Dear Macleans;

He shared, I borrowed and flashed off to MacLeans.
CAIR doesn't get to define my Canadian-ness.

This is the letter I sent to CAIR Canada with subject:

regarding Mark Steyne's article in Maclean's:

CAIR Canada,

You still don't get it do you? You are living in the West, a geographical area where freedom of speech is taken for granted. Unlike, probably, the geographical areas your members came from.

It is time to get with the program and stop bitching and start reforming yourselves; NOT the host society.

Yours \

If CAIR wants to eliminate 'fear mongering', perhaps they should be getting off their collective butts and scream from the rooftops to the Islamofacists to take their act and go away. Better yet, turn them over to the police. Maybe, and only maybe, will they have earned the right to bitch about fear mongering and whatever else is their 'anger of the week'.

May I suggest simply sending MacLean's the following message?

Mark
Ottawa

'I am in full agreement with the views expressed by the blogger "Celestial Junk" in this letter of his to you below.'
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2006/11/macleans-magazine-muslims-and-mark.html

Your name

'To the Macleans Magazine Editorial Staff,

I am writing in response to the complaints CAIR has leveled against Mark Steyn.

It is becoming a standard reaction within the West for Muslim organizations to respond to criticism by trying to stifle it and in far to many cases by literally crushing it. In extreme cases riots result in deaths and damage to property, in others fatwas are issued that result in the deaths or intimidation of critics. CAIR wishes to stifle the valuable and intelligent speech of Mark Steyn.

All elements of our Liberal Democracy are subjected to critique, satire, humor, and even a degree of offensive discourse , simply because our society cherishes freedom of speech. It is, in fact, a foundation of Liberal Democracy. Yet, it has become the standard response among Muslims worldwide, to respond to critique with shrill accusations of "Islamophobia", "bigotry", and "racism". This Muslim response should not surprise us because it is born of the fact that Muslims generally abide in states where Islam goes unchallenged, is the state religion, and where it is often seen as irreproachable.

Mark Steyn is doing us a courageous service by simply pointing out the obvious, although harsh, truth. Hence, the frantic response from those who wish to stifle him.

I would hope; nay expect, Macleans to fulfill its duty as a member of our wonderful liberal democracy and ignore criticism by those who do not have a cultural or historical basis that understands, least of all cherishes, liberal democracy and its freedoms. By bending to CAIR criticism, you would be taking a dangerous step backward, and would be bowing to the pressures of intolerance that shape much of the developing world.'

Interesting program on right now of TVO's "The Agenda" (Steve Paikin) on the future of the left. Buzz is on, with amongst others, a rabble.ca person. Enjoy!

Mark
Ottawa

I don't make a habit of reading Maclean's or Mark Steyn, but I'm glad I was alerted to this essay.

It is among the most ignorant and illogical things Steyn has ever written: his hypothesized 'correlation' between the enjoyment of basic social programs and the lack of 'will' to resist 'Islamism' defies logic, let alone any standard of evidence.

Quite apart from whatever reaction it has prompted from CAIR, Macleans should be ashamed at having printed such nonsense.

And to think that Steyn has been praised day after day recently on the letters page of the National Post for his intelligence and reason.

More people should be made aware of how the right-wing press in this country is working overtime to lower the standard of the public discourse.

I expect those who do not understand the threat of Islam to voice the diatribe that steven has. We live in a western democracy which has tolersted discourse as a matter of history. There are however limits to our tolerance. When a group attacks others because they are simply voicing a different view than a line needs to be drawn.
The militant muslims have just gone to far and no longer have a place in our society
There are better places for these folks to live, perhaps, Iran or the tribal areas of pakistan.

Interestingly, the Maclean's issue in question criticized the Harper government for, among other things, trying too hard to distance itself from the Bush administration and not standing up for social conservatives. Neither of these points are deal-breakers for me (my main critiques have been purely fiscal so far), but it's encouraging to see people finally criticizing the Conservatives from the right.

Steyn's a unique mixture of insight, imagination and humour; i can't think of anyone, right or left, who manages that combination as well as he does with such consistency. Sometmes i think that mixture is a little disconcerting for his detractors because it's difficult for some, rather like walking and chewing gum at the same time. Or maybe it's flat out envy.

Actually "The Agenda"
www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/

was enlightening, if only to see the great gobs of dismal dhimmitude dimness.

Excellent start by Shalom Lappin (Canadian prof in the UK)
www.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/staff/lappin/

explaining the "Euston Manifesto"
www.damianpenny.com/archived/006376.html

and why the left has simply become a perverted movement sacrificing its principles on the altar of an insensate anti-Americanism.

Then on the panel Prof. Morton Weinfeld of McGill spoke in a similar vein and was intelligent (and, gasp, he's a sociology prof).
www.mcgill.ca/sociology/faculty/weinfeld/

Whereas a Laurie Adkin, polisci prof at U. of Alberta (her webpage could use some proofreading),
www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/polisci/Adkin.cfm

would not have known a thought had it occurred to her. Utter jargon. How such a mind gets to teach at a university is beyond me; rote learning and ideological purity, I suppose: "contextualize historically"; "international solidarity work"; blah, blah, blah...

Buzz, bless him, wants to build lots more cars in Canada in some way that can end up being environmentally...

Rabble.ca person looked half his age and had nothing of interest to say. Perhaps self-censoring given the usual content of the site.

I am not happy to point this out, but figure out what the two male profs have in common.

Mark
Ottawa

CAIR - 1, FREE SPEECH - 0
Islamonazi CAIR Intimidates Yet Another American Business In Dhimmitude

http://www.terrorfreeoil.org/videos/MS092506.php - MSNBC video

Free Patriotic Corner Banners: http://www.terrorfreeoil.org/cb/

I will write Maclean's to tell them to disregard CAIR's intemperate and anti-democratic, anti- freedom of speech nonsense. Dangerous nonsense.

I have come to the conclusion that the Muslim mindset is either stuck in infantilism or adolescence--and I'm not sure which is worse. It all comes down to "ME" and what "offends me." "Me" is the centre of the universe and no one or nothing else is to interfere with "my" view of things.

I agree with melwilde, that if Canadian Muslims find it difficult to live within our society, insisting that WE change, not THEM, then they should consider returning to the countries from which they came.

We are not in any way obligated to fall into lockstep with their self-centred, anti-democratic and anti-freedom of speech agenda for Canada and Canada's media. They may think that "multiculturalism" has entitled them to insist that nothing "offensive" be said about Islam and Islamofascism--and up to now, this is the way the bogus idea of multiculturalism has operated (assuring the Librano$ of hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of Muslim votes over the years)--but they are wrong.

Canadians are finally waking up to the fact that "multiculturalism" should not, and cannot, mean that minority cultures who have become a part of the Canadian social mosaic are able to call the shots when it comes to what is expressed in the public square.

I am gratified to see that increasing numbers of Canadians are coming to the conclusion that enough is enough. Our country has been generous with its hospitality to many cultures, including the Muslim culture, which has contributed well-educated and intelligent individuals to our society, but that hospitality does not extend to lying down and saying "why don't you walk all over us?"

Our way of life is being threatened by Muslim myopia and megalomania, not the other way around. It's past time for those of us who are deeply offended by the kinds of demands that CAIR is making to stand up and be counted.

If anybody sends in that letter written by "cjunk" and posted here by MarkOttawa, I suggest you fix the line:
"... to respond to criticism by trying to stifle it and in far to(sic)* many cases by literally crushing it."

*try too for to

and "literally crushing it":I'm sorry but it is impossible to "literally crush" criticism. You might literally crush a walnut instead.

"CAIR wishes to stifle the valuable and intelligent speech of Mark Steyn."

Geesh. Is this about free speech or being little Mark Steyn groupies. Don't make the MacLeans people spill their coffee laughing at your counter-protest.

Here's my letter to MacLeans:

I promote your publication of the article on Islam by Mark Steyn and object to the CAIR's attempt to stifle critique by labelling such critique as 'Islamophobic'.

Free speech, which means, the freedom to express an opinion, the freedom to not merely approve but disapprove, is a basic tenet and requirement of free societies. This is a freedom for which our democracies have fought hard and long. It is a freedom which underlies not merely our desire to express ourselves, this freedom is above all the basic ground upon which our capacity for knowledge rests.

It is this freedom to question, to dissent, to examine, that is the basis not only for all the progressive developments in human rights within our political and legal systems; it is also the basis for all the progressive developments in science and medicine.

No belief system, religious or other, should remove its axioms from question and analysis. If any belief system takes this step and rejects examination, then it has rejected the role of Reason in human life and has instead, opted for the blindness of dogma. Islam, as a religion, and as a mode of life, must keep itself open to examination, both by its adherents and by outsiders. For CAIR to insist that any examination and any criticism of Islam is not permissable, is itself a denial of this basic axiom of the democratic institution. One could indeed, turn their metaphor around, and claim that the CAIR agenda is 'democracy-phobia'.

As a matter of principle MacLean's needs to be told what Canadians think of this kind of BS from CAIR.
Go to town.........

Mark Collins - yes, I was watching TVO's Agenda, and agree with your comments about The Euston Manifesto- which is an interesting document.

I agree with the Euston critique of the left, having abandoned its former class agenda for a strident anti-Americanism and apologist for terrorism and totalitarianism; however, I'm not sure that 'class' is a valid area in the 21st century. I think that the disappearance of class has emptied the left of their basic template and they are looking for new Evils Of The World (other than the Upper Class).

The rabble guy was - well, an idiot, with his assertion that women in Afghanistan are now no better off than under the Taliban. Same with Buzz Hargrove. And the 'environmentally friendly' leftist prof from Alberta U. was a vapid clone of a stereotypical left.
What was evident was how ignorant of the 'real situation' in Afghanistan these people were; and how ignorant of environmental -and industrial - processes as well.

It was almost a parody of the Left, something put together by 22 Minutes or Royal Canadian Air Farce.

Stephen - the Steyn article should be printed, not because someone agrees with it, but because it is part of the debate about Islam in Europe and in the West.

Crush:

1. to press or squeeze with a force that destroys or deforms.

2. to squeeze or pound into small fragments or particles, as ore, stone, etc.

3. to force out by pressing or squeezing; extract: to crush cottonseeds in order to produce oil.

4. to rumple; wrinkle; crease.

5. to smooth or flatten by pressure: to crush leather.

6. to hug or embrace forcibly or strongly: He crushed her in his arms.

7. to destroy, subdue, or suppress utterly: to crush a revolt.

8. to overwhelm with confusion, chagrin, or humiliation, as by argumentation or a slighting action or remark; squelch.

9. to oppress grievously.

10. Archaic. to finish drinking (wine, ale, etc.).
–verb (used without object) 11. to become crushed.

12. to advance with crushing; press or crowd forcibly.

–noun 13. the act of crushing; state of being crushed.

14. a great crowd: a crush of shoppers.

15. Informal. a. an intense but usually short-lived infatuation.

b. the object of such an infatuation: Who is your latest crush?

Dear MacLean's,

Could you please assign a reporter to cover CAIR and get their reaction to the Wikipedia entries on Sharia Law, Apostate Muslims (death sentence) and female genital mutilation?

Perhaps you could send one of your female reporters.

Best,
Mr. Sponge

ET: As to ignorance (and/or poor proofreading) about Afstan, see this:

"Peacenik rubbish at rabble.ca"
www.damianpenny.com/archived/008021.html

Mark
Ottawa

storm:

literally: tinyurl.com/ympur7

Doing my bit, too. Have also urged everyone in my Outlook Address book to write Maclean's.

Dear Maclean's Editors;

I read the recent Maclean's article by Mark Steyn (the future belongs to Islam) with great interest and trepidation. The facts of demography cannot be denied and Canada of the near future may well be a very different place than that to which I was born and in which I happily live.

I note from the following that CAIR is attempting to stifle public discussion on what is likely the most far reaching and difficult subject of our times. I urge you to remain true to your journalistic principles and to Canada as a nation of free speech, reason and western democracy. I urge you to publish the 'press release' from CAIR, to let the public know that our principles of free speech and journalistic integrity are under attack by them and to demonstrate the very point that Mr. Steyn is trying to make.

Chapters and Indigo Books demonstrated a cowardice and lack of principle seldom seen in Canadian publishing history and they bear the shame for caving in to the threat. They lost both my respect and my future business for not standing up for Canadian values.

I've been pleasantly surprised by the new look and tone of Maclean's Magazine and I'm hoping that the new look is accompanied by a renewed sense of the power and necessity of a free and unfettered press.

melwilde wrote:

I expect those who do not understand the threat of Islam to voice the diatribe that steven has.

First: Islam is not a 'threat': it is a religion. It is not my religion, but it is one practiced by a number of my friends and associates who are far, far more open-minded, generous, and committed to reason and peace than Steyn has shown himself to be in this Maclean's piece.

Second: I'll leave it to others to decide whether my comment counts as a diatribe. Personally, I think it was neither 'bitter' nor 'violent,' traits the OED ascribes to diatribes. In fact, I believe Steyn's own piece (which I termed illogical, ignorant and shameful) better qualifies as a 'diatribe' than my own post.

melwilde also wrote:

We live in a western democracy which has tolersted discourse as a matter of history.

You need to read more history.

ET wrote

Stephen - the Steyn article should be printed, not because someone agrees with it, but because it is part of the debate about Islam in Europe and in the West.

First: I'm almost tempted not to respond to someone who thinks the shallow Euston 'critique of the left' worthy of serious consideration, and who thinks class is not an issue in the 21st century, but here goes.

Second: Would you be willing to lay out some kind of coherent, consistent standard by which opinion X or Y gets to be considered 'part of the debate,' and therefore eligible for publication in a magazine like Maclean's?

At the extreme end of things, there are Holocaust-deniers and 9/11 conspiracy theorists (people who think GWB was somehow in on the 9/11 attacks) who will tell you they deserve to be 'part of the debate.'

Should Maclean's give them as much space as Steyn was given? If so, on what grounds? Simply that they declare themselves 'part of the debate'?

Frankly, I don't think Steyn does any better than the 9/11 conspirators at making his case, but that's just me: I find no more plausible the idea that Dick Cheney and crew were behind 9/11 than I do Steyn's suggestion that the Japanese governing class might prefer to other measures encouraging a population cut off from basic biological impulses by, um, too-generous social programmes, to "be the first jurisdiction to embrace robots and cloning and embark on the slippery slope to transhumanism."

Maclean's, of course, should be free to make whatever choices it wishes on what to put before the public, as should any other media outlet (barring, at the extremes, explicit calls to commit crimes).

I simply said that Maclean's should be ashamed of printing an illogical, ignorant piece like the one Steyn penned, an essay that does little but discourage serious analysis and encourage stereotypes and prejudice.

And so they should, in my view: they should promote understanding, not discourage it.

And nothing in what I have said reduces the press freedom of Maclean's one iota, any more than does the CAIR campaign.

more 'BS from CAIR'

Call Upon Government to Fund Court Challenges Program

...The program also helps to integrate communities into the Canadian fabric, allowing for engagement with our democratic institutions....

caircan.ca/aa_archive.php?id=A2006093

Re TVO's The Agenda last night: It took all of my considerable self-discipline not to change to another channel just a few minutes into the program.

The Euston Manifesto, as ET and Mark Collins point out, has some very considered and pragmatic things to say about the Left today and its stuck-in-the-19th-&-20th-century ideas, which no longer apply. Prof. Shalom Lappin, however, IMHO (not being an "academic") was way too professorial and long-winded. My husband has three university degrees and I have two, but we were yawning five minutes into his allotted 15-20 minutes. I wonder how many viewers simply switched to something else.

Buzz Hargrove was a joke (nice duds, though); the 36-year-old rabble guy (who Paikin needn't have pointed out, looked "half" his age) more than once said, "I don't have an answer to that," summing up his contribution to the discussion (no answers but lots of criticisms, which were shallow and inaccurate); the women prof. from the U. of Alberta, was, as ET points out, the ultimate in stereotypical leftism, both in what she said (babblegab) and in what she looked like--she must have had granola for breakfast and macrobiotic rice for dinner); the only guy who made any sense at all was the sociology prof. (who would have thunk it?) from McGill, who was a co-signatory of the Euston Manifesto. At least he had a grasp that the Taliban and Islamofascism is a threat to us, and that leaving Af'stan and Iraq would be a disaster for the West--and for the people of those regions.

All in all, IMO, not a great showing by The Agenda. When do intelligent and articulate commentators on the Right get to join the panel?

Brison's Sponge maybe one of their female liberal reporters.

: )

http://www.anti-cair-net.org/

Seems Cair has a long list of terrorist ties.

Who is behind this, one might ask

tnx to CdnRepublican at freedominion.

Senior CAIR employee Randall Todd Royer, a/k/a “Ismail” Royer, pled guilty and was sentenced to twenty years in prison
for participating in a network of militant jihadists centered in Northern Virginia. He admitted to aiding and abetting three persons
who sought training in a terrorist camp in Pakistan for the purpose of waging jihad against American troops in Afghanistan.
Royer’s illegal actions occurred while he was employed with CAIR.

CAIR's Director of Community Relations, Bassem Khafagi , was arrested by the United States due to his ties with a
terror-financing front group. Khafagi pled guilty to charges of visa and bank fraud, and agreed to be deported to Egypt.
Khafagi’s illegal actions occurred while he was employed by CAIR.

On December 18, 2002, Ghassan Elashi, founding board member of CAIR-Texas, a founder of the Holy Land Foundation,
and a brother-in-law of Musa Abu Marzook , was arrested by the United States and charged with, among other things,
making false statements on export declarations, dealing in the property of a designated terrorist organization, conspiracy
and money laundering. Ghassan Elashi committed his crimes while working at CAIR, and was found Guilty.

CAIR Board Member Imam Siraj Wahaj, an un-indicted co-conspirator in the first World Trade Center bombing,
has called for replacing the American government with an Islamic caliphate, and warned that America will crumble
unless it accepts Islam.

Rabih Haddad served as a CAIR Fundraiser. Haddad was co-founder of the Global Relief Foundation (“GRF”).
GRF was designated by the US Treasury Department for financing the Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations
and its assets were frozen by the US Government on December 14, 2001.

DrWright: I hope you've sent these stats to Maclean's.