Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Why Is the American Ann Coulter Proud to be Canadian?

Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity (as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of 'kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed'). Ann Coulter

There has been a lot of controversy this week over the projected visit of the highly controversial American journalist Ann Coulter. The provost of the University of Ottawa, Francois Houle, did not prevent her from appearing but did warn her to watch her mouth. (Many Americans would prefer she just kept it shut)

"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." He continued, "Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."

Eventually, however the event was cancelled, which got organizer Ezra Levant in a flap:

"It would be physically dangerous for Ann Coulter to proceed with this event," said Conservative political activist Ezra Levant inside the hall. "This is an embarrassing day for the University of Ottawa and their student body . . . who chose to silence her through threats and intimidation."

Of course Levant was in full support of the ban imposed on British MP George Galloway, because he provided humanitarian aid, with the permission of his government, to Palestine. Talk about your double standard, huh?

Levant has been a long time supporter of Jason Kenney and Stockwell Day. Enough said.

However, since the warning, the Canadian right-wing is crying foul, calling it an assault on our freedoms. I guess forbidding us to criticize Israel or even mouthing the word 'Apartheid', without the risk of being charged with a hate crime, is A OK, though.

This sounds a lot like a tactic taught at Morton Blackwell's Leadership Institute. Blackwell was the Republican strategist who invited Stephen Harper to deliver a speech at the Council for National Policy in 1997. Both Karl Rove and Rob Anders are graduates of this school, and Preston Manning is running a similar program.

They call it 'Controlled Controversy' and Blackwell states that "Academia is the last unbreached citadel of the left, and I believe we are today over the moat." I would rather throw Coulter and Levant in it ... figuratively of course, not literally. Wouldn't want Ezra accusing me of violent intentions, now would I?

Why are so Many American Neoconservatives Proud to be Canadian?

This university speaking tour is not Coulter's first foray into Canadian politics, though. She has been contributing articles for some time now on a site called ProudToBeCanadian.

And while they claim to be proud Canadians, most of the journalists on the site, are from the American Right-Wing. Stephen Harper's former VP when he was running the National Citizens Coalition, Gerry Nicholls is an exception. And so is William Gairdner, whose book The Trouble With Canada became like a bible to the Reform Party under Preston Manning.

But I find the whole thing rather bizarre.

A true conservative site that helps explain the difference between liberals and conservatives.

We're: Pro-life. Pro-freedom. Pro-USA. Pro-Christian. Pro-Israel. Pro-family. Pro-traditional marriage. Pro-free market capitalism. Pro-war-on-terror and war on Islamofascism and terror in Iraq and everywhere else. Pro-military. We're for smaller governments. For less taxes. Against socialism. Against state-owned or state-run media. Against asinine state controls on our legal gun ownership. Against the so-called "progressive", left-wing church of liberalism. Against idiocy generally ...

Few of those things represent Canadians at all, so what exactly are they proud of?

Besides Coulter, their membership includes:

Republican activist Mike S. Adams, author of the book: Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" on Campus

David Warren who also writes for the right-leaning RealClearPolitics

Doug Giles, the Miami pastor who created and hosts Clash Radio. His bio claims that 'Giles’ interests include guns, big game hunting, big game fishing, fine art, cigars and being a big pain in the butt to people who dislike God and the USA'

For Coulter and PTBC, I believe they are just singing to the choir. Anyone attending her lectures, already believe in this nonsense, and the same could probably be said for anyone joining PTBC. I doubt they will lure anyone with their viciousness.

At least I hope not, because I want to still be proud to be Canadian, for all the reasons that actually define us as a tolerant and fair minded country.

PS: For anyone worrying about Ann of the Neocon's interview above; the Reformers have put it to right. In July of last year they erased any mention of our allowing Vietnam draft dodgers into the country.

Text on how both draft dodgers and resisters of the Vietnam War were ultimately allowed to stay in Canada suddenly vanished from the Citizenship and Immigration site earlier this year.

Jason Kenney to the rescue. Did he learn that one of them may have been gay?

IS THIS REALLY YOUR CANADA?

2 comments:

  1. Excerpt from the Criminal Code of Canada

    "Definition of “identifiable group”

    (4) In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

    R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 318; 2004, c. 14, s. 1.

    Public incitement of hatred
    319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
    (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

    Wilful promotion of hatred

    (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
    (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

    Defences

    (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
    (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
    (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
    (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
    (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

    Forfeiture

    (4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

    Exemption from seizure of communication facilities

    (5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.

    Consent

    (6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

    Definitions

    (7) In this section,

    “communicating”
    « communiquer »

    “communicating” includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;

    “identifiable group”
    « groupe identifiable »

    “identifiable group” has the same meaning as in section 318;

    “public place”
    « endroit public »

    “public place” includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;

    “statements”
    « d├ęclarations »

    “statements” includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations.

    R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 319; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 203; 2004, c. 14, s. 2.»

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for that. Ann Coulter would definitley violate our criminal code with just about everything she says. So why did Ezra Levant invite her here? To stir up trouble I think and make a martyr of her.

    ReplyDelete