Bigotry is as Bigotry Does

[Chris]

Bible Prophecy News Politics Current Events Christian Intelligence - The Omega Letter

Bigotry is as Bigotry Does
Commentary on the News
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor

In a delicious twist of irony well-suited to her own ironic sense of humor, Ann Coulter scored what may be the biggest success in her career as an apologist for conservative ideals. And she did it by not speaking.

Coulter was scheduled to speak at the University of Ottawa. Two days beforehand, she was warned by university officials in an email to “use “restraint, respect and consideration” in her address.

One wonders if this is standard practice at a university that hosted the ultra-racist “Israel Apartheid Week” or if was reserved exclusively for American conservatives?

Francois Houle’s email was released to the media by an enraged Coulter:

"Our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here."

And just to make sure she got the message, he added;

"Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."

And in complete keeping with the Canadian self-image as the model of politeness and propriety and in expression of the liberal Canadian image of American conservatism;

"I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind."

Coulter’s proclivity for the ironic served her well. She rejected a request for a telephone interview from the Ottawa Citizen by email, explaining:

“Now that the provost has instructed me on the criminal speech laws he apparently believes I have a proclivity (to break), despite knowing nothing about my speech, I see that he is guilty of promoting hatred against an identifiable group: conservatives," before adding, "I was expecting flowers upon my arrival in Canada, not a threat of criminal prosecution."

Meanwhile, on the university campus, the president of the student federation barred a volunteer organizer from putting up posters advertising the upcoming appearance.

"The federation does not support Ann Coulter speaking on our campus," said student president Seamus Wolfe. "We're trying to work with the administration to see if we can ask her to do her speaking event somewhere else."

Another student activist was quoted calling Coulter “venomous” saying she “crosses the line and promotes hatred and violence.”

A reporter from the Ottawa Citizen attended the event. He reported an encounter with one of the protestors.

"I raised my tape recorder to one of the young protesters and asked why she wanted to stop her fellow University of Ottawa students and hundreds of others from hearing Ann Coulter speak.

“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. ”

Coulter was even denounced from the floor of the national parliament. Government officials were forbidden to attend.

All for a speech she hadn’t given yet.

A speech that, in the end, she never gave. More than 1,000 thugs stormed the 400-seat convention hall where Coulter was scheduled to speak, overwhelming security and forcing cancellation of the event.

With Friends Like These . . .

Even more fascinating than incredible prejudice of the university liberals against ideas they had not yet heard, but pronounced intolerant and therefore not to be tolerated by the tolerant, are some of the comments delivered in Coulter’s “defense” in the Canadian press.

The Toronto Star hunted down the most ghastly photo they could find of Coulter under the headline: “Coulter’s Right To Free Speech Defended” above the subtitle; “Right-wing firebrand should be allowed to be heard, even if what she says is hateful, civil libertarians say”.

The Star’s Joanna Smith then opened her defense of Ann Coulter’s right to free speech thusly:

“They believe her words can be racist, hateful and ignorant, but she should be free to say them – just as others should be allowed to tell her to shut up.”

Later in the piece, Smith quotes University of Toronto law professor Brenda Crossman’s ‘defense’:

University of Toronto law professor Brenda Cossman said some of what Coulter says actually might be construed as hate speech under the law, but that has more to do with what she sees as a larger problem with freedom of expression here.

"I think her views are completely beyond the pale, offensive, obnoxious, uninformed, provocative, all of those things – except she should be allowed to say them and she shouldn't face criminal prosecution," Cossman said.

Noted the Calgary Sun’s defense under the headline, “U of C Right to Let Coulter Rant”

“This is a woman who oozes slime-coated soundbites aimed to offend, but really, she’s no more outrageous than your average bigot.”

In truth, Ann Coulter did Canadians a service by offering herself up as a sacrifice to the altar of mindless liberal political correctness. That service was obliquely acknowledged by one letter writer published in the Ottawa Citizen.

Complaining that the university “played right into Coulter’s hands” he writes:

“The university's reaction to Coulter was clearly not about concern with hate speech but only about censoring a point of view that the university does not wish to hear. In the end, they magnified Coulter's point of view while making us Ottawans look like intolerant radicals.”

What really happened was they justified Coulter’s point of view and exposed the liberals in Ottawa – and across Canada -- for the intolerant radicals they consistently have proved themselves to be.

And some of them can almost see it.

[Chris]

You know what's ironic? The leftist liberals spewed all kinds of hate and venom towards GWB, Coulter, etc. and they did so because they thought GWB and the others were hateful, racist, etc. But the truth is that the true hatefulness, racism, etc. is more pronounced in the liberals. In other words, they have become the very thing that they despised and now we'll have to create a notch many miles below GWB in order to properly accommodate the evil and bigotry of today's liberals. Congratulations liberals!! You've out done us all in hate and racism!!!

[WazOz]

That is incredibel Chris, the mind boggles at such censorship and open hostility to any non Liberal minded individual.

[Chris]

That is incredibel Chris, the mind boggles at such censorship and open hostility to any non Liberal minded individual.

It seems to be a sign of the times. what is right is wrong, and what is wrong is right. I remember just 30 years ago the mention of homosexuality was taboo much less ever seeing someone out openly like that. Now it is so common you can't even go anywhere without it being thrown in your face. I still have a hard time grapsing that Disney has even a "gay day" to celebrate this sexual perversion.

[bearycool]

It seems to be a sign of the times. what is right is wrong, and what is wrong is right. I remember just 30 years ago the mention of homosexuality was taboo much less ever seeing someone out openly like that. Now it is so common you can't even go anywhere without it being thrown in your face. I still have a hard time grapsing that Disney has even a "gay day" to celebrate this sexual perversion.

When me and my parents went to Disney Land they were having like a "gay celebration" or something like you said. Some of them were talking sexually to one another (and yes sometimes near young children) and for what I know they probably said it out loud for others to hear. I didn't think of it at the time because I only thought of having fun there and not worry about it. But now when I think about it I think this. "Why would a family based place let others to wear shirts with "Gay pride" and confusing the minds of kids of what is right and what is wrong?"

[Robert]

Let me relay a story of to you folks;

Israel had it's share of Liberals as well; in fact, three of them figured prominently in what amounted to be an uprising. Korah, Dathan and Abiram. They felt that Moses and Aaron had gone too far. "You have gone too far! The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the Lord is with them. Why then do you set yourselves above the Lord’s assembly?” they said to them. Moses was not happy about it:

"Moses also said to Korah, “Now listen, you Levites! Isn’t it enough for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the rest of the Israelite community and brought you near himself to do the work at the Lord’s tabernacle and to stand before the community and minister to them? He has brought you and all your fellow Levites near himself, but now you are trying to get the priesthood too. It is against the Lord that you and all your followers have banded together. Who is Aaron that you should grumble against him?” ( Numbers 16:8-11, NIV)

The liberals, in that vein, are acting the same way; they do not want to be limited by "conservative" standards. They want to be the ones to set the rules and say what is acceptable and what isn't. In this case, the only thing they will not tolerate is any individual, belief, or God for that matter, that holds them to a standard of righteousness that "reins them in." They exalt the creature over the creator, and make all "gods" acceptable so that there is no one standard of truth and everything is "relative." All things are made acceptable, and truth dies because all things become "true" to them. Any sort of exclusivity to a god, religion, faith, morals, or whatnot is met with cries of 'bigot" and the individual group or people who hold to it are relentlessly seized upon by those who would rend them asunder in their rage. Whether it is the Emergent Church or the Liberals in government or society, the same result abounds.


Well, unfortunately for the 'liberals" in this instance, God had an answer for them, and it would NOT be pretty. The Lord has Moses tell Korah and his crew to meet Moses the next day, in front of God.

The we find out

"Then the Lord said to Moses, “Say to the assembly, ‘Move away from the tents of Korah, Dathan and Abiram.’”

Moses got up and went to Dathan and Abiram, and the elders of Israel followed him. He warned the assembly, “Move back from the tents of these wicked men! Do not touch anything belonging to them, or you will be swept away because of all their sins.” So they moved away from the tents of Korah, Dathan and Abiram. Dathan and Abiram had come out and were standing with their wives, children and little ones at the entrances to their tents.

Then Moses said, “This is how you will know that the Lord has sent me to do all these things and that it was not my idea: If these men die a natural death and experience only what usually happens to men, then the Lord has not sent me. But if the Lord brings about something totally new, and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them, with everything that belongs to them, and they go down alive into the grave, then you will know that these men have treated the Lord with contempt.”

As soon as he finished saying all this, the ground under them split apart and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them, with their households and all Korah’s men and all their possessions. They went down alive into the grave, with everything they owned; the earth closed over them, and they perished and were gone from the community. At their cries, all the Israelites around them fled, shouting, “The earth is going to swallow us too!” (Numbers 16:23-34, NIV)

Gotta love smug people, right?

[Adopted Son]

Interesting. If I hear of a speaker whose subject doesn't appeal to me, I ignore it. If I hear of a speaker who spews something I deem offensive, I state my objections to their point of view. Perhaps curiosity or a desire to have one's fire enhanced would be the only reason to attend a session against one's beliefs.

I have written letters and protested against abortion. I would not threaten nor block speech on one so misguided as to speak on the subject. But you might find me walking a protest line outside the event.

These people fear the truth. They know they "like" being fooled. They despise someone correcting their imagined realities. This is why they spew hate at Coulter and other conservatives who speak reality.

[mattfivefour]

Fortunately the majority of Canadians is not like that! The national Globe & Mail newspaper published at least three editorials/commentaries that condemned the U of O provost and the demonstrators. Even the prestigious Canadian Association of University Teachers spoke out publicly, sending a letter to the provost stating: "We feel you owe an apology to Ms. Coulter and, even more importantly, you owe the University of Ottawa community an assurance that the administration of the university strongly supports freedom of expression, academic freedom and views the role of the university as fostering and defending these values." Indeed there was much support, if not for her views (though a majority of Canadians hold to similar views) then certainly for her right to say them.

Ann Coulter is a polemicist, she knows it, her intelligent listeners know it, and she plays the part well. As she said to an overwhelmingly welcoming audience in Calgary, Alberta: "They wanted to get someone more controversial (than me) but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wasn’t available." Polemicists play an important part in public debate as long as they do not descend into demagoguery—which Coulter does not. Agree with her, or disagree, she should not be silenced.