Well said...
Ottawa, but you know what? Given the embarrassment that Ottawa has the rest of the time, we can leave that the way it is, lol.
Ann Coulter upsetting people....again
- Thread starter #juan
- Start date
No worries wulfie. You gave Ottawa a much needed break from being the butt of the joke.
I see that as an humanitarian act...;-)
"This situation is an embarassment to the entire nation but even moreso to the University of Western Ontario"
If you were a Muslim and was told to fly a carpet and not be allowed on an Air plane because you are a Muslim, that is not only an embarrassing statement directed to you, also to your routes identity. The University had the guts to stop a bigot in her track...
Okay ... so she's politically incorrect. Who goes into a place where they know political incorrectness is going to float about and expects Mary Poppins?
Do you even do any reading? Are you actually capable of cognitive, critical, rational or comprehensive thought?
U of O did not cancel her speaking engagement, she chose to cancel the event out of fears for her safety.
I fully understand how you, someone who's obviously a franchise member of the morally bankrupt left, would support fascism, violence and censoring free speech, being a Liberal and all. But you could at least get the story right.
lmao You've got high hopes, huh?
"To dream the impossible dream
To fight the unbeatable foe
To bear with unbearable sorrow
To run where the brave dare not go"
Yes, she was way out of line to be so insulting. Intimidating her though is not the solution, and just makes the other side look just as fanatical if not more so.
The best way to deal with her is through open, respectful, and rational albeit critical discussion, even if she does not return the respect (which would just look bad on her in the end).
And again, it's not the university that stopped her, but certain students who decided to drop to her level if not lower still, giving her free publicity and sympathy. It certainly did not have the intended effect.
More so...
Yep...
And again, it's not the university that stopped her, but certain students who decided to drop to her level if not lower still,[/quote]Even lower, when you consider she doesn't use violence to convey her ideology.
But that won't stop the stupid from spraining their collective wrists, patting themselves on the back.
Coulter and Galloway is quite a fair comparison.
Coulter has been allowed to speak in Canada; Galloway was not. The assertion that Galloway has broken Canadian law is moot. Does Canadian law extend to British MPs? And even if it did, which clearly it does not, has the Canadian Government laid formal charges? No it has not! Has it sought Galloway's extradition from the United Kingdom? Another resounding "No!" Is there the presumption of innocence in Canada even if charges were laid? Of course!
Is the Canadian Government within its rights to deny entry to any foreign national regardless of cause? Yes. But to argue that issues of Free Speech are not arbitrated base on the ideology is to miss the point!
Coulter has been allowed to speak in Canada; Galloway was not. The assertion that Galloway has broken Canadian law is moot. Does Canadian law extend to British MPs? And even if it did, which clearly it does not, has the Canadian Government laid formal charges? No it has not! Has it sought Galloway's extradition from the United Kingdom? Another resounding "No!" Is there the presumption of innocence in Canada even if charges were laid? Of course!
Is the Canadian Government within its rights to deny entry to any foreign national regardless of cause? Yes. But to argue that issues of Free Speech are not arbitrated base on the ideology is to miss the point!
No it isn't. Coulter has not contributed to a known and listed terrorist organization, Galloway has.
And here's why, one has acted in contrary to our laws, the other has not. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
Wishful thinking won't help your argument.
It extends to anyone wishing to enter the country. As it would in reverse. Again, how is this not commonsense to you?
Doesn't have to. You can be denied entry into Canada if you have a criminal record, or there is proof you have in someway acted in contrary to our laws.
Right because it doesn't have to.
Not at all. This is your ideology trying to justify the absurd, not the facts of the matter.
Great, so you just proved your argument is moot. Good call.
BS.
Hundreds of speakers come to Canada that say virtually the same thing Galloway does. Nice try though.
Last edited:
on the subject of Galloway:
1. Has he indeed been proven to have violated a Canadian law?
2. Was that law violated on Canadian soil and, if not, what extraterritorial laws apply?
3. If he has indeed violated a Canadian law either on Canadian soil or as it may apply to Canada's extraterritorial laws, then why not welcome him to Canada so that we could arrest him?
