As the person who made the arrangements for former ambassador Heinbecker
to talk at our annual conference, I feel I should add some comments.

1. We are hoping that the comments will be available to members, should
they want to read them. That has yet to be finalised.

2.   I was asked to help find a speaker, relatively shortly before the
conference (other arrangements had fallen through). I felt a major
responsibility to choose a speaker who was interesting and would discuss
issues of relevance to our membership. I was assured by the conference
organizers that the topic was relevant and appropriate. I agree.

3.   I was perhaps hyper-sensitive about not wanting to upset the
audience. I viewed you as my guests in my country. I believe whole
heartedly in free speech and academic freedom.  I do not, however,
typically (or intentionally) wish to be  discourteous.

4.   Undoubtedly because of 3., I was particularly aware of people's
reactions to the speech. Overwhelmingly, I was assured that whether or
not they agreed with what was said (and I have no doubt there were both
Canadians and Americans present who did not agree with all that was
said), the content was entirely appropriate, and if a speech such as
this cannot be given to an academic community, we should seriously
consider our commitment to the free exchange of ideas.

As someone from outside of the US, talking to many of you at the meeting
reinforced what I had been reading in the press about just how polarised
the electorate is this year. I would remind all of you, however, that,
while the US policies are taking a good deal of heat these days outside
of the country, there are so many things about America that stand as
something of a beacon to the rest of us. One in particular, is your
unfaltering defence of free speech.

Sally