Ann Coulter flees, but Doug Christie, "partially funded" by Paul Fromm, slips into U-of-O unnoticed. Unlike Coulter's organizers, I suppose, Mr. Fromm is smart enough to successfully rent a room.
And, come to think of it, Doug Christie sounds a little more coherent than Ann.
Ann rented a room. People who wanted to attend were told to sign up in advance(so they could know how big of a room to rent)
ReplyDeleteProtesters mobbed the entrance and forced the people hosting the event to cancel as the police could not guarantee their safety.
NOTE: one of the rowdier protesters is on NDP MP Pat Martin's Payroll.
These are two very different guests and they both should have had the chance to say their piece without interference from the LEFT.
Pipe down, Blue Collar Wingnut...I want to establish some facts first.
ReplyDeleteWhen and in what venue did the Doug Christie event occur? I cannot find any specific details both from the FD post nor from the web site for the Canadian Association for Free Expression.
I remember a while back noticing how cagey Fromm et al. were about the details of their "speaking engagements."
Freedom site announced it yesterday:
ReplyDeletehttp://blog.freedomsite.org/2010/04/douglas-christie-to-speak-at-university.html
...same day as speech was given.
Just as an FYI: Eric Boehlert from Media Matters for America provides a post mortem of the Ann Coulter "Death of Liberty in Canada" shock while adding some useful context in terms of what's happening in her own beloved bastion o' free expression.
ReplyDeleteThe juxtaposition is salutary:
The hysterical hand-wringing was predictable. But the real stunner last week was watching the same conservatives who fretted over Coulter's safety then turn around and excuse and rationalize actual right-wing violence and intimidation stateside in the wake of the historic health care vote. Speaking out of both sides of their mouths with astonishing ease, conservatives denounced liberals who protested Coulter's appearance in Canada, and then played defense on behalf of marauding right-wing radicals who unleashed death threats, threw bricks through office windows, and hurled epithets at politicians. All in the name of saving America from President Obama's brand of evil socialism.
...same day as speech was given.
ReplyDeleteSo basically Christie wanders in to Tabaret Hall around 1:00 PM, stops somewhere and starts talking?
Then again some of the people who hate what Coulter has to say don't at all mind what Christie has to say...
ReplyDeleteWhich people are those, Marky?
ReplyDeleteThat portion of the anti-Zionist crowd that sincerely believes that "Zionists" control the media and the government--or are we supposed to pretend that that point of view doesn't exist?
ReplyDeleteFrankly, what Ann and Doug have to say tends to verge on the identical, with the one difference being Israel. Ann being pro.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, what Ann and Doug have to say tends to verge on the identical, with the one difference being Israel. Ann being pro.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely.
That portion of the anti-Zionist crowd that sincerely believes that "Zionists" control the media and the government--or are we supposed to pretend that that point of view doesn't exist?
ReplyDeleteYou're doing it again. You're fogging the issue in an attempt to establish a false equivalence. You know I don't like that.
You're doing it again. You're fogging the issue in an attempt to establish a false equivalence. You know I don't like that.
ReplyDeleteTrue, that is my issue, but I don't understand the inherent objection you have to it. Liberal principles should apply universally and not selectively. BCL clearly has a point in his post about the stark difference in outcomes here but I think I'm also right that it's also relevant that some of Coulter's fiercest critics are not as passionate about people like Christie.
OT,
ReplyDeleteGuergis will step down in about an hour.
True, that is my issue, but I don't understand the inherent objection you have to it.
ReplyDeleteBecause this topic is more purely about freedom of expression and not about Israel.
BCL clearly has a point in his post about the stark difference in outcomes here...
You need to be more precise in your language. Are you suggesting that because no one protested Doug Christie, the "lefties" at U. of O. were more comfortable with his ideas than they were about Ann Coulter's?
I'm don't think so. I think NO ONE at U. of O. even knew he was speaking there. In fact, it's quite possible the event didn't occur at all.
Both Coulter and christie are despicable rightwing haters and the fact that their hatred chooses slightly different targets matters not a whit.
ReplyDeleteGuergis will step down in about an hour.
ReplyDeleteOh, I hope that's true. Andrew Coyne was pontificating smugly on the At Issue panel yesterday claiming that she will most likely be dispatched quietly in a cabinet shuffle sometime during the summer, because really...it's no big deal. Canadians don't care...We have bigger problems... etc. etc.
Its official.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/helena-guergis-quits-cabinet-post/article1529100/
Update: Out of caucus as well?
ReplyDeleteWow.
Wow is right... does this have anything to do with the mortgage here in Bytown?
ReplyDeleteWhere's Rob to tell us this is a manufactured non-issue?
Where's Rob to tell us this is a manufactured non-issue?
ReplyDeleteHe's busy trying to decide which issue to select as *more* important than this one. Or whether he can get away with screaming ADSCAM! one more time.
Update: Out of caucus as well?
ReplyDeleteWow.
No wow really. Once I stopped laughing about the Jaffer incident and the 'busty hookers'(admittedly my mind dwelled on that a bit longer) I was eventually left with influence peddling.
Hello?
Even though I at the moment believe the Harper government spin on this (a rarity – trust me – and only because it was confirmed that Jaffer was a sleazeball back when he was still a sitting MP) that charge is more than enough for Harper to immediately demand Guergis' resignation until this is fully investigated.
If Harper would not actively force Guergis out of cabinet then he is a fool.
Kicking her out of caucus?!?!
Wow those two have really pissed him off, because this is a first for Harper to admit he made a mistake.
Well, Big Daddy hasn't admitted much of anything yet. I suspect "influence peddling" is the issue here, but I don't have any more information than anyone else at this point.
ReplyDeleteI just hope Canada's Right isn't so far gone to believe that anything the Conservatives up here do, if not as bad as what happens down South on a routine basis, remains "no big deal." We've already suffered a lot because of that.
You guys really think the influence peddling would have been the straw that broke Guergis? I dunno, just doesn't strike me as the thing that finally did it.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I don't think that's it, and neither does The Globe:
ReplyDeleteMr. Harper said he became aware of new allegations against Ms. Guergis last night. She offered her resignation, but the Prime Minister indicated she would have been forced out anyway. “Of course, under the circumstances, a resignation was necessary.”
...
A spokesperson for the Prime Minister confirmed Mr. Harper is acting on "new information," which suggests the allegations against the former minister go beyond what has already been reported in the media.
Maybe not Jaffer's claim of being able to peddle influence but actual peddled influence on the part of Guergis herself?
ReplyDeleteWho knows? Maybe it's nothing at all. The right thing to do was always to have the minister step down while an investigation is under way. Exclusion from caucus, even temporarily, is novel, as far as I know, though.
Does anyone remember that ever happening?
Exclusion from caucus, even temporarily, is novel, as far as I know, though.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone remember that ever happening?
Over a scandal? That's a head scratcher. I only come up with partisan stuff (Turner, Casey, Comuzzi).
Clearly a desperate attempt to staunch the bleeding. If it doesn't work they will pivot and change the topic to the recently passed private member's bill that requires all Supreme Court justices to be bilingual--there's the perfect topic changing wedge issue for the CPC.
ReplyDeleteExclusion from caucus, even temporarily, is novel, as far as I know, though. Does anyone remember that ever happening?
ReplyDeleteThere was Jack Ramsay. When he was charged with rape he was removed from the Reform caucus. (This seems an order of magnitude less serious, though.)
It's funny when Harper says, "The suggestions that were made that Mr. Jaffer has an open door to my office are completely false."
ReplyDeleteWell I don't recall anyone making those suggestions. The Star claimed that Jaffer said he has an open door to Harper's office.
And I don't have the slightest bit of doubt he did pretend he had access to Harper. Obviously he didn't though.
There was Jack Ramsay. When he was charged with rape he was removed from the Reform caucus.
ReplyDeleteBoy, the things you miss when you're living abroad and there are no Intertoobz to speak of.
Sorry you missed that one, TG. I mean, how often does it happen that a law-and-order party's justice critic is convicted of raping a 13-year old girl?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete