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.”
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.