BIASED SPEECH; PRE-JUDGMENT; INSULTED; SELF DEFENSIVE; LACKING ANY TRUTH; AIMLESS AND PLIGHTLESS; POLITE LUNATICS; CASUAL TERRORIST; MAR 23, 2010

By Mark Steyn: Ah, that famous Canadian hospitality. One François Houle, Provost of the University of Ottawa, writes to warn a forthcoming visitor to the campus, Miss Ann Coulter, that Canadians enjoy only the right to government-regulated "free speech" and that therefore she may be liable to criminal prosecution:
___________________________________________________________________

Dear Ms. Coulter,
I understand that you have been invited by University of Ottawa Campus Conservatives to speak at the University of Ottawa this coming Tuesday. We are, of course, always delighted to welcome speakers on our campus and hope that they will contribute positively to the meaningful exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of a great university campus. We have a great respect for freedom of expression in Canada, as well as on our campus, and view it as a fundamental freedom, as recognized by our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or “free speech”) in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here. You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind. There is a strong tradition in Canada, including at this University, of restraint, respect and consideration in expressing even provocative and controversial opinions and urge you to respect that Canadian tradition while on our campus. Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.
I hope you will enjoy your stay in our beautiful country, city and campus.

Sincerely,
François Houle
Vice-recteur aux études / Vice-President Academic and Provost
Université d’Ottawa / University of Ottawa
550, rue Cumberland Street
Ottawa (ON) K1N 6N5

What a sad and embarrassing letter, even by the standards of the Canadian academy. Does M Houle write to all University of Ottawa speakers like this? Or does he reserve his telekinetic powers to detect "pre-crime" only for the ideologically suspect? I've no idea what Ann Coulter's reaction to this letter is...
___________________________________________________________________

A: it takes one to know one; you cannot commit murder and call it "an act of God." You cannot commit slander or defamation and call it "making an error." You cannot conspire or attack your opponent with ad hominem bombs strapped to your speech and call it "a liberal perspective." Bias is when you say, "you did this... " and leave out "but only because I did this to you and you found out." To prove libel, slander, or defamation; you must prove that it was untrue or biased. Then you must prove how a detrimental or horrific event preceded the speech. Here is an example: "I picked up my phone and called her..." which then got "she called me a effing dirty Jew from the ghettoes of New York and hung up the phone." Here is another example: "I was interested in unifying the country because I am a liberal communist who is useless and unwanted..." which then got "a typical dirty Palestinian Jew brainwashed by an even worse master who is now his loving idiot." You see, the insult is in holding someone captive or denying their rights, even placing them in prison.

In the case of terrorists who are brainwashed by blackened Jewish masters a simple, "will you please go away and leave me alone you dirty effing Democrat and white negro hungry bastard" is not strong enough to prevent the terrorist event. You see, unity and dependency brings out the worst in others; especially when it is not reciprocated or wanted. The difference between defamation and hate speech is cause-effect or precursor events that instigate a fight. Calling a black man "a stiff moronic fool who cannot dance" is a generalization; it cannot be proven true or false as a general rule. Calling a white man "the scum of the urban city and a welfare eating wife beater and a child molesting Catholic priest" cannot be proven true in all cases. Thus, defamation and hate speech must be directly linked to the events and series of events to prove it was true or false.

Canadians are above all of that and all of these mind games meant to bring out bias and the worst in human beings. In my case, I did not enjoy being pitched, peddled, and solicited day after day for over ten years by lunatics to be an Israeli spy or a terrorist who boosts their confidence. I was unwilling to express my hatred of communism or what a foreign enemy and foe was asking from me or demanding me to do. I just tell them to fuck off before I get really mad and kill them in some military manner and start a revolution while sitting them down at the most posh and luxurious poker table this world has ever seen on this side of the earth. Now I am at luxury to tell that B'tard to get the fuck out of my life and to risk a full world war against them if they do not shut up about their history and enemies. Quite demanding and powerful if you ask me.


How to Have a Romantic Dinner