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.
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.
For the first time in many years I have just subscribed to Maclean’s as a result of their stand and I have written my MP about the matter. Now just a few comments to add to and to repeat some already made.
When the Western Standard was faced with the same they stood alone while the rest of the media remained silent or even worse agreed with the Muslim complaints. In a way one could predict that sooner or latter the same would happen to other media, as with each complaint the ones complaining grow bolder. At least I am pleased to see Maclean’s taking a stand, but where are all the others defending freedom of the press and speech?
The idea put forth about flooding these kangaroo commissions with complaints against the Islamists is a good one and it should bog them down for a long time along with depleting their budgets. One does not even need to refer to the hatred in the Koran, because we have all around us examples to use. Consider all the demonstrations by the same carrying placards inciting murder and hatred of non Muslims. Consider the weekly preaching in most of the mosques across the country. Consider their media spreading the same.
The bottom line is that it is up to the Muslims to change their image if they are not happy that we reject the one before us on a daily basis.
The Macleans article by Steyn are exerpts from his book “America Alone” Scary stuff. Global Warming won’t be the end of civilization as we know it. The demographics will be.
Loki,
An alternative to importing the US Constitution is adopting a Constitution like that of Australia, which was implemented in 1900.
The Australians obviously studied the US Constitution and the workings of the US Govt. They came up with a sort of amalgam of a Westminster Parliament and the US Constitution’s three separate branches of government.
There are checks and balances that restrain the Prime Mininister, unlike as in Canada where (IMO) the PM is too powerful and unchecked.
The Parliament has two houses, a (real and empowered)Senate where each state has an equal number of Senators and a House of Representatives where each state has Representatives apportioned according to population. This prevents the most populous state or states from being the defacto controllers of Parliament, as is the case in Canada, where Quebec and Ontario control the House of Commons.
Likewise, the Judiciary are restrained. (Again, unfortunately, unlike in Canada)
I recommend you study the Australian Constitution and see how much better it would be for Canada to have such a Constitution.
The URL is http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/
loki: I don’t think ET was arguing that the HRC was in violation of our constitution. Rather that the Charter is so impossibly obscure and contradictory as to quite literally beg for these frivolous suits to be brought before the kangaroo court that is the HRC.
Was this PET’s intention? I suspect it was.
Paula, you can tell the two groups apart if you pretend (ha) that the “I” in “CIC” stands for idiots.
Remarkable that after years of anti-american propagandizing and conservative bashing combined with overt water bearing for the LIberals… MacLeans gets attacked by the very Multi-Culti sweethearts they’ve been tacitly defending. All over ONE article By ONE writer. And NOW the editor gets a pair too!
Next thing you know they’ll be posting the real dirt on their Librano pals….!
Frankly I’m surprised they haven’t tried to hang Stein out to dry on this. But, since this could be a seminal moment for Canadian Publishers I really hope they stick to their guns and fight back.
Come to think of it a letter of encouragement to Ted Rogers might be helpful. I don’t think his legal team’s had a good workout since the “comma” fiasco! Sick em boys!
Global Warming won’t be the end of civilization as we know it. The demographics will be.
—RL
That and the spread of Islam.
I have purchased my subscription to Macleans Magazine, and emailed Stephen Harper on this matter.
I hope as many people as possible will do this as well. We cannot let them silence free speech!
The human rights commissions are truly an Orwellian tool. They need to become a priority issue at the grass roots.
[. . . .]
Presumably, Western bankers and investment houses would be horrified to know they are helping promote such arrangements. One would think their governments would be, too. Yet, the former so avidly pursue Mideast wealth that few seem prepared to engage in even the most superficial due diligence about the implications of Shariah finance.
And British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, for example, has declared he intends to make London the Islamic finance capital of the world. His government intends to issue its own sukuk (or **Shariah-compliant** bonds) sometime next year.
The trouble is that, having embraced one aspect of Shariah, it will be vastly more difficult, if not as a practical matter impossible, to deny Islamist activists their demands to accommodate other aspects such as: footbaths in public institutions, prayer rooms and time off for prayers in both public and private sector establishments, latitude for cabdrivers and cashiers to decline to do business with certain customers or handle certain products, an Islamist public school in Brooklyn, etc.
Like Shariah finance, each of these is but a beachhead in the Islamofascists’ patient, determine and ultimately seditious campaign to subvert and supplant Western free societies.
