The Kafkaesque Show Trial of Mark Steyn
“[Inside the windowless courtroom] there’s no link with the outside world except a clock, which is stuck at 8:00. And that’s government bureaucracy for you. You know, in British Columbia, it claims to be able to eradicate hate, but it can’t get someone in to restart the clock.”
– Mark Steyn on the Hugh Hewitt Show, June 5, 2008
Author and columnist Mark Steyn’s week-long trial for “hate speech” began in a British Columbia courtroom on June 2.
As previously reported in Pajamas Media, Steyn was accused of “flagrant Islamaphobia” after his bestselling book America Alone was excerpted in Canada’s oldest newsweekly magazine, Maclean’s, in 2006.
If found guilty by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, Maclean’s could be ordered to stop publishing Steyn’s column, or other articles “likely” to expose Muslims to “hatred or contempt.” In other words, a magazine that’s been published for over a century in an ostensibly free Western nation will now be subject to state sanction and preemptive censorship. Canadian Human Rights Tribunals boast a 100% conviction rate on such “hate speech” cases, and have already handed down lifetime bans against the likes of Rev. Scott Boision. That Christian preacher is now forbidden for life from ever citing Bible verses regarding homosexuality in his sermons, or “in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet.”
So Mark Steyn’s guilty verdict seems a fait accompli. As he predicted in May, his “career in Canada will be formally ended next month.”
Canada’s liberal mainstream media more or less shrugged. A veteran journalism professor condemned the “xenophobic” Steyn in an online forum for professional reporters, accusing Steyn of failing to express his opinions “in food [sic] faith,” then scolding prissily that “everyone must obey the law.”
With professors like that training journalists, it is no wonder that the state-run, taxpayer-funded CBC got the name of Steyn’s book wrong, their local reporters admitted they knew nothing about the case they’d been sent to cover, and rival outlet CTV published an amateurish, glorified book review in lieu of an objective, unbiased news report.
A couple of savvier columnists begged the Human Rights Commissions to come after them, to help boost their book sales.
The trial lasted five days, and Maclean’s own Andrew Coyne live blogged for, well, four and a half.
There will be no more live logging. As I left the courtroom for the lunch break [on Friday June 6], I was taken aside by a sheepish-looking court official, who said that he’d just learned that I had been “broadcasting” from inside the courtroom. So had I? Broadcasting, I said? I didn’t have a microphone, or a camera.
No, he explained: but live logging counts as broadcasting. It’s not the computer that’s the problem. You can type away on it all you want. If you step outside to send it, that’s okay, too. But if you send text from within the courtroom, that’s broadcasting.
Anyway, I gave him my solemn word that I would do no more broadcasting. What with the hearings being almost over and all. It seemed a fitting way to put a cap on the week.
Despite the national media’s general incompetence and indifference, many troubling or just plain bizarre developments during the trial made their way into the public record nevertheless:
- Steyn’s accusers called a deconstructionist Buffy the Vampire Slayer scholar as an expert witness.
- One of his accusers admitted under oath that he’d misrepresented his group’s initial demands to the media on numerous occasions.
- Websites that linked to the “offending” Maclean’s article — including U.S.-based sites like Free Republic and Catholic Answers — were proof of Steyn’s contagious “Islamophobia.” This led another Catholic website to ask: “Catholicism: A Hate Crime in Canada?” (A particular point of pride for this writer was one accuser’s testimony that my blog, FiveFeetOfFury.com, had been a particular source of “heat” he’d “felt” since he’d filed his complaint against Steyn.)
- Unable to refute Steyn’s statistics and facts, or to deny that the portions of the article they found most offensive were in fact chilling quotations made by radical Muslims themselves, Steyn’s accusers condemned his “tone,” use of “sarcasm,” and reliance upon “subtle intellectual arguments.”
Not a few bloggers noted ruefully that the last day of Steyn’s trial coincided with the anniversary of D-Day, and wondered what the Canadian men who’d died on Juno Beach would make of their nation today.
As for the outcome: no one knows when the Tribunal will issue its decision. As Andrew Coyne told National Review:
My hope is that it will go to appeal — in other words, I’m hoping that we lose this at the hearing level and that we appeal it to a proper court of law, as opposed to these quasi-judicial tribunals, and at that proper court of law that we make the constitutional argument that this is an infringement of our charter rights to freedom of the press. I believe that’s what we’ll do if we lose the case.
Steyn agrees. Echoing many of his supporters, he told reporters:
We want to lose so we can take it to a real court and if necessary up to the Supreme Court of Canada and we can get the ancient liberties of free-born Canadian citizens that have been taken away from them by tribunals like this.
We want those ancient civil liberties restored.
Musing on his surreal circumstances, Steyn wrote in what may be one of his last columns for Maclean’s:
By the way, I see I’ve been nominated for a National Magazine Award, to be handed out later this month. By then, Mr. Joseph [the complainants' lawyer] will have succeeded in getting the B.C. troika effectively to ban me from Maclean’s and from all Canadian journalism. An impressive achievement. My book was a No. 1 bestseller in Canada, and the new paperback edition was at No. 4 the other day, and President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Governor Mitt Romney, Senator Joe Lieberman, Senator Jon Kyl, and (at last count) six European prime ministers have either recommended the book or called me in to discuss its themes.
But in Canada it’s a hate crime.
The ultimate irony here is that the pathetic complaint by the Canadian Islamic Congress, coupled with a worryingly accomodating HR tribunal, is infinitely more likely to expose muslims to hatred or contempt in Canada than anything Mark Steyn or Macleans could ever write.
The liberal mainstream reaction to the case is nauseatingly short-sighted as they have clearly taken the view that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” – they will be happy to see Mark Steyn and Macleans punished and their cries of outrage will only kick in when one of their own is silenced in the same manner.
The whole thing was a farce from start to finish and the only loser in all this will be Canadas reputation to the outside world.
On the bright side, at least from a Yank’s perspective, I expect America to soon receive a heavy influx of finest minds Canada has to offer. That is, if those of us down here can maintain our traditions of liberty.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Dr. Hirji testifies against Joss Whedon one day, as ‘Buffy’ promotes negative stereotypes against Wiccan.
Steyn is a brilliant man. The Canadian Human Rights Panel is comprised of a group of Nazis passing as humans. They have all been greased by the Canadian Muslim Associations and will find Steyn guilty. Eventually people will be leaving Canada in droves. The Canadians that choose to stay or can’t afford to leave Canadistan will all be wearing burkas including the so called Canadian Men !
American Christian Infidel
Typewriter King:
Can you get me a Green Card? Or three. Make that four.
I’m not really kidding…
A group of rag-tag militiamen gathered on Lexington common facing a line of British regulars. The year was 1775. A British officer stepped forward and ordered the rabble to disperse. Someone yelled back, “get the hell off our land.” Somebody else pulled the trigger on his musket and ignited a revolution based on a belief in liberty. We don’t know their names, but these patriots were priveleged to stand on the fulcrum of history.
Today in Canada a handful of patriots stand also on the fulcrum. Liberty is under assault yet again. As before the answer must be defiance. The face of tyranny arrives as a mild-mannered clerk. Orwell warned us this would be the case. Yet the stakes are the same as they were at Lexington. Mark Steyn, Kathy Shaidle and a handful of others have the privlege of standing athwart the bridge facing tyranny.
So fight, damn you! Think not of exile. There is nothing so dear as liberty. I shall contribute with a hundred U.S. dollars. But you are the ones who must take the fight to the enemy. And you must be victorious. History warns us that acommodation to tyranny always leads to more bloodshed in the end. Stand tall and proud. And fight!
You’re right, Paules. Thanks!
Alas, it becomes wearisome to keep fighting sometimes, in the face of indifference from one’s own countrymen…
So, they condemned his reliance upon “subtle intellectual arguments”. I was hoping to visit Canada to do some fishing. I’ll be sure to leave my subtle arguments at home, lest I offend someone. Dont have any intellectual ones in my tackle box…not sure why that is.
Kathy, three or four green cards…? Come on down, we quit requiring those years ago, you want to borrow my SSN?
Typewriter King: Listen, if you can get Shaidle a green card I will personally pay all costs, including the bus, train or airplane ticket to help her on her way.
Most of us who follow the blogs are already well aware of this Orwellian absurdity.
What we need to hear more about is how the Canadian general public is reacting to this and what tangible efforts are being taken to protect the rights of Canadian citizens.
“Canadian Human Rights Tribunals boast a 100% conviction rate on such “hate speech” cases (…)”
On the road to fascism: ‘boast’ says it all; these are totalitarian figures!
Johnny Maudlin, how’s the Oxy-Contin supply these days? Maudlin is the pathetic & “Organ Grinders’ Monkey” to this illiberal liberal, http://lyingjackal.com who supports the heinous Section 13 (1) censorship provision in Canada as well as it’s provincial variants. Steyn is awaiting word on whether his second pending show trial will be referred to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal under Section 13 (1), note this is a different trial from the Kangaroo Kourt proceedings in B.C.
“subtle intellectual arguments?” Wow! Mark Steyn should put that on his book jackets.
Gotta go read AMERICA ALONE.
On the plus side, the self-righteous leftists who routinely compare “superior” Canada to America can now be laughed out of the room.
“subtle intellectual arguments”
Sounds like a great name for a band.
re: “subtle intellectual arguments”
It’s the old, “Don’t get smart with me!” argument. What am I supposed to be, stupid?
