As I write this, controversial American pundit Ann Coulter is in the office tower next to mine attending a private $250-a-ticket reception where she and controversial Canadian pundit Ezra Levant are the guests of honour. (That's the invite, top.) The reception is a presentation of the International Free Press Society with the Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute. One of those helping to facilitate and organize this event is Ashley Scorpio, who is listed in the government's electronic directory, as a staffer working in the office of Conservative MP Gerald Keddy. (She has also worked for Ontario Conservative MP Patrick Brown and was once an administrative assistant in the Harper PMO.) Ms. Scorpio, it should be noted, did not use her Parliamentary contact info. Instead she invited those who wanted to tickets or information to contact her via a Hotmail address.
She is not, however, the only federal Conservative who is assisting with Coulter's visit to Ottawa.
The University of Ottawa Campus Conservatives invited her to speak and booked the room in its name. The booking form notes that all 80 members of that club would attend the event. The form is signed by the club president Laura McLennan. I have been informed that McLennan has posted on her Facebook wall a note saying that the club does not endorse the event but, as her page is protected and can only be viewed by her FB friends, I cannot verify that.
One should note here that the Conservative Party of Canada, unlike the Liberals, does not differentiate between “young Conservatives” and “adult Conservatives.” If you buy a membership in the Conservative Party, you're a member. Period. Presumably, the 80 members of the campus Conservative club are also members of the party.
In any event: Why should we care if card-carrying Conservatives helped facilitate this event or paid $250 to hang out with her?
Well, first of all, in politics at any level, you're known – fairly or not — by the company you keep, I suppose. Do other card-carrying Conservatives endorse Coulter's views — views which, to some is inflammatory, to say the least? She told a Muslim student at the University of Western Ontario Monday night that rather than travel by airplane, the Muslim student should “take a camel.” For those Conservatives, like Jason Kenney, who have spent the better part of a decade reaching out to and building bridges to Canada's Muslim community, is it helpful to that bridge-building enterprise to have any party member anywhere close to a pundit who would offer up a such a viewpoint?
For the record, Dimitri Soudas, the press secretary to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, had this to say: “The Conservative Party of Canada and/or the government of Canada has absolutely nothing to do with her private tour across the country.”
Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro had this to say: “Ultimately, the opinions she has — they're hers. I think Canada's strong enough as a country, we're strong enough in our identity and in our convictions to be able to hear what someone has to say and then choose a different path.”
NDP MP Olivia Chow says she does not believe Coulter should have been prevented from coming to Canada but she does believe there is a double standard at work with the Conservatives, a point she made in this exchange during Question Period In the House of Commons Tuesday afternoon:
Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP): Mr. Speaker, once again the government is showing its hypocrisy. A year after banning anti-war MP George Galloway from entering Canada, the minister of censorship has no problem with letting a pro-war Conservative come and preach hate.
Ann Coulter said: “The government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport and dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East.”
I am all for freedom of speech, but why the double standard?
Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the member does not understand Canadian immigration law. It is not politicians who decide who can come into the country, it is professional members of the public service.
In the case, for instance, of Mr. Galloway, Mr. Galloway received a preliminary inadmissibility determination by an officer of the Canadian Border Services Agency, I presume based on the fact that he publicly and overtly handed tens of thousands of dollars to the leader of a banned anti-Semitic terrorist organization called Hamas.
If the hon. member has information on anyone who comes to Canada that she thinks would be the basis for an inadmissibility review, I invite her to furnish that to the president of the Canadian Border Services Agency.
Chow: Mr. Speaker, newly filed court documents revealed that the minister was active in stopping Mr. Galloway from crossing the border. CBSA was told that Galloway could not be admitted under any circumstances. For this government, a pro-peace British MP is a threat, but a pro-war Conservative who said that Jews need to be perfected and called Muslims insane savages is fine.
Will the minister admit he supports free speech only if he agrees with the speaker, or is this more Conservative hypocrisy?
Kenney: Mr. Speaker, this government supports free speech within the Canadian law. If the hon. member has any information that she thinks would render a visitor to Canada inadmissible, she should supply that information to the CBSA. They can take it into account.
They did take into account Mr. Galloway's admission of having financed the leadership of Hamas, which is a banned terrorist organization. I simply made it clear that I would not grant a ministerial permit to effectively override the inadmissibility determination of the CBSA because I actually happen to believe that we should enforce the law and not allow financiers of terrorist organizations to come to Canada.
See, the problem with some people is that they cannot accept the fact that Conservatives/conservatives can think for themselves, despite the usual predictable and by now very worn phrases like tin-foil hats, con-bots et al. that their critics use. Listening to people whose opinions may be controversial does not mean that there will be a mass conversion to Ann Coulter-ism.
She thrives on the controversy and the outrage she elicits. That just adds to her amusement and her notoriety.
Now, if young and not-so-young Conservatives/conservatives are going to be chided for associating with controversial public figures, will young and not-so-young Liberals or other “progressives” also be chided for associating with people like Michael Moore or other far-left public figures?
Being a member of a Conservative Campus Club does not automatically mean that someone is a member of the Conservative Party of Canada.
Conservative Campus Clubs can be loosely associated with the CPC is they have 10 Conservative Party of Canada members.
A Campus Club is a unique entity formed under the bylaws of university student associations and should be seen as more closely affiliated with their university than with the CPC.
Just FYI.
Its listed on Conservative.ca as an official association. Any attempt to distance themselves is mere damage control.
you know, articles like this one wouldn't tick me off near as much if folks like you wrote them about the crazy company leftists in the country keep as well. Nary a peep when Michael Moore visits, or Ms. Cindy Sheehan, or any other cadre of leftists for that matter. And boy, are there a lot of skeleton's in the NDP's closet. They're the last people that should be talking about the folks people associate themselves with.
Well, nary a peep unless it's journos defending George Galloway and kicking up a fuss about him not being allowed to visit. Remember that? I do.
Coulter is repugnant. But double standards are worse. You and Taber are on a roll today.
Our Universities are full of young people who have had their heads filled with hatred for all things Conservative,
by left wing nutbar professors.
And it is out there in plain view today,
with Coulter's event being cancelled due to the threat of violence.
And those young brainwashed students end up biased journalists.
Take a look in the mirror and then tell me I'm wrong David.
So sad to live in a country that allows this crap to happen. Akin you should be ashamed
A campus Conservative clubs's constitution will define whether or not club members are automatically Federal and/or provincial party members as well. It is conceivable that anyone could join a Conservative campus club without a party membership, though not likely. I cannot speak for the University of Ottawa club, but I wrote and rewrote the Carleton club's constitution several times back in the 1990s, and it requires that club members hold federal and/or provincial party membership.
I would pay good money to watch Coulter and Galloway debate in the same room. That'd be entertainment!
Anyone worshiping Coulter does not have the ability to think for themselves.
Cons fear knowledge and welcome ignorance.
Why wouldn't universities have a general problem with conservatives?
The feeling is mutual!
There was no threat of violence!
No proof whatsoever!
It was made up by Ezra.
Ann chickened out, took the money, and left her fans holding the bag.
What a coward.
You have been conned by Ann and Ezra.
Shame on you!!
Ha! It would be! The thing about the left is they honestly assume that Conservatives are all racist, sexist, uneducated bigots. They don't understand that we can listen to the rediculous things (although they are never as absurd when read/listened to in context) that Coulter says, strip away the shocking, satirical, and blunt nature of what she says and allow it to stimulate discussion on important issues that are often left untouched because of their sensitivity. In today's world of intense political correctness, ideas seem to need to be voiced in a blunt, and perhaps offensive manner, in order to actually get some attention and be discussed.
That's the problem: when something dumb is said conservative types claim it was taken out of context. Always. They never challeneg their own. Why? I have followed Coulter for a long time. I have read HER columns and HER books. Her context; she's in control. And she still says things that are, well, idiotic and untrue. But you conservatives won't distance yourselves from her like the nutbar she is. Why is that? Why, when you claim to be able to think for yourselves, does no one stand up and say she doesn't speak for them?
First off, you kill your point by calling all professors left wing nutbars. Nobody cares about your personal opinions on left wing people, professors or not, so leave it out.
Second, University in no way sets up people to be brainwashed or biased. People allow themselves to be influenced by what they will. It's a personal choice and if you choose to believe what profs or anyone for that matter tell you at face value without considering your own personal beliefs and values, then you end up a physical vessel for somebody else's opinions.
Lastly, Coulter's event being cancelled makes me proud to be part of a University that doesn't condone racism, hate and intolerance. Those things are unacceptable in a world and country that are trying to promote tolerance and multiculturalism.
And anyone who obviously doesn't understand the meaning of someone else's comment, hides behind an “Anonymous” name, and writes poorly, to boot, should refrain from drawing such idiotic conclusions.
Ann Coulter got exactly what she wanted when she was unable to give her speech due to “safety” concerns at the University of Ottawa. Things couldn't have turned out better for Coulter even if she had planned to be unable to give her speech. With Coulter being “forced” out of the the university it got more people associated with her by them requesting that she have the freedom to give her speech (and in my opinion dig her own grave) who also disagree with Coulter's views. This new conflict between Coulter's right to freedom of speech and her potentialy breaking our Canadian anti-hate laws creates gratuitous conflict between groups while completely circumventing Coulter's “extreme” ideas. She is no longer the main focus of the problem and instead we are now faced with a debate on free speech. This won't cause massive turmoil in Canada but I'm reminded of a statement made by Charles de Gaulle back in '67 which sowed the seeds for future events. The Canadian public is allowing Ann Coulter to instigate us.