Now for an elaboration:
1. Has he indeed been proven to have violated a Canadian law?
Even non-citizens are entitled to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Now if there is something I don't know here such as he's confessed to such a crime or that we do in fact have evidence already, then why would we not welcome him to Canada so that we could arrest him? And if we don't care to arrest him, then why are we negligent in the enforcement of our laws?
2. Was that law violated on Canadian soil and, if not, what extraterritorial laws apply?
Since the end of the age of empires, extraterritorial laws has died out for the most part. There are exceptions of course. For example, a Canadian citizen who engages in pedophilia abroad can be charged in Canada even if he did not commit the crime on Canadian soil. I don't know if this law applies to non-Canadian citizens though, but at the very least I'm sure Canada would extradite such a person to his own country.
We see this too with US citizens going to Cuba. Again, though this law applies exclusively to US citizens who are US citizens atthe time the act is committed.
As for extraterritorial laws with regards to the funding of terrorist organizations, if this applies to non-citizens too, then should Canada not request that its allies turn over all such persons, or at the very remove their voting and governing rights until such a time as they cease and desist from such an act?
It seems strange to me that Galloway would be in violation of Canadian laws yet not of the laws of another country committed to fighting terrorism. If that is indeed true, then should the Canadian government not question the UK's sincerity in its commitment to fighting terrorism?
It just seems a little suspicious there. I'm not saying that the government stuck its nose into this issue necessarily, but clearly there is some glitch in the bureaucracy if he can be an MP in an allied country against terrorism yet be considered to be funding terrorism by Canadian standards.
3. If he has indeed violated a Canadian law either on Canadian soil or as it may apply to Canada's extraterritorial laws, then why not welcome him to Canada so that we could arrest him?
Should Canada not enforce its laws?
1. Has he indeed been proven to have violated a Canadian law?
2. Was that law violated on Canadian soil and, if not, what extraterritorial laws apply?
3. If he has indeed violated a Canadian law either on Canadian soil or as it may apply to Canada's extraterritorial laws, then why not welcome him to Canada so that we could arrest him?
Now for an elaboration:
1. Has he indeed been proven to have violated a Canadian law?
Even non-citizens are entitled to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Now if there is something I don't know here such as he's confessed to such a crime or that we do in fact have evidence already, then why would we not welcome him to Canada so that we could arrest him? And if we don't care to arrest him, then why are we negligent in the enforcement of our laws?
2. Was that law violated on Canadian soil and, if not, what extraterritorial laws apply?
Since the end of the age of empires, extraterritorial laws has died out for the most part. There are exceptions of course. For example, a Canadian citizen who engages in pedophilia abroad can be charged in Canada even if he did not commit the crime on Canadian soil. I don't know if this law applies to non-Canadian citizens though, but at the very least I'm sure Canada would extradite such a person to his own country.
We see this too with US citizens going to Cuba. Again, though this law applies exclusively to US citizens who are US citizens atthe time the act is committed.
As for extraterritorial laws with regards to the funding of terrorist organizations, if this applies to non-citizens too, then should Canada not request that its allies turn over all such persons, or at the very remove their voting and governing rights until such a time as they cease and desist from such an act?
It seems strange to me that Galloway would be in violation of Canadian laws yet not of the laws of another country committed to fighting terrorism. If that is indeed true, then should the Canadian government not question the UK's sincerity in its commitment to fighting terrorism?
It just seems a little suspicious there. I'm not saying that the government stuck its nose into this issue necessarily, but clearly there is some glitch in the bureaucracy if he can be an MP in an allied country against terrorism yet be considered to be funding terrorism by Canadian standards.
3. If he has indeed violated a Canadian law either on Canadian soil or as it may apply to Canada's extraterritorial laws, then why not welcome him to Canada so that we could arrest him?
Should Canada not enforce its laws?
If I was a Muslim and asked the question, 'How am I supposed to fly, I don't have a flying carpet', then I would expect an equally flippant and stupid answer. Which is what she got.
But your main belief is that if YOU don't like what someone says, they should be banned from speaking in public. And that's a very dangerous track to follow.
Oh Give me a break.
Galloway supports terrorists. Full stop. Ask the arsehole....he is proud of it.
