Coulter speech cancelled because of protestors

[crazy canuck]

I understand what you are saying but the you are talking about a model of discourse that presupposes certain shared axioms about how to engage in reasoned discussion.  Ann Coulter has demonstrated repeatedly that she has no interest in engaging in meaningful dialogue on the basis of appeal to reason; she is running a circus.  And when the circus comes to town, don't act surprised when people start acting like they are at one.

I agree but descending to her level of discourse says more about the protestors then it does about her.  In the last question and answer she did, she was shown to be a complete idiot - telling a muslim student that if she couldnt ride a magic carpet instead she should use a camel.

It is far more effective to actually let these types of people talk then it is to turn them into martyrs to free speech.

[crazy canuck]

I'm not saying she should be censored, I'm saying that does not mean she should be invited to a private institution.

I wouldn't invite Coulter to give a speech at my home but I am not for censoring her either.

But she was invited, it's not like she just showed up at the place and demanded an audience.

And then they revoked the invitation. Surely they are allowed to change their mind?

Nobody revoked their invitation.

[crazy canuck]

And obviously since you do not know in advance what a speaker is going to say exactly, my question stands: is there no way for a Canadian university to prevent a person who has a track record of advocating another Holocaust from speaking at a Canadian university when invited by someone?

I find it seriously baffling that CC claims the answer is no.

I find it baffling that you, a lawyer so you say, thinks its ok to prevent someone from speaking because they have a track record of some sort.

There is a law in this country regarding hate communications.  If the speaker breaks the law then the police will investigate and the Crown will act accordingly.  If the speaker broke the law in the past then they will have been dealt with through the due process of law.

This is law 101 stuff.

I think I can speak for our American friends and include all North America in the statement that we dont censor people based on what we guess they might say.

[crazy canuck]

But isn't publicly advocating a violent crime (whether genocide or not) a crime itself?

If I go on a public rally and start saying that Neil should be killed, am I not committing a crime?

If you break the law you will be charged and hopefully put away for a very long time.

[Barrister]

But isn't publicly advocating a violent crime (whether genocide or not) a crime itself?

If I go on a public rally and start saying that Neil should be killed, am I not committing a crime?

Bunch of issues here.

Depending on how curious you are, here's a leading case on hate speech / advocating genocide; 

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2005/2005scc40/2005scc40.html

Saying that "Neil should be killed" is probably not a crime (although it is fact specific).  For it to be a on offense of counselling someone to commit an offense we (the Crown) would have to show that the person intended for someone to act on that statement.  To charge the person with uttering a threat, we would have to show that on all the facts the person would reasonably view those words to be a threat.

You should be happy of that, for it means you likely can't be charged for the number of times you've wished death on other posters.   

[crazy canuck]

but from my time a decade ago in student government it would be very difficult for the university itself to block a recognized student group from renting out space to hold a talk merely because the administratin didn't approve of the views being expressed.

Quite right.  Indeed it would be the very rare case that the administration would even turn its mind to whether they approved of the views expressed or not independant of some form of complaint from another group on campus.  And then it is not a question of approval or not, it is a question, as you said, whether University policies are being breached in some way.  And since those policies err heavily on the side of academic freedom and freedom of expression, it is very rare indeed for there to be any interference at all.

[The Brain]

No one takes university people seriously anyway. They're either students and therefore irrelevant or they are ivory tower retards who couldn't hack it in the real world.

[Martinus]

But isn't publicly advocating a violent crime (whether genocide or not) a crime itself?

If I go on a public rally and start saying that Neil should be killed, am I not committing a crime?

Bunch of issues here.

Depending on how curious you are, here's a leading case on hate speech / advocating genocide; 

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2005/2005scc40/2005scc40.html

Saying that "Neil should be killed" is probably not a crime (although it is fact specific).  For it to be a on offense of counselling someone to commit an offense we (the Crown) would have to show that the person intended for someone to act on that statement.  To charge the person with uttering a threat, we would have to show that on all the facts the person would reasonably view those words to be a threat.

You should be happy of that, for it means you likely can't be charged for the number of times you've wished death on other posters.   

Thanks for the explanation. Polish law is different - it is a crime to either incite or even publicly commend people for committing a crime. So her speech about the abortion doctor killing could breach the law.

In fact, one leftist group once tried to put the Polish prime minister on trial for saying that the war against Iraq is a good thing (since Polish law names "starting an aggressive war" a crime) but this was dismissed as too silly.

[crazy canuck]

Here is an update regarding how the U of C is handling things and also how the U of O is going into damage control.

A day after she was chased away from an Ottawa campus by rowdy crowds, the University of Calgary is giving American pundit Ann Coulter a bigger venue to air her extreme brand of right-wing politics, saying part of its role is to "promote the free exchange of ideas."

Ms. Coulter, a skilled political agitator, has hit the jackpot on her three-campus visit to Canada. Her planned appearance earlier this week at the University of Ottawa was cancelled because of security concerns after an estimated 1,500 people showed up at a lecture hall with roughly 400 seats.

That cancellation – and an advance note from the school's provost advising her to mind her words in case she risk criminal charges for hate speech – has unleashed a firestorm, especially among conservative commentators, and renewed the debate over freedom of expression on campus. As the tour moves from Ontario to Calgary, it also holds the potential of exposing yet again the political east-west divide of the nation.

"I've never heard of Calgary shutting anyone down. The worst we'll do is ignore someone," said Ezra Levant, a Calgary-based author, lawyer and conservative thinker who was asked to introduce Ms. Coulter on her Canadian tour. He called the Calgary stop a welcome homecoming.

Calgary, known for its true-blue conservative ideals, was the first city former U.S. president George W. Bush visited last year after he left the White House. While there were some protesters outside the venue and security was tight, there were no major incidents. Even when the G8 summit was held in nearby Kananaskis Country in 2002, protests were small, mellow and trouble-free, unlike raucous events that marred similar international meetings in Seattle and Quebec City.

The University of Ottawa faced an onslaught of criticism Wednesday after the cancellation of Ms. Coulter's talk. President Allan Rock refused interviews, but issued a short statement late in the day, noting that the event was cancelled by her own organizers.

"Freedom of expression is a core value that the University of Ottawa has always promoted," Mr. Rock said in the statement. "We have a long history of hosting contentious and controversial speakers on our campus. Last night was no exception ..."

Mr. Rock's statement made no reference to the provost Francois Houle's warning, singled out by Ms. Coulter as part of the cause of the angry crowds that opposed her speaking Tuesday night.

"I would like to know if any Muslim has been treated this badly, at least since the Reformation, because I am drawing a blank," Ms. Coulter told The Globe and Mail after the talk was cancelled.

The decision to cancel the talk was cheered by some of her opponents. "I was just worried that things were going to be said about certain groups of people that were going to make them feel very unsafe and very uncomfortable," a student protester said.

Toronto lawyer Frank Addario, who has defended many free speech cases, called the events at the University of Ottawa an embarrassment to Canada. "It shows an immaturity and a misunderstanding of the basic precepts of free speech," he said. "The provost has a duty to encourage free speech, not to encourage those who would prevent it or censor it – there is never a shortage of those people."

McGill ethicist Margaret Somerville, who was once advised by a university to wear flat shoes in case she had to run, said groups on campuses have become skilled at silencing debate. "I think it is extraordinarily dangerous," she said.

An appearance by Ms. Coulter earlier in the week at the University of Western Ontario packed an auditorium, including some hecklers. President Amit Chakma said school police met in advance with the person handling Ms. Coulter's security, but the university did not contact her to discuss the content of the talk.

University of Calgary provost Alan Harrison told reporters at a hastily called news conference that the school had "significantly augmented" security plans in light of what happened in Ottawa. Her address was moved to a room that can accommodate 800 people, from a lecture hall for 400.

"If we try to suppress people's views simply because we don't agree with them we're doing two things," he said. "We're acting contrary to what the university stands for, and also frankly, we're providing increased publicity for the person who's spreading those views. That's not our purpose. Our purpose is to give her the same respect that everybody else deserves."

Rainer Knopff, a political scientist at the University of Calgary who is known for his conservative views as part of the so-called Calgary School, helped arrange the event for organizers, although he's not familiar with Ms. Coulter's work. In light of what happened in Ottawa, he's not surprised by the increased interest in Calgary.

"We've tended at the University of Calgary so far to have contentious speakers get at least a civil reception on all sides of the political divide," Prof. Knopff said.

[Martinus]

What an extremely one-sided article (and no source as well, so no way to assess its credibility). Only one person supporting the decision quoted, and that person is not even named.

But the explanation that person gives:

The decision to cancel the talk was cheered by some of her opponents. "I was just worried that things were going to be said about certain groups of people that were going to make them feel very unsafe and very uncomfortable," a student protester said.

Is the one most sensible in the article. The university may be a forum of free academic debate, but it is not a Hyde park or an agora where everyone may come to spout their nonsense, however vile and offensive. It is a community of various people, meeting in mutual respect - Ann Coulter's track record shows she does not respect other groups of people, but rather singles them out for her abusive language. I don't see why such a circus freak should be treated with "respect" or given a pulpit to speak.

[Barrister]

I don't see why such a circus freak should be treated with "respect" or given a pulpit to speak.

I know you don't.  And that's a real shame.

[Martinus]

Speaking of which, it seems Texas universities don't respect freedom of expression either:

Security Concerns Change Gay Jesus Play
By Julie Bolcer


Tarleton State University in Texas has made changes to the start time and audience composition of a play that portrays Jesus as gay in response to security worries.

The Terrence McNally play, "Corpus Christi," was to be performed Saturday at 4 p.m. on the campus in Stephenville, about 70 miles southwest of Fort Worth. Critics assailed the play as blasphemous.

According to the Associated Press, a news release provided Thursday "says the student-produced play will now start at 8 a.m. Saturday. A private audience of invited guests and relatives of the cast will be the only people allowed to watch the play, the school said."

The statement from TSU said the school "has a responsibility to provide a safe and secure educational environmental for students, faculty, staff and visitors."

www.advocate.com

[The Minsky Moment]

I would like to know if any Muslim has been treated this badly, at least since the Reformation, because I am drawing a blank," Ms. Coulter told The Globe and Mail after the talk was cancelled

It is fortunate for Coulter that MR is not contagious, because that would have given the university a perfectly valid excuse to bar her from campus.

[Malthus]

I'm ususally the first the mock the universities for their limp committment to free speech.

It seems to me from reading various accounts that the main offence the university admin gave here was writing an absurd letter "reminding" her of Canada's hate-speech laws. This had more or less the same effect as handing a circus clown a cream-filled pie - she smooshed it all over their collective faces.

Coulter's own organizers apparently cancelled the talk, it wasn't an "offical university" cancellation. Again, arguably the universities' 'crime' in that case was not censorship, but failing to provide adequate security.

In short, Coulter (or her supporters) has taken a bunch of incompetent bumbling by the university admin, and the usual bullshit from student protestors, and successfully manufactured an issue out of it in which she emerges as a hero of free speech. The university admin (and students) are at fault for handing her the ammo, to be sure.

I'll say this for her: as a troll, she could teach Jaron some tricks.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

Now that I've done some outside of Languish reading about this. I have to say what malthus says above me here is absolutely correct. the clown/cream pie analogy being extremely apt in the circumstances.