Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Right of Center, eh? | Main | How big was that anti-Coulter mob? »

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Ann Coulter vs. the Mob

As some of you may know, I've returned to Canada. Tonight, I went to hear Ann Coulter speak. And was quickly reminded of why I left this country.

Aside from getting jostled by an angry mob of child-censors, I am intact, but determined more than ever to see the end of hate speech legislation in Canada. We can do it, but it's going to take a massive reeducation campaign, as well as all the legal and moral resources we can muster.

Click here to read about my time among the mob; and how I tried ever so hard to understand the point of view of its quaintly enraged members. Some highlights below.

When the protesters showed up, chanting “Free speech, not hate speech!” and carrying, of all things, a police siren, I was reminded of why I left. Their insipid slogans and aggressive posturing, culminating in a mad rush to break into the lecture hall, were all too familiar. All too Canadian.

Then there was the time I tried to engage in conversation:

"She says it is wrong to be a Jew or a Muslim,” he tried to explain.

A sense of calm, riding a wave of contempt, had taken hold of me. I would be cold. I would be logical. “That is a matter of opinion. A false opinion, even. Is expressing falsehoods, in itself, a crime?”

“When they're hateful it is,” my interlocutor continued, his expression tense. I was aware that there were now protesters on every side of me...

Click here to read more.

Posted by Terrence Watson on March 23, 2010 | Permalink


Interesting that a group of rowdy haters would prevent one person from speaking her mind.

Posted by: Agha Ali Arkhan | 2010-03-23 11:57:05 PM

Can't stand Ann. But hey, she can say whatever she wants, I don't have to listen to it. She is just a female Limbaugh, or Beck or any number of shouting morons making money from other peoples weaknesses.
And you finally changed the picture on the home page, yea!! I was getting sick of looking at Obama. Now you need to have a Canadian on the home page, but Ann is OK to look at.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-03-23 11:58:52 PM

Canada's mantra, unlike that of the United States, is "Peace, order and good governance". It would have served you well to learn that before you moved up here. Freedom of speech does not allow one to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, nor to tar one whole ethnic group or one whole creed to encourage hatred toward such group. Hitler, I suppose, practiced your version of free speech - what a shame that no large demonstrations shut him down and sent him packing back to Austria.

Posted by: David | 2010-03-24 12:23:24 AM

Oh Canada ..no longer true north strong and free.I find the left and the media despicable. Free speech is what it is, with out it you will not know the truth and will believe a lie. Oh Canada you've heaped shame on thee.

Posted by: london.on | 2010-03-24 12:24:17 AM

Well, I certainly think Ms Coulter should have been allowed her platform to spew her brand of venom - it's not even about her rights, it's about mine. I have the right to hear what she has to say.

This is especially true when it comes to hateful bigots who hilariously butcher history when trying to discuss it. I want to know just what an awful and ignorant person she is.

I should be honest and also say that I wouldn't shed a tear for Ms. Coulter no matter what; she's an awful human being (as are all of Reverend Roberston's political allies), and speech doesn't come without consequences - in this case, the consequence was that the University decided that he was not welcome on it's premises. Barring unwelcome individuals is also the University's right, and it's not like there weren't other venues for Ms. Coulter to use.

Let's also get real for a moment: she knew that this was going to happen. That's the reason that she first scheduled a trip to Ottawa, then to Alberta, and that's why she refused offers to locate a different venue. She wants to pretend that Canada is the same as the old Soviet Union under Ioseb Vissarionovich (as the writer of this piece apparently does, in a very Lovecraftian narrative that so transparently exaggerates the situation, describing people as maligned shapes and movements), a notion that is comedic to any serious thinker.

Posted by: Kevin R Brown | 2010-03-24 12:27:01 AM

David, you may be shocked to learn this, but hate speech laws existed in the Weimar Republic, prior to the rise of the Nazis.

You may also be shocked to learn that there were large demonstrations, and clashes, between "demonstrators" in Germany at the time. Communists and Nazis, trying to shut each other up.

And I'm pretty sure it's "peace, order, and good government." No one has ever explained to me why good government requires censorship.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2010-03-24 12:27:12 AM

Cannot stand Ann Colter. Her generalized statements and claims that are consistently wrong make me wonder how in the world she has gotten to a position where anyone wants to listen to her. That said, I believe she has the right to say whatever she believes and I will fight for her to have that right! As well, I much prefer the haters and the zealots when they come out of the woodwork!

