"take a camel" says Ann Coulter

[G-Lexington]

Not me. I'd rather fight than switch.

Lex

 

[bankside]

I hope she has her day in court. I can only imagine what our Supreme Court Chief Justice, Beverley McLachlin, would do to her. She (McLachlin) is one of the most fair-minded people in history, but her tolerance for bullshit is nil.

I would pay to watch that, in fact. Coulter, vacuous as she is, would implode. Actually it would probably be a waste of the Court's talent, and it would never get that far.

So, Coulter, bring it on if you dare. See you in court.

 

[BearBoi]

"I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

I just wrote this to the Editor. With any luck, it may even be published.

With respectful disagreement to those who support Ann Coulter's "free speech":

Have you ever passed a billboard calling for members of your religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation to be killed? Or that your family should be forcibly sterilized by the government? Or that you should be converted by force to another religion? Or that your civil liberties should be stripped away, because somebody's God tells them to hate you?

Ann Coulter has made a living advocating all these things, and much more.

But you've never passed such a billboard, or heard it on TV or radio, have you? You've never known the type of fear and hostility it provokes.

That's because you are blessed to live in Canada. In The True North Strong And Free, spreading bigotry, marginalizing segments of our population, inciting hate and violence against our fellow citizens... these things do not fall under the prevue of "free speech." They are deplorable. They contribute nothing to society, and while you are free to harbour these beliefs in the privacy of your own home, even your places of worship, their toxins are not something we pollute our airwaves and minds with.

The only reason I might imagine mentioning the name "Ann Coulter" in Canada would be as a teaching tool as to why we should cherish our laws so dearly.​

 

[NineOfClubs]

So much for "freedom of speech" in the land to our north......

 

[BlondeCanadian]

are you allowed to slander people nineofclubs? well we just make sure that hateful slander against people or any racial or socio economic or any other group is not tolerated

 

[Knucklehead]

Too bad someone didn't throw a bottle of piss at her head.

 

[NineOfClubs]

Yeah, BlondeCanadian, I am. But if I did actually slander someone, I might have to face them in court...

But I am free to express my opinion.

In my country, the ACLU defending the rights of American Nazis to march in Skokie.

I'm proud of that.

And don't want to ever live in a land of censorship.

 

[BearBoi]

And don't want to ever live in a land of censorship.

Comparing Canada's laws to America's isn't as black & white as it may seem.

Understand that Canada's laws about hate speech largely parallel Europe's, which are actually even stricter. For example, in much of Europe it is a prosecutable crime to deny the holocaust.

I feel that placing reasonable limits on people’s ability to incite violence against segments of the population isn't 'censorship', it is common sense.

People can teach hate to their children, they can spread in it their places of worship, they can speak freely about it to their friends, and they can cherish their bigotry in their hearts… but if they try to take out a Newspaper Ad calling for the extermination of gays, or a billboard calling for blacks to go back to Africa, or a radio-message telling Arabs they should be serialized by the government, then they can kindly shut the fuck up.

The Rights of the communities victimized by such attacks outweigh any of the aggressor.

Canada also takes Hate Crimes kind of seriously, too. (Hate Crime: A Canadian Perspective, by former Chief of Police Julian Fantino.)

 

[BlondeCanadian]

yet you still did not respond to me.... now tell me nineofclubs, how is making hate spewing illegal any different than slander in the states?

 

[DiamondSkin]

I love Ann Coulter. The way she gets "liberals" to advocate censorship shows how repressive they really are.

Oh, lord. A gay person who likes Ann Coulter.

You DO realize she regularly sprouts homophobic remarks and openly supports anti-gay legislation that would deny gay people their rights?

But what do you care?

She's a right-wing conservative and you're willing to overlook her blatant homophobia as long as she's not a liberal....

Typical of many of gay conservatives these days.....

 

[Joshua_me]

"I thought it was only American public schools that produced ignorant people."

Freedom of speech, my ass. She's giving a speech at a college university and insulting a 17-year old student ?

She's as offensive as she is self-absorbed, and she's dressed like a 20 dollar hooker.

 

[MindBlast]

She wasn't the victim of a hate crime according to the law.

Informing someone about the law does not constitute a crime.

 

[NineOfClubs]

yet you still did not respond to me.... now tell me nineofclubs, how is making hate spewing illegal any different than slander in the states?

Because, who's defining "hate"? The majority? A religion? A political party?

I say let everyone say what they will, and let the chips fall where they may.

Canada has, in some ways, been less free the the States.

Their laws against porn were harsh, while our Supreme Court upheld the rights of free speech and the ability to sell and distribute pornography.

 

[luminum]

Well, once again, she's proven that she doesn't know what she's talking about. Infringement on her freedom of speech isn't a hate crime. Receiving a warning isn't a criminal act. If anything, she would have had to have received "hate mail."

Additionally, HRC really only handles national issues. She would probably want Amnesty International.

You'd think a law student from the University of Michigan would have known that...

Anyway, here's an oldie-but-a-goodie: http://ifuckedanncoulterintheasshard.blogspot.com/?zx=c7f148cdd5a06101

 

[luminum]

Despite my disgust of her, it IS somewhat amusing to think that perhaps the whole thing is a charade to distract people from any intelligent Conservative voices out there. Perhaps the whole thing is a ruse just to make money. It was good to see that secret suspicion of mine played out in an episode of Boondocks:

"Let a bitch work!"

Ann don't play 'dat!

 

[NineOfClubs]

This typical behavior of a gay conservative with no self-respect.

Under a form of Stockholm Syndrome, he'll seek to defend a known homophobe simply because she is a 'conservative' like he is.

She's on his 'team' to speak of.

Which is why he'll sympathize with Ann Coulter despite her numerous anti-gay hate speech against gay people and continued support for law that would deny gay people their rights.

He's willing to overlook it.

However, if Ann Coulter were a Democrat or a liberal, NineofClubs wouldn't hesitate to lambast her.

Notice how he calls another JUB member "an ignorant fuck" yet he neglects to say the same of Ann Coulter who clearly deserves the crown...

I, and you, are free to call Ann Coulter "an ignorant fuck". Knock yourself out. I don't care.

That's what Freedom of Speech is all about.

Let anyone say anything, I say.

If you want to be a whining pussy, and scream "hate speech" go ahead. But it only makes you look like a loser, and a victim.

And denying people the right to say what they think makes you look like a fascist.

 

[BlondeCanadian]

The private email, which was leaked to conservative news organizations, noted that Canada's Charter of Rights meant that "promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."

We warned her it hate mongering is not appropriate and then told her it could lead to criminal charges...isnt that exactly the same thing said about slandering?

and nine of clubs dont give me that shit...i understand your views about freedom of speech(although i believe them to be misguided in this instance) but i refuse to believe that you think her opinions and statements are appropriate and right?

 

[MindBlast]

Their laws against porn were harsh, while our Supreme Court upheld the rights of free speech and the ability to sell and distribute pornography.

Sorry, you FAIL.

The law isn't against pornography in general, it's against material that includes sex IN CONJUNCTION with violence, crime, horror, cruelty, or children.

B. The Current Law

The principal existing sanctions against pornography are found in the criminal law. Section 163 of the Criminal Code creates a number of offences in relation to the fabrication and distribution of “obscene” publications, or to possessing them for the purpose of distribution. It is also an offence to mail obscene matter, or to give an “immoral, indecent or obscene” theatrical performance. These offences may be punished on summary conviction or by indictment, with up to two years’ imprisonment where the latter course is chosen. There is also provision for the seizure and forfeiture of obscene materials.

Central to these prohibitions is the elaboration of what is obscene in section 163( 8 ):

For the purposes of this Act, any publication a dominant characteristic of which is the undue exploitation of sex, or of sex and any one or more of the following subjects, namely, crime, horror, cruelty and violence, shall be deemed to be obscene.

Whether there is “undue” exploitation is almost invariably determined by reference to community standards, i.e., if a dominant characteristic is the exploitation of sex or of sex and any other enumerated quality, the trier of fact must determine the community standard of tolerance. Would the community tolerate the presentation, publication or distribution of the material as presented or published? If not, the material is deemed obscene. As the Supreme Court of Canada pointed out in the Butler case, the community standards test is concerned not with what Canadians would not tolerate being exposed to themselves, but with what they would not tolerate other Canadians being exposed to.

