Ann Coulter Comes to Canada

Ann Coulter, the conservative American pundit, came to Ottawa to give a speech at the University of Ottawa a few day ago. Protest ensued. The speech was cancelled. Coulter leapt on the opportunity to bash Canada, the U of Ottawa, and the poor Provost from the University who sent her a letter explaining that certain types of speech in Canada can lead to criminal charges (I’ve included the letter in full below).

The kafuffle has created a veritable potpourri of punditry here. What’s not available to talk about—Canada vs. the U.S., left vs. right, freedom of expression vs. hate crime legislation, the role of the University. Everyone is chiming in, and the mean-spirited wit of Coulter has the True North Strong and Free in her sites.

In all the noise, I’ve been wondering what’s really at stake here. What’s at the heart of the matter? Does Coulter’s politics threaten Canada in some way? Her political positions—government is evil, love your country and its Christian heritage, go after your enemies, the State isn’t your mommy—are not new here, though certainly they are not prevalent. Her ideas are, in fact, completely secondary to why she garners such attention. Coulter is not a media phenomenon because of the originality of her thinking but because of the biting style in which her thinking is delivered. Could the mere style of her discourse, rather than her ideas, threaten well-meaning Canada?

Coulter’s rhetoric is mean-spirited and personal. She has honed the art of the humorous dig that has one laugh and say ouch at the same time. For Coulter, vulnerability is opportunity. Her deepest joy is pushing buttons. The living and the dead are equal targets. Witness a recent remark, “The fact that a Republican is in the late Senator Kennedy's old seat probably must have him rolling in his grave, probably spilling his drink.” Coulter not only doesn’t seek to rein in her mean-spiritedness, it is a central aspect of her brand. Of the Provost who sent here the letter, she says he “didn’t even plan to attend my speech because Tuesday is his bikini wax night,” and that his name, Francis A. Houle, is “French for Frank A. Hole.” The put-down with a nasty bite is her stock in trade.

So what? Why should we care about the language of an American pundit? On one level, we shouldn’t; let her take her travelling road show around the country and then return to the States. On another level, to the extent one believes civil discourse is a key ingredient of a democracy, perhaps her rhetoric isn’t so innocuous after all. One need only look to the January State of the Union address, when a Congressman shouted out that the President was a liar, to know that Americans are fast losing the ability to talk reasonably to one another about issues that matter.

This decline in civic conversation has been going on for some time, though I would claim it first appeared as a significant media phenomenon during the seventies when 60 Minutes introduced its Point/Counterpoint segment, a three minute sound-bite that sought to agitate viewers emotions with ideological positions that refused to be reconciled. Those brief harangues were famously spoofed on Saturday Night Live; unfortunately, those comedy sketches look all too prescient: how much distance is there between that famous line from Saturday Night Live, “Jane, you ignorant slut,” and Coulter’s “Frank A. Hole”?

The health care debate in Washington is only the most recent example. From shouts of “baby killer” to “nigger” to calling the President a “fascist,” the exchange around the issue of healthcare left little to admire. And now the chickens have come home to roost: Americans, following the examples of their elected officials, are calling in death threats to those politicians who took a stance they didn’t like. Coulter threatens democracy because her way of engaging with ideas and people feeds a virulence that prioritizes intransigent opinion over informed dialogue. And though she might, all tongue in cheek, demurely say, “why, you mean little ole me? threaten democracy?,” she is, I think, a seed carrier of this type of discourse and those seeds gets dispersed on the winds of the media.

Coulter, of course, brushes off the charges that she is mean-spirited or promotes hate by claiming she’s merely a satirist. She no more wants to kill all the Muslims than the 18th century satirist, Jonathon Swift, in his “A Modest Proposal,” wanted to sell babies so the rich could use them as food. She might like to imagine herself as a political humourist, in the American tradition of Mark Twain or Will Rodgers, and she’s simply updated the tradition for the 21st century. The problem with such self-dismissal is that context is king, and Coulter appears on the news circuits as a commentator, not in stand-up clubs and not on the Comedy Channel. Her base, the audience she most speaks to, is tuned—in both their politics and their faith—more towards the literal, unfortunately, than the satirical. Words, after all, shape thinking, and thinking shapes actions.

At the end of the recent Olympics, Brian Williams, the host of the Games for NBC, wrote a “thank you note to Canada” in which he thanked the country “for reminding some of us we used to be a more civil society.” The belief in Canada is that it always lags five years behind the States in most everything. If so, the country doesn’t have long to strategize how to keep this crass discourse of American political life from crossing into Canada as easily as an unregistered handgun. However, I prefer to believe that, in the matter of civility, Canada is far ahead of the U.S., perhaps a good twenty years ahead, as the country was, for example, with fully integrating Gays into the military. Canada’s profound need to insure it is “not the United States” is likely its strongest protection against the further encroachment from the sad political exchanges in the U.S. Perhaps as Americans continue to become more unable to talk effectively across their differences, Canada will continue to strengthen its civil discourse, and perhaps, one day, find a way to export that vital asset to its southern neighbour.

(an article providing a relatively brief overview as to how the U.S. electorate became so unable to talk with one another can be found here: http://www.opendemocracy.net/godfrey-hodgson/great-american-refusal)

Below is the Letter from the Provost at the University of Ottawa:

Dear Ms. Coulter,
I understand that you have been invited by University of Ottawa Campus Conservatives to speak at the University of Ottawa this coming Tuesday. We are, of course, always delighted to welcome speakers on our campus and hope that they will contribute positively to the meaningful exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of a great university campus. We have a great respect for freedom of expression in Canada, as well as on our campus, and view it as a fundamental freedom, as recognized by our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that 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.

You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind.

There is a strong tradition in Canada, including at this university, of restraint, respect and consideration in expressing even provocative and controversial opinions and urge you to respect that Canadian tradition while on our campus. Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.

I hope you will enjoy your stay in our beautiful country, city and campus.
Sincerely,
Francois Houle,
Vice-President Academic and Provost, University of Ottawa

Canadian (?) News

Some days I listen to the news in Canada and wonder if I’ve really tuned the radio to a Canadian station. Maybe I’m actually getting a feed from the U.S. For example, yesterday morning the lead story in Canada was about Obama appearing on Fox news to talk about health care. The 2nd story was about the tensions between the Obama administration and Israel. Finally a Canadian story appeared—the Prime Minister has promised to focus the G8 meeting in Canada on the health of women and children in the third world, yet without any money going to family planning. With that last news item, we know it can’t be a U.S. feed because U.S. news is generally about the U.S. 24/7—all U.S. all the time! So it IS Canadian news but…it’s mostly about the States.

Why’s that? Here we have the Prime Minister of Canada taking his strategy to woo women voters by instituting some policies supporting third world women and children, and then dashing his strategy on the rocks of his conservative ideology. It may not bleed, but it ought to lead, certainly over Obama appearing on Fox news.

And yet, Obama leads. Could it be because the quality of healthcare in the United States matters to Canadians? Only to the extent that it allows Canadians to differentiate themselves and feel a wee bit smug about having a system they consider more humane. Are we captivated by the wars between the right wing Fox channel and the centrist administration ? I think not. Is the Prime Minister’s third world initiative irrelevant? No.

The truth of the matter is simply that Stephen Harper cannot compete with Barack Obama any more than I can compete with Brad Pitt. Harper, even in his more compelling moments, is slightly more colorful than curd cheese. And Canada is so infatuated with Obama that even the biggest sports story yesterday focused on him. Yes, it’s hard to believe in the land of hockey-is-OUR-game, but the big sports story yesterday was Obama’s picks for the Final Four! I nearly gagged on my cereal when I heard it. Most Canadians think March Madness refers either to a series of snow storms, or a bit of unseasonably warm weather. U.S. college basketball as the main sports news in Canada! They even played the sound bite of Obama talking about his picks and being able to watch the games on Air Force One. The sportscaster sounded thoroughly enamored with the Prez.

Clearly, this counts as another “get a life, Canada” moment. Fortunately, by the end of the day, the lead story was Harper’s third world initiative. He’d pulled back from completely ruling out a focus on family planning. Harper, however briefly, had seen the light; sometimes Canada’s attraction to practical solutions and not ideology can carry the day.

Final Thoughts on the Olympics

As much as I may hold the Olympic movement in contempt and the International Olympic Committee in low regard, what the athletes bring to the Games has always been, and will continue to be, moving and memorable. The Games are—when we get our national ego’s out of the way--for them, first and foremost. May they each cherish their experience in Vancouver.

Canada, the political entity, desperate to do well, did well. And Canadians, who largely did not care about winning—only 8% of Canadians, according to an Angus Reid poll, considered first place their criteria for success--enjoyed all the Gold nonetheless. Vancouver can now return to being one of the world’s loveliest cities.

Here then, in no particular order, are some closing thoughts:

--Did Gretzky have to be the torch lighter? Wasn’t that a bit too predictable? It was a choice made by central casting.
--I’m not sure which is sadder: that the opening speech by the head of Vancouver Olympic Committee contained no French, or that people reacted with a “stop your whining” attitude when it was pointed out.
--Am I wrong or did NBC never, NEVER, interview athletes from countries other the U.S.? Canada seems more ready to let Canadians know and appreciate athletes from elsewhere.
--Back in 88, when I was 100% American, I remember watching the Battle of the Brians, and thought the Canadian chap deserved the Gold. In fact, if the current criteria were applied to that skate, Brian Orser would’ve beaten Boitano. It was good to see Orser finally earn one as a coach.
--Can somebody please point out to Canada’s most public idiot, Don Cherry, how beautiful a game hockey can be when goons don’t play and fighting isn’t included?
--To the Canadian athletes who didn’t “live up to expectations” and feel they let down their country, you didn’t. Canadians never bought in to the trip laid on you by the COC. Thank you for trying your best.
--To the Canadian woman athlete—I wish I could remember her name—who won Gold and didn’t feel that good about it because she knew she could have done better, you embody what it’s all about. And to the many unnamed athletes who turned in a personal best and weren’t on the podium, so do you.

Finally, let’s take a couple of weeks to decompress, to put sport into proper perspective, and begin to turn our attention to the work that matters. Canada has had a unique injection of patriotism. Wouldn’t it be grand if it could find more legal injection sites for patriotism through taking the lead on climate change perhaps, or building more social housing or caring for its elderly? They may not be games, but I’d cheer for any one of them.