As is his unfortunate custom, self-styled citizen journalist Adrianael MacAlexanderNair does to journalistic accuracy what a hillbilly once did to Ned Beatty, as Blogging Tories are wont to do:
The President of the University of Ottawa, Allan Rock, has broken his silence on what he thinks about the cancelled Ann Coulter speaking engagement on March 23. The visit is said to have been cancelled by Ms.Coulter’s organizers when angry student protesters showed up to block her from speaking and there were some concerns for her safety.
As has already been established, it is "said" that Coulter's speech was cancelled by her own organizers because it was, in fact, cancelled by her own organizers, due to their howling incompetence at managing simple registration. And the threat of protestor violence is a complete myth, a fact understood by even the drooling, evolutionary mistakes at Kate McMillan's Delisle Tattoo Parlour and White Sheet Emporium.
But here's where Adrian gets positively dishonest (all emphasis nad-grindingly added):
The incident made a mockery of the free speech debate, and fans of Ann Coulter were angry that the engagement had to be cancelled, blaming an incendiary email from University Provost Francois Houle. Mr.Houle had welcomed the American Conservative in a letter also sent to media organizations, while at the same time warning her that Canada has strict laws on hate speech and that she could face criminal prosecution if she violated those laws.
In a letter "sent to media organizations?" Really? Then why did the Canadian Press report thusly?
Coulter, who was to speak at the University of Western Ontario on Monday night, received a pre-emptive and private caution about the limits of free speech in Canada from the provost of the University of Ottawa, where she appears Tuesday.
The letter was immediately leaked to select conservative news organizations, with Coulter telling one that the university was "threatening to criminally prosecute me for my speech."
So, Adrian, either the letter was meant for public consumption in the first place ... or it wasn't, so you can quit your pathetic bitching, moaning and whining. Because it's somewhat inconsistent for someone to explicitly and deliberately leak private information to the media, then subsequently whine about the inevitable consequences of that information being public.
I will understand, though, Adrian, if you have trouble following that logic. It does require processing two pieces of information at the same time and, as we've established, this is not something at which Blogging Tories are particularly adept.
P.S. You can expect a sheepish correction and retraction from Adrian about the same time you can expect it from every other Blogging Tory who's ever published something stupid, incorrect and libelous -- the day Satan starts ice-skating to work.
AFTERSNARK: I would be remiss in not pointing out Adrian's perpetual misrepresentation of reality, when he writes above:
The incident made a mockery of the free speech debate, and fans of Ann Coulter were angry that the engagement had to be cancelled, blaming an incendiary email from University Provost Francois Houle.
Once again, let us be clear that Coulter's Ottawa gig was not cancelled for any other reason than that organizers Ezra Levant, Kathy Shaidle and others were appallingly stupid and incompetent, and should never be trusted to use anything more complicated than a toilet brush ever again.
SO ... HOW'S THAT HRC COMPLAINT COMING, ANNIE? The National Post's Kevin Libin plays the useful village idiot, reproducing Coulter's inanity:
Still, [Coulter] insisted, she was serious about her promise to see University of Ottawa provost François Houle — whose name, sounding like “hole,” she had great fun modifying — charged by Canada’s Human Rights Commissions, for promoting hatred against her, a white, Christian, female, conservative, since she’s certain no left-wing speakers have been similarly threatened.
“All I thought about” after the cancellation, Ms. Coulter says, “was how much this helps my complaint with the human rights commission.”
It will be amusing to see how well that action holds up when Coulter tries to explain how a private communication exposed her sorry, racist, eliminationist ass to public ridicule and hatred.
Please, Ezra, make this happen. The entertainment value would be awesome.
16 comments:
Ironically, Adrian does not allow free speech on his blog...
As for "accuracy", well he does get published in the National Post.... I'd expect nothing less that lies...
The National Toast also publishes a Lord of the Realm "Direct from Prison"! (If you post on one of his stories you are not allowed to mention his current zip code.) *snicker* *snicker*
Well, since the ill-advised Houle correspondence is again being raised, I'll return to what I think is the biggest unexplored aspect of the Coulter tour: the leaking of the letter.
Who leaked the thing? The woman to whom it was addressed?
Nope, Margaret Wente tells us that the letter was leaked by Ezra Levant's publisher Doug Pepper.
Why the National Post?
Because the editor of the paper is Pepper's brother-in-law.
Bet Pepper sold a lot of books that week
I think we all knew it was either Coulter or EZzy's "people" who leaked the info.
Surprise Wente would write against her fellow connies.
Ezra will never make this happens until he's finished milking this martyrdom as long as the rubes are getting worked up.
Then, when he's finished milking this, he might lodge a complain to much fanfare and chest beating...
Even with all the mocking idiots such as Adrian will never get it...
Coulter is famously anti-intellectual. I see no reason for her to be allowed to spout racist nonsense at a university. Houle's letter was not "ill-advised".
Well, since the ill-advised Houle correspondence...
I don't think it was ill-advised at all. Had I been in the provost's position, I would have done exactly the same thing...just to cover my own ass.
I would have expected it to be leaked to the press, however and in that respect, would have distributed it more widely.
I think it should become a standard invitation for these so-called "polemicists" when they show up at our public institutions of higher learning with their unscholarly drivel, inarguable propaganda and hate speech that tries to pass itself off as public discourse, especially when the speaker's history makes such assessments of their oeuvre beyond dispute.
Houle wrote to warn that shrike that her usual eliminationist spouting might earn both the university and herself undersireable legal attention. He was well within his rights, his duties, and the bounds of common sense to do so.
I wasn't going to post. However, I am forced to because my WV is "fluffer," which I believe is how Coulter's people describe Levant.
Unsurprisingly, Houle is also under attack for being seen as biased towards the Palestinian oppressed by not giving equal talk time to their Israeli oppressors.
Coulter is just a f*!king puke. Letting her speak to our children is an insult against all humanity. We need to protect our children: specially those at university, who are most intellectually vulnerable (last chance to influence them in a meaningful way). These older "children" are very strong in their commitments, which is the norm. (remember YOUR youth). Let's not pollute them with outright Scheise.
You'd have to be an awfully stupid student to be influenced by anything Ann Coulter had to say.
Again, it is wise to remember YOUR youth. There are lots of them out there, more than willing to put on the 'brown shirts' and 'jack boots'. Our world is lacking in so many ways. There is no shortage of 'stupid people'.
Don't get carried away now. People in university aren't children; they're adults.
You are right: yes they are. My comments come from an urge to protect our young people from this kind of assholeishness.
Unfortunately, the notion that intellectual institutions are somehow poisoned by 'brainwashing liberalism' has been creeping into the public discourse thanks to those anti-intellectual philistines. The unfortunate result? This is being carried by the young impressionable conservatives who are entering into academia on some sort of quixotic quest to turn universities into some sort of Goldwaterian-Reaganesque Utopia while the 'salt of the earth' yet insecure adults are egging them on.
There is something almost pathological about how these so called 'conservatives' are remarkably insular and relativistic when it comes to educational authority.
"protect our young people from this kind of assholeishness."
maybe you should arm them.
KEvron
Post a Comment