...We may soon forget the particulars of her whirlwind visit, but Coulter's name is bound to be synonymous with the free speech debate for the foreseeable future.
As much as we might like to move on, there were some important lessons that we ought not forget.
One of those is that universities ought to be a place where controversial views can be aired and debated.
The Canadian Association of University Teachers said as much in criticizing the University of Ottawa's handling of the Coulter situatuion, saying the university failed to "strongly support" freedom of expression and vigorous debate.
Ironically, while some were bemoaning how inappropriate it was for a university to such a controversial speaker, Canadians were subjected last week to some rather controversial views, expressed in a letter from 16 professors at the University of Regina.
The professors called on the university to withdraw from "Project Hero", which provides financial assistance to the children of military personnel killed in action.
Among the professors' demands was that the university host a public forum on the war in Afghanistan and "Canadian imperialism".
I'd have to say the phrase "Canadian imperialism" is far more ridiculous and offensive than anything conjured up in Coulter's mischievious mind, yet no aggrieved Canadians made any attempt to silence these professors.
I also suspect that a great many of those who wished to censor Coulter were quite sympathetic to the views - and the freedom of speech - of the Regina 16.
In fact, this crowd has been remarkably silent about the long list of controversial speakers who regularly speak at Canadian universities.
British MP George Galloway was to have spoken at both the University of Toronto and Concordia University. Former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers was invited to speak at the University of Toronto (both men were denied (wrongly, in my view) entry into Canada).
Other examples abound: Ward Churchill, who described 9/11 victims as as "little Eichmanns", spoke last year at Concordia.
The annual Israel-bashing "Israeli Apartheid Week" (IAW) features all sorts of objectionable speakers. Last year, Khaled Mouammar, the controversial president of the Canadian Arab Federation, spoke at York University. A virulent anti-Israel writer named Omar Barghouti spoke at the University of Ottawa.
The "silence Ann Coulter" mob is awfully free-speechy about radicals with whom they share opinions.
That's not to say there isn't room for protests - there must be. We need to be clear, however, about when legitimate protest crosses the line to illegal vandalism and inappropriate intimidation.
But even peaceful, legitimate protestors should consider whether their tactics are merely playing into the hands of those they are protesting.
Earlier this month, members of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) gathered on a street corner at the University of Illinois at Chicago. The WBC is notorious for its "God Hates Fags" and "Thank God for 9/11" slogans.
A group of students cleverly set up nearby and solicited donations for gay organizations. The donations were made in the WBC's name, and thank you cards were sent to church leader Fred Phelps.
Imagine how different the coverage would have been if anti-Coulter protestors had acted similarly and not resorted to such churlish behavior. Of course, none of these issues are new. The problem is we don't talk about them as much as we should.
Last week, for example, Senator Douglas Finley called for further inquiry into "the erosion of freedom of speech in our country". An important issue irrespective of the Coulter kerfuffle, but a call that might not have otherwise been made.
It might seem at times as though there are a handful of us who obsess over this issue. But given the right circumstances, we can see that a great many Canadians still care deeply about freedom of expression.
A BC Human Rights Tribunal hearing began today for comedian Guy Earle on whether he went too far in responding to a pair of hecklers. The hecklers happen to be lesbians, and Earle's comments definitely made reference of that fact.
We discussed this case at the beginning of February - you can read more here, and also listen to our interview at the time with Guy Earle.
...on Monday the standup-comedy routine that took place May 22, 2007, in Zesty's Restaurant on Commercial Drive landed in the tight quarters of hearing Room Four of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.
Toronto comedian Guy Earle is being sued by Vancouver airport meteorological technician Lorna Pardy, 32. under Section 8 of the B.C. Human Rights Code. Her complaint alleges that he discriminated against her on the basis of her sexuality by subjecting her and her lesbian partner to sexually graphic and demeaning remarks during and after his routine.
(...) However, before any evidence was presented, the lawyer representing Earle walked out of the hearing claiming the process was illegal.
Jim Millar, an experienced Vancouver lawyer, left after failing to convince tribunal member Murray Geiger-Adams that the issue of whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to accept the complaint should be dealt with before — not after — the evidence had been presented.
Here's what Millar told reporters after storming out of the hearing:
We, of course, are all now familiar with how student protestors at the University of Ottawa - and to some extent at the University of Calgary - responded to the presence of Ann Coulter.
They abhor Ann Coulter's views and tried to prevent her coming to speak in the first place, and then showed up on the night of her speech intent on shutting it down (mission accomplished).
Not only did that show an utter disregard for freedom of speech, it was entirely counterproductive: serving only to generate more attention for Ann Coulter.
Here's a student who gets it, and offers an approach which is much more effective. This is a student at the University of Illinois at Chicago confronting the notorious Westboro Baptist Church:
A famous Indian guru used his television show to boast about his power to kill other men using only a mystic ritual. So the head on the Indian Rationalist Association offered himself up as a sacrificial lamb.
Sanal Edamaruku volunteered himself for the ritual because he wanted to expose the guru as one of many spiritual con men roaming the country.
Further to yesterday's coverage of the shameful behavior at the University of Ottawa Tuesday night which led to the cancellation of Ann Coulter's speech, we have yet another embarrassment to deal with.
On the Fox News Channel today, NOW Toronto columnist Susan G. Cole was interviewed, essentially saying that Coulter got what she deserved.
Now, Ms. Cole is certainly entitled to her views, but what you'll notice in the interview is how frequently she speaks on behalf of the entire country - how "we" view things here in Canada:
Susan G. Cole, you don't speak for me, and you don't speak for millions of Canadians. In fact, you do this great country a disservice by misrepresenting our strong and proud tradition of protecting freedom of expression.
Hopefully Ms. Cole is in the minority. Because it's not just right-wing Canadians concerned about free speech in the aftermath of this fiasco at the U of O - it's many Canadians who otherwise are diametrically opposed to Ann Coulter's views.
The University of Ottawa has always promoted and defended freedom of expression. For that reason, we did not at any time oppose Ann Coulter’s appearance. Whether it is Ann Coulter or any other speaker, diverse views have always been and continue to be welcome on our campus.
(...) “Freedom of expression is a core value that the University of Ottawa has always promoted,” said Allan Rock, President of the University. “We have a long history of hosting contentious and controversial speakers on our campus. Last night was no exception, as people gathered here to listen to and debate Ann Coulter’s opinions.
The University of Ottawa's student newspaper The Fulcrum:
Students, members of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO) executive, and at least one U of O vice-president were inspired to take action against Coulter’s presence on campus because of her reputation for disseminating extremely controversial and outrageously conservative opinions. They insinuated Coulter would promote hate speech on campus and decided it would be in all students’ best interests to stifle her provocative rhetoric.
Thanks for looking out for us.
In doing so, they managed to insult about 35,000 students. That’s not an easy task. Are we so susceptible to contentious prose that we are incapable of determining the validity of an argument for ourselves? Now, instead of allowing U of O students the opportunity to weigh the strength of her arguments, or at least the opportunity to listen to the outrageousness of her claims, they have deprived students of an excellent opportunity for debate and learning.
Members of all political stripes Wednesday denounced security threats at the University of Ottawa that forced organizers to cancel a speech by the American conservative pundit.
“I feel really bad for people that ... she has insulted, whether it is telling people to go ride a camel, etc. It is just uncalled for, but that is her right to say so,” said NDP MP Olivia Chow. “Fundamentally, I believe in freedom of speech. She should have a chance to speak.”
Liberal MP Keith Martin agreed Coulter has the right to speak, regardless of her views.
“Whatever I think of Ms. Coulter, she has a fundamental right to be able to speak in Canada. People have a right to protest; she also has a right to speak,” he said.
Yes, Ann Coulter is odious. Yes, she's a scare-monger, an articulate hothead whose fame and fortune is directly linked to her acerbic assessment of all that she deems to represent the downfall of modern civilization.
But to invite her to speak and then send her an official and not-so-subtle threatening letter suggesting she watch her mouth? To protest her appearance to the point that she's sent home in fear for her safety?
Get serious.
We either have freedom of speech, or we don't. And clearly, in some halls of higher learning, we don't.
Further thoughts on free speech on campus from the BCCLA (PDF):
"It should not be necessary for us to fight for freedom of conscience, opinion, and expression on a university campus. YPY?s point of view may be unpopular and shared by only a minority of university students, but that is precisely why both democratic and academic freedoms need to be protected."
Some of the central tenets of a university education are critical thinking, intense debate and the adventurous search for truth. Faculty and students must be free to ask challenging questions and to express provocative and even at times offensive opinions without fear of official sanction or censorship. If university campuses become places where highly controversial subjects cannot be vigorously debated and challenged through words, images and non-violent actions, then where in society can we expect freedom of expression to prevail?
And yes, I know Ms. Cole doesn't like those Americans and their "religion" of free speech, but it's worth noting what many liberal Americans are saying:
She is a vile lunatic, but she should have been given the right to speak, and then her noise should have been ripped apart with good questions, and conversation after the event. It's pretty much guaranteed that she would have said things that are stupid and outrageous and embarrassed herself — not that she'd notice, since she's shameless — but now she gets a free pass and a martyr card.
Any effort to criminalize speech is effectively criminalizing dissent. At one time it was illegal to speak publicly about birth control (Emma Goldman was arrested more than a dozen times for giving speeches on the topic), women were arrested for picketing the White House demanding white women's suffrage, and police officers have beaten African-American and white protesters for riding buses together across state lines. Criminalizing free speech most often works to the detriment of marginalized groups and is in the benefit of the powerful. During the Olympics it was illegal for Canadians to express their disagreement with their government by holding signs denigrating the Olympic symbol, even if those signs were inside their home. Once the state gets involved in legislating opinions we are in slippery slope territory.
Coulter is a shock jock and a mere flash in the pan of our public discourse. She will be forgotten about and the world will be better for it. But we should be careful about the desire to criminalize views that we disagree with, because those remain long after the person they were meant to protect us from.
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
(...)
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
Way to go, Canada! You've achieved the nearly-impossible, and made Ann Coulter a nearly sympathetic figure. And you've got me defending the tiresome freak. First, some functionary from one of your universities actually threatened that if she wasn't nice when she showed up in your country for her scheduled speaking engagements this week, that she could be prosecuted for her ideas, and then when your idiot mob gathered at the University of Ottawa last night and threatened violence (I must say, Canadian and violence are two words that you normally don't think of together), the local constabulary succumbed to mob justice and shut 'er down. Free speech sucks, huh, Canada?
If there's anything more depressing than a journalist arguing in favour of the suppression of free speech, it's a Canadian journalist doing so on American television and claiming, in effect, to speak for all Canadians.
As of this writing, American conservative pundit Ann Coulter will have finished speaking in front of what appears to have been a packed house at the University of Western Ontario (UPDATE: Things did get a little testy).
Coulter will be here in Calgary for an event Thursday night, but before that, she is due to speak at the University of Ottawa tomorrow night.
...A senior University of Ottawa administrator has warned [Coulter] to use "restraint, respect and consideration" when speaking at the school.
Francois Houle, vice-president academic and provost, advises Ms. Coulter, who holds a law degree, to review Canada's hate speech and defamation laws before giving her talk at the university.
In an email sent to Ms. Coulter on Friday, a copy of which has been obtained by the National Post, Mr. Houle wrote: "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."
