Over at Josh Marshall's "TPM," a thread involving Ann Coulter at U of Ottawa attracts the most interesting people:
I think you are way off base here. Coulter wasn't afraid of anyone, certainly not for calling her 'ugly'. The police were afraid the large mob of leftists armed with sticks and rocks were a threat to public safety, so they asked the organizers to cancel the event. Now, I'd have much preferred it if they simply opened fire on the leftists and slaughtered them in the streets (but then I'm always hoping for that), but in Canada they seldom do things like that (and unfortunately since the good old days of Kent State we haven't done much of it either).
No, this was a typical example of the left's view of free speech. They welcomed Angela Davis (the terrorist/murderer) and threaten Coulter with either prosecution or attack by an angry mob. Free speech to a leftist means the freedom to espouse leftist views only, anything else is cause to scream, throw rocks, set off alarms, disrupt, and shout down so that no opposing view can ever be heard.
In unrelated news, Canada's conservatives would like to lecture you on honesty. And civility. Especially civility.
12 comments:
Fortunately, the first comment in that thread linked to what I've been avoiding: another tedious scolding by Glenn Greenwald on Canada's hate speech laws, vaingloriously titled "The creepy tyranny of Canada's hate speech laws"
I say fortunately, because his second update reveals something he continues to fail to understand:
"...last year, Canada banned the vehemently anti-war, left-wing British MP George Galloway from entering their country, on extremely dubious "national security" grounds. Galloway is a vociferous critic of Canada's involvement in the war in Afghanistan as well a defender of Hamas, which were clearly the bases for his exclusion. Though that was under a different law than the one with which Coulter is threatened, that's always the result of this mindset..."
He doesn't seem to notice that no matter what, power will always find ways to exclude speech it doesn't want people to hear and that happens all the time, both in Canada and in his beloved bastion o' free speech, the USA, which he doesn't reside in anymore, ostensibly because his partner is in Brazil, but I suspect also because he's gotten too many death threats as a result of the views he expresses.
Death threats aren't free speech.
I'm on Greenwald's side with this one.
And to his credit, Greenwald doesn't say that anyone who disagrees with his position on free speech should be slaughtered in the streets, like that psychopath at TPM's comments section does.
Death threats aren't free speech.
I don't understand this point. I'm not talking about death threats that can be trace backed to an individual who can then be charged, but those that can be floated anonymously and become like the very air we breathe. PZ Myers is a case in point. Ever since his cracker episode. After appearing almost cowed for a while, he has become more radicalised in his hstred of religious people, to the point where his peer group of atheists is splintering. And as far I know, no one's been charged with respect to all the threats he received.
None of that can be good.
I'm on Greenwald's side with this one.
It's incoherent. He conflated two different types of regulations, the second of which are of the type used all the time to restrict views people with power don't want you to hear.
Greenwald is from the American tradition, where rights are guaranteed simply to protect the people from the state. Our tradition is one in which laws are intended to protect Canadians from each other, as well as from powerful agencies, which includes, but is not limited to, the state.
He's also had a previous career defending unpopular views; those of nazis and members of assorted hate groups, which thrive in the US and which keep filtering up into Canada to infect our body politic.
I'm more than happy with it if private citizens want to make Coulter think twice about spewing her venom. I don't think we need the state to help us out.
State restrictions on free speech will always bite their proponents. Especially us on the left, the less powerful. All we do is give the state and right-wing hypocrites another stick to beat us with.
With regards to "anonymous" internet death threats, ... it's actually much more easier to trace them than the older, snail-mail death threats that public figures had to deal with in the past.
If someone wanted to trace an e-mailed death threat, or all the ones that they receive, they could do so.
Actually CC, I'm following the proceedings with a good deal of amazement and consternation, being both a graduate of the University of Ottawa and a past member, with leadership responsibilities, of the Progressive Conservative club at the University Of Ottawa. But that hearkens back a different universe, to the days of Trudeau and Mulroney.
Back in the day, we had a good rapport with the University administration, did not refer to the Provost as some " a-houle", did not seek to test the limits of controversy by inviting the most controversial speakers imaginable -let's say General Pinochet and Pik Botha to deliver lectures on "conservatism" and fling gratuitous insults at all and sundry.
I see that the vice-president academic of the University of Ottawa, Mr. Houle, has had his knuckles rapped by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, and such bodies, for his
letter to invited speaker warning of the limits of acceptable speech.
Be that as it may, it appears the unfortunate Mr. Houle has achieved new heights of fame as some Liberal bogeyman on blogging tory sites, if not leading the "armed" mob of protesters himself with a bullhorn, then being the guilty party pulling the fire alarm to cancel the speaking engagement.
And thus we have blogging tory sites calling for the decertification of the University of Ottawa, advising employers not to employ graduates from this institution - I'm waiting for the University of Ottawa to join the boycott list on their sites together with the TD Bank and Bed and Baths.
We have the invited speaker, courtesy of the University of Ottawa Conservative Club, referring to her hosts as dimwits not worthy of employment, to the institution as bush league, calling for Mr. Houle to be thrown into jail, and not missing the opportunity, in passing, to make barbed references to everything from his ethnic background and ancestry to suspected sexual preferences.
And this is what - the message that they blogging tories wish to deliver. Of course you can deliver a controversial message - but choose your words carefully, they carry consequences. There does come a point, as well, when defence of someone's right to deliver an objectionable message passes over into advocacy of such views, and the sponsoring body, the University of Ottawa Conservative club, identifies with and becomes identified with the views being advocated.
Judging by the hue and cry on many blogging tory sites, I am hard put to identify those who actually disagree with the controversial views seeking public expression, as opposed to those who defend the principle but disagree with the content being delivered.
At these Conservative sponsored events - advocating fringe Republican views more worthy of a comedy club routine but being billed nonetheless as political speech and political advocacy - was any attempt being made by Canadian Conservatives to distinguish their own platform and program from the views being presented.
State restrictions on free speech will always bite their proponents. Especially us on the left, the less powerful. All we do is give the state and right-wing hypocrites another stick to beat us with.
I really don't know you can argue that, when the real left has all but vanished in the USA, but...whatever. Don't let me intrude on the celebration of powerlessness.
With regards to "anonymous" internet death threats, ... it's actually much more easier to trace them than the older, snail-mail death threats that public figures had to deal with in the past.
If someone wanted to trace an e-mailed death threat, or all the ones that they receive, they could do so.
You're entirely mistaken about that. You can email or otherwise send some kind of communication from any public library internet access point or WIFI hot spot with it being completely untraceable to an individual.
I see that the vice-president academic of the University of Ottawa, Mr. Houle, has had his knuckles rapped by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, and such bodies, for his
letter to invited speaker warning of the limits of acceptable speech.
Ah, more evidence of the learned helplessness of the type this month' s Harper's featured in an article entitled "The Vanishing Liberal."
This is the same association that permits itself to be yelled at by Gary Goodyear's political staff, if I'm not mistaken. In its defence, The CAUT did issue a tersely-written whine of protest afterwards however.
All I want to know is whether she still gets the $30K Canada's conservatives had agreed to pay her. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/blog/ann_coulter_backs_down.php
And another thing. We don't want no Canadians like David Frum coming to the US no more. He just got fired by the American Enterprise Institute. http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum Cuz he made conservatives feel bad. http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo He's nothing but anther ty-guy in sheep's clothing.
And furthermore, David has to return to Canada because he lost his health insurance when AEI fired him and the full Stalinization of American heal care doesn't start until 2014.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/03/aei_hits_david_frum_where_it_h.html
(This is the link that went with the last post)
David Frum's father is very wealthy, Seer. But good for you guys that you're making him unemployable, as we did up here, long ago.
Send him back. We'll make sure he gets all the psychiatric care he needs. Or we'll put him the Senate, where he can be forgotten, along with his irritating sister.
Post a Comment