I’ve Moved!

November 20, 2008

So I’m sure that most people have noticed that the site has been offline for a few days. There’s a reason for that, which I will get to shortly. But first, let me just say this:

I AM NO LONGER BLOGGING HERE

In fact, I am blogging at a new site I have just finished setting up: kennethhynek.net. A full explanation for the reasons behind the move can be found here.

That said, this is not the end of . My wife has expressed interest in taking over blogging at this domain, and I am working to make sure that she gets set up here as soon as possible.

Also, my profound apologies for the modification to the site face; the move was not as seamless as I would have hoped, and many of the image files for this theme, and in the gallery, were corrupted during the course of their evacuation from my previous web host’s servers. Until such time as I have repaired them, I’ve put a clean-looking template in place of the previous one.

Update: for the purposes of further traffic shaping, new posts from kennethhynek.net will be excerpted below. Full articles can be read at the new blog.

Time was when “” was a truly large and noble idea. I associate the concept with, and its birth out of, some of the great horrors of the past century: the bestial depredations of the , their ‘race science’ and death camps, the horrors of unbridled totalitarianism - under which, the whim of the rulers was sufficient to mutilate, torture and destroy lives, collectively or individually - send millions to arctic slave camps - the debasement of internal exile and psychiatric rehabilitation.

More currently, I associate real human rights advocacy with the case of a young Saudi woman, who very recently was repeatedly gang-raped - and then she � the victim - charged and sentenced by a Saudi court to 200 lashes and six months in jail for being in a car with a male not her relative. The sentence, after international protest, was voided — but that young woman�s case represents a real example of the violation of basic human rights.

What I do not associate with this deep and noble concept is getting ticked off by something you read in a magazine - or for that matter hear on television - and then scampering off to a handful - well, three - of Canada’s proliferate human rights commissions - seeking to score off the magazine: this is what four law students and graduates — a very definition of the ‘marginalized’ — under the banner of the Canadian Islamic Congress have done after reading an excerpt from ’s in . The complainants read the article as �flagrantly islamophobic�.

Maclean�s magazine? Well, we all know what a hotbed of radical bigotry and vile prejudice Maclean�s magazine has been. Go away � for what seems like a century Maclean�s was no more “offensive” (that is the can�t term of choice these days) than a down comforter on a cold day and if Mark Steyn’s article offended them: so what? Not every article in every magazine of newspaper is meant to be a valentine card addressed to every reader’s self-esteem. Maclean�s published a bushel of letters following the article’s appearance: some praised it: others scorned it. That’s freedom of speech: that’s democracy: that’s the messy business we call the exchange of ideas and opinions.

But where does the , the , the come into this picture? Has anyone been publicly whipped? Has someone or some group been hauled off to a gulag? Is there a race frenzy sweeping the land?

Why is any human rights commission inserting itself between a magazine, a television show, a newspaper and the readers or viewers? Is every touchy, or agenda-driven sensibility now free to call upon the offices of the state and free of charge - to them - not their targets - to embroil them in “justifying” their right to write and broadcast as they see fit? The magazine, during the so-called got hauled before the for publishing the cartoons that all the world was talking about. The action drained the magazine�s resources - but it was free to the complainant.

Meantime real human rights violations - threats of death against , riots after the cartoons, death threats against the artists, the persecution of , the assassination of , neither inspire nor receive human rights investigations.

Maclean�s and its columnists - especially of late - are an ornament to Canada’s civic space. They should not have to defend themselves for doing what a good magazine does: start debate, express opinion, and stir thought. And most certainly they should not have to abide the threatened censorship of any of Canada’s increasingly interfering, state appointed and paradoxically labeled human rights commissions.

Relatedly:

Stop the HRC

Update: has this linked as well, and her added commentary is well worth repeating:

PS: the site accepts comments, and some are quite good. However, note the number of Muslims — who still can’t spell — calling for a less “one sided” approach to the story yet again.

Once again: why don’t you people just start your own damn magazine, first of all, instead of acting like parasites. (Professional tip: when you do, hire a proofreader for whom English is his first language…)

If you want to be treated respectfully, start by having the self-respect to quit all this crying and begging.

Second, there is no such creature as the “rights of communities to participate in media discussions” (??) except in your fevered, brainwashed minds.

Their complete refusal or inability to comprehend elementary Western concepts like “freedom of the press” and “private property” is truly sad. They wallow in hysterical victimhood, tossing around left-liberal platitudes and charges of “Islamophobia.”

That people like them are the cause of so-called “Islamophobia” escapes them completely.

God save us from these pathetic whiners. Alas in these and other ways, they are perfectly assimilated little Canadians.