Time Immortal

A short piece, but worth the read:

No one who works for the [National Post] is unaware that many Muslims feel antipathy toward a newspaper that is officially pro-Israel and, in practice, generally skeptical of Canadian multiculturalism. It seems to occur to none of them to muck in and start up their own Daily Jihad that reflects the opposing views. Perhaps the Muslim world just doesn’t have enough oil wealth sitting around idle to underwrite such a thing. Maybe they’re content with the way the good old [Toronto Star] handles the task. Whatever the case, you’ll notice [Khurrum Awan] uses the “national” scale attained and defended by some media as an argument that they must, in essence, share the wealth. Because they’re successful, and have shown themselves capable of reaching out to readers who hold many different political and personal philosophies, they are required to cede the editorial judgment that led to that success, and abandon their own operating philosophies in favour of becoming mere venues for identitarian argument.

To say nothing of the fact that Awan et. al. have been claiming, from the start, that they just want a change to publish their side of the story, that they just want a debate. Well, they’ve had opportunities for both, in many other media outlets and even on live television.

And they have either attempted to flee from each such opportunity, or have used the opportunity only to repeat claims already made.

To the Osgoode Hall students in particular, Mohamed Elmasry in passing, and anyone who currently thinks that Islam and its adherents are getting an unfair shake in all of this: we’re calling your bluff. You are lying through your teeth and squandering every opportunity which is being generously presented to you that would enable you to obtain exactly that which you claim to want. Your repeated failure to take advantage of these opportunities speaks volumes about your true agenda of censorship of legitimate criticism of Islam, which is both a violation of a basic human right of all Canadians and something which, frankly, doesn’t belong in Canada in the first place.

So shut up already, or else actually do what you claim you came to do.

One really just has to love Andrew Coyne’s way with words as he begins his second day of live-blogging the BCHRT show trial of Maclean’s magazine.

It looks like things have gotten off to a good start, and it appears that someone thought to spare Mr. Coyne any further Blackberry thumb by setting him up with EVDO.

9:32 AM Habemus dongle! The good folks at Rogers — wonderful people, never said a bad word about them — have kitted me out with some sort of external modem thingie, so I will not be forced to type with my thumbs today. KDO, I don’t know how you do it!

9:34 AM The tribunal enters. There’s a little ritual that plays out each time: the two contending sides, and some of the spectators, rise, as you would for a real judge in a real court. The rest of us stay seated, in silent protest.

9:36 AM Faisal Joseph up for the complainants. He’s promising to treat us to a tour of some of the seamier parts of the blogosphere. No guilt like guilt by association. He dumped a bunch of material on the Maclean’s side only last night — and apparently some more stuff this morning — which would ordinarily be out of order but not, as by now you will have guessed, here.

9:40 AM Khurrum Awan back on the stand. Joseph entering a Sept 2006 Ottawa Citizen poll in evidence, showing that two in five Canadians back racial profiling. Aha, clearly the evil hand of Steyn at work: he’s already influencing public opinion even before the Maclean’s piece appeared!

Whoops - not a poll, just a clipping of a Doug Fisher column. (Doug Fisher!? I thought he’d retired by then?) The panel is solemnly studying it… And studying it…. And studying… Now they’re going to “retire” to consider it. In this case that means actually leaving the room — as often as not they just kind of swivel round in their chairs and put their heads together, like kids sketching out a football play, though I’m willing to guess the other two go along with whatever the chair, alpha-commissioner Heather MacNaughton, says.

9:53 AM I remain impressed with Steyn’s ability to influence opinion even in advance of publication. I admit this seems implausible. However, we must always remember, good people of Salem, that when when it comes to witches, all things are possible, natural and supernatural…

As with yesterday, just keep clicking ‘REFRESH’ until the buzzer sounds.

Update: More goodness:

1:42 PM…And we’re back. The tribunal has decided to admit the blogs. The whole wide internet is their domain! They can’t hear complaints about blog posts, but they can take them into consideration in assessing questions of “impact.”

Mind you, having admitted them, the tribunal is surprised to discover it hasn’t got ‘em. The printouts, Faisal Joseph informs the panel, are “five minutes away.” Not to self: perform Google Maps search on “Kinko’s.”

