Intellectual freedom

More coffee!!: Intellectual freedom in Canada: Ann Coulter visit

Spread the love

Controversial American lawyer and commentator descended on Canada, facing predictable demands from current and future tax burdens (= university admin and students who know a “free” breadbasket when they see one) that she be charged with/censored for hate speech. More here.

Latest here: Coulter files human rights complaint in Canada. I hope exposing the shakedown scandal to the world will have a good effect.

Now this: Also, the anti-Coulter disgrace to Canada (like, we can’t think for ourselves, and need these people to do it for us? We don’t need anyone to do our thinking for us, but if we did, why the present and future tax burdens at universities?) Also, Original post. Update here. Just so you know what happens here when you hit the entitlement mob in the breadbasket.

One reason why Coulter got hated was setting straight the issues in the intelligent design controversy, against a host of tax burdens and foundation burdens. (Generally, reader, you are paying for Darwinism through your taxes or foregone taxes because the outfit is supposedly a charity, no matter how much ridiculous nonsense it fronts.)

It is true that Coulter doesn’t mince words about what she thinks. But so? If you don’t think she is worth listening to, don’t listen to her. Go home, have a hot chocolate, and watch the hockey game. Anyway, chill out.

A friend writes to say, advising one of her supporters,

I think – seriously – he should claim as her “identifiable group”… “American.” It would be a fantastic way to get Canadians to face up to their chronic, rapid anti-Americanism in a public forum

I think Five feet of Fury is right, on the evidence. In Canada, to benefit from the “human rights” shakedown, you need to claim to belong to an identifiable group.

Americans are an identifiable group. They even have birth certificates, passports, and driver’s licences to prove it.

Also, there is a shameful history in Canada of using anti-Americanism to bolster national pride in order to support failing social and economic strategies.

The reality is that Americans are our very best customers. They run a stable society, jail criminals – and pay for what they want instead of taking it by force. At least, that is our history with them. If someone else has a different history, they should be free to tell their own story.

That is one thing I have always said about my American customers: You give them the job to specifications, and they will pay.

If Americans start to see anything like our “human rights” commission creep ( and I do mean “creep” in both senses), they will need the support of Canadians who have been through it, and in many cases fought and won.

Hat tip: Five Feet of Fury

(Note: I operate this “intellectual freedom in Canada” news service for non-Canadians and ex-pats, assuming they would only want the skinny. For better and more up to date service go regularly to Five Feet of Fury, Blazing Cat Fur, Ezra Levant, and MarkSteyn. )

19 Replies to “More coffee!!: Intellectual freedom in Canada: Ann Coulter visit

  1. 1
    composer says:

    Interesting post. I doubt Coulter’s opposition to Darwinism is the reason she will face protests. Obviously people who believe evolution find her distasteful in that regard, but I don’t think most people who dislike Coulter even know that about her. Rather, people are probably thinking of some the hateful, viscious things she has said, such as:

    “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.”

    “We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too.”

    “God says, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.'”

    “The thing I like about Bush is I think he hates liberals.”

    “If you don’t hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don’t love your country.”

    “Kwanzaa itself is a lunatic blend of schmaltzy ’60s rhetoric, black racism and Marxism. Indeed, the seven ‘principles’of Kwanzaa praise collectivism in every possible arena of life – economics, work, personality, even litter removal.”

    I don’t take these seriously; I think she thinks of these as examples of her “wit,” and that she’s really a circus clown rather than a thinker. Still, Canada’s laws our not our laws. A warning might actually be helpful.

  2. 2
    composer says:

    I think she hasn’t even given the speech yet; it’s scheduled for today. However,

    It didn’t take long for firebrand U.S. conservative Ann Coulter to live up to her reputation on her Canadian tour, telling a University of Western Ontario Muslim student to “take a camel” as an alternative to flying.

    source

    I don’t think her opposition to Darwinism is the issue.

  3. 3
    O'Leary says:

    composer at 1 and 2: NO warning was in order from anyone at all.

    I always say it is better to have free speech so we know what people think.

    We are all safer that way. If people hate us, we should want to know, and know why.

    If persons counsel a crime, they are indictable under our Criminal Code, but I cannot imagine Coulter literally doing that.

    I am saddened to think of all the people I know who are working all hours cleaning emergency rooms and serving at 24 hour pharmacies or donut shops to pay taxes to lavishly support the kind of people who think that the world needs them as censors of public opinion, even the public opinion of non-citizens.

    Canada was not founded in 1867 to give a free ride to people like these self-appointed censors!

    People are free to ignore Coulter – she is NOT Papa Doc or Stalin. And Canada is a low violence country, in general, so she is unlikely to incite a riot just by being here. (Unless it is a dial-a-mob rent-a-riot – not the same thing as true citizen unrest.)

    She won’t be speaking in Toronto, but, as a matter of fact, it is ruddy cold and rainy here in Toronto just now, so I don’t think anyone could incite a riot about anything.

  4. 4
    composer says:

    For what it’s worth, I agree that it would be better if Canadian laws were more like American laws. And yes, people should feel free to ignore Coulter. They should also feel free to protest her — loudly. I wonder: should protestors be warned about the need to use “restraint, respect and consideration”?

    My main point was that people don’t dislike Coulter because of her views on evolution. Most people don’t know about that. People who dislike her because — as I showed earlier — she’s a vicious, hateful harpy.

  5. 5
    O'Leary says:

    “vicious, hateful harpy”?

    I dunno. But so what? You think we don’t have a lot of those in stock here in Canada? What’s new? Do you want a de luxe passenger trainload? Please state drop off address.

    Unlike Coulter, they are NOT fun. They are just monotonous demanders of more money and mega new rules from the government.

    Look, let’s just let Coulter say what she wants to say, and cash in her return plane ticket without a fuss.

    Anything else would be a bad reflection on my country, given that no true civil disorder would likely result from her visit.

    I cannot answer for motivated disorders. They should be attibuted to their inciters. But my best guess is that nothing like such disorders will really occur, and/or such events will not be serious, though they might be widely publicized.

    Coulter’s doubts about Darwinism doubtless made her even more hated in many tax burden circles in the United States. Whether that adds to anti-free speech antics in Canada, I honestly cannot say.

  6. 6
    composer says:

    “Unlike Coulter, they are NOT fun. They are just monotonous demanders of more money and mega new rules from the government.”

    The first sentence, by suggesting that Coulter is “fun,” is counterfactual. 🙂 More to the point, I don’t know who you’re talking about in the second sentence: it’s just abstractions. Are there particular people you’re referring to? Or even groups?

  7. 7
    O'Leary says:

    composer at 6: What on earth do you compose? It can’t be anything that celebrates freedom, like Beethoven did … Do you “compose” new rules and regulations?

    Coulter is fun for people like me who were born and raised in freedom and need not take her seriously, as she has no power in our society.

    She can neither vote nor run for office here. We can listen and decide.

    Unfortunately, lots of civil servants and NGO types here would like a socially engineered society – check out the “human rights” commissions. So you only hear what the government wants you to hear.

    I prefer to listen to what is happening in my society, for the same reasons as the wolf of the northern forest wants to listen to what is happening in his territory.

  8. 8
    mtreat says:

    Is it just me or is it becoming more and more obvious that liberals have appointed themselves as the arbiter of what is and is not acceptable free speech? Canada is far down the path to European-style socialism and if Obama has his way, America will be right on their heels. And in an interesting side note, I find it interesting that evolutionists share this same moral deficiency; they just can’t stand to hear a dissenting view on the topic of biological origins. So, too, the global-warming fundamentalists. Dissenters from the Truth of macro-evolution and/or man-made global warming haven’t just considered the evidence and drawn a different conclusion. No, these dissenters, all of them, are, to paraphrase Al Gore and Richard Dawkins, stupid, ignorant, or evil. Regarding whether Coulter is fun, I personally find her entertaining. She is quite adept at the use of hyperbole to make a point. When someone on the left does it, it’s generally ignored or rationalized by the mainstream media (Bill Mahr, for example, comparing George W. to Hitler, calling our soldiers cowardly, etc.). I don’t need my government to protect me from ideas and I don’t think most Canadians do either.

  9. 9
    composer says:

    mtreat: De gustibus, I suppose. I think Ann Coulter is not “adept” at hyperbole so much as addicted to it. She doens’t care whether the hyperbole is appropriate so long as it gets her attention. She pretty much makes a living tearing people down.

    She’s a political insult comic without the funny.

    Denyse, I’m not a musical composer. I compose poems, which are a kind of musical language (“About my poetics — / music / speech / An integral / Lower limit speech / Upper limit music.” in the words of Louis Zukofsky).

    I don’t understand what a socially engineered society has to do with human rights groups. I guess it has something to do wtih Canadian poltics — perhaps a specific scenario I don’t recognize. The big human rights, like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, are great. But I don’t know waht you’re talking about because you haven’t named anybody.

    I have a hard time seeing Ann Coulter as one who celebrates any freedom beyond her own freedom to tear others down. I have an even harder time seeing anything in common with Beethoven, whose setting of “Ode to Joy” celebrated the brotherhood of all mankind.

    Wagner, on the other hand . . .

  10. 10
    riddick says:

    Well, composer, your side “won.” Another “victory” for the intolerant left.

    http://www.canada.com/Coulter+.....story.html

  11. 11
    composer says:

    riddick, I don’t think it’s a victory; I think people should have the right to protest speech but her speech should not be shut down.

    Then again, the decision was hers; her “bodyguard” decided it was “unsafe.” I smell stunt.

  12. 12
    O'Leary says:

    Composer at 9 and 11: You wrote: “Denyse, I’m not a musical composer. I compose poems, which are a kind of musical language (”About my poetics — / music / speech / An integral / Lower limit speech / Upper limit music.” in the words of Louis Zukofsky).

    I don’t understand what a socially engineered society has to do with human rights groups. I guess it has something to do wtih Canadian poltics — perhaps a specific scenario I don’t recognize.”

    Then, why are you so quick to offer an opinion? As a born citizen who has lived here all my life, through the age of social engineering, I recognize the situation exactly.

    Tax burdens, future tax burdens, and entitlement addicts conspire to ensure that no views alternative to theirs can be seriously considered.

    In a healthier democracy, Coulter could just fly in and out, and people would have opinions over the breakfast table about what she said last night – assuming they care.

    You see, even if it WAS a stunt, the stunt tells anyone who knows anything about Canada a key fact about what is going on.

    Google “Guy Earle” and “human rights tribunal” to see what I mean. Earle is a comedian whose late nite show was deemed unfunny by certain persons.

    So far as I am concerned, anyone attending an after hours, late nite comedy show who ISN’T offended did not get their money’s worth.

    That is the whole point of late nite comedy’s role as a social safety valve.

    Lots of people just want to say it. They don’t plan to do anything. But if you don’t give them a chance to just say it, anywhere at all …

  13. 13
    composer says:

    Denyse,

    Thanks; that was interesting. I read about Mr. Earle, and I agree that he seems to have been railroaded.

    As I said earlier, I would prefer that Canadian free speech laws were more like Aemrican. In any context, I’d support both Coulter’s right to speak and the right of others to protest her speech (protest being after all another form of speech).

    Out of curiosity: Is this kind of thing a Canadian thing or a BC thing? The commission is BC, and it’s going against the Canadian Supreme Court. (I ask because my mother is Canadian half my family is from Quebec; it’s hard to imagine this kind of thing setting well there.)

    By the way, are you referring to people as “tax burdens”?

  14. 14
    O'Leary says:

    Composer at 13,

    It is happening all over Canada. We have 14 such agencies. You think HE has been railroaded? Lots similar has happened to others. The vast majority of whom could not afford legal representation.

    And in any event, the tribunals need not abide by English Common Law. So legal representation might just be a waste of money. Maybe better to just pay the shakedown, accept the “political correctness” shame, and be gone. As many must have done.

    I cannot answer for Quebec, as a unilingual francophone province in a bilingual country.