I am also always surprised to see college campuses as hotbeds of censorship... it just seems so ironic to me...

Posted by: Mark Vaughan | 2010-03-24 12:31:58 AM

Kevin, I don't think Canada is the Soviet Union. I do think it is not as free with regard to speech as it ought to be. I thought I explained that pretty well in my piece.

And if it seemed like I was describing people as "maligned shapes and movements," that's because I was embedded in a mob. That does tend to bleed out any individuating details with respect to the people who actually form the mob.

I would think that would be true, virtually by definition.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2010-03-24 12:52:26 AM

Canada’s constitution was founded on the primacy of law & order. The federal government was imbued with sweeping powers to ensure the “peace, order and good governance” of the newly formed confederation.

Nope, the actual words were "Peace, Order and Good Governance".

Posted by: David | 2010-03-24 1:10:26 AM

In terms of distinguishing the term governance from government - "governance" is what a "government" does.

Posted by: David | 2010-03-24 1:13:38 AM

David, I was thinking of the BNA Act, 1867.


It does happen to be the founding document of Canada, and its text most certainly reads "peace, order, and good government."

Maybe you were drawing on a difference source.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2010-03-24 1:14:02 AM

David, I have to get to bed soon. The critical point -- the only point -- is why good government requires censorship.

If we take the words of s. 91 of the BNA Act as setting out the agenda and limits of the law-making authority of the Canadian Parliament, then it remains to be shown: why must censorship of speech be within that authority?

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2010-03-24 1:17:11 AM

As to the Communist crowds in 1920s and 1930s Germany - the german people were far more afraid of the communists than they were of what Hitler seemed to offer at the time. I had the good fortune of living in West Berlin in the very early 1960s (just after the wall went up) with a widow and her son who had survived the bombings of Berlin (her daughter was killed in an air raid and her husband in the army was killed in action). We had many discussions, often very heated, about how Hitler came into power. I suppose, for simplicity's sake, one could say that he appeared to be the lesser of 2 evils and he gave them renewed pride in their country so heavily humiliated from the first World War. Also, the intimidation crept in slowly, not unlike the firings of Bill Maher and Phil Donohue in the US for speaking their minds after 9/11. Insidious and dangerous. And this all happened prior to TV, so that news of 'little intimidations' just never became instant news as in today's world. "Wir haben nicht gewuste" although mouthed by many after the war, was a reality for many.

Posted by: David | 2010-03-24 1:22:37 AM

Your article takes issue with Canadian laws regarding "hate-speech" and what you see as the censorship that stems from it - but Canadian law had nothing to do with preventing Ann Coulter being able to speak. In all the accounts I've read so far, Coulter's speech was cancelled due to concerns over the security risk posed by the potential clash between protesters and fans. The U of O provost may have recommended that Coulter review Canada's hate speech law before letting loose her usual stream of bile, but you're making a specious argument in trying to tie those laws to the speech's cancellation.

As for the protesters - I sincerely doubt that in calling Coulter's rhetoric "hate-speech" they were meaning it was actually unlawful. I'm guessing they were likely referring to the undeniable fact that Coulter's shtick IS hateful. That's what she does, and profits hugely from. Those protesters were exercising their right to free speech, and their right to demonstrate - you can't condemn censorship and also condemn the protesters because you don't approve of their argument. A more compelling case could be made if they were protesting her appearance at a private venue, but she was appearing at publicly funded University. If the protesters take exception to an institution they belong to and fund providing a platform for someone like Coulter, that's their prerogative.

Posted by: Alex | 2010-03-24 1:45:28 AM

I stand corrected - it was indeed Government, not governance. However, very different from "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" which seemed to apply (at the time of its origin) to only those who were caucasian. Same with the BNA of 1867 - different times and no one knew what new things and what huge changes would take place in the future. Reading books from that era in time, by and large, people seemed to be 'self-censoring', on the whole just a little more civil towards one another - just as good-hearted people censor themselves today from saying hurtful things to others - really just a matter of good manners and consideration for the feelings of others. No point dropping down to the basest level to prove a point - one loses all credibility at such a level. Again, my opinion only and I believe I expressed it without denigrating another person. Although not a religious person by any stretch, an atheist actually, I do strongly believe in the Golden Rule and feel that it would serve humanity well if all followed it.

