Heck what about the Canadian laws that prohibit hate speech.

You have to do better than be insulting to be in voilation of hate laws. It was a horrible comment I agree. Coulter would have to go to the extent that she was clearly trying to inspire hate before it would qualify. It would be difficult to establish that her vile comments were a signficant enough inspiration to others to hate the recipient, or those like her.

Although the hate laws are abused (and maligned) they shouldn't be bent into things that they're not. Insults have no place in debate (although it is the stock in trade of the gutter dwellers). An insult maybe hateful to hear, but is not hate under however. Hey - comics everywhere would be robbed of their livlihood otherwise.

Regards,

---

I assume that the law doesn't say anything about the people agreeing or disagreeing with her to be inspired. My point? look at all the protesters. They really hate her. ergo she insprired people to hate and is in violation of the law.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Palin is a cougar. So what's the real problem?

---

me@rescam.org

I assume that the law doesn't say anything about the people agreeing or disagreeing with her to be inspired. My point? look at all the protesters. They really hate her. ergo she insprired people to hate and is in violation of the law.

Did they not before hand already in other words? What hate speech then did she commit? The protesters were certainly in the wrong, but Coulter?

If so, which of the following did she do?

Note especially that your example is of something she hadn't yet done. The Ottawa protesters came up with it before she did anything but indicate she was on her way.

â—¦Section 318 - Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

â—¦Section 319 - Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of ........etc.

â—¦Section 320 - A judge who is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that any publication, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is hate propaganda shall issue a warrant under his hand authorizing seizure of the copies.

In other words, something she had to do while here in Canada. Being an undesireable person or even saying "gee I agree with everything that miserable hateful person says" is not enough.

She didn't promote genocide (ergo no section 318).

She hadn't yet spoken in a public place (ergo no section 319).

She hadn't publicized anything in her annoucements while in Canada that was hate (ergo no section 320).

I don't like her and her statements one bit but we can't turn the laws around into something they're not just to satisfy ourselves. That in itself is contrary to the laws of freedom of speech. I'd rather put up with hearing from someone I disagree with than shut them down without due cause.

Regards,

---

I would think that telling someone who is obviously muslim to use a flying carpet and lacking that a camel to travel with would easily fit into section 319

Hell she basically incited a riot from the backlash of hurt speech

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Again, did she do that IN Canada? If not, we have nothing to charge her with HERE. Our laws reach outside our borders in only rare instances, especially into the past.

Those who chose to protest (not riot) did so on their own accord, in anticipation of what they were hoping for (at least that's how I read it) would be sufficient provocation. Given Ms Coulter didn't provide it in Calgary I would surmise she would have disappointed the Ottawa crowd, looking to limit her freedom of speech there.

Look, she's disgusting. She panders to the worst. I thoroughly object to the things she's said to people she has no reason to say them to. She dances on that fine line between freedom of speech and hate. Personally I wish she'd stay put and not come to foment the same kind of crazy-town type of thinking that's gotten hold of constituencies south of the border. But, in the end, we have to leave our forest of laws standing. Even when they protect those we would wish they didn't. We don't get to choose.

Regards,

---

She did it in Toronto thats why they were upset in Ottawa

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Actually she didn't. The speech you are thinking of perhaps was in London Ontario at the University of Western Ontario. It was in response to her having said the "magic carpet" comment in the past. A 17 year old Muslim student tried getting her to repeat it in some form and failed.

The exchange, from a local Toronto newspaper that reported it:

“As a 17-year-old student of this university, Muslim, should I be converted to Christianity? Second of all, since I don’t have a magic carpet, what other modes do you suggest,” Al-Dhaher said to loud and sustained applause.

“I thought it was just American public schools that produced ignorant people,” Coulter replied, prompting her own round of applause.

Coulter then noted many Japanese were converted to Christianity after the Second World War and “we haven’t heard a peep out of them.”

To shouts of “Answer the question,” Coulter finally replied “What mode of transportation? Take a camel.”

The "take a camel" is a response to "what other modes do you suggest?" A reprehensible response but, after rather obvious efforts to manipulate her into saying something stupid, did Ann Coulter's stupid joke oblige and tip over into hate speech?

Thus far she's not been charged for the three word reply and there have been some pretty vigorous efforts to nail hate speech in the past in Canada.

Regards,

---

I can imagine a conversation between the members of the Banker's Star Chamber (the good folks who put a hit on the American economy) and their errand boy, Carl Rove, in which Carl is being directed to use the Faith-Based Charities fund to pay for the transportation, housing, signs, and training for the mindless constituents that make up the Tea Party. Perhaps the greatest expense being the palm-greasing for public gathering permits and Sarah Palin's transportation, wardrobe, and the manufacture of her book-sales statistics such that compensation for her continued appearances would appear to be earned from book sales. Today's political mischief and the creation of faux (FOX) constituencies would make Donald Segretti, Jack Abramoff, Harvey Pitt, and Tokyo Rose proud.

---

They are also building schools for the Afghan children so that there is hope and opportunity in our neighboring country of Afghanistan.
Sarah Palin
Speaking at a fundraiser in San Francisco, October 5, 2008.

It's right next to Californistan.

---