Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Debate Info

6
6
Most definitely Wait...., What? No!
Debate Score:12
Arguments:12
Total Votes:12
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Most definitely (6)
 
 Wait...., What? No! (6)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(40163) pic



Is Francois A. Houle's letter accusing Ann Coulter of hate speech, hate speech?

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=361


If a university official's letter accusing a speaker of having a proclivity to commit speech crimes before she's given the speech—which then leads to Facebook postings demanding that Ann Coulter be hurt, a massive riot and a police-ordered cancellation of the speech—is not hate speech, then there is no such thing as hate speech. 

Either Francois goes to jail or the Human Rights Commission is a hoax and a fraud.

Most definitely

Side Score: 6
VS.

Wait...., What? No!

Side Score: 6

The thing about Ann is that she's got a point.

By definition:

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

Francois A. Houle (French for "Frank A. Hole") committed hate speech and should be prosecuted by Canada's Human Rights Commission.

Disclaimer: Although I hate the French, I like Canadians. I'm sure this incident was perpetrated by the French elements in Canada ;)

Side: Most Definitely
1 point

The letter didn't actually have any hate speech, and I think Ann Coulter went overboard, but I do think that Frank A-Hole (yeah, I still find what she had to say really funny) was being a weasel.

He probably didn't mean for the riots to occur, but he did have an agenda and was being a bureaucrat in the situation. He probably doesn't like Ann and this is why he let his words be public.

Coulter could have ignored him, but the riots probably did give her cause.

In the end, Canada shouldn't have limits on free speech. That's a contradiction.

Side: Most Definitely
1 point

Please show me the accusation in the letter. I've read it, and can't find it. If anyone else would like to read it, and you'll notice Coulter does not provide it's actual text in her snivelling complaint about it, it's here:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2710037

The only thing it did was make her aware of Canadian law before she potentially ran afoul of it, and politely ask that she try to express her opinions with respect and civility. She might think of saying "thanks for the heads up" instead of whining like a 6 year old and then pretending like she's somehow been victimized. But then I don't expect more than that from Coulter.

Side: Wait...., What? No!

If he had sent that letter only to Ann, I would be forced to agree with you. But that's not what he did. He intended to let others know that Ann needed to be told to respect Canadian tradition while on their campus. His letter basically accused Ann of having a proclivity to commit speech crimes.

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.

His action led to leads to Facebook postings demanding that Ann Coulter be hurt, a massive riot and a police-ordered cancellation of her speech.

Side: Most Definitely
gcomeau(536) Disputed
1 point

He did send it only to Ann. SHE then blasted it all over the public media so she could cry about it and play the victim because someone politely asked her to be civil and to make sure she was familiar with local laws.

And how the hell does urging someone to show respect constitute an accusation of hate speech?

Side: Wait...., What? No!