Pharyngula

Posted by: aratina cage | March 23, 2010 9:56 PM

I disagree. Good for you, Canada!

Posted by: Cay | March 23, 2010 10:02 PM

Wait, Ann Coulter should be allowed to speak, but the Pope should be turned away at the border? What about a little consistency?

Posted by: dunderjeep | March 23, 2010 10:03 PM

Love your blog but is this the same guy who just wrote
"The Pope is planning to visit the UK. He shouldn't be welcomed; he should be turned away at the border as an undesirable fraud. "

Posted by: llewelly | March 23, 2010 10:05 PM

God | March 23, 2010 9:54 PM:

She's My prophet, and the people who reject her do so at their own peril.

Posted by: boggsster | March 23, 2010 10:07 PM

Even MORE shame on Canada. They hate free speech!

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/22/canada

Posted by: NewEnglandBob | March 23, 2010 10:17 PM

You are absolutely correct, PZ but it still feels good that it happened to Ann Coulter. SHE is the one inciting the behavior.

Posted by: ZombieOctopus | March 23, 2010 10:29 PM

We have laws against hate speech here, simple as that, and the reason we have them is that Canadians like it that way, see: protest.

The kind of rhetoric that goes on in America is disgusting and Canada isn't having it. Although many Americans, like Ann, would like to believe the American constitution applies anywhere Americans are present, it doesn't.

I am disappointed we didn't get to see her arrested and prosecuted for hate speech though, that would've been sweet.

Posted by: clockkingfl | March 23, 2010 10:32 PM

I'd have enjoyed seeing Coulter speak then being put on the spot with some direct and intelligent questions. From what I've seen of her, she does not like that at all, especially when she's the one in the wrong.

Posted by: Eamon Knight | March 23, 2010 10:33 PM

I agree: given that her appearance was already booked, they should have let her yap, then ripped her to shreds in the student press the next day. Arguably, they shouldn't have booked her in the first place -- free speech doesn't automatically grant the right to any particular platform -- but caving to the protesters (however much I may agree with their sentiment) and cancelling at the last minute just allows Coulter and that git Levant to play the martyr card. Bad move, U of O folks.

Posted by: Levi in NY | March 23, 2010 10:35 PM

She was just scared at the prospect of facing the nearly two thousand protesters who gathered there. Right-wingers like to talk tough, but deep down most of them are cowards.

Posted by: Zeno | March 23, 2010 10:53 PM

I regret that she now has any excuse at all to play the martyr card. I'm sure she'll take advantage of it. After all, she's a loud exponent of traditional family values despite being a childless old maid, so she can do most anything without a qualm.

In some measure, she is reaping what she sows. At previous appearances she has encouraged bully-boy college students to beat up protesters, inciting violence. Still, we shouldn't sink to her level.

Posted by: Autumn | March 23, 2010 11:03 PM

Why would a university even have her on a list of people to invite? She isn't an elected official, she is far from being highly regarded in her field, and she hasn't managed to express a thought in the last ten years that didn't contain at least one glaring error.
Why not just randomly select someone to give a speech? It would be at least as interesting and relevant, and there is a very strong likelyhood that the random person would be a much better writer than Coulter.

Posted by: Shala | March 23, 2010 11:07 PM

I agree with Autumn. I dislike the way this was handled, with the fire alarms and such, but why would we even want Ann Coulter speaking here in the first place?

Imagine if we let someone like Fred Phelps speak at the University of Ottawa (presuming he actually wanted to etc.). Sure we could just demolish his points and stomp his ignorance into the ground, but...why are we even letting him show up in the first place? Why not someone actually interesting and able to contribute to the student's understanding of arts & science?

Posted by: Cameron | March 23, 2010 11:13 PM

What a striking difference. In the USA you pull a firearm at a political rally and you're just exercising your 2nd Amendment rights. In Canada you pull a fire alarm at a political speech and you're advocating violence.

Posted by: Shala | March 23, 2010 11:13 PM

Er, by fire alarms in my last post I meant the protestors of course. My bad.

