Why We Need Anne Coulter
by Megan Radford
On Mar. 23, a group of peaceful
protesters prevented right-wing
American pundit Anne Coulter
from delivering a speech at the
University of Ottawa. In reaction,
the ever-classy Ms. Coulter
condemned the University as a
bush-league school worse than
the stupidest American university.
Coulter’s stirring rendition
of the event tells that, “The
police called off my speech
when the auditorium was surrounded
by thousands of rioting
liberals—screaming, blocking
the entrance, throwing tables,
demanding that my books be
burned.” This statement has yet
to be proven by police or witness
reports. She called the event and
her correspondence with the
University administration “a
hate crime” perpetrated against
her, and vehemently criticized
freedom of speech in Canada.
It is worth acknowledging
that the speech scheduled for
the University of Ottawa was
cancelled by Coulter’s own party.
The resultant media blitz was
exactly what Coulter’s career has
been based on—an insistence
on rhetoric and inflammatory
speech with a disproportionately
low level of substance.
First of all, most people
would wonder why Anne
Coulter would want to come to
Canada. This is a woman, who,
along with Republicans Rush
Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, is
famous for extremist right-wing
views and polemical rhetoric.
On a Fox News broadcast in
2004, she made the comment
that Canada “better hope the
United States doesn’t roll over
one night and crush them. They
are lucky we allow them to exist
on the same continent.” So
why bother coming here? The
reason she visits Canada on a
lucrative speaking tour, reportedly
charging upwards of $10k
per engagement, is because our
freedom of speech protects her.
Surely, Coulter would not seek a
speaking engagement in Iraq after
the inflammatory comments
she has made in regards to that
country.
At a speech at the University
of Western Ontario on Mar.
22, a Muslim girl in the crowd
questioned Coulter’s previous
comments in regards to Muslim
people. Coulter previously suggested
that Muslim countries
should be invaded by the United
States, their leaders killed, and
all Muslims converted to Christianity.
She stated that Muslims
should be denied air travel and
made to use their “flying carpets”
instead. Seventeen-yearold
political science student Fatima
Al-Dhaher asked Coulter
whether, as a Muslim girl, she
should be converted to Christianity.
Al-Dhaher then stated
that she didn’t have a magic carpet,
to which Coulter responded
that Al-Dhaher should “take a
camel.”
Imagine such comments
given in a country without free
speech, or Canada’s propensity
for self-flagellation. The reason
Ms. Coulter is able to speak at
high-paying engagements and
has a career at all as a hate-mongering
talking head is that she is
protected by freedom of speech.
It would seem, despite her rhetoric,
that Coulter is not in favour
of this freedom. At a University
of Florida speech in 2005 she
said, “They’re [Democrats] always
accusing us of repressing
their speech. I say let’s do it. Let’s
repress them. Frankly, I’m not
a big fan of the First Amendment.”
What, then, is the alternative?
A flip of the coin? Heads,
a regime that favours your point
of view and places you on a pedestal,
where your words are gospel.
Tails, a regime that silences
you for good. Without freedom
of speech, Anne Coulter would
be subject to a not-so-welcome
party at the border and a dirt
cell.
I don’t believe that she fully
endorses half the things she says.
In a culture where sensationalism
sells, the more shocking the
message, the more attention garnered
(precisely why this is the
last time my keyboard will ever
type the name “Anne Coulter”
again). It is a shame that her
over-the-top hate-mongering
clouds some valid points.
We should have a dialogue
about free speech. There is a
presumption to shout about free
speech with little knowledge of
its ramifications, history, or
particulars. When you hear the
term “freedom of speech,” you
can usually count on it being
followed by a big fat political
sermon. It is used often, but
has become one of those strange
word combinations lacking literal
meaning. We need Anne
Coulter, if only to remind us
why we are opposed to what
she says. Freedom of speech is
a right in some countries, but it
is a privilege much of the world
is not privy to—not fixed in
stone, but often subject to regime
change.
In Canada, freedom of speech
is limited by section 318 and 319
of the Criminal Code. Section
318 states that it is illegal to promote
genocide. Under section
319, it is against the law to publicly
incite hatred against people
based on colour, race, religion,
ethnic origin, or sexual orientation,
unless the statements can
be established as true, or the
statements were made in “good
faith” (there are several subsections
on what “good faith”
entails—consult the Criminal
Code of Canada website for
more details: www.efc.ca/pages/law/cc/cc.part-viii.html.
What does this mean? A person
who incites violence against
other cultures and oppression
based on one or a combination
of the categories above can face
criminal charges in Canada.
Canadians don’t believe in
freedom of speech? I would wager
that 2000 students in peaceful
protest is a pretty clear form
of freedom of speech. Allow me
to exercise mine when I say,
“Au revoir, Ms. Coulter. Don’t
let the Charter hit you on your
way out.”