timeimmortal

The Canadian Islamic Congress will be making a public settlement offer to Maclean’s and Mark Steyn.

CANADIAN ISLAMIC CONGRESS PRESS CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT

April 29, 2008

ISLAMIC CONGRESS AND LAW STUDENTS TO MAKE PUBLIC SETTLEMENT OFFER TO MACLEAN’S ON HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINTS

TORONTO - The Canadian Islamic Congress and a group of law students who recently filed human rights complaints against Maclean’s magazine for publishing Islamophobic content, are planning to present a public offer to the magazine’s management to settle the matter.

Details of this offer and more information regarding the background of the above-mentioned complaints will be provided to those in attendance.

When:
10:00 a.m.: Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Where:
Fairmont Royal York Hotel, The Quebec Room, 100 Front Street West,
Toronto ON

Present at the media conference will be:

- Faisal Joseph: CIC legal counsel, former Federal and Provincial Crown Attorney, and former Chair of the Criminal Section of the Canadian Bar Association (Nova Scotia).

- Muneeza Sheikh, Naseem Mithoowani and Khurrum Awan: Three of the law
  students/graduates who were original complainants against Maclean’s magazine.

For more information contact:
Faisal Joseph: (519) 672-4510

I agree with Deb Gyapong: Ken Whyte (editor of Maclean’s) and Mark Steyn shouldn’t accept the settlement.

Well, it’s gone too far. Unless the CIC and the Muslim law students are willing to ante up the magazine’s and Steyn’s legal bills for subjecting them to an abusive process; unless they are willing to admit they were wrong to file complaints; and unless they acknowledge the importance of freedom of speech and Religion, then on principle there should be no settlement.

This struggle against the HRCs can end when and if the HRCs themselves are either dissolved or stripped of their power through the removal of Section 13 from the Canadian Human Rights Act. Apart from that, there should be no deal possible.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

All those atheists who assert that raising a child as a Christian is tantamount to child abuse should be salivating over this court case:

A ruling from the Virginia Supreme Court, if it goes the wrong way, could yank a 6-year-old girl from the Christian home her mother has created and set her up to be “paraded as a political trophy of the homosexual community in Vermont,” according to a lawyer who argued the case before the court today.

…

Among the precedents developing in the case is whether one state can force another to recognize its “same-sex” arrangements or whether states’ sovereignty will prevail. Also at issue is the acceptance as valid Christian values parents use to raise children.

“That’s true. Janet Jenkins, in court documents in Vermont, argued because [Lisa Miller] prays for her daughter and her well-being, and even prays for Janet, that in fact that is not in the best interests of Isabella. She [Jenkins] says because Lisa prays for her daughter, and tells her she’s praying to do God’s will, Janet has taken the position that … Christianity is harmful to children,” Staver told WND.

I guess we’ll get to see where American courts really stand on the issue of freedom of religion, won’t we?

And pace what I asked Joel earlier, here we have yet another example of a non-Christian (the article doesn’t say, but I for one am relatively certain that Janet Jenkins is secular) attempting to deny a Christian a fundamental human right — the right to worship. Whither the Constitution?

Update: Welcome, Steynians! Binks is absolutely right; people who share Richard Dawkins‘ thinking are probably salivating over this case.

Joel’s paranoid fears nonwithstanding, in the real world it does not appear to be Christianity that is invading America and silencing freedom of expression. Indeed, secularism seems to be taking on that role.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled that a football coach may not silently bow his head or “take a knee” with his team as gestures of respect during student-led prayers prior to a game.

Think about that for a second. The students are allowed to pray before a game if they wish, but the coach isn’t. He can’t even bow his head for a moment. Whatever happened to freedom of religion, or freedom of expression (come to think of it)? Whither the Constitution, as I asked Joel previously?

It is ridiculous to think that a court can rule on whether or not head movements by an individual are permissible or not — especially in America. And yet, essentially, that is what has been done. The coach must refrain from engaging in any voluntary motion which might indicate any sympathy with the actions of his students or the beliefs they are expressing as they pray, in spite of the fact that the coach very likely shares some of those beliefs and has a Constitutionally-protected right against the law intruding into his right to expres them.

An atheist is suing the U.S. military for violating his Constitutional “freedom of religion” right, alleging that he was prevented from holding “a meeting to discuss atheism while he was deployed in Iraq with his military police unit.”

Meanwhile, atheists constantly tell me that atheism is not a Religion. Which is all well and good…but how, then, can this man claim that he has the right to freedom of religion, if in fact his views are not religious?

You know, O Reader, I could never be an atheist — I wouldn’t be able to put up with all the internal contradictions and irrationalism.

The freedom to worship according to one’s conscience is one of our Nation’s most cherished values. It is the first protection offered in the Bill of Rights: that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In America, people of different faiths can live together united in peace, tolerance, and humility. We are committed to the proposition that as equal citizens of the United States of America, all are free to worship as they choose.

In an era during which an unprecedented number of nations have embraced individual freedom, we have also witnessed the stubborn endurance of religious repression. Religious freedom belongs not to any one nation, but to the world, and my Administration continues to support freedom of worship at home and abroad. On Religious Freedom Day and throughout the year, we recognize the importance of religious freedom and the vital role it plays in spreading liberty and ensuring human dignity.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 16, 2008, as Religious Freedom Day. I call on all Americans to reflect on the great blessing of religious liberty, endeavor to preserve this freedom for future generations, and commemorate this day with appropriate events and activities.

This speech was delivered from Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive nations on Earth in general, but especially in regard to religion.

I think Bush is far more clever than the persona he projects, and than most people on (and a number of folks on the Right) are willing to give him credit for.

(In Soviet Russia, hat tips you: Mark Shea)