Written by Paul Fromm
Saturday, 27 March 2010 08:11
*Watching the Mob at Work: Two Eyewitnesses of the Shutting Down of Ann
Colter's Talk in Ottawa*

*Our democracy is absolutely farcical and we cannot continue to have faith
in Conservatives to guard such precious values for us. This is exactly what
happened to the Plains of Abraham celebrations. This government allows a
minority (of thugs and terrorists) to rule over the majority!*


*---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Andrew Phillips *

To this message from my fellow Libertarian I can only add my own experience
last night. After waiting patiently for almost 2 hours for the doors to open
I was told that while I had ordered a ticket online my name was not on the
list for admission. As such I wasn't allowed into the hall to hear Ms
Coulter give her presentation. That was a fair call on the part of the
organizers and I took my not being allowed to enter in good spirits as I had
not received a confirmation email that my request had been received in time.
I arrived at about 5:45 pm. and there was a small group patiently waiting
for the doors to open. When I left it was 7:20 pm. and the crowd waiting to
hear Ms. Coulter speak stretched around almost three sides of Marion Hall. I
saw no disruptive behaviour anywhere so whatever took place happened after.
Imagine my surprise to wake up and find out that Ms Coulter wasn't even
allowed to speak because of demonstrations by people who have decided they
and only they can say who can and who cannot be heard in Canada. It should
certainly have you in the media questioned what manner of goons we are
creating who appear to follow the rules of what Abe Lincoln once referred to
as "mob" law. Last night at Ottawa University Canada's reputation as a
civilized nation might well have suffered a grievous, of not deadly, body
blow in the eyes of anyone who appreciates the need for open debate as a
forum for change. Were the actions that lead to the cancellation planned, if
so by whom, and will they be charged under the law?

Since federal money (our money) is given to those institutions it would
seem an RCMP investigation is warranted to get to the bottom of this and
find if it was pre-arranged. Given the letter the Provost Mr Houle wrote
that appeared in the news I think there is a good place to start any inquiry
into what happened. If Mr. Houle did have anything to do with this situation
I would expect him to be charged under the proper legal statute. That people
who may erroneously think of themselves as our future leaders can decide ,
on their own, who has the right to speak with all this taking place at
public expense is absolutely unacceptable and they should be expelled and
the student council dissolved. At the very least the federal Government
should reconsider any and all funding to these institutions until it is
found out just what it is they are teaching them. In fact it might not be a
bad idea to also look at our public school system and secondary school
systems as well. As it stands at the moment if this is what our money is
producing I want my part of it back. Lastly it appears it's time to change,
not our national anthem, but our flag. Let us take off the Maple Leaf and
replace it with a banana. This would be so much more in keeping as a symbol
of what our nation is becoming.

Andrew Phillips - Libertarian Party of Canada - Ontario Libertarian Party

----- Original Message -----
From: Sue Reid
To: Scott - M.P. Reid ; Prime Minister Minister ;
**[email protected]*<[email protected]>
* ; **[email protected]* <[email protected]>* ; **
[email protected]* <[email protected]>* ; ; **
[email protected]* <[email protected]>* ; **
[email protected]* <[email protected]>*
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 10:16 AM
Subject: Reply Required*


*I went to the University of Ottawa last night, to listen to Anne Colter
speak. It is my understanding that my tax dollars support the U of O and
therefore pay the salary of the Provost Houle. I trust that he will be held
accountable for the expense he caused to the taxpayer for policing last
night, and for instigating the shameful behavior of a group of thugs who
prevented the rest of us from hearing Miss Coulter.*

*There were not 2000 protesters there last night as reported by some news
outlets. There was, as I have already said, a group of radical anarchists
who prevented the majority of us from exercising our rights to enter that
building unmolested and hear the scheduled speakers. Though the police were
there they did nothing to stop the
illegal actives of these un-permitted protesters or to remove them. I
know what happens when anti-abortionists get too close to those abortion
clinic doors - they're arrested - but apparently it's okay. if you're a
member of a radical far left gang who uses threats and intimidation to
disrupt the civil liberties of others- namely the multitude of attendees
who peacefully gathered to hear Miss Colter speak.*
*I want - no I demand - that Provost Houle be fired immediately. It is
precisely his kind of Progressive, Marxist ideology fully displayed in his
threatening letter to Miss Colter -and taught in our schools at all levels
today which produces, and will continue, to produce ever increasing degrees
of radicalism which inevitably leads to violent clashes. I know. I come
from the sixties. I witnessed the Detroit riots. I studied Saul Alinsky
and followed the Weather Underground. I saw first hand the civil unrest
and violence whipped up by these radical Marxists who disguise themselves
as do-gooders seeking social justice. Social justice, by the way, is the
code now
used for Progressivism which by the their own admission espouses Marxist
ideology. This is dangerous territory Houle is leading his students into
and it will be law abiding tax payers who will suffer in the end. *
*There are only two possibilities for the letter Houle wrote to Colter.
One, he is ignorant of history and politics or he is a Progressive.
Either way there is no place in our taxpayer funded school system for him
to exercise his personal agenda. However, as long as this is still a free
society he is welcome to **open his own school anywhere in Canada he
wishes. Perhaps he could call it The U of Cloward and Piven. If you are
not familiar with them, I suggest you look them up as they are who we are
contending with right now.*

*I want to see some leadership out of Ottawa and Toronto; leadership which
actually defends the rights of its law abiding citizens, not places them in
harms way at the hands of an unruly few. This entire incident is nothing
but shameful and all levels of government need to stand up and say that we
will not tolerate such behavior.*

*I would also like an answer as to why the police did not expel those
people who illegally blocked our entry, something you can be sure they'd
have done if it had been a door to an abortion clinic.*

*Sue Reid
Lanark, Ont*
Written by Paul Fromm
Thursday, 25 March 2010 09:41
The creepy tyranny of Canada's hate speech laws
By Glenn Greenwald

*(updated below - Update II)*

I've written many times
the evils
of "hate speech"
are prevalent in
Canada <> and
Europe <> -- people
being fined, prosecuted and hauled before official
expressing political opinions which the State has prohibited and
criminalized. I won't rehash those arguments here, but I do want to note a
particularly creepy illustration of how these laws manifest. The far-right
hatemonger Ann Coulter was invited by a campus conservative group to speak
at the University of Ottawa, and the Vice Provost of that college sent
Coulter a letter
<>warning her
that she may be subject to criminal prosecution if the views she
expresses fall into the realm of prohibited viewpoints:

Dear Ms. Coulter,

I understand that you have been invited by University of Ottawa Campus
Conservatives to speak at the University of Ottawa this coming Tuesday. . .

I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our
domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression
(or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach
taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself,
if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so 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.* Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws
also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which
you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our
campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind. . . .

Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance,
seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact,
lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful,
reasoned and intelligent one as well.

I hope you will enjoy your stay in our beautiful country, city and campus.


Francois Houle,

Vice-President Academic and Provost, University of Ottawa

Personally, I think threatening someone with criminal prosecution for the
political views they might express is quite "hateful." So, too, is
anointing oneself the arbiter of what is and is not sufficiently "civilized
discussion" to the point of using the force of criminal law to enforce it.
If I were administering Canada's intrinsically subjective "hate speech"
laws (and I never would), I'd consider prosecuting Provost Houle for this
letter. The hubris required to believe that you can declare certain views
so objectively hateful that they should be criminalized is astronomical; in
so many eras, views that were most scorned by majorities ended up emerging
as truth.

For as long as I'll live, I'll never understand how people want to vest in
the Government the power to *criminalize* particular viewpoints it dislikes,
will never understand the view that it's better to try to suppress adverse
beliefs than to air them, and will especially never understand people's
failure to realize that endorsing this power will, one day, very likely
result in their own views being criminalized when their political enemies
(rather than allies) are empowered. Who would ever want to empower
officious technocrats to issue warnings along the lines of: *be
forewarned: if you express certain political views, you may be committing a
crime; guide and restrict yourself* *accordingly*? I obviously devote a
substantial amount of my time and energy to critiquing the actions of
the U.S. Government, but the robust free speech protection guaranteed by the
First Amendment and largely protected by American
courts<>continues to be one
of the best features of American political culture.

*UPDATE*: When Noam Chomsky (yes, I'm quoting him twice in one day) is
asked whether he thinks America is irrevocably broken and/or whether its
political process has any extremely positive features, he typically says --
as he did in this 2005
interview<>: "In
other dimensions, the U.S. is very free. For example, *freedom of speech is
protected in the United States to an extent that is unique in the world*."
That's the critical point: as long as the State is absolutely barred from
criminalizing political views, then any change remains possible because
citizens are free to communicate with and persuade one another and express
their political opinions without being threatened by the Government with
criminal sanctions of the kind Provost Houle conveyed here and which are not
infrequently issued by numerous other Canadian and European functionaries.

*UPDATE II*: Just to underscore the point: last year, Canada banned the
vehemently anti-war, left-wing British MP George Galloway from entering
their country<>,
on extremely dubious "national security" grounds. Galloway is a vociferous
critic of Canada's involvement in the war in Afghanistan as well a defender
of Hamas, which were clearly the bases for his exclusion. Though that was
under a different law than the one with which Coulter is threatened,
that's always the result of this mindset: those defending these sorts of
speech restrictions always foolishly think that the restrictions will be
confined to those views which they dislike, and then are astonished and
outraged when these censorship powers are turned against views with which
they agree (the Bush administration sought to exclude Muslim scholars from
the U.S.<>who
were critical of its wars based on the same rationale).

To see how a genuinely principled individual thinks about such things, see this
comment from a right-wing
the exclusion of Galloway despite the fact that he finds Galloway's
left-wing views noxious in the extreme. In 2006, Newt Gingrich advocated
that free speech rights should be
"radical Muslims" because they were preaching dangerous "hatred,"
which Gingrich wanted criminalized. Those who defend "hate speech" laws
like the ones in Canada and Europe are Gingrich's like-minded comrades, even
if they want to criminalize different views than the ones Gingrich happened
to be targeting.
Written by Paul Fromm
Thursday, 25 March 2010 09:40
*Canadian Association for Free Expression*

*Box 332,*

*Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3*

*Ph: 905-274-3868; FAX: 905-278-2413*

* *

March 24, 2010

The Editor.

*Globe and Mail*,

444 Front Street, West,

Toronto, ON., M5V 2S9
* BY FAX: 416-585-5085* (FOR PUBLICATION)

Dear Sir:

What’s the distance from the Washington, D.C home of conservative gadfly and
controversialist Ann Coulter and hotbeds intellectual freedom like Pyongyang
and Rangoon? About 500 miles -- the distance to the University of Ottawa and
its Red Guards and censorious administration.

What a sorry banana republic we have become.

Tuesday night, a riotous crowd that press estimates put at between 300 and
2,000 forced organizers to cancel a speech by Miss Coulter

The street thug opponents of free thought had all but been given the okay
from the top.

Francois Houle, the Vice Provost of the University had written Coulter
warning her not to offend any thin-skinned minority: ""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. ... I
therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words
with respect and civility in mind. . . .Hopefully, you will understand and
agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to
freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized
discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well."

Well, of course, there was no reasoned or civil discussion on campus, the
Red Guards saw to that. It will be interesting what, if anything, the
politically correct administration operatives do about them.

Sincerely yours,

Paul Fromm

<< Start < Prev 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 Next > End >>
Page 91 of 142
Powered by MMS Blog