The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - December 4, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest

Advertisement



New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies

Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Canada Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Muslim Thought Police Zero in on Columnist Mark Steyn
swhitebull    12/6/2007 11:01:54 AM
link


Read the comments as well, worth the effort, and then move on to National Review, where Steyn is a regular columnist.


swhitebull - like roaches, u can kill hundreds, but they still keep coming out in endless waves til they overwhelm you.
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
swhitebull    From Mark Steyn Himself   12/6/2007 12:57:31 PM

Dead man writing   [Mark Steyn]

One of the critical differences between America and the rest of the west is that America has a First Amendment and the rest don't. And a lot of them are far too comfortable with the notion that in free societies it is right and proper for the state to regulate speech. The response of the EU Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security to the Danish cartoons was to propose a press charter that would oblige newspapers to exercise "prudence" on, ah, certain controversial subjects. The response of Tony Blair's ministry to the problems of "Londonistan" was to propose a sweeping law dramatically constraining free discussion of religion. At the end of her life, Oriana Fallaci was being sued in France, Italy, Switzerland and sundry other jurisdictions by groups who believed her opinions were not merely disagreeable but criminal. In France, Michel Houellebecq was sued by Muslim and other "anti-racist" groups who believed opinions held by a fictional character in one of his novels were not merely disagreeable but criminal.

 

Up north, the Canadian Islamic Congress announced the other day that at least two of Canada?s ?Human Rights Commissions? ? one federal, one provincial ? had agreed to hear their complaints that their ?human rights? had been breached by this ?flagrantly Islamophobic? excerpt from my book, as published in the country?s bestselling news magazine, Maclean?s. Several readers and various Canadian media outlets have enquired what my defense to the charges is. Here?s my answer:

 

I can defend myself if I have to. But I shouldn?t have to.

 

If the Canadian Islamic Congress wants to disagree with my book, fine. Join the club. But, if they want to criminalize it, nuts. That way lies madness. America Alone was a bestseller in Canada, made all the literary Top Ten hit parades, Number One at Amazon Canada, Number One on The National Post?s national bestseller list, Number One on various local sales charts from statist Quebec to cowboy Alberta, etc. I find it difficult to imagine that a Canadian ?human rights? tribunal would rule that all those Canadians who bought the book were wrong and that it is beyond the bounds of acceptable (and legal) discourse in Canada.

 
As I say, I find it difficult to imagine. But not impossible. These "human rights" censors started with small fry - obscure websites, "homophobes" who made the mistake of writing letters to local newspapers or quoting the more robust chunks of Leviticus - and, because they got away with it, it now seems entirely reasonable for a Canadian pseudo-court to sit in judgment on the content of a mainstream magazine and put a big old "libel chill" over critical areas of public debate. The "progressive" left has grown accustomed to the regulation of speech, thinking it just a useful way of sticking it to Christian fundamentalists, right-wing columnists, and other despised groups. They don?t know they?re riding a tiger that in the end will devour them, too.
 
 
 
swhitebull - Free Speech is Free Speech is Free Speech - there ARE no buts.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       12/6/2007 1:21:52 PM
there are limits to free speech even in the usa.
 
just because they have complained does not mean they are going to "win" anything it just means they complained and the matter will be looked into.
 
Quote    Reply

eldnah       12/17/2007 10:58:23 AM
This past week I've read a number of articles on the Mark Steyn affair including one this morning by David Warren from the Ottawa Citizen republished on Real Clear Politics. All  of the articles indicate the power of quasi-judicial Human Rights Tribunals , ain't that a great title, in Canada that are functioning as a PC Orwellian thought police. Please don't compare the Canadian restraints with restrictions on free speech in the US such as falsely yelling "Fire" in a crowed darkened theater is forbidden. 
I grew up with the quaint old meme that "Sticks and stones could break my bones but names could never  hurt me" and I have little tolerance for the victimhood of the insulted. But isn't it interesting how left wing governments from Russia to Europe to Canada are so anxious to suppress free speech. "Hate Speech" laws may at first seem reasonable but are soon manipulated to stifle political dissent ala Canada or at the very least give trial lawyers another source of revenue.
In the US one can still deny the Holocaust or call someone a Nigger and rightfully suffer public scorn, ridicule and opprobrium but thankfully be free of the fear of Government oppression.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       12/17/2007 2:00:26 PM

In the US one can still deny the Holocaust or call someone a Nigger and rightfully suffer public scorn, ridicule and opprobrium but thankfully be free of the fear of Government oppression.

when american citizens stop worrying about being arrested and held without charge as "terrorists" then you can start worrying about canadians being oppressed by the human rights tribunals.  free speech in canada is in no particular danger unless you are a particularly egregious nitwit.

