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!

Mcleans won't fold on this game. To much to lose from a new found base who support them. A lot of folks have thrown chips there way both reputation wise with the money
Mark Steyn would not write for them again.

Besides which they have not shown nor said nothing but principled natural law logicaly guided replies,
towards their persecuters. I have to admit to some admiration for Mcleans editor & being a man in this metrosexual soup of an age.

I do believe there (journalists, workers ,editors, even probably the maintenece guy.) as revolted as most Westeners are at this attempt at legal jihad, war really of another kind against free individual expression.
I think they know the stakes on this table. Our existance as a free people not only them as a paper. Its now an ethical issue that cannot be lain dorment to fester. They win, & all of Canada loses its birthright.

What really scares me though is that these are law students & the future of justice in this Country. To throw there lot in with this evil Jew hater is alarming. Western kids would have made there own paper distributing free copies with the usual post teen agnst. Apparently when you have Saudi Uncles with a no money bag bottom, why even be creative?

What brand of horror will be our future lawyers? For that matter who's law for whom?

Glenn at 6:39p.m.,please clarify. Did you mean to write "drinking anything" ?

I think Shaidle is pi$$ed off........

Couple of good lines in there.

Anyway. I will say again do not underestimate Mr Rogers. He has done nothing wrong and knowing his background will feel quite offended that this is being brought forward, of course after appreciating the publicity it generates.

Ted wont get engaged directly, but dont for one moment think that Ken Whyte would have been allowed to go this far out on a limb without approval. Whyte would have quit if he didnt have the approval, but it is there.

If Ted is engaged, which is what they want, then you will see the old politician in him. He loves this country, it sounds corny, but he does.

I will really be shocked if Macleans does anything. If the offer is the same as the last one then there will be no capitulation and this will go to the Supreme Court.

One question for Kathy S if she is reading this, besides Brean, what other media were there? And what questions did they ask?

Duncan 5:06 pm -

"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."

But not in any current conglomerate owned PC leftist Canadian MSM, I would guess.

Slapping down, mocking, and just plain using our 21st century mental wits against these 7th century creatures is what we've got to do to stop the encroaching Death Cult. I don't care if they go to medical, engineering or law school, the Muslim mind always defaults to the 7th century just like these kids.

I'm hoping that the Canadian law school that took these three jerks on as affirmative action students are proud of themselves. What a total waste of a law degree. The next question is what fool in the legal world, other than in the victim industry, would hire these little idiots? ,

atheist quebecois separatiste;

It must be a punishing task to be an apologist these day's for the Jew hating fellow head choppers of Islamism. For those not familiar with the concept of what the sock puppets are wagging it is called Hudna. Look it up folks. All is revealed.

This is legal jihad to normalize Islamism by trying to cut off any detrimental information about it. Than using a Nations own laws to enforce Sharia law threw intimidation or force.

Once implanted in a culture than comes the Religious police in there areas , soon to spread to non-Islamist communities. As Kate say's, creeping Sharia. You should see ex kefirs spouses are treated. An unending nightmare of law suites. Go to a few chat rooms where they (ex married) talk sometime if you want to see the future.
Back to the past in the 7nth century.

True enough Joe (7:35), but the anglosphere's a big place.

But, to my relief, it won't come to that, if Miss Shaidle's account is at all accurate.

If they get any more publicity, they'll find themselves hooted out of the public square.

Victims shouldn't be petulant.

At this time it might be good to look at this again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uwOL4rB-go

Ahhh life imitates art.

Thanks, Kathy, for not, repeat not, being a surrender monkey!! I'm so grateful for your righteous anger, as it mirrors my feelings, exactly.

After a brief flirtation--well, too many years wasted, truth to tell--with fembo/leftie views and lifestyles, I saw the light and have been speaking out loud and clear to anyone who will listen--and even those who won't!--about "this present danger" in Canada: caving to pc, diverse (sic), tolerant (sic), multi-culti, mumbo-jumbo.