Maybe Mark Steyn can explain Canada to me. I’ve been there and just didn’t notice the difference between them and us. Toronto is different and maybe what we are seeing is a sign of the three Canadas, Quebec, Toronto and Alberta. Anyway, I’d be interested in an analysis by someone who knows more about this than I do.
Kathy Shaidle: You wrote “Alas, it becomes wearisome to keep fighting sometimes, in the face of indifference from one’s own countrymen…” But in the American Revolution, especially in its beginning, the vast majority were indifferent. It always starts that way. Take heart!
Blazingcatfur, don’t be a jerk with the Oxycontin jokes. Just agree or disagree. You might try a subtle intellectual argument or two.
Where is the outrage in Canada?
It appears Canada is a world leader in the implementation of extreme liberal politics. Freedom of speech is only free when the speech is politically correct. Those who hold views that cannot stand the test of open debate, abuse the system to silence the majority. The majority includes those on the right and the left. Those who recognize that the imposition of silence on one segment of society affects all segments of society.
Western life is so comfortable, dangers seem so remote, the majority let it pass with almost no recognition.
Encroachments on western freedoms and way of life will continue and become progressivly worse. A stand must be taken. Freedom is not free. Freedom must be earned.
Doug Santo
Pasadena, CA
A couple of points to remember about Canada.
English Canada was founded largely by Loyalists, ex-Americans who left the new U.S. after the revolution. These were people who wanted to remain a subject of the King. They were joined in the first half of the 1800s by Scots and others from Britain who settled what is now southern Ontario (at the time Upper Canada) and Quebec’s Eastern Townships.
At no point did Canadian society rebel against a monarchy. (Quebec’s the same, by the way. They were abandoned by the French throne and given to the English, swapped for sugar-rich islands in the West Indies which were more valuable than ‘a few acres of snow,’ as someone put it.)
Second, a large part of Canadian self-identity is built around being “not-American.” Many Canadians look at their country and feel glad they are not part of the greedy, success-driven U.S. Basically, every Left lie about U.S. society is taken pretty much at face value by Canadians eager to feel different from, and superior to, Americans.
The parallels aren’t exact, but the Canadian “right wing” has views close to Joe Lieberman’s.
Canada is most accurately described as a one-party state dominated by the liberal fascism Jonah Goldberg’s book documents.
That effort would be lost on Johnny, Idiot, he initiated an ad hominem I responded. And where in the Bible is it written that you are the Lord of Comments section?
As a resident of the US I don’t know the intracies of Canadian law as it relates to these tribunals. However, the thought occured to me that has me pondering solutions to this quagmire.
Query: What if everyone just disregarded the history and findings of these commissions?
What if thousands of people uttered, by voice or print, the sentiments sure to spark complaints? On a whole range of issues?
In other words, what if the tribunals were overwhelmed with complaints?
Would this form of civil disobedience sack the tribunals under the weight of their own rules, i.e., administrative intake and processing, investigations, assignment of counsels to complainants, selecting hearing officers, scheduling hearings, etc?
Both Gahndi and Rev. Martin Luther King both calculated that the sheer numbers of protesters would swamp the authorities and render attempts to stifle their actions null.
Would that work north of the border?
Somehow I think the bureaucratic mentality will prevail in the Commission’s decision. They don’t want the Court system to revoke their power at all costs, but they don’t to lose their 100% convection record.
They will find MacLeans and Steyn guilty, but not apply any penalty or future strictures. They will announce they will keep an eye on future articles and reserve the option to prosecute if there are future transgressions.
In the US a guilty finding is appealable no matter what. I don’t know Canadian law, but I do know bureaucracies. Time to stop this nonsense.
Anyone else seen the DS9 episode 2×25, “Tribunal”? The Cardassian legal system seems apropos here.
The accused is found guilty before the trial. The defense gets a Nestor whose job is to explain the proceedings to the accused. But the Nestor normally can’t address the court. For that, the court also assigns a Conservator to the case whose job is to clarify the prosecution’s case and to enable the accused to explain why he did what he did (guilt being presumed). All of this is televised as an example, “for the children”.
During Soviet show tribunals the same anti-intellectual arguements were used as evidence to send people to the gulag or worse. They said they were confusing the proliteriat. So basically what this tribunal is saying is that the Canadian people are not smart enough to read an opinionated article and think for themselves. Using the same arguement, one could justify taking away peoples voting rights for lack of enlightenment, i.e. if you don’t agree with some PC agenda. In fact, I think only those people who have been properly veted to have “appropriate” opinions should be allowed to vote.
It was primarily Canadian politics, economics secondarily, that prompted me to leave Canada for the US back in the 80′s. I love Canada; its people are generally thoughtful and level-headed. I am grateful for the classically liberal education I got in the 60′s and early 70′s, when such an education was still available. In the era when I was growing up there was a general feeling of optimism and inclusiveness, especially around the centennial. Things started to go sour after 1968, especially in Quebec.
Today, Canada is not the place I remember. It still has a big inferiority complex (everyone resents America, even though it owes most of its prosperity to the elephant next door). Canada chose to adopt the Euro model of multiculturalism, if only to differentiate itself from the US. The results of that choice are now becoming clear and I fear for Canada’s future as a liberal democracy.
We’ll trade you ten AWOLs for every Steyn.
Oh wait, we already have.
~Paules:
Going up before on these trumped up claims -claims almost everyone, including supporters, agrees have little chance of succeeding and where the magazine may face a fine and, highly unlikely, be required to publish an article – is no different than the fight for liberty in the American Revolution??????
Even if the two fights were on the same planet – which they are not – and the consequences even remotely similar – death vs a fine – and even if these HRCs are a joke – which they are – let’s not forget that Steyn and Shaidle and co. are ones who lament the end of apartheid and segregation, wish to censor academics and Bush critics, censor erotica, want to lock up prisoners without due process, sue the bejeezus out of anyone who crosses them, etc.. Steyn in particular is a great whiner when it comes to criticism of him and is well known to get his editors to edit or censor articles critical of him.
In other words, these people are no friend to individual rights and liberties, including free speech. They only want to ride the coattails of individual rights out of convenience to them.
As is their right. As they should have that right. And we should certainly be outraged if the tribunals find against them.
But let’s not make them out to be heros sacrificing for the greater good. They are not trying to throw off an oppressive government. Their defence of liberties (free speech) are more like a criminal lawyer trying to ride the coattails of individual rights (search and seizure, due process, undue punishment, etc.) to avoid punishment.
Be prepared for more “outrages” and hurt feelings by Muslims. Soon, anything we do that they don’t like, any words that that offend them, and even thoughts or beliefs (if spoken)that cause them any real or imagined grief will be not only forbidden but subject to prosecution. It is, of course, a one-way street. Muslims can and do offend us by their actions and words, but that’s OK, because its a cultural thing and they are a disadvantaged minority that deserves respect (according to official policy). The words and actions of their dear prophet cannot be criticized. The fact that Mohammad raided (26 times), plundered, killed, enslaved, tortured, raped and even beat his own wife means nothing to them and to the PC police (these are written in the Hadith – Islam traditions, recorded by Mohammad’s friends and followers). If you were to bring these things up, it would be considered “hate speech” because these facts subject Muslims to embarassment and discomfort — and we don’t want them to think about or have to explain these things, do we?
Islam is a religion of hate and violence. Muslims are either in denial, ignorant or dishonest. One cannot have a dialogue about Islam without hearing an endless collection of lies and half-truths.
http://www.kactuzkid.com/lies.html
It will get more. Our leaders, the media, academia and government are either cowards, stupid beyond belief or dishonest — or all three. They have no common sense, shame or honor.
Bad times are coming. George Orwell pretty much got it right.
Radical Muslims kill, moderates make excuses and blame others.
Sincerely,
Old man Kactuz.
PS: If M. Steyn were to hold up a sign saying that “Infidel Canadians are lower than animals in the sight of Allah” (a verse from the Quran) Would that be hate speech? Against whom? Would it offend Muslims? How can the words of Allah offend Muslims? Just asking….
Kathy – Thanks. That’s the best short summary of this whole mess that I’ve read. When reading Andrew Coyne’s live-blogging I almost expected him to notice Rod Serling off to the side talking to an off-scene camera, “Submitted for your approval, an attempt by a State to eliminate ‘hate’, but therein lies the nub, in this show trial in the….” (although I sure don’t see Burgess Meredith playing Mark!). OH, Canada!?
Actually KactuzKid if Steyn were to hold up such a sign as you describe he would likely be eligible for grant money from Heritage Canada for fostering multi-cultural diversity initiatives.
Soviet Canuckistan. Pat Buchanon was right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Soviet_Canuckistan.svg
Ugh, what a farce. Is there no ground-swell from the Canadian populace over such a disastrous turn of events? If not, they deserve everything that comes their way from such tribunals.
I applaud the Colombia Human Rights Tribunal for prosecuting criminals such as Steyn, MacClean’s, Catholics, Christians, pro-American types, ETC., ETC. To speak as they do against gays and Islamics threatens the very fabric of Canadian society. And to do do it in the way that Steyn does in particular – with a mocking tone with subtleties of speech – is simply insufferable in a free society like ours. Who the hell does he think he is?
I also applaud the silent, passive approval of the vast majority of the Canadian press and masses. May all Canadians learn a lesson from this, something all decent Canadians learned from our mothers – unless you have something nice to say about someone, don’t say anything at all. Only then can we preserve our true Canadianess.
“If” Mark Steyn is found guilty, that would be the GOOD NEWS.
Why? Because, believe it or not, he’d APPEAL. And, then this would be kicked UP a notch.
If the clowns on this court are aware of the pain they’d get from finding him guilty, then the BAD NEWS would be that they’d cave. And, Mark would be “allowed” to continue to have his words published in Canada. And, then this crazy tribunal would drape itself in flags.
“let’s not forget that Steyn and Shaidle and co. are ones who lament the end of apartheid and segregation, wish to censor academics and Bush critics, censor erotica, want to lock up prisoners without due process, sue the bejeezus out of anyone who crosses them, etc.. Steyn in particular is a great whiner when it comes to criticism of him and is well known to get his editors to edit or censor articles critical of him.” — Paul.
OK, I’ve forgotten. Please cite some examples to support your claims vis a vis Steyn. (Shaidle’s not on trial here, and she’s not an internationally known commentator.)
Please be specific, giving us URLs and their topics so we can read the articles, or pub dates, etc.
Free clue: strings of assertions, especially those attacking a person, are not even remotely intellectual argument in the world of rational adults.
Second free clue: even if everything you say about Steyn were true, attempting to silence him for his views is completely antithetical to Canadian values, as enshrined in your own constitution. At bottom, YOU wish to censor Steyn. YOU wish to deny him his rights!
Indifference by Canadian citizens to loss of liberty is a sign of cultural decadence. Liberty bestowed as a birthright leads to a complacent populace and then inevitably to tyranny. No people will ever have a vested interest in liberty unless forced to fight for it. Did Thomas Jefferson not proclaim that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”? The war to protect liberty is ongoing and will ever be so.
Gibbon informs us that in the 5th Century, when the Vandals approached Rome, “the able youth of the city refused to man the walls.” Rome was sacked and the survivors sold into slavery. Is one lesson not enough? Apparently not. We must learn the lesson over and over at terrible cost. This time is no different, but we know the template. First they will come for the soapbox, next the ballot box, and finally the cartridge box. Defend the first so that we do not have to rely on the last.
Socialism is a seductive lie. It’s an evil bargain that trades personal liberty for guaranteed security. But the government powerful enough to give you all you want is also strong enough to take it all away. A person can enjoy only as much liberty as he is willing to defend. To surrender personal liberty is to renege on the duties of citizenship. Those who do will eventually reap a bitter harvest.
Every lover of freedom has a stake in this fight. Everyone one of us. Mark and Kathy stand now as champions for liberty. They need our support. I am sure they appreciate the words of encouragement. But if you truly believe in liberty, it’s time to open your wallet and contribute what you can. Kathy has a legal defense fund on her blog. Do it now. Do it for liberty and take a stand.
Every day my leftie friends say “it will never happen here”. Whenever I bring up the evils of socialism, they say “oh that won’t happen”, or “it was implemented wrong in that country”
Here right next door freedom of speech is being stripped away. Even Jefferson in his autobiography argued freedom of the press is the most important freedom, because from it flows all the others, from it flows our ability to determine truth from fiction.
I sincerely hope he gets into the real court system of Canada, and this ridiculous travesty and bullying is struck down. How can any “civilized, western” country do this?
> If not, they deserve everything that comes
> their way from such tribunals.
Read (or re-read) Ted’s comment. No problem here. A bit of outrage. Sign a petition. Perhaps for the really concerned, a bumper sticker next to the one stating Free Tibet. Finish off that latte.
Saint Patton:
It’s barely reported in some of the print media, but tellingly hardly mentioned in the veiwing media, where most people get their news. And, if it is played on the big screen, it’s poorly done. Face it, our news is already censored up here on PC grounds. Even the federal Conservative Party won’t touch this with a ten foot pole. Says a lot on what their priorities are, they won’t even use this issue to crush the opposition, so as a voter I have no one to vote for.
I might point out that I would vote for a republican alternative, if it was offered to me. I will work towards one in the meantime, as my province Alberta is supposed to be “conservative” but hosts it’s own insidious AHRC, which the current premier is either afraid of, or supports it’s good work at silencing opposition to government.
By the way, our premier is looking to enact election gag laws so I’ve given up supporting that bastion of “conservative” thought.
Anna Keppa I believe your comment should have been addresed to Ted rather than Paules.
Ted wrote.
“Even if the two fights were on the same planet – which they are not – and the consequences even remotely similar – death vs a fine – and even if these HRCs are a joke – which they are – let’s not forget that Steyn and Shaidle and co. are ones who lament the end of apartheid and segregation, wish to censor academics and Bush critics, censor erotica, want to lock up prisoners without due process, sue the bejeezus out of anyone who crosses them, etc.. Steyn in particular is a great whiner when it comes to criticism of him and is well known to get his editors to edit or censor articles critical of him.”
Ted is unable to even lie well. Not a single falshood he has written above can be substantiated, not a one is factually correct.
Ok, would someone explain why no one hasn’t done some translation on what the Mohammedians regularly spout about Israel and Jews in general, and taken them to the same tribunals ? One would think that with all of the anti-Israel rhetoric that they spwe out, it would be easy enough to take them to task.
MAybe someone should put the Koran on trial with the CHRC for all the “Hate speech” agianst jews and other “infidels”.
As far as I am concerned, section 13 of the Human Rights code, which is used to persecute Mark, Ezra, et al., – those in favour of it have
arrived at the condescending conclusion that they have to think for people who are capable of thinking, and who arrive at different conclusions than they.
It’s their blind spot, and frankly they hold it against the people who point out that blind spot.
Welcome to the Canangaroo Court, where your fate is predetermined and due process is a charade.
The whole of Canada befouls itself with this broad farce, but what I await with bated breath, is the springback impact of this Canadian Club Cocktail of one part arrogance, two parts each hypocrisy and cowardice.
Please purchase for me, in advance, front row seats for the “administrative hearings” held in Alabama, Louisiana and Missouri by those tribunals set up to defend the rights of southern Christian gentleman who feel they have been slandered by Canadian leftist and Islamfascist scribes who dare to publish materials that offend Christians in states which have set up these “courts” modeled entirely on the Canangaroo Court.
I want to be amused at the lack of due process, the inevitable 100% conviction rate, the judge, jury and executioner who set the penalties and brook no outside influence. The ACLU? Please…their input is of little or no consequence. Newspaper editorials? TV anchors? Talk show hosts? We already KNOW what your “true” feelings are…they were witnessed by your deafening silence during the Steyn trial.
Don’t waste your crocodile tears on us in Missouri, your eyes were dry for Steyn. I want a front row seat, when Canadian leftist publication after publication, Islamofascist article after article…is banned from sale here and judged to be in violation of some “human rights” against Christianity in general and certain Christians in particular.
The Deadwood media in America has shown its true colors. Cowards and hypocrties on the left have that bright yellow stripe that is so easily identifiable. Principles of convenience yet again. Canada ought to be riddled with shame, but sometimes…just sometimes…you reap what you sow. Wouldn’t that be a lesson for us all.
Amazing in itself that such tribunals are allowed to exist in a western country. That the accused are hoping to lose, convinced a “real” court of law will absolve them of their hateful transgressions.
It’s as if the so-called “real” courts aren’t fully aware, and supportive, of the Islamization of Canada. Then peer down their noses at the very characterization, superior in their judicial immunity.
Awaken, Canada, they’re picking you clean.
Um… has anyone checked to see if his tribunal is in room 101?
Roger, Muslims are considered a “victim group” by the marxists who run our HRC’s, that evidently cuts them enormous slack. let me introduce you to “The Miracle” http://www.miraclenews.com/aboutmiracle.htm
I am quoting an acquaintence – Shaygaetz
“Where was the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal when “The Miracle” a Canadian “Muslim” newspaper repeatedly wrote articles denying the holocaust while also accusing Jews of pedophilia, fabricating the Holocaust, committing the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and instigating both world wars.
The B.C. criminal justice branch conceded the article qualified as “hate literature”, but was unable to prove that the publisher had “an intention” to incite hatred.”
“… [W]ould someone explain why no one has done some translation on what the Mohammedians regularly spout…”
Because in Canada, you could be prosecuted for it. I believe one charge against Steyn is that published inconvenient quotes by a Norwegian imam.
“Think not of exile. There is nothing so dear as liberty.”
~Paules is right. Ordinarily I wouldn’t dream of suggesting how someone else should behave in his own country. But if y’all want to fight, this Texan is in. Lord knows you Canadians have helped us out often enough.
Here’s an example of the Marxist mindset prevalent among Canadian Human Rights Commissions, this is taken directly from the Ontario Human Rights Commission web site – here: http://tinyurl.com/4serta
“The denial of racism used by so many whites in positions of authority ranging from the supervisor in a work place to the chief of Police and ministers of government must be understood for what it is: an example of White hegemonic power over those considered ‘other’.”
Jay Lewis,
I am proud to stand next to a fellow patriot in this fight. No one I would rather have on my side than a Texan.
And to those who disagree with me, I can only offer the words of Sam Adams: “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
Anna said “Second free clue: even if everything you say about Steyn were true, attempting to silence him for his views is completely antithetical to Canadian values, as enshrined in your own constitution. At bottom, YOU wish to censor Steyn. YOU wish to deny him his rights!”
Obviously, Anna, you have difficulty reading English. How do the words “trumped up claims”, “little chance of succeeding”, “As is their right. As they should have that right. And we should certainly be outraged if the tribunals find against them.” and then conclude I support censorship?
Bizarre.
I don’t take issue with the laudable assertion and defence of rights. I take issue with Paul’s making these nefarious anti-rights people out to be some sort of heroes.
Especially when MARK STEYN IS NOT EVEN ON TRIAL HERE. That’s a semantic difference, I agree, with respect to the very important right to free speech; but it is an important fact as these non-friends of individual rights flail around calling themselves martyrs and heroes.
BlazingCatFool said: “Ted is unable to even lie well. Not a single falshood he has written above can be substantiated, not a one is factually correct.”
So odd to have someone like you refer to facts. I’m surprised you even know the word. We use facts a lot in the reality-based world. Come join us sometime. There’s lots of room: but it is getting crowded as more and more conservatives sign up after the haze of the Bush years.
As for proof: google it, it is not too hard. But to save you a bit of time:
Shaidle on apartheid: http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2008-06-01-0000/ and http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2007-12-20-0010/
Shaidle on segregation: http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2008-04-16-0005/ and this beauty – http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2008-04-16-0003/ – where she says that all rights are not equal.
Some more on Shaidle: http://www.warrenkinsella.com/index.php?entry=entry080310-230224 (ignore the source of the links – and obvious Shaidle detractor – and click on the links themselves for Shady in her own ugly words)
Maybe it is unfair to lump Steyn and others like Ezra Levant in with Shaidle. But they do like to flail around together. But there are tons of articles by Steyn on how detainees should be denied due process and other rights even though they have not even been charged.
Besides, Steyn, when he’s not telling us paraplegics got what they deserved on 9/11 (http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2007/04/24/MarkSteyn/) has his own dictionary of name calling: Calls the Chinese “chinks” and “gooks,” the Japanese “japs;” calls Indians “wogs;” calls natives “Injuns;” calls Muslims “monkeys” and rapists, and so on. (http://tinyurl.com/4a6tob) That’s when he’s not too busy getting his editors to censor writers in the same magazine or newspaper as he did at the National Post (http://tinyurl.com/4mrjsg).
Ezra Levant, another one of this crowd of martyr wannabes and the one who recently distributed popular buttons at the Conservative Party convention saying the Charter of Rights was “stupid”, publishes death threats against his opponents (http://tinyurl.com/5xk6vm) and calls for muslim extremists to be prosecuted for hate speech (http://tinyurl.com/4zhn3j and http://www.ottawamenscentre.com/news/20041025_preacher.htm) when he’s not suing to silence his critics (http://tinyurl.com/42tk5o).
OK, that’s just a short starter for you. I could go on (and on and on and on and on).
And just to be clear here because clearly there are readers like Anna for whom English is an experiment not a language: the Human “Rights” Commissions are wrong to entertain these charges and the “complainants” are very wrong to have brought the complaints. In fact, I’ve seen them interviewed and they are idiots.
But these self-described free-speech martyrs are no heroes and they are no friend to individual rights and are more interested in selling books, driving up website “hits” and getting their next job and bashing muslims every chance they can, then they actually care about individual rights.
And finally (with apologies for taking up so much space), a comment about the “media” that these clowns like to avoid telling you.
Whatever you may think about the media or about civil rights groups, pretty much every single newspaper has carried at least one if not several editorials condemning, in no uncertain terms, the Human Rights Tribunals, including the most left-leaning of them all the Toronto Star. Several different civil rights groups have applied for and gotten intervenor status on these tribunals.
You’ll have to go elsewhere for evidence of The Vast Leftwing Media Conspiracy, because the media is pretty much unanimous and vocal on this.
“Eventually people will be leaving Canada in droves.”
Too bad, we are quite full. We are still waiting for our luminaries to skip town as they have threatened since Bush was elected. If they have kept their words, then we can definitely open up our northern borders to admit some Canucks. On the other hand, there is no point to move south, after the next election, we’ll adopt the progressive Euro policies, then we’ll all be in the same sinking boat. On the third hand, if McCain won, we may have some openings left by our hollywood has-beens. Keep your fingers crossed.
So. Any guns left in Canada? Are they clean, in good working order?
Let me know where I can contribute to re-arm Canadian patriots. And if it gets too hot up there then I will come up and help. You’re only a two day drive from Texas. And if they’re old enough, I’ll bring my sons as well.
yours/
peter.
Ted, you have one hell of a distorted mindset, anyone citing the http://lyingjackal.com is suspect, as are your reading comprehension skills.
Ted,
Rather then get distracted with ad hominum semantics, why don’t you supply us with proper references to your statements regarding Steyn’s lamenting the end of apartheid or any of your other allegations. Seeing that you are so rightly interested in the comprehention of what one reads, you might have noticed that this request for proper references was the primary purpose of Anna’s post.
Ah, Blazingcatfool. Same reading problem as Anna?
When you read “ignore the source of the links – an obvious Shaidle detractor – and click on the links themselves for Shady in her own ugly words” how do your brain process that as “citing” Kinsella. He obviously doesn’t like her, but he’s collected a fine bunch of links directly to Shaidle’s own writing as well as to Steyn’s.
How typical of someone like you to attack the messenger rather than the message though. Thanks for not surprising anyone.
Ted thank you for letting us know that Bill Cosby said: “For all the woes of segregation, there were some good things to come out of it.”
That man is horrible racist shame shame shame shame!
http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2008-04-16-0005/
P. Ami: That round thing on your mouse is called the “scroll button”. You use it to “scroll” up and down a page. For example, you could scroll up to my 11:17 comment where I gave 11 references, some of which were to websites that including multiple additional references. I’m not going to write a book here but I have done a lot of the work.
Look, folks, just because people like Shaidle and Steyn and Levant are self-serving, blowhard, hypocrits and bigots, does not mean we shouldn’t support their right to be self-serving, blowhard, hypocrits and bigots and to publish their self-serving, blowhard, hypocrisy and bigotry.
But it doesn’t mean we have to think they are great defenders of rights. They aren’t. They pick and choose which rights to support and when to support them just like every idiot partisan on the left.
Ted learn to read.
“Maybe Mark Steyn can explain Canada to me. I’ve been there and just didn’t notice the difference between them and us.”
Censorship is as much about what you see as what you don’t.
I didn’t call Cosby a racist, BCF. You really should work on that reading comprehension problem. Read over what I wrote, a little more slowly this time. Maybe ask mom or dad to help. I didn’t call Shaidle a “racist” anywhere.
I said she is not a great defender of rights and cited four specific posts she made about apartheid and segregation where she highlights the good of regimes that oppressed the rights of blacks. That’s like saying “Yeah but at least Mussolini got the trains to run on time” or “Yeah but Hitler was a good manager of the economy and eliminated unemployment”.
Ted again – “http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2008-04-16-0003/ – where she says that all rights are not equal.”
The US has property rights, they were not enshrined in Canada’s Charter of Rights & Freedoms – a mistake that has resulted in the erosion of all rights in our country. So an argument for “property rights” makes Shaidle a bigot in your considered opinion huh.
My but you have delicate feelings. Oh and how is that remedial reading class comin?.
Ah but Ted I never wrote that you called either Cosby or Shaidle a racist, so please do look into that remedial reading class again.
Good night Ted.
In a kangaroo court in BC/
Poor Steyn’s in the dock, dear me/
For writing rude things/
In a mag called Maclean’s/
Oh! Canada – We weep for thee!
A commitment to free speech implies that spoken and written words need not be burdened with modifying adjectives……..intelligent, reasoned, inoffensive, agreeable, truthful, proper, measured, politically-correct. It shall be limited only to the extent that it not create physical harm i.e. shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.
Is it hyperbole to suggest that “Canada is providing the rope to its own hangman”?
Canadians, stay in your country and man your posts! We don’t want an Islamic nation on our borders. If you won’t fight the soft jihad terrorists in your land, you will have to fight them in this one eventually. Man up. Fight on.
BCF: You really can’t read can you. Shaidle’s post has nothing to do with Canada or the Canadian constitution. She is saying property rights are more important than equal treatment under the law, that a property owner’s right to ban blacks from coming into the store (i.e. segregation) is A-OK with her and is a more important than equality rights.
As she writes: “not all rights are created equal”.
Words, BCF, they aren’t just a random collection of letters jammed together. They actually have meanings. If you aren’t sure, you could try a thing we in the reality-based word call a “dictionary”.
And, again, you are focused on the issue of Shady being a bigot. We all know she is but that is totally besides the point being made here. If that is still not getting through, maybe take a break, have some more milk and cookies, and go find another commenter to make stuff up about.
Ted I have read through you URL and found them to both be lacking but your views on some of them borderline nazi/commie in understanding them.
http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2008-06-01-0000/ So let me get this straight your angry that a person is pointing out that being oppressed is bad but being oppressed much worse is worse… I guess this comes down to a leftist idea its better to be oppressed by someone like stalin then that evil US government…
http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2007-12-20-0010/ First context, Second facts?, Third anyone who knows anything is that the reason blacks went nuts down there wasn’t because they were black but because they were leftist and without government control this is what happens to leftist… they run amock. Thus comparing NO and africa which is very leftist is fairly reasonable… once again though context.
http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2008-04-16-0005/ First context, Second facts?, Third even without much knowledge on the topic clearly this shows a pro-capitalists “sliver lining” view point… clearly this must be evil to anyone anti-capitalist… Also shows anti-government control and free thought… things that most surely be controlled and banned from blacks every having/using.
http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2008-04-16-0003/ This one here pretty much sums up that you are either a nazi/commie or wanna be of that view. Private property is pretty much the most important right ever… it is the basis for the 1st,2nd,4th Amendments and many other laws in the US. If you don’t have the right to private property you have no right to own anything… even yourself. You have no right to self defense or free speech. Clearly your understanding of basic human rights and the law are lacking.
http://www.warrenkinsella.com/index.php?entry=entry080310-230224 Context?, Facts?, Many of them are anti-PC and are truths if your not PC.
http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2007/04/24/MarkSteyn/ Context?, This is a leftist whine for the most part… nothing quoted matches the “PC view”… its also very anti-leftist which explains the whining and huge attempt to put words and views into the story not said/quoted(because they weren’t said thus can’t be quoted). The title is very miss leading since it says “Massacres prompt pundit to slag old folks, paraplegics and dead students.” Expect the fact that the direct quote when read says the “old folks” were the heros….
Mid title Senior citizens as ‘trivialities’. Context, Quoted info in no way applies to views express by “reviewer”, Some truths,
Next “People in wheelchairs” Pro-safety work place comments turned to be anti-disable comments… Clearly we should have ppl in wheel chair fighting in the armed forces…
Last “‘Bravery’ of hijackers”, Context, Semi-truth, Unreported quotes, equal quote calling hitler a genius for sucking all of germany and most of the world into believing that socialism is the greatest thing alive and that he was the greatest thing alive… that does take genius….
http://tinyurl.com/4a6tob Context, Semi-truths, Some toolish quote if true, Lot of “reviewing”/”rewriting”.
http://tinyurl.com/4mrjsg Facts, Boring, long, zero quotes or links to supposed “offense”. Zero facts, WTF does this have to do with anything… if your posting to point out a statement said that in this is claim to be racist/said at all post directly to the comments not a “review” which has zero facts on it… waste of time.
http://tinyurl.com/5xk6vm Some random guy, was taken down, happens all the time to everyone(huffignton post does this stuff and leaves it up as well as many many other groups). Unless you can find some proof that this wasn’t just one person or that that is the view of the website its pretty weak…
http://tinyurl.com/4zhn3j Very weak… the quote directly links the “muslims” in question with the actions of the mafia IE they are directly committing a crime. Over blown and stupid.
http://www.ottawamenscentre.com/news/20041025_preacher.htm Exposes racism against white, exposes PC, Claims crimes have been committed under the law and should be charged. Doesn’t have anything that support your view unless in a very very narrow focus of a PC viewer. Also has same quote as above… in which it is directly referring to the fact that a “real” crime is being committed not just speech.
http://tinyurl.com/42tk5o Zero context, Zero facts, Zero quotes that have any purpose to what “reviewer” says they say, anyone can sue anyone in a court of law… the court should find in favor of both free speech and facts… “reviewer” seems to think that anyone should be unchallenged in what they say. The “reviewer”/text really has no value in this debate.
If this is the best you can do… linking to mostly second hand info and clearly bias “reviewers” as well as info thats completely unrelated to your view point or goal of expressing said value point then your big on fail. I took the time to review your info and I from past info have been under the view that mr. stern tended to be a bit of a right wing nut…. the info provided by you seems to counter that and make him look much more rational and centrist… that or your just really poor with rebuttals.
Muslims are complaining all over the place (Great Britain, Canada, European continent, Australia, the US) of written publications (and spoken speech) being “unfair” to their sensibilities. Not to mention movies, drawings, cartoons, plays…
It’s part of the strategy of CAIR and related Islamic organizations to use a country’s own legal (or quasi legal) systems to shut down any whiff of a criticism of Islam, real OR imagined, it doesn’t matter. (Mark Steyn was quoting Mullah Krekar himself, the Osama loving Iraqi mullah who has been living in Norway, relative to his statement that Muslims in Europe are “breeding like mosquitoes” and, by implication, will soon be predominating on the basis of sheer numbers alone.)
Also, it’s always a good idea to trace down where the funding comes from in these sundry actions against freedom of expression.
Canadians (politically correct and “proud to not be Americans”) should recall the cautionary words of Winston Churchill
An appeaser feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
A clasic bit or Orwellian logic:
Imam: “Kill all infidels, slit their throats, slaughter them like dogs.”
This is free speech.
Steyn: “The Imam preaches to ‘Kill all infidels, slit their throats, slaughter them like dogs.’”
This is hate speech.
Why does the BC Troika hate speech so much? I kinda like speech, and the more the better. When the government hates and punishes political or opinion speech, it is the government that gets held up to contempt, not those who disagree with the speech that the government hates.
Maybe the Christians in Canada should start filing hundreds of cases where Christians were held up to “hatred or contempt.” Force unending legal fees on those who speak against Christians. What would the pretend “liberal” bureacrats who hate Christianity and its truly liberal values do then? This is the crack through which the force of opposition should grow. Christianity, when its values are truly followed and applied, has not lost yet against tyranny, even tyranny of the Popes. Is Canada Yet a Christian Country? We Christians from the South Stand Shoulder to Shoulder with ye, arms linked with none to stand agin us. Rally you Stalwarts. Rally.
Ted,
You really need to read better. The statement was made that Shady is not on trial, Mark Steyn is. The question was where are your remarks about Mark Steyn, not Shady. You gave all kinds of references to what you claim about Shady but none at all about Mark Steyn which is what the whole trial is all about in the first place.
Once again. Do you have any references to columns written by Mark Steyn that fail to float your boat.
BTW for those who think it cannot happen in the US, read today’s NYT for the article by Adam Liptak. He is claiming that the US needs to change its rulings using the First Amendment to make it more in line with Canada and the Euros in falling down before the Muslims. When you combine that with the fact that the NYT also wants special dispensation to print columns where the reporters can claim that they were told this by someone and not have to provide proof that this is true, it really speaks to the LLL dem approach to human rights and free speech.
I urge Americans who may be touring the jurisdictions of the soviet star chambers to go elsewhere for vactions or confabs. Why come to a foreign tyranny where you are liable for speaking the truth? Urge you fellows and your boss not to chose Canada as a destination to spend money and go one step further. Wright to out PM and news media as to WHY you will no longer patronaize a tyranny with soviet speech codes and star chamber jusrice.
Doug Santo said:
“Where is the outrage in Canada?
It appears Canada is a world leader in the implementation of extreme liberal politics.”
It’s our “nice easy-going” character that has been played by some pretty radical zealots and axe grinders, Doug. We are “nice”…too nice…nice to a fault…and it has been our downfall.
We (Canadians) have really been far too polite and accommodating to extremist zealots, disruptive activists, fallible ideologues and perpetually angry axe grinders who push some really bad ideas onto the political agenda.
As a result of our polite defferal to ideologically errant zealots driving social engineering agendas, Canada’s post war fate has been as a political laboratory for dangerous experiments gone horribly wrong.
Within each dogmatic HRC defender beats the heart of a Stalinist speech code commissar.
It is now up to evey patriotic Canadin to take out the garbage and wrestle out nation back for the soviet degeneracy that has made a politically correct tyranny of o once free and civil nation.
Ted, you are becoming increasingly incoherent. However I will try to explain this to you slowly. Property rights are fundamental to the development and viability of a democratic society. Shaidles appeal is to the ideal that property rights should take precedence over any effort by the state to contravene this right. Given that Shaidle is a Canadian and the Macleans/Steyn matter is a Canadian issue it only follows that Canada’s failure to recognize the supremacy of property rights is in part a cause of the Mohammedan extortion attempts against Macleans and Steyn. In short the supremacy of property rights would have obviated the extortion attempt as it would be dismissed out of hand. Had you ever bothered to actually read Shaidle, or for that matter had the abilty to comprehend the written word, you would be well aware of her stance on property rights and wouldn’t have to bother makin stuff up about her;)
Oh and Ted how is it that I am focused on Shaidle being a bigot, you raised the issue, by the way that whole “reality based” nonsense is so 2004.
The image of Mohammedanism has suffered greatly in recent decades under the thrall of extremism.
It wasn’t all that great in the late 19th century, when Winston Churchill wrote (1899) in The River War:
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science – the science against which it had vainly struggled – the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.
Whatever happened to “The true North strong and free?”
Welcome to Hell, Canadians.
“I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of ‘Admin.’ The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid “dens of crime” that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern.”
C.S. Lewis, “The Screwtape Letters”, preface.
Ted has certainly done a good job of documenting his slavish devotion to the writings of Warren Kinsella. No doubt there’s a creche plastered with Kinsella articles in Ted’s boudoir, illuminated by flickering candles and suffused with the scent of incense.
I’m not a fan of Steyn’s work, and there’s much I disagree with. Still, the notion that he is some bitter (closeted or uncloseted) racist struck me as odd. I followed what few references I could from Ted’s posting (mostly, again, returning to his beloved Warren), and it does seem to me Steyn’s use of racially derogatory terms (when I could find them) were used to illuminate the parochial outlook of the Canadian intelligentsia (irony anyone?), and not as an insult directed to the ethnic group per se. Indeed, Ted’s first cite is a link to a site where the supposed statement comes from a critic of Steyn’s who chooses (as Ted does apparently) to interpret Steyn and then present those interpretations as actual statements Steyn never in fact made.
Good job Ted. Keep up the noble work. Sandbagging can be difficult, but you make it look so easy!
Thanks Robotech for that omnibus post! You have however spoiled my fun by refuting each of Teds absurd accusations. Then again the whole “Ted” thing had realy cluttered the board and for that I must take responsibilty for having fed the troll.
Sasha Ted and Warren lack an irony sensor, not to mention a sense of humour. Rob Breakenridge of CHQR in Calgary did a good job of refuting Kinsella’s claims about Steyn, I just can’t find the link to his post at the moment.
Warren Kinsella’s,(hereafter referred to as The Lying Jackal, http://lyingjackal.com), only defense in support of Canada’s Stalinist censorship laws is to label opponents Nazi’s or Haters, among the Nazi’s are Pen Canada, the writers union, CAJ – The Canadian Association of Journalists and pretty much everyone else except his main ally Mohammed “Every Israeli over 18 is a legitimate target” Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress. An odd approach given that the Lying Jackal threatened to sue me for Libel for having done a satirical post that suggested the Liberal Party of Canada were the New Nazi’s for officially supporting Section 13 (1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
He also has a misogynist streak a mile wide, just ask Kate of SDA or Shaidle for that matter.
I was born and raised in Canada in the 50′s and 60′s when for the most part Canada was very much pro-England and still part of the U.S./Great Britain approach to freedom, democracy, participating in military actions with these countries, etc. I watched with alarm the sudden upheaval of the very French/Liberal dominated Eastern Canada (with the majority of the population and hence the voting power) into the mainstream of Canadian national politics, a la Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau and company. In very short order the flag was changed from the Canadian Red Ensign (borrowed from the British)to the the current Maple Leaf, the unification of three very distinct, proud and effective armed services into the “Canadian Armed Forces” and the legislating of French as the second official language of Canada. Within a space of 20 years the Canada of WWII had become a very liberal, European style socialist country to be governed by and for Quebec. Quebec for years has wanted their own way, seperate and distinct from “English” Canada, while at the same time retaining all the benefits of Canada as a whole. I lived in Western Canada, primarily Alberta. Alberta is the U.S. of the Great White North (my thanks to Bob and Doug McKenzie). It is a very pro-business, pro-free enterprise, pro-American Province. Alberta and in particular Calgary literally swept past other cities and provinces in growth and business. Free-enterprise minded Canadians and Canadian businesses set up shop in Calgary almost overnight. To the west of Alberta was the People’s Republic of B.C. Always notorious for being extremely socialist and Union driven, B.C., while not embracing the new “French” version of Canada, did grab hold of federal socialism like a Godsend. B.C. and folks born and raised in B.C. are just plain “different.” It is therfore not surprising to me at all that a tribunal of this type sits in B.C. with a heritage of liberalism and socialism. B.C. is also heavily populated by “East Indians” to use a very general and probaly “racist” term (I’m showing my age here). I served in the Canadian “Forces” in an “Army” regiment and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and personally saw the transformation of Canada into what it has now become. I opted for emigration to the U.S. and dearly love this country where I now live as a very proud American. As one commentor above stated, Canadian liberals and socialists have hung their identity as Canadians by being non-American and being pro-British only in terms of tradition. Many Canadians can’t help but compare themselves to America and look for any area in which they can be non-American, even at the cost of a bankrupt medicare system, an excellent but stripped beyond the bare bones military and the embracing of any social/liberal cause they can. If it’s American it’s not for us, they say. Alberta is the last bastion of the old free-enterprise, pro-American Canadian Provinces and culture. Canada, sad to say, you have continued to live down to my expectations and while I love the Canada I grew up in and served in uniform, I weep for what you have become. Some sort of realistic common sense has got to sweep in and right that Canadian ship. By the way, I didn’t abandon Canada, I emigrated to the U.S. and became American because I love this country.
Good job, Kathie, and I hope your coverage of this politically correct idiocy will be p/u by the mainstream media in US. I complement your piece with a copy of a NY Times article dealing with the reverse side of this issue – i.e. the enlightened tolerance of hateful creeps. The person in cause, Malika, appears to do much better in the enlightened Belgium than Steyn in Canada. Gross. Gross.
“Internet Warrior Rallies Women To support Al Quada/
NYT/By ELAINE SCIOLINO and SOUAD MEKHENNET/May 28, 2008
BRUSSELS – On the street, Malika El Aroud is anonymous in an Islamic black veil covering all but her eyes.
Malika El Aroud, seen in her living room in Brussels, has become one of the most prominent Internet jihadists in Europe. In her living room, Ms. El Aroud, a 48-year-old Belgian, wears the ordinary look of middle age: a plain black T-shirt and pants and curly brown hair. The only adornment is a pair of powder-blue slippers monogrammed in gold with the letters SEXY.
But it is on the Internet where Ms. El Aroud has distinguished herself. Writing in French under the name – Oum Obeyda,- she has transformed herself into one of the most prominent Internet jihadists in Europe. She calls herself a female holy warrior for Al Qaeda. She insists that she does not disseminate instructions on bomb-making and has no intention of taking up arms herself. Rather, she browbeats Muslim men to go and fight and rallies women to join the cause.
“It’s not my role to set off bombs – that’s ridiculous,” she said in a rare interview. “I have a weapon. It’s to write. It’s to speak out. That’s my jihad. You can do many things with words. Writing is also a bomb.”
Ms. El Aroud has not only made a name for herself among devotees of radical forums where she broadcasts her message of hatred toward the West. She also is well known to intelligence officials throughout Europe as simply “Malika” – an Islamist who is at the forefront of the movement by women to take a larger role in the male-dominated global jihad. The authorities have noted an increase in suicide bombings carried out by women – the American military reports that 18 women have conducted suicide missions in Iraq so far this year, compared with 8 all of last year – but they say there is also a less violent yet potentially more insidious army of women organizers, proselytizers, teachers, translators and fund-raisers, who either join their husbands in the fight or step into the breach as men are jailed or killed.
“Women are coming of age in jihad and are entering a world once reserved for men,” said Claude Moniquet, president of the Brussels-based European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center. “Malika is a role model, an icon who is bold enough to identify herself. She plays a very important strategic role as a source of inspiration. She’s very clever, very sly and extremely dangerous.”
Ms. El Aroud began her rise to prominence because of a man in her life. Two days before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, her husband carried out a bombing in Afghanistan that killed the anti-Taliban resistance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud at the behest of Osama bin Laden. Her husband was killed, and she took to the Internet as the widow of a martyr. She remarried, and she and her new husband were convicted in Switzerland for operating pro-Qaeda Web sites. Now, according to the Belgium authorities, she is a suspect in what the authorities say they believe is a plot to carry out attacks in Belgium.
“Vietnam is nothing compared to what awaits you on our lands,” she wrote to a supposed Western audience in March about wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Ask your mothers, your wives to order your coffins.” To her followers she added: “Victory is appearing on the horizon my brothers and sisters. Let’s intensify our prayers.”
Her prolific writing and presence in chat rooms, coupled with her background, makes her a magnet for praise and sympathy. “Sister Oum Obeyda is virtuous among the virtuous; her life is dedicated to the good on this earth,” a man named Juba wrote late last year.
The rise of women comes against a backdrop of discrimination that has permeated radical Islam. Mohamed Atta, the Sept. 11 hijacker, wrote in his will that”women must not be present at my funeral or go to my grave at any later date.”
Last month, Ayman al-Zawahri, Al Qaeda’s second in command, said in an online question-and-answer session that women could not join Al Qaeda. In response, a woman wrote on a password-protected radical Web site that “the answer that we heard was not what we had hoped,” according to the SITE monitoring group, adding, “I swear to God I will never leave the path and will not give up this course.”
The changing role of women in the movement is particularly apparent in Western countries, where Muslim women have been educated to demand their rights and Muslim men are more accustomed to treating them as equals.
Ms. El Aroud reflects that trend. “Normally in Islam the men are stronger than the women, but I prove that it is important to fear God and no one else,” she said. “It is important that I am a woman. There are men who don’t want to speak out because they are afraid of getting into trouble. Even when I get into trouble, I speak out.”
After all, she said, she knows the rules. “I write in a legal way,” she said. “I know what I’m doing. I’m Belgian. I know the system.”
That system often has been lenient toward her. She was detained last December with 13 others in what the authorities suspected was a plot to free a convicted terrorist from prison and to launch an attack in Brussels. But Belgian law required that they be released within 24 hours, because no charges were brought and searches failed to turn up weapons, explosives or incriminating documents.
Now, even as Ms. El Aroud remains under constant surveillance, she is back home rallying militants on her main Internet forum and collecting more than $1,100 a month in government unemployment benefits.
“Her jihad is not to lead an operation but to inspire other people to wage jihad,” said Glenn Audenaert, the director of Belgium’s federal police force, in an interview. “She enjoys the protection that Belgium offers. At the same time, she is a potential threat.”
Born in Morocco, reared from a young age in Belgium, Ms. El Aroud did not seem destined for the jihad. Growing up, she rebelled against her Muslim upbringing, she wrote in a memoir. Her first marriage, at 18, was unhappy and brief; she later bore a daughter out of wedlock.
Unable to read Arabic, it was her discovery of the Koran in French that led her to embrace a strict version of Islam and eventually to marry Abdessater Dahmane, a Tunisian loyal to Mr. bin Laden. Eager to be a battlefield warrior, she said she hoped to fight alongside her husband in Chechnya. But the Chechens “wanted experienced men, super-well trained,” she said. “They wanted women even less.”
In 2001, she followed her husband to Afghanistan. As he trained at a Qaeda camp, she was installed in a camp for foreign women in Jalalabad. For her, the Taliban was a model Islamic government and reports of its mistreatment of women were untrue. “Women didn’t have problems under the Taliban,” she insisted. “They had security.”
Her only rebellion was against the burqa, the restrictive garment the Taliban forced on women, which she called “a plastic bag.” As a foreigner, she was allowed to wear a long black veil instead. After her husband’s mission, Ms. El Aroud was briefly detained by Mr. Massoud’s followers. Frightened, she was put in contact with Belgian authorities, who arranged for her safe passage home.
“We got her out and thought she’d cooperate with us,” said one senior Belgian intelligence official. “We were deceived.”
Judge Jean-Louis Bruguière, who was France’s senior counterterrorism magistrate at the time, said he had interviewed Ms. El Aroud because investigators suspected that she had shipped electronic equipment to her husband that was used in the killing. “She is very radical, very sly and very dangerous,” he said.
Ms. El Aroud was tried with 22 others in Belgium for complicity in the Massoud killing. As a grieving widow in a black veil, she persuaded the court that she had been doing humanitarian work and knew nothing of her husband’s plans. She was acquitted for lack of evidence.
Her husband’s death, though, propelled her into a new life. “The widow of a martyr is very important for Muslims,” she said.
She used her enhanced status to meet her new brothers and sisters on the Web. One of them was Moez Garsalloui, a Tunisian several years her junior who had political refugee status in Switzerland. They married and moved to a small Swiss village. There, they ran several pro-Qaeda Web sites and Internet forums that were monitored by Swiss authorities as part of the country’ first Internet-related criminal case. After the police raided their home and arrested them at dawn in April 2005, Ms. El Aroud extensively described what she called their abuse.
“See what this country that calls us neutral made us suffer,” she wrote, claiming that the Swiss police beat and blindfolded her husband and manhandled her while she was sleeping unveiled.
Convicted last June of promoting violence and supporting a criminal organization, she received a six-month suspended sentence; Mr. Garsalloui, who was convicted of more serious charges, was released after 23 days. Despite Ms. El Aroud’s prominence, it is once again her husband whom the authorities view as a bigger threat. They suspect he was recruiting to carry out attacks last December and that he has connections to terrorist groups operating in the tribal areas of Pakistan. The authorities say that they lost track of him after he was released from jail last year in Switzerland. “He is on a trip, “Ms. El Aroud said cryptically when asked about her husband’s whereabouts. “On a trip.”
Meanwhile, her stature has risen higher with her claims of victimization by the Swiss. The Voice of the Oppressed Web site described her as “our female holy warrior of the 21st century.”
Her latest tangle with the law hints at a deeper involvement of women in terrorist activities. When she was detained last December in connection with the suspected plot to free Nizar Trabelsi, a convicted terrorist and a onetime professional soccer player, and to attack a target in Brussels, Ms. El Aroud was one of three women taken in for questioning. Although the identities of those detained were not released, the Belgian authorities and others familiar with the case said that among those detained were Mr. Trabelsi’s wife and Fatima Aberkan, 47, a friend of Ms. El Aroud and a mother of seven.
“Malika is a source of inspiration for women because she is telling women to stop sleeping and open their eyes,” Ms. Aberkan said.
Ms. El Aroud operates from her three-room apartment that sits above a clothing shop in a working-class Brussels neighborhood where she spends her time communicating with supporters, mainly on her own forum, Minbar-SOS.
Although Ms. El Aroud insists that she is not breaking the law, she knows that the police are watching. And if the authorities find way to put her in prison, she said: “That would be great. They would make me a living martyr.”
[Basil Katz contributed research from Paris.]
R.M Zobenica @ 1:12PM regarding shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre. As Macleans lawyer QC Porter so eloquently put it:
“…that you cannot cry fire in a crowded theatre.
Oh yes you can, you must if in your considered view there is a fire. It is a duty to cry fire.”
Did we forget our own (USA) government’s conduct toward the Danish cartoons? It was universal condemnation of the authors. Did anyone notice how brave the US newpapers were during that episode? If we neglect man’s nature (required to be free to think in order to live) and expect the writings of our founders to guard us from this cannibalism, we’re doomed.
BCF: There really is no point in chatting with you if you can’t even read or understand Shady’s own post on property rights which was a commentary about an incident in the US and had nothing to do with Canada. Ah well. That’s Canada’s education system for you. Failing us all once again.
Dick: There really is no point in chatting with you either if you think the only people that we can criticize are those on trial and not the stupid author of this article. Oh, and by the way, MARK STEYN IS NOT ON TRIAL. He wants to be. He would love to be. His employer is on trial. His book is part of the subject matter of that “trial” – and again for those with BCF’s reading comprehension level: I don’t think it should be.
But the fact that everyone thinks Steyn is actually named in this HRC thing partly proves my point: he wants it to be all about him vs. muslims. He doesn’t really care about individual rights except to the extent it allows him to attack muslims. Fortunately for him, both these particular muslims (the complainants) and his supporters are idiots who don’t know how to read (but probably bought his book anyway, a book that is Gore-like in its scaremongering and factual, um, challenges).
Good night, folks. I know there are intelligent conservatives out there and probably even intelligent conservative blogs. I will move on and keep looking.
I remember the Steyn column that Ted says slurs old people. There was immense praise for a heroic man – one who had survived the holocaust and built a beautiful life – who used his last moments to protect his students. It was a beautiful tribute to that man.
As a writer Steyn did make clear the contrast of this selfless, loving, heroic behavior with the behavior of stronger younger people and asked why the difference.
Poor Ted, wandering over the earth in a thick fog.
One thing is for certain Ted you will be laughed at wherever you go;)
For those readers who can read, I’d like to refute Ted’s characterization of Steyn’s column about the Virginia Tech massacre. The blog he links to mischaracterizes Steyn’s written opinion quite badly (is anybody surprized?).
I recall that column very specifically because it described one of the professors at Virginia tech who was a holocaust survivor. He moved to America and built a life. This aging man blocked the door to a classroom saving several of his student’s lives, sacrificing his own.
It was a beautiful tribute to immense heroism. And Steyn contrasted it with the behavior of the young students who became passive victims. He asked why the passivity? What made the aging professor more willing to confront the evil?
As I write this, I realize this story parallels the trial for “hate speech”. A victim of the holocaust recognized evil approaching and actively opposed it. Young people (like the population of Canada) had no clue that the evil could be opposed and as a result there were more victims.
Hmmm. Too bad Ted Can’t Read
Jay Lewis – spot on. The fight is on. When the rights of the many are subjugated to the whims of the few, the many will lose. (It needs some polish, but, shit, it’ll do for now.) Here’s an aging Aussie who will join you at the ramparts of history. This fight was forced on ALL free men, and must be fought. I’ll buy my own ticket to Canada. Where’s the enlistment line?.
Waiting, waiting, waiting. We can barely believe what we are hearing.
*sigh*
I’m not sure why BCF lumps me into the category of Ted. I thought I was very clear about my objection to Ted. Oh well…
“Ted Can’t Read”:
It is, in fact, that article which Ted cites first and foremost. His failure is to distinguish between the interpretation of the blog post DISCUSSING Steyn’s article from what Steyn says himself. He is too stupid to make the distinction between his favored bloggers’ interpretation of Steyn and Steyn himself.
Make of it what you will.
Hang in there you good people, we are so very very close to being in the same boat here in Australia.
For exactly the same reasons and, what is worse we hear that your Government is considering a sorry speech just like our stumblebum PM did here in February this year.
PC is out of control every where it seems, most of us down here though will not be bending over for the bunch of grubs.
“Maybe Mark Steyn can explain Canada to me. I’ve been there and just didn’t notice the difference between them and us.”
“Censorship is as much about what you see as what you don’t.”
GAH! I meant to say this:
Censorship isn’t as much about what you see as what you don’t.
The clock is stuck at 8:00.
If it means 8:00 a.m., then it’s always time for another hearing.
If it means 8:00 p.m., then it’s always good-night for another freedom.
In either case, the citizens… *ahem* subjects lose.
The clock is stuck at 8:00, giving one the faint hope that one will be there at the two moments when it is write…than for the other thousands of moments when it is horribly, horribly wrong.
Ted revels, it appears…in all the wrong moments.
From this day on , No Canadian will be able to criticise the US…and not seem a total hypocrite
The Canadians have just taken a gigantic hobnailed boot and stamped upon the freedom of speech and t6hought.
I find it incredibly a revelation that those who revile the US and sneer at her…will now wish they were US citizens..for only the US has enshrined in their Constitution the freedom that Steyne and so many others like him will now lose.
Canada has always had this “moral superiority” complex..well today, Canada didn’t lose the “moral high ground”….they spat on it and thew it away for the sake of moral equivalence and political correctness.
Damn them and their nanny state censorship to hell.
The US will welcome Mark Steyne, should be wish to emigrate, and he and others will be able to breathe free and speak their minds.
Canada is no longer a democracy, and its people are no longer free. When even one voice is silenced by those who wish to stifle dissent, the very principles that Canada claims to espouse have been betrayed..and its people no longer citizens..but subjects.
Canada is now a nation I will never visit. I value my freedom..and will not set foot in a nation that has forsaken the basic human rights in the name of appeasement and dhimmitude.
I remember a long argument on another blog a couple years ago where my antagonist maintained that Canada’s press, and Europe’s for that matter, was freer than that of the US. Ironically, his claim was based on the idea that US press was owned by corporations. I wish I still had the guys email.
Sascha I have not lumped you in with Ted, I left out the apostrophe! it should read Sascha, Ted and Warren… my sincere apologies Sascha for my bad grammar, me no spell so good neider.
Actually Ted: Steyn’s accusers may have stated time and again that “Steyn himself wasn’t on trial” but, oddly enough, the entire five days was taken up with a line by line condemnation of his articles, and even his (downright polite and courtly) behaviour in TV show green rooms (?!)
Steyn said it was like being at a seminar about his own writing.
But what does he, and what do we, know, eh?
Better to listen to the “official” story given out by Steyn’s accusers, who were forced to admit under oath that they’d lied to the media and the public about the nature of the case since the beginning — than to believe me, Steyn and your own lying eyes. Remember: Islam is the only religion on earth that says it is ok to lie.
Always sticking up for the ‘underdog’ and the “Other’ like a good little white liberal, eh Ted?
Thanks for reminding me why I’m no longer a Leftist.
A very good, informative article that nails it well.
Were my dad, a WWII vet, alive today, I think he’s be ashamed of what has become of Canada.
Our basic rights are being frittered away and free speech progressively shut down.
And all of this, of course, in the defense of ‘human rights’.
A stopped clock is right twice a day.
But for its designed purpose (telling time), it’s totally useless.
What a fitting metaphor for the BC HRT.
Psssttt, wanna read some Largely Academic Gibberish on the topic ?
I’m not so sure we should embrace Mark Steyn. I remember that during the Atlanta Olympics, he wrote a very, very mean-spirited, anti-American article making fun of the (allegedly) bungled police response to the bombing. It was called “Welcome to the United States of Bozos and Losers,” and appeared in a British newspaper, the Sunday Telegraph.
Will Canada ban rebroadcasts of Buffy the Vampire Slayer?
It does after all promote hatred and negative stereotypes of vampires.
Look for a vampire to come out of the closet and press charges soon.
Nina, it was bungled, they grabbed the wrong man, they screwed it up and a miscarraige of justice was the result
JGriff posted:
As a resident of the US I don’t know the intracies of Canadian law as it relates to these tribunals. However, the thought occured to me that has me pondering solutions to this quagmire.
Query: What if everyone just disregarded the history and findings of these commissions?
What if thousands of people uttered, by voice or print, the sentiments sure to spark complaints? On a whole range of issues?
In other words, what if the tribunals were overwhelmed with complaints?
———–
Wonderful idea! Do it Canadians! Um, can Americans file complaints? I bet if I read thru Canadian mags and newspapers I could find something that insults me and promotes hatred towards me. Since Canadians look down on the US, perhaps an anti-US article would be something that we could file complaints about!
Could go something like this: On my last visit to Ontario, I was offended by an article in the _________ publication that I believe promoted hatred toward US citizens…
hee hee hee
Where was everybody when Ernst Zündel was under attack, from the same lobby which according to Ezra Levant is mainly responsible for the present conditions of free speech in Canada?
And according to me, not only in Canada, but in many other places as well.
Jewish Involvement in Anti Free Speech Legislation and promotion of Immigration – By Country:
Canada , Britain, USA , Holland
Thank you for this article. I had, until now, been unaware of the tribunal trial of Mark Steyn, a columnist whose brilliant writing I had only recently discovered on the internet courtesy of the Orange County Register.
I had assumed that Steyn was a U.S. writer; his wit, daring and allegiance to facts and accuracy is in keeping with the best journalism traditions of the U.S.
I am shocked to learn of his Orwellian trial.
How can this be possible? What has happened to Canada? Canada is a country that thinks itself better than the U.S. And I would rise to take its side in an argument to the contrary. Except for this instance.
And this is a grave instance. Freedom of speech and the press, a foundational principle of all western countries including Canada, is based upon Socratic and Aristotelian principles of open dialogue and rigorous debate. Without such freedom, however uncomfortable, civil society devolves into tyranny. Is this what is happening in Canada?
The mere existence of such quasi-judicial tribunals is strong evidence that Canada has already lost some of its principles and is ready to discard others. This is bad news for a world that has, at least temporarily, lost the principled leadership of the U.S.
Oh, Clever Kathy, so obtuse as usual.
Of course Steyn and his work is on trial in the general sense. I was clearly referring to the specific fact that he is actually no tthe “accused” here, he is not the named respondent and the HRC has no ability to punish him directly (other than their silly name calling a la Barbara Hall), despite all your and his self-flagellation and desire to be a martyr.
But I’m very curious about something. Your brain, actually, and how it processes information. How does your brain “work”? How does it read what I write and convert it into the exact opposite?
How do you read me calling these complainants “idiots” bringing “trumped up claims” with “little chance of succeeding” before these HRCs “which are a joke” and that we should be “outraged if the tribunals find against” Maclean’s as being “sticking up for “sticking up for the ‘underdog’ and the “Other’ like a good little white liberal”???
Maybe you thought I was sticking up for them when I said that Maclean’s position was a “laudable assertion and defence of rights”???
Or maybe you thought I was sticking up for these sock puppet whiners when I wrote “the Human “Rights” Commissions are wrong to entertain these charges and the “complainants” are very wrong to have brought the complaints. In fact, I’ve seen them interviewed and they are idiots.”???
Or maybe it was when I wrote “Look, folks, just because people like Shaidle and Steyn and Levant are self-serving, blowhard, hypocrites and bigots, does not mean we shouldn’t support their right to be self-serving, blowhard, hypocrites and bigots and to publish their self-serving, blowhard, hypocrisy and bigotry”???
Help me out here, Clever Kathy. How does your brain process information in that way?
I mean, without an alternative explanation, I’m kinda left with thinking that maybe you just aren’t so good at reading. Strange that, for someone who whines that she is a professional writer.
“Where is the outrage in Canada?”
Most Canadians are oblivious (not indifferent – just oblivious).
Canada’s mainstream media are a bunch of chicken-sh*ts. The power of section 13 to destroy freedom of speech in Canada is mind numbing. We Canadians are very desperate situation – this fight is not going to be easy (fighting inertia rarely is), but it is one we have to win, and to do that, this issue must be brought before the Canadian people.
G:
Almost all of the newspapers in Canada, certainly all of them in the large cities, have had one or more editorials condemning this hearing and calling for the removal of section 13. There is a private member’s bill in Parliament introduced by a Liberal (but opposed by the governing Conservative Party) to repeal section 13.
Section 13 – for all of the ominous end-of-the-world hyperbole of this website and the usual scaremongers – has been used by about 2 people before this hearing since it came into law about a decade and a half ago. That fact alone belies the claims by the wingnuts here that it is the end of Canada and of the moonbats over wherever who claim repealing section 13 would gut the whole protection of human rights in Canada.
Further, despite what these idiot complainants claim, section 13 has not been fully tested against the Charter of Rights in these circumstances. This hearing will find in favour of Maclean’s. If it doesn’t, then it will go to the Supreme Court and will find in favour of Maclean’s. Other than the scaremongers and the idiot complainants, I don’t know anyone who thinks otherwise. It’s like the nuisance lawsuit: it’s hard to stop someone from bringing one but almost all of them fail.
Ted is leaving for more intelligent sites, yet he remains just a minute more to attempt to once and forever enlighten the masses as to the benefits of his utopia…just go, for God’s sake just GO Ted.
Leftist witch hunts are nothing new in Marxist countries. I can not beleive the people of Canada permitted the radical Left the power to silence ideas and truth the Left does not want exposed to the public about Muslims or any other part of life.
Eventually, every Canadian will suffer under this power to silence the Left’s political and social enemies just as they all do in Marxist Nations. Canadians think they are better than the US because they have socialized medicine while the Canadian rich runs to the US for competent health care? They think they are better than the US because they surrendered free speech to the socialists? What idiots!
It is time for Canadians to stop picking the splinters out of the eye of the US and remove the log from it’s own eye.
Personnaly I wish someone in Canada would file a complaint regarding the koran to one of these hate speech courts. Then we could have on record the hate speech contained in said book.
That’s assuming of course that you could actually hold a hearing before the muslims burned the building down after Friday prayers & seething.
I like that idea, holding a session of the Canadian “human rights” tribunal on the passages of “hate speech” in the Koran.
Why, even Muslims Against Sharia find a lot of passages in Mohammed’s (self-preservation) manual that should be excised.
The end of free journalism in Canada:
the “Tellyban”
All Hide-a has spoken.
Agree with the comment by WALTERC: why not tie up these ridiculous HRC’s with cases against all the hate in the Koran and hadith’s and those that quote and propagate them?
Meantime: I’ve seen nothing of this case in the MSM. Hmmm…
Meantime: all power to Steyn! I’ve read his book and used to love his columns in the “Spectator” (the original UK one) and miss them. Come back Mark!
Cheers from Hong Kong…
PS: when do we expect the ruling?
Love the idea of tying up the “courts” of the HRC’s over the country. There’s plenty of hate speech in the Koran and Hadith and plenty that spout it daily in the Mosques and outside.
Meantime: all power to Steyn! Miss his columns in the “Speccie” (the original UK version). Come back Mark!
“There’s plenty of hate speech in the Koran …”
Actually, by the twisted logic of the CHRC, the act of quoting Muslim hate speech is itself a hate crime.
Nice try.
Congratulations! This thread has been nominated for a “Silliest, most hysterical hyperbole used to describe the HRC proceedings” award. You can vote for this thread at
http://www.stageleft.info/2008/06/25/hyperbole-of-the-zillenium/
As being just introduced to your site…sunnews media and the informative debate seen nightly on the tele,…I applaud the conservative right to excercise our fundamental rights of “freedom of speech”,…with seeing your point of view as guest on sunnews I appreciate your fight for all free Canadians…in that with over 40 yrs of “Liberanos” style of mock government…this sad style of hypocritical governance had to come to an end,…thanks for offering debate and a reawakening of the “right” mind. Mark Steyn has brought forward the reality of how absurd the left has become,…what goes around comes around. I just bought 6 of his latest “rightings” and will be offering friends and family “proper thought” for the upcoming Christmas Season.