FAY ROWE

I went to see Ann Coulter at the campus of UWO on Monday evening.

I know her visit is old news by now, but it's taken me until now to process what I heard and saw there and what has followed since then at the University of Ottawa.

I've heard some Christians call Ann Coulter over-the-top and abrasive, meaning that as a self-identified Christian she should present her ideas with more Christian love and decorum. I confess that on Monday night, when a young Muslim woman challenged Coulter about something she had written a while back, asking did Coulter want to convert her to Christianity and, also, what mode of transportation should she use since she doesn't have a flying carpet, my heart went out to her.

To the Muslim girl, I mean. Her voice shook at one point, with nervousness or, more likely, anger. Or both, and both understandable.

I watched Coulter's face. It appeared to me her heart went out to her too.

But Coulter's face changed when, after several attempts to reasonably answer the first and supposedly serious question, she was being shouted down by chants of "Answer the question! Answer the question!" Then, instead of pleading, as I would have, for them to let her answer the girl, Coulter said something like, "The question? What transportation? ...  Oh, I don't know...a camel."

I was embarrassed. Embarrassed for her, for the girl, for me.

For me? Silly, I know.

I wanted Ann Coulter to do what I'd do. I was embarrassed when she didn't. I felt it somehow reflected on me.

Now I'm embarrassed that I would have been foolish enough to try to reason with people who came to the event hoping Coulter would give them opportunity to act out. 

Since Monday night I've concluded that Ann Coulter is, herself, the message.

Marshall McLuhan said, "The medium is the message," and although he may not agree with my using his quote in this case, I think Ann Coulter's message is not merely in what she says, it is the fact that she says it and says it in a way that irritates not only the left, but sometimes the right.

She is this lesson:  It's okay to say what you believe, even if people don't like what you believe. It's okay if people get mad at you. It's not okay to be afraid to speak, and it's not okay to give up your right to free speech without a fight. A verbal fight, that is.

She believes in freedom of speech and models it with a vengeance. 

So does Bill Maher, apparently, and, although it doesn't take nearly as much courage to be Bill Maher as it does to be Ann Coulter, I have a new appreciation for him.

Yes, I find his speech hateful and incendiary, and I do talk back to him when I hear him on television, but even though I might like to shout him down in a public venue, I wouldn't. There is no question in my mind that I don't want to live in a country where he would be banned from speaking, or even kept from speaking by a noisy mob. Neither does Ann Coulter, nor, for that matter, Bill Maher.

I am concerned that some Canadian university students would like to live in a country that keeps people from speaking out for what they believe in. I fear they just don't get the concept of true freedom of speech ... that it has to mean freedom-for-all-speech. It's for all, or it's seriously in danger.

Somehow, in Canada, our fear of letting others exercise their rights led us to give up some of our own rights. Canada survived for over a century without a law that inhibits our speech, and I hate to think we have arrived at such a violent place in our history that we need such laws. If we have, we are in trouble, no matter what laws we enact.

McLuhan also said, "Everyone experiences more than he understands, yet it is experience, rather than understanding, that influences behavior."  That may be so, but I can't help but think a little understanding would result in better, more courageous and more liberating behaviour from, and toward, us all.

"Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer" (Psalm 19:13-14).