Of course, my rants have not led to winning friends and influencing people--this is Canada, AFTER ALL. But I sleep pretty well at night and can look myself in the mirror every morning--not to mention, hold my head up with my kids, now in their twenties.

Like you, I hate living in Canada in 2008. It's time to head for the hills--but where would they be?--or the catacombs--but where would they be?

All I can say, with any confidence, is Kyrie Eleison.

Joe Molnar at 3:52 PM

you obviously know nothing about T Rogers, he is a very astute business person. Also he is not a interfering "hands on" type, he'll let those running McCleans do as they see fit, that's the type of individual he is.

Kathy: That was cool! If Canadians soon don't start standing up and speaking out there will be no Canada. I have had my share of outbursts, but yours was truly beautiful!

"Here I stand, I can do no other."

Wonderful stuff, Kathy. Glad you were there.

To concede to the non-Complainants would be stupid for Macleans Magazine, their membership is up because of their refusal to cower and appease a slimy bunch of Political Islamists because we've stood and said we stand with you. Financially they've increased readership and membership, to cede now to the Political Islamists could mean financial ruin. To be fair to Macleans, everyone eventually caves to the Islamic Radicals and Political Islamists. Why? Because the leftards stand firmly on their side and together they use our democratic laws to Islamify countries, if you doubt me do some reading on what's happening in the EU. That's our future if Macleans cedes and stops fighting the Political Islamic Vermin.

I also hate what Canada has become, we have three leftard parties to vote for the NDP, the Socialist posing as Liberals and the Conservatives who are really Red Tories or Liberal Light.

As per the norm Mr. Elmasry apparently didn't have the courage, moxie or guts to show up to the shit storm he started. A political Islamist without apparent courage, moxie or morals to face the public. Oh Dear say it isn't soooooooooo.

Breans article

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=483041

Glenn at 6:39p.m.,please clarify. Did you mean to write "drinking anything" ?

Posted by: wallyj at April 30, 2008 7:32 PM

Now I need a new keyboard.

I absolutely love the statement from the Muslim lawyer which comes at the end of the column:

"Mr. Joseph presented a letter of support from Jack Layton, leader of the federal NDP, who wrote that his party "appreciates the battle you are waging against mainstream media's portrayal of Muslim Canadians."

That dirty, oily little socialist dork just couldn't keep his big flapping mouth shut. Doesn't he have any advisors or perhaps he just won't listen to anyone. Maybe we should be happy that he can't shoot straight and broadcasts it at every opportunity.

From the National Post:

"At a press conference at a plush Toronto hotel, Mr. Joseph lamented that the Rogers media empire, which publishes Maclean's, has been represented in the media as the plucky victim against the unchecked power of human rights commissions and their complainants. "Somehow David and Goliath have been interchanged," he said.

and

Mr. Joseph presented a letter of support from Jack Layton, leader of the federal NDP, who wrote that his party "appreciates the battle you are waging against mainstream media's portrayal of Muslim Canadians."

For the first quote: I thought David was a Jew? Now these Muslims want to be Jews but are angry as being protrayed as Philistines? If it quacks like a Philistine, acts like a Philistine, walks like a Philistine than they are probably.....

As for the Jack Layton quote: There goes the Liberal base to the dippers, unless Corderre can provide an 11th hour letter. Does Jack appreciate Kate's battle she is waging here at SDA against the MSM's protrayal of conservatives as knuckle dragging, fire breathing neanderthals? Has jack sent you a letter Kate?

I love Kathy Shaidle...'five feet of fury'!! No kidding!!

From the same article:

“He also said the demand that Maclean's make a nominal financial contribution to a race relations charity has been dropped."

Geez, maybe these guys have clued in that Muslim is NOT a race.

