Levant, Coulter protect free speech... their own

We already know Levant's true views on free speech, since he supported the Harper government's decision to prevent  George Galloway from speaking in this country. And anyone who describes liberals and leftists as 'traitors' doesn't support their right to free speech either.

However, people who wish to make racist, slanderous and bigoted statements should be given the opportunity to do so, because when they do so they reveal more about themselves than they do about anyone else. They expose themselves to ridicule, and ridicule is what they deserve. It is much worse when people start using code to say more or less the same things.

As for the angry protests against Coulter's 'Canadian tour', I wonder what they achieved. Coulter's views are repuganant, but she is obviously also an attention-seeker who says things in the most outrageous ways possible in order to provoke strong reactions. The left has therefore given her exactly what she wanted. I also get a bit tired of activists always striking the same note of shrill indignation. I wonder about people on the left who are always out to demonstrate their virulent anger at racism, sexism, etc. at every opportunity. Do they protest too much? Anger is good as a driving force, but it needs to lead us somewhere. Achieving catharsis through demonstrations of anger might make activists feel better, but what else does it accomplish?

If only the demonstrators at the University of Ottawa had done creative things like bringing carpets and papier mache camels. That might have been interesting.

Awesome as always Alheli.

Have you sent a copy of it to @acoyne yet? If you do not, I will. He said, as you are probably aware, last night on CBC's "At Issue" that Canadians who think that she is not entitled to speak freely, are Hicks and should be embarassed.

I am beginning to think that the Days of the MSM are numbered, personally, but no time for that now. He was actually taping "At issue" just as the Calgary event was beginning, but when asked gave an opinion based on what exactly? Conjecture and speculation? I'm not sure. I don't think he planned to mislead anyone either, but as apublic figure dealing with important matters like this one he needs to Nail it! At any rate he did not get close to the truth.

Without considering the Drama, the Drama Queen, the Canadian Drama Queen, all three gigs, there outcomes and the likelyhood that they were all (including the Aborted Ottawa show) as I perceived them to be, tightly pre-scripted, no one could get it right. The missing evidence was the text of the missive above, which reads a lot like the directions that the PMO issues at Stephen Harper's press conferences. And we all know how he feels about Speaking Freely. Gee what a coincidence, eh?

Again thank you for bringing this to our  attention. I will be sending a few others over to read the missive. It unlocks the mystery. and as always You unlock the mystery!

ttsm

Dear Alheli,

My first time reading your column. I was a tad disappointed to see that what you wrote was so terse. You state that you desire to engage in meaning, political debate. That said, could you possible expand on your statement, "There is a difference between 'free speech' and 'hate speech.'? Just what is it that distinguishes these two categories and make them somehow different?

Please don't think I'm being facetious here as i'm not. I have studied and written about Mr. Levant in the past and know very well his agenda on this subject yet at the same time he has been a force engaging Canadians in the ongoing controversy over the draconian CHR Act's sec. 13(1) which certain lobby groups in Canada are using to gain control of the Internet so that free speech is regulated by government.

Bear in mind that I'm not speaking here about our federal hate laws but those enforced by quasi-judicial bodies such as the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the CHR Tribunal. Even the commission cannot define in its mandate the precise meaning for that word "hate." Possibly you can.

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham

Hello Arthur, thanks for your feedback. This was just an update to my previous, in depth,  post about the event. You can find it here http://www.rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/apicazo/2010/03/fomented-outrage-over-non-existant-censorship

My focus is not on the HRC's. My focus is on the political games of both Coulter and Levant. Levant makes a living off slandering and attacking others, then begging for money on his blog to help him fight the lawsuits he faces as a consequence.

The HRC's are not perfect in any sense. However, Levant is not a 'hero' of free speech. He is nothing but a trumped up fraud.

Montreal Paul is very confused.

He thinks that "people who wish to make racist, slanderous and bigoted statements should be given the opportunity to do so."

Quite apart from the obvious point that universities have no obligation whatsoever to offer a platform to such vile forms of hate speech, it's very naive to suggest that nobody will be influenced or encouraged by such people. Paul falsely assumes that everybody will regard such speech as ridiculous and contemptuous, but unfortunately that is far from the truth. There is a hard core of public opinion in Canada (around 20%) that subscribes totally to Coulter's slimy ideology.

But at the same time as he says Coulter deserves ridicule, he complains about the "shrill indignation" of her opponents. Which is it to be, Paul? Is ridicule an effective counter to her hate speech, or are we merely giving her "exactly what she wanted"?

It seems you don't want to hear what protesters have to say, but at the same time you're happy to offer a podium for Coulter's racist demagogy. What's up with that?

Here's a suggestion: start getting upset with the left when we stop getting indignant about powerful media representatives spewing racist and fascist crap! Until then, don't criticize us for doing what you are too lazy to do yourself.