Secondly, Galloway is a British MP. To arrest him in Canada would cause an international incident. Why bother?
And here is the most important principle....we DO NOT need a reason to keep the SOB out. It is simply a choice, he is not a Canadian citizen, he has no right to be here....if we suspect he aids terrorists, that is all we need.......there is no burden of proof required. Or we could ban him for no reason......makes no difference.
The same principle would stand for Coulter, if we saw some reason to exclude her, or we simply felt like it for no reason at all, we could keep her out of the country, and rightfully so. However, we are quite tolerant, and there was no reason to exclude Coulter.....so we let her in.
After the shameful behaviour of "students" Canada can no longer claim that it is a land of free speech.
I always thought that universities were places where a young person could learn to listen to a dissenting view, form his/her own opinion, evaluate what the other side says and then oppose with a reasonable counter argument.
I also thought - obviously mistakenly - that these so called "students" had a sense of huomour. They seem to endorse the insane yellings of Jon Stewart or that other ar$ with the uneven ears. Or especially the worst haye-monger of them all, Bill Maher.
I have no doubt that these "students" would be totally overjoyed listening to Lois Farrakhan or Charles Manson.
I always thought that universities were places where a young person could learn to listen to a dissenting view, form his/her own opinion, evaluate what the other side says and then oppose with a reasonable counter argument.
I also thought - obviously mistakenly - that these so called "students" had a sense of huomour. They seem to endorse the insane yellings of Jon Stewart or that other ar$ with the uneven ears. Or especially the worst haye-monger of them all, Bill Maher.
I have no doubt that these "students" would be totally overjoyed listening to Lois Farrakhan or Charles Manson.
Ah I loved the comparisons you make re Galloway and Coulter and the way this thread has fleshed out - I'm glad to see the administrators allowed it back up.
Canada within my memory has invited many controversial people to speak and/or perform as artists and musicians.
The country will not be destroyed if a few unsuitables get in to do their 'work' whatever that may be and I agree Canada has every right to decide who is
permissible and who is not.
My problem is that Coulter was invited and if I understand her availability she would have been asked a considerable length of time prior to the date of her
events - especially as they involved speaking engagements at Universities.
What bothers me is Coulter's ready acceptance knowing full well her audience would be or could be used as demonstrable pawns in the game of "see we told you how awful she is"...... perhaps Coulter is used to this treatment, but I would hope people in power at the institutions of higher learning would have more discrimination about their future "invitees" as speakers or entertainers. What I saw looked more as a visit to the zoo to see the new animal....than an evening
at a University.
Young unformed minds can easily be caught up in an exceptional moment, or an exceptional phrase and adopt it personally as having much meaning....
Coulter was not a good choice for that venue - but the University and the original conservative groups knew the outcome and continued in spite of it.
It was wrong and while young conservative students are eager to learn and hear - I think the primary play from the podium was always to make a mockery out of the invitee.
All people should be accorded podiums from which to speak - without threat of harrassment - and especially within the walls of higher learning. Even Coulter.
I hope all concerned "got" something from this exercise - learned how little they learned perhaps - and justified their behavior by their extreme need to belong to
a group whether positive or not.
I would consider this a waste of upcoming brain power for the nation - while at the same time raising the lurking question: What was the University's goal here????
Learning new ideas - or cementing political ideology through harrassment.
If the young are brought up hearing only one part of any issue concerning the best for a nation, their capacity for acceptance of change or new thought remains stunted and rooted in fear (as they were taught).
A healthy nation teaches all choices and lets the students work out solutions together. For future survival.
Canada within my memory has invited many controversial people to speak and/or perform as artists and musicians.
The country will not be destroyed if a few unsuitables get in to do their 'work' whatever that may be and I agree Canada has every right to decide who is
permissible and who is not.
My problem is that Coulter was invited and if I understand her availability she would have been asked a considerable length of time prior to the date of her
events - especially as they involved speaking engagements at Universities.
What bothers me is Coulter's ready acceptance knowing full well her audience would be or could be used as demonstrable pawns in the game of "see we told you how awful she is"...... perhaps Coulter is used to this treatment, but I would hope people in power at the institutions of higher learning would have more discrimination about their future "invitees" as speakers or entertainers. What I saw looked more as a visit to the zoo to see the new animal....than an evening
at a University.
Young unformed minds can easily be caught up in an exceptional moment, or an exceptional phrase and adopt it personally as having much meaning....
Coulter was not a good choice for that venue - but the University and the original conservative groups knew the outcome and continued in spite of it.
It was wrong and while young conservative students are eager to learn and hear - I think the primary play from the podium was always to make a mockery out of the invitee.
All people should be accorded podiums from which to speak - without threat of harrassment - and especially within the walls of higher learning. Even Coulter.
I hope all concerned "got" something from this exercise - learned how little they learned perhaps - and justified their behavior by their extreme need to belong to
a group whether positive or not.
I would consider this a waste of upcoming brain power for the nation - while at the same time raising the lurking question: What was the University's goal here????
Learning new ideas - or cementing political ideology through harrassment.
If the young are brought up hearing only one part of any issue concerning the best for a nation, their capacity for acceptance of change or new thought remains stunted and rooted in fear (as they were taught).
A healthy nation teaches all choices and lets the students work out solutions together. For future survival.
Just so I understand this correctly:
The PMO ought to be free to decide on a whim who enters and who doesn't?
In a democracy, I don't think so. We decide collectively, directly through voting, and indirectly through our representatives enacting legislation defining who can enter and who cannot. In that way, we decide collectively as a democratic people who can come in ad who cannot. Whether Galloway can enter Canada or not should not be at the whim of the PMO, but rather in accordance to established legislation parliament has agreed to.
No you say Galloway has indeed violated Canadian laws. Fair enough. But if he's violated the law, then the right thing to do is not to tell him he can't come into the country, but rather to warn him that he have a warrant out for his arrest, even requesting that he come.
Also, if indeed he has violated a Canadian law, seeing that the UK is supposedly an ally, we should formally request extradition.
Either he's a criminal or he isn't. We can't have it both ways. If he's not a criminal, then as long as he meets whatever established requirement to enter the country, we should let him in. If he is a criminal, then we ought to prosecute. Which shall it be? Or are some foreign nationals more equal than others in Canadian law? If that's the case, then let's legislate accordingly, making it clear that foreign government representatives are granted diplomatic immunity from Canada's counter-terrorism laws. Of course if that's the case, why was Saddam Hussain not exempt?
No matter how we cut it, we need to follow through with the same standard for all. Our refusal to grant him entry is suspicious at best.
I will grant you this: certainly Galloway's culpability under Canadian law is in doubt. he did, however, transgress in violating the principle of Canadian law.....and it was correct to keep him out.
Yes, the PMO can decide unilaterally who to refuse entry, and who not to refuse entry.....as can every border guard in the Border Services Agency......with or without cause. It is the nature of borders.
And you have already democratically elected the CPC and the PM, who can then decide who gets in....or not. No explanation necessary.
No that is not,
the Muslim mind is aware that humanity is divided, it has been for thousands of years when it comes to religion.
Were ever there is division there is no communication, like you cut a wire electricity doesn’t go to the other cut part, I hope we are together on this example, so the Muslim identity is one part of the wire, the other part is Christianity, the division between the two is the cut and, THE instrument used to cut that wire is Ann Coulter and many others like her, a ROOM full of these cutting instruments.
So……. if you not understand this division, your example of humour will not work with the Muslim ethnicity.
It is not that I don't like what she said, the students don't need a person like her who has very limited understanding of humanity and they showed their protest.
What, it is illegal for the students to protest her presence, and it is humours her making racist remarks? Come on , what is this world have come too?
Ann Coulter is a rightwing nut bar that espouses to Elitist thinking and that is a load of crap. Typical Elitism I have more rights because I am not a minority in my country. That simply confirms that in Conservetivisem "equality" is not an important word.
Her crew new that if she was going to go through with her stupid racist dribble she would have been tomatoed or pied, good call on their part. I called here names and I am sure the students called here worse. Nothing dangerous about me. I love all people until such time one will try to cause harm.:smile: