Does Canada breed a lot of Â far left nutbags like this one?
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.
“In Canada we don’t have freedom, Â not free speech, not rugged individualism, students sign off on diversity, equity and those are the things that drive our political culture….”
Quote of the Day:
“Every time a leftist says it’s about respect, restraint, and civility, the object of that is to criminalize your opinion and make conservative arguments impossible.” — Mark Steyn
Some of our posters suggested I watch Generation Jihad Ep 3 on SBS. I thought the interviewer was hopelessly clueless and the whole thing going nowhere. What do you think?
- Here we got Nonie Darwish: My Princeton Experience
Is it true that Â Canadians remain colonials while Americans are still pioneers?
The great problem in this country isn’t that professional drivelists like Susan Cole would presume to speak on our behalf about the things that do or do not constitute our rights and freedoms, but that her mindless babbling is repeated ad nauseum by those who profess to be “in the know.”
She might as well have said:
“We don’t deserve free speech. Canadians have willingly signed off on all kinds of rights and freedoms to respect diversity, equity, and all of the other meaningless values that their governments tell them they should really care about. This is the thing that permit sour governments to drive our mindless masses. Not freedoms, not rugged individualism, not free speech. It’s different, and for our governments, it works.” Â From Mark Steyn
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 FranÃ§ois 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 â€” “Dear Miss Coulter, we’re delighted you’re coming, but please don’t slurp the soup” â€” 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 â€” oh, what’s the ‘respectful and civil’ way of putting it? â€” 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 â€” 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.
In other news:
- Another UN-stinker slams Israel: Former Canadian diplomat Robert Fowler has slammed Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s foreign policy,
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.