True North strong not free

MARK STEYN: Strange that the more Canada congratulates itself on its ‘tolerance’ the less it’s prepared to tolerate

True north strong not free

Photograph by Chris Bolin

Well, Ann Coulter is no longer in Canada, but 30 million Canadians are. So, for the sake of argument, let us take as read the frankly rather boring observation of the northern punditocracy that the whole brouhaha worked to her advantage, and consider instead whether the Canada on display during her 96-hour layover actually works to Canadians’ advantage. Which was the claim advanced by the eminent Canadian “feminist” Susan Cole appearing on U.S. TV to support the protesters’ shutdown of Miss Coulter’s Ottawa speech:

“We don’t have a First Amendment, we don’t have a religion of free speech,” she explained patiently. “Students sign off on all kinds of agreements as to how they’ll behave on campus, in order to respect diversity, equity, all of the values that Canadians really care about. Those are the things that drive our political culture. Not freedoms, not rugged individualism, not free speech. It’s different, and for us, it works.”

Does it? You rarely hear it put quite that bluntly—“Freedoms”? Ha! Who needs ’em?—but there was a lot of similarly self-regarding blather in Coulter Week euphemizing a stultifying, enforced conformism as “respect” and “diversity” and whatnot. “I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind,” wrote François Houle, the provost of the University of Ottawa, addressing Miss Coulter in the smug, condescending, preening tone that comes so naturally to your taxpayer-funded, tenured mediocrity. “There is a strong tradition in Canada, including at this university, of restraint, respect and consideration in expressing even provocative and controversial opinions and urge you [sic] to respect that Canadian tradition.”

Because, after all, nothing says “restraint” and “respect” and “civility” more than a snarling mob using the threat of violence to shut down those it dislikes—and all for that beloved “Canadian tradition.” Strange that the more Canada congratulates itself on its “tolerance” the less it’s prepared to tolerate. “If any Canadian spoke like Ann Coulter,” wrote Denise Cooke-Browne, “he’d be jailed.” And she says that like it’s a good thing. And she also says it as a former investigator for the Newfoundland “Human Rights” Commission. In Denise Cooke-Browne’s Canada, there are now not unfashionable or dissenting or wrong opinions, but criminal opinions.
What are the grounds for jailing Miss Coulter? In her letter to the National Post, Ms. Cooke-Browne cited only the following:

“Remember, she has said that Canada is lucky that the United States let us exist on the same continent.”

I think this is what less enlightened societies would call a “joke.” But, of course, since becoming a beacon of “restraint” and “civility,” Canada now prosecutes jokes. The British Columbia “Human Rights” Tribunal, under the same commissar who presided over a lengthy analysis of the “tone” of my own jokes, is currently trying stand-up comedian Guy Earle for his allegedly “homophobic” put-down of a heckler. Mr. Earle isn’t a right-wing hater like me and Miss Coulter. Until he fell afoul of his Sapphic heckler, he appears to have held conventionally Trudeaupian views. Left to his own devices, he would be more likely to essay an anti-Bush gag than one of Miss Coulter’s camel jests. But he’s wound up in court anyway, having lost three years of his life and facing $20,000 in punitive damages for a remark he made in the course of a stage act for which he received a $50 bar tab. The B.C. Supreme Court advised the tribunal against proceeding with their show trial on the grounds that it was not clear they had jurisdiction. So the tribunal went ahead anyway. Susan Cole’s Canada doesn’t “work” for Guy Earle. In fact, it’s destroyed him. “You better hope and pray that you aren’t next,” he writes. “And yet no one cares.”

Very true. Canada is now a land that prosecutes comedians for their jokes. You’d think that Mr. Earle’s fellow comics might be a little disturbed about where this leads. Yet the fellows who pride themselves on their “edgy,” “transgressive” comedy are remarkably silent on what’s happening in Vancouver. So are the organizers of Juste Pour Rire, who presumably will be sending out form letters of that François Houle email, advising any visiting “edgy” “transgressive” comics from down south that here in Canada we have a strong tradition of restrained and civil comedy, and why not try something on the lines of:

“Who was that lady I saw you with last night?”

“Oh, that was my drunken lesbian heckler. Isn’t she marvellously restrained?”

Ms. Cooke-Browne makes explicit the reality—that “diversity” and “equity” and “respect” are merely the fashionable cloaks for muscle. As readers well know, I personally would rather Ann Coulter were free to tell her camel jokes than Denise Cooke-Browne were empowered to prevent her from doing so. The cure is worse than the disease. For the corrosive effects of “diversity,” look no further than three critical societal institutions: the education system, law enforcement and the media.

True north strong not free

Photograph by Etienne Ranger/Le Droit/CP

Remember Allan Rock? Oh, come on, he was all the rage for 20 minutes back in the nineties. Was it only a decade ago that he was briefly a rising star among Liberal cabinet ministers and that week’s prime-minister-in-waiting? Having drunk from the poisoned chalice M. Chrétien reserved for his many putative successors, Mr. Rock landed with his bottom in the butter and, for not entirely obvious reasons, is now president of the University of Ottawa. After M. Houle’s Houligans had gone to work, president Rock felt obliged to defend his institution. “We have a long history of hosting contentious and controversial speakers on our campus.”

That’s good to know. By “long history,” you mean 50, 70 years ago? Because the speakers hosted in recent seasons seem to be the usual parade of dreary publicly funded identity-group ward-heelers living high off the hog of diversity. Anyone else has a tougher time wiggling through. The howling gang of rent-a-leftists that greeted Miss Coulter at Ottawa is the natural product of this shrivelled, desiccated environment. I don’t suppose M. Houle gave his email much thought, other than that it would impress the many colleagues to whom he copied it: what a man! Speaking truth to power blond! But most of the diversity-peddling faculty are old enough to have some residual acquaintanceship with the inheritance they affect to revile. Whatever bollocks they spout in class, they have no wish to live anywhere other than an advanced Western society: for one thing, it’s the only place you can make a living selling fatuous pap about diversity; in that and many other ways, multiculturalism is a unicultural phenomenon. In some deep unacknowledged sense, they understand they’re engaged in a pantomime.

But their students are another matter. If you’re born circa 1990, you have been raised entirely in a François Houle world: this is all you know; it’s the air that you breathe. It’s like the difference between the first generation of rock ’n’ rollers and those nineties gangsta rappers. Elvis sang, “If you’re looking for trouble, you’ve come to the right place / If you’re looking for trouble, look right in my face.” But when you did, as the novelist Tony Parsons noted, you couldn’t help noticing he was wearing a little too much mascara. Whereas when you looked into Snoop Dogg’s or the Notorious B.I.G.’s face, you really were looking for trouble. Asinine ham-fisted clods like Houle are play revolutionaries; I’m not so sure about his young charges. When he threatened criminal charges against Miss Coulter, it was a cheap rhetorical sneer. To his students, it was a call to arms. One was struck in news reports of the riot at the complete worthlessness of the “disciplines” the protesters are “studying”: “Sameena Topan, 26, a conflict studies and human rights major.” Twenty-six, huh?

As for Ottawa’s coppers, they certainly demonstrated that famously Canadian “restraint.” Faced with a law-abiding group engaging in legal activity and a bunch of thugs trying to prevent it, the police declined to maintain order. As George Jonas wrote, “Ottawa’s finest exemplified Canada’s definition of moral leadership by observing neutrality between lawful and lawless.” Allan Rock’s weasels attempted to defend themselves by pointing out that it was not the university but the organizers who cancelled the event. They did so because the police said they could not “guarantee security.” You’re certainly free to proceed, but, as David Warren pointed out, your liability insurance will decline to cover any damage if you go ahead against the coppers’ advice.

There seems to be rather a lot of this in the True North restrained and civil. I’m not just referring to obvious surrenders such as Caledonia, but to the bizarre episode of TVO’s The Agenda broadcast from the Munk Centre last week. No Ann Coulter around, only the finance minister of Ontario. But a Coulteresque mob rushed the stage, and the host Steve Paikin had to insert himself between protesters and the minister. “Regardless of what you thought of yesterday’s budget,” wrote Paikin, “I don’t believe guests who agree to appear on The Agenda ought to get beaten up.”

Oh, c’mon, you pussy. Where’s your commitment to social justice? As in Ottawa, law enforcement declined to enforce the law, the OPP remaining in the wings as thugs rushed the stage. “The police, I’m told, were urged not to intervene,” Paikin explained, “lest pictures of demonstrators being hauled off by the cops show up all over YouTube.”

True. You might haul off a Muslim or a lesbian and find yourself in “human rights” hell. Better just to linger nonchalantly by the side until it’s all over: O Canada, we stand around for thee. Her Majesty’s Constabulary seem to be sending the message that violence pays—at least for approved identity groups. That doesn’t seem a prudent strategy.

As for the media, they’ve long been too cowed by political correctness to do even elementary research. It took the blogger Blazing Cat Fur to discover that Fatima Al Dhaher, the poor wee thing traumatized by Ann Coulter’s camel joke at the University of Western Ontario, was a member of a Facebook group called “It’s Called Palestine Not Israel,” committed to the elimination of the Jewish state and regarding its present occupants as “subhuman” “zionazis/kikeroaches.” I have no objection to Miss Al Dhaher pursuing her extracurricular enthusiasms, but she would seem, even for Canada, too parodic a poster gal for “restraint” and “civility.”

True north strong not free

Photograph by Chris Bolin

Still, they liked the cut of her jib over at Bernie Farber’s Canadian Jewish Congress. The CJC declared:

“Remember that old childhood adage, ‘sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me’?

“Well, it wasn’t true then and it’s not true now. Name-calling does hurt…Attacks against an individual’s—or a group’s—sexuality, ethnicity, religion or culture can cut to the quick, demoralizing victims and inflicting wounds that can last a lifetime.”

You mean like “kikeroaches”? Oh, perish the thought. The CJC continued:

“Students at the University of Ottawa this week made their intolerance for intolerant attitudes quite clear when they demonstrated against scheduled speaker Ann Coulter, an American right-winger with an apparent axe to grind against just about anyone who’s not a middle-class white American.”

Actually, that’s not true. She’s a great defender of the state of Israel, for example. Whereas the students the CJC praised for shutting her down are the same crowd who organized “Israeli Apartheid Week.” Given a choice between a steadfast friend of Israel and the new and ubiquitous campus Judenhass, the CJC characteristically chose the latter. For years, Bernie Farber’s CJC has never met a state censor it didn’t like. Now, it’s extolling the virtues of mob rule. By the “Israeli Apartheid” gang. Granted that the only plausible explanation for the CJC is that it’s an Islamist front organization, you surely don’t want to make it too obvious.

That seems an appropriately logical reductio for multiculturalism: the subhuman zionazis and the Riot Against Israeli Apartheid executive committee united by their opposition to Ann Coulter. Celebrate diversity! Thus, the new Canada: intolerance is “tolerance”; mob rule is “restraint”; “kike­roaches” is “civility”; law enforcement is optional; jokes are actionable; up is down; black is white; “conflict studies” majors are rioting; Steve Paikin interviewing the Ontario finance minister on public television makes Jerry Springer interviewing transsexuals who date their ex-wives’ dads look like Jack Paar hosting Kitty Carlisle Hart; and sticks and stones may break your bones, but Rocks like Allan will issue a soothing press release. What an Olympic opening ceremony it would make.

Editor’s Note: In this column, “True North strong not free,” (April 12, 2010), quotes were attributed to the Canadian Jewish Congress that came from The Mississauga News. The CJC had posted the quotes on their website under the heading ‘Articles of Interest.’ Subsequent commentary and satire in the column was linked to those quotes. Maclean’s regrets any confusion they might have caused by attributing certain positions directly to the CJC.




Browse

True North strong not free

  1. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind,” wrote François Houle, the provost of the University of Ottawa, addressing Miss Coulter in the smug, condescending, preening tone that comes so naturally to your taxpayer-funded, tenured mediocrity.

    So well put.

    Thanks Mark

    • If one must deal with the likes of Steyn /coulter and Levant, smug condescension is warranted, probably advisable.

      • Mike were is your ever present liberal tolerance? Smug condescension is never warranted young man. I would suggest you look up the words liberty and freedom, two of the many things you must abandon in a quest for utopia. A quest that man can not achieve for the simple fact that man is man.,

    • Yes, asking a guest to be respectful is quite the censure, isn't it?

      The fact is she cancelled the appearance sight unseen, while her audience sat waiting. She, not Levant were ever able to produce the supposed threats.

      Both Coulter and Levant initially claimed that the event was cancelled by the Ottawa Police Dept. However both were forced to later admit the appearance was cancelled by Ann Coulter herself.

      They openly lie to the public, the journalists trying to find out what happened, to their own audience in attendance, and impugn public institutions that were present to ensure that she be allowed to speak in safety…yet they are the ones being censured?

      Bollocks.

      • It is uncontested fact that Ottawa police on the scene informed the organizers that they could not guarantee anyone's safety against the student mob. Whether it's good for police to behave this way letting those who threaten violence get their way is open for debate. That they did so is not.

        Proceeding against the advice of police would have nullified any insurance provisions and the organizers could not risk discarding police advice.

        Since this was reported correctly in many newspapers, what leftist echo chamber do you spend your time in?

        • Speech bad, violence good?

    • Ah yes, mediocrity. Finally a topic that Steyn knows something about.

      • Steyn would own you in any arena excluding, possibly, zit-faced, 29 year old, video game addict look-a-like contests……or something.

        Mr.Steyn has proven to be both intelligent and capable. Two things your 17th century insult doesn't convey.

      • Ah…imagine the improvements to civility and respect that could be wrought by three red-blooded American men with hickory axe-handles at such an event. It brings a tear to my eye to look at those stupid little pink leftist Canadians and their Marxist third-world immigrant pals and imagine scything through them with a solid piece of hardwood.

        It would take about 45 minutes to fix what is wrong with our benighted neighbor to the north, and it would be my great pleasure.

        • Hey we're not all like that! I would dearly LOVE to get hold of some of these mouthy little Socialist fellow Canadians of mine and do just what you described!! It would'nt bring a tear to my eye, but a bigger smile you could not imagine!

        • You are saying that, were you permitted, you would slaughter millions of people who's only crime is holding a difference of opinion?

          Some might consider that advocating hatred and violence.

      • Good point Ben, "barely adequate or ordinary, " a topic Mr. Steyn knows very well he is from Canada right? The Land of mediocrity, and with the help of group thinkers like yourself, heck we can have that mind numbing mediocrity right here in The Divided Socialist States Of America. A fact not lost on Mr. Steyn. I'm glad your so ready for that ice cold embrace of tyranny. Myself and countless others, (Mr. Steyn included ) will indeed resist, and resistance is never futile.

    • Those are stroung words from a magasine writer. I think francois houle's response didn't deserve such comments from your private-funded , tenure mediocrity!

  2. From the headline, Mark, I thought you were coming to the defence of the targets of Quebec's new head gear law.

    I agree with Coby Cosh's observation on this Ann Coulter mess that those who had a hand in squashing her Ottawa appearance only opened the doors for the same goon style tactics to be used against speakers they do approve of.

    The law is intended, from what I understand, only to censor speech that is likely to incite violence, hatred or contempt for a broad community. Held to a strict standard, I believe that to be reasonable.

    All else should be freely ventilated, if only to expose it to the light of reason, truth and objectivity and condemn it for the nonsense it truly is. The corollary, of course, is that by allowing alternative points of view to be heard, we can better appreciate the need for social change, like universal suffrage, civil rights, or the value of loving thy neighbour, treating others as you would wish to be treated and turning the other cheek.

    • I'm not worried that speakers that leftists approve of will get shouted down because Harper goons usually block these speakers at our border.

      • Actually each one of the people you're referring to has either committed acts of terrorism, or provided direct support to them. But yes, terrorists tend to be leftists.

        • You can't be serious. They may use leftist desire for a big hug utiopia against them, but promoting regressive values (ala repression of women, persecution of non-traditional sexual preferences, promotion of religious theocracies, etc.) clearly indicates right of centre ideology.

          They are certainly anti-freedom, but that is not a right / left exclusivity.

    • The law is intended…only to censor speech that is likely to incite violence, hatred or contempt…. I believe that to be reasonable.

      It's interesting how this idea is almost invariably stated: always grouping together "inciting violence" with "hatred" and "contempt" in the same breath smears the latter with the former. They are not the same thing, and let us stop pretending they are. Inciting violence is "Let's go kill those Russians over there right now.", hatred is "I hate the Russians", and contempt is "The Russians have always hurt us and they are evil".

      Only the former should be a criminal offense. The latter were taught to us every class in a government-funded "cultural" school that I attended (my background is from a Eastern European neighbour of Russia).

      • If such as law is to be applied, let it be applied universally. If it is meant to protect against inter-ethnic violence in Canada, then let all ethnic groups be held to the same standards.

        Those on the ideological left, influenced by the toxic identity politics of the U.S., believe that hatred only flows from white to not-white. The truth is, violence between ethnic groups is most likely to erupt between two groups in Canada who happen to be in conflict elsewhere in the world. Today it's Isreal and the Palestinians, and tomorrow it'll be somebody else.

        Case in point – the greatest terrorist attack in Canadian history was pulled off by Sikh extremists angry at the Hindu majority in India. Why not tackle the extremism that led to such attacks, by applying the anti-hate laws universally and fairly? But of course, white cops arresting Sikhs who call for the murder of Hindus would be racist.

        • How about we just let everybody vent their "hatred", and have an open debate? I'd much rather have free speech for everybody than limited speech for everybody.

        • My summation of what I think I recall the law to be should not be taken as gospel. If I have clumsily grouped things improperly or inaccurately, bad on me.

          "I hate the Russians" is expressing hatred, not inciting it. "Hate Russians because they are evil" is inciting hatred.

          "The Russians have always hurt us and they are evil" isn't even expressing contempt, it's expressing an opinon. I would be OK with it as an expression of free speech. Saying"Russans are subhuman because of their fondness for killing babies" would be inciting contempt or hatred.

          • I believe you should be able to express an opinion, honestly held, so long as it is not formulated in such a way that it tries to invite others into joining in an illegal act or dangerous state.

            Ok, but then how does "Russians are subhuman because of their fondness for killing babies" invite others into an illegal act? If it doesn't, then by your definition, criminal hate speech can only be applied very narrowly.

            (to be a bit disingenuous) What is this "dangerous state" that your'e speaking of, anyway? Drunkenness? So saying "Drink every time the Russians take a penalty" is criminal hate speech?

          • Sorry, I tried to edit, but as you can see, I had some trouble. The other problem is that text doesn't convey tone well. I'm not a natural philosophical debater and am not well equipped with ready examples. But basically, inviting others into a conspiritorial state where you can begin to consider the target group as being beneath the threshold of respect, humane treatment, etc…

            This goes to the dangerous state (of mind, I should have added) you ask about. Once someone has reached a state of mind where they either hold such hatred or contempt for a group of people, it is easier for them to contemplate either withholding human decency, or committing acts that are beneath human decency. Consider how slave negros or concentration camp Jews were portrayed by their foes, and you will have a sense of what I am trying to say.

          • Why not give the contemporary example of the way Muslims talk about Jews even in the West while in Muslim countries, well, it''s judenhass 24/7. It's based on both the Koran and Mohammed's example that all devout Muslims follow and is therefore an ineradicable hatred and incitement to murder.

          • What difference would it make to the substance of my point?

          • That you ignore the clear and present danger and go decades, even over a hundred years into the past for your examples implies that you prefer uncontroversial examples and that smacks of PC cowardice. Your point is only useful if applies to a problem in the here and now. Otherwise it's just abstract hot air.

          • I made a simple choice to go to cases where a clearly established link has been established between a dominant super culture that successfully portrayed and rendered a subset of that culture into subhuman status. Taht you choose to deflect from my actual point is telling. Sophist rhetorical devices are transparent and revealing at the same time.

      • My summation of what I think I recall the law to be should not be taken as gospel. If I have clumsily grouped things improperly or inaccurately, bad on me.

        "I hate the Russians" isexpressing hatred, not inciting it. "Hate Russians because they are evil" is inciting hatred.

        "The Russians have always hurt us and they are evil" isn't even expressing contempt, it's expressing an opinon. I would be OK with it as an expression of free speech. Saying"Russans are subhuman because of their fondness for killing babies" would be inciting contempt or hatred.

      • Usually by the time they're getting the ropes tied to the trees, it's a little late. The "oh, i didn't specifically SAY they should be killed off in so many words" is cutesy. The bar for hate speech is exceedingly high, but it's sensible that you don't have to advocate specific acts of violence.

    • "The law is intended, from what I understand, only to censor speech that is likely to incite violence, hatred or contempt for a broad community. Held to a strict standard, I believe that to be reasonable. "

      Who makes the judgment that speech is "likely" to result in action? That definition is completely dependent on an offended groups proclivity for violent reaction, doesn't it? The only restriction on speech should be for explicitly advocating a violent act.

      • The courts and human rights tribunals have done a very good job of sorting out the distinction, setting a very very high bar for actual hate speech. I think we can all be proud of the work they're doing.

        • Seems as if soon you will not be able to tell the difference between Canada and the good old USSR! Congratulations, comrades!

      • "That definition is completely dependent on an offended groups proclivity for violent reaction"

        No it is dependent on the audience's likely reaction towards the offended group in responce to the person speaking.

        I don't agree with your "only" restriction, for reasons I explore elsewhere in response to PeterK. Creating the conditions necessary for society to commit violence against others is usually the first step and a necessary one. By dehumanizing a group and scapegoating them, you create the condiitons necessary for violence.

        How the tests for prosecuting these kinds of offenses are created is beyond my abilities, but I have faith we can do so without censoring fair comment.

        • "By dehumanizing a group and scapegoating them, you create the condiitons necessary for violence".

          The only group that gets dehumanized and scapegoated in Canada with impunity at the moment is white heterosexual men.

          • speak for yourself. as a member of that group I'm not in the least threatened

          • I qualify for protected or favored group status myself but that doesn't mean I'm blind to what's happening to young white men who are wrongly penalized.

            "I'm all right Jack" is hardly an answer when boys are falling far behind in our feminized public schools followed by making up less than 40% of undergrad university students. This is big trouble for them and society coming up.

          • You may want to look into the reasons for that.
            When you do, you'll find it's because boys tend to drop out earlier and seek employment. Girls, not so much, probably because it's harder for them to get hired. As a result, they continue on into further education.

          • "Girls, not so much, probably because it's harder for them to get hired. "

            I think he was referring to the present day, not the 19th century.

            I love how when girls lag in any particular metric it's a sign of discrimination against women, while when boys lag in any particular metric it's also a sign of discrimination against women.

          • So was I. Look into it. The types of positions you can get as a drop-out from highschool as a boy as compared to a girl. Putting it bluntly, the trades don't mind hiring young men. They're more reluctant to hire young woman. You can argue this, or you can put on your shoes and go look at pretty much any blue-collar industry and count.

            I love how misogynists use false generalization to discard any particular metric which may be a sign of discrimination against women.

          • "Putting it bluntly, the trades don't mind hiring young men. They're more reluctant to hire young woman. You can argue this, or you can put on your shoes and go look at pretty much any blue-collar industry and count. "

            Or more likely, women are less interested in the trades. You can argue this, or you can get off your duff and go look at pretty much any blue-collar program in trade school and count.

            "I love how misogynists use false generalization to discard any particular metric which may be a sign of discrimination against women."

            I love how you, in particular, nearly always resort to name-calling when you encounter disagreement and aren't quite sure how to handle it. Where I come from this is considered a sign of weakness.

          • Or more likely, women are less interested in the trades. You can argue this, or you can get off your duff and go look at pretty much any blue-collar program in trade school and count.

            You probably would be too. But that isn't men's fault, nor is it women's fault. That's just the fact that there are overwhelmingly more men than there are women, and that would be intimidating to anyone.

            As to the point about whether there are jobs for women who leave high school, you can look at pretty much any non blue-collar hiring venue that would take high school dropouts (e.g. Tim Horton's) and count.

            This isn't a fair comparison to trades jobs. Service industry jobs don't pay anything near what trades do.

            Anyway, none of that matters since the question is why more girls go to university than guys. And since way more guys go into trades, and women already make up more of the population than men, it would seem to make sense that women would have higher university attendance.

            That isn't really the fault of anyone. And, it especially isn't a targeted attack on boys.

        • Your ignorance is stunning. I kept writing a rebuttal but it became a form of work. i than realized your so historically limited about the Planet it would have no meaning to a Tabula Rasla mind like yours. As well as pawned to the squared, with stupid Marxist lies & propaganda from the late Soviet Empire. It would take a six month course to re-introduce you to reality from Trudeupian Revisionist dissipation. Frankly its not worth it.
          JMO

          • Sorry to have stunned you. Try me, I'll listen.

      • What are you, rational?

    • Then it is very telling indeed that the only people who had a hand in "squashing her Ottawa appearance" were in fact Ann Coulter herself and Ezra Levant.

      It is no surprise at all to learn that Ms. Coulter would take an action to open doors for goon style tactics.

  3. Well said Mark.

    Sadly, even a failed comic like Mike Bullard took this at a chance to attack Earle. In an interview on the radio, Bullard went for him gung ho, saying he deserved what he got since he did not handle the heckler in the 'right' way.

    Which of course explains why Bullard no longer has a comedy show on TV.

    • So Bullard thinks that a comedian being unfunny deserves a $20,000 penalty. Bullard's bill must be in the millions, what an idiot.

    • Mike Bullard is still alive? And in Canada?! That guy can conjure up hatred with the best of them. I can remember as a kid watching his show on TV and being amazed at how spectacularly UNFUNNY he was.

      • I remember his shows going somewhat like this:

        MB: So Guest X, how are ya? *pause for him laughing silently*
        G: Alright
        MB: No seriously, how are ya? *pause again for himself laughing at his own joke silently*
        G: Great
        MB: Great welcome to the show! *pause again…. leaving the guest somewhat uncomfortable*

        And just continue ad nauseum, i never saw what the end of the interviews looked like. Thank God for the channel changer.

        • I had completely forgotten about how he'd be the ONLY one who'd be laughing at his jokes. And he'd laugh at them like it was the funniest thing he'd ever heard. Thanks for the reminder!

    • So Bullard thinks that a comedian being unfunny deserves a $20,000 penalty? Bullard's bill must be in the millions.

      • Now THAT's funny. But perhaps Bullard can now complain to an HRC that he has been held up to ridicule and offended as a member of an identifiable minority group – unfunny comedians.

        On the other hand, the HRC's have designated that group as victimizers in the Earle case so forget that idea. You're either a pet of the HRC or not. Can't be both.

    • When a Hockey player leaves the ice he isn't playing Hockey any more…so leaving the stage to go after a paying customer is no longer being a Entertainer with Artistic Freedoms. That remained on the stage.
      At what point can being a common drunken thug be shrouded as an advocate for Free Speech, vs someone gone looking for trouble and simply finding it? WHEN HE LEFT THE STAGE HE MADE HIS INTENT CLEAR.
      As for 'heckling', since when is RESPONDING considered to be heckling and not criticism? THAT is the REAL Freedom of Speech issue here. Kissing? Not allowed? THAT is the REAL Freedom of expression here.
      Loud? They were seated by staff at a table next to loudspeakers, which the Owner of the Eatery saw fit to have there…guess who's responsible for the environment of the establishment.
      Payment of ANY sort, even just PERMISSION TO PERFORM, makes the Owner responsible for his staff (paid or volunteer) in his establishment…even if he'd stepped out of the Province during the incident (he was sitting in the back).
      As for Mike Bullard, at least he is a known COMEDIAN…unlike 'Bad Guy' Earle who is known for only this controversy where described by one of the witness's under Oath…"He's not funny."
      We just aren't playing Hockey.

      • First thing: speaking as a comedian, go f*ck yourself.

        Secondly, volunteers aren't liable unless they are negligent (in a way that corresponds to their volunteer duties/powers. A volunteer going postal does not make the Red Cross liable.) Further, the bar's staff is not facing the HRT. So not only was your point wrong, it was also a non-sequitur, but the caps lock helped give it that air of authority.

        Lastly, your argument actually boxes you into a corner:
        1)You state: If he was no longer a comedian at the time, he is liable
        2) If he was no longer a comedian at the time, he is not in the employ of the establishment, and thus making comments as a private individual
        3) A person not in the employ of an establishment, and thus making comments as a private individual, is not liable for discrimination under the BC Human Rights legislation.
        4) Premises 1 and 3 make a logical contradiction (P -and- not P) and is therefore wrong and invalid.

        Speaking as a private individually, or socially, has long been held in the common law and under our Charter as protected free speech. Social comments can't be shown to be negligent misrepresentation (Hercules Management v. Ernst & Young), private speech cannot be considered slanderous (basic common law), and lastly, disputes between two private individuals will never receive standing under the Charter (Schacter v. Canada).

        QED…. and shut up, please.

  4. God help us. We've raised a generation of 26 year olds who have the life experience and emotional maturity of 12 year olds from past generations. They've been coddled and protected and entitled to the point that they actually think their Orwellian drivell is where it's at.

    Someone attack us and give us something to really complain about.

    • Man Oh Man….you are correct on THAT one!
      Reality will be a harsh bitch slap for some of these kids

    • too funny. am sharing space with one of them right now. priviledged…smug…and condescending to accomplished people almost twice his age. yet he can't lift a finger to help anyone else..nor follow through on any of his espoused suggestions for action. who is paying the cheque for these ignorant peeps?

    • Wow. Aren't you afraid that the thought police are going to come get you? I mean, that's tantamount to saying you wish the People's Republic of Canada had some real difficulty to deal with, instead of all this teenage angst that threatens to engulf your country. Where is adversity when you need it? What's next, your Putzament, er, uh, Parliament going to pull the plug on the Internet?

    • Funny. I seem to remember baby boomers acting just the same and protesting when they were young. And they were "coddled and protected and entitled" until adulthood, and still won't get off the freaking stage.

      It's amusing to look back at history and see how the younger generations manage to scare the old folks. Sadly, those young generations then grow up to be the next disapproving, bloated older generation. But that's just how the world goes.

      • Exactly.

    • Amen

  5. this is the vaginafication of canadian society: we throw people in prison for having the "wrong" opinions; we pass off intolerance as tolerance; we sit around numbly whilst those with unpopular opinions are attacked and bullied; we blithely ignore the fact that slithering MPs see their benefits skyrocket whilst most canadians see their life savings shrink; and we have no problem with funding feminist studies departments that demonize men even though the number of young men going to university in this country has shrunk steadily over the past two generations in large measure because universities (and the education system in general) are not exactly warmly congenial to young men. the frightening thing about canada is that even sending an email worded in the manner of this missive can get someone threatened with criminal harassment or dragged in front of a human rights commission.

    Canada is nothing more than an excrement pit and soviet union-lite, and we all know it.

    • I'm with you Blaine. And it's well past time people in Canada opened their eyes and got off of their lazy asses. The veil is off and the truth about the leftist agenda should be crystal clear to all but most gullible by now. Time is running out to turn this back in our life time if ever.

    • Vaginafication……..Whoa! Excellent term! I'm an ex-pat Canuck living in the States, and it pains me to see the great Dominion devolve into this PC utopia. It will be interesting to watch the debate between the feminists and the muzzies. Who can be more diverse and oppressed? I've always loved Canada, but I fear for her future…..and will never return.

      • Good lord, what log have you had your head stuck in for the last twenty years? Feminism is barely alive, let alone an active force. When the vast majority of MPs and MPPs and MLAs and members of boards of directors and magazine editors and union leaders are women — the topsy turvy of what we have today — then you can talk about vaginification. Until then, please just enjoy your unearned privilege in whatever country suits you best.

      • So far both Canadian and American feminists defer to brown men. Muslim women are on their own.

        This is because feminism has degenerated to a branch of leftism and in the Church of Leftism, multiculturalism, the fiction that all cultures are comparable takes precedence over women's rights.

    • Vaginafication

      Way to call all women weak. That's one way to make your point.

      we blithely ignore the fact that slithering MPs see their benefits skyrocket whilst most canadians see their life savings shrink

      Not sure how this relates to freedom of speech issues.

      and we have no problem with funding feminist studies departments that demonize men even though the number of young men going to university in this country has shrunk steadily over the past two generations in large measure because universities (and the education system in general) are not exactly warmly congenial to young men.

      I've been to two different post-secondary institutions and I only ever felt singled out (as a white male) in one class. But that was a race and ethnicity class so go figure. i'm sure everyone felt singled out in that class.

      On the other hand, considering that I don't have to deal with being hauled off airplanes because of other passenger's prejudices, or being hundreds of times more likely to be stopped by police, because of the colour of my skin, I think I can deal with being slightly uncomfortable in one class that is designed for that purpose.

      Canada is nothing more than an excrement pit and soviet union-lite, and we all know it.

      Free speech is not dead. Sure its taken a small beating, with no small part due to the regulations surrounding the HRCs, but it isn't dead.

    • I live in canada, and i am currently a citizen, and i totally agree. I pray i get to leave within the next 5 years.

  6. Nice to know that, even if Canada has lost it's sense of humour and proportion, it's still a ripe subject for comedy.

  7. what i find most interesting is that, as our freedoms dwindle in most avenues of life, canadians embrace the play world of sports (hockey) with increasing ardour. there is something infantile about a nation where a simple game creates more passion than real-world problems involving free speech, freedom of assembly/expression, and freedom of conscience. Most canadians – if you are not a white female of the liberal persuasion, a lesbian, a transvestite pedophile or an "identifiable minority" – live their lives like muzzled puppets because they are fearful of what might happen should they step out of line and challenge trudeaupian pieties or feminist-marxist ideals. Is it any wonder, really, why the social sciences, the arts and literature are so dessicated in this colonial backwater? People with talent and creativity and a willingess to be edgy invariably head to america because at least there freedom of expression is still valued. ____Canada is a nation for losers

    • We aim for mediocre. It's safe.

    • You're welcome to leave. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

      • I'd much prefer he stay and you leave, with the door hitting you with utmost precision.

    • Hear, hear.

  8. Great article Mark, with your cutting wit shredding the twits at the U of Zero.

    Its ironic that Allen Rock-heads one claim to fame, the long gun registry is being chopped up at the same time he's being exposed for the feeble wanker he is.

    Rocko and the Ryerson gang are hard on the heels of diversity, as long as it isn't going to impact their tenure. Or ensuring that the rules.. only apply to whitey.

  9. Even in Central VA, part of the "Bible Belt" of America, the College I attended in the 90's had as it's proud new motto: "Celebrating Diversity." That seemed a nice-enough thought to me until a professor in one of my lit. classes proclaimed that "everyone knows Jesus Christ is a fairy tale." Seems the Diversity is Celebrated only if the Celebrators agree that the Diversity fits into their pet peg-holes.

    • Right, just like the present Governor is proclaiming "Confederacy Month" to celebrate all the great attributes of the civil war, the unjust attack from the North, I might add. He thoughtfully forgets to mention and remember all the slaves that the good southern citizens of Virginia had at the time. Woops, sorry, my bad. He back tracked. Then of course his hand picked attorney general who directed all colleges and universities that if they wanted to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, they were free to do so. There was no law to prevent it.
      So in conclusion, when I read about our northern brothers in Canada preventing the wicked witch of the South with the brains of a true southerner from espowing her hate filled nonsense in their wonderful country, I wish that we could follow that lead.

      • Actually, less than 2% of southerners owned slaves. Slaves were rather expensive, more expensive than horses. And of all that 2%, only a fraction of those had huge plantations. Most of the 2% who owned slaves only had 2 or 3, if they could afford it. I suggest you stop allowing Hollywood images of the US fog your ability to reason.
        BTW, slavery existed in canada along side the US for 200 years. And even the American slaves who fled into Canada after 1840 were met with cruel racism and prejudice. I'm sure even canadians have heard of their Africville and the horror you unleashed on blacks there.

      • Way to totally prove his point with your last sentence! BRAVO.

    • I heard about that same reverential treatment of "Diversity" on display at a small Midwestern evangelical college that a relative was attending. They all seem to think they've discovered the secret key to the universe, and they're patting themselves on the back enthusiastically.

  10. In a way, it isn't all so bad.

    I've followed this story closely. One thing I've notice clearly is this: Almost everyone is condemning it. That shows a society that isn't quite as braindead as, say… Sweden or Norway… with their State-Controled medias all singing the same official doctrine of prudence and restraint.

    I find we're also targeting a bit foolishly. Free Speech should also apply to the protesters, unless they really do wreck havoc. In this case, I cannot explain why Coulter did not give her speech, that shows cowardice. At the same time, I'd surely blame the police for being cowards too. How could they say they could not guarantee her safety, are they the police or not? For crying out loud. It doesn't make me very safe that the police cannot guarantee our safety… what were they, protesters armed with AK-47 and Machetes?

    Protesters can protest, lecturers can lecture… but it seem police can't really police. Ann Coulter really just is the Michael Moore of the Right, a brat that find her validation in being the center of attention (bookjackets with her picture on the cover, just like Moore), not really because she have any great insight on any given topics (like Moore)… But that's what makes the bestsellers list in non-fiction, boorish polemics from the left and right complaining about the left and right (liberal/conservative). The point is, at least it exist, that debate… Canada is not dead yet, it exports some of the greatest Conservatives to the US and they send us Coulter in return, that's the thing I'd like to protest. Why didn't the University call the author of this article or David Frum while you're at it (he's looking for new sources of incomes).

    • Coulter, like Steyn and Levant, has realized the most profitable way to play victim.

      • … UNLIKE gays, muslims, blacks ….who have "never" profitted ad nauseum from their feigned victimhood. *sarc off*

        Ann Coulter is many things — but a victim is not one of them!

        • very much unlike indeed.

          And of course she isn't a victim.

      • Well, the Left in the person of Mike T is certainly expert in the playing the victim strategy. Every one of their constituencies is encouraged to play the victim even generations after whatever sins were committed against their ancestors, not themselves. The Left's motto is "Permanent victims R us.

        The Left converts even convicted criminals into victims of society.

        The difference, too subtle for Mike T. is that all the people he named above actually have been victimized for exercising their free speech rights. They're not caterwauling about something that may or may not have happened to their great grandmother and they're not asking for money.

        • YOu don't think they're asking for money? I assume you have never visited Levant's website and his pleas to aid him recover for the
          $50,000+ it supposedly cost him for a 45 minute meeting with the alberta HRC (and no charges). On behalf of his poor child, dontcha know?

          • Again you don't understand glaring differences. Levant's funding is voluntary from private sources. People contribute who don't think it's fair that a complainant's legal costs are covered by the government with tax monies but the subject of a complaint is punished before any finding by having to pay for his own defense. Even if he's found innocent, he's not reimbursed so the process is the punishment in Levant's words.

            On the other hand, HRC complainants and eternal victim groups demand tax monies that are forcibly extracted from people who have never harmed a hair on recipient's heads or their ancestors. That's a shakedown.

          • You do realize that you don't actually have to pay anything for your defense at a tribunal, right? That's why they exist, so that somebody who's accused doesn't have to go out and hire an expensive lawer to defend him or herself from something that may turn out to be false.

            Of course, if you're dumb enough, or on a mission like Ezra, then sure, you pay all kinds of costs.. but that's entirely your choice. I was always amazed at Ezra's gall in essentially begging people to help him pay for expenditures that were entirely in his control.

          • Are you for real? You would go lawyerless against the accuser who has the use of government funded lawyers and wait for a state tribunal of non-elected unaccountable lefties to decide your fate in a completely erratic manner disallowing truth as a defense?

            What touching faith you have in the state machinery. Anyone who doesn't share it is going to be out a lot of money defending himself.

          • If you look at the actual rulings, not the lies and misinformation that Ezra spreads, you'll find the rulings are anything but erratic, and tend to make a lot of sense.

          • You're right that the rulings are not erratic but systematically biased leftward, explaining why you think they "make a lot of sense". However, to get to the foreordained conclusion, tribunals make the rules up as they go along and change them from case to case. That's the definition of erratic.

          • Mike, continue do display your ignorance. Or apparently you knowingly wish to invent some moral equivalence between hoping to recoup REAL material losses brought by malicious slapp-type litigation or mob action aimed at silencing a political opponent, as Levant, Coulter and Steyn have experienced, and demands for material compensation for IMAGINED harm, as routinely trotted out by "professional victims" offended (or, more precisely, putting on a poor act of being offended) by sharp-tongued commentators like Levant and Coulter. I find your conflation of the two revolting. The very notion that it could be perfectly acceptable to deal with contrary political views by shouting someone down, mob intimidation or lawfare instead of open discourse is disgusting totalitarian filth. But I do not imagine that even such offensive tripe constitutes (actionable) "harm" in any sense; the cure for bad speech is not lawfare or censorship — it is more, and better, speech.

    • While almost everyone seemed to condemn, it matters nothing to the pseudo-intellectual self proclaimed thought militia. It reminds me of the proles and party members in Orwell's 1984. The party members, which in our case would be the policy makers and pundits, are only allowed to spout the party line. The rest of us would be the proles. The insiders couldn't care less if we agree or rage as long as they continue to control the narrative. When was the last time you heard of someone hauled up against an HRC (human rights commission) for calling a Christian a name. Only the flavour of the month need apply.

    • Your tolerant diatribe.."Ann Coulter really just is the Michael Moore of the Right, a brat that find her validation in being the center of attention…" certainly earns you the Medal of Honour for the Old Dominion, bare-baiter that you may be, you didn't really show the real you under all of that Lefty Twaddle.

      • I guess you're the type of guy that also condemn David Frum for speaking out against Glenn Beck and co.

        Is he a Lefty Twaddle too for not "sticking up" with the team? Get real, there is populist conservatism (Coulter, Beck, etc)… then there is the rest (whom some call elitist conservatism). I don't like the Media Circus acts on either side of the fences, I find it regrettable they take all the space.

        I'm more the kind to read books, the National Review, National Post and Weekly Standard… than the kind to get pumped by some bullshit I hear on Fox News.

        It's got everything to do with tolerance of all positions, I have nothing against the populists, that's their game. I'm glad Canada have that, that we have medias that are ranging from the right to the left. That is just not true in countries like Sweden or Norway, where the narrative is one and the same everywhere, no counter possible, all State-Owned. There is very few countries that have as rich a freedom of the press as Canada, the US and England. France doesn't have it, go read their "Right-Wing" medias like Le Figaro or Le Point and you'll really have to wonder what's right-wing about them. They are also incredibly parochial and rather speak about the President love life most of the time… than to write an editorial about, say, the Oil For Food fraud of Total (they'll have to read American media to read opinion pieces about it). It's all really peripheric, while pretending to be political, there is no great debate taking place.

        If you think you have to be left-wing to think Ann Coulter is an attention-seeking brat, you are a bit of a fool. Mark Steyn also often makes that mistake in the US of never offending anyone else in the conservative/libertarian/republican circle, cause of course he still want his gigs at Fox News every once in a while. Gotta play by the rules, David Frum broke them.

      • Not sure why my last comment was automatically deleted, can't be bothered to write it anew.

        In short, you have to be a little naïve or a fool to assume a person must be left-wing because they dismiss Ann Coulter.

        • Considering that Mark Steyn has already been through the Human Rights Commission gauntlet for speaking the truth…

          And you think David Frum is a bastion of Conservatism…

          Pretty much renders your argument, well, retarded.

    • It's true that everyone seems to be condemning what happened at the UWO but will this result in any change? It would be interesting to see what would happen if another right-wing "hatemonger" is scheduled to speak at the university. Obviously, Houle would not be sending any helpful advice but would the university executive refuse to allow another another potentially embarrassing PR circus? Would the mob of angry leftists show up without being encouraged by their organizers?

      The HRCs embarrassment at the hands of Maclean's and Ezra only succeeded in preventing high profile cases. People like guy Earle are still being subjected to the nightmare of human rights enforcement. The Senate has recently made a bit of noise about reform so I guess there is some progress.

      Maybe the fear of free speech should be handled like agoraphobia, you have to slowly desensitize the patient. Encourage them to expand beyond their university imposed safe, positive space. Inviting hordes of right wing knuckle-draggers to speak at university campuses could be seen as performing a valuable public service.

    • " Canada exports some of the greatest conservatives to the US … David Frum". Frum is no conservative. He pretends to be one. He is just a left wing RINO hypocrite!

  11. I`ve lived in the nation`s capital my entire life and can say that the OPS is a fine institution, one of the most honest and dedicated police forces in the country. Steyn`s ignorant, self-(Coulter)-serving attacks against them are as opportunist as they are baseless. They did their job, as usual. Also par for the course, a cowardly Tory ran away rather than face popular opposition to their racist, intentionally inflammatory ideas. They care about the professional opinions of cops about as much as they do on the gun registry.

    This entire incident was part of an orchestrated stunt to portray grassroots anti-fascist (yes, in Coulter`s case: fascist) demonstrators as in the wrong and mount a frviolous human rights complaint suggesting perversely that `conservatives` (whatever the hell that term even means in this era of $55 billion deficits and a still unreformed Senate) are somehow an `identifiable` group.

    • Okay, fine, you're a politically correct socialist whose idea of "diversity" excludes anyone you consider "right wing". Nothing unusual there. But the point of Steyn's article is that *you* *leftists* are now being targeted by the HRCs. Steve Earle is a typical Canadian leftist. What are you going to do when someone from a "protected group" targets you? Do you have $20 000 for a lawyer and three years of your life to waste away?

      • No. Because I have brains and realize that I can write a letter outlining my defense. Only morons go to that type of cost and lengths.. well.. morons or people who can get morons to pay for it.

        • A person who thinks a letter from himself outlining his defense against an accuser from a pet protected group is going to stop the HRC machinery from running over him shouldn't be using the word "moron" to describe anyone else.

    • >>This entire incident was part of an orchestrated stunt to portray grassroots anti-fascist (yes, in Coulter`s case: fascist) demonstrators as in the wrong and mount a frviolous human rights complaint suggesting perversely that `conservatives` (whatever the hell that term even means in this era of $55 billion deficits and a still unreformed Senate) are somehow an `identifiable` group. <<

      You're on crack.

      • Actually, Ezra Levant has said he means to bring just such a complaint, alleging 'conservatives' are an identifiable group. Look into it.

    • Thomas' remarks are those of an ignoramus or more likely, liar since media covered the Coulter treatment thoroughly. Instead of controlling and ejecting those interfering with free speech and assembly rights, the police informed those who were trying to exercise their rights peacefully that they (the police) could not guarantee their safety. There's no controversy about this fact.

      The violence threateners were leftist speech censoring fascists. If Coulter had persisted against police advice and those lefties had caused injury, the organizers would have been accountable and no insurance policy would have paid up. Under these circumstances it was not cowardly to withdraw but prudent.

      The Ottawa police gave the game away to the loud and lawless, just as the OPP did in Caledonia and the Toronto police to Tamil demonstrations. Apparently there's one way of policing for non-whites and another for whites. If you're white, try blocking Toronto's main thoroughfares for days to protest whatever and see how long police watch you do it, QED.

      • Poor oppressed whites, eh? Lol.

        Sorry to interrupt your Terreblanche mourning. Nazi scum.

        • Bil, the moment you assigned the the term, "Nazi scum," you lost the argument. Expression of persuasive reason or logical thought is what this forum is about. Name-calling does not get it done.

        • Nazy scum Bill? Hmmmm seems mighty enlightening of you to say so. Care to try and validate your statement? Care to list WHO and WHERE these 'nazy scum' are? As a Canadian, I would like to know. After all, I would not want to be mistaken as one. Instead of a Canadian…………………… based on your enslightfull and adult comment.

        • They both lose, minaka said

          “leftist speech censoring fascists”

          When will people understand (even remember) that the fascist/nazi card is a propaganda tool first used by Stalin (the West were all fascists)… so when you refer to something as fascist/nazi, you’re being a stupid stalinist. Best way to lose an argument, the Godwin’s Law.

          • And also fascism is an extreme rightist movement, not leftist. So logically that insult doesn't make sense at all. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

          • Your throw is a miss.

            The totalitarianism fascism is extreme right only for those gullible enough to be fooled by leftist propaganda. The Left didn't want two toxic "isms" on its side of the ledger where they belong. Read Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism" for ample historical documentation that places fascism where it has always belonged – on the left. That includes the version called nazism, the short form term the Left prefers to use to obscure what's spelled out in the long form: National Socialist German Workers' Party.

      • Did you even look at the photo on the third page? Looks pretty white to me.

    • Tommy,
      I realized you've lived all 19 years of your life in Ottawa, and as a wise old sage living in your mother's basement and playing your Wii Wii (or whatever it's called — I grew out of toys 50 years ago), methinks you do not grasp the gravity of defending freedom to speak vs. freedom of a mob to intimidate someone who has something to say.

      That's precisely the problem — you have never been out of Ottawa before and you have never been places where free speech — Left or Right — is shut down by tyrannical Government mobs. If you had been, then you would understand the importance of nipping that sort of repression in the bud. Because you could be next…

      • R,

        I've had the opportunity to travel extensively in the developing world, including some truly repressive states in Africa and Central Asia. I'm not going to take a lesson from you about the problems of the modern world, nor from any Tory.

        My only point was to defend the fine police of my hometown from slanderous partisan Tory attacks. You may want Anne Coulter to be popular and agree with her anti-Canadian views, but it doesn't mean that as you say the left should sit by compliantly while openly racist, violence-inciting foreign radicals bring their hatred and bile to Canadian campuses.

        Your Government blocks all speakers who disagree with them from even entering Canada, as with George Galloway or Mustapha Barghouti. Using the bully pulpit of CIC minister's office its easier to narrow debate.

        As for me being next, I promise not to call for institutional discrimination against or murder of any culture or faith. There, see? The state left me alone. This is Canada: angry Tories can't change the fact we're still a free country.

        • But the lawyer you will have to hire when the HRCs come after you won't be free – and the lawyers from the other side will be. Evade Leftist Thomas all you want – in your politically correct utopia you have no defence from the arbitary tactics of these maniacs. Tories can – and eventually will – be voted out of office. Staffers at HRCs can't be.

          • Except you don't have to hire a lawyer, and probably shouldn't bother unless you've got a legion of uninformed, ignorant masses behind you who are willing to pay you for it.

          • Thwim just knows that the state in the form of HRC's will treat him fairly…such child like faith.

      • Thumbs up for the Wii Wii comment.

        Epic.

    • P.S. Even if you're from one of those "protected groups", the HRC won't recognize your "protected" status, as the club owner Earle performed at is nearing financial ruin because of their persecution, and is likely wondering why he ever came to Canada.

      P.P.S. I meant to write "Guy" Earle.

      • I actually did write Mr. Earle, and he wrote me back. I told him it's too bad he didn't know before leaving the UK for canada that it was a provincial parody of liberal ideology and that he would end up being dragged before one of its kangaroo courts. Mr. Earle, no softy on dissing American culture, said he wished he had moved to the States instead. Perhaps he could be living as comfortably as Michael Moore by now.

    • So you're saying that Houle was in on this "orchestrated stunt?" I will grant you that Coulter adeptly took advantage of the opportunity to expose the hypocrisy and foolishness of the protesting students, the university administration, and the human rights panel, but I would not call that "orchestrated," or if it was orchestrated, then it was orchestrated by the leftists and it backfired. What's curious though is that they were so clueless that they did not see it coming. They did not see that they themselves would be portrayed as the intolerant ones. Possibly, they did not even realize that they were the intolerant ones. It is beyond pathetic that they have been so brainwashed that they don't see the noses on their own faces.

    • I disagree with you. I guess that makes me a fascist too, doesn't it? What is a fascist anyway? IMO it's a conservative who is winning the argument.

    • Thomas, you've got to be kidding us all, and people like you are exactly the problem. If you believe in a free society, irrespective of your political leanings, you cannot possible condone the increasing suppression of free speech and expression occurring in Canada. People who think all this political correctness, governmental involvement in determining and prosecuting hate speech, and public universities and institutions suppressing the expression of views by Ann Coulter and those with whom they disagree will be shocked, SHOCKED, when these very same people are ultimately subject to legal action related to their speech. THIS WILL HAPPEN!

    • Wow! Even after he goes through, step-by-step, dismantling everything that alleged university said it stood for, showing the glaring hypocrisy, proving them wrong in every instance, and exposing them for the ideological zealots they are, you still say, "Steyn`s ignorant, self-(Coulter)-serving attacks against them are as opportunist as they are baseless". In what universe does the point-by-point evisceration of their stated "values" and complete unveiling of "do as I say, not as I do" attitude, allow for the labelling of "baseless".

      You just outted yourself as an idiot. Enjoy your new title, m'lord.

      • Except Steyn lies. It's easy to dismantle anything if you start with lies.

    • After reading this article and the responses to posts such as Thomas's, I've come to the conclusion that any opinion here is valid, as long as the poster agrees with Steyn and the rest of the right-wing comments. If you offer an opposing viewpoint, it'll be shot down, and you'll be called a fascist or an ignoramus. Incidentally, those are common insults for Ann Coulter and were probably used by the students at the University of Ottawa, but wait, we're supposed to be condemning the students' conduct there, correct? I also find it interesting that Ricardo instantly assumed that Thomas was 19 years old. So, young people can't have opinions? They can't exercise their right to free speech and protest against people and opinions they find offensive?

      So according to Steyn and a majority of the posters, it's okay for Ann Coulter to spread her hate speech, but it's not okay for the students to speak out against her. I think this is what is known as a double standard.

      • As I read these posts, I realize that a persons' world view totally determines how they see 'right and wrong'. I feel that this is wrong.
        I don't know much about Ann, or what she believes. Frankly I don't care. I do care that protestors were allowed to use violence or the threat of violence to silence her. I do care that the police don't defend people against violence in Canada. I also care that some people, such as yourself, Ruby, compare someone who wants to speak peacfully with a mob that uses violence, as equal under the law. The people who disagree with Ann are allowed to say whatever they want to express their diasagreemnet – it's the use (and the fact that the police allowed) violence that should bother every Canadian.

        Regardless of any Canadian's political views, everyone in this country should object to using violence to intimidate anyone. As I read these posts I am saddened that some poeple allow their desire for their opinion to 'win' to cloud their judgment. This should be a no brainer. Whether you like or don't like Ann, we should all object to the actions of the protestors.

      • Where does Steyn say that it's "not okay for students to speak out against" Coulter? The students were allowed to speak – Coulter was not. That's the double standard. Are you dim, dishonest or both?

    • Police officers hate the long-gun registry.It does NOTHING to protect them or society.Police Chiefs(political)on the other hand do agree with you;the uninformed.

  12. What you've got to understand is that Canadian culture has ALWAYS valued decorum over freedom. The only change in recent years is that the privilege of defining what "decorum" is has been seized by a new faction. The old one was made up of old, white, imperialist Colonel Blimp types, to whom any complaint against sweatshop labour was ipso facto seditious and any mention of sexuality was ipso facto obscene. And let's not kid ourselves: in their heyday they exerted just as iron-fisted a control over what could be printed or spoken publicly as the new lot of tree-hugging, West-hating egalomaniacs who have seized the definition of "decorum" from them. They don't call it "decorum," any more, of course, and now only their opponents call it "political correctness," but it's the same old thing, just in different hands.

    Of course it's a power grab, pure and simple, by an "anti-elitist" elite who claim to speak for the downtrodden. But I don't think Mr. Steyn is going to marshal much public support against them by invoking the ideal of freedom, Yankee-style. Remember: he's preaching to Canadians, who have NEVER placed that much value on freedom as opposed to decorum.

    • Very well said. Aren't there still blasphemy laws on the books in Canada? (blasphemy, of course, meaning speaking out against Christianity or Christian religious princicples). Or laws again "Crime Comics"?

      And hasn't David Suzuki (or at least some other enviro-nut) called for a law banning climate denialism?

      Maybe Canadians have changed their minds on freedom of speech? There was a big pushback and support for Macleans during the Steyn debacle a while back. Maybe the truth is that we're becoming more "Yankee" in our attitudes and behaviours – we need more than Tim Horton's and Hockey and Universal Health Care to keep our identity separate, and we don't even have that last one anymore.

    • Does "valuing decorum" mean the sorry display exemplified here?

    • So you are saying that since intolerance has happened in the past to others, it is now OK for the previously oppressed to become the oppressors? Where does that road lead you to? Never mind. I suppose it would offend your delicate sense of decorum to actually have to think that one through.

      • And where did I say it was OK? I simply said that it's the same old same-old, not some radically new development. To interest Canadians in freedom as a supreme value, now, THAT would be a radically new development, but I don't hold much hope of its happening here, in the land where we say "Sorry" when someone steps on OUR toes. You should read a book called "Deference to Authority" by Edgar Z. Friedenberg, an ex-Yankee living in Canada; he's got us covered.

        • You make a few excellent points. It's one of the things that always bothered me about Bush II–the idea that everybody in the world wants to be free. Running away from free will is the commonest of human endeavors through history. The vast majority of religions, cults, political movements, philosophies etc are little more than arguments against the existence of free will. They use different methods to explain it away–the Fates/Norns, Society or Race or ancient wrongs, Daddy not patting one's head often enough, or in a lot of the Anglosphere 'proper behavior.' The reason people run from freedom is because responsibility cannot be divorced from freedom, and this despite the constant attempts through history. If you get to make the choice, you're responsible for the consequences, so quick come up with a way to pretend you didn't get to make the choice!!!

          Exchanging one slave system for another is the norm for revolutions, and often the new slave system is worse than the old–that's what we've got here. The old system allowed a slow social rise, but you could actually rise over a few generations from dustman to gentleman. The new system is totalitarian–and those scions of the old system, pretend revolutionaries as Mr. Steyn named them, are deluding themselves. They will only be able to ride the lightning so long, and then they'll be eaten because they are only pretending to be of the herd of swine they've flattered for so long. What's particularly funny is that they MADE these swine; the kids they deceived and flattered and mothered don't realize it's all a game, and don't know the difference between good citizens (or loyal subjects) and swine. Can't tell the difference between the people and the pigs, can we? If you want to know what pigs are really good for, watch Bricktop's Soliloquy on getting rid of unwanted bodies in 'Snatch.'
          Then be afraid–or start stockpiling ammunition.

          • There have always been people who crave security and despise accountability who just want to be taken care of, no matter how poorly. They will gladly trade freedom for predictability and want someone else to make the decisions for them. Then there are the independent spirits who prize the liberty to make their own decisions and live with the consequences.

            We appear to have reached a tipping point now in the West where the timorous and lazy can vote themselves a caretaker in the form of Big Government and over-rule the minority of productive citizens who must be robbed to make the others feel "safe".

            It's illusion of course that someone else's efforts will continue to be available to one, a sort of government enforced slavery. Socialism's fatal flaw is that not knowing how to make money only redistribute it, they eventually kill the golden goose with over-regulation or squeezing the last drop of blood and run out of other people's money to redistribute to themselves and their dependent constituencies. There's great discomfort and even a Dark Ages while people have to relearn the lessons of history.

            The longest period of peace and highest standard of living for the most people derives from a free people and free market economy. Every socialist/communist country ends in bankruptcy and/or soul deadening oppression. Contrast East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Mao's China and Hong Kong for the closest one can come to a controlled laboratory experiment comparing the two systems, statism vs a country where individual rights are paramount.

            The Left are the slowest learners on the planet. They are either sheep who want to be taken care of, or control freaks who lie and say they can do it.

    • You're correct. The Canadian hero was the Mountie. In America, we had anti-heroes; strong silent men who stood outside the system (the system/govt was often portrayed as corrupt/evil) and did the morally correct thing. This Coulter incident makes one thing clear; that the threat of totalitarianism in the US, Canada, and Europe comes from the Left.

    • Yup…Brits and their Canadian spawn are "subjects"…citizens of the United States are by Constitution "free persons".

    • "as the new lot of tree-hugging, West-hating egalomaniacs"

      Don't you mean "as the new lot of tree-hugging, ALBERTA-hating egalomaniacs"? Last I looked, there is still life west of the Alberta/B.C. border, and I would hazard a guess that there a few more tree-huggers in B.C. than anywhere you can name in the east.

      • I think he means West as in Western society, not West as in Western Canada.

  13. Mark and Ann are the world's wittiest columnists! They are geniuses who denounce hypocrisy. God bless them!

  14. Speak for yourself. I'm dismayed at the work they're doing.

    • Show me a bad decision on hate speech by a human rights commission proceeding. Now that Boission's got off on appeal, almost anything goes. Unless you're running a neo-nazi website, you're pretty much safe.

      Remember, Macleans won handily and they didn't even bother with a hearing for Levant.

      • Boisson's life has been hell for years. Getting off on appeal doesn't even begin to cover it when your accuser can ruin your life because of your opinions at no cost to themselves.

        If you are looking for another nutso case, try looking up Ted Kindos, former owner of a (now closed – thanks HRC!) Gator Ted's in Hamilton, Ontario.

        • I said the standard for hate speech is now almost impossible to meet and you reply with factors indemic to almost any kind of legal proceeding (and less in tribunals than courts, despite people's conditioned response to administrative procedures).

          I. win this round quite cleanly, methinks.

          • I. win this round quite cleanly

            Not even close. I'd be surprised if you've ever won a round with Gaunilon.

          • Yet neither of you are able to meet the challenge of showing a bad hate speech decision.

            Actions > words, my dear boy.

          • Luv the way you try to define the parameters of debate. Not. That's not how you win a debate, that's how you admit defeat.

          • Please feel free to re-read. From the beginning, my boy.

          • And I will accept this as an admission that you are unable to posit any instance of hate speech proceedings in our legal system where the charge was not justified as hate speech.

            I understand and accept (but do not agree with) the notion that free speech is so important as an absolute that there must be no restrictions on hate speech. But it's also important to realize that the "where do you draw the line" approach doesn't have much practical merit in our legal system, and that court's and tribuanals have done an exemplary job of making the distinction.

          • Mike, youthinks wrongly.

          • Prove me wrong. The first commenter in this thread says he feels held to a high standard hate speech is reasonable. I note the law works out to a very very high bar. People scream but they can't show me cases to prove their point.

        • I am trying to find the end of the Kindos matter. From newspaper accounts, it appears the parties were about to settle for a small amount (some media appears to call it a ruling, I think they're probably wrong), but the liquor board got uptight about it (I suspect wrongly) so the owner felt he had to continue. He also claims really large lawyer fees, and while I won't second guess him, I will note that tribunals make it far easier than courts to present your case without an expensive lawyer. It appears that nothing has happened since, so there isn't even a ruling. It looks like the real bad guys there are the liquor board, actually.

          Sometimes dealing with legal obligations is a time consuming hassle, and litigation can be expensive (but a lot less for tribunals than courts*) It can be time consuming but that's legal matters for you – it's an issue that involves all of the law itself, hardly just human rights commissions. And it's light years from the issues about where to draw the line regarding hate speech.

          *before anyone goes off on the "but the other side doesn't have to pay!" bit, recall not all services require you to pay out (Employment standard Act claims come to mind). Imagine if you had to pay the cops if you called in on a well-intentioned false alarm!

          • The police aren't going to charge you $20,000 for a false alarm. If I had that kind of weight hanging over me, I'd be hiring a lawyer too. Especially since the HRC has one on its side.

          • But imagine if they did! that's what I'm talking about.

        • Furthermore, I think we can all be glad that Boission will no longer be mentoring children with his disgusting prejudices, even if he eventually won the actual hate speech ruling. So it's still positive in that respect.

          • I'd rather Boisson taught a million children of this world than let you pass your drivel onto one.

          • I am amazed. Most people take an "I don't agree with what he says but I defend his right to say it" approach. and while I don't feel there is legitimate danger of non-hate speech being punished by courts, I have almost always taken the 'defending the right to say it' camp at face value.

            But if you are both truly saying that pointing out that hate speech now has a very high bar to meet in Canada is 1,000,000 times less acceptable than allowing Boission to continue mentoring youths after the drivel he published in the newspaper, then I am going to have to re-evaluate this position regarding the two of you.

            I sincerely hope you both merely misspoke and did not truly mean what you said.

          • I second that motion.

          • Yeah, far better that other people's children be exposed from kindergarten on to the most radical gay activists' notions (who do not represent the gay community at large). Sarcasm in case you don't recognize it.

            It is sufficient for schools to teach respect for individuals regardless of color, sexual orientation, gender, weight, appearance etc. without proselytizing for gays to a captive juvenile audience presenting a false sanitized picture.

          • An example of this would be nice. What is the unsanitized picture?

          • The white picket fence scenario of "So and so has two fathers" is unrepresentative. The majority of male gays are promiscuous and at numbers that in a heterosexual is called sexual addiction. It's the variable X explaining why gays are more susceptible to the AIDS virus and other STD's. A second factor increasing susceptibility is the rear entry. But these facts are not being taught to kids are they? So leave out the misleading fairytale existence as well. For more unsanitized google "bug chasing" and read the article in Rolling Stone magazine.

          • The majority of male gays are promiscuous and at numbers that in a heterosexual is called sexual addiction.

            Citation needed (not from a Sins 'R' Us site). And, please explain how this is relevant outside of the standard, permiscuity is more likely to lead to STDs, conversation that is already taught in sexual education classes.

            It's the variable X explaining why gays are more susceptible to the AIDS virus and other STD's. A second factor increasing susceptibility is the rear entry.

            Both concepts (promiscuity and anal sex) are discussed in any good sexual education class.

            But these facts are not being taught to kids are they?

            They are irrelevant. Neither concept is unique to homosexuals.

            So leave out the misleading fairytale existence as well.

            I assume you would you also like them to mention that lesbian relationships are the least likely of all relationships to result in STDs?

            For more unsanitized google "bug chasing" and read the article in Rolling Stone magazine.

            I've read it. It is also irrelevant. People are screwed up. That's how humanity is. Besides, I seem to remember a certain CFL player being convicted of intentionally infecting multiple women without telling them. At least these people are doing it voluntarily.

          • Google
            Dr. John R. Diggs, Jr., "The Health Risks of Gay Sex." Corporate Resource Council (2002) and read the executive summary for statistics on promiscuity. You'll find you're wrong about lesbians having low rates of STD's too.

            Honest preparation of youth unlucky enough to be born gay would inform them of the mine field of promiscuity, drug use, ebophilia and other pathologies that are rife in the gay community. Monogamy and remaining drug free cuts down the risks considerably but it appears that only a minority of gay men at least are so inclined.

          • I asked for a study that wasn't from an obviously biased source.

            Either way, even if it were true, it isn't relevant. All of what you've talked about is just as valid for heterosexuals as it is for homosexuals. And can be (and is) discussed in sex ed classes.

            Your original comment still isn't justified.

  15. There's plenty of tolerance in Canada, just not ideological tolerance. Diversity is good as long as it's not diversity of opinion.
    Unfortunately, ideological tolerance is the most important kind since with it one can win all the other battles.

    That's actually one of the main reasons I like Macleans: they make a genuine (and somewhat successful) effort to present diverse opinions.

    • In conversation, teh arguments on both sides are probably long set and people are less and less inclined to rehash the same old argument. At law, almost anything goes except the most vile racist crap. Seems good to me,

  16. Nicely done Mark. While its hard to agree with much of what Ann Coulter has to say (and I'm pretty right wing), unless she out right preaches genocide or incites violence, then she has a right to say it and the police should be right there ensuring she has that opportunity over any thugs (including these human rights tribunals) right to be offended. I can't wait until someone takes these tribunals to the supremes and they are sent on their merry way as a failed experiment of the politically correct. They've done a huge amount of damage and good people have suffered as a result of the stupidity. A Houle as Ann likes to refer to him is just that.

    • Maps,____with the supreme court we have in place today, don't be so sure that HRCs wont be seen as a proper and "reasonable limitation" on our so-called "charter rights". Every time I see rosalie abella and beverly mclachlin follow in the noble bertha wilson tradition of twisting the law to fit your own political (and gender-based) preoccupations, I cringe at how far this country has fallen. I would not trust the supreme court of canada to pen a writ of habeas corpus – let alone actually defend the rights of ordinary canadians to be heard.____It all gets back to that vaginafication of canadian society I was talking about.

    • Anyone who feels he has to preface his remarks with "… it's hard to agree with much of what Anne Coulter has to say …" can't be "pretty right wing".

      • Amen to that. There is not much she is wrong about.

  17. As an aside, I question Steyn's criticisms of the Ottawa OPP. A couple of points:

    (1) On UO's campus the OPP are only going to act at the behest of the University unless there is clearly an attack in progress. Blame therefore rests with the University.

    (2) Unless things have changed dramatically in recent years (quite possible, but I doubt it) the Ottawa OPP are not the types to let ideological considerations determine whom they protect. I say this from personal experience: while making a public stand for highly unpopular political views, I (and others) were confronted by raging mobs of hate-filled, violent leftist activists. The Ottawa OPP were our only protection. They did a yeoman's job at great risk to themselves, and as I recall only one attacker made it though their lines before being taken down (projectiles, on the other hand, were a different matter…but the police did what they could).

    Go easy on the police. They have a difficult job at the best of times, and being on the campus of a university like Ottawa U makes it infinitely tougher.

    • (1) Pulling the fire alarm was illegal. Also, they apparently pushed over a table when the doors were first opened. There was plenty of activity that justified keeping the protesters back.

      I was actually there. The police, when they arrived, declared to each other that they would not enter the building. So they stood outside, waiting for the event to end. They did nothing to get involved. I would have thought they might have had a discussion with the organizers, or at least entered the building.

    • I'm finding it hard to believe U of O is that tough a beat.

  18. "The law is intended, from what I understand, only to censor speech that is likely to incite violence, hatred or contempt for a broad community. Held to a strict standard, I believe that to be reasonable. "

    If this were true, David Miller (Toronto Mayor) and Dalton McGuinty would never be allowed to speak in public.

    • If you have examples – which should be easy, based on your statement – please share. If you read my other posts, you will see that my opinion, as cited, is very tightly framed and that I otherwise believe in not cesnoring anyone. But if you believe you can find examples of those public figures using language fitting my criteria, I will consider the merits of using your examples to lodge a complaint. Fair deal?

