Who's really to blame for the Ann Coulter affair at University of Ottawa?
Saturday, 03 April 2010

Now that the storm surrounding Ann Coulter's visit to University of Ottawa has subsided, it's worth while asking who is really to blame for the behaviour of those students who sought to prevent her from speaking. Most observers point an accusing finger at university VP Francois Houle, claiming that his letter to Ms. Coulter suggesting that she risked prosecution for promoting hatred was a green light for protesters. I think that's too easy an explanation.

Not that I am defending M. Houle’s letter or his decision to send it. It’s just that I think that focusing attention too narrowly on it and events at University of Ottawa misses the point.

In the first place, Mr. Houle’s letter could not be fairly characterized as inflammatory in any sense of the term. On the contrary, its tone was polite, albeit dripping with condescension. This latter fact might rightly have infuriated its addressee (and her supporters), but incite the crowd? I think not. As for the assertion that the letter constituted a “veiled threat”, after reading it several times I can only say that if it did indeed contain a threat, it was so difficult to discern that it might as well have been hiding behind a burka, let alone a veil.

The real problem with M. Houle’s now infamous letter lies not in its supposed malevolent nature, but rather in its unfortunate, but nevertheless unimpeachable, accuracy. Everything that Mr. Houle wrote with regard to laws proscribing free speech in Canada was true; every cautionary note he struck, justified to the nth degree. He may have overstepped the boundaries of good taste in communicating this to Ms. Coulter, but his note could just as easily have been sent to a good friend intent on delivering a lecture on a controversial topic, rather than an ideological opponent.

The same thing can be said for the students protesting Ms. Coulter’s lecture that night. Unlike most pundits who have pronounced judgment against these activists, I was there, and not just in the safe confines of the lecture hall either. Having arrived at the campus somewhat later than planned, my wife and I had to push our way past the demonstrators to gain access to the event, giving us the opportunity to get up close and personal with some. What was striking about these students was not the violence of their actions or words, but rather how ostensibly mainstream their message was: “No More Hate Speech!”

Who can argue with that?

Certainly the protesters overstepped their own boundaries by moving beyond protest to actually preventing Ms. Coulter from speaking, but in doing so, were they not acting in the best tradition (I use the word loosely) of the new Canada, where feelings rule supreme and critical thinking is something we reserve for the other guy’s ideas, rather than our own?

The uncomfortable truth of this sorry affair is that there is blame to be laid, but it rests neither with student leaders, nor M. Houle, nor even with the feckless Alan Rock, President of University of Ottawa, whose reaction to the criticism of the institution he runs can be summarized in a single word – pathetic. It rests with laws that effectively criminalize dissenting opinions and the kangaroo courts known as human rights tribunals that prosecute the offenders.

But it doesn’t end there. It extends to our elected officials who recognize, not just the fundamental injustice of these laws and the extortionist industry they have spawned, but more importantly, the erosion of basic liberal democratic principles that they represent. Many politicians speak out in defence free speech and liberty, but thus far none have had the courage to initiate a legislative campaign to protect them. It's the politicians – not Mr. Houle and his trifling opinions, or the students who stopped Ann Coulter from speaking – who are emerging as the real, if unwitting, villains in this saga, because they have the power to do something about it, but they refuse. Worse, we citizens are complicit for not demanding that they do.

It has been said that the law is a great teacher. If that’s so, then both Mr. Houle and the students at University of Ottawa have learned their lessons well.

Don’t like what they’ve been taught? The solution is simple – change the law.

Learn what you can do to defend Free Speech and Liberty in Canada. Click here now!

Comments (15)add comment
SteveR: ...
Good column. I'm glad that someone sees the big picture.
1

April 03, 2010
RRC: ...
HRC's are really weapons of suppression with a false name disigned to manipulate guilt and fear, and have no place in a nation praised as 'the true north strong and free'. ABOLISH THEM! Don't just tinker with them, abolish them!
2

April 03, 2010
Brian Towers: ...
The HRC should be re-dubbed HRI "The Human Rights Inquisition"

Brian T
3

April 04, 2010
Thor: ...
Brilliant and erudite, as to be expected from you. Thank you for writing it!
4

April 04, 2010
H LWipprecht: ...
I grew up under the Gestapo and we always had to look over our shoulders when saying something critical of the Hitler regime. Now in Canada "glorious and free"(?) I must watch out that I am not being hauled before a HR tribunal for saying something critical of another culture, race or religion.
What is the difference? Only in the ensuing punishment, but not the principle. We have become a Gestapo state. Too bad as we remember the brave soldiers who fought and died for our alleged freedoms!
H L Wipprecht
5

April 04, 2010
SEB: ...
I also wonder about the level of support for critical thought and discussion in typical Canadian universities. Are there not institutional biases against students (and others) learning to think in something other than slogans? This certainly seems to be true in some of the social, cultural and political disciplines.

However, this is a complex topic There are some forces for good in academia as shown by the response of the University of Ottawa faculty association to the University's actions. For that matter, CAUT (Canadian Association of University Teachers) was also critical of the University.

Nevertheless, universities need to be particularly proactive in fostering freedom of inquiry and freedom of speech, and they could be doing much more in this regard. Without that effort, large parts of these institutions descend into little more than seminaries for the secular, "progressive" left.
6

April 04, 2010
Steve Charter: ...
Joseph, while I completely agree with your column, you totally ignored the reason why blame should be laid at the feet of M. Houle. There was no reason for anyone to be aware of the letter (other than the author and the recipient, Ann Coulter.) At that point the letter was totally appropriate - simply letting Ann be aware of our laws. The fact that the letter - and it's contents - were were made public was obviously intentional. The only purpose it making it public has to be to get the students riled up so that M. Houle could stop Ann from speaking without it being "his fault."
7

April 04, 2010
Kevin G. McDonald : ... http://www.nationalreview.com
No more hate speech?

What are you nuts?

We need more hate speech, more rudeness, more incivilty and more passionate opposition of the other's ideas.


Canuckistan is sleepwalking into the nanny state and when completely nebulous, totally ill-definable terms like "hate speech" are even put into legislation we are a cooked goose: put a fork in us we are done.

We have what we need in our legal statutes, and laws preventing incitement to violence come to us from our great and ancient English common law tradition and in the French civil Codes that make up part of Quebec's legal patrimony.

You want to hate me?

You want to call me a papist or pope's arse kissing mick, a rosary clutching simpleton? Go right ahead.

But if you call for the heads of Catholics, Jews, Muslims, homosexuals or others we are going to put your violence plotting butt in jail because we can objectivey define what speech that incites violence is, but one man's unacceptable "hate speech" meant to be outlawed is another man's truly necessary satire, humour, mockery or just garden variety, or boorish incivility. People must have the "right to be wrong" or true pluralism does not exist.

Poor Column this time Mr. ben Ami.

I would have expected from someone like yourself, a religious minority to take the complete opposite tack: calling for more freedom of speech so we can oppose bigots and ultimately marginalize them.

If Canada is not run on the model of the university that John Henry Cardinal Newman wanted -- "a free and open marketplace of ideas..." - then we are just going to be coddled by our nannies.
8

April 05, 2010
Dan: ...
Kevin G. writes "Canuckistan is sleepwalking into the nanny state and when completely nebulous, totally ill-definable terms like "hate speech" are even put into legislation we are a cooked goose: put a fork in us we are done." On this point I completely agree with you. The only thing standing in the way of a complete socialist tyranny has been the USA. If Obama gets his agenda passed watch how fast the rest of the package the majority of Canadians seem to embrace is followed through on. The loss of our free speech has paved the way. Without free speech we are indeed cooked. Canadians seem to love the power of political correctness and exercise it with vigour. Therefore I have little faith in a free and democratic future for Canada. We have sold our souls very cheaply and have been bought with our own money.
9

April 06, 2010
Kevin G. McDonald: ... http://www.nationalreview.com
Free speech is nice but is never exercised if you are not allowed to be born.

There is a natural hierarchy of rights and the right to life is paramount. Once we legalized contraception, the contraceptive mentality took hold.

Once we had that, we decided that the born could lord it over the unborn, creating the first and largest template for the powerful dictating to the weak or the minority.

If anyone is pro-abortion and is whining about a diminution of their freedom to speak, associate, and publish they need look no further than the mirror.

ad majorem dei gloriam
10

April 07, 2010
chris: ...
Don't dislocate your shoulder by patting yourself on the back for being brilliant. This is just another typical bunch of nonsense that any first year university student would put out there. Congratulations for being on the right side of the free-speech issue, but blaming the state for the actions of the university heads and those directly involved absolves them for being sheep blindly following the lead of the state as though they have no free will. Don't blame the perpetrator, blame the societal forces that made him that way.

Your column is, inadvertently, a perfect example of the actual root of the problem. We are all sissies. Nothing is our fault and everything is our right...

This isn't Canada's fault. It's not my fault. It's not the Human Rights Commission's fault and it's not Ann Coulter's fault. It's the students' and it's the faculty's first...the fact that no one cares? That's Canada's fault.
11

April 07, 2010
Joseph replies: ...
Let me first thank you all for your feedback, including those who emailed me directly rather than posting their thoughts here.

Kevin:

I'm confused. Just because I'm against hate speech doesn't mean that I'm in favour of banning it legally, or preventing it from being spoken (as U of O students mistakenly thought they were doing). I'm not. I"m just saying that the students had as much of a right to stand outside the venue chanting their anti-"hate speech" slogans as Ann Coulter had a right to speak and I had a right to hear her. Where the students erred was in blocking entrances to the hall to prevent the event from taking place. Had they limited themselves to simply expressing their disapproval of Ann Coulter's visit on the grounds that she is disseminating hate, I would have no problem, even if I disagree with their views - which I do. Freedom of speech must apply to everyone or it ultimately will apply to no-one.

Steve: I thoguht that M. Houle's letter was made public by Ms. Coulter's people, but I could be wrong about this. That being said, being in Ottawa I was in regular contact with the organizers of the event and can assure you that the student leadership was aware of the visit well before M. Houle's letter became public and they were already taking steps to undermine the event including prohibiting promoting it anywhere on campus. (That's right - only posters approved by the student federation can be displayed on the campus, a little known but effective way of controlling what unsuspecting students are see when wandering the halls of their school and dormintories.)

Chris: I never give myself a pat on the back. Your point about blame is well taken and it was perhaps a litle overgenerous of me to imply that the students and M. Houle were blameless. You are badly mistaken to dismiss the influence of the law and the government in shaping the attitudes of the students though. They weren't there because they considered it their right, they were there because they considered it their duty to defend what they wrongly perceive to be "Canadian values". By all means, criticize the university, the students and me, but (brace yourself) if you haven't written to your Member of Parliament or your provincial legislator demanding that the law be changed, then, yes, you are to blame too. Changing the law may not have prevented what happened that night at U of O, but it would end the persecution of dozens of Canadians, mostly good-natured and well-meaning, who are chewed up by human rights tribunals year in and year out. We live in a democracy. If we are not responsible to fight for freedom and justice for our fellow citizens, who is?

JBA
12

April 07, 2010
Kevin G. McDonald: ... http://www.nationalreview.com
Kevin:

I'm confused. Just because I'm against hate speech doesn't mean that I'm in favour of banning it legally, or preventing it from being spoken (as U of O students mistakenly thought they were doing).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Joseph:

You are a warrior after my own heart and we are cut from the same cloth, but does your Jewish background and the legacy of the Holocaust make your denunciation so timorous and "qualified?"

Catholics having been less victimized, maybe I see this clearer: I see hate speech to be about as normal as wearing a blue shirt or eating ice cream. There should be nothing special about it. Just ignore the ranters and haters.

I know that, (except for brainwashed dictatorial polities), in any given population only a fringe will hate others, and a smaller proportion of them will go further and advocate violence.

The Brown shirts went from farcical Munich bunglers to national saviours for many reasons, not because they were allowed to hate.

To paraphrase that pedophile, child-buggering poet Walt Whitman: "I sing the praises of hate speech...and blue shirts"

See my point?

We must take the diametrically opposed opinion that hate speech is so inane and so asinine as to not even merit a page six summary in our newspapers.

Leave it all be, but jump down the throats of anyone who "incites to violence" which is an objective criteria which no prosecuter can ever be second guessed of.

I just wonder why you don't celebrate Hate Speech as just one of the many variants of free speech we allow (should allow: speech kommissars notwithstanding).

A bit tepid Joseph. I want all to see it as intrinsically neutral even if it is sometimes a precursor to violence for some just as beer causes joy in some and tragedy in others.

- Love what you are doing, got to disagree not on your points but how you expressed yourself and I hope to be able to tell the nutbar Halifax Imams what I think of Islam in no uncertain terms without wondering if they will go to Inhumane Reichs' Kommissions where morons who can't make critical distinctions about free speech or violence inciting speech issue diktats from on high.

- Shalom,

Kevin
13

April 07, 2010
Judy Bencic: ...
The desire to have power over others seems to be the increase of our day. From daycare centres to university campuses there is an air of control in progress. Wielding power or control over others is the mortar, if not the very bricks being used to immobilize yet another generation.

There was a time when people were born and nurtured by a family unit, for better or worse, and tried the boundaries of the rebellious nature one day at a time within the confines and privacy of their homes and the overseeing eye of their parents and siblings. After a period of 5 years of that individual coming to a conclusion, each person emerged unique to the values and nurture of their own environment, bringing that uniqueness into their new environment. We now have a large portion of our society that is raised without that unique nurture, controlled in both physical activity, thought, and definitely emotion while surrounded by predominantly female overseers. Crying and real emotions are not permitted, only obedience and smiles. Those who display normal human reactions, questions, rebellion, or dismay or despondency are swiftly removed from the obedient ones and told to cease and desist and left in isolation until they do. Thus their lives are of sameness and conformity where originality is never to see the light of day....a child may be born but a robot is created.

When a fully conditioned robot enters the halls of higher education, they may arrive with the idealistic assumption that finally their opinion and indeed they in their successfully suppressed individuality may actually matter. They are untrained in critical thinking and often in basic literate skills, so the opinions expressed in lectures may be more passionate and determined than what they have been accustomed to, and is therefore thrilling, there is a high casualty of drowning in the adament opinions of their new overseers. To receive a passing grade and that golden ticket called a degree, conformity is the name of the game. The resemblance to the Stockholm Syndrome is quite incredible.

The protesting students of the past, fighting against intolerance and the closed minded, have become the self acclaimed and self promoted totalitarians of the halls of "higher learning".

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely" whether in the mind molding of Day"care" centres or in the hallowed halls of academia....No free speech allowed and it is our own fault for putting just about anything at a higher value than people.

There was a time when total mind control from infancy to death was looked down upon and fought against. Now we see it as a very convenient way of getting everything "I" want, regardless of the real, if often ignored, outcome....an inconvenient truth.
14

April 09, 2010
Nate: ...
Right to free speech for who?Muslim lovers and Jew haters,or everyone.Seems at Ottawa U only the first.
15

April 10, 2010

Write comment
Please note that you can no longer comment on this column after 30 days.

busy