Posted by: Romeo Vitelli | March 23, 2010 11:26 PM

"Imagine if we let someone like Fred Phelps speak at the University of Ottawa (presuming he actually wanted to etc."

Fred Phelps did come to Canada a few years ago to protest human rights legislation there. Sadly, he wasn't arrested for hate speech and left the country when the police refused to guarantee his safety. He and his followers have since been banned from reentering the country.

Posted by: besserwisser | March 23, 2010 11:38 PM

She should never have been scheduled to speak in the first place. Ignorance and absurdities like that do not belong in institutions of higher learning. Would you allow a Holocaust denier to speak at a University?

Posted by: Hurin | March 23, 2010 11:41 PM

I find it shameful that there are academic higher-ups anywhere in Canada who would desire the presence of that slithering paskudnyak.

Her "political commentary" is essentially hate porn designed to give the illiterate, 30 something failures of the birther fringe something to project their impotent rage into. she doesn't merit a speaking arrangement in a circus tent much less a university.

Posted by: DaveWTC | March 23, 2010 11:48 PM

@#39 cpsmith, a Carleton alumnus salutes you!!

Posted by: Doug | March 23, 2010 11:51 PM

I guess I'll have to put my Kevlar gloves on over a pair of nitrile gloves & pick up a copy of the Sunday edition of local right wing tabloid rag (Calgary Sun). Sunday is when all the real mouth-foamers get to spew in their columns. They have, from time to time, published some Coulter excrement. There will no doubt be railing against the horrible injustice done to their darling.

The first time I ever Coulter (a Scottish word for a ploughshare:
"Till crash! the cruel coulter past
Out thro' thy cell.")
on TV was a year or two after 9-11, when she was being interviewed by a (not idiotic) Canadian journalist. She was moaning about how Canada refused to send troops off with the Bush boys, and how we were failing in our tradition set by earlier wars, including Vietnam. When the interviewer told her (correctly) that Canada did not send troops to Vietnam, she insisted he was wrong.

