Anne Coulter’s Thought Crime
If there’s the word blasphemy for the religionists, there’s also the term “thought crime” or “hate speech” for the atheist liberals and socialists.
Anne Coulter, a well-known, outspoken American conservative, just had her distasteful, “undemocratic” encounter with the
Social Democrats in Canada. She was invited to give a speech at the University of Ottawa, but a few days before arriving in Canada she was accused of “thought crimes, threatened with criminal prosecution for speeches” she hadn’t yet given and “denounced on the floor of the Parliament. So this is the way the Social Democrats in Canada deal with an individual who’s notorious for her “anti-democratic” views. No, this is about democracy per se.
Many times I explained my complete disapproval of democracy as a social system. If the proponents of this system mean democracy is about freedom, liberty, individual rights, and limited government, I would support and even campaign for the democratization of the Philippines. But this is not the true concept and essence of democracy. It simply means “unlimited majority rule.” It’s about mob rule.
Yet it is really unfortunate that the intellectuals, political science and economics professors, political theorists, and media men promote the so-called ideals of democracy. But what is clear is that these “useful idiots” are guiltier than the lexicographers. They simply are espousing, promoting the idea that will drain the remaining freedom in this country, as well as the liberty and rights of its people.
Anne Coulter’s “undemocratic” encounter with the Canadian socialists reminds me of a blog commenter who defended the alleged virtue and practicality of Democratic Socialism. This commenter even asked me to read a pamphlet detailing the concept, virtue and ends of this system. A widemsoc(2) file entitled “What is Democratic Socialism” explains the history, ideals, and goals of this political system. The file states:
“Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.
“Democracy and socialism go hand in hand. All over the world, wherever the idea of democracy has taken root, the vision of socialism has taken root as well—everywhere but in the United States. Because of this, many false ideas about socialism have developed in the US. With this pamphlet, we hope to answer some of your questions about socialism.”
This propaganda campaign merely proves that democracy is just one form of collectivism, or “the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.” Democracy is a benevolent form of socialism wherein political power is defined by the majority or whoever rules a given territory.
That statement confirms the fact that DemSoc is socialism per se, because in reality, democracy is a form of collectivism. Under
this system, the individual is the means to the ends of others. In a true free society, the individual is the standard of value.
I explained in my reply to this commenter that Democratic Socialism is a floating abstraction. Epistemologically and metaphysically, DemSoc is a utilitarian concept. The Utilitarians teach that an action is moral if its result is to maximize pleasure among men in general. This theory holds that man’s duty is to serve—according to a purely quantitative standard of value. He is to serve not the well-being of the nation or of the economic class, but “the greatest happiness of the greatest number,” regardless of who comprise it in any given issue. One of the 19th Century thinkers, John Stuart Mill, says the individual must be “disinterested” and “strictly impartial”; he must remember that he is only one unit out of the dozens, or millions, of men affected by his actions. “All honor to those who can abnegate for themselves the personal enjoyment of life,” says Mill, “when by such renunciation they contribute worthily to increase the amount of happiness in the world.”
DemSoc is exactly a compromise on moral ideals. It’s not even a contradiction in terms. It has no value at all since the very premises which this anti-system, anti-concept has been derived from do not correspond to reality. In the first place, there is no definite, specific and objective definition of democracy. DemSoc establishes a mixed economy which we have right now. Only evil can win under this kind of system.
However, a protest by hundreds of students led organizers to cancel a Tuesday night speech by American conservative commentator Ann Coulter at the University of Ottawa. A spokesman for the organizers said Coulter was advised against appearing after about 2,000 “threatening” students crowded the entrance to Marion Hall, posing a security threat.
Folks, this is simply the ugly face of democracy. Are you buying it?
Now here’s what Ms Coulter say about the Canadian socialsts:
Since arriving in Canada I’ve been accused of thought crimes, threatened with criminal prosecution for speeches I hadn’t yet given and denounced on the floor of the Parliament (which was nice because that one was on my “bucket list”).
Posters advertising my speech have been officially banned, while posters denouncing me are plastered all over the University of Ottawa campus. Elected officials have been prohibited from attending my speeches. Also, the local clothing stores are fresh out of brown shirts.
Welcome to Canada!
The provost of the University of Ottawa, average student IQ: 0, wrote to me—widely disseminating his letter to at least a half-dozen intermediaries before it reached me—in advance of my visit in order to recommend that I familiarize myself with Canada’s criminal laws regarding hate speech.
This marks the first time I’ve ever gotten hate mail for something I might do in the future.
Apparently Canadian law forbids “promoting hatred against any identifiable group,” which the provost, Francois A. Houle advised me, “would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges.”
I was given no specific examples of what words and phrases I couldn’t use, but I take it I’m not supposed to say, “F—-you, Francois.”
While it was a relief to know that it is still permissible in Canada to promote hatred against unidentifiable groups, upon reading Francois’ letter, I suddenly realized that I had just been the victim of a hate crime! And it was committed by Francois A. Houle (French for “Frank A. Hole”).
What other speakers get a warning not to promote hatred? Did Francois A. Houle send a similarly worded letter to Israel-hater Omar Barghouti before he spoke last year at U of Ottawa? (“Ottawa”: Indian for “Land of the Bed-Wetters.”)
How about Angela Davis, Communist Party member and former Black Panther who spoke at the University of Zero just last month?
Or do only conservatives get letters admonishing them to be civil? Or—my suspicion—is it only conservative women who fuel Francois’ rage?
How about sending a letter to all Muslim speakers advising them to please bathe once a week while in Canada? Would that constitute a hate crime?
I’m sure Canada’s Human Rights Commission will get to the bottom of Francois’ strange warning to me, inasmuch as I will be filing a complaint with that august body, so I expect they will be reviewing every letter the university has sent to other speakers prior to their speeches to see if any of them were threatened with criminal prosecution.
Read the rest of the article HERE.