Ann Coulter accuses Canadian univ. provost of"hate crimes"against Conservatives

[Greymatters]

"Stop preaching hate! Death to those who preach hate! Death to all who oppose us!"  Errr, no... that's not quite right...ummm...

But oh so familiar....

 

[Kat Stevens]

But oh so familiar....

I believe it's carved into the CHRC hearing room doors.

 

[Redeye]

This I agree with - what little I've seen about the protests at uOttawa show that there was nothing really acceptable about it.  I think often those who launch such protests don't seem to realize that their freedom of speech isn't allowed to just trump someone else's, that's not how the whole idea works.  While I'm completely fine with the fact that people were protesting Coulter's appearance, and I'd expect nothing less, they completely discredit any argument they make with behaviour like that.  And as I said above and others have said, I'd rather she speak publicly so that what she says can be torn apart publicly, anyhow!

Someone once said of protestors "I hate everything you stand for, but I will defend with my life if necessary your right to say it."  That being said, they have an obligation to uphold that same standard.

I think you're missing the point. No one is saying the students (or anyone else for that matter) do not have a right to protest, peacefully. What happened at U of O was not in any shape or forum "peaceful". As leroi mentioned previously he had a friend who was threatened by these "peaceful" demonstrators. In other instances doors were blocked, fire alarms pulled and infiltrators were reported inside the building where they could have disrupted proceedings or worse. That's what we object to.

Secondly, I disagree with you statement that its "thier [students] campus." I'm willing to bet that U of O receives a lot of funding from the city/provincial/federal governments. In other words the taxpayers. I would also bet that many of those students are subsidized by the taxpayer so that they can attend said university. So, the way I look at it, its not so much "their" university as "ours."

 

[leroi]

An Interesting Blog called, "Take Back Your School: The Front Line in the War Against Campus Stupidity in Canada"  talks about who some of the agitators were in the crowd, including one who is alleged to be assistant to Pat Martin, NDP.

http://takebackyourschool.wordpress.com/

 

[ModlrMike]

An Interesting Blog called, "Take Back Your School: The Front Line in the War Against Campus Stupidity in Canada"  talks about who some of the agitators were in the crowd, including one who is alleged to be assistant to Pat Martin, NDP.

http://takebackyourschool.wordpress.com/

Which begs the obvious question.....

What would have happened if a Conservative staffer had been employed in that manner?

 

[pbi]

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind

That's a good one from old John Stuart Mill.

It seems to me that lots of Canadians, on both ends of the political spectrum, think that "freedom of speech" means that there there should be freedom of expression of the ideas they happen to agree with, by people they agree with. The Left hides behind the fraud of "political correctness" or "sensitivity" or other such rubbish, while the Right seems to use "Patriotism" or "family values" to shut up the people they don't like.

Less those who clearly incite to violent criminal action (and I'll agree that can even be hard to pin down at times), I think that the best way to deal with expression of thought you don't like is to meet them head on in open debate. Personally, I think Coulter is a lightweight who knows how to yank her opposition's chain, but that's just me. Those students could have done a lot more for their cause by getting seats in the hall and going at Coulter in question period, but they weren't really interested in that, any more than the Tea Party nitwits in the US are interested in any other version of "US democracy" than what suits their view of things.

Cheers

 

[vonGarvin]

Well said, pbi! 

 

[a_majoor]

Well once you realize who the President of U of O is, and that he indeed authourized the threat letter to Ann Coulter, then things become much more clear:

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2010/04/17/u-of-o-pres-alan-rock-oked-coulter-warning-letter/

U of O Pres Alan Rock OK’ed Coulter warning letter
April 17, 2010 — BC Blue

Ex-Liberal cabinet minister and current University of Ottawa president Alan Rock has finally come out of hiding and now admits he knew and condoned the warning letter sent to Ann Coulter by vice-president of academic affairs, François Houle. (see threat here)

In an interview with the Ottawa Citizen, Rock said:

“It was sent on behalf of the administration with my knowledge, so I share responsibility”

and that he knew little about Coulter but:

“when I found out she was coming I went to her website to learn more and was taken aback by what I saw and learned. In fact, I found myself using intemperate language when I was talking about her to colleagues.”

and on taking partial responsibility 3 weeks afterwards:

“I learned in politics that the worst thing you can do is sneak out the back door.”

