It’s a pigs flying moment, folks. A Liberal has publicly admitted that he’s an idiot.
For while it appears that the failure of Ms Coulter to give a speech at the University of Ottawa was due to the organizers’ sheer incompetence, this does not excuse the appalling actions that the University administration took at the time.
Alan Rock, chancellor of University of Ottawa, admits that his handling of the Ann Coulter speaking engagement at his university was … lacking.
Just when you think you’ve seen everything, along comes something like this. I simply could not believe my eyes.
Ann Coulter is coming to Canada and the leftoids are all for banning her. Personally I think Ms Coulter is full of it. She knows what buttons to press and hits them with great regularity. But the thought of threatening her for a speech she hasn’t even delivered yet would never have crossed my mind.
It certainly occurred to senior staff at what purports to be a Canadian university.
Right now the major kerfuffle is at the University of Ottawa. There student council president, Seamus Wolfe(He sounds like a real piece of work. He’ll fit in perfectly with the other losers in the Human Rights industry) said
“The federation does not support Ann Coulter speaking on our campus,” said student president Seamus Wolfe. “We’re trying to work with the administration to see if we can ask her to do her speaking event somewhere else.”
In a totally Orwellian gesture he banned organizers from putting up posters advertising her talk in student controlled areas. This from a guy who has no problem with allowing Israel Apartheid(aka let’s kill all the Jews when we get the chance) Week events in ‘his’ space.
As if all this wasn’t enough to make you puke, Francois Houle,Vice-President Academic and Provost(ie second in command at the University of Ottawa) sent Ms Coulter a letter telling her not to get too uppity and to know her place. Mocking Jews is fine. Mocking Muslims and Arabs? Well that’s an offence in this here country. We don’t take kindly to citizens who speak their minds.
“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.”
He continued, “Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges.”
After also mentioning defamation law, the provost wrote, “I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind.”
The text of the letter in full beneath the fold.
What a total asshole. Have people lost their minds? Universities are supposed to encourage free speech. They’re not supposed to suppress it.
The whole episode is disgraceful. I would call on Mr. Houle to resign but he’s probably too stupid to know how wrong he really is.
Res ipsa loquitur : “the thing speaks for itself.”
It’s too bad because I really do like Ezra. In particular, I like his highlighting of our Orwellian “Human Rights” industry.
So it disappoints me to see that, for Ezra, it has become a case of “free speech for me but not for thee.”
Ezra most definitely does not like bloggers writing that he had been found “guilty” for breaching Alberta Law Society conduct guidelines or that these complaints were “upheld” when, in fact, the complaints had been technically “dismissed.”
Apparently, bloggers that have had the temerity to use “guilty,” “upheld,” and “Ezra” in the same sentence have been obliged to retract their statements because this “exceeds the bounds of fair comment and criticism and constitutes an unfounded and malicious attack on Mr. Levant’s character.”
Ezra has had his lawyers, May Jensen Shawa Solomon, scurrying around the blogoshere recently and when they find such postings(two that I am aware of) they have sent out “Notices to Intention to Bring Action.”
I believe that translated from Legalese to English, that phrase means that if don’t retract what you wrote, I’m gonna sue you ass for libel.
While I can understand why Ezra is having his lawyers do this – accuracy in facts is important after all – it still reeks to high heaven in this humble scribe’s opinion. It certainly blunts my opinion of him and I know that the next time he calls people liars on his blog that I’ll remember what a thin skin he himself seems to have. At this moment it really does look like that he can dish it out with the best of them but that he certainly doesn’t like to take it.
Ezra’s latest posting on his blog is entitled “Litigation Update” detailing the current status of some of the actions against him.
Ezra moderates his comments and the ones published to date are all laudatory. Quelle surprise!
Who knows what negative or challenging comments are never allowed to sully his blog.
I do know of one that was not published and that was mine.
Very politely I asked why did it seem that he had backdated a post regarding Giacomo Vigna’s lawsuit against him.
Needless to say my comment never saw the light of day and my question remains unanswered.
All in all it would seem that for Ezra it really is a case of “free speech for me but not for thee.”
And that’s very sad.
I see Warren “Barney” Kinsella’s and Ezra Levant’s ongoing catfight is back in the public square.
Barney Kinsella has a nifty little non apology apology up on his blog.
Entitled Ezra Levant’s troubles with the Law Society it reads as follows
Ezra Levant – who regards himself as a warrior in the cause of free speech, and who in fact refers to the many lawsuits he is facing as “lawfare” – has sent me a legal threat.
The threat relates to two links to National Post stories which I posted (here and here) – stories about Ezra and the issue of his conduct, as reviewed by the Law Society of Alberta. In the headlines to both postings, I used the term “guilty.”
Ezra, free speech warrior that he is, has complained about my use of that term through his lawyers.
Here are the facts:
1. The Alberta Law Society found that Ezra Levant had violated many rules of professional conduct.
2. Ezra Levant was ordered to meet with a senior member of the bar to learn how to better behave himself.
3. Once Ezra Levant did so, the complaint was technically dismissed.I apologize, profusely, to Ezra for using the word “guilty.” He was in fact found to have violated the rules of professional conduct. But without “guilt.”
I truly hope that makes him feel better.
Ezra has doubled down with his latest post, “Litigation Update”
I have lost count of the exact number of Law Society complaints filed against my blog – I think it’s 23. All but the last three have been disposed of — all dismissed, with no finding of guilt and no conviction….
All of Warren Kinsella’s complaints have been thrown out, as well as all of Warman’s complaints, and Vigna’s first batch of complaints — totalling over 1,000 pages — have been thrown out, too.
Personally, I side with Ezra in all this. I fail to see why, in this day and age, a lawyer’s actions outside of his legal practise, are subject to other lawyers’ scrutiny and judgement. It is up to the public to decide whether his efforts are righteous or worthy or ridicule.
While on this topic, I did ask a question on Ezra Levant’s blog about his apparent backdating of a post. It’s awaiting his approval. I wonder if it will see the light of day?
Ezra, I enjoy your posts on the activities of Canada’s ‘human rights’ industry and on the weakness of our professional Jews.
So I ask this with respect. Big City Lib says that you backdated a post regarding Vigna and his doctor’s note.
Did you, in fact, backdate that post? And, if so, what was the reasoning behind it.
Answer or not at your discretion but if you don’t, questions will continue to be raised about the matter.
Big City Liberal has noted that Ezra Levant, who is facing a libel trial this week involving some very, very funny comments he made about one Giacomo Vigna – a lawyer with the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission – has backdated this “Correction” on his blog:
My comments about Mr. Vigna were based on the public record, such as transcripts of his comments at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. In particular, on May 11, 2007, when Mr. Vigna claimed he could not proceed because he was not feeling “serene”, he undertook to provide a medical certificate to the CHRT. You can read the transcript here where he makes that promise.
Six weeks later, on June 25, 2007, Mr. Vigna had still not complied with that undertaking, even though the CHRT insisted that he did. You can read that transcript here.
Mr. Vigna never appeared in that case again and based on that, I assumed that Mr. Vigna had never actually submitted his medical certificate.
Just this week I learned from Mr. Vigna that he eventually did provide a doctor’s note to the Tribunal some four months after promising to do so.
In the interest of fairness, I thought it appropriate to publish this correction.
The question is why backdate such a correction and what effect will it have in his libel trial? Is it Ezra’s backhanded way to say that he(Levant) couldn’t have know about all of Mr. Vigna’s actions given that they were not all publicized when Mr Levant wrote the posts at the center of these libel accusations? At the moment, no one knows the motivation behind the post.
I expect that more details on this story and Mr. Levant’s trial will be made public over the next little while.
Don’t get me wrong. I like Ezra a lot. In particular I’ve liked his tilting at the windmills that comprise our odious human rights industry and his comments on the spinelessness of Canada’s “official Jews.”
I notied that warren “Barney” Kinsellsa is crowing about the fact that Mr. Levant was recently found guilty of breaking the Lawyers’ Code of Conduct.
Now given that the a lot of the Lawyers Code of Conduct is all about not rocking the boat, not bringing the profession into ‘disrepute’(what a joke that is!) and, in essence, acting according to some outdated Victoria prim and proper attitudes, I could care less about Mr. Levant’s ‘conviction. ’
To my mind if I ever needed a lawyer in a serious case I’d want a shit disturber and not some panty waisted lawyer who’s more concerned about his career path and some future cushy job on the bench.
In other words, give me Ezra, and I’d be happy.
