CalgaryLiberal

Archive for the ‘Nutwatcher’ Category

Attending her Calgary speech was interesting to say the least. Notable things include her denying evolution, making fake debates about climate change, declaring women shouldn’t vote, and that everything west of Calgary should be taken over by the USA.

Personally, I would sooner die than become American. And denial of suffrage to women and the denigration of science are simply horrid policies.

Although her positions may boggle the mind: that’s the point. She is aiming, in an almost tactical and academic matter, to attack the things that would rile people and gather attention toward her books. She referred to her books almost eight times during the entire escapade so, honestly, it’s quite obvious why she was there–to sell and sign books.

And the best way to sell books? Controversy.

That Ottawa stunt was planned. There were not 2,000 but only 170 that showed up to protest her. The police didn’t advise her to leave Ottawa but stated simply that it was a single option out of many and that her organization was terribly inadequate to handle the attendees. Also, the change of venue in Calgary was too quick, too easy–it tends to take a month to register an event for the Red & White club and, obviously, she had booked it well in advance. As noted by Ezra Levant (who introduced Coulter) after Ottawa the attendance for the Calgary event doubled. It’s a set up. It’s faked. It is that simple.

But that’s not the point, really. To sell books is the aim of her game, and she stirred up enough controversy to get that attention and get those sales. There. It’s still not her words or how ignorant she is, either.

These are  not the core of what she represents. (Side Note: You can still be only in it for the book sales and make some form of a point.)

Free speech, even at the cost of common decency, is her showcased ideological bent. Ethics of free speech doesn’t matter to her and only the gain of controversy is her aim. There is nothing more to it. When I asked her a question during her Q&A period tonight I asked about her thoughts on 1 Timothy 6:12 where the bible informs the reader that people have to keep their promises and make good on their commitments along with “fighting the good fight”. Coulter said that it wasn’t her duty, nor the politicians’, to answer for their promises or be held to any standard. She then went into a diatribe on how the USA wasn’t founded on any responsibility to others–which was odd, considering that the locale of this speech and this question was in Canada.

(As a side note: I rarely use the bible in political arguments. In this case I did so I could circumvent the howling that would have went on by the polarized audience if I used secular reasonings. Also, self-described conservatives tend to have a tough time refuting the premises of the bible and that makes a whole subsection of ‘dodging the question’ both out of order and political dead ends. Using the bible forces them to answer the question, really, albeit Ms. Coulter still dodged it none-the-less by babbling on about the ‘greatness’ of the USA.)

There is no duty to common sense and common decency in her book. It’s not there.

The Conservative Party of Canada have constantly called for the destruction of the Human Rights Commission, a policy that Ann Coulter heartily endorses. Wait a second, however–although Coulter’s steadfast, definitely outlandish, wish for abuses for free speech to be allowed is unquestionable the Conservative’s wish for open communication and free speech is not. Our Conservatives (note the upper-case lettering) are not as crass as she. However,  they are as malign and in the opposite direction with regards to speech. Instead of book sales they want votes (like any other party) and (here’s where the anti-Coulter comes in) shut down freedoms.

Oh, and I should probably make the argument that the Conservatives are anti-freedom of speech and anti-open government. This is easy. Frightfully easy, in fact. To make such an argument  is simple since Harper is rather brazen in his actions. Just check out the following list:

• The Conservatives shut down Dr. Tushingham from promoting his book on climate change over ideological qualms.
• Gagged Rights and Democracy staff.
• Fired Linda Keen of the Nuclear Safety Commission when she spoke out, after weeks of roadblocks set up by the Conservatives, on the topic of nuclear safety. Medical isotopes, needed for cancer treatment and other medical procedures, were to become scarce according to her (and did so) and, well, the Conservatives couldn’t have that scandal and fired her.
• Smeared and silenced Richard Colvin for providing testimony under subpoena.
• Hiding our brave dead soldiers from the public.
• Shutting down the Military Police Complaints Commission.
• Conduct overt exercises in sabotaging parliamentary committees (they even made a printed guide for mass consumption amongst their aids!)
• This above noted handbook also teaches people how to hide reports, shut down Access to Information requests, and sabotage the spread of documentation on Afghan detainees
• Cut KAIROS funding.
• Then, on top of all of this, the Tories are shutting down the only the offices for the Human Rights Commission in Vancouver, Toronto, and Halifax, where almost 70% of the human rights complaints are filed. So expect the number of complaints to drop dramatically since the Conservatives are shutting down access to these offices.
• Also (as noted in the above linked to article), in 2006 the Conservatives shut down the Court Challenges Program and close Status of Women Canada offices across the country as their first orders of business.

So lets recap: Coulter is interested in her personal gain. The Conservatives are in politics for their own  gains, votes or otherwise. Coulter showcases unfettered free speech. Conservatives want to clamp down on such endeavours. Note the similarities in the first two and the conflict of the last two. So before anyone tries to tie Coulter to the Conservatives (or conservatives) they should make clear this distinction in their standpoints on freedom of speech (amongst other freedoms).

So if you see any Conservatives argue that Coulter is a Canadian conservative, or that Coulter is something to look up to as a conservative… Well, obviously that’s not the case. If at any time you see a Conservative thump their chest over freedom of speech, and how the HRC harms it, re-examine the situation because their words and their actions are not one and the same. It’d be blatant hypocrisy since Coulter is diametrically opposed ideologically to the Conservative Party of Canada, and the acts do no line up with the words of the Conservatives.

Something is definitely rotten in the state of Denmark.

Who else is talking?

An enlightened savage is talking quite enlightened about Coulter.

Big City Liberal talks big. (1) (2)

Jim Currie pokes Coulter in the eye.

Lawrence Martin, of the Globe and Mail, writes on ‘A capital where freedom’s in short supply’ (fixed)

CBC video (Interview), Power & Politics interviews Coulter

Ann Coulter talks about Vice-President-Provost of the University of Ottawa’s Tuesday night bikini wax escapades.

Laugh.

It hurts whomever you’re laughing at. It hurts more than any sharp, logical rebuttal could.

When you laugh it means you’re not in opposition to what the speaker says but rather understand and can contemplate what they have said–and that you find it hilarious. It is less of a logical act and more of a emotional thing… that the speaker’s movements do not make you think or contemplate–or angry, for that matter–but fail to create an emotional or logical outcry other than, well, laughter.

Ann Coulter relies on an emotional reaction to attain her advertising. Her first pole-vault to celebrity was her comments on how the USA, just after 9/11, should invade Muslim countries and force them to convert to Christianity. That emotional undercurrent of American culture resounded to that and, at least tacitly, agreed that a backlash at the people who attacked them would be a good thing. It’s a game of emotions and Ms. Coulter played it well then as she does now.

If you and others laugh, though, at her attempts to tap into emotion through her bombastic ways she will not achieve anything. If you cut her at that emotional pandering she cannot move beyond to talk about her thoughts or sell her books.

It ends. Right then and there, it is ended.

It’s really that simple.

Laugh.