To add to the sense of general chaos: the tribunal cannot as yet provide counsel with recordings of the proceedings, as apparently the microphone used has been picking up conversations between counsel. Just another day in Mayberry.

My God but this is a farce.

Update - When Nature Calls: Ezra Levant is chronicling this travesty live as well. He’s doing a more comprehensive analysis, especially of poor Mr. Awan’s having been exposed as a liar.

Update Jr.: Welcome, Steynians!

Jason Kenney all but flays Osgoode Hall sock puppet Khurrum Awan in this scathing letter, chastising him for his association with Mohamed Elmasry.

I’m almost tempted to wonder how long it will be before someone tries to file a human rights complaint against Mr. Kenney?

Update: Let’s see how well Scribd handles this:

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

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!

Mike — or Mike Savant, as his email address would suggest his full name is (don’t worry, Mike, I won’t post it here) — writes in to “clarify” the “facts” of the complaint filed against Mark Steyn and magazine.

I think many people do not understand why a complaint was filed against Macleans Magazine. The following YouTube link provides an interview from Khurrum Awan *himself* [Oooohh...aaaah... - Ken] on the Mike Duffy Live Show explaining the facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeenAJx-Zjk

I would encourage the reader to watch the above-linked video; it’s an interesting re-hash of things already known.

At the core of the complaint, Awan’s big beef is that he found the excerpt from Mark Steyn’s book America Alone to be “Islamophobic”, and full of errors and assertions about Islam and Muslims, and the aims of said same on the global stage. He and his compatriots demanded of Maclean’s equal space to publish a rebuttal (free from any editorial oversight) to Mr. Steyn, a demand which Maclean’s refused since — as an independent company — they are free to choose what they do and do not publish. Lacking sufficient evidence for a formal court charge of discrimination or dissemination of hatred, Awan et. al. filed a human rights complaint with four (I think it was four) different HRCs — the national one, and three provincial tribunals as well (two of which have taken the case).

What is interesting is that, since launching this human rights complaint, Mr. Awan and his associates have had an immense amount of public exposure and media coverage, and could have — at any point — leveraged that coverage to issue their rebuttal to Mr. Steyn. True, it wouldn’t have been published in Maclean’s…but Mr. Awan could have, for example, used his time on the Mike Duffy Live show to address some of Steyn’s main points. Or he could have done it through LawIsCool, as a guest author. Or he could have started his own website (as I did some years back, for the measly sum of $7.95 USD/month) and then only appeared in public whilst wearing a shirt with the URL of said website emblazoned on it. In this era of new digital media, it is ludicrously easy for someone — anyone! — to spread any message they want to.

Come to think of it, Mr. Awan enjoys the backing and (presumably) the financial support of the Canadian Islamic Congress. I wonder, for a moment, what the CIC could accomplish if its president, Mohamed Elmasry, took a break from claiming that all Israelis over the age of 18 are legitimate targets for suicide bombers and focused the energy and financial resources of his organization into the creation of an alternative to Maclean’s, in the same spirit of entrepreneurship that led to the founding of Maclean’s a century ago. This is the West, this is a (relatively) free country — if you want to say something, found your own damn magazine and publish it! This sort of thing could have been immensely beneficial! Just think: a vibrant, active, well-written (well, not if Mr. Awan was doing the writing, but there’s always hope) magazine for the Muslim community in Canada, or maybe for all Canadians to find something in.

But did Mr. Awan and his compatriots do any of those things?

Nope.

Instead, they went whining to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and are currently demanding that, because a privately-run newsmagazine didn’t cave in to their (unreasonable) demands, they receive a formal apology in the form of several thousands of dollars.

Now, as comprehensive a reply to Mike as all the above is, there is one even more curious, and potentially amusing, detail. Binky has also written a response to someone named Mike (curious, that) who also very helpfully provided a YouTube link to Mr. Awan on the Mike Duffy show:

Sorry, Mike: ZZzzzz. We could rehash Khurrum’s stale pitch almost verbatim, and he’s had lots of places to explain his point. What’s still lacking from the chatter from the Four Elsmasry Puppets is the specific, serious, and substantial content of an ‘answer’ to Steyn & Company as published in Macleans over the past few years. As of yet, there’s just no ‘There’ there.

Yeah, we get it: you really, really, really disagree. What became clear from the comments of two Osgoode Hall students was their apparent expectation that the comfy-blanket of the modern university– speech-codes, tribunals, one-sided arguments and leftward intellectual life with no serious engagement with differing views, or the vast history of Western Civilization out of which everything arose– that the comfy-blanket should be imposed on the entire country and population of Canada, at least in the matter of criticism of Islam, or of ideas and institutions beloved by the left.

Perhaps you actually are all nice sincere diversitarian law-kids who just dream of, like, an inclusive tolerant enforced Trudeaupia, a heaven on earth– but that crazy world-view is not a solution: that’s part of the problem.

However, within your own religious community there are those who would use you to unmake Canada and rebuild the pieces in an exclusively Islamic shape. That the political left and aggressive Islamists cooperate to do so is a bad thing– and to be pointed out by Macleans columnists and many, many authors and commentators around the world, where free presses and free speech allow it– well, that’s a rather helpful and timely warning as to what is NOW happening in Europe (the motherland of Western Civilization), and what is slowly beginning to happen in North America.

As the nearly-silenced Pentagon expert Maj. Stephen Coughlin points out, this is not hate-speech or fear-mongering, but to simply describe what world-wide jihadis actually say, plan, hope for, and are all about. If the Osgoode 4 and Dr. Elmasry actually stand with Western Civ on this one, they’d do better to leave Macleans & Steyn & [Ezra Levant] alone, and get to work exposing and correcting those truly hateful elements within their own community who do espouse silencing critics, and worldwide religious war, here and abroad.

Personally, I think it’s decent advice. And Mike, just one thing, speaking to you personally: if you’re the same Mike that Binky has already dispensed with, and given what you and I both doubtless know about the essentially instantaneous nature of the interconectivity of the blogosphere…what are you doing going after the smaller blogs, when the bigger ones have already pegged you for the fool that you are? Did you think I wouldn’t be a regular reader of a blog that has now linked to this one a dozen times, and for which I have composed banner images? Did you think I wouldn’t make the connection? And did you think I wouldn’t instantly recognize just how foolish your attempt at persuasion was?

Update: Oh. My. God. Mike…could you at least have tried? Do I mean so little to you? There you go flirting with that tramp Binky, and when he spurns you, you turn around and send me exactly the same love note? But seriously, dude…are you even trying?

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

In their latest missive to you, Naseem Mithoowani, Khurrum Awan and Muneeza Sheikh refer to the excerpt from my book published in , as a “defamatory article”. OK, if it’s defamatory, why don’t you sue me? Cue crickets chirping.

It’s precisely because the article is not defamatory that the “plaintiffs” have had to rig the game by going to (at last count) three of Canada’s many “human rights” pseudo-courts. In none of their plaintive reprises protesting that they’re only looking for a chance to “start a debate” have they or their patrons at the Canadian Islamic Congress questioned the accuracy of a single specific fact, quotation or statistic. If they wanted to “start a debate,” they could start one, via a blog, column or book. Instead, they started a “human rights” complaint, which is what people do when they want to end the debate.

This isn’t merely a “freedom of speech” issue. Canada’s Charter, much to its shame, explicitly abridges freedom of expression. However, it does not abridge the presumption of innocence, which is guaranteed by the Charter, as well as by the UN Declaration on Human Rights and Magna Carta. Yet there is no “presumption of innocence” in Section 13 “hate” cases. Au contraire, there is a presumption of guilt, which is why no one hauled before the CHRC under Section 13 has ever been acquitted — with the exception of the “Canadian Nazi Party,” which got off scot-free on the quaint grounds that it did not, in fact, exist. (The fact that Richard Warman, “human rights activist” and the CHRC’s serial plaintiff, is reduced to suing entirely fictional entities tells you a lot about how necessary Section 13 is to the Queen’s peace.)

Dr. Keith Martin’s private members bill, M-446, is Canada’s last, best hope in stopping the human rights commissions, which have already gone too far. HRCs in Canada are, by virtue of their very existence and by the manner in which they operate, violations of the Charter-ensured rights of every Canadian.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!