The university, though, seems much more enlightened that the student government:
In Ottawa, the president of the student federation barred a volunteer organizer from putting up posters advertising the upcoming appearance.
"The federation does not support Ann Coulter speaking on our campus," said student president Seamus Wolfe. "We're trying to work with the administration to see if we can ask her to do her speaking event somewhere else."
Hard to get any less equivocal than that: we want Ann Coulter banned. Period. Time was that student activists on campus were among the most radical defenders of free speech. In those days, however, it was easier to maintain that posture since they were primarily defending those with whom they agree.
Of course the true test of your commitment to free speech is to what length you'll go to defend the rights of those you disagree with. On this point, today's campus "progressives" fail miserably.
From Ann Coulter to campus pro-life groups to campus pro-Israel groups we've seen example after example of viewpoints being censored or marginalized - viewpoints that all happen to run afoul of the left-wing campus political establishment.
We had invited Seamus Wolfe to come on our program to discuss this story. He responded with this statement:
With all due respect, Ann Coulter has already got enough attention. She thrives in the limelight of her false martyrdom everytime she opens her bigoted, hate-filled and violence condoning mouth and enjoys it even more when anyone calls her out on it. I would rather not continue to give her that pleasure.
A much better approach to dealing with matters such as this comes courtesy of Robyn Urback at Maclean's magazine's OnCampus blog:
Censorship is nothing but a soggy band-aid. Why cover up contentious ideology when you can potentially reason it down to irrelevance?
If you really think Coulter spews ridiculous, insulting dribble, let her hang herself with her own words. It will be a lot more effective than putting tape over her mouth and insisting that she would have been offensive.
UPDATE: Ann apparently had some fun with this controversy in her speech:
Speaking to students and academics at the University of Western Ontario Monday, Coulter said the e-mail sent to her Friday by Francois Houle, vice-president academic and provost of the University of Ottawa, targeted her as a member of an identifiable group and as such, she will be filing a complaint with the Human Rights Commission alleging hate speech.
“I’m sure the Human Rights Commission will get to the bottom of it,” Coulter said to loud cheers from the 800-strong audience. “I think I’m the victim of a hate crime here. Either what (Mr. Houle) did was a hate crime, or the whole commission is BS.”
Like with much of what Coulter has to say, it's hard to know if she's kidding.
This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at the debate over random breathalyzers (or random breath tests (RBTs)) and whether the federal government should follow through with a recommendation from the Commons Justice Committee that the law change to allow them. I argue that Ottawa should not:
...Canadians are clearly concerned about impaired driving, and supporters of RBTs maintain that allowing police to force citizens at random to provide a breath sample will help address the problem.
However, merely touting the effectiveness of a proposed police tool does not tell the whole story.
No doubt random, warrantless searches and phone taps would produce glowing crime-reduction statistics. Surely, though, no reasonable person would find that tolerable in a democratic society.
Consider, for example, random bag and locker searches at schools - wouldn't that be effective in dealing with drugs and weapons? But the debate would have nothing to do with its effectiveness and everything to do with its intrusiveness.
Indeed, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled specifically against the random use of drug-sniffing dogs in schools. The court found that it violated Section 8 of the Charter, which guarantees against unreasonable search or seizure.
The ruling also addressed the case of a man who was found with drugs in his bag at the Calgary Greyhound bus station. The court found police "did not have grounds for reasonable suspicion" when making use of a drug-sniffing dog.
It's not hard to see how such a principle could apply to RBTs. Remember, this change would eliminate the requirement for reasonable suspicion.
But is the debate here merely one between the effectiveness of RBTs and their constitutional validity? Is the effectiveness of RBTs beyond question?
On the surface there would seem to be compelling evidence. However, it's evidence complicated by the fact that virtually all relevant jurisdictions have seen substantial reductions in impaired driving over the last three decades.
In Alberta, for example, we saw a ten per cent drop in impaired driving offenses in 1993. That was followed in subsequent years by a 26 per cent drop, an 18.5 per cent drop, and a 6.5 per cent drop.
