We at Vlad watched with interest and some degree of alarm when Ann Coulter’s speech was thugged out a few nights ago by a number of university kids stoned out of their gourd on the most dangerous and most Canadian of drugs, Sanctimony.
Ann Coulter’s profile of course shot through the roof. Much like when the satire film, ‘Life Of Brian’ first appeared in theatres and was met by protests from priests and rabbi’s alike, guaranteeing it a top grossing spot for that years movies. So yeay for Ann. However the real issues seem to have been missed by most of the media. Issues of whether or not mob rule is the way to let things get decided even if you agree with that particular mob. That sort of jurisprudence seldom ends well. Below, a rather excellent article by George Jonas of the National Post and for contrast, below that Ill put some of the worst commentary on this issue I could have imagined. The sad part is, I doubt it took FOX news long to find someone with her views to claim to represent all of Canada.
Eeyore for Vlad:
George Jonas: Censorship and satire
Posted: March 27, 2010, 10:00 AM by NP Editor
The Roman poet Juvenal remarked that it’s hard not to write satire. Things have gone downhill since then. By now it’s hard not to write slapstick comedy.
Take this week, which began with a Canadian academic haughtily reminding a visiting American firebrand of the respect and civility that’s the hallmark of public discourse in this country,
“There is a strong tradition in Canada … of restraint, respect and consideration,” wrote University of Ottawa provost François Houle to enfant terrible Ann Coulter, urging her “to respect that Canadian tradition while on our campus.”
This was on Monday. On Tuesday, a howling mob demonstrated Canada’s commitment to restraint and respect by blocking Coulter (and those who came to hear her) from entering a lecture hall on campus.
The only group exhibiting Canadian-style restraint was the police. They cast a calm eye on the pandemonium, took a balanced view and chose no sides between people trying to exercise their rights and bullies trying to prevent them. Resisting any temptation to enforce the law, Ottawa’s finest exemplified Canada’s definition of moral leadership by observing neutrality between lawful and lawless.
Coulter later wrote the police “called off” her speech because they couldn’t guarantee her security. Interesting, if true. Will it start a trend? Will police call off property rights at the scene of robberies-in-progress? “Look, lady, it’s just a cash register. If they want it so badly, how about letting them have it?”
Maybe it’s the coming thing. Considering how governments screw up, letting mobs disrupt economic summits may help the economy. Won’t do much for law and order, but hey!
Going back to Houle’s letter to Coulter: Reminding an invited guest of table manners — “Dear Miss Coulter, we’re delighted you’re coming, but please don’t slurp the soup” — isn’t quite comme il faut. It would be uncouth enough to get a satirist’s attention, in ancient Rome or modern Canada, but Ottawa U’s epistolist aspired to being more than just another boor.
“Miss Coulter, we’re delighted you’re coming, but remember in Canada stealing silver spoons may land guests in a dungeon.” No, Houle didn’t write this, but what he did write came close:
“Educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada … before your planned visit here. You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges.”
Okay. Threatening invited guests with prosecution is truly worthy of a Roman satirist’s pen. The closest thing to Juvenal in Canada is Mark Steyn, and when the first half of the Coulter saga caught his attention, he commented that “M Houle would have a very hard time persuading the Ottawa police or the RCMP to lay criminal charges over an Ann Coulter speech because they realize, even if he doesn’t, that Canada doesn’t need to become even more of an international laughingstock in this area.”
“So the threat is an empty one,” Steyn concluded, “and M Houle seems to be being — oh, what’s the ‘respectful and civil’ way of putting it? — a posturing wanker.”
Sounds right to me. I’d say Houle’s risk of being charged with practising law without a licence for giving legal advice to Coulter is higher than Coulter’s risk of being charged with hate speech for anything she’s said. But was the provost’s letter really for Coulter — or was it a green light for the mob?
I’ll call the faces in the tumultuous crowd that assemble in student federations and such “Mike” and “Ellen.” They’re the ones who shout, as Ellen was heard shouting: “Ann Coulter should go back where she came from.”
“But she was invited by Campus Conservatives …”
“We don’t want her here.”
Mike and Ellen are the idealistic, demonstrating, book-burning, sometimes violent spear-carriers of social trends and ideas that shape all periods, occasionally for the better, usually for the worse. Many are educated beyond their intellectual means; all concern themselves with matters beyond their maturity. They’re the collateral damage of higher education.
Houle’s letter to Coulter leaked. It reached Mike, Ellen and fellow Red Guard-types, inciting them to form an unlawful assembly to deprive Canadians who came to hear Coulter of their right to listen to her. Mike, one of the organizers, was quoted saying that “what Ann Coulter is practising is not free speech, it’s hate speech.”
Here’s the circular sophistry of two-tiered freedom: Approved speech = free speech; censored speech = hate speech. This is what corrupts minds, and I don’t mean students. I mean professors, provosts and presidents. The operating fallacies come from them. Mike and Ellen provide only the noise, the echo and the muscle.
Some say Coulter is an attention-seeking ninny. Assume it’s true. So? Offered as an excuse for a university preaching respect and civility while practicing suppression and intimidation, it’s worse than immaterial. It’s demeaning. Hypocritical. Ludicrous. I regret to say, it’s so Canadian.
National Post
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.
The above was some of the best I have seen on this. Now, for the worst:
Here, a Canadian leftist decides for all Canada and especially students, what should be allowed to be said and what not without batting an eye that it was mob thuggery that decided it and not police or rule of law.
“? Offered as an excuse for a university preaching respect and civility while practicing suppression and intimidation,”
Just about sums up the left wing since the dawn of socialism I’d say.
that is one ugly Man with a funny voice.
I am sure older generation Russians or confused to were the west and east is……
Who is that hairy dog from Toronto and that magazine- who buys that junk?
Viva Ann Coulter — but I would not have said “camel” – I would have said donkey or horny goat.
Ann Coulter was well-received in the west, where her firebrand style of conservatism is entrenched in the politics of the area.
No-one protested her arrival with violence and few people were arrested, from what I understand. Aside from the Ottawa fiasco, it wasn’t that much of a big deal for her to speak.
I feel that every protestor who denounces her and others like her is an unwilling pawn for jihad.
Her words are no more likable than what is preached in mosques all over the world, yet these same protestors never raise a sign or never protest visits by Muslim leaders, dignitaries, big businessmen or Muslim “religious” figures when they visit.
Why is that, you wonder?