 

[a_majoor]

A first rate institution demonstrates how free speech is done. U of O take note:

http://www.thefire.org/article/11797.html

University of Tennessee Acts to Preserve Free Speech on Campus
April 22, 2010

by Samantha Harris

The University of Tennessee-Knoxville (UTK), one of only a handful of schools to receive FIRE's most favorable "green light" rating for protecting free speech on campus, acted quickly after being contacted by FIRE to revise a new policy that posed a serious threat to student speech. As a result, UTK remains one of FIRE's "green light" institutions. The university is to be commended for being so responsive to concerns about free expression on campus.

In February, FIRE learned that UTK's policy on Acceptable Use of Information Technology Resources had been revised to include a prohibition on "Engag[ing] in activities that harass, degrade, intimidate, demean, slander, defame, interfere with, or threaten others." As we wrote in a letter to UTK President Jimmy Cheek, this policy was unconstitutionally overbroad since most "demeaning" or "degrading" speech is still protected by the First Amendment—which UTK, a public university, is obligated to uphold.

This week, the university's Assistant General Counsel wrote to notify us that the policy had been fully revised to eliminate that provision. The newly revised policy now appropriately prohibits "Engag[ing] in activities that violate state or federal law, a University contractual obligation, or another University policy or rule including but not limited to Human Resources policies and Standards of Conduct for students." Regrettably, UTK's Assistant General Counsel noted in his letter that UTK still believed the old policy to be "constitutionally defensible." Nevertheless, actions speak louder than words, and the university did take quick and thorough action to change the policy following FIRE's letter.

FIRE is pleased that we can continue to count UTK among our "green light" schools. We wish that all administrations were so responsive to free speech concerns. FIRE's list of "green light" institutions recently grew when The College of William & Mary eliminated all of its speech codes, and we hope that other institutions will follow these examples so that our list can continue to grow and students will be able to fully exercise their rights on campus.

 

[a_majoor]

More fallout on the Ann Coulter event. The Liberal party "Who's Who" list in the email chain is interesting, and it isn't hard to see what side of the free speech divide they fall on:

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/well-well-look-who-else-was-involved-in-u-of-oann-coulter-fiasco/

Well, well…look who else was involved in U of O/Ann Coulter fiasco
July 13, 2010 — BC Blue

The University of  Ottawa fallout over Ann Coulter continues as more of U of O President and former Liberal cabinet minister Allan Rock’s FOI-released emails (see earlier post here) come to light.

Obviously one thing that these emails show is how utterly hypocritical and glaringly inept Allan Rock is, although anyone who followed his political career wouldn’t be shocked ie gun registry, tainted blood, Airbus lawsuit, Cipro cock-up etc. The guy was/is a walking screw-up blessed with nine lives, but what I find most interesting with the Coulter saga is the political angle.

First we found out that a NDP MP Pat Martin staffer led the protest (see here) and now some very prominent  names have been discovered being involved by persistent Allan Rock critic Denis Rancourt.

Reading Rancourt’s great run-down (see here), this one email exchange with Rock and ex-Liberal minister Lloyd Axworthy jumps out:

“Allan,
I see you have that nut bar Ann Coulter visiting your campus. She is a disgrace.
That said, I thought your VP was unwise to write to her as he did. VPs Academics and Presidents need to err far on the side of academic freedom and the rights of speech, freedom, etc. It is the value that distinguishes universities from all other institutions and is at the core of their purpose.
I know your instinct will be to back up your VP because he is on your team. But on this occasion, I would not follow that instinct and instead stand clearly for the freedoms.
Free advice from the peanut gallery. No need to reply.”

““Lloyd,”
As always, I am grateful for your views. I would like, however, to engage a bit further on this question.
After it was announced last Thursday that Coulter was coming, the Student Federation wrote me demanding that I ban her. It was clear from the outset that I could not and would not but a quick review of her website/history revealed the depth of her ignorance and the capacity of her thoughtless words to wound and offend. The Provost’s letter was intended to encourage civility and to remind this foreigner that the rules of the game are somewhat different here.
Question: is it a derogation from the principle of free speech for a university, while expressing to a mindless poltroon the willingness to receive her, to issue as well a plea that she be civil and respect the legislative limits of free speech?
Allan”

“I think it is. Because it always plays as this one has – that tlre university doesn’t really believe deeply in these fundamental freedoms.
The cops and immigration officials can enforce our laws on speech. You should and no doubt did as AG [Attorney General] but not as President.
University’s (sic) have a unique role and the President has to not only uphold it but be seen to. That means nuance, subtlety and balance need to be put aside. Unequivocal defense of the freedoms is where the President should stand at Canada’s university. The fact that the students wanted something else is no answer.
You are an awfully good friend to bother to reply. Thanks.
“Lloyd””

“Thanks “Lloyd” I will think about all of this further and do some reading too. Maybe we can continue this discussion a some point.
Warm best wishes.
Allan”

Next, my “buddy” the torture claiming professor and lawsuit threatener (see here) Amir Attaran pops up with some advice and slagging of Ezra Levant:

“My condolences – nobody deserves this. If you end up being sued, as seems likely, [...] Litigating against Ezra Levant, no excellent lawyer, on a sell-evidently specious claim would be none too taxing of the grey matter.”

Then we have a report from Elly Alboim of well-known political communications team, Earnscliffe Strategy Group, which in part reads:

“Remember as well that part of the controversy unfortunately is attributable to Francois’ email. Your statement today does not address that, nor does the proposed invitation. Obviously without distancing yourself from what he wrote, the impression will stand that the university made some sort of presumptive judgment about her and her motivation in an attempt to moderate the way she expressed her views. I’m not sure we can underestimate the importance of that email and the way it is being perceived. The university cannot credibly position itself as a wholly innocent victim of a drive by.”

Even Iffy is touched by this as ex-Liberal minister Herb Dhaliwal asks Rock where he was for the “Thinkers’ Conference”:

“Allan,
We are all wondering why you are not in Montreal, even your friend Anne Coulter asking about you.
Give me a call.
Herb”

Ottawa sure is a small place huh?

 

[SeanNewman]

If nothing else, how did someone make it to that point in their life thinking "university's" is plural for "university"?

 

[vonGarvin]

I used Control-F to find "University's" on the previous page, and found one instance:

This week, the university's Assistant General Counsel wrote to notify us that the policy had been fully revised to eliminate that provision. The newly revised policy now appropriately prohibits "Engag[ing] in activities that violate state or federal law, a University contractual obligation, or another University policy or rule including but not limited to Human Resources policies and Standards of Conduct for students." Regrettably, UTK's Assistant General Counsel noted in his letter that UTK still believed the old policy to be "constitutionally defensible." Nevertheless, actions speak louder than words, and the university did take quick and thorough action to change the policy following FIRE's letter.

I have no degree in English, in fact, my degree is in German; however, that appears to be the proper possessive case of "university".

 

[SeanNewman]

Absolutely, and it would be correct in any possessive context, such as "The University's best program is _______".

However, what you missed in the quote was "University’s (sic) have a unique role..."

It has nothing to do with being a staff weenie either; I think I learned the plural vs possessive 's rule in grade 4.

 

[vonGarvin]

Noted

 

[a_majoor]

Now lwt's see what happens when the shoe is on the other foot (Leftist hate speech). From a letter I received:

http://ottawa.apartheidweek.org/

Ottawa U is hosting another Israeli Apartheid Week

You will all remember last'year's fracas involving Ann Coulter''s aborted visit to Ottawa U, which was immediately preceded by a letter from Francois Houle, Vice-President Academic and Provost, which purported to warn her about Canada's restrictions on "hate speech".

