filing a complaint with that august body, so I expect they will be reviewing every letter the university has sent to other speakers prior to their speeches to see if any of them were threatened with criminal prosecution.

Conservative speakers are regularly subjected to violent attacks on college campuses. Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, David Horowitz and I have all been the targets of infamous campus attacks.




Did he declare it as hate speech before the speech?

She said she didn't ever get to speak.


If a university official’s letter accusing a speaker of having a proclivity to commit speech crimes before she’s given the speech — which then leads to Facebook postings demanding that Ann Coulter be hurt, a massive riot and a police-ordered cancellation of the speech — is not hate speech, then there is no such thing as hate speech.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   
It appears that Coulter is attempting to manufacture a controversy. The facts...

1. I live in Ottawa and I read the email which was published in the newspaper. Contrary to her claims, she was not threatened with prosecution, it pointed out that the laws were different in Canada than the US and that things she says freely in the US may be considered actionable under Canada's laws.

2. The email pointed out, and I thought quite correctly, that the University welcomes free expression of all ideas and points of view, but was concerned that this dialogue be conducted in a civil and respectful manner.. In other words the caution was not about what she might say but about her saying it in a manner intended to insult, ridicule or otherwise incite hatred against a visible group.

3. She cancelled the speech. Not the University. Not the students. She did. So crying that she was banned or not allowed to speak is a total fabrication.

4. Ann Coulter has bashed and insulted Canada and Canadians a number or times. If you continuously insult a group or people, why are you surprised when they do not embrace you with open arms?

With respect to point 2. After watching the US polarize into different camps with hate filled violent rhetoric, I fully support the Canadian position that once free speech deteriorates into name calling, promoting violence and division, it becomes damaging to everyone. To have truly free speech we also have to accept responsibility for keeping our discourse civilized and productive.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join