Ann Coulter and Me (<-YouTube version)

I do not have a problem with Ann Coulter coming to Canada to speak.

I believe that choosing to close our ears and our minds to another’s ideas, especially those with which we disagree, is choosing to be ignorant. I make an effort to read books that present ideas and views contrary to my own, so I have read most of Ms. Coulter’s books. And despite the fact that I disagree with her views, I do not deny her right to hold them.

I also do not have a problem with her speaking on a university campus. As educational institutions, universities ought to be the very place where public discourse and debate is fostered and even promoted. To bar anyone from speaking at a university is, in my opinion, antithetical to the very idea of higher learning.

Conversely, I do not have a problem with members of a campus community opposing something with which they disagree. Throughout history much good has come as a result of people rising up and protesting what they believe to be wrong.

So I don’t have a problem with Ann Coulter speaking at university campuses in this country.

What I do have a problem with is individuals who have extraordinary opportunities and platforms from which they can contribute to meaningful public discourse, but chose instead to promote ignorance and falsehoods.

Apparently Ms. Coulter was invited to Canada to present on the topic of Free Speech, but any valid and cogent points in her presentation have become all but entirely lost amid the fallout from events which occurred during her visit to the University of Western Ontario and the University of Ottawa, and a single email.

Francois Houle the VP Academic of University of Ottawa sent Ms. Coulter an email in which, she claims, Dr. Houle threatened and accused her of “… committing a crime in a speech” that she had not yet given.

The email was leaked to select media outlets so I have read the email many times. And I cannot see any threat or accusation. What I see is an attempt, by a university administrator and an educator, to provide advice to a visitor to his campus.

As a university official Dr. Houle has a duty of care for the members of the University of Ottawa community and visitors to that campus. He must always act with due diligence to ensure a safe and secure environment for the faculty, staff, students, and guests.

Dr. Houle’s advice that Ms. Coulter make herself aware of, if need be, the Canadian laws pertaining to freedom of expression and hate speech, was an attempt to prevent a problem that may arise, given his understanding of both the culture of his campus, the student body, and the controversial nature of some of Ms. Coulter’s opinions.

And yet this is what Ms. Coulter takes as an accusation and threat.

By this logic, had Dr. Houle chosen to advise Ms. Coulter that the speed limit on Canadian highways is 100kph, not 55mph, and that exceeding this speed may result in a fine under the Highway Traffic Act, she would now be claiming that he had accused her of speeding and threatened her with a ticket.

Identifying a potential problem, based on evidence, and acting diligently to prevent or mitigate that problem, is a prudent course of action. As a lawyer I expect that Ms. Coulter would understand these concepts.

Of course Ms. Coulter has every right to ignore Dr. Houle’s advice, but to suggest that it was an accusation and a threat is either foolishness or just her pandering to her base.

But playing the provocateur and clown seems to be Ms. Coulter’s forte.

After her speech at the University of Western Ontario, Ms. Coulter participated in a question and answer session, during which she was asked two questions from a 17 year old female, Muslim student.

The student’s first question was whether she would be converted to Christianity, the second was, what other modes of transportation Ms. Coulter would suggest, as she does not have a flying carpet.

Ann’s answer began with a history lesson. For the next 2 minutes, Ann rambled through the history of post World War II American hegemony, starting with the conversion of Japan.

Now, I think Ms. Coulter’s point was that converting a population to Christianity renders “dangerous” countries safe.

But despite Ms. Coulter’s assertion that Christian missionaries “poured into Japan”, the country today is mostly secular and less than 2% of the population self identifies as Christian.

By this logic, Ms. Coulter should be suggesting that the solution to “dangerous” peoples and countries is secularization and the abolishment of all religions.

Reciting history, but ignoring the present, to justify your views is just weak minded.

Anyway, when pressed by members of the audience to “answer the question”, Ms. Coulter chose not to get to an answer of the first question, which was still lacking, but to skip to the second. And so in response to which mode of transportation the student should opt for, Ann answered “take a camel”. Ms. Coulter now claims that that comment was either humour or satire. It was neither. It was flippant.

Since this exchange, Ms. Coulter has been stating that she had provided an almost “10 minute” answer to the first question, but that the media had edited that out. The truth of the matter is that she provided just over 2 minutes of nonsense about the proselytizing of the US post World War II and the Korean War, and then opted to provide a tasty sound bite in response to the second question.

Providing weak and obscure quasi answers to a simple question is poor debate, but claiming otherwise, when it is on record, is just plain dumb.

So more than any other comment, Ms. Coulter’s response to that question catapulted her visit to the forefront of the news. From professional news outlets to the blogosphere to the Twitterverse were afire with commentary about what she had said at the University of Western Ontario. And this was creating momentum that would make her visit of the University of Ottawa destined to become a media circus.

Upon reflection, I now think that Dr. Houle was too reserved in his advice to Ms. Coulter. Had I authored that letter, I would have added additional information about the differences between Canada and the US, so that she could better appreciate the cultural landscape to which she was visiting.

I would have encouraged Ms. Coulter to learn just a little about how it is that Canada has legalised same sex marriages and a women’s right to choose, enacted gun control and removed the death penalty, how nous avons deux langues officiel, and our multiculturalism is not a “melting pot” in which all ethnicities are blended together, but a mosaic, where each distinct piece is represented, but combined together to create our Canadian cultural identity.

I also would have pointed out that while she was invited by conservative organizations and individuals, conservatism in Canada is not exactly like that in the US. And while we currently have a conservative party in power, the other four national political parties are best described as left, left, left, and more left.

Canada is not a country based on “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”, but of “Peace, Order, and Good Governance”.

So it is wise to be cautious about disrupting our peace or orderliness. It’s like poking a sleeping bear.

And that is exactly what Ann Coulter did.

The reception at the University of Ottawa was predictable. The campus community was prepared to protest her presence on the campus and to make it known that they disagreed with her views.

As the crowd grew outside the venue, university security personnel, Ottawa Police, and Ms. Coulter’s own security had reservations about the safety of the event. In the end, the talk was cancelled.

According to the organizers and Ms. Coulter, the event was cancelled by the Police, as they could not guarantee her safety. In fact, on her blog (read: column) Ms. Coulter states that it was a “… police-ordered cancellation of the speech”.

But according to Ottawa police spokesperson Alain Boucher, the police did not shut down the event, but rather they suggested that larger venue would be needed to hold the large crowd. And the University of Ottawa has made an official statement in which they indicate that it was the organizers who decided to cancel the event.

Given the fact that Ms. Coulter’s behaviour while visiting Canada was wilfully ignorant of the advice being offered by Dr. Houle, flippant toward a young citizen of this country, disingenuous a number times, and largely mindless and devoid of meaningful intellectual thought, Dr. Houle’s email now seems prescient.

But you know, I guess when you invite the clown, you need to be prepared for the whole circus.

QG