Ann Coulter @ the U of C - UPDATE moved to Red/White Club @ McMahon

[Devils'Advocate]

Okay. Here in Ottawa Rev. Phelps was going to come to parliament hill to protest us passing the gay marriage law. A bunch of us, myself included, went to the hill to denouce his way of thinking. However, his protest was called off as Rev. Phelps wasn't even let into the country. But those of us (and I was glad to see that most were straight-but-not-narrow; I think more than just gays should be standing up for gay rights) planning to go to the hill to confront them still went and we had our own little party there.

I think that was the right thing to do. Free speech is fine and dandy, but if you preach hate, or in Coulter's case, implied hate I think we all have the DUTY to stand up and confront those ideas. I, for one, applaud the students that took the time out from their studies to stand up and say we won't stand for hatred on our campus.

It's funny. We have one thread where people are complaining that today's youth are too apathetic about what is going on around us, and then another thread saying these students were wrong for standing up in opposition against ideas they do not share.

[longsuffering]

So it seems that like most things associated with Coulter, HER version of events does not quite correspond to realty (kinda like Fox News!)

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepol...ast-night.html

Makes you wonder whether Coulter/Levant et al staged things to ensure a result they were hoping for.

[photon]

Shocking.

[MelBridgeman]

People do have the right to protest, but if you have a goal, and you want her to go away, a better way to achieve your goal is to ignore her. Protesting is fine, but not necessarily an effective means to an end. So in that respect the protesters won this battle, but she is winning the war.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

So it seems that like most things associated with Coulter, HER version of events does not quite correspond to realty (kinda like Fox News!)

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepol...ast-night.html

Makes you wonder whether Coulter/Levant et al staged things to ensure a result they were hoping for.

You are questioning FOX by citing CBC, the Leninist voice of Greater Toronto? If Coulter was a bit better looking, and I was single, I'd marry her in a second.

[ynwa03]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

You are questioning FOX by citing CBC, the Leninist voice of Greater Toronto? If Coulter was a bit better looking, and I was single, I'd marry her in a second.

If you like being dominated by your spouse

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by ynwa03

If you like being dominated by your spouse

Oh don't worry - she'd be wearing the schoolgirl outfit...

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

People do have the right to protest, but if you have a goal, and you want her to go away, a better way to achieve your goal is to ignore her. Protesting is fine, but not necessarily an effective means to an end. So in that respect the protesters won this battle, but she is winning the war.

I disagree. If people didn't stand up and denounce Fred Phelps and people like him, gay rights would be where it was 20 or 30 years ago. It's only BECAUSE people stand up and say "THIS IS NOT RIGHT" that people reject that way of thinking.

Hate is contagious. If one person says gay people are inheriently evil, others will accept that as the truth. You need other to stand up and say that that view will not be tolerated.

Ignoring problems does not make them go away. It makes them get worse.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I disagree. If people didn't stand up and denounce Fred Phelps and people like him, gay rights would be where it was 20 or 30 years ago. It's only BECAUSE people stand up and say "THIS IS NOT RIGHT" that people reject that way of thinking.

Yes in that case, but one is not like the other.

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Ignoring problems does not make them go away. It makes them get worse.

ignoring someone like Coulter will make her go away. given her the attention she requires to keep getting pay cheques WILL make it worse.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Oh don't worry - she'd be wearing the schoolboy outfit...

with the shirt, tie and dress pants? you know she is a man right?

[starseed]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

You are questioning FOX by citing CBC, the Leninist voice of Greater Toronto? If Coulter was a bit better looking, and I was single, I'd marry her in a second.

Leninist?

Well, almost every newspaper in the country is monopolized by hard-right conservatives, so I guess if that is seen as the norm, the public broadcaster is in the far left fringe.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Okay. Here in Ottawa Rev. Phelps was going to come to parliament hill to protest us passing the gay marriage law. A bunch of us, myself included, went to the hill to denouce his way of thinking. However, his protest was called off as Rev. Phelps wasn't even let into the country. But those of us (and I was glad to see that most were straight-but-not-narrow; I think more than just gays should be standing up for gay rights) planning to go to the hill to confront them still went and we had our own little party there.

I think that was the right thing to do. Free speech is fine and dandy, but if you preach hate, or in Coulter's case, implied hate I think we all have the DUTY to stand up and confront those ideas. I, for one, applaud the students that took the time out from their studies to stand up and say we won't stand for hatred on our campus.

It's funny. We have one thread where people are complaining that today's youth are too apathetic about what is going on around us, and then another thread saying these students were wrong for standing up in opposition against ideas they do not share.

Good.

Just don't call in and make threats to Parliament Hill. Because that creates a whole different problem.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

with the shirt, tie and dress pants? you know she is a man right?

I did qualify with "if she were better looking". I guess I should have qualified further with "...100% female".

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by starseed

Leninist?

Well, almost every newspaper in the country is monopolized by hard-right conservatives, so I guess if that is seen as the norm, the public broadcaster is in the far left fringe.

Excellent.

[tripin_billie]

Originally Posted by blankall

It all really depends on how you are told to STFU. If private citizens are making threats or endangering your safety in any way (not that I am saying that is what happened here) your rights are still being violated. Even if they are putting up physical barriers I would say that is still curtailing freedom of speech.

No, what you are thinking of is social concept of freedom of speech. Yes, ideally society should allow everyone a chance to say what they want. But, in the same token, the actions taken by the protesters is also free speech. Nowhere, even in the social concept of free speech, is there a guarantee that other, louder voices, aren't going to overpower your voice.

legally, it all comes down to government censorship. the government didn't censor, so no legal breaking of rights took place. Free speech, again, as a legal concept, does not protect private citizens from having other private citizens stifle their voice, it only ensures that the government will not stifle citizens' vocies.

[kermitology]

You know what would be the absolute best protest? An empty ST140.

Victory could be had if that happened.

[starseed]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Excellent.

I have never understood sarcasm, nor do I wish to partake in it... so in case this is what has occurred, I would encourage you to consider Mel Hurtig's position on Canadian media.

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/pub...ress-vs-people

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by kermitology

You know what would be the absolute best protest? An empty ST140. Victory could be had if that happened.

Can't happen. There are still many people that will pay to hear Coulter re-enforce their twisted beliefs.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by tripin_billie

No, what you are thinking of is social concept of freedom of speech. Yes, ideally society should allow everyone a chance to say what they want. But, in the same token, the actions taken by the protesters is also free speech. Nowhere, even in the social concept of free speech, is there a guarantee that other, louder voices, aren't going to overpower your voice. legally, it all comes down to government censorship. the government didn't censor, so no legal breaking of rights took place. Free speech, again, as a legal concept, does not protect private citizens from having other private citizens stifle their voice, it only ensures that the government will not stifle citizens' vocies

Well as a matter of fact yes there are. It is illegal to use threatening behviour, intimidating behaviour, physically block people, etc...

If someone rents out a private hall, they have every right to speak in it. If you are beign disruptive they can ask you to leave and you have to.

The problem with your attitude is that you are turning democracy into mob rule. It is not up to the private citizen to decide what does and what does not qualify as hate speech. That's a matter for the courts.

If I rent out a private hall for a private meeting, I have every right to speak there totally undisturbed and totally uninterrupted.

You are right that the charter only applies to government actions, but other laws like trespass, nuisance, threatening violence, etc.. all apply to citizens. All these laws are clearly broken whenever a "protest" becomes anything more than people with placards on the street. The moment you enter private property or impede someone's access to private property you have broken a slew of laws.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by kermitology

You know what would be the absolute best protest? An empty ST140.

Victory could be had if that happened.

Just tell the people to goto ST142.