    People as tax burdens: When they could do something useful but choose to front ridiculous theories as academics in tax-supported institutions or to parade themselves as victims in a free society – in my view, they are indeed tax burdens.

    I do not propose to do anything about it. I cannot imagine any cure that would not be worse than the disease. So no threat from this quarter. But much continued ridicule.

    Every advanced society has a small number of people who will legitimately require lifelong assistance. That’s why we have group homes, the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, and so forth. I donate to that stuff, and recommend to all that they do so.

  15. 15
    mtreat says:

    Composer at 13,

    We share your position that free speech should be protected and that the right to protest that speech should be protected as well. The problem with the left is that their protests aren’t designed to simply voice a dissenting view. No, their protests are intended to prevent the airing of views they don’t like. They create a riotous atmosphere with the palpable potential for violence and then claim victory when they succeed in silencing those they disagree with.

    The same tactics are used by most fundamentalists — particularly socialistic fundamentalists, environmental fundamentalists, and macro-evolutionary fundamentalists.

    It should be embarrassing to all these aforementioned groups that Christian fundamentalists are demonstrably more tolerant and more free speech inclined than they are. Sure, you can find some examples of this behavior by Christian fundamentalists but any objective observer would have to admit it is the exception rather than the norm.

    These folks aren’t interested in the principle of free speech. They are only interested in winning the battle for minds and the ends justifies all the means. Such hubris. Such intellectual snobbishness. These folks really think they are protecting us commoners from ideas we aren’t smart enough to assess for ourselves.

  16. 16
    O'Leary says:

    mtreat at 15: Yes, and traditional theists believe in an objective moral order.

    We do not believe that our brains are adapted for fitness, not for truth = Darwinist view.

    Darwinism is much better adapted for tyranny than traditional theism is.

    That is why the Canadian Constitution says that Canada is founded on the supremacy of God and the rule of law, not the supremacy of selfish genes and the rule of whatever drives them.

  17. 17
    mtreat says:

    We have a situation that is fraught with irony (referring to this issue in Canada, recent events in American politics, the state of “science” as it relates to biological origins and global warming, etc.). Specifically, the kind of people that froth at the mouth regarding the excesses of the “moral majority” movement in the 80’s are now engaged in the exact same tactics. To fool the naïve, they use repurposed code phrases such as “economic justice”, “ecological justice”, “equal education”, etc. They demonize the opposition and deify their own. They claim to have the moral high ground on every issue — while having either no actual basis for that morality or having revised the message of the Bible to repurpose it as a treatise for “social justice” (for those in the know code for Socialism, Marxism and forced redistribution of wealth). They claim to be heroic defenders of everything from science to the planet and the poor – not to mention their penchant for presuming to defend those they deem to be too ignorant to defend themselves.

    We just *thought* the Religious Right, Islamic terrorists, etc. had a monopoly on fundamentalism.

    My personal definition of fundamentalism: claiming to be in certain possession of Truth, requiring others to share that Truth, and inflicting consequences on those that fail to do so (those consequences being anything from simple disdain to outright violence).

    These guys sound like fundamentalists to me.

  18. 18
    Mustela Nivalis says:

    Mrs. O’Leary in the OP,

    “Go home, have a hot chocolate, and watch the hockey game.”

    I’ve only had time to skim UD the past few weeks, but for some reason I remembered this phrase and I just received something apropos in my email:

    “A little known fact…
    The first testicular guard, the ‘Cup’, was used in hockey in 1874 and the first helmet was used in 1974. That means it only took 100 years for men to realize that their brain is also important.”

    My apologies for the off-topic posting.

  19. 19
    O'Leary says:

    Mustela Nivalis at 18: No apologies needed re off-topic, but clarification: Lots of guys were concerned that the helmet would affect their performance on the ice.

    A useful helmet requires some engineering.

    So far as I know, modern helmets will not affect performance negatively.

    Unclear whether helmets of 100 years ago could have avoided that effect. So the guy needed to balance his career against risks of injury, given that most careers end in mid-life anyway.

    No one would have argued against the value of the Cup, then, now, or ever.

    (Hockey is one of the fastest games on Earth.)

Leave a Reply