All columnists berate the students for their lack of intelligence in allowing “mob rule”. I would just like to pick up on something candid written by Lorne Gunter:
“Do you honestly believe commissions would choose to stand up for the groups they defend if those weren't the safe groups to stand up for? The fact of the matter is, they protect only those individuals who are members of groups currently in favour with the political, bureaucratic, cultural, academic and media establishments -- such as gays, feminists, Muslims, Francophones and immigrants -- while relegating to the back of the rights bus men, Christians, Jews, English-speakers and those of European descent.”
Finally! A member of the media who has publicly acknowledged that Francophones fall into the group favoured by the establishment and English-speakers are shoved to the back of the bus.
Read the rest of his article:
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=2718711
by Dan Gardner, Ottawa Citizen
“Students know the difference between discourse and discrimination,” she began.
“Students know the difference between free speech and hate speech. We know the difference between conservatism and concerted attacks on individuals and on minorities.”
She glowed with righteous intensity, delivering her words with a clarity and force that would delight the coach of a debate team. “Students are here to say that we don’t want hate speech on our campus.”
OK, I said. So what’s the difference between free speech and hate speech? Where do you draw the line?
She hesitated. But then the righteousness flared back up and the words rushed out. “Most students I’ve talked to have said we don’t want her on campus and students are here tonight to say that we want a campus free of hate speech.”
Top marks for rhetoric, I thought. But a fail on substance. I thanked her for her time and she went back to shouting loudly.
An hour earlier, in the considerably different environment of the Rideau Club, I spoke with the object of the protesters’ loathing.
Read more:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Column+Even+Coulter+villain+villain+this+piece/2722622/story.html
Ottawa Citizen Editorial
| Ann Coulter's opinions can be obnoxious, offensive and just plain wrong. But she's spot-on about one thing: that the University of Ottawa has shown itself to be a "bush-league" school. |
The thuggery of student activists is a growing problem at Canadian campuses, but the spectacle at the University of Ottawa was truly a colossal embarrassment, for both the university and the city. Ottawa is the capital of a G8 country, yet our premier research university is evidently so insecure and insular that a talk-TV pundit from the U.S. represented an intolerable intellectual threat.
We wish we could blame only the students for shaming the university. But the administration was complicit in the successful campaign to shut down Coulter's much publicized talk on campus.
It began when the university's vice-president academic and provost, François Houle, sent Coulter a bizarre e-mail, in which he made it perfectly clear that he detests her polemical style and that she should watch her back, lest she find herself facing "criminal" or "defamation" laws. He told Coulter -- in the most condescending of tones -- that the University of Ottawa has a tradition of "restraint, respect and consideration" and therefore that is why he feels it is necessary to invoke what "may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression."
Read more:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/rules/2723151/story.html
The University of Ottawa took the time to admonish Ann Coulter in advance for committing crimes with her words. Why does it tolerate the actions of its own students? |
The University of Ottawa disgraced itself on Tuesday night with its treatment of Ann Coulter, the U.S. conservative pundit. In a spectacle that earned international attention, hundreds of shouting protesters stopped Coulter's speech from proceeding through pure physical intimidation.
The protesters had bigger plans than mere heckling. Just look at their venomous Facebook page dedicated to disrupting the event: Vanessa Alexandra Peterson wrote
"I wonder what the security would be like. I want to throw rotten veggies and eggs at her evil Barbie mask."
Saif Latif wrote
"somebody needs to throw a pie at her during her speech like they did at the University of Arizona,"
to which Guillaume Pelegrin replied
"I hope someone will get arrested."
More than 500 people on that group whipped each other up into a hateful frenzy, publicly spelling out their fantasies.
It was not anti-Coulter hate that shut down her speech at U of O. Hate is a human emotion, not an action. Nor was it mere hateful words. Words can be noisy, but they can only hurt feelings. Rather, it was the assessment of police, campus security and Coulter's own bodyguard that there was too much physical danger to Coulter and the audience to proceed. As Ottawa Police Sgt. Dan Beauchamp said, "it's a public safety issue."
Read more:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/real+threat+civil+discourse/2723156/story.html
| It is a sad day for free speech in Canada when students, of all people, force Ann Coulter to cancel her speech at the University of Ottawa. |
By PAUL BERTON, QMI Agency, Ottawa Sun
Coulter, the American ultra-conservative commentator who has spoken at hundreds of universities, including the University of Western Ontario on Monday, says the Ottawa address was the first one to be “completely shut down.”
She is absolutely correct when she says it reflects poorly on the university and its students. It is also a black eye for all of Canada.
This country encourages debate, dissent and peaceful demonstrations, but we should not condone violence, bullying or other acts that stifle free speech.
“This has never, ever, ever happened before — even at the stupidest American university,” she said later. “It’s always the bush-league schools.”
Canadians can only hope Coulter’s address in Calgary on Thursday goes more smoothly. In London, Ont., on Monday, it created the predictable amount of controversy, but went off as planned.