I was one of those who sent Francois Houle an e-mail regarding Ann Coulter; mine included the following paragraphs:
"I note, however, that your e-mail takes the further step of including the wording "For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."    Recently the University of Ottawa hosted "Israeli Apartheid Week", which has included presenters from outside Canada that some might find controversial, and might even be accused of spreading "hatred" and "anti-Semitism".  In this context I am sure that you yourself, or some other senior University official, would have sent similar messages to such presenters before they arrived at the University.

"My purpose in writing this e-mail is to urge you to make public such messages as may have been sent in the past, especially those involving "Israeli Apartheid Week", in order to avoid any appearance of singling out  Miss Coulter, or any bias and prejudice against her and the students who arranged for her talk."

Later on it turned out that Francois Houle had been stooging for Allan Rock.

It would be a wonderful idea if MUCH MORE publicity could be given to this aspect of Israeli Apartheid Week, specifically to ask Allan Rock if similar letters have been sent out to such speakers at IAW as are visiting Canada.  Ask Allan Rock if he's  sent similar letters to IAW organisers,this year, and if not, why not?

president@uOttawa.ca

http://www.president.uottawa.ca/blog/

you might also cc the one who's turned out to be his sidekick/fall guy, and repeat the question

francois.houle@uottawa.ca

Given the publicly stated opinions of participants in IAW, then the same letter and warning that was sent to Ms Coulter should also have been sent to the organizers of the IAW. IF not, why not?

Don't just attempt to engage the University people, send this to your MP, local media and bloggers, and watch the fun begine. (I am eagerly waiting to see how Mr Rock and Mr Houle tie themselves in knots)

 

[The Bread Guy]

I hope the group gets warned, but based on precedent, I fear it won't 

 

[Edward Campbell]

I hope the group gets warned, but based on precedent, I fear it won't 

Israel is, demonstrably, excluded from "hatred." Calling Israelis Nazis or the IDF the Gestapo is, also clearly, well within the bounds of good manners, etc, some (many? most?) of the denizens (students, faculty and 'leadership') in our, Canadian, universities.

After all, it (calling Israelis Nazis) is not anti-Semitism, it's not like says Jews are Nazis; not the same at all.  ???

 

[Dissident]

Please stop Mr Campbell, heads are bound to implode...

 

[The Bread Guy]

Israel is, demonstrably, excluded from "hatred." Calling Israelis Nazis or the IDF the Gestapo is, also clearly, well within the bounds of good manners, etc, some (many? most?) of the denizens (students, faculty and 'leadership') in our, Canadian, universities.

After all, it (calling Israelis Nazis) is not anti-Semitism, it's not like says Jews are Nazis; not the same at all.  ???

Sad, but bang on.

 

[brihard]

I hope the group gets warned, but based on precedent, I fear it won't 

'Warned' for what?

Our criminal code provisions - Section 319 if memory serves - against the 'incitement of hatred' are very limited in how they can be applied. You'll recall that Salman Hossain was able to get away with saying Canadian soldiers are fair game because he did not cross the line of specific incitements of hate.

The Israeli Apartheid Week, as much as I disagree with it, is a perfectly legitimate expression of political opnions, and is not intended to wilfully promote hatred against the Israeli people. As much as they annoy me, I have to tolerate their presence on my campus as a result of living in a state where free expression is for the most part protected.

There's no right in our charter not to be ffended. The same rights that allow us to condemn Islamic fundamentalsits allow others to condemn Israel. That's how free expression works.

We're not talking about manners here- as soon as the concept of sanction is raised, we're speaking of law. They IAW crowd may be loud and crass, but they are not in contravention of our reasonable laws. We have to take the bad with the good when it comes to the manifestation of our rights.