What was it Al Franken called her in his book? I loaned my copy to someone and never got it back.

~~~
Phreddy Phelps is reported to have been a dropout from The Prairie Bible Institute at Three Hills, Alberta (not too far north of Calgary - somewhat west of the midpoint of a line between Drumheller, home of the Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology and Big Valley, home of the creation museum.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 23, 2010 11:55 PM

Coulter makes her living out of writing right-wing books and making speeches. She is not good at thinking on her feet. She should have given her speech and then get ripped apart by questions.

Posted by: Pyrrhonic | March 24, 2010 12:01 AM

@ Cay #4,

I believe the protest is not to prevent the Pope from speaking, to prevent him from receiving the same treatment as other heads of state:

As a head of state, the Pope is an unsuitable guest of the UK government and should not be accorded the honour and recognition of a state visit to our country.

The consistency is in the pudding, so to speak.

Posted by: Izzy | March 24, 2010 12:11 AM

@39 As a Canadian, this event makes me proud, not ashamed.

I hear you there! I can't stop grinning.

Posted by: Rorschach | March 24, 2010 12:16 AM

Yay, a Coulter thread !!

Obligatory literature reference

And, can someone explain to me how "pulling a fire alarm" is anything akin to violence? I read that as "pulled a firearm" first, and thought, uhm yeah, that's not good, but a fire alarm?

Posted by: Ibis3 | March 24, 2010 12:28 AM

Ah, too bad the UofO sent the letter. Should have just waited for her to stick her foot in it and let her get arrested for hate speech.

Btw, I like our hate speech laws. I think inciting others to hate and violence should be a crime. Freedom of expression should come with a counter-balancing duty to exercise that right with a sense of responsibility. There's a distinction between saying "I can't stand fags" and "Kill all the fags". It's not about oppression of political (or other) opinion, it's about keeping the nutters from encouraging others to commit acts of violence on their behalf.

I just saw a clip earlier today from The Young Turks which mentioned tweets by some right wing blogger calling for someone to take a shot at Obama, and he was saying that those threats and incitements to violence should be investigated and charges laid. Why is it less acceptable to call for the death of one man, whomever he is, than to call for the death of a whole group? Or to foment so much hatred that someone going off and killing another person (or group) is a logical consequence (like, say, stirring up a lynch mob or a group of tea partiers)?

PS Another Ottawa native and Carleton alumna here.

Posted by: DaveWTC | March 24, 2010 12:39 AM

@#49 Shala, what is an "Atlantic Canadian" brofist and do I want one? (Carleton alumnus and, I forgot to add, Ibis3, Ottawa native!) I am surprised at how many of us (ONs) are weighing in - nice to see since methinks the blogger is a little full of himself on this one.

Posted by: lesbianjesus | March 24, 2010 12:48 AM

#10 boggsster

We have freedom of expression, not freedom of speech. It actually ends in a higher recognition of the rights of the individual, as it reduces the right to victimize another with your speech.

The university should have let her speak though, despite her camel/Flying Carpet comments earlier.

Posted by: zeppo-marx | March 24, 2010 12:55 AM

One point that doesn't seem to get much play: The University did not invite her. A conservative student group did, no doubt hoping to make some money from the ticket sales.

More people turned up to protest her than actually paid for tickets.

Yeah, the letter was poorly written and perhaps ill-advised, but given her history it could also be taken as an honestly-given reminder that she wasn't in Kansas anymore and should take that into account. After all, this IS the woman who koew so much about Canada that she extolled our active help in the Vietnam War when she denigrated us for skipping Iraq. She is famous for being offensive and for not doing her homework - which could have proved difficult for her.

It would have been an embarrassment to the university should she get charged for hate-speech violations on campus, and the letter might have been as much a bit of CYA by the school should a student register a complaint because they had let her speak despite knowing her history. The author was, however, awfully naive not to see how it was only giving ammunition to her claims of being a poor, downtrodden conservative.

Ah well. If she's too scared of the state of airline security up here too - I can find a camel for her to ride home on.

Posted by: pdferguson | March 24, 2010 12:57 AM

I have to agree with everyone who stated the obvious: what the fuck were they thinking when they invited her?

The real issue is that she should never have been invited in the first place. She has nothing of value to offer the U of Ottawa community; she's got less intellectual credibility than a syphilitic circus clown. I would rather she just go home with that chip on her shoulder than give her a platform she absolutely does not deserve.

