11.02.2010 10:16 AM

Not very free-speechy of the free speechers

My God Almighty, these people are so totally full of shit.


  1. Will M says:

    Irony is lost on the right wing tards.

  2. bigcitylib says:

    Steyn should have debated this guy: other than Israel, they might find they share a lot of views in common.

  3. bc says:

    People on the far-right (Steyn and Coulter) and on the far-left (Galloway) should be able to engage in open diologue – free speech demands that.

    But truly hateful people like white supremicists and radical immams, shouldn’t be entertained.

    If Steyn had allowed this man to attend the event, no doubt the media would report it as if they were in cahoots.

    • Namesake says:

      yeah, but the back story here is that Steyn’s bookers had tried to spin the London Convention Centre’s turning them down as being a matter of censorship due to some actual complaints from the Muslim community, but: there weren’t any. What had happened is that they outgrew one venue, & then applied to the Convention Centre w/o fully disclosing who this Steyn speaker & what the nature of the talk/event was, and when the CC found out, they said, sorry, you didn’t honor the terms of that agreement and you’re not providing enough security to safeguard our facility, so no go. But there were no outside complaints: that was made up; it’s just that the CC has criteria that have to be satisfied (e.g., they probably wouldn’t host a punk rock concert, either). So they go to another big, but still tony facility – a concert hall, and have the same problem: they may have provided enough security to contain disruptions around Steyn, but not this other character, so now _they’re_ having to make the same decision as the CC they tried to portray as censors, just to honor their commitments & responibilities.

      It was the same with the Coulter event — the University didn’t cancel it, the organizers of the event did, because they were bad event planners who didn’t organize it well enough to provide the requisite levels of security… but they, too, hypocritically pretended that it was a matter of their free speech rights being violated.

      • bc says:

        Well, I didn’t know all of those details around the upcoming Steyn event, so I’ll take your word for it.

        But I have to disagree with your blame on the Coulter event.

        A University speaking tour shouldn’t have to man 100’s of police officers for “security”. Of course they had to cancel the event, the building/hallways were packed with people. It was incredibly unsafe.

        The problem wasn’t Coulter and the organizers, it was the angry, protesters/rioters outside causing a disruption.

        • Namesake says:

          well, the vast majority of those people outside were angy not because they were protesters… but because they couldn’t get in, because the venue was too small.*

          and, what, you’re saying only Free Speech only applies to Free Speechers and not to protesters?

          * see: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/03/ann-coulters-adventures-in-ottawa-so-what-really-happened-last-night.html

          and: “Event organizers and her staff cited security concerns, but Alain Boucher of the Ottawa Police Service said the police were not undermanned; there were 10 officers visible at the scene “plus other resources” nearby.[103] There was initially disagreement as to who cancelled the speech, but Boucher said Coulter’s security team decided to call off the event: “We gave her options” – including, he said, to “find a bigger venue” – but “they opted to cancel … It’s not up to the Ottawa police to make that decision.”[104] Boucher said the crowd did not get way out of hand, and that there were no arrests.[105] CTV News reported “It was a disaster in terms of just organization, which is probably one of the reasons why it was cancelled”, citing the small number of students tasked with confirming who had signed up to attend Coulter’s talk.[106]”


          • bigcitylib says:

            Namesake’s got it right. Both the Coulter incident and the Steyn thing were either cheap publicity stunts by the event organizers or simple screw-ups by the same people. Who were the same people in both instances (the lads behind Strictly Right).

  4. Namesake says:

    a fundamental “precept”? Sure that’s the moral grounding you wanna pull out of your hat, here: a COMMANDMENT* to, er, speak freely?

    * or: (/maxim/ rule/ order, derived from the Latin ‘praecipere’: to “give rules to, order, advise”)

    Maybe _you_ or some Founding Fathers or Enlightenment philosopher / novelists (elitists all) think they can invent self-evident absolute rights on the fly, and that’s your, er, right, I guess, but don’t expect the rest of us to roll back the clock on allowing anyone to incite hatred or violence against people they’re prejudiced against.

    BTW, in this case, it was actually more of a case of Steyn’s event organizers denying this other character the freedom of assembly, so as to protect Steyn & them from the guilt by association that they’re so quick to tar others with.

    This site gives a blow-by-blow account of how & why they blacklisted him & wouldn’t let him get a ticket to attend the talk.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *