Religion Of Subscription (Bumped)

Religion Of Submission 101 Comments

Apologist:

Muslim nations have a shameful record on women and minorities. But it is dishonest to conflate that with the Muslim minorities in the West. It is counterproductive to lay collective guilt on them. They don’t live there, they live here, and should be judged as any other fellow-citizens. Anything less is to devalue our democracies.

vs No Apology.

The Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) announced today that it has launched several human rights complaints against Maclean’s Magazine. Separate complaints have been filed in response to the Maclean’s article The Future Belongs to Islam written by Mark Steyn […] In response to the article, several law students met with editors Kenneth Whyte and Mark Stevenson and proposed that Maclean’s publish a response. In response, Mr. Whyte indicated that Maclean’s would rather go bankrupt than allow a response to the article.

Time to take out a subscription. And contact your MP because the Canadian Thought Control Police could come for you next.
(Which reminds me – I have a Richard Warman poll in the works. Stay tuned.)
More – Further response from Macleans here.
And here – from Ken Whyte;

On Dec. 5, Whyte issued the following statement to clarify what happened at the meeting: “The student lawyers in question came to us five months after the story ran. They asked for an opportunity to respond. We said that we had already run many responses to the article in our letters section, but that we would consider a reasonable request. They wanted a five-page article, written by an author of their choice, to run without any editing by us, except for spelling and grammar. They also wanted to place their response on the cover and to art direct it themselves.
“We told them we didn’t consider that a reasonable request for response. When they insisted, I told them I would rather go bankrupt than let somebody from outside of our operations dictate the content of the magazine. I still feel that way.”

You can read the Steyn piece in question at this link.

101 Replies to “Religion Of Subscription (Bumped)”

  1. I notice that Siddiqui likes his job and life here in Toronto. Wonder why he doesn’t move to wonderful Crazystan and try being a controversial newspaper columnist under their, according to him, perfectly reasonable laws against absolute freedom of speech.
    Hmmmm.
    Countdown to Siddiqui’s move to Crapistan starts now.
    Ha. Now that would be a fun web graphic to make…

  2. I briefly considered sneaking out of work to attend that press conference, maybe film it, but thought better of it.
    I like what Michael Savage is doing, what Anti-CAIR (www.anti-cair-net.org) has done in the past, which is to counter sue in such a way that CAIR’s activities are brought under examination. The suit against Anti-CAIR was dropped at the 11th hour, and the site carries on as it did before the suit. I guess CAIR couldn’t stand the heat.
    According to Anti-CAIR:
    “The unique role played by CAIR and CAIR-Canada is to manipulate the legal systems of the United States and Canada in a manner that allows them to silence critics, analysts, commentators, media organizations, and government officials by leveling false charges of discrimination, libel, slander and defamation…”
    There are also some other interesting items regarding CAIR-Canada, including an entry for a failed CAIR-Canada defamation suit against a former CSIS officer.

  3. Much ado about nothing! North Americans have more logic than that!! We do have a constitutional right to print what we like, don’t we????? Macleans is straightforward, it will all come out in the wash! Duuuh, I don’t want to sound ignorant, but where was the editor in the first place??

  4. Siddiqui’s tenuous commitment to free speech scares the crap out of me. I’m no fan of Mark Steyn but this paragraph frightens me:
    “Freedom of expression is not absolute. In Canada, we have an anti-hate law, and we do exercise self-restraint. Similar laws and mores apply in secular India. That’s why some of Nasreen’s books are banned there, and India suggested she balance her right to free speech with respect for religious belief. She did agree on Friday to have her publisher excise some objectionable passages from one of her books.”
    The fact that a columnist for a major Canadian paper is implying that its ‘ok’ for a country to “ban” books because they offend religious belief is frightening. The day we restrict freedom of speech to prevent offense to people’s religious beliefs is the day our democracy dies.

  5. Me No Dhimmi fearless prediction:
    They’re gonna lose this one against a venerable liberal flagship. The public will know about this one (unlike the case with the Western Standard) and will very strongly disapprove.
    I believe we’ve seen the top of the bull market in the bull**it crime of hurting feelings. Push back simmers along in the backgroud when you think people don’t care, then it explodes. I’d say we’re almost there.
    Canada is beginning to grow up.

