Spot the ridiculous
She was on her way.
They objected, sent warning, she responded. She spoke, they protested, she cancelled. And now, they’re writing the hell out of it.
The saga that is Ann Coulter in Canada.
Coulter’s well within her rights —anywhere.
Once again, Canada being —-way too anal with
its stultifying application of instituted PC moronics.
Free speech doesn’t mean that companies and institutions are obliged to support everything that everyone says.
Every person has his/her rights to say whatever they want here in Canada. But no one should be allowed to discriminate against any particular racial, ethnic or religious group so actively in a public institution, especially if the person is not even Canadian!
Wake up Canada. Look what kind of crap Americans are sending us.
Hey pg2010, in Canada, she’s NOT within her rights to promote hatred and genocide in public.
And ZK, nobody SENT her. Perhaps we should take a page from Ms. Coulter’s book and demand that those who invited her should be sterilised in order to avoid further generations of people who don’t think the way we do.
No more of this farce please!!! Are you suggesting that F. Houle should not have the right to speak his mind, people should not have the right to protest (there were no rocks), and only Coulter have the right to speak. Coulter and her adipose appartchik were afraid of showing up to face the critics and cut and ran, then cried about being censored. They censored themselves.
I’m sick of pampered millionaires like Coulter and her incredibly stupid and dishonest man-servant Ezra Levant lecturing me about free speech, when they neither desire it nor understand it themselves.
And were was the outrage concerning George Galloway – a REAL case of censorship by the government?
Speaking legally, in Canada we do not have the right to unhindered “Free Speech”.
The “reasonable limits” clause;
RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN CANADA.
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
The above is the first line in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this clause allows for individuals to have their “Rights and Freedoms” up until the points where they use their “rights and freedoms” to take away from another individuals “rights and freedoms”. Such as an individual using their “Freedom of Speech” to take away from an individuals right to practice their religion without discrimination.
The following are the Fundamental Freedoms everyone(even non-citizens) are entitled to within Canada, up until reasonable limits;
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.
The reasonable limits clause was included because the forefathers of Canada were intelligent enough to see that contradictions would take place if it was not there.
Example: Ann Coulter says,”Muslims should not be allowed to fly on planes!”
This use of “Free Speech” is directly oppositional to the “Freedom of Religion”. And thus we have a contradiction, one which forces the for a legal prioritizing of Freedoms(if the reasonable limits clause did not exist). In Canada there is no prioritization of Rights and Freedoms, and they all stand equal and if you abuse one the way previously discussed, you can have that Right revoked.
I believe that AG makes an error. Saying that Muslims should not be allowed to fly on planes does not hinder anyone’s freedom of religion. Muslims are still free to think and believe as they see fit no matter what Anne Coulter, or anyone else says.
Actually banning them from planes would be a violation of their freedom of religion and freedom of movement and probably others too.
The expression of opinion, even crackpot ones like those of Anne Coulter, does not generally impinge on anyone else’s freedom, and this is why it should be restricted only in the most exceptional cases. Someone being a loud-mouthed, narcissistic idiot is not at all exceptional.
“This use of “Free Speech” is directly oppositional to the “Freedom of Religion”. And thus we have a contradiction, one which forces the for a legal prioritizing of Freedoms(if the reasonable limits clause did not exist). In Canada there is no prioritization of Rights and Freedoms, and they all stand equal and if you abuse one the way previously discussed, you can have that Right revoked.”
Umm no. Ann Coulter saying that “Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to fly on planes” does not make it so. Muslims can still fly on planes, and the idea of banning them from doing so isn’t even on the public agenda. So there is really no contradiction.
Same thing works in reverse. A Muslim has the freedom of religion to believe that cartoons of the prophet should be illegal does not make it so. So freedom of expression is not limited under cartoons of the prophet are actually made illegal.
The right to free expression includes the right to an opinion that a particular “right” (freedom of expression, freedom of religion, presumption of innocence, equality, etc. etc.) should not exist or isn’t engaged by a particular scenario. The right that is opposed is not restricted until it is actually taken away.