As for Coulter, who makes her living being outraged and outrageous, she couldn’t have bought better publicity. Who knows if she actually believes the stuff she spews; it’s simply an occupation, and an increasingly successful one thanks to folks such as those in Ottawa.
Read more:
http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/editorial/2010/03/24/13347061.html
Bilingualism debate flares
English-rights activist rips policy, mayor in mail out
By TOM VAN DUSEN, Ottawa Sun
EMBRUN — Dormant for much of the past several months, the Russell Twp. mandatory bilingual sign bylaw controversy is being stirred once again.
Doing the stirring is English-language rights warrior Howard Galganov who launched a Charter of Rights and Freedoms action against the bylaw as soon as it was approved by township council in June 2008.
Earlier this week, Galganov circulated by mail 6,124 copies of a glossy brochure to every home, farm and business in the municipality with the front-cover wording: “How to Wipe Out the Franco Ontarian Language and Culture — Ban Any Stand-Alone Use of the French Language … Make it Illegal.”
A cover photo shows a gavel coming down bearing the name of Russell Mayor Ken Hill. The back cover shows a stern-looking Galganov, arms crossed, standing with one of the horses he owns at his Glengarry County farm.
Inside the 10-page unilingual English publication, Galganov flips the controversy, blaming Hill and councillors Lorraine Dicaire and Donald St. Pierre for prohibiting the use of French-only signs by approving the mandatory bilingual amendment. Hill cast the deciding vote while councillors J.P. St. Pierre and Jamie Laurin were — and remain — opposed.
Galganov wonders “how stupid people can be” who force themselves by law to use another language with their own.
In the pamphlet, Galganov claims “Ken Hill’s Folly” has stripped away rights from French and English speakers to post exterior commercial messages in whatever language they wish for the mayor’s own “selfish, arrogant and political reasons.”
Read more:
http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2010/03/24/13348226.html
by Kim McConnell, Canadians for Language Fairness
Our issue has just been given a revival by Tom van Dusen. Howard Galganov’s case has been postponed while they locate a bilingual judge so those who are waiting for news can relax for the remainder of this week.
I have been given copies of Howard’s brochure which I will be glad to mail to anyone who is willing to send me a donation for Howard’s case. We expect that win or lose, there will be an appeal and Howard is getting ready for that. Russell Township has bottomless taxpayer pockets so if they lose (which they are likely to do), they will appeal.
When CLF lost our case with the City of Ottawa, we didn’t have enough money to appeal so we had to give up. Howard is NOT going to give up and just walk away so we have to get ready for an appeal.
Canadians should understand how important this case is – its implications are far reaching right across Canada. If commercial enterprises can be forced to post signs that must “respect” the official languages (whether needed or not), Canada will have lost another freedom.
Freedom of speech is already under serious threat and only those who are willing to use violence can over-ride normal security and force their views on the general public. Our universities are no longer institutions teaching freedom of thought & the rights of people to make up their own minds about anything – student leaders and university authorities can shut down debate anytime they wish & this has been used mainly by left-wing groups who seem to favour the use of violence.
This is just the tip of the iceberg – there are a lot of things happening in Canada where the general population is under threat from so many sources that one is totally lost as to which threat to deal with first. As we are mainly concerned with the threat of a linguistic minority taking control of the lives of the majority, I hope you will excuse me for concentrating only on that.
It is not a concern that affects most Canadians, unfortunately. That is why we keep on beating the language drum even though we are discouraged by lack of support from any political party – even the Conservatives. The Manning Networking Conference was an opportunity for me to ask why we’re being ignored:
http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&pagetype=vod&lang=e&clipID=3764
The answer is that the Canadian public is to blame for not making it an important issue. I guess not enough of us are suffering from this discriminatory policy. Only the Anglos of Quebec, New Brunswick and Ontario are sufficiently aware of how far the policy can rob English-speakers of their place as majorities. English-speakers are being sent to the back of the bus and they don’t seem to mind!! Incredible!!
Just in case you are one of those who want to do something but don’t know what, here’s a suggestion. Lobby your government to invoke the “notwithstanding clause”. Start a petition to your own government to force them to understand that unless they are willing to emulate Quebec’s example and use this clause to declared English as the only official language, people like Gilles Caron has the power to force Alberta into translating your laws into French and force the hiring only of bilingual people.
Neil Lensen has written a letter to Ted Morton to remind him of all the things that the powerful, generously funded French groups can do. If you want to read his letter and those of others who understand the real nature of the threat, go to www.languagefairness.ca and open the link to Regional Issues – Western Canada.
We, in provinces which are succumbing to the French threat, know how serious it can get. We can only tell you of our experiences and ask you (beg you) to help yourselves!!! Only ONE province need to start and the rest will follow. Alberta is the most likely one – so Albertans – this is an action call for you!!!
Kim McConnell
