What if Maclean’s Magazine caves today and decides to accept an offer to “settle” made on behalf of three of the Muslim law students who are not actually parties to the complaints?
Update a first person report, and a first rate rant;
“We’re here because of a goddam ADJECTIVE now?” I “asked” RightGirl, beside me.
My outburst caught the attention of one of the female law students on the dias, and we engaged in a evil eye staring match for the next 15 minutes. Heh. Made ‘er blink.
More reaction now up.
And at the National Post. This sounds reassuring; “Maclean’s did not respond to the proposal yesterday, except to say it will be addressed by the editors in a future issue.”
If they budge, I’ll cancel my subscription immediately. If enough people, who believe in free speech and freedom of the press, threaten to do the same, maybe they’ll stick to their guns.
It’s called blackmail.
Actually, I just emailed both Macleans (and Rogers) to tell them to stand firm or we subscribers who actually believe in free speech and freedom of the press will can our subscriptions.
Go to the Western Standard blog and read what is apparently “the offer”.
Discussion will no doubt follow.
this is all hypothetical of course….elmo and his claque ARE of course trying to weasel out of their predicament and of course their first bids will be for a compromise that will eventually suit their book but i don’t consider macleans stewards to be dhimmified in the least…they won’t roll over because they’re old fashioned common sensical canadians with bags of integrity and self respect and in full knowledge of the hudna and taquiya techniques that are being put in play today.
hopefullly they’ll ignore them or tell them to get stuffed…and then just let things play out and eventually use every legal means at their disposal to make the villains rue the day they started this horseshit.
What if Maclean’s Magazine caves today
Reading their latest edition, I think they already did:
Why Israel can’t survive
They’ll cave.
When this whole Steyn,Macleans/HRC business came to a boil I subscribed to Macleans to show my support for them even though I had cancelled my subscription in disgust several years ago.
I began to doubt the wisdom of my re-subscription when Macleans arrived in my home with a column written by that idiot, Fotheringham. I could not believe they were resurrecting that worn-out old has-been. If Macleans compound my doubt by making some sort of weasel deal with these Islamic fascists I will not only cancel my subscription but I’ll also demand a refund. I hope others will join those of us who will tell Macleans where to go if it becomes necessary to do so.
I think every publication has it’s own ‘Fotheringham’. One only need look at the Sun chain and the fact they give Eric Margolis space.
If they cave ,there goes the free press in Canada. I can see Maclean’s retracting if they published an article with several factual errors,but that is not the case here. What next,if I break into your house to steal your belongings and defile your pets,will I be able to keep my name out of the papers on the grounds that it offends me to have people know of my crimes against you and nature. Suck it up boys,you are in a free country now,accept it or take a hike to somewhere you will be more comfortable.
change their name to MacDhimmi–simple
*
Well… we’re certainly off to a fine start.
“TORONTO, April 30 /CNW/ – ‘The assertion that the editors were prepared to consider
a reasonable counter-view article to Mark Steyn’s Islamophobic polemic is a complete
fabrication,’ said Muneeza Sheikh, one of the students present at the meeting.”
*
Does MacLeans really have to do anything at this point? What is going to be done in ON has already been done and the ON HRC situation seems to be going even more draconian as a defensive response to attacks from the public. The On gov’t plugged in $17M to make it happen, so removing free speech (not to mention totally dismantling the ONHRC) is highly unlikely.
It would appear that the Elmasry crew is really looking for a weasel way out at this point and probably really hope they do not have go through the BC hearing in June.
They filed the complaint with BCCRT and they can withdraw it at any time – as simple as this and on their own. Macleans really should not do anything that can be construed by the Elmasry crew or the public as being a mediated (public or private) settlement (read caving).
What MacLeans wants out of this as a magazine is likely something rather different than what those of us who want to see the dismantling of all Human Rights Commissions are looking for. I think this is coming clear as they express what they are likely to pursue in the June hearing – if it goes that far. Is this tantamount to caving – perhaps it will be seen as such to some but not by others.
This is an interesting time.
I would like to think Ken Whyte has the strength of his position at McLeans to tell the hurt feelings lot to take a hike.
However Ted Rogers is another matter.
I suspect Ted is more concerned about making a buck and appeasing than he is about the outcome of skirmishing over a Canadian Free Speech issue and will force Ken Whyte to cave in.
Let’s find out if Ken Whyte is on the same page as Mark Steyn (as Mark he has already written on this subject) or whether his own welfare within the Rogers empire comes first.
A side note > – I didn’t rush to subscribe to Macleans after the charges because I still view them as leftist ( despite Ken Whyte) in their editorial soul, which I have for thirty years!
The CIC called this little ‘hudna’ to show that the HRC’s really do work. They’ll proudly proclaim that they offered an olive branch to settle the issue and if it’s rejected, they say this shows just how ‘Islamophobic’ the defendants really are. It’s a little pre-emptive strike at painting the defendants in a poor light, should the case continue.
The real reason they’re scared is the possibility of losing the whole damn HRC apparatus and their ability to stifle the one thing they hate the most.
Free speech.
Is that an ego trip??
Why allowing a rebuttal is *caving*?
As a reader of the online edition of Macleans, I think I want to read the rebuttal of the plaintiff.
Atheist Quebecois:
There is a vast difference between being forced to print a rebuttal, and choosing to print a rebuttal in the interests of good journalism.
The first option means the death of freedom of the press.
Islam “insults” Christianity by asserting that a) Jesus was not the Son of God, b) he did not die on the cross, and c) he is not the Saviour of the world.
As a Christian, I am hurt and offended. I demand the right to rebut these Christophobic Islamic claims in every Islamic publication in Canada.
Well Richard Ball, you’re not a ‘visible minority’ so you can GFY.
Kathy has posted her take on the presser at five feet of fury.
“As a Christian, I am hurt and offended. I demand the right to rebut these Christophobic Islamic claims in every Islamic publication in Canada.”
Ya Rich, your not “historically disadvantaged” so get with it. I on the other hand am a White guy who isn’t Christian. It is you who discriminates against me, I am still suffering from the oppression that Santa Claus put me through. Pay Up!
Look… nobody is forcing nobody here… it is an offer… they can take it or not.. They should accept it. They should have accepted at the beginning and we wouldn’t be here now with the HRC involved.
Europe is about 3-4% muslims now and Mark Steyn claims that it will be islamic land in 1 or 2 generation. That’s a big claim to make. Especially if you consider than fertility rate of muslims are falling fast and that many muslims are secular or even atheist. Steyn claimed that half of french babies are muslim todays, that’s false.
When Jan Wong wrote a defamatory article about Quebec 2 yrs ago in the Globe and Mail. The GM allowed Jean Charest and Stephen Harper a rebuttal letter. Macleans should do the same.
But it has become a ego war for them. So they will refuse because of ego.
We will see where this goes but do not underestimate Ted Rogers. He is not one that likes or wants to be bullied, see his fights with CRTC, the Trudeau government etc
He can hardly be accussed of being anti muslim, given his choice to head up the parent conpany, RCI.
Teds a businessman, but he is a publisher and has been for awhile. No publisher can let people dictate content especially when they are saying they would drop a Human rights complaint if they get their way. Too many things are on the line, and the harrassment would never end.
Unfortuantely this has to be taken to the ultimate end. Which means to the Supreme Court should they lose. If you cave at this stage then Rogers will need to exit the whole content creation business, magazine and on line.
Can you complain that the body fitting swimsuits on women in diving meets they show on Rogers sportsnet are offensive and must be removed? Can you complain that women and men are competing in horse jumping competitions? Can you complain about the coverage that City TV news has of a trial of a terrorist who is muslim and force changes to the coverage.
The point is you cant accept that and be in the news business. If Rogers caves they need to exit ALL content creaation businesses, and they will NOT do that. You cant be in the business and run your business with these perpetual threats.
Macleans will publish soemthing, but it will be a neutral article covering the controversy, and they MAY allow some other opinion article, like the back page, to go to the reposodents to complain about why they havent got everything they have wanted.
Ted wont back down
1) Not in his nature
2) Not good for his business
If someone shows up at your door and demands a house key, you don’t give it to him. If he comes back later with the more “reasonable” demand that he be allowed to use your shower at any time, one should not compare that request with the first one and come to the conclusion that it’s a reasonable concession. Both demands are ludicrous.
I have a feeling — I hope I’m wrong — that Macleans is going to concede something to these students. If there’s one thing that stands out about Macleans, and harms it’s credibility, it’s the dead-center MOR attitude which on balance doesn’t think or make moral judgments independent of national narratives that have already been decided by pollsters/CBC/CTV. When I read Macleans it seems that the publishers feel that if you split the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives, or between the Conservatives and the NDP, you’ve found a perfectly reasonable, balanced position. This sort of buffered-Liberal positioning is revolting because it results in federal political coverage that is based on, or tied to, whatever the dominant narrative is, rather than on the truth. If you’re trying to please everybody then you’re Liberal, as far as I’m concerned.
If they bow down before the fake multicultural gods and make even the slightest concession to these gits who are attempting to undermine their right to publish their own magazine, “Macleans” will henceforth and for all time read “Canada’s Gutless Rag.” And I suspect Mark Steyn would quit.
AQS,
A letter is a reasonable offer, an opinion piece that is on the back page is fine…there have been many many letters published.
The original request was never made, why 6 months after the original offer and why threaten with a BCHRC complaint. The sock pupppets havent been negotiating they have been demanding, now they are trying to negotiate….I see no reason for Macleans to aceded to their offer, Macleans might make a counter offer. But to make the offer in a press conference etc etc etc isnt negotiating it is grandstanding.
Take this to its logical end, fight the full battle. If Macleans loses at the Supreme Court then we have a different country than we thought we did….then maybe Gilles Duceppe/Lucien Bouchard would be right and Canada really isnt a real country anyway.
Well atheist quebecois separatiste,
If I recall the original debate – MacLeans had published numerous letters – both for and against. Enough is enough as they can write what they want (if allowed) but that issue goes in the garbage and not the recycle bin.
Surely these ‘talking sockpuppets/heads’ can get a full page spread in Al Jazereera?
Like the issue in Quebec and the Gay Bar, some folks in the HR$ industry never know when to cease and desist before doing harm to those they have within their legislation and mission to protect.
These law students have done more harm to Muslims than they have yet to appreciate.
Stephen….I would like to see those body fitting swimsuits on sportsnet removed!
😉
Mecheng
Agreed 😉
I’ll put money on Ken Whyte quitting if he’s told to throw these kids a bone.
A man of his talent knows he’ll find something else.
“Islam “insults” Christianity …”
Let’s not forget occupying the christian heartland of Asia Minor, Palestine, and North Africa.
stay alert folks. we are going to be on the losing end of the jihad. those who won’t fight for their freedom will lose it.
Go over to Kathy’s site, apparently the new deal is exactly the same as the old deal. What a waste of time, what the hell are these asshats thinking and what are they trying to prove? That they’re idiots?
Rogers owns WAY more than Macleans.
Think Rogers Cable, Home Phone, Cell Phone service, internet, Chatelaine, the Shopping Channel, the Blue Jays, the Rogers Center in downtown Toronto, blah blah.
Anyone own Roger’s stock?
If they cave, consider the money they could lose in a boycott/cancellation campaign that started on the blogosphere.
Just sayin…
“Here I stand, I can do no other.”
That was absolutely perfect, Kathy. Canadians need to be aware that they need a spine first, before anyone can stand.
AQS said, “Look… nobody is forcing nobody here… it is an offer… they can take it or not.. They should accept it. They should have accepted at the beginning and we wouldn’t be here now with the HRC involved.”
Spine. Go get one.
Kathy,
your rant was priceless. If I had been dinking anything I would definitely have needed to buy a new keyboard.
Holding breath….. if Macleans caves I’ll be devastated. But as I said yesterday in a similar thread, it is quite possible they’ll cave.
We finally have the bastards on the run….
Kathy should DEMAND that she get free publishing rights on Elmasry’s CIC web hate site.
Now that would be a venue to stir up the multi-culti human rights pot.
AQ:
“Look… nobody is forcing nobody here… it is an offer… they can take it or not..”
When you threaten someone with the weight of the law and then make them an offer to make the threat go away, that is indeed force. How do you think the authorities enforce their rulings?
“Law school is so much more expensive and time consuming than flying lessons, it’s true, but when you’re through, you don’t ever die, you get to take over the country instead. With the citizens paying the bill”.
Brilliant, Kathy. Right on. Exactly. Needs to be repeated.
“We’re here because of a goddam ADJECTIVE now?” I “asked” RightGirl, beside me.
‘fiercely’ is an adverb.
MacLean’s better not capitulate. To do so would be to betray themselves and their readership. Just as I had been finding a lot of respect to have for that magazine.
MacLeans: Please prove yourselves worthy!
Oh, and I just put up an article on an international civilian-run news/opinion website to tell the world about what’s going on. I believe folks the world over will find this continuing issue very fascinating.
http://tcs2.instablogs.com/entry/anti-free-speech-folks-in-canada-vainly-trying-to-save-face/
“‘fiercely’ is an adverb.”
Fiercely ‘beaten’ maybe. Fiercly bearded? Nope.
oops, missed an ‘e’ in the 2nd ‘fiercely’…
Stephen: -We’re here because of a goddam ADJECTIVE now?” I “asked” RightGirl, beside me.
‘fiercely’ is an adverb.
It depends on the context, sir. In the context of Kathey’s quote it is an adjective describing ‘beard’ – as you know, factually a beard is not capable of emotions because it is a common noun; Mr. Steyn has used a figure of speech called Personification to make this beard have a life of it’s own. The beard LOOKS fierce would make ‘fierce’ an adverb because it would modify the verb ‘looks’; as it is, ‘fiercely’ (normally a past participle) modifies beard and it is not active (which would have made it an adverb). English is complex but I do believe you can trust Kathey’s’s moniker in this case – ‘adjective’ is the correct noun to use, IMO.
Heh. Made ‘er blink. Kathy, you go girl ~~~
I would have worn a porky the pig T-shirt to the event and snorted like a pig when asked a question — but just once in awhile to not be too obvious. They’d be making noises and twitching like my cats do when a bird is outside our window: ert, ert, ert.
If McClean’s caves in, like Joe Molnar, I will not renew my subscription – due in July.
If McClean’s caves in, like Joe Molnar, I will not renew my subscription – due in July.
here is Macleans’ FAX number 416-764-1332.
perhaps a few hundred FAXes telling them to reject any compromise would fortify the Macleans editors.
Good thing Kathy Shaidle didn’t go armed… with BACON!!! BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!
Little short women can get away with stuff, eh? Way to go Kath and Right Girl!