Good night and have a restful sleep.

Posted by: David | 2010-03-24 1:57:37 AM

David -

One thought occurred to me, re: "peace, order, and good government." It is probably not right to compare POGG to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

After all, that latter phrase can only be found in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, which is not of equivalent status in the U.S. to the BNA Act. In all honesty, we should compare POGG to the words of the preamble of the U.S. Constitution.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Domestic tranquility sounds a lot like peace, and one could argue that justice and order are close (you can have order without justice, but that's probably not what the Imperial Parliament had in mind when it passed the BNA Act.)

Just a thought.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2010-03-24 7:31:55 AM


"As some of you may know, I've returned to Canada. Tonight, I went to hear Ann Coulter speak. And was quickly reminded of why I left this country."

Oh, please! Controversial speakers get canceled all the time at American Universities because of security concerns. It is one thing to say "this was bad", but quite another to blindly suggest that this case shows that the US is better than Canada.

"I am ... determined more than ever to see the end of hate speech legislation in Canada."

As I am sure you will remember, I have supported that 100% from waaaay back, but it has nothing to do with the current incident. Eliminating hate speech laws would do nothing to change whether mobs seek to close down speech events. Given that similar things happen in the US, where such hate speech laws don't exist, it is all the more mysterious to tie these two issues together.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2010-03-24 8:12:42 AM

While they are a ignorant part of Canada the hate speech provisions are not to blame here. The police tend to avoid resisting violent people, and this avoidance of their responsibility of course encourages more violence given it's 'success'.

Posted by: Mr. Smith | 2010-03-24 8:21:50 AM

Fact Check,

It wasn't just the fact that a mob shut down a speech. It was what they were saying, and how they were saying it. That was what reminded me of my time as an undergrad.

At the very least, in the U.S., student mobs can't gain rhetorical support (spurious or otherwise) from the law when they seek to shut down an event. Not so here, and that's at least a significant difference.

In the U.S., the law is on the side of free speech, and the protesters know it.

I probably should have made all this clearer in the piece, but I wrote it in about an hour after getting home from U of O.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2010-03-24 9:26:12 AM

Why is anyone surprised? Mob rule on Canada's Universities is "normal" and Free speech in Canada has been dead for years.
See evidence at links below:



Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2010-03-24 9:32:25 AM

Fact Check,

I should also say, I don't have a lot of control over what reminds me of what :-).

If this had happened in the U.S., and I was around, I'd probably write something bemoaning the death of the American tradition of free speech.

As it was, all I could think of was Concordia and my encounters as an undergrad.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2010-03-24 9:41:09 AM

I think there should be a minimum standard of intellectual content to a speaker at a university. Coulter has not a whit of that. She is Ezra Levant's blonde-crazy-bitch doppelganger invited to cause a provocation. Both are deeply Zionist and race baiters.

It was inevitable that thousands would be offended by Coulter's appearance, she's a whore for US imperialism of the most shameless sort. Killings, torture, racist derision, US conquest over the earth, zealously anti-Canadian, she came here to set a fire, not exchange ideas. She doesn't have any! This is just the sort of white man's jingoism Ezra Levant (the war room chief for Stephen Harper at election time) and the top Conservatives believe in, that's why its important to note.

But Coulter isn't entitled to spew her toxic sludge at a university, she doesn't own it, she doesn't even pay taxes for it. She can rent a hall in town, or get a website, or meet under private property somewhere, but not at a university. And her supporters or the curious can see and hear her at those venues anytime she and they want. But a university is home to many people, and direct attacks on any ethnicity is not the place for a university. A relatively peaceful reaction of 2,000 protesters is expected in Coulter's case, and Levant and Coulter know it. They are counting on it.

And Terence, as a Canadian who has knocked down a few censorship barriers in my time, don't get too laudatory over your imaged haven of the first amendment down south. Last I checked, no one recently has gone to jail in Canada for free speech except Zundel. One person in 25 years is not so bad.

In the US, libel, copyright, litigation, laws all chill free speech far worse than in Canada.

Posted by: Marc Scott Emery | 2010-03-24 10:18:40 AM

Well, I'm not going to venture to suggest that Ann's rights were in any way violated last night. I think Marc makes some good points, but I disagree that Coulter should not have been "allowed" on the university to spew her bile. Why the hell not?

To me, Coulter is someone who definitely needs to be challenged. Her ideas need to be exposed for what they are. But her detractors only give her a bigger platform by doing what they did last night.

Certainly, I agree with the right to protest. And I'm relatively certain that many of Ann's supporters are tea party crazies, who are more than happy to support protests -- up to and including ones where racist epithets are screamed and painted on placards.

I mean, really. Ann Coulter herself has said she's not a fan on the first amendment in the US. In fact, she has more in common with the two hundred or so protestors than she might like to acknowledge.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-03-24 10:32:14 AM

I've spoken at over 25 universities in Canada, I've never even been heckled. You give respect, you get respect. It doesn't mean everyone in the audience or university agrees with me. It just means I adhere to some decorum whereby I'm not supporting or advocating genocide, murder, torture, racial denigration, extreme Imperialist nationalism of a zealous bent, while I talk about cannabis prohibition.

It means I stick to calm, reasoned exposition. Its a university.

So if I come in and egregiously break the understood ground-rules, go all Pol Pot instead Free the Pot, and say, kill the politicians, hang the bureaucrats, round-up the old people who support prohibition, segregate the French-Canadians, urge armed insurrection, and gleefully crack jokes, insults, and derision throughout, I'm going to be banned from the university because otherwise a riot or confrontation may break out.

Coulter has long since ruined any legitimate opportunity for her to speak on a university campus. She is of the street carnival, the religious revival tent, the Klan meeting, the Conservative Party office, Ezra Levant's kind of place. She can find her comfort under another roof, there's no doubt plenty of her ilk, she hasn't the class or respect necessary to speak at a university.

Posted by: Marc Scott Emery | 2010-03-24 10:43:30 AM

Well Marc, you have my respect. And I will continue to steadfastly oppose your extradition to the United States. But I can't agree with you on this point.

If the University of Ottawa was a private institution, I would be fine with them banning Coulter. But the fact is, it's a taxpayer funded school and as such, should not be making politicized decisions about who can and cannot speak on campus.

I don't think you or I have a different view of Ann Coulter, Marc. I think we both agree she's a vile, jingoistic defender of American neoconservatism and imperialism. But if you think banning her from a public university will do anything, except embolden her supporters and give her a platform, I think you're mistaken.

Look, Coulter's Western speech got almost no media coverage. And now she's getting wall-to-wall attention thanks to what happened last night.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-03-24 10:52:46 AM

Coulter has a right to speak her mind regardless of what she is saying, just as George Galloway does. However, our government saw fit to ban and censor him, where were the cries of freedom of speech then?

Funny how people here are willing to defend a woman who is very clearly inciting hatred towards an ethnic group and disrespecting our laws, and not bat an eyelash when we gag others from speaking at all. The way this Harper government is running things, Canada will soon be just another star on the American flag.

Posted by: Mike Smith | 2010-03-24 11:00:58 AM

Galloway was banned because Stephen Harper-Ezra Levant foreign policy is completely opposite Galloway's view. Coulter is identical to Levant-Harper's view and that's why war criminals like Bush and their apologists like Coulter get the red carpet treatment (especially in Harper/Levant part of the world) from our Conservative government, and dissenters get barred at the border (Galloway) or detained and intimidated (Amy Goodman)

Posted by: Marc Scott Emery | 2010-03-24 11:05:35 AM

No one heckles Emery for several reasons:

1) few come
2) those who do are on drugs
3) he says nothing to antagonize the crowd, but frequently incriminates himself
4) he typically leaves in handcuffs

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-03-24 11:15:14 AM

Brother Zebulon

another major reason why nobody heckles His Majesty the Prince of Pot, Western Standard Freedom Fighter # 003 at his important public presentations:

handing out free dope to the crowd

Posted by: 419 | 2010-03-24 11:20:45 AM

She is correct about U. Ottawa being a backwoods university. The provost and the students just proved it.

Posted by: Lou | 2010-03-24 11:25:41 AM

419: hence the reason why he leaves in handcuffs. The guy is a walking, talking target for the cops, and yet HE complains how he's being persecuted. Here's some advice: shut up. No one cares what you have to say. Look at the drivel you spouted above about "imperialism" and "conquest". No one cares about these things, especially when your real goal is to avoid jailtime for selling drugs. You failed miserably at that. Leave us real people alone.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-03-24 11:32:08 AM

"Leave us real people alone."

...you are so real you use a pseudonym.

Posted by: Marc Scott Emery | 2010-03-24 11:36:34 AM

I can hardly wait
for his auto biography
to come out..

( insight follows )

" Chapter 43- I Begin Kindergarten.."

but on second thought, maybe The Prince of Pot actually _does know the CDN Govt secret reasons for banning undesireables. He's in their Dept of Ban & Exile offices on a regular basis as it is
- maybe he reads their bulletin boards

Posted by: 419 | 2010-03-24 11:40:14 AM

Emery, your name means nothing but "criminal". I hope that the prison they send you to is in the Southeast or the Southwest where it's brutally hot in spring, summer and fall. Every minute you're out in the sun will make you wish that you'd never sold drugs via the mail.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-03-24 11:44:46 AM

I'd rather not have this turn into a debate about Marc Emery, though I appreciate his comments.

This is about a mob of students and left-wing agitators shutting down an event at the University of Ottawa.

It's about freedom of speech, even for those we don't like very much.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2010-03-24 11:46:43 AM

Zebulon Pike, 419, Shane Matthews are the WS sanctioned group of haters that hover around all my statements slavishly waiting for their opportunity at redundancy. I would love to stick to the subject at hand. Why doesn't someone there have the balls to delete them for the same reason that Anne Coulter shouldn't speak at universities, they are obsessed, obscene and have no class?

Posted by: Marc Scott Emery | 2010-03-24 12:17:47 PM


We have deleted comments by all the aforementioned persons on several occasions. But the individual article authors are responsible for moderating their comments.

I tend to err on the side of not deleting comments, even those which are out-and-out abusive towards me.

I know some posters are more vigilant about deleting Shane Matthews comments.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-03-24 12:40:27 PM

We're redundant
obsessed, obscene
have no class
and should be deleted
well, so what.. ?
we would never delete you
no matter how screwy and obtuse
your words are,
because its fair comment
_No body sanctions _anybody here
-and that goes for you too here
and anywhere else you might wash up
on Gods' green earth
where thinking people gather

So wake up Your Majesty-
and smell the bong water

its no crime to make fair comment
on the real life activities
of a self confessed felon- now is it? its a good idea to discuss the ever advancing frontiers
of crime, hate and ideas affecting Canadians

You gave up your stake in common decency when you plead no contest guilty to international drug crime charges in the USA.

Wash yourself well over the next five years and start again.. with a clean slate, just like everybody else who breaks the law..and pays the price to be able to walk as a free man amongst the rest of us again

Then and only then will you be able to demand people stop making UN fair comment on your actions.. because right now these are fair calls..

A warning to kids
not to try to pull
any of the crap
you pulled..
or they will end up
like you ended up

Posted by: 419 | 2010-03-24 12:45:20 PM

Here we go again, another post ruined by these twits.

I agree with Mike Brock. I think Coulter is vile, fascist women. I'd rather all of Canada know what she stands for, so let her speak.

But this also brings out the obvious problem of public property as well. Who sets the rules and by what standard? I think both Coulter and Galloway are vile individuals, but would allow both of them to speak. Obviously others think Galloway is a hero and Coulter a demon and vice-versa. So how do you decide?

Posted by: Charles | 2010-03-24 12:46:52 PM


Somebody needs to remove the enter key from your keyboard, and probably get you prescription for some lithium by the looks of it.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-03-24 12:50:12 PM

Well, it's easy to see who the fascists are these days.
Communists, socialists and national-socialists are just variants of the same theme.
A new Kristallnacht is not far off.

Posted by: Johan i Kanada | 2010-03-24 12:51:12 PM

Marc Emery: "I'm a pot activist and universities have never tried to ban me!"

I don't see your point. You could talk about cannabis prohibition like a complete zealot and campuses would welcome you with open arms.

Posted by: K Stricker | 2010-03-24 12:53:54 PM

Marc, I wasn't cautioning you. I was cautioning them. I'll delete comments if the thread goes further off track... maybe even start doing it now.

I appreciate your participation and hope it continues.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2010-03-24 1:01:30 PM

Johan, you are absolutely correct, but of course we live in a world upside down where the fascists accuse the defenders of freedom of being fascist. As with all fascists they resort to violence to shut down dissent when other means (HRCs) fail. Yes, this was very much an example of violence, since it does not have to be limited to physical assault. I am sure that the physical assault would have followed however if their first type of violence had failed.

Posted by: Alain | 2010-03-24 1:15:11 PM

Interesting that Mister Emery lectures at and is welcomed by Canadian Universities. I wonder what relationship exists between university trained lawyers, judges and politicians, and the justice system's generally light sentences for the makers, sellers and users of unlawful drugs.

Posted by: Agha Ali Arkhan | 2010-03-24 1:17:50 PM

Ya know what. I am ashamed of my fellow progressives and left wingers,etc. I consider myself a Left Libertarian/Libertarian Socialist and am very sympathetic to most of the cause sof social demcorats and other left wing progressives. But I am ashamed that many of them are hypocrities and would silence someone they don't like. If you don't believe in free speech for views you strongly disagree with{or that you may consider even to be hate speech} you don't believe in free speech.

"I dissaprove of what you have to say, but I'll defedn to the death your right to say it"-The friends of Voltaire.

"I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies another this right makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it."- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason... See More

"Toleration is not the opposite of intolerance but the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms: the one assumes to itself the right of withholding liberty of conscience, the other of granting it."
-- Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man

Heed these quotes ye who censor speech and opinion expression.

Fuck Coulter, fuck those that scared her off and kept her from speaking.

Imagine if a far left ideologuie was gonna give a speech, I bet few to none these protesters would protest that person and they'd be offended at any right wingers or conservatives or religious fundys that might show up and protest 'em and trying to silence em.
Oh the rank hypocrisy!!!

Posted by: Bill Baker | 2010-03-24 1:35:14 PM

"...Somebody needs to remove the enter key from your keyboard, and probably get you prescription for some lithium by the looks of it..."

would that be _you Charles?
Will _you be modifying my mode of expression
and playing internet psychiatrist?
I can hardly wait as you assume
the persona of Doctor NoNonsence..
guardian of acceptable speech
and suitable points of view

.. and...

isn't streaming people you feel have unpopular opinions, or points of view...

somthing a despotic state might find a little itchy-- and channeling these people you don't approve of into.... psychiatric medicine....
a response we would normally expect from old school Fascists, Communists and Hard Core Cold War Era Republicans?

Now Charles,old chap... is this who you get your inspiration from?
those stern calculating crabby dudes
in old Black & White movies ?
It would seem so, based on your quaint suggestions above
Perhaps your inspiration for how to fix the world comes from a boxed set of
" Twilight Zone " episodes rather than any sort of experiences mixing in with real people holding diverse views in a modern world.

Now Now, we all know that
and you do too that
psychiatric medicine
is _not for sharing.

Please keep yours
accounted for and dry
and don't go waving it about please
Surely, there are other ways
to make maraca music
when your comfort level is challenged
than to rattle your medicine

Posted by: 419 | 2010-03-24 2:00:32 PM

Mike Smith wrote: "Coulter has a right to speak her mind regardless of what she is saying, just as George Galloway does. However, our government saw fit to ban and censor him, where were the cries of freedom of speech then?

"Funny how people here are willing to defend a woman who is very clearly inciting hatred towards an ethnic group and disrespecting our laws, and not bat an eyelash when we gag others from speaking at all. The way this Harper government is running things, Canada will soon be just another star on the American flag."

I'm not sure what you mean by "people here" (whether you're referring to some commenters on the post, or the folks who write at the Western Standard), but just in case you mean to refer to the writers at the Western Standard:

Not only did we defend Galloway's right to come to Canada and give his talk, I posted the live video feed of his talk on this blog: Galloway live
We also covered Gunter's defense of Galloway's right to come here to speak: Gunter on Galloway.
Provided press releases from both the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, as well as the NDP: NDP press release
And offered more than a few comments regarding why we think Galloway should have been allowed into the country.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2010-03-24 2:03:49 PM

Muslims are not an ethnic or racial group, they're a religious one.

Posted by: Bill Baker | 2010-03-24 2:13:37 PM


Comments were intended as a response to the suggestions of > Mr M. Brock and no other Blog

" Charles " is tagged in error:
and for this I apologize .

Posted by: 419 | 2010-03-24 2:16:25 PM

1 2 3 Next »

The comments to this entry are closed.