Macleans will fold and publish the rubbish.
That's what bleeding heart journalism will buy you over the years. No loyalty to anything. I've maybe scanned a few issues at a dentist or doctors office over the past decade or two. I would never buy the rag because of its left wing Trona centric propaganda. I do hope they win their case and stuff the Muslim activists. They should be free to publish what they do.

I sent MacLeans an e-mail and told them "If you cave on this, you will loose the subscriptions of many but most important, you will loose the respect of most".

Probably the best guage I have indicating to me whether I am on the correct side of an issue is to see Taliban Jack on the other side. This issue is a slam-dunk for me.

speaking of goings on in media:

fox at its fairest and balanced:

3w.liveleak.com/view?i=603_1188639451

is that 'we' or 'oui' ???

Enough of these shaggy losers. Completely off topic, but while we wait for Vit to deliver the SDA Late Night Radio Selection Du Jour, I offer the following unorthodox distraction. Ribbit.

I was about to recommend that everyone write a nice, respectful note to Barrister Faisal Joseph, but I've just gotten his response to mine (see below). He picks up on my mistake in referring to the 'Council' rather than 'Congress', but somehow misses or misinterprets my "IF you or OTHER members... The rest he simply dismisses.

He, not surprisingly has threatened that should I communicate with him again, it will result in "expensive remedies". Man, these people are thin-skinned.

You can drop him a line here: fjoseph@lerners.ca
-----------------------------------------------

Response from Faisal Joseph: "Try next time to get at least get the names of the parties correct.Its congress not council.As for the rest of your uninvited diatribe it appears, a very few people like yourself didn't appreciate the public statement the OHRC made and if you truly feel in freedom of speech you should "accomodate" all canadians Including muslims to have it even in national news magazines like Macleans....Do not send further emails as I do not know you nor wish to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man .you are ignorant enough to presume I was born outside of canada which is again false....your bias and ignorance displayed in your email is why this complaint needs to go forward......any unwanted further contact with me will result in expensive remedies."

My e-mail to him:

"Dear Mr. Joseph;

Thank you for once again illustrating to the Canadian public why we must be sure to stand firm in defence of freedom of speech - a concept you and your 'Canadian Islamic Council' clients apparently fail to understand. Each time you and your cohorts cry 'victim' while attempting to limit our freedom, we grow stronger.

It causes ordinary people - like myself and thousands of others - to let our politicians know that we will not submit nor accept 'limits' to our inalienable rights. Each time you cry 'victim' I send yet another message to not only my representatives, but to everyone I know... and they then join with me in defence of freedom. I note that the complainant, Dr. Elmasry is apparently too busy to attend to the matter, so he has sent you and his aggrieved little wannabe lawyers to do his bidding.

This complaint will end up where all totalitarians eventually do - in the dustbin of history. Most people leave their place of birth because of too little freedom - they crave more, not less. If you or other members of your ideology have left such a place, you can hardly expect to come to Canada and order us to bend to your will.

If you truly wish less freedom, there are plenty of places which will more than willingly accomodate your request. No double standards allowed."

Fiercely is an adjective in this case as it modifies the noun "beard". Don't be fooled by the "-ly."

Take my word for it -- I'm a professional :-)

No Guff - Joseph's letter is a hoot. He berates you for using the wrong word, while his letter is full of errors. e.g., "accommodate"'s the correct spelling. I then counted at least ten other errors. Doesn't this poor writer have grammar and spell check? What a loser.

Then there's the arrogant content: I'm becoming more Islamophobic by the second!

yes....madame shaidle(please stop staring at me)....and 'darkling'in darkling thrush as well ..

at one point (but that was long ago and in another country and besides the bitch is dead)i knew 4 instances of the use of 'darkling' which is presumably a verb....as well as other etc etc...

What a tit head Jack Layton is....writing them a letter of support saying his Party "appreciates the battle you are waging against mainstream media's portrayal of Muslim Canadians".

So there you have it folks, guilty according to Jackass Layton, never mind the case is still unfolding. Is it safe to assume he's not in favor of free speech?

Mcleans can't fold. If they did, then Mark Steyn would have to demand equal space for his rebuttal. And then, Elmasry and the puppets would demand....and so on.

Elmasry and the students can write their own opinions in their own journal. They could have, of course, originally written a LETTER to the magazine; many letters were published. But to insist on the right to write and have Macleans publish an ARTICLE is unacceptable. Macleans is not an open blog; it's a journal. The editor controls the articles. Not the readers.

What would it be like if each and everyone of us who read an article in Macleans or any journal demanded the right to write and publish an article in that journal. Just because we had a different opinion?

from a different Bob:
Probably the best guage I have indicating to me whether I am on the correct side of an issue is to see Taliban Jack on the other side.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Looks like Layton's mustache is no filter for stupid, untimely and inappropriate remarks. If it were even a snot catcher his whole head would go through it.
He's really outdone himself this time, a new low in the pandering politics game.

Their lawyer clearly wont be a partner. "If you truely fee in freedom of speech..."......wtf was that? Kind of telling, you feel for something not believe in it?

As well, the attitue is clear, I have a right to be in your publication, your publication is community property. Guess we should let Scientoligists preach at all Mossque's every third firday, and every second Friday it can be followers of Meyer Kahane (sp?)

The real joke of this is Steyn quotes Muslim spokespeople, and those are the offensive items. Totally confused. The only cure for this stuff is an absolute thumping in terms of public ridicule and real solid judgement from the Supreme Court in a manner that only the SCoC can deliver a rebuke.

They have escalated the fight so Macleans and Mr Rogers should give them what they want.....a very public platform where they can suffer the cold wind of personal ridicule and professional rebuke. Thats MY culture.

I was just thinking, if the BCHRC mandates a response, then rogers Media would have a case that theor magazine has in fact been expropriated by the government of British Columbia. editorial control being the very essence of what a magazine is.

If it has been expropriated now, and with precedence potentially in the future, then Rogers Media should move immeadiately to sue the BC government for compensation for taking control of the magaizine. Sale of Macleans to the BC government should be somewhere in the order 1.5 to 2.5 sales, subscription and ad sales....that should amount to at least 100,000,000 from the BC government.

In fact there is a case to be made that this effectively expropriates all content creation in Canada. Therefore the sale of Rogers Media alone should be about 1 Billion when all is said and done.

CTV Globemedia should immeadiately turn over the keys and ask for 2 billion. Can West about the same, Astral and Quebecor can be compensated for with 1.5 billion each, Torstar another 2 billion....what are we up to 8 billion dollars that the BC government has to shell out to compensate the owners of media in Canada for taking over their businesses.

Maximum Disruption Indeed.

as far as cons changing laws.I wonder how many muslims or other baddies are goinng to be left in the immigration lineup of 900000 when the new immigration law is changed.whoppe.

I suggest the whole thing is part of a game plan of both the CIC and the HRC.

The HRC cannot judge against Macleans. It can judge illegally, as Barbara Hall did with her 'judgment' that Macleans is 'Islamophobic, a judgment made without defense or legitimacy to make such a judgment. But in an actual 'legal' HRC judgment (in quotes because I cannot accept any HRCs as 'legal)- the HRC cannot insist that Macleans publish a 'rebuttal argument'. That would remove the editorial rights of all publications in Canada and effectively move all publications into a free-for-all for the readers.

So what was the point of this very public scenario at the Royal York Hotel in Toronto? As noted, the complainant was not there; his lawyer was making political rather than legal statements. So what was the point?

They would know in advance that Macleans could NOT accept their insistence that, a reader/group of readers could remove the editor of a magazine. Therefore, their agenda must have been to pressure the HRCs. To do what?

After all, if a rebuttal is the issue, then, publish it in your own journal. If you insist that it be in Macleans, then, someone who rejects the Islamic rebuttal would then have the right to write another rebuttal to them...and on and on.

I can only wonder what it is that they expect the HRC to do. The HRCs are now so discredited that anything they state has become irrelevant.

I have to admit - I'm puzzled. What does ELmasry and this group want the HRC to do?

Macleans should accept the offer. However, they should put forth a list of names of authors they would be willing to accept write the piece. Macleans should state that the only author they would find acceptable to rebut the original article is Mark Steyn.

Although, I'd love to see it "rebutted" by Ezra, Kathy, or Kate.

ET,

OHRC didnt have the jusrisdiction because its legislation is written tighter than the BCHRC. BCHRC looks to have the jurisdiction to rule.

OHRC made the statement they did for two reasons

1) Warning shot, to set up BCHRC and strengthen the hand of the complainents in their negotiations
2) To get a ruling read in as precedent that could be quoted by BCHRC (as silly as it is)

There is coordination between them, clearly.

What do they want? A high profile case that brings these things under their jusrisdiction, thast what the HC's want.

The CIC wants a win,, which would raise their profile in the Muslim community, making them the de facto defenders of the faith in this country and all the money, power and influence that comes with it. As well, they want to find a vehicle to push their values (they actually believe what they say which is scarey enough). The courts are subject to the constitution and years of precedent etc, Sharia will take too long via that route. The HRC's are a way for them to push their values free from previous judicial precendent and common law tradition and outside the charter.

But dont underestimate the desire to get a win to establish themselves as defenders of the faith. There is no clear winner in that arena right now.

If Islamists want to conduct their business in a public forum, it would have been a far better strategy not to respond to their agenda. Rather, create an offensive line of questioning, regardless of their agenda.

For example:

What is dar al islam? What is dar al Harb?

What is the penalty for homosexuality under shariah? The penalty for adultery? What is the status of non-Muslims under shariah? What is the penalty for blasphemy under shariah? Compared to a male Muslim, what is the declared worth of a female under shariah? Etc.

Why is the Islamic Declaration of Human Rights different than the UN's? Why is shariah the highest authority in the Islamic Declaration of Human Rights as stated in articles 21 and 22?

Why do Muslims refer to non-Muslims as Kaffir? And can you please explain what Kaffir means?

Why does Mohammad call Jews the sons of apes and pigs in the Quran, Sira and Hadith? Do you agree with Mohammad, or do you denounce his statement?

Please explain Quran 9:5.

I wonder if Jack Layton and his NDP drones "appreciate the battle the CIC is waging against homosexuals and abortion rights?"

Maybe someone should ask Taliban Jack that question.

Stephen - yes, I see your argument with regard to the agenda of the CIC; they want to set themselves up as the 'de facto' defenders of the faith, but I think that this internal agenda won't be that easy even within the Muslim Community.

As for achieving this goal by using the HRCs, they'd have to get the HRCs on their side - and that's my point. I don't think that the HRC can interfere with the editorial rights of any publication.

The HRCs can smear our journals and newspapers as much as they want; the reaction from those same journals and newspapers will be laughter, contempt and disdain. What Barbara Hall did certainly didn't advance the CIC agenda.

Therefore, what was the point of this meeting? So the CIC could publicly speak to the HRCs and tell them what they want done. It's public because they want public pressure, from such twits as Jack Layton. A neat political strategy.

I maintain this is a difficult strategy.
First, for the CIC to use this as a tactic to take over control of the Muslim population within Canada is - well, it's not that great a strategy.
Second, I maintain that the HRCs cannot interfere with the content of Canadian journals and newspapers. They can smear this content as much as they want - as did Barbara Hall. They still can't order any publication to write ..whatever.

That leaves me - still puzzled.

ET,

OHRC cannot interfere....BCHRC can, due to different legislation. We will see in a month or so. It will go to the Supremes...sad that is required. If we are lucky it would be squashed at the BC Court of appeals or whatever the process is.

As for the internal agenda...it is about becoming the defacto go to on "muslim issues" doesnt mean everyone has to agree but if they are seen as a player they will always be consulted.

There is a civil war of sorts going on within the Canadian muslim community, between funadmentalists and more secular Muslims....a win by the CIC puts them in the lead as having demonstrable effect on Canadian society.

Do the HRC's want to play ball....of course they do. They dont care who runs the muslim community but they do care that their power to regulate would be enhanced. This gets their bureaucratic rocks off for a couple of reasons.

1) Justifies existence
2) Expands scope of responsibility
3) Increase staff and budget (look at everythign I need to watch adn read now, I need more people. and now that have more people well my paygrade just jumped)
4) Ideological bend, the people the HRC's attract, promote and recruit WANT to do this because they think they are doing good, according to their world view. Have you heard them say where the limit of their commissions should be? unlike a financial services regulator who is generally pretty clear about what they DONT DO.

There is a happy alignment here, the alliance serves each others purposes.

The CIC wants the BCHRC to force macleans to publish their propoganda and therfore enhance their organizations power (real or perceived), the BCHRC would be happy to use this as a way to expand their scope and power, as would other HRC's.

Nothing hidden about it. Both sides get something, the essence of any strong alliance. Only when the incentives and or when the punishments for the action are significant will the alliance breakdown. Right now the two organizations have significant incentives to work together on this issue.

Agree, Stephen, re the civil war within the Muslim community. I predict that the CIC will lose. I don't think the majority of Canadian Muslims want to be controlled in such a manner.

I also feel that no HRC or any other government agency can force a private journal/newspaper etc to publish anything. If the HRC were to insist that Macleans publish a 'rebuttal' then as I've said, that removes editorial jurisdiction over content and hands the entire magazine/paper over to anyone who submits an article.

If Margolis writes one of his insane rants in the Toronto Sun, then, I declare my 'human right' to write an insane rebuttal to him. And so on. How about any opinion writer in any newspaper, ie, Chantal Hebert - does anyone get the 'human right' to write a rebuttal to one of her critiques? Margaret Wente of the Globe and Mail? And etc.

All that the HRCs can do is what Barbara Hall did - pronounce a judgment without the right to do so - and put up with being chastized for so doing.

So, the agenda of this public Royal York Meeting had effectively, a great deal to do with Canadian Muslim politics and control of the Canadian Muslim population..by the CIC. They are of course, using the HRCs for this agenda, and the twits in the HRC are allowing and enabling this.

But back to Macleans. I maintain the HRC cannot violate freedom of the press; that includes the right of the editor to control content.

ET,

I wish that were true. HRC judgements go to courts which indicate that they are to be enforced. Ultimately not following an HRC is a contept of court, assuming you dont appeal.

Ezra already pointed this out that sadly their power is ultimately real, yet uncontrolled and unaccountable. So you ignore at your peril.

Where I agree with you is that once the BCHRC order the rebuttal they have effectively taken control of the editorial function and the essence of the business. Hence my suggestion that if it happens then Rogers sue the BC government for expropriation of their asset, Rogers Media, which includes more than Macleans and should amount to about 1 billion dollars.

But apparently the BCHRC and CHRC legislation potentially allow for enforcement of a publication not just a sign.

This is going to the Supreme's....there needs to be a UNANIMOUS decision that eviscerates HRC's and their power under section 13. A public legal slapdown is what is required to set this matter straight and reverse the issues we have been talking about.

I am not sure I want the BCHRC to "back down" or issue a compromise. I hope Rogers is throughly "unreasonable and uncompromising" to force the issue.

The Macleans issue may well go to "The Supremes".

Now why doesn't that idea inspire my confidence?

Lookout,

It should Bev McLaughlin wrote a stinging minority opinion that last time section 13 was in front of the Supremes.

Her views have been substantiated by what has happened. I feel very confident that the current SCoC will lay waste to Section 13.