Those also happened to be the first few years of liquor privatization. Could we then credit the privatization of liquor sales for a reduction in impaired driving?
New Zealand is one of the countries which has implemented RBTs and is one of the examples often cited by those who would import the policy here.
However, the experience in New Zealand has been less than impressive. One study found that while it was expected the new law would mean an "immediate and obvious reduction in alcohol-related accidents" it was "clear that this did not happen." The reductions in 1993 - the year the law was introduced - were no different than reductions in 1991 or 1992.
Of course, one important distinction to note is that that most other countries only allow RBTs within the confines of what we would call a Checkstop.
Ottawa's proposal would allow police officers to ask anyone, anywhere, at anytime to submit to a breathalyzer test.
How big a problem is this? Do we have documented cases of a drunk driver having been stopped and released by police only to subsequently cause a crash? It's possible that such a thing has happened, but it's telling that no one has cited a case.
There are other means of combating impaired driving that do not entail giving police such an intrusive tool.
To its credit, the Commons committee has proposed some of them, including increased penalties for repeat and severely impaired offenders. They've also proposed creating a new indictable criminal negligence charge, and linking fines for a first impaired driving offence to BAC levels.
These proposals, coupled with an effective awareness campaign, could go a long way in making our streets safer.
It's unclear how effective random breath testing might be, but what is clear is that it could too easily be abused and that it represents the sort of unwarranted search from which the Charter is to keep us protected from.
UPDATE: Oh, it is on! Naomi Lakritz in today's Herald writes:
This is one occasion when public safety trumps individual liberty. On Tuesday, Rob Breakenridge wrote on this page that he hopes Canadians "will consider what (roadside breathalyzers) would mean in practice and will tell Ottawa to scrap the idea." My hope is that they'll tell Ottawa the exact opposite
...Like Whatcott, Boissoin was speaking to some of these very same issues when he penned his now famous letter to the Red Deer Advocate in 2002. Like Whatcott, Boissoin used some clumsy rhetoric. And like Whatcott, Boissoin was convicted and censored by a human rights tribunal.
Fortunately, however, this parallel extends one further: like Boissoin's case, an actual court has admonished the human right commissions and struck a blow for freedom of speech.
Last year an Alberta judge overturned Boissoin's conviction and had some harsh words for the way the case was handled, especially how the human rights panel incorrectly interpreted Alberta's human rights legislation.
Last week, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal did much the same thing in overturning Whatcott's conviction. The ruling states the tribunal "failed to apply" some key principles of the law, and warned of the "danger that censorship can occur."
The ruling even found there was no "attempt to balance the protection for freedom of expression".
Just as in Boissoin's conviction, the Saskatchewan tribunal made sweeping generalizations about the impact of the flyers, without offering any specific evidence of their discriminatory effects.
In neither case was there any call for violence. To use the argument that a violent person might be motivated by another's sharp but legitimate political criticism, is an invitation to censor almost anyone. Perhaps by criticizing Whatcott, I'm encouraging someone to commit violence against Christians. Perhaps by criticizing the tribunal, I'm encouraging some nut to set fire to their offices.
Wherever one may stand on the question of gay marriage or homosexuality, these are public issues and as such ought to be debated.
As the Whatcott ruling notes, "anything that limits debate on the morality of behaviour is an intrusion on the right to freedom of expression." Such censorship is not only wrong, but counterproductive. Far more people have been exposed to the beliefs of Whatcott and Boissoin than otherwise would have been the case. Many who would otherwise be unsympathetic to their point of view have found sympathy for them. The hounding and gagging of these two men was an affront to our values as a free country.
On top of that, it was a colossal waste of resources paid for by the taxpayer.
Must our judges be our last bastion of sanity? Our politicians have the power to prevent all of this in the first place. What will it take for them to act?
