>>You missed my point, Peter, you  rabble-rouser you!; mthe  operative
phrase in my comment is "as a keynoter."  I think we should have  such
speakers in; but I question if they should be our "keynote"
speakers......that's all.>>

Thanks Dan.  No intention to rouse rabble on my part, which I assume
applies to the other commentators' motives too.  I did not appreciate such
a distinction in the invitation (although some others did also mention it)
because I thought the AG would be pretty much effectively a keynote in
whatever manner he was scheduled (see Ken Schneyer's point).  C'mon, he's
not going to be doing a paper on the latest case from the 5th Circuit on
the ADA, as fifth speaker on Saturday afternoon.

I suppose I would still question whether the views or actions of such a
high office holder are good enough for the country, but not for our diverse
little group (and then if he's good enough, we say "yes" to a panel or
session paper, but "definitely not" to after a meal).  I don't know enough
about Ashcroft in particular, so I'll stop there, but I don't think he will
be analyzing these distinctions.

Also, have we put all our keynoters through the same scrutiny?  Does anyone
know what Kim Campbell stood for and the actions/mistakes she made?  She
got the invitation because she was a former Prime Minister and we all
thought that was neat.  I hope opposition to Ashcroft is not mere
suppression of opinions that some people don't share in the Academy,
dressed up as something more noble.

Cheers,
Peter Bowal
University of Calgary