In a moment that can only be considered prophetic in light of what happened at Ottawa U yesterday, my talking Ann Coulter Barbie ran out of (battery) steam at a dinner party I held a couple of weeks ago. She’s a party favourite, that is until the stunned silence falls amongst less conservative friends but I still have her perched on my book shelf holding a copy of Treason. That evening she gasped her last breath after letting out a lengthy, high-pitched electronic tone.
(Right now you have questions, I know. Why do I have an Ann Coulter barbie doll, one that talks? But that’s not my point, so stick with me.)
Now save for the Barbie, I’d never heard Ann Coulter speak, before yesterday, when I caught her on Michael Coren. And then and there I realized, to my shock, I do like this woman. I have some of her books, and I think they are terrible. But in person, some of those satirical quips are very funny. They just don’t transfer to the written page very well.
Unfortunately, some Ottawa U students were unprepared to allow her to prove this point last night.
It’s sad when we are held hostage by a women’s studies fringe:
I was just worried that things were going to be said about certain groups of people that were going to make them feel very unsafe and very uncomfortable and we promise our students here at the University of Ottawa a safe, positive space,” said Rita Valeriano, a second-year sociology and women’s studies student.
…in particular since Ann is such a powerful woman. She dominated the interview with Michael Coren. And that is not an easy thing to do.
by 
John Cleese of Fawlty Towers fame (Basil Fawlty) stated that humour died with political correctness. I think that people take everything Ann Coulter says far too seriously, not realising the woman is making points by using satire. Oh pathetic Canadians, that they cannot listen to the entire content of someone’s talk and then make their judgment.
I like this woman immensely and have to agree with her on Michael’s show – “what did I say that was wrong?”
And we are far too concerned with not offending anyone, rather than being concerned with speaking truthfully. We should not be afraid to hear the truth, being offended is essentially a childish reaction.
I think that this incident was a great example (along with the letter) of how our universities do not promote debate. It really shows just how childish, insecure, and intolerant the left-wing are in this country.
Some guy from the University of Ottawa was on a local talk show today and said that there were only 300 protestors TOPS and that he wished there were the 2000 reported in the media. What’s up with that?
It was very irritating listening to him as he kept repeating the same thing over and over ….”she incites hatred and violence…” Well, the only violent ones apparently were the left-wing protestors. When asked to give examples of what she says to incite hatred and violence, he kept coming up short. *sigh* and this is what passes for higher education.
She is very witty, and yes, IIRC even she has admitted that part of her “act” is to be a bit irreverent and in-your-face. She’s no more abrasive than some folks who are her ideological opposites; though Ann is funnier.
In other news, I think I just realized that I don’t like the way “Ann” looks without an “e”, no offense to Ms. Coulter or other Anns.
I’ve heard conflicting accounts of this – some saying that the students were looking so potentially violent the speech was canceled in order to avoid a riot, others saying that Coulter canceled the speech in response to a peaceful protest then had her PR people exagerate the threat in order to give the impression that all liberals are intolerant violent thugs, or to serve as a pretext for fileing the human rights complaint as a political stuny. I’m not sure what to believe myself – so far the only consistant part I can find is that the final decision to cancel was made by Coulter or her staff, but she claims it was at the request of the university because they were unsure of their policing ability. That, and the letter from the university cautioning her to familiarise herself with Canadian law to avoid potential legal action. That does seem to be genuine, though I can’t locate it in it’s entirety.
I can’t understand why the University of Ottawa wanted her in the first place. They must have known about her inflamatory reputation, and her brand of extremism obviously wouldn’t have gone down well with the university or local population.
Raven begins sentences with “I’m not sure what to believe myself….” “I can’t locate….” “I can’t understand…”
I think that Raven has inadvertently touched upon why many left-wing students try to shut down opposing viewpoints. Universities have failed to teach them how to engage in debate, retrieve information, analyze content, form their conscience and come to a reasonable conclusion. Their behavior is reminiscent of grade six behavior (i.e., pulling fire alarms) and is purely reactionary if it doesn’t agree with their world vision. It is emotional and lacking in any reasonable substance. Allowing opposing views (see abortion) to be presented puts them into a position of having to defend their point of view, which they have not been taught because it’s all about how they “feel.”
My suggestion – maybe listen to what Ann has to say, brush up on techniques (obviously not taught in universities anymore) such as satire, sarcasm, and hyperbole….and then perhaps you would “understand” why there would be people who feel that she should have a venue to speak. And, if you don’t like it…..change the channel.