It should be noted that crime, horror, cruelty and violence by themselves are not obscene; it is only when they are portrayed in conjunction with sex that obscenity exists for legal purposes.

The obscenity standard is flexible – it responds to shifts in public acceptance of explicit material. Notwithstanding the theory that it is also national in application, there is potential for considerable variation, because the criminal law is administered by the provinces, which may set different prosecution standards. Finally, the obscenity standard is today quite “liberal.” In media such as magazines or films, where there is little likelihood that those unwilling to view the material will be exposed to it, there is considerable leeway; in other, less discretionary forms of expression, such as television, tolerance is lower.

Section 163.1 of the Criminal Code was enacted in 1993. It prohibits the production, distribution and sale of “child pornography,” and also makes it an offence to possess such material. Maximum sentences of ten years for its production and distribution, and five years for simple possession, are prescribed. The section contains a definition of child pornography that includes:

* visual representations of explicit sexual activity involving anyone under the age of 18 or depicted as being so;
* other visual representations of a sexual nature of persons under the age of 18; and
* written material or visual depictions that advocate or counsel illegal sexual activity involving persons under that age.

Other than the criminal sanctions, there is little else in federal law that purports to control sexually explicit or violent material. Under the Customs Tariff, customs officials were, until 1985, empowered to forbid entry into Canada of material of an “immoral or indecent” character, as determined by reference to community standards; the scope of those words was wider than that of “obscenity.” Thus, a broader range of materials could be kept out of the country by administrative action than by criminal prosecution. On 14 March 1985, however, the Federal Court of Appeal found that this provision was too vague to be compatible with the guarantee of freedom of expression in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, therefore, was of no force or effect. The Customs Tariff was subsequently amended to change the reference in the Schedule to materials “deemed to be obscene” under subsection 163( 8 ) of the Code, or found to be hate propaganda under section 320( 8 ). Since 1993, it has also referred to material that constitutes “child pornography” within the meaning of that term in the Criminal Code.

The provinces have a relatively narrow role in the control of pornography. Because the enactment of criminal legislation is beyond provincial jurisdiction, direct prohibition by regulation is not possible, although regulation may incidentally deal with, or complement, obscenity laws. Such is the case with the censorship and classification of films by provincial boards, the constitutionality of which was vindicated by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1978. The power of such boards to order deletions from motion pictures, or to prohibit exhibition entirely, has been put in doubt by a 1984 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Court held that the absence of specific guidelines concerning censorship rendered the power of the Ontario Censor Board (now the Ontario Film Review Board) an unreasonable limitation on freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Beyond regulation of film, provincial involvement in this area is limited. Municipalities, using powers derived from the provinces, can regulate the pornography industry by prescribing how such material is to be displayed, or through licensing and zoning restrictions, but this control must not infringe on criminal jurisdiction. This limitation on provincial jurisdiction was emphasized in October 1984 by a decision of the Ontario Divisional Court dealing with a provision of that province’s Municipal Act (and particularly a by law of the municipality of Toronto) that would have allowed the regulation of the sale of erotic magazines. The provision was struck down on the ground that the by law affected public morality – something that can be dealt with only by the federal criminal power.

The use of new technologies such as the Internet has created unique challenges and problems: computer pornography is an increasing concern, especially because dissemination of such material cannot generally be controlled. There are also issues regarding the potential liability of the owners or managers of computer networks, such as universities. Although criminal charges have been laid regarding the distribution or possession of pornography on the Internet, to date there has been little judicial guidance on the issues involved.

 

[NineOfClubs]

^ Whatever.

I remember all sorts of material seized at the border. For years.

Porn material perfectly legal in the States.

 

[NineOfClubs]

but i refuse to believe that you think her opinions and statements are appropriate and right?

No one needs to believe whether she's right or not.

It's about the freedom to speak!

She can be as wrong as hell, or not. Let the market decide....

Hundreds of years ago, would you have been condemning Copernicus and his views?