 
Quote    Reply

eldnah       12/17/2007 6:32:55 PM
Please educate me. I thought that only three American citizen were held as enemy combatants, John Walker Lindh, Jose Padilla and Yasir Hamadi. Lindh, who was captured by the North Alliance, was convicted by a civilian court in Miami, of conspiracy to kill US citizens and supporting a terrorist organization. He is serving his term. Padilla was also tried in a civilian court and convicted of conspiracy to murder and kidnap US citizens and supporting a terrorist organization. He is also serving his term. Hamadi, also captured by the Northern Alliance renounced his US citizenship and was deported back Saudi Arabia on a plea deal. Not too terrible fates for traitors. In the clearer days of WWII they would have been shot. It seems a little bizarre to equate them with people who are prosecuted for having un-PC political opinions unless of course it suits a leftist political agenda.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       12/18/2007 1:47:58 PM
i'd actually be perfectly fine with their being shot after having their due process rendered.
 
that's 3 we know of so far.  given the bush gov't behaviour so far it's far from impossible more names won't surface in the future.  this whole illegal combattant thing is just a crock far as i can see to fig leaf over torturing/vanishing people. 
 
Quote    Reply

eldnah       12/18/2007 4:55:58 PM
Ok. Now I understand you point; i.e., it's perfectly fine for non-PC free speech to be suppressed in Canada because George Bush is evil and has done things that cannot even be documented and therefore Canada is beyond reproach.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       12/19/2007 2:52:02 PM
there is a difference between non PC free speech and attempts to incite hatred eldnah.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       12/19/2007 3:04:41 PM

Ok. Now I understand you point; i.e., it's perfectly fine for non-PC free speech to be suppressed in Canada because George Bush is evil and has done things that cannot even be documented and therefore Canada is beyond reproach.



read about what's been going on now for years eldnah with this administration assorted foulups.  george isn't evil he's just far far out of his depth.  as for documenting the bushies are fairly good with a shredder but we'll have to see what comes out after the presidential election.  you might want to consider the latest confirmation of wrong doing in that the cia is now admitting to trashing not one guys interrogation tapes but hundreds of hours of interrogation tapes.  now why do you think they would do something like that eldnah if they weren't deeply concerned about what was on those tapes?
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull       12/19/2007 3:45:00 PM

there is a difference between non PC free speech and attempts to incite hatred eldnah.

 

 



Was Mark Steyn inciting hatred by his writings? Or is it wrong to give voice to some inconvenient truths, whose by very nature one would rather ignore?   Doesn't seem so much hatred as an attempt by Muslims to suppress critical discussion of their religion. 
 
In THIS country, one doesnt have a constitutional right NOT to get their feelings hurt. Big boys can take criticism. What does Islam have that they are ashamed to discuss?  But I forget that the Religion of the Perpetually Offended is outrageed by mere pictures.
 
 
From National Review, lead editorial:
 
Free Steyn

By the Editors

Our readers know Mark Steyn well. His witty and learned commentary appears in every issue of National Review, and in many other English publications across the world. What Steyn?s American readers may not know is that a Muslim advocacy group in his native Canada is doing its best to muzzle him.

On December 4, the Canadian Islamic Congress announced that it had filed a complaint with three of Canada?s ?human rights commissions? over an October 2006 article that Steyn had published in Maclean?s, Canada?s leading news weekly. ?This article completely misrepresents Canadian Muslims? values, their community, and their religion,? said Faisal Joseph, an attorney representing the complainants, in a press release. ?We feel that it is imperative to challenge Maclean?s biased portrayal of Muslims in order to protect Canadian multiculturalism and tolerance.?

The article in question was adapted from Steyn?s recent book America Alone, which argues that Western society may be irrevocably altered — and not for the better — by unassimilated Muslim immigration. It?s no surprise that this thesis is controversial, probably in part because Steyn makes his points so well. But the real threat to tolerance here is the CIC, which would have the state impose penalties on those whose writings it disagrees with.

In doing so it only provides evidence for Steyn?s thesis. Another group of Canadian Muslims — the Muslim Canadian Congress — has said as much, denouncing the CIC?s complaint for affirming ?the stereotype that Muslims have little empathy for vigorous debate and democracy.? But at the moment, the CIC?s push for censorship advances. Of the three human-rights commissions to which it submitted its complaint, two have agreed to hear the case. (The third has yet to decide.)

Since their founding, Canada?s human-rights commissions have done less to protect the rights of minorities than to undermine the liberties of everyone. To get an idea of what they?re like, consider the recent case of Stephen Boissoin.

Boissoin, a Baptist minister, learned that the Alberta Human Rights Commission was funding an initiative that described homosexuality as ?normal, necessary, acceptable and productive.? Boissoin objected to this and wanted to make his views known. As he put it to a Canadian Internet publication: ?[I] felt that as a taxpayer, and indirect funder of this initiative through my tax dollars, I had a right to communicate my opinion which is reflective of my religious beliefs. In an attempt to do so, I decided to potentially share my opinion at large by submitting letters to the editor in newspapers.?

The publication of one such letter brought a complaint from a ?social justice? advocate, and Boissoin was dragged before the very body he had complained about — the Alberta Human Rights Commission. That was 2002. It took five years of anxiety-filled and expensive legal proceedings for the commission to rule against Boissoin. They determined that he had violated Alberta?s laws because there was, as one commission member put it, a ?circumstantial connection? between the publication of the letter and an incident of gay-bashing. ?Circumstantial connection? is of course another way of saying that Boissoin had nothing to do with it. One wonders in passing whether the same can be said of the Koran, and which side the commission would take if Maclean?s published a few choice Koranic passages on homosexuality.

Even if the human-rights commissions eventually rule for Steyn and Maclean?s, the proceedings will be costly, and will intimidate others who wish to express controversial views. To his great credit, one conservative Canadian cabinet minister, Jason Kenney, has spoken in defense of Steyn. Some of the Canadian press is coming to Steyn?s defense as well. We hope the chorus swells.

And we hope Americans raise their voices too. So far the U.S. media have paid little attention to the case, but it should matter to us. Steyn?s writings — even those in Canadian publications — have a large and influential American readership. We trust those readers prefer that Canada remain free.

 
 
swhitebull - Canada, on its way to dhimmitude, should these bogus complaints be taken seriously by even more alleged Human Rights Commissions, whose REAL purpose is to SUPPRESS free speech, all for the sake of political correctness so that people might not get their all-so-fragile feelings hurt.
 
 
BOO-FRIGGING-HOO.
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    Along those lines...   12/19/2007 3:51:34 PM
Where is the Canadian press or women's rights groups in decrying the honor murder of a 16-year young lady, who refused to wear the hijab? Other than to make excuses, and say its a societal problem with NO blame for Islamic culture, the Canadian press has been completely SILENT:
 
 
Whitewashing MURDER:
 
 
link
 
 
link
 
 
swhitebull - that 2 Canadian Human Rights committees would actually take up the CIC's complaints against Steyn, which even if exonerated will cost him $$$$$, is outrageous, and any lover of free speech should be protesting loudly.
 
 
FREE SPEECH IS FREE SPEECH IS FREE SPEECH - there ARE no BUTS. And you, Ehran, should know that better than anyone else.
 
Quote    Reply

eldnah       12/19/2007 5:21:17 PM
Ehran, "There you go again" in the words of the honored and sainted Ronald Reagan, you are conflating the deprivations of free speech in Canada with George W Bush! Do you secretly write editorials for the New York Times? Are you Frank Rich or perhaps Maureen Dowd? I didn't want to be sexist and be brought before a Human Right Tribunal. May I make a suggestion? Why not save yourself a lot of typing and just borrow from Marcus Portius Cato and end all your posts with Frutex delenda est?
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       12/20/2007 12:16:40 PM
the father has been charged with murder and a brother with obstruction of justice so far.  it's a sad case but the people involved are going to see a courtroom for their actions.  i don't see any reason for sensational headlines in it whitebull.
 
nor am i going to get up in arms about free speech being limited until i see some actual evidence of it happening.
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull       12/20/2007 12:36:38 PM

the father has been charged with murder and a brother with obstruction of justice so far.  it's a sad case but the people involved are going to see a courtroom for their actions.  i don't see any reason for sensational headlines in it whitebull.

 

nor am i going to get up in arms about free speech being limited until i see some actual evidence of it happening.



Just the IDEA that you can be hauled before a "Human Rights Commission" for something you worte or might write will have a chilling affect on the notion of free speech. Just as the idea of NOT printing a cartoon about Muhammad with exploding bomb, or political commentator Lawrence O'Donnell in the states ranting about Mormons, but scared to death about offending Muslims cause he might be killed has a chilling effect. It's called Self-Censorship, due to potential physical or financial harm from those who are perpetually outraged. THAT should scare you, and if you don't see the evidence that is all around you, you have blinders on, either willfully or not.
 
 
from Staney Kurtz, National Review:
 

Steyn's Accusers Speak   [Stanley Kurtz]

Today, the Muslim law students who have lodged a human rights complaint against Maclean?s, have published an article defending themselves in Canada?s National Post. They claim to be believers in the marketplace of ideas, merely seeking a chance to respond to Mark Steyn. What they don?t say is that they have demanded the right to a cover story in Maclean?s, with full editorial control over content and art.

Imagine NR, after publishing, say, a cover story critical of Al Gore?s movie, being forced by a government body to allow Gore to write a cover story in rebuttal, with full editorial control. Imagine Gore running his legal case against NR for free, while NR is forced to shoulder court costs. And don?t forget that Canada?s Human Rights Commissions have the ability to compel apologies. Imagine NR?s editors being forced by a government body to apologize to Al Gore for refusing to give him control over their own magazine, or even for the content of one of their critical articles. Of course, the complainants against Maclean?s have nothing to say about these issues, all of which have been sharply raised by their so-called human rights case. Actually, Maclean?s already has published a rebuttal to Steyn by Canadian Muslims. It?s called "Mark Steyn has a right to be wrong."

Ali Eteraz disagrees with Steyn, but has defended his right to free speech in the Guardian. (I link to Eteraz?s Guardian piece, and respond to his assessment of Steyn here.) In the comments section of a post called "Will Canadian Muslims Drop Complaint Now?"  Eteraz responds to those who think they have some kind of enforceable right to be provided with a forum to respond to articles they don?t like. In this case, Ertaz is speaking, not to the Steyn complainants themselves, but to someone who supports their case:

With all due respect, this is the saddest and most pathetic thing I have ever heard.

"Please let us be heard?"

"Provide me a vehicle for debate?"

Is something wrong with you?

1 -Did you call Mark Steyn?s agent and try and set up a public debate? I bet he?d love a go; the right wing pundits do.

2 - Did you contact opposition publications to Macleans and publish stuff there? I bet they?d love a go to make Macleans look bad.

3 - Did you try and raise funds to start a new liberal magazine so you can respond to people like Mark Steyn?

4 - Did you contact the writer of Little Mosque on the Prairie, who is quite sympathetic to the CIC, and ask her to make a snide reference to the demographics issue that Steyn raises?

5 - Did you call Tarek Fateh, who and his associates seemingly have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER getting published works critical of Steyn?

6 - Did you even think about taking me up on my offer to get you guys published in the Guardian?

7 - Did you try and contact Anar Ali, the short story writer, to use her influence to write a rebuttal?

8 - Did you try to contact Irshad Manji — who last year wrote a piece damning all those who seek to stifle immigration — to help use her influence in challenging Steyn?

9 - Did you try to contact an agent for yourself or your other equally inept legal friends so that you might write an anti-Steyn?

I?m sorry if this sounds too much like a generalization, but I?ve dealt with individuals propounding the same kind of rhetoric you are — willful victimization, complete ignorance of how the world works, wallowing in self pity — and they often love to attach themselves to Western Muslim communities after 9/11 and drag them down. I?m sure you?ve got a few Muslim enablers as well. The individuals I am describing often tended to be highly educated, driven by some kind of parochial original sin which motivates them to teach utter and total despair to the community they attach themselves to, so that they may then save said community, and feel good about themselves.

I bet you and the other law students who have done nothing but toe the line the entire life (and have now turned into "humanitarians!" in what I figure is the last year of law school) had grandiose visions of having your name appear in Macleans as "defenders of the weak." To be followed by a parade led by beautiful Muslim muhajjibas (oh, but how dare I suggest that YOU might be an orientalist).

Again, like I said, the statement of yours that I just quoted, is one of the saddest things I?ve read; quite helpless in fact. I never respond at this length in the comments, and felt compelled to do so, because you are just so far gone its tragic.

Anyhow this has been my last and final response to you.

Best of luck.
 
swhitebull
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       12/20/2007 12:39:09 PM
i don't care about george one way or the other i just consider him a dismal failure as a president and will do some heartfelt clapping to see his back in 2008.  he can go back to the ranch in texas and live to a ripe old age with my blessings.
 
i do really pity the next poor sob in the oval office who is going to have to deal with the godawful mess george stuck him with.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5   NEXT

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy