The Coulter episode

I am dismayed to see people calling for Ann Coulter to be barred from speaking in Canada. Preventing people from speaking infringes on my (and your) right to hear what they have to say. Just because I don't agree with her doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to hear her. How can I decide whether I agree with her or not if I'm not allowed to know what she is saying? Who else should or shouldn't be allowed to talk in Canada? Who do you trust to make that decision for you?

Anyway, every time she opens her mouth it becomes more obvious what a vacuous airhead she is. Stifling her ramblings just allows her to claim that we fear something she has to say. I think she'll get a lot more PR mileage out of not being able to speak in Ottawa than if she had.

I'm also disappointed in the media reporting on the Ottawa fiasco. According to accounts of a number of witnesses there were only a few protesters, the largest part of the crowd were simply there to attend the event. I almost wonder if she really intended to speak in Ottawa at all or just decided to use the poor organization as an opportunity to make a fuss about "concerns for her safety". I noticed the reporting on her Calgary event implies that things went much more smoothly even though placard-carrying protesters showed up there, too. Also, apparently a window was broken - I didn't hear about any property damage at UofO...

I have to say I am not a big supporter of laws against hate speech. Once you allow that some utterances are illegal it becomes a matter of opinion/judgement whose speech will be deemed "hateful" and I would really much rather make that decision for myself than allow anybody else to tell me what I can or can't hear.

The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen. ~Tommy Smothers

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky

It's pointless to bar her now. "The damage is done"
You don't have any rights to hear what people say. I don't know what part of the charter of rights and freedoms you think grants you the right to hear.
The criminal code however does mention the right to privacy though insofar as it might restrict your freedom to listen.

Flipping the right to free speech on it's end to mean free hearing is not effective against the backdrop of the security of a public institution. You want to hear what she has to say, feel free to look her up. She has no lack of exposure. Certainly not enough lacking of exposure to justify any allegations of a restriction to freedom of speech where the contents of that speech have already been published and effectively compromised security elsewhere.

In the same vein people don't have the right to speak freely on any forum they wish. The University of Ottawa had every right to cancel her engagement for security reasons.
The right to speak your mind does not grant you the authority to speak it in any medium and anywhere you choose.

I read that it was Coulter's posse or the organizers who cancelled due to safety concerns because someone judged the crowd "unruly" or "uncontrollable" or something. But that is all beside the point, my issue is not related to what has occurred so much as what I hear others calling for - banning or barring her from coming to speak when invited by some group.

Even if she wasn't invited, suppose she just arranged a book tour and there were venues willing to have her, what right would a government have to step in and say we are not allowed to hear what this person has to say? In other words I am not advocating that everyone has the right to speak their mind in any medium/venue they choose, but I don't believe any third party, be they government representatives, law enforcers or protesters, has a right to prevent me from providing a venue or attending a speech because they don't like what that person is saying.

Incidentally, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says:

Fundamental Freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom
of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

My right to hear the thoughts, beliefs & opinions of other people is implicit in the right of expression and communication. You can not have a right to not listen to somebody unless you have a choice in the first place. My ability to protest, deride or debate their opinions or beliefs would be curtailed by withholding their right to freedom of expression.

Again, I'm not saying that she must be given a venue, I just feel that denying her the opportunity to seek one is a dangerous precedent to set.

I'm not sure of how far Ann Coulter has gone with her backwards thinking, I've only seen her a few times on TV. But if there are cases where she has promoted hate towards another group then I think it is justified that she should be barred from the country. If not, then no she shouldn't be barred. But like I said, I don't know the extent of what she has said so really I can't judge, and since I think you are referring to my comment in chat, I wasn't entirely serious in what I said - I forgot sarcasm doesn't always come out through text.

Here's an example of hate speech vs free speech in the Canadian courts:

Hate Propaganda vs. Free Speech
In a high-profile case in 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada weighed James Keegstra’s rights to free speech against the offence of wilfully promoting hatred under the Criminal Code. As a teacher, Keegstra made racist comments in the classroom.

The court ruled that under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a limitation of free expression is justified in a democratic society. The court stated that since hate propaganda harms us all, then stopping its spread helps people from different backgrounds to live together — and may even reduce violence in Canada. For these reasons, the Supreme Court said that section 1 of the Charter "saves" the crime of wilfully promoting hatred. In other words, the court said that that Keegstra had in fact broken the law.

@Blondin, to what extent do you believe free speech should be permitted? For example, if someone is standing on a podium professing hate towards jews and blaming them for all our problems, should that be permitted? Or do you believe there is a limit on free speech at all?

I think that as soon as someone begins to actively preach invalidation myths / pseudo-scientific ideologies about other groups to try and invalidate them, I think their free speech should be curtailed.

My right to hear the thoughts, beliefs & opinions of other people is implicit in the right of expression and communication.

I disagree. The charter is not as ambiguous as to suggest that much. This is why we have laws with respect to specific types of instances and why hate crime is a crime at all.

Free speech, no matter how much we detest what is being said, must always be upheld. Never should anyone, for any reason, be told they cannot say their opinion regardless of if their opinion is inflammatory, hateful, or just wrong. That said, this goes both ways and if somebody such as Mrs. Coulter is going to run her mouth and look like a moron then everyone else has the right to call her out on it.

Originally Posted by Kiefer

Free speech, no matter how much we detest what is being said, must always be upheld. Never should anyone, for any reason, be told they cannot say their opinion regardless of if their opinion is inflammatory, hateful, or just wrong. That said, this goes both ways and if somebody such as Mrs. Coulter is going to run her mouth and look like a moron then everyone else has the right to call her out on it.

I disagree, have you never taken a history class before? Basically you are saying that the propaganda the Nazi regime used to promote racism towards the Jews is acceptable and should never be curtailed? :\

There should be limits on free speech insofar that hatred, racism, sexism, and violence is not being promoted. What you say in the privacy of your own home, fine, but no body should have the right to publicly advocate violence and hatred towards another person or group.

I think there is a distinction between hate speech and hate crimes. There is a difference between making demonstrably false, hateful statements about an identifiable group and abusing a position of authority by teaching hateful propaganda in a highschool classroom. I agree that what Keegstra did was a crime.

Barring unpopular speakers like Ann Coulter or George Galloway does nothing to counter their arguments but instead confers false credibility and allows them to play the martyr and whine about conspirators who don't want you to hear the "truth". And how do we know their views are false if, instead of listening to them and doing some research, we just suppress them?

And how do we know their views are false if, instead of listening to them and doing some research, we just suppress them?

I'd like to say it matters either way, but ultimately it does not. They've been given their soap box and used it. When challenged, they simply ignore the facts and continue spreading the lie despite evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, spreading intelligence isn't as easy as spreading propaganda and they end up doing all of the damage they need to effect reform. Picture what's happening in texas with the attempt at re-writing text books to "sanitize" the negative culture the books illustrate used to exist in America. Now multiply the impact and consequence on other issues, like the rights of muslims to use public transportation.

There's a reason the lynch mob mentality is avoided at all costs.

I agree with you, that barring these speakers from Canada is a bad idea. Galloway should be allowed into Canada...
Hell, I'd PAY for a hall to host a debate between Galloway and Coulter.

Do I sense a Project for the Free Thought Association?