Local member of Parliament Brent Rathgeber had an up-close view of a story making national headlines this week as controversial American commentator Ann Coulter was stopped from speaking at the University of Ottawa.
Rathgeber, an ardent advocate of free speech, said it is unfortunate Coulter wasn't allowed to speak because she has a right to do so.
He said he wanted to hear the right-wing author and media pundit speak because he thought it might be interesting.
"I was disappointed that I didn't get to her speak," he said. "I don't subscribe to her politics and I certainly don't subscribe to her over-the-top delivery method."
After protestors swarmed the event, Coulter's organizers decided to cancel it. Rathgeber said he understands their decision since he was inside the hall when the protestors were outside, pushing on the doors.
The university's provost wrote a letter to Coulter prior to her appearance, warning her about Canada's hate speech laws and encouraging her to make sure she didn't step over the line. Rathgeber said that just added fuel to her fire.
"By writing that letter it allowed her to create much more interest in herself and much more publicity than would otherwise have been generated."
The best way to deal with people with ideas like Coulter's is to let them speak and have their ideas put to scrutiny, he said.
"I wish she would have been allowed to speak and I wish some intelligent non-supporters of her would have taken her on at the microphone and exposed her for the pseudo-bigot that she is."
The protestors had every right to be there, but by cancelling her speech they helped her more than hurt her, Rathgeber added.
"She has been turned into a pseudo-martyr because her constitutionally enshrined right to freedom of speech was arguably infringed."
Human rights act
Rathgeber said the incident has put the issue of free speech at the forefront and he hopes it will create some momentum to re-examine section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which deals with electronic transmission of hate speech.
He said he doesn't believe that section is working and it needs a close review.
"When the government defines free speech, when the government tells you what is and what is not acceptable speech, that is antithetical to true free speech."
