It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by Duzey
You know what's rather interesting about that letter ...
If you replace UoO/Canada with T&C/ATS the mantra is the same.
No wonder Canadians abound on our pages.
Very cool imho.
Originally posted by whaaa
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.
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.
Originally posted by metamagic
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.
Originally posted by Magnum007
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.
(bolded by me)
she'll complain to the Canadian Human Rights Commission about her treatment by the University of Ottawa, where she pulled out of a speaking engagement Tuesday.
Originally posted by Sestias
To play devil's advocate, though, if she can't say outrageous things against people, why weren't the 2,000 protesters similarly restrained? Their speech toward her wasn't exactly respectful.
In 1984, Keegstra was stripped of his teaching certificate and charged under the Criminal Code of Canada with "wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group" by teaching his social studies students that the Holocaust was a fraud and attributing various evil qualities to Jews. He thus described Jews to his pupils as "treacherous", "subversive", "sadistic", "money-loving", "power hungry" and "child killers". He taught his classes that the Jewish people seek to destroy Christianity and are responsible for depressions, anarchy, chaos, wars and revolution. According to Keegstra, the Jews "created the Holocaust to gain sympathy" and, in contrast to the open and honest Christians, were said to be deceptive, secretive and inherently evil. Keegstra expected his students to reproduce his teachings in class and on exams. If they failed to do so, their marks suffered.