Elsewhere in some of those societies, such inroads have been expanded to include:
Demands for Shariah-compliant schools as in Britain;
a push in Canada for separate Shariah courts for all matters within the Muslim community;
Shariah tolerance for honor killings of women attempted in Germany;
destruction of non Shariah-compliant businesses in dedicated *Muslim enclaves* in France;
and in various countries, Shariah-approved assassinations of critics of Islam and anyone leaving Islam worldwide.
• Second, the Shariah advisers hired by Western capitalists to determine whether investments are *halal* (the Muslim equivalent of kosher) are generally among the foremost adherents to the Islamist creed and associated with organizations that promote it. As one of them put it, Shariah investing is simply *financial jihad* against the unbelievers.
• Third, under the direction of these Shariah advisers, at least 2½ percent of the proceeds of the investments they control are donated to Zakat funds. Some of these *charities* have been known to contribute to organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, the families of suicide bombers in Palestinian communities and Islamist madrassas in places like Pakistan.
As investment advisers start promoting Shariah finance vehicles and Islamic indexes like Standard & Poors and Dow Jones, non-Muslim Americans will find themselves tithing to these dubious causes, as well.
Before the Trojan horse of Shariah finance is fully wheeled inside the gates of the American capital markets, federal regulators, corporate boards of directors and U.S. shareholders need to understand whether such investing conforms with the good governance and accountability required under Sarbanes-Oxley, the transparency depositors are entitled to under our banking laws and legislation barring material support to terrorism.
To do otherwise is to invite the introduction of the instrument of our undoing into our capitalist system and the freedom-loving society it underpins.
Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy — sponsor of a Shariah Risk Due Diligence Project — and a columnist for The Washington Times.
=================== WashingtonTimes.com
washingtontimes.com/article/20071204/COMMENTARY03/112040012/1012/COMMENTARY
= TG
Whoops! Meant to say Steyn not Stein but since it came up, will MacLeans now be offering a sincere apology to Western Standard’s founder and editor in chief??? As for supporting MacLeans on this at this point NOT ME …. when they make a serious effort to fight this and when it is clear that they will not fold like the cheap suit of the publishing world I believe they are … then I’ll consider patronizing their publication.
As a matter of principle I’ll email my MP and the PM among others ….. but MacLeans has not yet done anything to earn my money.
While Macleans has not exactly been my favourite media outlet, I think it it appropriate to fortify them by showing them that Canadians stand behind them. This is an important fight, I think. It will set the standard for the future.
I agree,OMMAG,Maclean’s has been publishing left-wing crap for so long that to rush in and support them with my earnings is premature. If they publish a 5 page article on the infiltration of evil islam into our society and make it a cover story,well,then maybe.
On a lighter note,
there are teddy bears for everyone here
http://www.therudenews.com/?p=178
My favorite is the barrister/ attorney CAIR bear,
…has built an industry using our Western values against us…
Like some of you, I am not about to go rushing out to buy a Maclean’s subscription. One good deed doesn’t erase far too many decades of “Ah sh*t” stories. They need to show me a good and sustained track record first.
I note a reference above to the Muslim Canadian Congress. I had not heard of them before, but reading their website and some of their past press releases, they seem to be a more rational voice. Why don’t we hear about them in the MSM? (rhetorical dumb question).
Here’s one release that caught my eye – http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/20070615.html
Anyone know anything susbstantive about this group?
Ahhh… that should be “substantive”.
In Fort Mac nearly all the cab drivers are black muslims straight out of Africa. People even nickname the Esso stations ‘Taliban Esso.’ There is no doubt in many people’s minds that these – some well-educated – black muslims are here for a purpose other than driving cabs; I’m sure people here can figure out what that purpose would be, considering what Fort Mac’s economy is based on.
I think that woman who was refused taxi service because the taxi drivers wouldn’t allow her dog in their cab should take it straight to the HRC – pronto! I think it is possible the muslim taxi drivers hate her, and I’m pretty sure they hate her dog.
loki and me no dhimmi.
I was pointing out that the HRC Act section 13.1 is in violation of the Charter of Rights, section 2b.
But I completely agree with me no dhimmi that the Charter is in itself, contradictory and ambiguous. In itself, it establishes freedom of the individual (Section 2), but in Section 15, it removes individual rights by privileging group rights over individual rights.
