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