Ann Coulter

[emzie]

Thank you, Oda Nobunaga. May I add that Canada's defining phrase is "Peace, Order, and Good Government?"

Well, we're currently at war with Afghanistan, lots of people don't trust taser-happy Mounties, and I would certainly not call what we have either in Edmonton or Ottawa "good government."

But the thing is, Ann Coulter can believe anything she likes. She can think anything she likes. She can spout that hateful stuff in private conversations and in any social situation allowed by the American government - as long as she does so IN THE UNITED STATES.

In Canada she may still believe and think as she wants, say whatever she wants in private conversations... but a speech on a college campus is NOT a private conversation. It's a public venue, partially funded by the government. Therefore, government-mandated hate speech laws apply and she should have acknowledged with a 'thank you' the official who reminded her of our laws and revised her speech accordingly.

There would have been much more humour in not reminding her and then arresting her. That would have made my day.

As to our ideas of speech and expression... there are criticisms to be made towards our handling of public expression. Under the guise of threat of hate speech and human rights complaints, debate can be stifled and this is very troubling. What comes directly to mind is the whole controversy over Maclean's, which was ludicrous.

I have no problem with statues designed to stop slander from occurring against an identifiable group of people, be them Muslims, Jews, native peoples or Quebecois. Yes, the issue of slander is a valid one, the issue of offence is not. No one should ever threaten me with a fine for saying or printing something along the lines of "Quebecois are freeloading off of Canada" (don't bite me Oda, I don't think this!) or "Muslims aren't integrating into Canadian society." Contrast this with something slanderous, "Islam is a backwards religion... blah blah blah... pedophile... blah blah blah... kill us all... blah blah blah... should be expelled from Canada." where we've moved into both slanderous and incitement.

Of course there's a fine line here too. There are legitimate criticisms of Islam that really will offend many Muslims. They should still be voiced as so long as the intent is to discuss the criticism and not dump on Muslims.

 

[Tarquelne]

Everything else is in-between, and where you draw the line depend largely on how much you value individualism vs social peace.

Hear hear!

You can have problems in either direction. And it's not just about individualism vs. social pace. Tighter laws can result in less misinformation - too tight and you get less information. Loose laws can result in more misinformation, or just more information.

One way relies on good government, the other on a discerning public.

So you're screwed either way, really.

 

[Evie]

So you're screwed either way, really.

That's life in a nutshell, isn't it?

Contre - yeah, there is definitely an issue with "offense" and the way the Human Rights Comission handle complaints (by a handful of serial complainers, largely) that need improved a bit. The way the Criminal Code handle things, though, I'm all for.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

There would have been much more humour in not reminding her and then arresting her. That would have made my day.

As to our ideas of speech and expression... there are criticisms to be made towards our handling of public expression. Under the guise of threat of hate speech and human rights complaints, debate can be stifled and this is very troubling. What comes directly to mind is the whole controversy over Maclean's, which was ludicrous.

What was the Maclean's incident about? I don't remember that.