Section 15.2 specifically privileges the rights of groups ‘disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability”.
Any ‘law, program or activity’ is privileged over the rights of the individual if it has “as its object the amelioration of conditions” of the above disadvantages.
This obviously sets up a situation where a law, program or activity’ that privileges a group, is privileged over the rights of an individual. So, my freedom of speech as an individual can be trumped by a group right that says that shutting me up would ‘ameliorate their condition’.
As well, Section 27 of that Charter says that “the Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians’. What the heck does that mean, other than that cultural relativism trumps common law and order?
I agree with others. The Ausralians took a hard look at their system – and their revamped elected and term-limited Senate is really excellent. Why can’t we do that here? Their system of checks and balances, their reduction of our system of patronage appointments – all excellent. Yes, they took a lot of this from the US system. It’s much better than ours.
OMMAG, you are spot on! we had that liberal rag coming into our house (for school purposes) and infuriated me each week. Thankfully we had the WS also coming in to give some balance, but when the subscription came up for renewal last winter and our girls only had a couples months left in school i took great pleasure in canceling it, and stated my reasons for doing so! funny thing, i never received another attempt from macleans to get me to renew. I for one will not be taking a subscription out any time soon (sorry Kate). if they end up in court, i’d rather donate money to support free speech, yes, even mcleans, but i will not be subscribing again! that mag belongs in the outhouse, and not for reading purposes!
Let us see now,
Coyone’s article is excellent, though the sentence ‘There are a great many people in this country who seem to have no clue about what freedom of speech means, or why it was invented’, is somewhat confusing.
Freedom of speech was not invented; it is a natural function of human discourse. Some would argue that you have to have rules on speech. Not so. If some free speech sounds like an idiot machine, you are free not to listen, does not qualify for criminal offence.
Freedom of speech was curtailed and become criminal offence beginning with National and other socialist, communists, fascists and perhaps other ‘ists, and continue today with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. How about that?
Borovoy really likes the setup, he just can not admit to that.
ET: It occurred to me over dinner that I erred and that you were referring to the HRC act.
Thanks for the clarification. I’m reading F.A. Hayek again — this time: The Constitution of Liberty — and my oh my how we’ve strayed from The Rule of Law.
And that language, “likely to expose” is lethally dangerous. It reminds me of the BC Securities Commission attempt to revamp legislation which included the ubiquitous phrase “what a reasonable person would think”. They thought that the “rules based” approach made it too easy for miscreants to sin via technical loopholes; in other words, they wanted language to cover situations which they missed in the drafting.
Like CRA’s “anti avoidance” rule for income taxes. If a tax-reduction strategy is not specifically prohibited they gotcha anyway.
And don’t get me started on the word “deem”.
Dave in Pa, thanks for the link to the Australian constitution. I perused it and was struck by the lack of any explicitly defined right to freedom of speech. I guess the authors of the Australian constitution never got around to including the US Bill of Rights or assumed that the English Bill of Rights would continue to apply. Interesting that they would include a clause in the constitution about who controlled alcohol but not freedom of speech.
After reading the bill of rights over again (the first 10 ammendments) and the Australian constitution I was again struck by the higher order vision present in the US bill of rights rather than the irrelevent details present in the Australian version (I’ve already engaged in too much displacement activity tonight so I’m not going to look at the Canadian constitution).
A number of people have suggested using the HRC’s to complain about muslim “hate speech”. This is a superficially attractive idea, but it legitimizes the HRC’s. IMO, muslims have the same right to free speech as everyone else and to try to limit their speech using an organization which limits our own speech is folly. Such a tactic would give the HRC’s greater legitimacy and my approach is to fight them at every opportunity. That SDA has started to expose totalitarian scum such as Warman is good as the blogosphere is beyond the reach of HRC’s. It will be necessary at some future time to fund a court challenge to legitimacy of HRC’s, or better yet, convince PMSH to bring in legislation to eliminate HRC’s.
Ah yes, the “reasonable man” escape that Me No Dhimmi brings up. This brought back memories of arguments with my girlfriend over legal matters while she was in law school and she would use this to try to win her side of the argument by telling me I was unreasonable. Most of the time my logic was perfect, but my interpretation of the law was “unreasonable” even though I could produce an irrefutable logical chain demonstrating that the particular piece of legislation, as written, could be interpreted as I had done. (We no longer have discussions about law). It didn’t help when I brought up Bernard Shaw’s quote about all progress depending on the unreasonable man.
Knowing that I would have flunked out of law school (had I in a demented moment chosen this instead of medicine) whereas I excelled in every scientific course I took had a large part in my becoming a libertarian.
Reading this thread is “deja vu all over again”. An obscure Canadian women’s group called REAL Women–the disloyal opposition to the radical, man-hating, child-subjugating feminists–has had its finger on the pulse on the Human Rights Commissions for over a decade.
That the HRCs are kangaroo courts has been thoroughly analysed by REAL Women, whose founder and VP is Gwen Landolt, an astute and no-nonsense lawyer. (Of course, REAL Women has been belittled and sidelined by the MSM and by most politicians, including many on the right, who should be thanking them.)
Google REAL Women and the HRCs: there’s nothing of substance in this thread that hasn’t already been said by that group–long ago.
I agree with Me No Dhimmi: I believe the bullies at CIC have met their match.
And, although I appreciate the courtesy of Free Speech, I want to say, “You must be kidding.” FS says, “The day we restrict freedom of speech to prevent offense to people’s religious beliefs is the day our democracy dies.”
Well, FS, that happened so long ago in this country, I guess we no longer live in a democracy. (I AM sympathetic to that idea, though.)
Re censoring books like The Golden Compass, which seems to be a concern of FS: be scared, be really scared! (sarc off) I don’t happen to be a fan of these books, but, hey, as I said to my children, it’s a “free” country. NB: Christians haven’t used the HRCs to go after those who persecute us. Indeed, the HRCs have been used quite exclusively to persecute Christians in this country. (Now, Free Speech, what do you think of that?)
Good on Kenneth Whyte for his response to the CIC.
The free speech issue in Canada has been percolating for quite some time involving hate matters.
At least money will not be an issue for Maclean’s to defend their case.
The Warman suit against Connie and Mark Fournier of the FREE DOMINION blog is also a free speech issue and equally as important, except it that involves the internet, but money to defend appears a major problem for the Fourniers.
As far as Maclean’s is concerned, I had a gift (family) subscription given to me some time in the eighty’s but couldn’t abide the overall leftist viewpoint; I consider the subscription wasted money, despite Mark Steyn being the best conservative voice anywhere, today.
My view Maclean’s was simply reinforced a few weeks ago by the continued America bashing front cover portrayal of the Hitler-like George Bush.
Needless to say, despite my negative view of the magazine, my hope is they will have the CIC case dismissed.
I am not trying to dissuade others from subscribing, but I simply will not.
My magazine was the Western Standard.
What needs to be done is to boycott taxi companies that hire muslim drivers
No – just lift the hack license of the driver who refused service, permanently. If a Muslim (Jew, Hindu, Seventh-Day Adventist, Baptist…) can provide the service he is licensed to provide, I have no problem with his or her religious belief. A ban on all Muslim cabbies goes way too far.
I keep an ‘Outlook’ folder with the e-addresses of ALL MP’s of all parties, exactly for such issues. I’ve e-mailed all of them too, including a graph from ‘Investors Business Daily’
http://tinyurl.com/2mdkj9
that illustrates the fallacy of overt acts of ‘Islamaphobia’.
@ET: A reading of the charter shows that sections 2 through 7, as well as 15, specifically need the notwithstanding clause to override them. A reasonable person would conclude that section 15.2 refers to $. This interpretation doesn’t make those sections of the Charter a self-contradictory mish-mash, where the extension of one necessitates the violation of another.
Even if 15.2 can be stretched beyond the $ zone, it would be proper procedure to invoke the Notwithstahding Clause in such a way: “Notwithstanding section 2b of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this law beefs up section 15.2 in such-and-such a way….”
Agree that HRC’s are kangaroo courts manned by leftist appointees, where tax monies are used in a biased fashion, with conservatives and Christians disproportionately targeted. Complainants can bring the most frivolous complaints at no cost to them while defendants undergo multiple costs besides financial such as loss of reputation. The bar is set so low that truth is not a defense. If the truth offends some individual who belongs to a minority, then that is sufficient for fault-finding. Muslims appear to be among the most thin-skinned users of the service. Is there anything that does NOT offend them about the Western life they sought out?
As for “Free Speech’s” comment: “Im hoping none of you commenters are among those who are trying to censor Golden Compass because that would be the epitome of hypocrisy”.
It is incorrect that the serial is being censored. It is widely available in the public school system and libraries. What is under consideration is whether these books out of the millions available in the world are appropriate in Catholic schools. Since the author of Golden Compass is a militant atheist who wrote the books as a recruiting method for converting children to his belief system at a malleable age, it would seem commonsense that they are the opposite of what parents send their kids to Catholic schools to learn.
Maclean’s has something of a split-personality. It has been a liberal anti-American rag for ages. Its present editor, Kenneth Whyte was a surprising hire for Maclean’s since he was the original editor hired by Conrad Black at the founding of the National Post, I believe.
Whyte in turn hired Steyn (who used to write for the National Post as well) for Maclean’s last page. I’m guessing Whyte, like Harper is in a minority situation and is doing what he can within the confines of the entrenched lib culture at the mag.
Good posts, kivi.
Let’s hope in the Macleans case that the HRC has bitten off more than it can chew and that the general public will become aware of these pernicious–and vicious–kangaroo courts, which are being used to punish good citizens who don’t toe the politically correct party line.
Canadians need to wake up to the ugly truths of this country, instead of waiting like sitting ducks until it’s their turn to be targeted. But these are unpleasant topics and I find that most Canadians don’t like unpleasantness: “nice” goes over a lot better and Canadians seem to have a huge capacity for deception–even when it’s eventually going to bite them.
SDA goes a long way to exposing the unpalatable truths we need to face. Thanks, Kate.
I believe it is in the public domain that the Calgary Herald is also dealing with a “free speech issue” either in the courts or in the AB Human Rights tribunal – brought on by one of a few people(or groups) who seem intent of muzzling free speech by racking up “wins” via HR decisions.
Seriously, it is time to begin dismantling the provincial HR commissions or at least preclude them from dealing in those areas that are, or likely are to become, issues of freedom of speech. Even Borovoy (the father of the federal HR tribunal) has gone public that he did not see it becoming an agency to deal with freedom of speech. It will probably require invoking the NWC at some point but this takes much willpower and guts on the part of a provincial government.
The provincial HR commissions are created by legislation – they can be just as easily dismantled by provincial legislation. That would leave us with the Canadian HR Commission – but only Central Canada can control this one – and highly unlikely this would ever happen.
This legal chill in the air that is accounting for the extreme political correctness mode in which we find ourselves today simply has to go.
Ban the Quran as hate speech petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/petition-sign.cgi?banquran
The open letter and background info is here:
.petitiononline.com/ckd2005/petition.html
Way to go Ken !
“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.”
But Ken, you just aren’t being sensitive to multicultural difference ! BLAAAAAAAAAAAA BLAAAAAAAAAAAA BLAAAAAAAAAAAA BLAAAAAAAAAAA
The problem with our constitution is not that it contradicts itself (although it does – they all do. A constitution gives a set of rights but usually doesn’t say which supersedes which if they conflict.)
The real problem with our constitution is that it is entirely irrelevant. It means nothing less and nothing more than a bare majority of our supreme court ideologues say it does – the actual words be dammed. What they say it means is filtered through their biases, agendas and dishonesty – but not written law as that is just their post-facto excuse for their whim.
The words our politicians wrote when they drafted the constitution are less than useless without the will to over-rule the Supremes and their manipulative agendas using the notwithstanding clause which the liars and propagandists have deemed off limits.
In other words, the Supremes rule their whim and then fish for some excuse in the charter using the flimsiest of excuses. There has been many cases (such as the election gag laws) where wholly invented “rights” hitherto never heard of before have superseded actual, fundamental rights that are explicitly outlined in the constitution based on the Supremes using hypothetical, baseless grounds as their excuse.
lookout…your reference to Gwen Landolt is refreshing. She has been a thorn in the side of the HRC and Court Challenges program for a long time , and never gives up.
The likes of Macleans and WS could use her knowledge and stamina.
I did hear her take Lynk Byfield to task once tho because he cautioned us re: Islam. Her appreciation for MODERATE Muslims is their family centred values.
I agree, blutech! Gwen Landolt should have the Order of Canada a few times over for her knowledge, dedication, and tenacity in defending the integrity of the natural family in this country against staggering odds.
She and other pro-life leaders recognized the danger of the Charter before it was signed. Of course, who listened to THEM? Since then, Gwen Landolt’s become a fount of knowledge about the Charter’s nefarious outcomes via all kinds of backroom deals, such as the unaccountable Court Challenges Program–run by leftists, for leftists, in order to use tax $$ to fund their Charter cases–now, thankfully, stopped by the Conservatives.
Hopefully, this latest HRC fiasco will blow up–whoops!–in the faces of the overreaching activists who, I hope, have gone “a bridge too far” this time.
I would just like to say that I find it indescribably delicious that the victim of this attempt at censorship is the left leaning rag Maclean’s Magazine, or as I like to call it, “Those Commie Pinko Sons of $*^Y*#)%%!!!”
Never saw a tax, a Communist dictator, a victim group or a gun ban they didn’t love, and now here they are on the receiving end for a change. Up in front of the Human Rights Commissar for doing exactly nothing. Who’d a thunk it?
Maybe I’m just plain mean, but after twenty years of watching MacLean’s crap all over my personal beliefs and values every week this is frickin’ awesome.
Schnaden my Freud, baby!
“…or at least preclude them from dealing in those areas that are, or likely are to become, issues of freedom of speech.” Posted by: calgary clipper at December 6, 2007 8:51 AM
This seems to be what Coyne is saying in his article as well. If we can’t have these undemocratic Commissions dismantled, wouldn’t a reasonable request to our elected representatives be that issues related to freedom of speech and restrictions thereto should be adjudicated by a real Court, not a HRC-kangaroo court. Of course we would have to worry about the leftist judges, but at least a real court would have to consider rules of evidence, and a plaintiff before a real court would have to consider the possibility that their case could be thrown out with costs, and they themselves could be vulnerable to lawsuit. Currently they face no consequences for frivolous or even dangerous complaints.
lookout at 3:33 pm. If Gwen Landolt has never received the Order of Canada, isn’t it time some of us lobbied for her to receive it? Is this Order only for cultural marxists?
“The Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) announced today that it has launched several human rights complaints…”
I would no more blame ALL Canadian muslims for the above actions than I would blame ALL Canadian woman for the actions of SOW.
I am in complete awareness of the dire danger of radical muslims around the globe but am repeatedly disgusted by the many who simply hate all muslims because they are muslims.
This reminds me of the recent furor which arose over muslim women being allowed to keep their faces covered when voting.I remember claims of ‘they’re all out to get us!’ then too.
Only to find muslims had NO INTEREST in the policy.It was simply a byproduct of an over-zealous,politically correct(probably leftist-white)bureaucrat.
“What needs to be done is to boycott taxi companies that hire muslim drivers”
Like I said,disgusting.
teddy, you seem to suffer from the same myopia of which you accuse, I suppose, people at SDA. You say you’re “disgusted” at people who “hate all muslims [sic] because they are muslims [sic]”. Who would these people be? Are you able to quote any?
(“What needs to be done is to boycott taxi companies that hire muslim drivers” may be an intemperate suggestion, but it’s no proof that the person who wtote it “hates all Muslims”. So, if you wish to make intemperate statements, please provide proof.)
It is simultaneously revolting and depressing to read what those law students proposed. Best and brightest…
Teddy:
We would not even HAVE human rights tribunals, never mind tribunals hearing complaints against pinko Maclean’s Magazine, if it were not for steadfast people like yourself trying to protect the nice helpless Victim ‘o The Week from the mean people in the world.
Worked out other than you planned, eh? These things usually do. Any time you give up your own freedom just to impose your will on somebody else, it generally doesn’t turn out well. Benjamin Franklin said something pithy on the subject, shame I can’t remember it exactly.
Now as to the taxi driver thing, would it be ok to boycott taxi companies who’s drivers won’t pick up a blind lady with a seeing eye dog? Would that be acceptable? Because to my mind, denying service to the handicapped is as low as it gets.
The fact that these turds all seem to be Muslim is entirely coincidental as far as I’m concerned. This is Canada, you give the lady a ride or you don’t keep the damn job. They should be fired and slapped into the bargain. Belonging to a religious victim group doesn’t get you a free pass to be an a-hole.
While I sent my concerns about this smothering of contrary opinion to MP’s of all parties yesterday, I had to reinforce it by sending the following today:
I note in today’s Globe and Mail, a comment from a Muslim immigrant living in Yellowknife, in which he seems to grudgingly appreciate the fact that in a smaller town, one must ‘go along to get along’ despite the fact it is ‘unIslamic’ to do so:
http://tinyurl.com/2u3cu8
“In a big city, it’s much easier to become isolated in your religious community and not consider the outside world,” says Mr. Abdel Mejid. “This is such a small community that you have to be a part of it. We have to engage with other religions. I know it’s not the Islam way, but it’s good for me and good for my religion.”
I also note from the article, that Yellowknife has a new Imam, Hasam Morrsi from Cairo Egypt. This too leaves me with some concern, as Egypt has been a principle source of religious Wahabism and has been actively spreading their message of hate throughout Europe and other parts of the world.
I’ve said it before: Canadians need to learn when to tell their government when to piss off. Forcefully, if need be.
As was said earlier, Ken Whyte is the publisher of Macleans now. Give him a break. The dude was the publisher of the Post when Conrad Black owned it. Give him some time.
I know the guy. He’s rational. He’s one of us. And very smart.
“I am in complete awareness of the dire danger of radical muslims around the globe but am repeatedly disgusted by the many who simply hate all muslims because they are muslims.”
Once again Teddy, I suggest you seriously read all of the posts on the topic of Muslims. The underlying rational narrative is that the Islamic ideology, as expressed in the foundational violence, supremacism, imperialism and every other ‘ism’ of their texts is to blame.
I agree. It’s not right or beneficial to hate Muslims, or anybody else for that matter. But, if the ideology is the impetus, based on the evidence, then the ideology rightfully must be destroyed.
As long as these texts are accepted and protected as ‘religion,’ the whole world is in trouble.
This complete personal, legal, political and military ideology, masquerading – scratch that – cloaked and protected as religion is the trouble that we are experiencing right now.
People like you have not considered Mohammad’s own words and actions, as expressed in their texts. Therefore, neither can you understand the continuing historical attrocities caused and justified by these words.
The fragility of the democratic tenets of freedom of thought, speech and criticism, can and will destroy it. As long as these very tenets are not destroyed – as they are in all Islamic countries, by decree of their Quran – in the meantime.
These legal suits are meant to destroy our civilization, to the benefit of Islam.
However, the more people are informed of what Mohammad did and said; what Muslims are commanded and rewarded to do on penalty of death – the more likely toxic Islam will be defeated.
That’s what they fear. Questioning is not allowed in Islam. It is a sin, once again, on penalty of death.
Teddy,
Ask yourself these questions: Why is it that Islam is the only so-called religion that doesn’t believe in the golden rule? And, more importantly, promises physical death to apostates and those that question it, ridicule it and oppose it?
The application of reason creates apostates from Islam and defenders against it.
I am renewing my subscription to MacLean’s for another two years – I initially started my subscription when I saw that Mark Steyn had started to write in the magazine. Andrew Coyne’s response says it so well!
Phantom,
I’m not trying to protect anyone,especially since I personally have zero use for either organized religions or politically correct tribunals.I am merely trying to help some people shake themselves of the ‘groupthink’ mentality that I often see infect sites such as these.Please reread my comparison to SOW and other abusers of the system.I believe it is a fair comparison.
irwin,
Again,I never base my comments on the bible,koran,etc because they are too easily cherry picked to back up whatever point one wishes to make.
I believe the teachings of Islam are whatever the imams want it to be.Thus,I believe it is the responsibility of ALL muslims to denounce radicalism and police their mosques for hatred.
Like it or not,muslims are in this country to stay.
It is our responsibility not to condemn an entire group by the actions of a few.
Even if their religion seems f**ked up to us.
teddy,
You admittedly don’t know, yet you make assertions without evidence. The only “cherry picking’ these imams do is the difference between what they tell their congregations and what they tell the infidel nations. They teach exactly what is in the Quran. And since the Quran has no context without the Sira and Hadith, they teach from these texts as well.
All Muslims know that they are commanded to emulate Mohammad. Do you have the foggiest idea of what that means? What Mohammad did and said?
“It is our responsibility not to condemn an entire group by the actions of a few.”
It is, however, our responsibility to question and expose the foundationally violent texts, ideology and teachings that propel hatred, bigotry, imperialism, supremacism and death.
Anything less is not rational, or responsible. In fact, you and others with your pov are enabling a very bleak future for generations to come.