If anything good is to come out of this, it should be a discussion about the celebrity culture that provides hate mongers and other intellectual frauds like Coulter a microphone. A discussion about Coulter would be far more interesting than a discussion with her.

Posted by: Ibis3 | March 24, 2010 1:20 AM

@ #58 I agree. That letter sounds more like a good-faith warning than a threat. But I guess Coulter and her cronies aren't used to that kind of approach.

Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com | March 24, 2010 2:09 AM

Perhaps this is the reason why the visit was cancelled:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/22/ann-coulter-told-to-watch_n_508406.html

http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2010/03/22/stepping-on-free-speech-to-keep-out-coulter/

Posted by: Anti_Theist-317 | March 24, 2010 2:28 AM

Comment #65, I agree. I guess I been living under a fucking rock cause I had no idea who this cunt was. I been googling to make sure when I made this post I was articulate, intelligent and informed. After much research I can say way to go Canada.

PS
I am not a big rollins fan. But, here is a funny youtube video I favorited for ya'll:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Downfurlife?feature=mhw4

Posted by: greg | March 24, 2010 3:20 AM

This is akin to inviting Hitler to speak. Ok, she hasn't committed mass murder, but her hate speech is of the same ilk.

Perhaps the group that invited her might consider some off campus venue, since the students paying tuition there might object to having Hitler or David Duke show up on THEIR campus, and clearly they did.

Is this a rejection of free speech? No. It's a rejection of her using controversy to profit at the expensive of responsible or even rational thought. She's had way more than her 15 minutes of fame. Why add to it? What does she say that's new or worth listening to? She has spoken and reaped the reward of her words. Utter rejection.

I certainly don't advocate violent protest, but claiming a largely peaceful crowd was violent when one or two miscreants acted stupid is hardly fair.

Find another venue, Ann.

Posted by: Walton | March 24, 2010 5:03 AM

I will say exactly the same as I said about the incident with the Ethical Humanist Society and the communist Sunsara Taylor.

On the one hand, I believe unequivocally in freedom of speech as a fundamental right. In no circumstances should the government interfere with the right of Ann Coulter - or Sunsara Taylor, or Fred Phelps, or anyone else - to express their views, however kooky or offensive those views might be. "Hate speech" laws are entirely wrong; once we start giving government the power to decide what is and isn't acceptable public discourse, we have surrendered one of our most fundamental freedoms.

On the other hand, an organisation is under no obligation to give any given speaker a platform, and organisations have the right to withdraw invitations. There is no "right" to address a particular organisation. If an organisation's members don't want a particular speaker to be associated with their organisation, then it is right for the invitation to be revoked - whether the organisation is the University of Toronto or the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago.

We had a scandal like this in Oxford, only much worse, when Nick Griffin and David Irving (far right crypto-fascist loons) were invited to speak at the Oxford Union. That invitation, too, attracted some controversy, but the members actually voted in a poll that Griffin and Irving should be allowed to speak. (I remember participating in that poll, but can't recall how I voted). In the end, they did speak, but the event was very seriously disrupted by anti-fascist protestors.

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 24, 2010 5:37 AM

She is a vile lunatic, but she should have been given the right to speak, and then her noise should have been ripped apart with good questions, and conversation after the event. It's pretty much guaranteed that she would have said things that are stupid and outrageous and embarrassed herself

As if her followers will understand this !

The more noise these pundits make, the more the teabaggers gain confidence and it feeds into their paranoid behaviour.

The US will have no way of stopping this. Good for Canada for not letting this kind of thing grow.

Posted by: Walton | March 24, 2010 6:16 AM

JM: Free speech has to be a near-absolute, otherwise it is worthless.

There are, I would say, two legitimate exceptions to free speech:

(1) Speech that directly endangers the lives or physical safety of others. This would include:

(a) Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, and analogous cases;

(b) Breach of security by a person entrusted with sensitive information, such as the identities of undercover intelligence officers, that could lead to people getting killed;

(c) Co-ordinating acts of violence or conspiring to commit acts of violence; or

(d) Directly threatening violence. (At common law, this is the crime of assault. Unlike battery, which requires that physical violence actually be committed, assault consists in causing a person to apprehend immediate unlawful violence; so if you threaten to attack someone, or swing your fist at them, you may have committed an assault even if you didn't actually touch them. Not many people realise this.)

(2) Speech that defames the reputation of others. However, it's important to note that libel and slander are merely civil wrongs, not criminal offences. If you libel someone, you can be sued in a civil court, but you can't be imprisoned (unless you defy an injunction and are held in contempt of court).

I would say that it's important to guarantee free speech beyond these limits. Speech that is distressing, upsetting or offensive to people, however grave its emotional impact, should not be prohibited or restricted by law. Only when it crosses the line, into threatening or conspiring to commit acts of violence, should it be prosecuted.

So, for example, if a speaker stands on a street corner yelling obscenities and vile epithets against people of a particular race or religion, I would say that his right to free speech should be protected. He should be arrested only if he actually threatens or incites violence against people in the vicinity. "Hate speech", in itself, should not be a crime. That's why I support Fred Phelps' right to protest at funerals, for example. He's a despicable scumbag, and his behaviour is gravely offensive and hurtful to the families of the deceased, but as long as he isn't advocating violence, I would say that his right to free speech supersedes their right not to be emotionally distressed.

Why do I take such an extreme view of free speech? Because, fundamentally, I don't trust government to decide what forms of speech are acceptable - because history shows that government, when entrusted with this power, will ultimately use it to censor forms of speech that offend the values of the majority, and to silence unpopular minorities. This is still going on. Read Ed Brayton's blog - in conservative rural parts of the US, there are lots of examples of heavy-handed local authorities, police and school administrators acting against people who express unpopular viewpoints, such as criticism of Christianity or advocacy of gay rights, because these views are deemed to be "offensive" to the majority.

We, as secularists, are rightly unhappy when the law is used to protect religious sensibilities. But we need to recognise that if we want our right to free speech to be protected, we need to stand up for others' right to free speech - and that includes people whose views are offensive to virtually everyone, such as Fred Phelps. Once we give government the power to censor views that the majority finds unpalatable, we give government a power that can be used to silence criticism. That's a dangerous road - and that's why "hate speech" laws are entirely wrong.

Posted by: scooterKPFT | March 24, 2010 6:36 AM

So all that is necessary to shut up Ann Coulter is a Jr. High fire alarm prank?

Why didn't someone mention this earlier?

Posted by: IanM | March 24, 2010 7:14 AM

It wasn't the prospect of a raucous crowd that sent Ann Coulter running. The government threatened her with legal action if her talk crossed the line into what it determined as hate speech.

Posted by: John Morales | March 24, 2010 7:21 AM

*correction*

Oops, Walton, you did mention slander. My bad.

Posted by: Evolving Squid | March 24, 2010 7:45 AM

The government threatened her with legal action if her talk crossed the line into what it determined as hate speech.

No, that is not true.

A university official sent her a reminder that Canada has hate speech laws with nasty penalties.

That is all that happened. It wasn't a government threat. It wasn't even a university threat. Someone was concerned that she might get herself in trouble and sent her a warning.

She has taken that and blown it all out of proportion, as would be expected.

Posted by: AJ Milne | March 24, 2010 8:43 AM

Seriously, looking at the reports I'm getting, I don't think there is anything much on the protesters' behaviour here, really.

I see no reports of anything especially wacky--I mean, there's the fire alarm, I guess, and that's a bit outside, but not exactly violent--and you can bet there'd be those if there was anything much.

What happened was almost certainly numbers, not specific threats of violence. The security forces present weren't prepared for that many, and came to the conclusion there weren't enough of them to handle things safely if things got ugly, and warned Coulter's people. She bailed on that advice, and took the opportunity, as usual, to lie her nasty little ass off about how dreadfully suppressed her voice is. Poor thing.

So, in short: no, the protesters are okay by me. Damn straight tell that loser you've heard enough of her brand of shit. I'd have liked to have heard her properly mocked for what she actually came to say*, sure. But that's not on them. Apparently the cops just weren't quite up to this. What can ya do.

(/*And then again, seriously, it ain't like we haven't hard it before, and it makes about as much sense to 'debate' this woman as it does to play chess with a pigeon, to invoke the standard trope. So honestly, no great loss, here, either.)

Posted by: Epinephrine | March 24, 2010 8:54 AM

Since people are discussing our (Canadian) hate speech laws, I'll voice that I'm torn about them. On the one hand, I see nothing useful in the types of speech that are illegal in Canada - it is not illegal to voice hate or to rant about how much you hate a group. It is illegal to incite violence against a group, or to advocate that others should hate. It is a fine line, but there is a difference between stating that "I hate X, for these reasons," and "you should all hate X, too."

I'm not embarassed by our laws, though I do question whether they are perhaps antiquated; my wife and I were discussing this during the news reports. I think that freedom of speech (or expression) is important, but I agree with Walton that there are types of speech that need not be protected. Inciting violence and inciting hatred are close cousins, and one can easily lead to the other. Saying that a country would be better off with no X's around isn't necessarily inciting violence, but one can see how it could lead there. There is a certain justifiable worry that hate propaganda can result in harmful action.

Also, a fist bump to my fellow Carleton alumni!

Posted by: broboxley OT | March 24, 2010 9:04 AM

@besserwisser #36 you do all the time
http://www.yorku.ca/ipconf/speakers.html as a sample

Posted by: davem | March 24, 2010 9:26 AM

The more I see of Ann Coulter, the more I think that she's another in the style of Ray Comfort. I cannot believe that either of them actually believes what they say. To me, both of them are simply cynically doing it for money. In AC's case (Whoa, just noted the Antichrist's initials there!) she just says outrageous shit just to get more book sales, or articles read. Either that, or she's certifiable.

Posted by: Ibis3 | March 24, 2010 9:48 AM

@ #81

does not cause the ideas to be destroyed, but drives them underground

I'd speculate that the opposite is true. Just take a look at a Tea Party rally south of the border. Spurred on by Fox "News" pundits and Michele Bachmann, many of those people look like they're on the edge of violence (spitting at people, breaking into Congress, bringing guns to hear Obama speak)...it's only a matter of time before the pot boils over and real damage is done. Oh yes, sorry. Tell that to Dr. Tiller or the police officers in Pittsburgh.

The evidence seems to suggest that stirring up hatred gives it oxygen, and causes more people to become more and more extreme until violence is the inevitable result. It does not seem to lead to rational discourse about the merit or truth of people's opinions.

People who would not have ever committed a violent act otherwise can be party to genocide if they feel bolstered and encouraged by a crowd of other people telling them to "kill all the Whatevers!".

Far, far better to say that kind of hate speech is not tolerated and nip it in the bud. This helps to prevent an atmosphere of intimidation from arising and feeding itself, or even from allowing hate to become normalised/popular. I think this goes a long way to explaining why we have more progress with respect to gay rights north of the border, for example.

Posted by: Shala | March 24, 2010 9:58 AM

It is difficult for me to comment about hate speech, since I am definitely not a politician, but speaking as someone part of a non-Atheist minority (bisexuality) I would prefer not to turn on the television and hear about myself going to Hell or acquiring AIDS and dying. The hate speech laws may be arguably too harsh, but I would prefer not to be discriminated against at all openly.

Posted by: Quidam | March 24, 2010 10:08 AM

Ann Coulter is an insult comic with pretensions of intellectual adequacy.

Why she was booked into universities to perform I don't know. Probably because Yuk Yuks has standards.

Posted by: Free Lunch | March 24, 2010 10:18 AM

Coulter was allowed to speak. She chose not to.

Posted by: Ibis3 | March 24, 2010 10:27 AM

@ 94 Unfortunately the hate speech laws aren't harsh enough. There's an exemption for religion:

319. (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

Posted by: marcm2k | March 24, 2010 10:39 AM

Here's the situation in Canada. It would never get violent. (well, as far as I've seen) We've had 500,000 people in downtown Toronto celebrating and there wasn't one incident.

We're pretty level headed here. We don't like to solve things with violence. The fire alarm is the extent we'd go - maybe some vandalism done by a couple of idiots. Other than that, nothing else.

Posted by: realinterrobang | March 24, 2010 10:46 AM

Yesterday the Vancouver Sun had an article saying that Coulter intended to file a grievance with the Human Rights Commission because she'd received a (very politely worded) letter from a UO administrator reminding her of Canada's hate speech laws and that she should not allow her mouth to get her in trouble. Somehow in what passes for her mind, that constitutes "hate speech" against her.

So here we have someone who claims to loathe all forms of what she calls "political correctness" (mostly on the grounds that societal admonitions against being an asshole in public take away her whole schtick) and restraints on speech rushing off to take advantage of the Human Rights Commission to defend her status as a member of a "protected class" under Canadian law. (I'm sort of wondering what "protected class" that would be; last I checked, "insane right-winger" didn't count as a "protected class.")

Apparently it's perfectly okay for her to make blatantly racist, anti-semitic, anti-Muslim, and bigoted statements in public, but it's not okay for someone to politely remind her that her big mouth could put her in jail in Canada. It's All Okay If You're A Right-Winger, I guess. The stench of hypocrisy is fouller than Ann Coulter herself. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Posted by: Walton | March 24, 2010 11:22 AM

I should add - in response to some people above - that if you support hate speech laws, you are not a liberal. You are an authoritarian. Freedom of speech is one of the most fundamental tenets of liberalism. Hate speech laws are completely incompatible with liberal principles, in exactly the same way that blasphemy laws are incompatible with liberal principles. If the word "liberal" can extend to people who support hate speech laws, then it has lost any kind of meaning whatsoever.

Posted by: Shrunk | March 24, 2010 11:36 AM

@Walton

I should add - in response to some people above - that if you support hate speech laws, you are not a liberal. You are an authoritarian. Freedom of speech is one of the most fundamental tenets of liberalism.

Agreed, although I'm not sure if the problems with the Canadian hate speech laws are in their conception so much as in their application. As worded, part of the definition of hate speech is that it must be demonstrated to actually lead to harm against an identifiable group of people(the specific wording is "likely to lead to a breach of the peace.") That seems to me to be a reasonable constraint on freedom of expression.

The problem is that interpretation and implementation of the laws are often left up to quasi-judicial bodies knowm as "Human Rights Tribunals" which do not necessarily include lawyers and tend to interpret the law in inappropriately broad terms. When HRT decisions have been appealed to "real" courts, the interpretation has tended to be much narrower.

Posted by: Darrell E | March 24, 2010 11:43 AM

What the fuck is it with all of the people commenting about how AC should have been allowed to speak?

"I despise AC and everything she stands for, but she should have been allowed to speak."

Really? Great! Now we know just how fucking noble and righteous you are! Here you go, pick a sticker. Oh, you want the blue one instead of the gold one?

Did any of you read any of the accounts of this event, or any of the comments in the thread?

It was AC's own people, and the people that invited her, which was not the University, that decided to deny AC the opportunity to speak.

Why in the fuck would you take the word of a piece of shit like AC regarding this event over the many other accounts that contradict her's?

This is me giving the students who protested this a standing ovation. Well done.

This is me calling AC, and Mr Levant, a lying fucking coward.

Posted by: Shala | March 24, 2010 11:56 AM

Walton, I'm currently checking over the wikipedia article on authoritarianism, and I can't really say I support most of the stuff there.

Granted, I have said earlier that I am not a political student. I can't bring anything of large substance to a political table, but offer my thoughts. That said, it seems to me you have crafted a false dichotomy with your accusation of one being either liberal or authoritarian. I'm a progressive conservative if that helps you understand my position.

My main problem: What use is there for such hate speech anyway? It is not bettering society. How will we stop people from doing it? If the United States' free speech laws are any indication, hate speech will go on forever there.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the matter. If not by law, what can we do about hate speech?

Posted by: cpsmith | March 24, 2010 12:01 PM

I've been looking at some of the local news reports and it appears that the violent behaviour of the crowd included carrying posters quoting Coulter and chanting "This space is safe space." Well golly gee whiz. How terrifying.

Posted by: Thomathy | March 24, 2010 12:21 PM

@Walton in #111

Well, isn't it good that hate speech laws in Canada aren't designed to salve the hurt feelings of people or to silence people who say offensive things?

Just how long are you going to straw man this with your own idea of freedom of expression and of hate speech laws?

Honestly, we get your point, it just so happens that it's utterly irrelevant.

Posted by: Walton | March 24, 2010 12:31 PM

Shala, I'm sorry I wasn't clear in my earlier post (my fault; I'm rather distracted today by studying for my exams). "Liberal" and "authoritarian" are definitely not exhaustive categories. It is certainly possible to be neither liberal nor authoritarian. However, I would argue that laws against hate speech are an inherently authoritarian measure.

Posted by: Ibis3 | March 24, 2010 12:39 PM

@ Walton #118

However, I would argue that laws against hate speech are an inherently authoritarian measure

...inasmuch as any law is an inherently authoritarian measure.

Fixed that for you.

Posted by: Ibis3 | March 24, 2010 1:00 PM

@ Shrunk #108

The law against hate speech (properly "hate propaganda") is part of the Criminal Code, and handled by police & the courts.

What you're referring to is Human Rights legislation set up to handle discrimination complaints against employers or bodies that are federally or provincially regulated. This legislation is administered by Human Rights Commissions or Tribunals. The standards there are a lot less stringent, and rulings are pretty limited (I believe they are limited to orders to cease behaviour and fines.) Complaints are handled on a case by case basis.

Posted by: Lutrasimilis | March 24, 2010 1:19 PM

Long-time reader, first time poster.

Here's the deal. As a Canadian, if I flew down to the United States and expected them to change some of their laws to accomodate my local values, I would be laughed all the way back to customs.

Could someone please tell my why the fuck Americans like Ann Coulter think that their sovereign values follow them into other countries?

This isn't about hate speech laws, which are complete BS by the way, this is about a visitor who expects us to modify our laws in order to accomodate her cartoonish neurosis.

We didn't. Now she's crying and running to the same HRC she was insulting on the same day. Please, my American friends and neighbors, would you explain sovereignty to this woman?

Posted by: Lutrasimilis | March 24, 2010 1:48 PM

Since the USA is the last and only superpower, and Canadians mostly speak English, a lot of Americans just assume they are functionally our 51st state. Reinforced when the Canadians act like they are.*

Finally! A reasonable answer. I find that a lot more compelling than I expected...it makes sense.

However, it's something that would cause most Americans to bristle were the situation reversed. You all seem to understand that no other country has a right to impose its laws on your own, no matter how reasonable they might seem. Ann wasn't coming to Canada looking for a debate, she came to Canada looking for a fight, and she got one.

If she'd had some guts she might have even braved the protesters she was insulting. Anyone with real conviction would have.

Posted by: Doug | March 24, 2010 2:31 PM

Ezra Levant, the organizer of the Ottawa event with the lying liar Coulter, just made an appearance on Calgary news, making it quite clear that it was the decision of the organizers to cancel. He wailed, predictably, that it was forced because of protest and intimidation, and was a violation of the right to free speech. Well guess what, Ezzie, you fucking turd, verbal protest is free speech. If the emetic Coulter can't take it, the obvious conclusion is that what she has to say isn't even worth the risk of her being insulted. The kind of free speech Levant and Coulter want is very specifically the kind deliberately intended to cause intimidation. Suck it up, princess. The shit can fly both ways.

She is scheduled to yap at The University of Calgary tomorrow. I hope there is another loud exercise of free speech to tell her to climb back on her flying monkey and return whence she came. Before she goes, I hope she gets her hair tangled in Katie Ohe's lovely "zipper" kinetic sculpture just outside of the lecture room to be used.

Posted by: Eamon Knight | March 24, 2010 4:54 PM

Unless better information comes along, I'll go with Dan Gardner's take on the incident ('cuz Dan is a level-headed, evidence-based guy, and certainly no friend to demagogues of any stripe):

http://communities.canada.com/OTTAWACITIZEN/blogs/katzenjammer/archive/2010/03/24/who-pulled-the-plug-on-ann-coulter.aspx

(BTW, he's also an atheist)

Posted by: steverino63 | March 24, 2010 5:11 PM

Ohh, and agreed with all the people who called out PZ for inconsistency if not hypocrisy.

Posted by: AJ Milne | March 24, 2010 5:15 PM

Canada used a similar statute to ban left-liberal British MP George Galloway...

Reminding you: Coulter was not 'banned'.

Coulter buggered off. Her own security detail made the call.

Posted by: Shrunk | March 24, 2010 6:15 PM

@Ibis3 (#122)

The law against hate speech (properly "hate propaganda") is part of the Criminal Code, and handled by police & the courts.

What you're referring to is Human Rights legislation set up to handle discrimination complaints against employers or bodies that are federally or provincially regulated.

It's not quite that straightforward. For instance, the Alberta (of all places) Human Rights Tribunal several years ago found a Pastor Stephen Boissoin guilty of hate speech - for a letter he had written to a newspaper denouncing homosexuality. It's not a criminal conviction, but he was fined and he was prohibited from voicing similar opinions again in public. Even though the decision was eventually overturned on appeal, the potential chilling effect on freedom of expression should be obvious.