  6. Harooooon!
    Is an Islamist. He is an expert at taqiyya. Therefore nothing he writes should be trusted.

  7. Huh…. and of course we all know that the CIC is run by a hate-monger named Mohammed El-Masry who, publicly, declared that all Israelis 18 or older were legitimate targets. Can’t remember a lawsuit or HR complaint following that… To quote the bard “Thou doest protest too much”

  8. Using India, who have a huge history of religous wars, as an example that should be imported is ridiculous.
    I understand the context of greater restrictions in India. It is sad that they are necessary. But of course why are they necessary, becasue if the group feels aggreived it resorts to vilonce.
    Is this the society we are? Or should we not be deomonstrating in Canada th culture is one were these things arent necessary.
    We do have laws against Hate Speech, and parties are free to pursue them in court…like everyone else. The fact that you have to go to court doesnt make you any less valued in society, the fact taht you CAN go to court and expect a fair hearing means you are the same as everyone else….soemthing that cant be said for some other countries in this world

  9. That little furious five footer speaks for me. I have nothing more to add. Good one.
    I will be taking out a subscription to MacLeans as soon as hit the post button.

  12. Maybe if the ‘moderate’ Muslims used their voices and spoke up against what ‘extremist’ Muslims are doing in the world, we wouldn’t find their silence so deafening. I’ve always found that those who have nothing to say in matters, usually are in agreement with what is being said.
    Canada should not have anti-hate laws. Muslims use these laws to take individuals and literature writers to court – the one’s that believe in the freedom of speech. Perhaps it is time to turn the tables against those who do not believe in the freedom of speech. There are enough hate crimes perpetrated by Muslims – maybe it is time to show them that two can play the hate game. I really don’t like being referred to as an infidel – I’d like to see that one go to kangaroo court.

  13. “But of course why are they necessary, becasue(sp) if the group feels aggreived(sp) it resorts to vilonce(sp).” Try slowing down….
    As for this apparent attempt to justify uncivil and illegal behaviour based on aggrievement …. bullshit … just plain and simple bullshit.
    As for Canada’s Kangaroo court HRC’s having anything to do ‘fairness’ forget it … they are nothing but vehicles for the enforcement of political correctness masquerading as justice.
    They are a travesty and should be eliminated immediately.
    No one who has a legitimate legal claim needs the HRCs …. the fact the these jackals are using the HRCs is all the proof you need to know that they are doing an end run around our laws by claiming a special status.
    I say this is bullshit.

  14. Whoa! When did Macleans grow a pair? Are they under new management or something? Why wasn’t I notified?
    95% or the rag is still outhouse toilet paper material but maybe they’re not interested in losing Mark’s services…interesting.

  15. The Stephen Harper government tables a bill that women wearing the niqab must lift their veil to vote, ignoring the fact that 70,000 voters, including inmates, mail their ballots without ever being asked to show their face.
    Inmates should not have the right to vote.
    Food and shelter is about all that they deserve… and I’m feeling generous today.
    Niqab and other such barbaric medieval things should not be allowed in Canada because we do not believe women are an inferior creature that should live under a tent,
    and we believe men should be capable of controlling themselves,
    if they can not control themselves then we will throw them in jail where they should not have the right to vote.
    …They don’t live there, they live here, and should be judged as any other fellow-citizens.
    that is exactly what I’m doing; Judging them as fellow citizens, and citizens of Canada do not treat women as cattle.
    If they want to become Canadians then they should adapt to our laws and customs and not the other way around.
    Unless they want to turn Canada into a Muslim country… which obviously is what too many of them are trying to do with the help of usefull-idiot “progressives” full of western guilt and self-hatred.
    It is happening in Europe, and we are next if we do not fight it.

  16. Joanne makes a good point.
    Can you imagine how quickly this HRC would shut down — how quickly the little bureaucRATS would scamper if some turn-the-table cases were brought to them. After all, the complainer pays nothing except a bit of time! The case against WS was evidently scatched out by hand on a piece of paper! Where to start though? The possibilities are endless? The Jew-hater Elmassary (sp?) for a start?
    Again: This is terrific news. They’re gonna regret this. Remember how sharia law died at the last minute when enough people woke up.
    They’re gonna lose this one. Absolutely for sure. EXCEPT: they may drop it, which won’t really be a victory for us. Just a hudna!
    I confess, I’ve never written to a MP. But I will this time.

  17. I’m thrilled about Maclean’s picking up their game! Unfortunately this may have contributed to the downfall of the Western Standard, an even better magazine (although Mac is catching up fast).

  18. Just found a “weakness” in,
    …Muslim nations have a shameful record on women and minorities.
    …The Stephen Harper government tables a bill that women wearing the niqab must lift their veil to vote,
    and this ,
    But it is dishonest to conflate that with the Muslim minorities in the West. It is counterproductive to lay collective guilt on them. They don’t live there, they live here, and should be judged as any other fellow-citizens.
    mhhh…
    Well…
    if they force women to wear a niqab HERE in the WEST
    as they do THERE in MUSLIM NATIONS,
    and
    if they do HERE in the WEST the same reprehensible things they do THERE in MUSLIM NATIONS ( just off the top of my head; Muslims beat up gays in Europe like its a sport )
    then we are right to conflate that with the Muslim minorities in the West.
    Taking apart liberals/progressives arguments is like shooting fish in a barrel…

  20. You think there is trouble already with muslims trying to turn Canada into a middle east country?
    Wait for another 30 years when we IMPORT another 2 million of them.
    We don’t need muslims in this country.
    If we do, maybe you could provide some proof as to the benefit.

  22. The Liberals are so big on all women’s issues, are after the Conservatives saying they don’t care about women and such freaking crap, where are they on women’s rights etc among the Muzzies?
    At this point I’m willing to say to hell with all the Muslims who think they can come here and change our customs or laws to suit them. It’s take it or LEAVE! Furthermore, we have developed this country and are in tune with the 21st century as opposed to the 14th century. They have the option to shape up or get their butts out of here.

  23. We’ve discussed the problem of the HRC before on Kate’s blog. It’s a serious problem and deserves a LOT of publicity.
    The HRC were originally set up to deal with discrimination in employment and housing. These are reasonable agendas. However, these unelected, appointed groups rapidly moved into a more ambiguous and authoritarian area, defined under Section 13.1 of their Act.
    First, here’s the perimeters of ‘discrimination’.
    “For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted.”
    Now, we come to Section 13.1. It’s a serious problem.
    “It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination”
    See the problem? It’s totally bereft of any empirical, factual grounds. It states that you cannot say anything that is ‘LIKELY to expose’. Not that it has any result; it just, possibly, might.
    And what might it expose someone to? “Hatred or contempt”. Now wait a minute. These are subjective emotions. How do you prove that anyone actually experienced such emotions?
    And remember, the HRC Act doesn’t require any actual ‘hatred or contempt’ to be expressed by anyone. No. All it requires is that you say something that MIGHT, just MIGHT..’expose’ (???) someone to ‘hatred or contempt’. No proof. No actual situation in real life.
    But, our Charter gives us the basic fundamental freedom:
    2.b. Freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication”.
    Notice. Our Charter, Section 2 and the HRC Act, Section 13, contradict each other.
    I hope this comes to court. We need it cleared up. We need freedom to speak, to criticize, to analyze, to ‘hurt someone’s feelings’ – and that includes the freedom to criticize religion.
    The Islamic religion rejects reason. You are not allowed to criticize the Islamic religion. We, in the West, have based our entire civilization around the right to doubt, to criticize, to think. We must never, ever, give up this right.
    The HRC are agencies that hinder our basic right to think.

  24. Of course good for Macleans! I notice without suprise that none here noted that the Muslim Canadian Congress was supporting Macleans!

  26. There is still time in Canada to take our country back from them. Lets not let them do to Canada what they have done to Europe. Our fathers, grandfather and their fathers fought for this country, and our freedom of speech. I will not allow it to be turned into a facist regime by the left, using the islamic insaneness as their weapon.

  28. CAIR is suing radio talk host Michael Savage too. He’s counter-suing back though. It must be their new all out strategy, sue us into silence starting here immediately after the imam’s airport performance, which I’m convinced was a security probe. What have they got to lose, the US, Canada and Europe have enough lefty judges that they can score a hit when they are get lucky.
    I’m for every Christian, Hindu and athiest, who isn’t a braindead lefty wuss on the planet, to on a pre-arranged date put a Turban Bomb Mohammed bumpersticker on their car. Islam needs to be mocked with an all out show of force. Where’s Homer Simpson when you need him?

  29. What the all (or most of them) said.
    No vote for convicted criminals.
    Ban the niqab in all public places. It offends me – and where are my rights??

  30. What they all (or most of them) said.
    No vote for convicted criminals.
    Ban the niqab in all public places. It offends me – and where are my rights??

  32. Penny – of course they’re taking advantage of our openness and fairness to destroy us.
    Time to change

  35. Question??? How can any rational thinking human with a long term desire for a successful, productive, serious society not be a fan of Mark Steyn???

  36. The real threat are the Canadian Amish, who keep insisting that we change our social conventions to accommodate them. Oh, sure, now they’re peaceful, but just wait.
    And wait.
    And wait…

  37. The Muslims have done it again, this time in Ft McMurray. I’m assuming the cabbies are Muslims because the manager is named Mustapha.
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071205.DOG05/TPStory/National
    Taxis refuse blind woman accompanied by guide dog
    CHUCK CHIANG
    The Canadian Press
    December 5, 2007
    FORT McMURRAY, ALTA. — The co-ordinator of an Alberta council representing the disabled says she was left with a sour taste in her mouth after being refused a ride by a line of taxis in Fort McMurray because she was accompanied by her guide dog.
    Diane Bergeron’s plane was already five hours late when she arrived just before midnight Sunday.
    Tired, and with a 9 a.m. speaking appointment the next day, she tried to hail a cab to transport her to a hotel.
    “There was a whole line of 10, 15 taxis waiting outside [the airport terminal],” said Ms. Bergeron, who is blind and is usually accompanied by her guide dog, Max. “Not one would take me because of my dog.”
    Print Edition – Section Front
    Enlarge Image
    More National Stories
    A nation of newcomers
    Teens haven’t improved math, reading scores
    Commission seeking ways to get more first nations to table
    Lobby firm was to give Mulroney something ‘to live on’
    Man shot by police called kind-hearted
    Suspected firebomb kills Winnipeg teen
    Go to the National section
    A bystander at the airport eventually gave her a lift into town.
    Despite provincial and municipal laws aimed at protecting the rights of people with guide dogs, Ms. Bergeron’s experience isn’t uncommon, said a spokeswoman with a national non-profit agency providing services to blind Canadians.
    “It happens frequently, everywhere,” said Ellie Shuster, an Edmonton-based spokeswoman with the CNIB.
    Ms. Shuster said provincial laws include the Blind Persons’ Rights Act, which says no one can be denied access because of a guide dog. A similar bylaw exists in the municipal codes of Wood Buffalo, the sprawling region which includes Fort McMurray.
    “They’re not allowed to refuse,” said Jeanne Goudie, the region’s chief taxi inspector, adding that fines start at $100.
    Fort McMurray is not alone in dealing with the issue. This summer, a taxi company agreed to pay a blind Vancouver man $2,500 after one of its drivers refused to pick him up because he was accompanied by his guide dog.
    About a month earlier, a Calgary judge found a driver guilty of discrimination for the same reason and fined him $300 under the Blind Persons’ Rights Act.
    Several Fort McMurray taxi companies said certain drivers will not carry dogs as passengers.
    “We can’t make the drivers do it,” said Ron MacNeill, owner of Sun Taxi, who added some employees cite allergies or religious convictions as reasons for denying service.
    Mr. MacNeill added that his company can accommodate guide dogs if notified in advance. Mustapha Hemeid, manager at Access Taxi, echoed Mr. MacNeill’s statements.
    “Not every driver will do it,” Mr. Hemeid said about carrying the dogs. “But we do have optional drivers who can, and if you call ahead, we’ll do it.”
    The policy at Fort McMurray Airport is to provide the service, said spokeswoman Sally Beaven.
    “Their agreement [with the airport] is that they’ll not refuse any fares,” she said, adding that management has talked to cab companies about the issue. “This shouldn’t happen.”
    Ms. Bergeron, the co-ordinator with the Premier’s Council on the Status of Persons with Disabilities, was in town to speak at a workshop on how hospitality and retail businesses can work with people with disabilities.
    She said Fort McMurray should take a closer look at the issue.
    “When you come off a plane, the taxi driver is often the first person you contact,” she said.
    “It’s the first face a visitor sees in a city, and this definitely put a sour taste in my mouth.”

  39. What needs to be done is to boycott taxi companies that hire muslim drivers. Or when you call a cab ask for a non-muslim driver. Just say you support the disabled, and their rights outweigh that of the religion of islam. Islam offends me, and it should be my right, and the right of any Canadian to chose who they do business with.

  40. The fact that muslims have brought this complaint can be construed as “likely exposing them” to hatred . What happens if hundreds of complaints are directed towards HRC about their actions? Do you have to be a muslim to make the complaint?
    What happens if thousands of complaints are sent to HRC, overpowering them and draining all their taxpayer funding.

  41. I think you’re on to something truthsayer.
    If people were to organise and bring charges against Islam and those who practice it, based on the incitement of hatred and foundational violence contained in their texts, I wonder how the HRC and the multiculti crowd would handle it?
    The constantly used insult, Kaffir, is meant to be a message of hate. It means that the non Muslim is less than human to the racist, bigoted and supremacist Muslim saying it.
    I’m also sure that passages in their Quran, Sira and Hadith can be proven to incite hatred, violence, murder, racisim, bigotry, misogyny and pedophilia. The Quran is likely in violation of our laws and constitution, as Dutch Freedom Party leader, Mr. Wilders, accurately pointed out in a speech to his Parliament.
    Something like that, if successful, could pave the way for new laws, specifically aimed at Islam, that could prevent this country from ending up like Europe.
    And then, perhaps, give other countries a pass to do the same.

  42. Thank you “Friend of USA”, you have said all there needs to be said. Thank you again, I agree 100% with everything you said here.

  43. Well this should be fun. But despite the sabre rattling I’m not sure Coyne really has the cojones to take on the CIC.
    Mohamed Elmasry is the chair and president of the organization, and nearly everyone seems afraid to put him in his place, including the University of Waterloo.
    So I suspect not much will change unfortunately.

  44. Good idea. The koran is hate literature, and should be regulated to the same bookshelf as Mein Kampf.

  45. Im hoping none of you commenters are among those who are trying to censor Golden Compass because that would be the epitome of hypocrisy.

  47. Free Speech, as an atheist I have no problem with Golden Compass, but why would that be hypocritical? Has anyone taken Golden Compass to the Human Rights Commissions?

  48. I’ve never been a big fan of McLeans magazine although someone appears to be sending copies of it to my office. I do read Mark Steyn’s articles in McLeans and put it in my waiting room.
    HRC’s should be completely disbanded and the only way I think this will happen is if someone takes their case against them to the supreme court. As ET pointed out, policies of the HRC’s are in violation of the Canadian constitution. To do this will require someone who has the financial backing to take on this motley collection of totalitarian scum and demand to either be charged with a hate crime or take their case to court and let the HRC’s explain why they are allowed to violate the Canadian constitution. In the US, this case would be a no-brainer as the 1st amendment is very clear and explicit without any weasel clauses. I would suggest Doug Christie would be the best lawyer for the job (once he’s finished defending Bruce Montague).
    The best solution would be to simply scrap the Canadian constitution as it is one of the most useless documents ever created. In the early 1980’s, when the constitutional debate was happening in Canada, I wrote one of my first letters to the prime minister suggesting that vast sums of money and time could be saved by simply importing the US constitution which, at that time, had been tested for over 200 years and no significant bugs had been discovered. I never did recieve a reply and I haven’t changed my opinion on this matter.

  49. Paula:
    I think you are asking about a scene from the “Life of Brian” I think the conversation goes something like this:
    Brian: “I want to join the Judean People’s Front”
    John Cleese (I can’t remember his character’s name): “F**k Off!! We are the People’s Front of Judea. We hate those bastards at the Judean People’s Front

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation