Violence wins the day

Editorial

Anne Coulter, the American political commentator whose raison d’être is to poke sticks at those with whom she disagrees, probably receives a lot of mail. But a message relayed to her from the administration of the University of Ottawa this week really should be read by all Canadians.

Coulter, a sort of P.T. Barnum of political discourse, was warned by François Houle, vice-president academic and provost of the University of Ottawa, to watch her mouth when she visits that campus.

“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,” wrote Houle. “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.”

The letter then warns Coulter that Canadian free speech laws differ from those in Coulter’s America and goes on to “encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here....

“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.”

The letter concludes: “I hope you will enjoy your stay in our beautiful country, city and campus.”

To summarize: shut up and enjoy the scenery.

Over the past 10 years, during which anti-Israel extremism has been permitted to run rampant on many Canadian campuses, has such a letter ever been addressed to one of the speakers brought in to condemn Israel or to agitate for an end to Jewish self-determination in Israel? Coulter, of course, is not being brought in by a Zionist group, nor was she necessarily going to even broach the topic of Israel. But the point is that a speaker who might offend the fragile sensibilities of students who don’t agree with her politics, Muslims (whom Coulter has gone out of her way to upset) or the multicultural harmony that no doubt flourishes at U of O, is warned in advance to watch her mouth.

Compare this with events at York University recently.

Last month, amid the international hatefest called “Israel Apartheid Week,” Christians United for Israel attempted to organize an event at York featuring American writer Daniel Pipes, among others. In exchange for permission to hold the event, the university gave the group a list of conditions no agency could possibly meet.

The university demanded that the organizers arrange and pay for campus security and Toronto police to ensure the peace was maintained at the event. Organizers were told to provide in advance a list of all attendees, summaries of the comments of every speaker – provided in advance, which would certainly limit extemporaneous debate – and there could be no public advertising of the event.

The university demanded no such daunting demands from the hate groups bringing in anti-Zionist presenters.

The pro-Israel event was cancelled, of course. There was no way the demands of the university could reasonably have been met. How could the group, organizing a public event, possibly provide a list to the university of all attendees? Admittedly, this task was made easier by the ban on advertising: organizers likely would have been the only attendees given the stringent criteria for going ahead.

While it is within the realm of reason to imagine that the passions ignited around the Christians United for Israel event might have spilled into violence, it is equally reasonable to assume from where that violence would come. For the past decade, violence and intimidation have had relatively free rein on several campuses, York included. But it has not been Jewish or Christian Zionist students perpetrating violence or intolerance; that has come exclusively from the other side. So the reality of York’s demand is simple: Jewish and Christian Zionist students could provoke violence from anti-Israel thugs, ergo they must provide security and meet a list of unreasonable demands.

Commentator David Frum, in the National Post, rightfully skewered York. “The logic is impressively brazen. Since the anti-Israel people might use violence, the speech of the pro-Israel people must be limited. On the other hand, since the pro-Israel people do not use violence, the speech of the anti-Israel people can proceed without restraint.”

Violence, or the threat of violence, wins the day. By raising the possibility that they might use violence to disrupt Zionist events, thugs are able to derail pro-Israel events before they even take place.

It is Canada’s university administrators, not Coulter or anyone else from the outside, who need to review “what is acceptable in Canada.”

^TOP