Oh, Canada! ~ By Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter's experience in Canada was not pleasant. Hey, could we send all our progressives up there? They will all feel at home.

If a university official's letter accusing a speaker of having a proclivity to commit speech crimes before she's given the speech – which then leads to Facebook postings demanding that Ann Coulter be hurt, a massive riot and a police-ordered cancellation of the speech – is not hate speech, then there is no such thing as hate speech.


Either Francois goes to jail or the Human Rights Commission is a hoax and a fraud.

By Ann Coulter

Posted: March 24, 2010 ~ 5:44 pm Eastern

© 2010

Since arriving in Canada, I've been accused of thought crimes, threatened with criminal prosecution for speeches I hadn't yet given and denounced on the floor of the Parliament (which was nice because that one was on my "bucket list").

Posters advertising my speech have been officially banned, while posters denouncing me are plastered all over the University of Ottawa campus. Elected officials have been prohibited from attending my speeches. Also, the local clothing stores are fresh out of brown shirts.

Welcome to Canada!

The provost of the University of Ottawa, average student IQ: 0, wrote to me – widely disseminating his letter to at least a half-dozen intermediaries before it reached me – in advance of my visit to recommend that I familiarize myself with Canada's criminal laws regarding hate speech.

This marks the first time I've ever gotten hate mail for something I might do in the future.

Apparently, Canadian law forbids "promoting hatred against any identifiable group," which the provost, Francois A. Houle, advised me, "would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."

I was given no specific examples of what words and phrases I couldn't use, but I take it I'm not supposed to say, "F--- you, Francois."

While it was a relief to know that it is still permissible in Canada to promote hatred against unidentifiable groups, upon reading Francois' letter, I suddenly realized that I had just been the victim of a hate crime! And it was committed by Francois A. Houle (French for "Frank A. Hole").

What other speakers get a warning not to promote hatred? Did Francois A. Houle send a similarly worded letter to Israel-hater Omar Barghouti before he spoke last year at U of Ottawa? ("Ottawa": Indian for "Land of the Bed-Wetters.")

How about Angela Davis, Communist Party member and former Black Panther who spoke at the University of Zero just last month?

Or do only conservatives get letters admonishing them to be civil? Or – my suspicion – is it only conservative women who fuel Francois' rage?

How about sending a letter to all Muslim speakers advising them to please bathe once a week while in Canada? Would that constitute a hate crime?

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

The left's definition of 'hatred' ~ By Phil Elmore

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Phil Elmore Posted: November 26, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 What do Adam Lambert, Cass Sunstein, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama have in common? They share it with countless other political leftists – those who can be described, variously, as "liberals" (a euphemism that belies the word's roots and traditional meanings), as "progressives" (another euphemism that confuses or mislabels as progress what is merely invasive government control), often as "Democrats" and perhaps most accurately as "socialists." They use the technology of popular culture mass-media – television and, increasingly, streaming/real-time or downloaded video and audio available online, which forms an increasing portion of Americans' entertainment and news consumption – to tell us, over and over again, what we should think because they think it. This is a fundamental expression of insecurity. It is the need for validation, and it forms the backbone of all left-wing sociopolitical thought. Never was this need for validation, this intolerance for disagreement, on more public display than since the election of our president. Previously in Technocracy, we discussed the disturbing prevalence of President Barack Hussein Obama on the nation's television screens. Not content merely to win the election and to govern, Obama seemed, particularly in the first months of his presidency, to be obsessed with inflicting his clucking, stuttering visage on us in every conceivable venue, shrewdly using and then not so wisely overusing the power of technology to pervade American popular culture. There was no issue too big or too small for Obama not to address it in a nationally televised monologue; there was no contentious or unpopular piece of totalitarian legislation about which Obama would not take to the airwaves to demand we support; there was no citizen who dared to disagree with Glorious Leader Obama who could not expect to be addressed, directly or indirectly, in some brittle, plaintive speech decrying certain intractable Americans' stubbornness in failing to be persuaded by Obama's brilliant socio-political insight. When he wasn't asking, through his minions, that those guilty of the through-crime of disbelief in his agenda be reported to his fascist brownshirts, he was hectoring us to grant him sanction, and quickly, to nationalize vast swaths of our economy – or else. On a smaller but no less national scale, Americans were treated this past week to the spectacle of "glam rocker" Adam Lambert – a rising pop star thanks to exposure on "American Idol" (you may remember his psychedelic rendition of Johnny Cash's "Ring of Fire") – availing himself of consumer entertainment technology to remind the world that he is gay. Lambert's overtly sexual performance at the American Music Awards prompted 1,500 complaints. Lambert refused to apologize, and doubtless he believes he did nothing inappropriate. The immediate response from the scions of political correctness, meanwhile, was that any outrage evoked by these televised homosexual antics was indicative of a heterosexual double standard. Yet those who speak so ardently of "tolerance" were quick to destroy Carrie Prejean for daring to express honestly, when asked to do so, that she did not approve of legalizing gay marriage. I am a libertarian who has no problem with gay rights or the notion of gay marriage – and yet I will be accused of anti-gay bigotry for daring to bring up the facts in this paragraph. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Senate vote for 'hate crimes' sparks warning ~ By Bob Unruh

"The people will not remain silent forever" By Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily Posted: July 18, 2009 12:30 am Eastern A key Senate vote during the wee hours when most Americans were asleep has added the so-called "hate crimes" plan, which creates federal protections and privileges homosexuals and others who have chosen alternative sexual lifestyles, to a defense spending bill. While there are procedural hurdles yet, opponents say they expect the proposal that essentially makes homosexuals a protected class of citizens in the United States soon will reach the desk of President Obama, who has lobbied for it. But the vote prompted both a warning about what a law linking criminal behavior to thought would do to free speech and a promise that the nation won't give up its citizens' basic rights easily. "In six months President Obama and the Democratic-led Congress have forced on the American people the most radical and and immoral agenda," said Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. "The administration and the Democratic-led Congress are out of touch with the mainstream. They represent the most fringe extreme elements of America. They will not be able to continue their efforts to undermine moral values, socialize the economy and trash American pride and heritage. "The people will not remain silent forever," he said. [CONTINUE READING]

Hate crimes not about punishment ~ By Joseph Farah

By Joseph Farah Posted: June 18, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 The so-called "hate crimes" bill making its way through the U.S. Senate purports to be about stiffer punishment of those offenses motivated by bigotry. But it is not. It never is. The whole notion of "hate crimes," not just the specific and particularly reprehensible bill approved by the House of Representatives and awaiting approval by the Senate, but all such misguided legislation, has never been about sentences. It has never been about deterrence of future crimes. Instead, it is about creating new classes of political protection – unequal protection under the law, a wholly unconstitutional and immoral idea. Let me demonstrate what I mean. The bill in the Senate right now is called "The Matthew Shepard Act" – named for the patron saint of the homosexual activist movement after one of their own was murdered by two thugs who robbed him and tortured him to death. It was alleged, never with any substance, that he was victimized because he was a homosexual. Both of the men convicted of the crime are currently serving life sentences. One of them faced the death penalty, but Matthew Shepard's mother argued against it. Yet Matthew Shepard's mother is right back in the thick of arguing for the new federal law – whose sole purpose is supposedly to provide stiffer penalties for hate crimes. Mind you, Matthew Shepard's murderers got a life sentence not because of the motivation for their crime, but merely because of the heinousness of the offense. His mother literally saved one of the perpetrators from the death sentence by arguing for life in prison. She not only doesn't want tougher penalties for those who commit crimes against people based on what's going through their mind, she didn't even want them when it came to punishing those who took the life of her own son. [CONTINUE READING]

Digg this story

Free speech under attack! ~ By Bill Keller

The freedom of speech that has been guaranteed under our constitution is not as protected as we hope to think. The hate crimes legislation is just one nail in the coffin of the First Amendment which also protects religious freedom and right to assemble. We all need to care. read more | digg story ~ Submitted by 4chin8

Congressman Plays "Name That Fetish" on House Floor

Transcribers cringe, wash hands repeatedly By FRANK TORRES and TODD WRIGHT Fort Lauderdale Rep. Alcee Hastings nearly turned C-Span into XXX-Span when he ran through a laundry list of sex fetishes on the House floor in D.C. on Thursday. The outraged Hastings was apparently mad that the odd array of sex acts and fetishes were listed in an amendment to a hate crimes bill that he had to read over. The Florida pol gave a warning before he ran through the list of nearly 25 different sexual terms - part of a two-minute rant worthy of late-night talk show television. “I apologize to our transcriber, but I want to put into the record what we have to put up with in the Rules Committee,” Hastings said. OK, now run and get your dictionary because you are going to need it to keep up. [Continue reading (if you can stomach it)]

Also in this story:

Why anyone would put these sex terms in a hate crime bill is anyone's guess, but it clearly upset Hastings, a former federal judge who was impeached and removed from office after being charged with corruption and perjury in the late 1980s.

digg story ~ Submitted by MightyRighty

'Hateful words' may be prosecutable

By Jim Brown - OneNewsNow A Democratic congresswoman's candid remarks in the House Judiciary Committee yesterday bolster the fears of Americans who are concerned they one day may be convicted of a "hate crime" for merely publicly expressing their opposition to homosexuality. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act was reported out of the Judiciary Committee yesterday in the House. The bill, which is expected to face a vote in the full House on Wednesday, would add gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the list of protected categories under federal hate crimes law. [Continue reading]

Related Story: 'Hate crimes' bill okayed; 'sexual orientation' remains undefined digg story ~ Submitted by jjvors