Hey now! A comment like that could potentially expose Izzy Asper to hatred or contempt, now or at some time in the future!

I think an HRC complaint would be in order.

Two responses:

1) Are we SUPPOSED to keep our support for Israel a secret? I didn't realize that.

2) As a commenter at the Globe pointed out: "Macleans is owned by (Ted) Rogers Communications not the Asper family."

Aspers, Rogers, Icebergs, Greenbergs, whatever - they're all zhoooooooooos.

While listening to radio yesterday, driving my car, I heard most astonishing comment. Some "expert" said anyone with an IQ "above room temperature" should know that Levant and Steyn are "hatemongers." Why, because they openly "support Israel." Yes, that's what that idiot said. IOW, a bigot called others hatemongers.

Now, CIC and others in Steyn/Macleans case have argued that only certain people can be offended by criticism, which then equates to hate; and only when certain people make the comments. Thus, OBL can never hate according to BC HRC rules, because he is Arab (can only be hated, never hate), and his murderous instructions are issued against western (ie-white) civilization, who can't be protected from hate because ... well, you see what I mean.

IOW, HRC section 13 is a kind of "Affirmative Bigotry." Oooh, I better be careful, don't want to get hauled in front of some Star Chamber.

When objective proof, truth, and reasonableness is replaced, in law, by could, likely to, I was offended, therefore you hate me, we are in trouble.

IOW, we are in trouble.

The comments are very telling. It seems that to an number of people this fiasco isn’t about ‘free speech’ it’s really about..."The Jewish World Conspiracy". How else do you explain all the references to the Aspers when Macleans is owned by the uber WASP Ted Rogers?

I really wish more people were paying attention to this since it has turned over a rock and what's scurrying out from underneath is not pretty.

Maclean's magazine is the property of Rogers. Therefore it is the property of the shareholders of Rogers. It is private property.

As such, there is no similarity between it and the use of public airwaves. Therefore, there is no compunction to publish a counter-anything. In other words, those with the hurt feelings can go take a flying leap. Go publish your own damn magazine if you want equal words in ink.

Oh, I forgot. We have no property rights in Canada. Thank you Lord Trudeau.

Now, why is it OK for these people bringing this action to position themselves as speaking for Islam, not a splinter of Islam? That they claim representation contradicts their charge that Steyn and Maclean's erroneously aggregated all Islam? Either Islam can be referenced as a group, or not. They want it both ways. Of course.

So my question to the complainants, is what tiny splinter group of Islam do you represent with your complaint? Only those that wear a red fez on alternate Mondays, have one wooden leg and take tennis lessons?

I had a chance to reread Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. I read it years ago, and considered it just an interesting science fiction fantasy. Now it seems prophetic. For those who haven't read it, the "firemen" are responsible for burning all books. As the captain says, they're making people happy, instead of upsetting them with conflicting ideas...

"Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value. It's not my job to give value to an American concept."

- lead CHRC investigator Dean Steacy

http://tinyurl.com/6k2awu

Ah, HRC's, they are not the only problem, they are part of a much larger problem, it's called bureaucracy, that great unelected cabal of fools paid for by tax dollars and accountable to no one.

need to go after "PROCEEDURE" and accountability on all these fronts