      • It was a joke for heaven's sake.

    • Bwahahahah very phunny

  19. Give me a break. Are you beling willfully blind? Look at ANY case the HRT has chased… they haven't met a bar higher than a line drawn in chalk on the road… and that chalk line gets moved everytime they think the issue needs to get pushed a little more to the left. Unless someone is willfully inciting violence or genocide (i.e. going around collecting money for terrorist organizations or saying… hey… let's go take a stick and beat the crap out of…), it should not be illegal. Who the hell cares if anyone incites "hatred".. that's a pretty broad stick to bash against society. My neighbour is a idiot who pretty much everyone on the street hates as he's made our lives miserable in one way or another… am I a criminal because I talk to my other neighbours about what idiotic things he's done lately – therefore inciting "hatred" for this neighbour?

    • Hatred is an important survival mechanism. Notice that leftists who try to criminalize it do so one-sidedly against their opponents, leaving their like minded allies armed with their hatreds. In fact the Left actually feeds hatred of the majority by various minorities. It's like promoting unilateral nuclear disarmament while keeping up your own arsenal, another fetish of the Left.

      Until a "peacenik" starts lecturing black power thugs, Muslims with machetes and Sikhs who bomb airplanes about laying aside their hatreds, he's just a red trying to pull another one-sided fast one.

    • I've looked at several determinations and I doubt you can say the same.

  20. That's the level of silliness that's gone on in these so called tribunals. They operate beyond the law and should be immediately abolished. If I've done something criminal, charge me under the law and try me in a real court with a jury made up of my peers not some left wing nuts specifically selected because of political appointments and a desire to impose their vision of utopia upon the world. Be careful of what you are looking for… one day they'll come after you.

    • Their decisions are public.

      Show me one. (Remember, even Boission was overturned on appeal).

      • Hm. Thought so.

        • Still waiting. Anyone? Anyone? An actual ruling which indicates the bar for hate speech is was way too low in Canada?

          • Mike,
            The problem I see in your challenge is that you conflate HRC Tribunals with Courts of Law.
            Boisson was convicted under an HRC Tribunal. And the Tribunal has not overturned that conviction. Boisson had to move the conviction to a Court to get it overturned. At each step along the way he was forced to pay legal fees, while the person who started the whole process collected a judgement awarded against Boisson by the HRC, and had no legal fees to worry about, since we taxpayers funded the Tribunal process.
            And, since the HRC did not overturn the original ruling, they are quite capable of applying the same logic as in Boisson on the next case that they decide to prosecute. So, the Boisson ruling itself would demonstrate that the bar for hate speech within the context of HRCs is too low. The fact that a real court later overturned the HRC ruling does not change the fact that the bar is too low.

          • It's all part of the same process. And the realistic fees of a tribunal just aren't that high, no matter what Ezra keeps saying.

          • Over a day now,.

            Still nothing.

          • The rulings are irrelevant. The process itself is the issue, not the final result of the process.

          • As Levant has said and knows from experience: "The process is the punishment".

          • I call bull-crap. It's a centrepiece of anti-HRC bafflegab that "THEY'RE PUNISHING PEOPLE WHO DON'T EVEN ENGAGE IN HATE SPEECH AND THE BAR IS WAY TO LOW" when in fact the reverse is true.

            And I want to remind everyone again, for the millionth time, that yes, legal proceedings can be inconvenient, even administrative ones. If we're interested in talking about it as a whole, I'm down, but singling HRCs out as if they somehow unique is an obfuscation tool.

          • But were it legal matter, my lawyer would be paid for by the HRC's budget. It is not fair for an individual to have to go up against the lawyers of the HRC. It isn't fair.

          • Actually, they aren't your lawyer, they're the tribunals, and they really are representing the tribunal rather than you. If you want your own lawyer you pay for it yourself.

            And it isn't an unheard of sinister practice . ESA and pension board claims are handled in a similar manner, for instance.

          • There's a whole book of scandalous HRC behavior (not just rulings) by Ezra Levant called "Shakedown".

          • Sadly, I am all too well acquainted with the drivel that is Shakedown.

  21. The great problem in this country isn’t that professional drivelists like Susan Cole would presume to speak on our behalf about the things that do or do not constitute our rights and freedoms, but that her mindless babbling is repeated ad nauseum by those who profess to be “in the know.”

    She might as well have said:
    “We don’t deserve free speech. Canadians have willingly signed off on all kinds of rights and freedoms to respect diversity, equity, and all of the other meaningless values that their governments tell them they should really care about. This is the thing that permit sour governments to drive our mindless masses. Not freedoms, not rugged individualism, not free speech. It’s different, and for our governments, it works.”

    • Well we don't deserve free speech – it is not valued in Canada (which I think is really sad) and when someone does proclaim that they support free speech it is always in the context that "I don't really like what the Coulter's of the world say, but….." Listen up people, the debate of ideas is a messy and uncomfortable thing – we have tried to make it 'nice' by imposing rules, but it only makes debates insipid and uninspiring.

    • With all due respect, you, sir, are a mindless drivelist yourself. Have you ever sat down to think about what the first and second Amendments have done to American society? Are you aware of America's shameful and shameless neanderthalism, from bringing slaves in ships full of excrement to killing 700,000 Iraqis although their country had noting to do with 9/11? If you are an American, obviously you've never thought about all this. You drink the kool-aid to!

      • Americans killed 700,000 Iraqis? Actually, the vast majority of the Iraquis killed have been by the hands of your freedom fighters, the ones you have been coddling for so many years. Blame yourself, marxist monkey

      • Your number of Iraqis who died is wildly inflated and the majority were killed not by Americans but by other Muslims who unlike American soldiers target civilians. That's the bitter truth. The biggest killers of civilian Muslims around the world are other Muslims.

  22. Celebrating diversity and tolerance are noble aims that have been hijacked by identity-groups. Steyn is right – the national media is a disgrace that has either bought into the "happy to be me look at how tolerant and diverse I am" groupthink mentality that stifles critical analysis because to criticize would be intolerant or is aware of the problem but terrified to report it accurately. Willful ignorance is consistent with our national media and thank the living @#$% for bloggers, that's all I can say.

    I hate to say it, but we need a Fox News in Canada to balance things out. Perhaps even an Al Jazeera Canada – anything but our media status quo of useless complacency that we currently live with.

    Journalism – proper journalism stimulates public debate. Willful refusal to dig into who was opposing Coulter, as distasteful as Coulter might well be, would have given Canadians something more substantive than the custard quality reporting we have in Canada in 2010.

    • Why do you 'hate to say it' about needing Fox News in Canada? It is the best network going right now.

      • Only compared to a worse lot. Sure, it's the only one with any balance compared to the uniformly left wing alphabet stations including CBC here but Murdoch is no principled conservative. He saw there was money to be made from an under-served audience – conservatives. With some Saudi sheik buying up a 7% share recently, there may be more negative changes at Fox.

  23. Canada = New World Order multicult, politically-correct poster child.

  24. I recall an old episode of Merrie Melodies where a certain bulldog used a calculator to come to the conclusion that "It just don't add up!" I quite honestly never thought an animated cartoon from the 1950's would perfectly illustrate our current society, but apparently, it does.

  25. My Dad told me long ago that Canadians remain colonials while Americans are still pioneers.

    • Yep we Americans still consider ourselves a free people, but we consider Canadians (when we think about them at all) to be just subjects, eh…so accepting of authority, even when that authority is stupid and/or comical and/or tyrannical, that you make lemmings look like independents.

    • ….most americans couldn't spell 'pioneers'…or 'colonials'…or 'me' for that matter

      • Maybe I need a degree from A Houle's university in "conflict studies" to be properly educated.

      • Looks like you blew a seal, my latitudinally-challenged northern neighbor, or maybe it's just ice on the brain. So just keep looking — I know there's a beaver in there somewhere, eh?

        • Wow, I know there's a point in there somewhere…just not sure where…typical stoopid yank

      • hay, wat ar you seying! I can spell! Also, you know us americans, it's me, me, me, so yeah, I can spell "me". I take it you were just upset.

    • I'm pretty sure I get the implication(s), but can you elaborate on the colonials/pioneers idea?

    • Some of us prefer to think of it this way: we Canadians are still loyal to the Crown, while Americans are still separatists. I think you fought a Civil War about that not so long afterwards, actually.

  26. We're next. This is the future of the U.S.

    • We don't have to be next. During the thirties, it was widely believed that fascism was the wave of the future, that democracy was finished. A decade later, Hitler and Mussolini were history. In the 1960's, Krushchev said the Soviet Union would bury us. The USSR collapsed 30 years later. We can withstand the radical left, the multiculturalists and the political Islamists, but it will take effort. I have to believe, despite everything I've read here about Canadians preferring decorum to freedom, that a lot of Canadians also value freedom and are concerned about the future of their country.

      • We were still a strong country filled with people who believed in the USA and the constitution. THAT is over now…We are finished………..at least 1/2 the populace is left wing swine living off the teats of govt. Game over……….

        • How do you explain FDR's New Deal? Those same Americans elected him 4 times. None of it was constitutional. We will come out of this but with how much damage remains to be seen. Progressivism is a cancer that has been around for 100 years and needs to be confronted constantly for the lie that it is. A democratic society with free markets and honest courts is the best way for everyone in the long run but in the immediate it can be very unstable. People crave security and politicians cynically feed on that.

          One good step to start discussing is disenfranchising anyone who accepts money from the government. They should not be allowed to vote.

      • You are right! But the problem here is we have let it go almost too far. I don't think most of us have the drive, or frankly the guts it is going to take to bring about positive change! The US will not be next! All you have to do is look up here in order to see what NOT to do!

    • CORRECT !!!!!!!!!!

  27. Well stated, as usual, Mr. Steyn. Very few can even attempt a reasonable counter argument. As for the fools who would try? Poor Canada!

  28. What I don't understand about these totalitarian far-left types is why they bother to leave the house? Everywhere they go they're offended by something or someone. Simply leaving the house must be soul-crushing to them. I think that somebody should start a comedy festival in this country that is dedicated 100% to being as offensive as possible. Not only would it rile up the terrorist fantasies of the far-left, but it'd probably be quite profitable as well!

    • true dat

    • Someone on the Internet called the easily offended "thin skins in a sandpaper world". The Left is having a good go at making it a bubble wrapped world for their pet groups but can you think of anyone more offensive when they pile on to someone who disagrees with them? You need a shower afterwards.

  29. Mark, has once more, stated the obvious, which most Canadians are aware of. This is why the MSM refuses to present a balanced article presentation on any subject. Just watch Evan Solomon on Power Politics to see how Conservative panelists are out numbered at least three to one, if he has a Conservative on at all. The CBC is what Conservatives have to pay for through their taxes without a choice. Especially in the media and education systems, Canada is now a socialist/Marxist dupe. Pathetic really.

  30. Not sure that there are actually 30 million canadians in canada. I live in south Florida, and right now there are at least 3 million canadians here now. I would say this time of year that of canada's legal residents only a fraction are actually in their country. No canadian is dumb enough to be there now.

  31. The sad thing about canada's fantasy multi-cultil America wannabe melting pot obsession is that, despite all it's rhetoric and image as being so sweet and nice and all the hate speech codes in the world, it still is a shockingly racist and intollerant nation. Perhaps the left wing has made it worse.

    • Untrue about the racism at least the way it's exclusively used, white against non white. Canada's largest city Toronto has through immigration policy turned into minority white in less than thirty years without a murmur from the previous white majority.

      There are now however, ethnic and racial gangs and communities who slag one another so the future may not be as peaceful on the race issue.

      Meanwhile the only bigotry allowed and encouraged in Canada (by smug liberals) is anti-Americanism. They laugh and applaud each other for saying things about Americans that they would never in a million years say about the French, Chinese, you name it. They are utterly blind to their own bigotry. Luckily, what we think has been beneath your notice so they've gotten away with it with impunity.

  32. What an absolutely terrific article. I'm going out right now and buying this issue. Mark Steyn is one of the few people who are always ready willing and more than capable of standing up for what Canada should be, but sadly is not.

  33. What a bunch of self congratulating hogwash.
    "har har har, I'm so clever by pointing out all the inconsistencies between what people say and do!"

    Obviously the UofO students were out of line but as it has been pointed out by so many, the organizer's were the ones to pull the plug: they were afraid of the seemingly unstoppable chanting mob of 50 or so 20 year olds.

    For such a smart man Steyn doesn't seem to understand how society works (or should I say. doesn't according to him).

    • Ah, but you've got it all worked out for us, eh Oliver?

    • oliver's a left-winger trying to incite hatred against lefties in order to show how unreasonable right-wingers are when they respond to idiotic comments.

      i might report him to the HRC.

    • Who names their kid Oliver these days, anyway? What is this, 1920 or something?

    • Ollie enjoys the hidden aspects of the 'Net, so they can't see his simpering defame of Mark Steyn, someone whose brainpower has been amply displayed for years. Unfortunatly, Ollie missed his last Laurel and Hardy-fest, putting him a little off of his game, it seems.

    • I am trying to understand why you think it’s relevant whether Coulter “pulled the plug” on the speech after the cops told her they could not guarantee her safety. Do you think that excuses the intolerance of the students or the university administrators? How about if they were Nazi protesters threatening a Jewish speaker who ended up cancelling? Would you excuse the Nazis?

      • No one's excusing the students. But they have the right to protest, and they exercised that right. Coulter had the right to speak but either she or her managers decided not to exercise that right. Her decision was odd, given that her sole purpose is to stir things up. Does she not like what she stirs unless she's only in the company of supporters?

        • It's hard to stir people up if large sections of the audience are screaming, knocking over tables and generally being douche-baggy. This is what the American media tried to portary those at Town Hall meetings in the US of doing last summer, but in reality, it wasn't anywhere near as disruptive.

    • 2,000 students.
      Over 4 times the capacity of the auditorium she was supposed to speak at.

      You either can't count, can't research, or can't think.

    • As I read these posts, I realize that a persons' world view totally determines how they see 'right and wrong'. I feel that this is wrong.
      I don't know much about Ann, or what she believes. Frankly I don't care. I do care that protestors were allowed to use violence or the threat of violence to silence her. I do care that the police don't defend people against violence in Canada. I also care that some people compare someone who wants to speak peacfully with a mob that uses violence, as equal under the law. The people who disagree with Ann are allowed to say whatever they want to express their diasagreemnet – it's the use (and the fact that the police allowed) violence that should bother every Canadian.

      Regardless of any Canadian's political views, everyone in this country should object to using violence to intimidate anyone. As I read these posts I am saddened that some poeple allow their desire for their opinion to 'win' to cloud their judgment. This should be a no brainer. Whether you like or don't like Ann, we should all object to the actions of the protestors.

  34. Let me get this straight…. Susan Cole, who successfully banned Anne Coulter from appearing in Canada, appeared on US television to defend her position??? Does anyone else see the irony here???

  35. I would consider myself a liberal and I think Ann Coulter should have been able to give her speech. Does that blow your mind???

    • Yes

    • It's like the sighting of a unicorn, welcome but too rare. Dr. Keith Martin who initiated a private member's bill to do away with censorship Section 13 used by Human Rights Commissions to interfere with free speech is another one.

    • Surely we could have down loaded something off of YouTube, if we where so inclined. Anyways, she did get an airing at U of C. I haven't seen any commentary on what she actually said. Such an important speach and so little attention to the words.

      Looks like agit prop to me.

  36. Having had Sirius Satellite Radio (American Subscription), for several years, I use to listen to these 'Right-Wing Pundits'.
    From what they use to say about Canada, I wouldn't let any of them across the Border. Since when does allowing free speech, within limits, for Canadian citizens, extend to allowing these foreign hate-mongers into the Country to spread their vile comments.
    As a 10th generation Canadian, descended from British Loyalists, I do not take kindly to foreigners bad mouthing Canada.
    It's fine to complain about certain situations and/or policies, but sweeping statements like "Canadians are losers" should not be tolerated. Anyone that thinks that way should leave.

    • You're kidding, right? American bashing on the most irrational and hateful level in canada is as common as rootworm. Yet no one–no political group, no organization, no legislature–has even entertained the notion of keeping out your marxist hatemongers.

      • Rootworm, eh? I hope your new health care plan can take care of that for you.

        See, we don't hate Americans because we hate Americans. No, we rib Americans because it is fun!

    • Canadians are losers…can you help with my green card application??

    • What do you think of Gilles Duceppe?

      Isn't he worse than any American pundit?

      • Gilles Duceppe is a Traitor. As are all Separatists to Canada. I also am not aware of them blatantly insulting ALL Canadians.

        You obviously haven't listened to many hours of many of these right-wing pundits.

    • This is hilariously hypocritical coming from anyone living in Canada, a country whose second sport after hockey is America bashing (hockey for the rednecks, US bashing for the lib elites).

      I am Canadian but not a hypocrite.

      • How is it "hilariously hypocritical" to say I don't like people that bash Canada? Or people that lump ALL Canadians together as all being losers. Are you saying you like people that refer to You and All Canadians as Losers?

        • You're hypocritical because a Canadian criticizing Americans for bashing them is the pot calling the kettle black. Lib Canadians define themselves as Canadian by their anti-Americanism and health care.

          Most of the time Americans don't even notice us, so there's a lot less south to north bashing than the other way around.

          • Let me see if I got this Straight. So you're saying, I have to like people that bash Canada and Canadians because people in Canada bash the U.S. and Americans, otherwise I'm "hypocritical"?

            That's just plain stupid.

            They have a LOT of legitimate things they can be criticized for, and not being able to voice some of these things goes against the Free Speech issue that is being so hotly debated here.

    • Satelite Radio is another example of the vastness of freedom of expression in the US. Anyone in canada remember how Howard Stern had to do battle with canadian authorities just to get his radio program in toronto? Isn't toronto supposed to be some hip sophisticated city? Usually sophistication comes with being able to tune out what you don't like without the government telling you to do it.

  37. Hey! We’re extremely tolerant. We just don’t have a fondness for retards, idiots, and morons. Can you blame us? We grew up expecting all people of reduced intelligence to be cute, friendly, and mildly malformed.

    Anyways, look at Anne. She thinks she’s hot! An ethiopian looks fat compared to her. She thinks she’s witty but Zeppo Marx is weeping in his grave over her funny comments. And frankly half of the Canadian university population could argue against any idea she has and sound as convincing.

    Anyways, twenty-five protesters, a fake security emergency, and a bunch of crazed americans posing as canadians an intolerant country doth not make.

    • You mean like those canadians who work on US TV shows posing as Americans? The only difference is they don't hide their marxist anti-American indoctrinations, even being the most "pro-American"—anyone ever heard of James Cameron? BTW, what did Canada ever do with those natives up there?

    • Is Francoise Houle an American?

    • I will bet you that you are on the government teat.

    • Yeah, everyone saw the Canadian university students "arguing" convincingly by acting like a mob and pulling a fire alarm. The only people the students convinced were the police that they couldn't keep the peace.

      Obviously they're afraid the convincing will go the other way if they let her speak.

  38. Where are the Rick Mercer's…. the 22 Minutes…the Atwood's coming out to defend free speech?? Oh yeah, they're nothing but gov't employees protecting their pensions. This 'country' has truly become worthless.

    • I was thinking the same thing the other day. It's like the media have contingency stories for any outcome. Except one casting the right in a positive light. Blatant bias.

    • I vaguely remember Atwood's husband John Ralston Saul coming out for free speech as President of PEN Canada?

      Though the main point still stands. The Left are not their usual loud headline generating and repetitious selves when it comes to defending free speech. They're undoubtedly conflicted.

    • Have you left yet?

  39. Canada needs a popular revolution. On in which the Parliament is abolished and a new Canadian Congress is formed.

    Imagine a Canada that,
    1. Elects its own President and Head of State.
    2. Elects theier Senators.
    3. Elects their Premeirs.
    4. Elects their Judges.
    5. Elects their Property Appraisers.
    6. A Canada that gives title to land and not merely rights to real estate owned by a foreign monarch.
    7. A Constitution that actually includes the Government, and excludes it.

    • If that described system is a mirror to the American system, then no, that's not what we need. There was an article or column not long ago in Malean's explaining why the American system is so dysfunctional.

      I agree that we certainly need some radical reforms, but not adopt the American system. Move to something more like New Zealand's.

      • Yes, but what you know of the American system comes mostly from what you see on TV. Pretty much the same stuff you know about NZ. NZ—-libertarian today, radical marixst tomorrow…..

    • It ain't that broke. In case you haven't noticed, Canada is doing pretty well including riding out the economic storm.

      Every political system has advantages and disadvantages. Why trade in problems with which we're at least familiar for a whole new set of problems?

      Obama's busy remaking America as just another socialist swamp and saddling Americans with three generation debt in the process. Save us from revolutionaries, always quick to action and slow of thought.

  40. Well don't worry, those of you who hail from the True North. Our esteemed President has made it clear that he is no longer going to include you in the defense of the home land, as it is. Heck, even we aren't under the protection of our military, from what he has said.

    So, I wish you every adventure as you try to wend your way through the perils of jihadiis wanting to let your carotids empty themselves, perhaps even be the target of an immigrant nuke-tipped missile from Iran…heck, they may aim at us and just…miss!

    As for me, I am finding it very difficult to think that protecting Canada from themselves is worthwhile for US.

    • The US is a third-world craphole slowly sinking into oblivion…and we certainly don't need or want this 'protection' you allegedly provide. In fact the only people we have ever needed to be protected from WAS you.

      • Mediawatcher….your name explains your ignorance. NOw if you truly believe what you've written, I have a big chunk of land to sell you in Chernoble…. BTW, in truth, Canada has always posed a larger threat to the US than the other way around. When the "world's biggest peaceful border" is breached, it's almost always breached by canadians. Now why don't you arm your border patrols so the US agents don't have to keep fighting back your serial killers and drug dealers.

        • It's all good, your military is falling apart at the seams. You're broke and going bankrupt quickly…the Chinese hold the note on you, and Canadians will buy up the half decent warm bits and evict you. If you think Canada poses a threat to you now, wait until we have nukes pointed at you – it's coming. BTW our border agents are armed…but why would we care if drug dealers and serial killers' go to the US? From what I can see they would fit right in…

  41. Ahh … that would Liberty OR Death .. sorry.

  42. I am a free man and I silence no one.
    I say what I want, I do what I want … sue me.
    Liberty of Death eh? It works for this Canadian.

  43. About 20 years ago I met a canadian who told me that the US First Amendment was nothing but a veil for bigotry. That's when it occured to me. We didn't just come from different countries, we came from different worlds.

    • Yes, the off chance encounter you had with ONE Canadian, 20 years ago, tells you everything you need to know about 34 million people scattered across the second largest country in the world. BTW Mark Steyn is CANADIAN, or did you miss that part of his bio?

      • Of course your rabid anti-Americanism is a product of your tolerant peaceful nature, rigth?

        • I never said I was tolerant or peaceful.

  44. Good piece. I’m not suggesting that Ann should be the one to do this, but some brave soul could really throw the Canadian establishment for a loop. When the cops say, “We can’t guarantee your safety,” this is the response: “You don’t think that’s going to stop me, do you? Now we’re going to put your ‘tolerance’ to the test.” I wonder how much of the gathering hall would have been left by the rioters if Ann had done that.

  45. More than 50 years after the madness of McCarthyism in the USA, Canada has their very own version of Joltin' Joe McCarthy . It's called the Human Rights Commission. With cheerleaders like Susan Cole, Denise Cooke-Browne, Francois A Houle and Alan Rock we'll hopefully see the HRCs take the same road that old Joe took.

    • Poor analogy for a conservative to use, the leftist smear of McCarthy. As the Venona papers proved (declassified Russian documents of Soviet era espionage) the US government WAS riddled with communists and their sympathizers up to the highest levels who had even President F. Roosevelt's ear. McCarthy was in fact correct in his charges. The author of the most definitive book on the subject, who did voluminous research including declassified FBI files offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who could bring him proof of a single innocent person smeared by McCarthy. He hasn't had to pay up yet. (See M. Stanton Evans' "Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies.")

      This is the most famous case of killing the messenger ever, with the Left deflecting attention from the real communist penetration of the US government to the hapless Senator who though personally unattractive, did not deserve to be maliciously maligned and his name made synonymous with baseless charges and paranoia.

      Despite hard evidence that he was right, his name cannot be redeemed, not when the meme is so firmly planted even in conservative brains. However, we should do our part by educating ourselves and not using this false Left implanted meme.

      • Of which common sense dictates McCathy was probably in contact with someone from Venona.

  46. The twentytens: the decade where PC died a disgraceful, celebrated death.

    The following years will be dark, however, as the last hangers-on will be hard to prod loose. But when you look into the eyes of a child, there will be mutual compassion and understanding, instead of the division we know of today.

    Anyone who follows the right path in life can understand that this doesn't mean the world will be perfect afterwards. Pssh. But we will hopefully be able to look back with pride in taking a stand.

  47. The Canadian police are no more pathetic than those in America. You may remember those "heroes" at Columbine – the ones who stood around in the trendy macho swat costumes, mimimizing police casulaties (in the words of their tough guy chief) while people bled to death. Enough of "support your local police." I want my country back and those bums have become part of the problem.

  48. Mr. Steyn If people where truly thinking. This snippet of your article it should cause people to to fear for any individual liberty. So hard fought . Now being beaten away with falicious arguments of geriatric leftists, Islamists, social parasites who live on this culture of victimhood. Joined to a hate for America.

    But their students are another matter. If you're born circa 1990, you have been raised entirely in a François Houle world: this is all you know; it's the air that you breathe. It's like the difference between the first generation of rock 'n' rollers and those nineties gangsta rappers. (Sweet example by the way!)

    I call them the new children of the dark. For if these are in the majority. Canada is headed for an open pit. There is nothing down there but, the true oblivion of civility. The way back up counted in the measure of blood spent. The road these Marxist walk. Is that of the Strongman, not the philosopher. Blind men destined for the chipper by more atrocious evils..
    JMO

  49. The irony here is that PC and speech codes etc. were concepts developed in the US – ask David Horowitz about American 'free speech'. On April 18 (2005), Coulter gave a speech at the University of St. Thomas (search) in Minnesota. Critics immediately labeled the talk a hate speech and the president of the university even weighed in, saying that Coulter crossed the line and may have violated campus policy' (Fox News)…So the Americans have what to teach anyone here? Look at all the school boards across the US trying to prevent the teaching of evolution. Seriously…friggin' evolution?? Mind you if you have spent any time down there, you'd also have a tough time believing in the evolutionary process as well….

    • Yes, and the US also is responsible for the death of the dinosaur and diarreah in canadian eskismos

    • Mediawatcher misses a critical difference in that the American government is not policing citizens' speech as the Canadian and provincial governments are here with misnamed human rights commissions in each one and the territories to boot.

      American universities are by and large private institutions and as such have a right to institute whatever speech, dress etc. codes they want. That said, they are permeated by leftist cancer that is seeping out into larger society including speech limitations.

      But at the moment, Americans have free speech rights that the government cannot interfere with according to their constitution. Quebec's French only laws and the witch hunts conducted by the government mandated HRC's show that Canadians free speech rights are at the whim of our government. It is a critical difference.

      • Really? So the FBI and Homeland Security phone tapping US citizens without warrant…that is part of the free speech protection you're referring to right?

  50. Canadiens have become pussies.

    • And you are the sodium chloride on a scrotum

  51. Long live Macleans for tolerating differing opinions. An ad for the U of O ad in the '63 Polaris, North Bay Teachers' College, said: "Democracy in a nuclear age depends ever more heavily upon the active participation of an informed citizenry, educated to the limits of its potential." I guess as long as the information doesn't hurt anyone's feelings…

  52. It's interesting that Susan Cole refers to the American-style freedom of expression as a "religion" when nothing resembles a religion–or a cult–more than multi-culti left wing anti-Americanism. The left wing orchestrators actually use the same techniques as cult leaders use to indoctrinate the masses, as canada's hate speech courts proove. "You free to say whatever you what in canada, of course, so long as you say what we tell you."

  53. How incredibly amusing to read among these comments that the author of this article is being held as Ann Coulter's handmaiden.

    It's bad enough that he actually fell for the farce, the fatuous lies spilled by Coulter and Levant were pathetic and recanted by each respectively not long after issue.

    Now here weeks after the facts are well known and documented:

    - That there were not 2000 armed protestors but 150-200 unarmed, unintelligible students easily managed by the Ottawa Police Dept.

    - That the University did not cancel the appearance and could have even provided a larger venue upon request, one never made.

    - That the Ottawa Police Dept did not cancel the appearance and advised they could support a move to a larger venue if requested.

    - That Ann Coulter and Ezra Levant claimed to have received threats via Facebook, but could not produce, despite Facebook technology that would make permanently deleting such illegal activity impossible, and such threats readily available to law enforcement. That they both later admitted to not having received said threats.

    - That Ann Coulter and Ezra Levant both claimed that the University and as well the Ottawa Police Dept respectively had canceled the appearance.

    - That both Ann and Ezra later were forced to recant, and Ann Coulter admitted she herself had cancelled the appearance.

    All that is known, but weeks later a supposed writer at a large magazine still either falls for the farcical claims of a trashy hatemonger and a pedantic stick in the mud, or simply does no research before spouting off.

    She censured herself, purposefully. She was free to take the stage in complete safety. She played you and many others. She admitted the truth publicly.

    But you further the farce.

    Bravo. I'm sure your kow-towing to an American of ill repute has raised your profile in their esteem.

    • Nice J.Keeney
      You are accepting the left-wing spin from this event as fact.

      And, you seemingly missed the entire point.
      Should we ban /arrest / HRC people we disagree with politically?

      Should you be banned, arrested, or have a HRC charge applied against you for your opinion stated on the website?
      Yes? You want to live in a coutnry like that?
      No? Welcome to the land for free speech

      • June 6, 1944. Canadian troops fight bravely and take Juno Beach. April 2010: Canada cannot handle a provocative speech by an American conservative that might hurt someone’s feelings. Oh, how the mighty are fallen.

        • Well said Mr. Smith – bravo!

        • Ridiculous! Students freely assembled and voiced their opinion. Coulter fee-ly assembled and failed to voice her opinion. Her speach wasn't free, was it? Laughable, tough American turning tail at the sight a handful of student protesters.

          While those troops did volunteer but after that it was do this or else. I don't recall ever seeing any form that gave you the option of where you fought Gerry. Are we supposed to be towing the line like we had to back in WWII cause we are at war with the Pashtuns?

          • It was Ottawa police who turned tail. They are the ones who informed the organizers that they could not guarantee anyone's safety against the student protestors. There's no controversy about that though lefties keep repeating their lie that Coulter caved instead of followed police advice.

  54. A joke from the old Soviet Union: One day, Stalin was passing by one of the courtrooms when the judge came out laughing his head off. "What is so funny, Comrade Judge?" Stalin asked. The judge said "I've just heard the funniest Stalin joke I ever heard!" "Really! So please tell me!" Stalin said "I can't, Comrade Stalin, I just gave a guy 10 years for it!" the judge replied. "Oh, surely you can tell ME, Comrade Judge!" said Stalin. Then the judge whispered the joke into Stalin's ear, and he immediately started laughing uproariously and said: "Oh but you are wrong, Comrade Judge! 10 years? It's even funnier than that! You get 20 years!"

  55. Well that was a depressing look into the future the left wing of America would have in store for us down here. The sheer cowardice implied is heartbreaking. I hope that one day the students who participated have an epiphany and realize what a manipulated pack of group-thinkers they were but I doubt they will ever get there. I wonder how Orwellian it will have to get in Canada before a cultural and political implosion occurs? I lastly have to wonder how long it will take before the 26 year old majoring in Human rights and Conflict Resolution realizes that the only paycheck to be derived from such drivel will be from the same University that filled her head with it or some other fatuous government directorate powered by the tax dollars confiscated from actual living, productive people.

    And for all those who come here in defense of limiting free speech, taxing yourselves into "equity", tolerating yourselves into a gray ooze and mocking the rugged individualism that actually built the foundations of the wealthy successful societies off which you currently feed I leave you a quote from Albert Camus that must surely have been written for Ann Coulter:

    “The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”

    • You have clearly been suckered by too many poltical farces.
      Camus! That's rich. I suppose you'll grace us with a little A. Rand for you next post.

  56. Political correctness is applied cultural marxism. It is a form of psychological warfare and a threat to national security. It has subverted the west. The demographic death spiral is the result.

  57. How to free the deranged dominion from PC. All HRCs and all ministries of multiculti must be immediately obliterated. The CBC is dissolved. The abolition of income tax, public education and teacher's unions would also help immensely.

  58. Excellent and literate article Mark, but I am a bit confused. If a comedian or guest speaker can be jailed for “intemperate” speech, how come all the protesters are not arrested and tried for intemperate speech, hateful facial expressions and possibly threatening and menacing body positions during the rioting?

    • Because the object of the hate was a conservative. The comedian's target was a lesbian.

      The HRC's allow conservatives only as perpetrators while lesbians make it automatically into the favored victim group. Now if the comedian had been black instead of white, then the HRC's head would have exploded.

      • Actually, Guy Earle is a self-described liberal. This is where the tide is turning — they are targeting their own now as well as conservatives. Who will they come for next?

  59. To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
    Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
    To the last syllable of recorded time;
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
    The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
    Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
    And then is heard no more. It is a tale
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing.

    –Macbeth: the perfect metaphor for modern western government.

    A tour de force, Mark.

    Well put.

  60. We used to take annual fishing trips to Ontario…..once our son wrenched his knee by slipping from the dock to the boat. We asked about nearest doctor/hospital. SERIOUSLY….the resort owner said they didn't have any docs/ or hospitals closeby but there was a VETERNARIAN about 50 miles away. After Obamacare nonstop & rammed down our throats…..have a whole new understanding about Canada. Will never go back! Bunch of jealous wannabe's.

    • Amazingly enough sometimes the nearest hospital isn't all that close. Sucksville, I know.

    • I swear I have read a number of posts from Americans and prideless Canadians extolling the rugged strength of the American Individual. It would seem that this is more of folk story judging by SM-Ill's post.
      What the frick is wrong with a Vet, anyways? You don't think they know how to set a bone or do an assement for mechanical injuries.

      I guess we have to post a sign at the border to let visitors know that Canada is REAL rugged country. Use at your own risk.

      • I would take a Canadian vet over an American doc any day

    • Your pu$$y son couldn't take the drive to a doc with a 'wrenched knee'? For actual SERIOUS medical problems we have these things called helicopters.

  61. Canadians are mistaken to reject Ann Coulter, or at least to do so out-of-hand. She is arguably the finest political satirist since Jonathan Swift.

    South of the border, we're quite familiar with liberal-leftist nonsense such as the governmental-media inspired notion that when you call rank bigotry "diversity" it suddenly becomes acceptable.

    As in Canada, one may not dare publish down here cartoons of the Prophet depicting the violence his relgion generates. This would be "uncivil." But when one of the faithful shoots up an army base and murders 14 or sets off a bomb on a Detroit bound plane or otherwise slaughters infidels, the silence from the government-media is overwhelming.

    The Bard might have noted that "thus, political correctness makes cowards of us all."

    Well, all all except Ann Coulter. Canada has become an embarrassment but we're no less cowardly down here.

    Gee. I wonder why we're losing – badly – to the Muslims?

    • This is my point. Canada is bad, but the US is hardly any better. It's western civilization that is chickening out.

    • I am pretty sure Mr. E. Levant published the cartoons in his, now defunct, Western Standard, or what ever it was called.

      • And was hauled in front of the Alberta Human Rights Commission for it by an imam who first tried to file a report with the police that he and Islam had been offended. The imam thought our police like the religious police in Muslim countries is there to enforce his religious beliefs. Well, he found another government institution the HRC to be a willing surrogate for carrying out his one man fatwa against Levant.

        • A fatwa is an opinion given by an Iman on a particular subject.
          Jihad is holy war.
          Ergo I will correct your tenuous understanding of the situation: "carring out his one man JIHAD against Levant."

          It is my understanding that the complaintant in question was/is a Canadian citizen. Is he not free to exercise his access to the services available to Canadian citizens? Or are you only getting pissy about it because his actions are a little off colour in your eyes?

          • Big surprise you miss the point entirely that our police are not the religious police and that our government has no business using tax monies to fund an imam's religious complaint against a non-Muslim that he dared to print something critical of Islam and Muslims. Sharia law is not the law of Canada.

            The police had to explain to this mook the difference between them and the police the imam was used to back home and the HRC should have thrown out his complaint for the same reason. Muslim religious beliefs and sharia law cannot be imposed on Canadian citizens by a government agency acting as a surrogate for an imam.

            To understand what you're defending, imagine a Christian minister going to the police, then the HRC to complain that a Muslim, Jew of atheist is disrespecting Lutheranism and they should investigate.

          • Have you sustained head injuries? Mook!? Are you completely bonkers? Who talks like that?

          • Are you going to offer an argument or is name-calling where it ends for you?

  62. Just when we down south in the Age of Odamnit are as remorseful as a freshman coed waking up next to a fat ugly bearded man the next morning, our fifty first state once again comforts and assuages our pain. God bless Canada. The uplifting humor of its idiotic "human rights" antics – rather like a self-absorbed ape staring lovingly at a mirror – are better than a Marx brothers movie for making one forget one's own troubles. Thank you and, as I believe is required in Canada, merci beaucoups.

  63. For what it's worth, it is B.S. like this that have caused me to curtail shopping and pleasure trips with my family to Canada. Thier leader's P.C. idiocy has to be costing Canada quite a bit in tourism.

    • The sad thing is, it's actually improving it. Especially in the age of anti-Americanism when european travelers boat about having gone to North America "without having stepped foot in the USA!" ……gay travelers especially!

    • We'll somehow have to make it through with gold and oil…everything would be much better if you'd come stay at our Holiday Inns though.

  64. Could the Monty Python 'Lumberjack Song' be sung in the Great White North?

  65. I recently went to my (Indian immigrant) doctor for a rash. He asked me if I'd had a colonoscopy. I replied in the negative. Given my age, he said, having one done would be prudent. I agreed. He promised to set up a date for the colonsocopy, whereby I replied, "Dr., please do not EVER use those two words in the same sentence again."

    Naturally, he laughed and shook his head. (This after my having left his nurse in stitches prior to his entering the examination room).

    Consequently, given how tolerant you Canuckers are (Is that a slur? God, I hope so), I wouldn't want one of my quips to land me in a jail cell where one can receive a colonoscopy far faster than through your National Health Service.

    As much as I love ice hockey, I won't be crossing the border into Canadastan any time soon. Probably never…. and for all you schucks up there who say, "GOOD!" Let me say with utmost sincerity "…and the horses y'all rode in on."

    • Too bad you're justified in your conclusions by the loutish reply from Mediawatcher.

      I will continue to bring my (pretty good dollars) to various destinations in the USA . If one must generalize, then I find in all my world travels that Americans are the all round nicest most approachable people on the planet. The observation that if you lose your wallet on a bus, train or plane you'd better hope the person sitting next to you is American has been borne out in my experience. You are the most likely to be helpful.

      I always ask people, so who do you prefer to be the pre-eminent power? The Chinese or Russians who have proven themselves capable of mass murder? The pompous French brooding about their past glories? The basketcase Africans or South Americans? Germans anyone? No one has a good answer.

      Backing up world peace and open waterways for global economic activity with muscle is a thankless job and America did it well until you elected Obama. Now we're all in deep doodoo. Anyway, thanks for the memories.

      • If Americans dont' start generalizing about other people they was Americans are generlized, then I'm afraid they won't have anything left to defend aganist the generalizations.

      • slurp, slurp

    • Aye, well, since I'm neither fat, nor illiterate, I'll give you Canuckers a miss nonetheless.

  66. Of course Mr. Steyn is correct in his criticisim of the far left nature of Canada. What he points out is truly shocking. Yet the far right sensibilities of Mr. Steyn are no more appealing to me. HIs distaste for "lebians" is obvious. There is much to admire about Canada (gay marriage, National Health Insurance) and much to not admire, as Mr. Steyn points out.

    Here in the U.S. we have a rock solid commitment to free speech, but the antics of the Far Right in this country are as distrurbing to me as the Left in Canada. I absolutely loathe Ann Coulter — but she has a right to speak. (I do think some of her comments, however, come very close to inciting violence – which is where free speech ends)

    I don't know which is worse. But that seems to be all we ever talk about. The vast majority of us are at neither end – and we are powerless as the crazies at either end battle it out.

    • You know, Paul, the father left your thinking, the farther right the mainstream seems. Also, the way my mind works, I had to smile at your using the words "distaste" and "lesbians" in the same sentence. I have no clue whether Mark Steyn disdains people who love women, but I absolutely drool over Ann Coulter, and not simply for her gorgeous looks. Her intellect makes me weak in the knees. Let's hope the only comments Ann Coulter makes that come tantalisingly close to inciting violence are the ones that make leftists want to jump off bridges.

      You "sound" like a centrist (whatever that is) which may mean you spend an inordinate amount of time trying to decide between Product A and Product B. But, when I'm given a choice between horse dung or New York Prime Rib, I choose the latter without having to think about it.

      As for me being Far Right, maybe what you mean to say is MacDubh's Far Right More Often Than I Am."

      Think about it.

      • I sincerely don't know what you're talking about in most of your reply to my comment. However you are correct in the first sentence of your second paragraph.

        Yes I am a centrist. I beleive in a single payer insurer and I believe in gay marriage. (Left). I beleive the very distasteful Ann Coulter has a right to speak and the actions against her are shocking (right) – far worse than Coulter herself. I myself have been silenced by my Earth Mother cousin from Berkeley (I had a simple personal opinion about music which she declared "insensitive" and "not nice" )

        I am a strong environmentalist – but I have no problem with drilling in the Arctic refuge, drilling offshore, or nuclear power. I beleive most idealogies, capitalism, socialism, libertarianism, etc. all have very good ideas that we could meld together. I beleive that ANY of them, taken to their limit, are very bad.

        I am sorry I can't be as clear cut and certain in my thinking as you are. I know that makes life a lot simpler to get ahold of.

    • I consider myself to be a classical liberal–as almost everyone on here must be if they support free speech across the board–but what the Left generaly knows about the US and Canada, can usualy be found in the same French Vogue magazine that is lying on their coffee tables.

    • Please cite a source for your allegation that Steyn hates lesbians? Like any good satirist he ridicules them (along with a whole array of others) because sometimes they are just so earnest that it is very tiring to be around them.

      A number of years ago I worked with a lesbian and every weekly staff meeting we had to listen to her newest discovery of how lesbians and gays in our organization were discriminated against and what the organization should do about it. In the three years that I worked there there was only one instance where her discoveries could remotely be considered discriminatory. Frankly no one cared who you did or did not have sex with (as long as it wasn't someone you were having a relationship with). She spend so much of her work time hunting down alleged discrimination that she didn't actually get her work done, which didn't endear her to anyone in the organization because all her team members knew that she wouldn't get her work done and that to get projects completed others would have to step up to the plate to get the project done. In the end she was terminated because of poor performance and of course she made a human rights complaint – by that time I had left the organization so I don't know what came of the complaint. In the end she was just tiring and annoying. Even the gay men in the organization were fed up with her.

      • Perhaps she'll find herself in the employ of some Hannibal Lecter type (now there's a situation ripe for discrimination comparisons) who will, after she fails to complete various projects on time and under budget, become quite fed up with her, as well. And, since her future carbon footprint would be non-existent, I'd consider it a win-win for all concerned.

  67. True to form, once again it is radical Leftists out in the streets creating mayhem. It seems as if it were only yesterday that the same type scum was out in American streets terrorizing, hectoring, threatening, and destroying. Isn't it nice that Canada is such an advanced and enlightened country? I hope the United States can avoid this fate.

  68. (Yes, in Coulter's case: fascist)

    I love how people toss the term fascist around without the slightest idea what it means.
    Fascism is a political philosophy very much embraced in the early part of the last century by such luminaries as Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and several politicians and intellectuals of the day. Benito Mussolini was fawned over as the most enlightened and "progressive" (note the term progressive even then) head of state in the 1920's and early 30's and Italy's government was a model the rest of the world looked to follow. Adolph Hitler waxed poetically about fascism during his rise to power and Lenin made several state visits to see Mussolini's model in practice.

    • Jonah Goldberg made a good case that modern "liberals" are the fascists in his book "Liberal Fascism: the Secret History of the American Left". The cover has a smiley face with a Hitler mustache.

  69. As an American I would like to thank Canada for being an example I can point to when American libs with their noble intentions and ill conceived solutions try to impose similar crap on my country. I must confess as an evil Conservative, Liberals baffle me sometimes. I turn on the TV and watch a bit of MSNBC and see a few minutes of the 'Ed Show' or that woman that has the same hair cut as Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and I read the liberal magazines and Paul Krugman's blog at the New York Times, I even occasionally look for policy papers and other stuff put out by Liberal think tanks, and I think to myself: is that it? Someone needs to explain to me what I am missing. But I don't know enough smart liberals I guess.

  70. Communism, National Socialism and Fascism have several common areas, with one great difference. Communism and Socialism seek to control every aspect of public life, including free speech, and they seek to impose their model of government on the entire world, seeing any competing political model as a threat. Fascism controls the citizenry through big government, believing only government can fully enable the populace to be truly equal to each other, however… Fascism seeks state control over the people of its own state; it doesn't care about other governments outside its own borders unless that government becomes a threat. All three seek a central government to control all aspects of citizen life yet only the Socialists and the Communists feel the need to expand their influence (like the radical interpretation of Islam of today) throughout the world.

  71. Now, having said that, let's revisit the Coulter/protestors controversy again and see if we can identify any Fascist politics on display here. Coulter is conservative, believes passionately in small government, state's rights, then freedom of individuals to live their lives and make their choices unhindered by government interference and she uses inflammatory rhetoric to get her point across. Her style is acerbic and sarcastic, but effective. The protestors on the other hand seek to silence her, impugn her reputation with innuendo, false accusations, slander and threats of violence. Her stated opinions of the dangers of a nanny state and overbearing big government seem to antagonize these kids to the point of rabid intolerance. So we have Coulter, and advocate of smaller government and freedom of choice versus the protestors, whose actions obviously characterize them as champions of repression, intolerance towards dissenting opinions and advocates of violence to silence anyone they disagree with. Now please tell me once again the Coulter is the Fascist here.

    I think a cup of coffee and a history book is in order for you, Thomas.

  72. My only beef on this is with the belief – they should've done their job and let Ms. Coulter speak.

    Protesting is just as much free speech as public speaking – I hope Mark didn't have any issue with that.

    • They did their job. She was free to speak. She chose not to. Ergo, this is a farce authored by Levant and Stein.
      I will be awaiting your apology to the OPS.

      • The police did not do their job and protect the lawful exercise of free speech against lawless hooligans. They said they could not guarantee anyone's safety. It was written up in countless newspapers correctly. So the only question that remains is whether leftists can't read, don't read or just lie all the time?

        • Oh, I get it, when provocateur Coulter comes to do her schtick, that is lawful exercise of free speak, but when she is protested against by a group lawfully excercising the right to assemble freely and peacefully (there is no restriction on vociferousness) they are hooligans.

          As for the initial account that was writen up in so many papers, this is a classic case of neo-con shock tactics – act to provoke and appologize after. The first representations of the incident where clearly false as evidenced by the retractions made by the Levant and Coulter at a later date.

          Why are you schilling for these people?

  73. It took Mankind 10,000 years of social civilization to arrive (finally) at a tolerence for the free speach of those we may not agree with. During this time tens of thousands of human beings gave their lives in this struggle probably millions were murdered to prevent its ever happening. Finally, and mostly thanks to the Anglo-Saxons, Mankind finally arrived at a point of true culture and civilization where it was actually a rule of law that: "I diagree with what you said, but I defend to the death your right to say it!"

    It has taken the social-fascist hard left less than a generation to destroy 10,000 years of Human social advance.

    • "It has taken the social-fascist hard left less than a generation to destroy 10,000 years of Human social advance."

      That's because we've only had television for a little over 60 years and the Internet for barely 20. Mass media has propelled the disaster in a mind boggling speedy fashion. Of course I'm not against technology, but the brainwashing that can be accomplished with it cannot be understated.

      • The brainwashing of American masses into socialism started long before the Internet and even TV through the public education system. The system is "owned" not by the consumers (students and their parents) but by bureaucrats and teachers who are unionized left wingers by and large, government employees teaching a statist agenda and denigrating individualism non-stop from kindergarten through university.

        Television as part of the media entertainment complex including Hollywood fare has also become mainly left wing propaganda or circuses to keep the masses distracted.

        The Internet however, is a frontier free of government control as yet and as such a force for good as well as evil. It is being used as a much more sophisticated form of samizdat (underground pamphlets handwritten or from homemade printing presses risking imprisonment opposing totalitarianisms) with a farther reach that is allowing those who prize individual freedom and a market economy to fight back against the leftist media with citizen journalism.

  74. It is like Canada has become a vast staging ground for Invasion of the Body Snatchers—see any of the three versions. Canada has become the dull, emasculated, conformist society warned about. Unfortunately, a few too many of the body and soul snatching pods seem to have landed south of the border as evidenced by the rise of Obamania and its attendant Obamaniacs or Obamatons. God help our respective nations.

  75. great article-thanks! ok, so your leadership, educators and college students have lost their collective minds, at least you've got a good hockey team. our leaders have lost their minds, and we only won silver.

    Oh, Canada,
    Glorious and (Not Free, but) Respectful, Civil and Diverse

  76. I lived in Canada for more than a quarter century, and witnessed rights there deteriorating throughout that time, especially on the campus where I taught.

    I spoke out against the incursion of the intellectually insipid cliche-mongering of the Women's Studies Crowd, with their pathetic "chilly climate rules" designed to protect their obviously bogus "research" from criticism.

    I wrote articles warning about the dangers of Human "Rights" Tribunals, and watched as a colleague was dragged through the mud on the basis of accusations by someone later revealed to be an unstable criminal. Much of the evidence of my colleague's innocence was denied admission, even by a (female) BC Supreme Court "Justice".

    Canadians, in general, have little idea what they have lost, and do not care.

  77. Let's invite Ann Coulter back to Ottawa on condition that she debate Barbara Amiel. About anything.
    Wouldn't that be fun?

    Also, "let's" "remove" "the" "quote" "keys" "from" Mr. "Steyn's" "keyboard""."

    • Yes, and let's only let Susan Cole speak on condition she debate Mark Steyn.

  78. I noticed this drearily moronic Susan Cole attempting to defend the shouting down of Ann Coulter on American TV. Who, pray tell, is this Susan Cole. Surely nobody takes her seriously. She seemed rather depressed, and not very bright — kept babbling cliches about the kinder, gentler society Canada is striving for, which, in view of the Red Guard type actions of the students, seemed unintentionally ironic.

    • Clearly you are unaware of the skill that has been attained, in your county, at the fine art of profiling. You can dig up just about anybody to express an opinion to make your case.

      Do try cutting back on the babbling cliches. There's a dear.

    • Susan Cole is someone no one had ever heard of until the American media dragged her out as an alleged 'spokeswoman' for all of Canada.

  79. I think they should have let The Coultergeist speak. And let the students boo her nonstop throughout her presentation and picket her appearance. Then everybody gets to exercise their right to free speech and Ann Coulter gets a chance to appreciate Canada's restrictive gun laws.

    • Better yet, let's let everyone shout you down the next time you feel you have something interesting to say.

    • Only a lefty would think drowning someone out with boos is letting the speaker exercise his free speech.

      Besides that lefty mobs have harassed and tried to prevent conservative speakers from speaking on American campuses by jostling them, throwing pies in their faces, pulling fire alarms (requiring evacuation) and making threats.

      There are dozens of examples (so Americans on this thread shouldn't be too smug about the happenings at Ottawa U). Conversely, conservatives have never interfered with a moronic lefty speaker praising communism and its mass murderers etc. on said campuses.

      Yet when the Left is rightly accused of censorship with these facts in hand, they get all in a huff! Talk about being caught in flagrante delicto and denying denying denying.

    • You Canadians sound like a bunch of nutso wussies. Go back to France and leave North America for real Americans. And what's with this sissy red maple leaf anyway?

      • "Go back to France and leave North America for real Americans."

        You mean native Americans, right?

        • No, I said real Americans not not real North Americans, get it?

  80. Does anyone have any youtube of debates in the Canadian or Provincial Parliaments? If it is anything like in the UK, it is anything but civil and restrained.

    Are there debating societies, or have all their fans died of sleep apnea?

    It is little wonder Ackroyd, Levy, Candy, Martin, Ramis, Short, Thomas, Moranis, etc. felt the need to emigrate.

    So as I understand it, Canadians value diversity, just not diverse speech; and equity, but not equitable treatment of those who disagree; and anyone can hold a different opinion as long as they also hold their tongue. How do fights in bars start in Canada? Do you accuse someone's mother of not being respectful enough of diversity? Does anyone ever get divorced? All the Australians I know are, shall we say… outspoken. Do Canadians even allow Australians to visit?

    • Yet another reason why no one takes Australia seriously. Also, you are all decendants of criminals, so of course you cannot visit.

  81. Since some opinions are favored over others by the "Tolerance Police," no one has the right to free speech of any kind in Canada because they never know when they'll be singled out. So, one's choices are either "agree with the authorities" or "shut up."

    What a sorry excuse for a Democracy, is Canada. I'm glad I'm in the USA so I can't be arrested or impoverished for writing this.

  82. Wow, Coulton and cronies–always the cheerleaders of tolerance–are now complaining when intolerance strikes them for their hateful spew. The irony is rich.

  83. There's a saying among middle of the road individuals here in SF: "Welcome to San Francisco, you are welcome to put forward any point of view AS LONG AS IT'S WHAT I BELIEVE." Sound applicable to Canada as well.

    • Debbie's right. I can usually have an enlightened conversation with left wing people in the US from the east and west coasts. Not so much those from Canada or the Midwest. Even Europeans (with the exception of the British) will engage in good-natured banter for the most part despite how endemic their rabid and irrational anti-Americanism is. Canadians, however, are so backward even in their “progressive” ideology, that the European elites they so want to emulate cringe at their banalities. I see it time and time again.

      • Michael Savage's radio show started out in SF if I'm not mistaken.

    • actually I found SF to be rather tolerantn of even conservative ideology. Why? Well, unlike canada and even parts of the US midwest, they have nothing to prove. They don't suffer from provincialism. I can wear my Ronald Reagan t-shirt proudly in SF where I would be taken for just another wack job out of hundreds of thousands already in the city. Regardless of how leftist SF is, it knows that liberty didn't come from Germany or Canada. SF is what it is BECAUSE of the US and not despite it. On the other hand, wearing my Ronald Reagan t-shirt in provincial white bread cities like Minneapolis, Chicago, or Toronto, I would be chased down the street, cornered, and spat on—-this actually happened to me in Chicago by some fat gay guys from Wisconsin. Left Wing people from Canada and Wisconsin try too hard. they are almost embarrassing to "true" leftists. San Franciscans have nothing to worry about….

      • San Fran may be described in lots of ways but "tolerant"?? And embarrasing and leftist in the same sentence is a bit redundant, no?

    • San Fran has a middle of the road?

  84. Oh, Canada.

  85. Canada — an emerging Gulag.

    • Wee Whee, a fully developed ghoul.

  86. I'm advising my friends to avoid both Mexico and Canada.

    In one Americans are not safe from the criminals. In the other, from the government.

  87. I wish someone could point out to me exactly where Ann Coulter's freedom of speech was denied.

    She was more than welcome to make the speech. She just chose to slink away in the face of a small vocal demonstration instead. (And it has been confirmed HER people cancelled the talk, not the police.)

    Some conservative hero for free speech.

    • Given the state of liability in NA, when the police say that they think it is unsafe to proceed, then the only option was to shut it down. No insurance company would validate a policy under those circumstances and if you have ever organized anything that involves the public, liability insurance is a must (and I would be very surprised if the U of O did not require such an insurance policy for any event held on campus – that is the basis of risk management). I think Steyn referenced this in his article.

    • Tell ya what, brave guy. Invite her back and you volunteer to be her security. That is if you're not too busy typing awary in your pajamas.

  88. My wife and I spent quite a bit of money and time to get our work permits to enter Canada. For various reasons we did not go to live in Canada. We are well educated CONSERVATIVEs and every day as we see the intolerance and liberal political correcness and breakdown of Canadian society into a faux Soviet Union , we bless the day that we did not go to the land of hypocrites.

    You are raising a land of fools who have every reason to be seen as the poor second cousins to proud, forward thinking Americans.

    • I'm off to the doc to get stiched up from spliting my gut laughing!!! Don't worry, I'm covered.

      • Really, the more I think of it…. how odd that American-style conservatives would feel most at home in America.

        You must be a banker, grown fat upon bail outs by your "forward thinking" gov'rmint.

    • we're pretty stoked about your non-arrival too.

  89. The Provost's ltr was absolutely 100% correct and put quite diplomatically. Ms. Coulter CHOSE not to give her speech that night. More publicity for her – I suppose she collects her fees anyway.

    Free speech is not "Hate Speech"….. The US is filled with "hate speech" at this moment. The mother of one of the militiamen blamed his participation on the hate speech of Beck, Hannity – FOX NEWS – perhaps the young girl in Boston would not have committed suicide had there been some recourse for her parents… to protect their daughter against a mob of teenage girls.

    I don't want a Canada that is ruled by hate – and this is what Ann Coulter and her like spew … there is no respect nor room for anyone different.

    Americans tend to excuse any dispicable behavour by hiding behing the first amendment. Quite shocking really – more so than whatever is happening in Canada.

    • You're really an idiot. now arrest me, commrade.
      There's been more cross burnings in canada this past year than in the US in the past 5 years.

    • You're an idiotic Canadian hate-o-phobe. Go back to France. God Bless America and the Fine First Amendment!

    • Oddly enough it was the protesters espousing the hatred.

      Lefties don't seem to understand Coulter is a sardonic satirist not hater like themselves. Projection is quite common among leftist group think.

  90. Mark. There is no room for racism. It should not be tolerated anywhere. Perhaps you should follow that sentiment and find yourself in apartheid era South Africa, where you would have fit in nicely.

    • Any “race” that is so insecure that it can’t take a joke… deserves to be mocked mercilessly. With so little sun exposure, Canadian skin appears to have grown very thin.

  91. Note to Canada

    Sooner or later the Gator come back around to eat you.

  92. The problem with "human rights" courts (Canada's McCarthyism) is that it basically frightens people into silence. You cannot live in a nation and proclaim it is free when people are walking around with muzzles on purely out of fear of the state.

  93. Mr. Steyn– I've always been amazed by your writing and acerbic point of view. I seldom agree with you, but I've always respected your moral clarity and think you're a welcome foil to establishment views, especially Canadian ones.

    I've spent a lot of time in several regions of Canada, from BC to Quebec. I've always been struck by the "tyranny of virtue" when I go north of the border to visit friends. Certain subjects are off-limits, certain opinions are unacceptable. Every contrarian viewpoint I bring up is brushed off as a vulgar Americanism.

    Myself, I'm a fairly standard-issue American progressive by nature, and I like a lot about Canadian values in comparison to my own country's. I've just never felt comfortable having a real conversation on the nature of race in the American south, or our current geopolitical quagmires, shared or otherwise. There are acceptable and unacceptable views, and that's it.

    One thing I cannot stomach from anyone, left or right, is a basic level of respect for all views, even those you may find repulsive. An American value I hold dear is this: Diversity isn't easy, but stifling it in the name of virtue is dangerous.

    In the US we say, "Let the KKK march. That way they're too busy to make pipe bombs and too free to cry oppression." The last thing you want to give any fringe group, left or right, is a justification to call themselves freedom fighters. The US is a crazy, diverse place. That principle has given the US a remarkable stability in light of some pretty heavy social upheaval. I wouldn't trade it for all the beauty and kindness of the north.

    • As a Canadian conservative living in Mexico and especially in this polarized period of history, I seldom find much to agree with when coming across "American progressives". In this case I think I'll make an exception, – very well put there, "itstrue". If more "conservatives" and "progressives" actually thought like we do, why who knows, a rational dialogue might actually break out!

    • Finally, someone who understands the USA!

    • But she didn't get stifled, did she? She made her speach in Calgary, and it was no big deal. She could easily have made it in Ottawa at the U. They had already given her a venue. She chose not to speak. Now we see why.

      Ann Colter was not stifled in Canada. Protested against, yes, but not stifled.

      • No matter how often you repeat a lie, it doesn't become the truth.

        • So, why is it that you keep posting over and over again?

          She is a provocateur and a hired gun at that.
          This was political Kabuki.
          The record is clear – she was given a venue, she was free to speak, she is on record as having declined to speak. One can safely attribute this to being weak-kneed when in the crunch, typical of her ilk (how many neo-cons dodged the draft – Bush and Cheney to name but two)
          I believe that it was fair comment on the part of the police in saying they can't guarrantee anyone's safety, 'cause they can't.

          • All the news reports were wrong and Cold Standing alone got the true story through magnetic rays to his tinfoil hat.

            How can you tell a lib is lying? His fingers are typing.

  94. I recently shared a repeated eye rolling exchange with a Marxist professor of history from Belarus as we were discussing the Treaty of Versailles's Guilt Clause with two self-proclaimed progressives—one from Canada the other from Nebraska. Neither of us could hold back our disdain for their pathetic lack of common sense. If I were in Los Angeles or DC having such a discussion with a “liberal” and he became snippy and childish, I can almost guarantee he'd be from either the Midwest or Canada. Canada, after all, is really just an extension of the American Midwest filled with the same simplistic intellectual wannabes found in Madison or Ann Arbor. It's actually rather comical to watch from the south side of the 49th parallel. I only wish some of those rich white Protestant chicks from Minnesota infatuated with Al Franken would move across the border.

  95. Living in Canada, I see this combination of spinelessness and hate all around me.

    The PC police are everywhere, and any "normal" person is afraid to speak out.

    I also attended Ottawa U, and I can tell you, that even at the graduate level there are "professors" who gladly spew hate against the US, or any politically tainted tale they feel like sharing with the class. I was astounded by the hate.

    Canadians are raising their children to hate. It is that simple. I see it all around me. It is a disease, and it's growing.

    I remember turning to one of Paikin's, The Agenda, episodes, and Paikin himself was asking whether the Canadians at the Olympics behavior was like that of the "ugly Americans." I laughed out loud. The smug panel went on to respond. They couldn't see how ugly they really were. How delusional and quick to blame the Americans for their own behavior. It was astounding. They were all completely delusional. I was ashamed at Steve Paikin whom I have always felt to be fair and balanced, but after that, I will never watch that hideous show again.

    It is embarrassing watching Canadians. They have never found their way. Quebec hates Canada, the rest of Canada hates Quebec. Canada hates Israel. Canada hates Americans. Canada hates "capitalism." Canada hates hates and hates. Yet, what have they to show? Using American military planes to cart their arses around to do "humanitarian" work? Thank goodness for S. Harper. At least he is trying to pull Canada up from the sewers.

  96. Ann Coulter's mouth should have been seized by customs at the border. Canada doesn't need it. And if she attempts to undermine Canada's civilization by using words as weapons, Canadians wil defend themselves. Let America enjoy its Amendments, which ensure that kids can see Internet porn, and shoot their parents with their own guns.

    • You're really a sad pathetic and lonely person aren't you? You watch way too much TV, Bozo

    • Yeah, who needs freedom anyway! You go gary!

  97. Freedom of speech is not the same as racism. It seems that folks like Jamie MacMaster are upset because they can no longer be openly racist.

    • “Freedom of speech” means nothing unless it gives people the right to say offensive things. Since nobody wants to prohibit inoffensive speech, there is no reason to pass laws protecting inoffensive speech. The only type of speech which needs protecting is that which is offensive to somebody. Get it? Probably not, as you’ve never been exposed to people who think differently from you.

  98. Yes, let's let this ignorant, racist, murder theatening hussy spill her bile through the Canadian body politic. Kicking her sorry ass out was the best thing Canada could do for its self respect.

    • Gee, where's Greg when it comes to kicking out Muslim terrorists who actually try to um, kill us? No, he goes postal over a verbal provocateur.

      And the name calling especially racist charge, is a lazy liberal's idea of an acceptable substitute for argument. They never matured past the kindergarten stinky pants style of argument.

      • He can insult Coulter, since Coulter isn’t about to cut his head off. So we see what Canadians have become: a nation of native pussies and immigrant thugs. They deserve each other. Of course, mentioning a certain group’s propensity for head chopping is probably verbotten in Canada…

  99. Most of you who support hate speech are simply trying to legitimize your own racism and hatered. I got news for you KKK loving trolls, your day is over. The new dawn is here. Even in the US they have embraced Obama, with 75% approval ratings. Stop you whining already. Why don't you put down your weapons and hatered and join us….

    • What kind of polls are you reading? Or smoking?

    • 75% approval?!?!?!

      Kiddo, you live in a fantasy world!

    • haha
      THIS is the Canadian IQ

    • The left wing line: Join us. Join us. One of us. One of us.
      It's definitely a cult, for sure.

  100. Don't Canadians understand that most of what Ann says is a joke? Yes, she's a conservative, but she's a conservative entertainer, much like Rush Limbaugh. When Rush brags about himself, he's being funny.
    I guess Canadians don't have a sense of humor – I know Canada is one country I'll NEVER visit.

    • Yes,what happened to Canada's sense of humour? Is that why their comedians move to the US? Most Canadians seem to travel outside their country too. Do they like the free speech in other countries?

      • I know I alwasy enjoy sitting on my Cuban beach, smokin' a stogey, and giving the USA the finger….

  101. In other words the people of Canada all sit down when they take a piss including the men! GO suck on OOOOOOOObama’s tail pipe! OOOOOOOOH Canada ! I don’t know Who sucks the most YOU or Him.

    • I can only imagine what you'd say the the family of the Iraqi's gunned down by your air force that has been aired on tape recently. How many Iraqis are dead? Got to be over a million. And it was the wrong country to invade!!!

      You are an idiot, a liar, and an American.

      • Re-watch the tape, moron. There are visible RPGs and AK-47s. So to their families I say: “you don’t spit into the wind.” BTW, the Lancet study claiming 500k dead Iraqis has long since been debunked as a statistical fraud. Go peddle your lies elsewhere, or better yet, get an education from a real school, South of the border.

        • Ok, I get it. Americans are at liberty to carry firearms, even when there is no active conflict in the homeland, yet anybody else, even when in the middle of a fricking war zone can't bear arms.

    • And yet Canada has a Conservative PM while America has the furthest left President in its history, worse than Jimmy Carter.

  102. Whine on, Canadian poofters. Your "tolerance"
    for violent Islam is stunning, as is your contempt
    for the sacred natural right of free political speech.
    What kind of country won't let you order a hamburger
    cooked medium rare? Go to NY, then turn Northward…

    • Also not great.

  103. WE ARE VERY TOLERANT!
    EVERYONE IS TREATED EQUALLY!
    THIS IS A JUDGMENT FREE COUNTRY!

    WE DARE YOU TO SAY OTHERWISE!

  104. True North rapidly goin' South. For good.

    They might have been lumberjacks, but they're NOT OK.

  105. Gee Mark, how can you say all those nasty things about is. After all, we just hosted the Olympics-or something like that.

  106. Exactly. Cowardly sheep.

  107. "Tolerance" as practiced in Canada enables and legitimizes mainstream moral cowardice. Worse, it enables and legitimizes the undemocratic tactics of extremists whose rage and rioting breach the peace, providing all the evidence needed that the object of their hatred is intolerant because after all, they caused the unrest by stepping out of the mainstream.

    The final test of Canada's "tolerance" will come when the extremists turn against the last vestiges of mainstream Canadian mores and norms. At this point, the normally placid and clueless Canucks will either have to stand up and defend their Canadianess or surrender it forever, and in this process they'll turn the table on the extremists by correctly identifying them as the intolerant ones. Ann Coulter and Mark Steyn are simply way out in front of this curve, something America's first amendment not only allows but encourages.

    The continuous "intolerant" exchanges between the extremes in America enables them to blow off steam. We'd rather have them yelling at each other than shooting at each other or us, and the spectacle can be quite entertaining while serving to remind us who the extremists are and why we keep them at the margins. "Kikeroaches"? Whoever says things like this is a brownshirted, jackbooted thug. Van Jones – a communist – in the White House? This won't do. See what I mean?

  108. "Tolerance" as practiced in Canada enables and legitimizes mainstream moral cowardice. Worse, it enables and legitimizes the undemocratic tactics of extremists whose rage and rioting breach the peace, providing all the evidence needed that the object of their hatred is intolerant because after all, they caused the unrest by stepping out of the mainstream.

    The final test of Canada's "tolerance" will come when the extremists turn against the last vestiges of mainstream Canadian mores and norms. At this point, the normally placid and clueless Canucks will either have to stand up and defend their Canadianess or surrender it forever, and in this process they'll turn the table on the extremists by correctly identifying them as the intolerant ones. Ann Coulter and Mark Steyn are simply way out in front of this curve, something America's first amendment not only allows but encourages.

    The continuous "intolerant" exchanges between the extremes in America enables them to blow off steam. We'd rather have them yelling at each other than shooting at each other or us, and the spectacle can be quite entertaining while serving to remind us who the extremists are and why we keep them at the margins.

    • True!

  109. Liberals celebrate diversity in everything except thought….. that was well illustrated by this incident.

    OTB

  110. When are the adults going to call an end to this nonsense and put the kiddies to bed?

  111. Billiant, as usual, Mr. Steyn.

    • It wasn't great.

  112. I never imagined Canadians — even Davey Crockett never dared tame the Great North — would allow their children to grow up to self identify as victims, much less celebrate it, and pay for the humiliation to boot.

  113. "So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot." -George Orwell

  114. I am embarrased for our friends the Canadians. They look so, so Russian, Cuban, Venezualian. Get my drift???

  115. Is Canada a suburb of Detroit?