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: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
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.




posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


I was wondering if anyone would make that connection.


As I've said previously, I wish she had been able to speak so people can judge her on her own merits, but honestly, a loudmouth getting shouted down by a bunch of kids doesn't bother me. If I truly wanted to crusade for 'free speech' in Canada, I'd be taking up the Galloway banner. He's the one that was actually barred from entering the country by immigration on grounds of National Security.

Funny that, the conservative lady gets scared of some kids, so she doesn't speak and it's a hate crime and the end of free speech in Canada. A UK MP gets barred from the country by a government branch because he's a 'terrorist sympathizer' and Canada is golden with the conservative crowd.

I do so love double standards.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
The other reason Canadians abound online:

While there aren't lots of us comparatively, as a population almost everyone has a computer. Often at work and at home and at school. In citizen homes, we are the most internet connected country on the planet.

While there aren't lots of Canadians - almost all of us are online.


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.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   

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.


Very well said, I couldn't have put it into better words myself


Magnum



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Finally some common sense up there:

Teachers say: University provost should apologize to Coulter

link to article: newsmax.com... [Updated]

We feel you [Houle] owe an apology to Ms. Coulter and, even more importantly, you owe the University of Ottawa community an assurance that the administration of the university strongly supports freedom of expression, academic freedom and views the role of the university as fostering and defending these values




[edit on 3/26/2010 by anon72]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


I could not access that link.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Correct. Just updated with the correct one. Sorry.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Correct. Just updated with the correct one. Sorry.
\

The link you provided is for a story entitled 'Sen. Brown to Maddow: Bring It On'.

At least, that's where it's taken me each time I click on it.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 09:37 PM
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.


I see where you are going with this and I can appreciate your point of view, but I think that you've got some of the pertinent facts misconstrued. Anne Coulter was not persecuted by the University of Ottawa or the government of Canada, she was merely informed of the law of the land.

the "Notwithstanding Clause" is intended to prevent people from engaging in or inciting public hate speech and/or crimes. Much of what Anne Coulter speaks about and the way in which she communicates her ideas, might be construed as a violation of the Hate Speech laws in Canada.

Furthermore, the University did not cancel her appearance because of her point of view, if that was truly the concern, the would not have booked her to speak in the first place. Her appearance was cancelled due to security concerns regarding the 2000 protesters who were vigorously employing their own right to free speech.

The fact is that the Government of Canada did not intervene in the situation with Anne Coulter, the University wisely reminded her that laws in Canada are different than in the US and that while on Canadian soil, she is subject to those laws.

kind regards,
Tamale



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   
I'm certainly no fan of Ann Coulter's, and I think it was perfectly appropriate to remind her of the laws in Canada. She is a person who would be in much danger of breaking them and could have suffered unpleasant consequences.

I am also amused at her arrogance in thinking she can and should change Canada to fit her own rules.

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.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   

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.



Couldn't have said it any better than that.

Human right abuse LOL! Every time Coulter opens her yap she abuses her fellow humans, who the hell is she to talk?

Coulter can take her hate and sell it elsewhere, Canada isn't buying.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Wait?!? She want's to do WHAT?!?



Really?

LMAO!

Really?

Oh the tears! My sides! Oh god! You can't make this up!



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Just wondering where the huddled masses that wanted to listen to her speak are. Doesn't seem like anybody is disappointed much.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Magnum007
 


Coulter is an attention seeking buffoon. She gives conservatives a bad name. People like her and Palin need to stay away from conservatives.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Ahhh, good ol' Ann. I needed a laugh today.




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.


Exactly. Even the articles caption states...

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.
(bolded by me)

Yes, she actually want's to file a complaint because she pulled out of the engagement.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   

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.


That's the thing - she can say whatever outrageous things her little heart desires. At some point, they may cross a line that would end up with charges against her but I don't honestly see her ever being charged in Canada for a hate crime.

You have to be a James Keegstra get convicted of criminal hate and she's no Keegstra.


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.

James Keegstra


The only person who kept Coulter from speaking were her own people. From their persepective, I can't blame them. Look at the publicity it's gotten her; way more than if her speech had gone ahead.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join