Time Immortal

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 Steyn, a demand which Maclean’s refused since — as an independent company — they are free to choose what they do and do not publish.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!

A reader sends in a short response to this article about Kathy Shaidle’s wondering whether the kids that run LawIsCool — the website of some of Mark Steyn’s legal antagonists — are closet homophobes, based on the accusation of homophobia they levelled at various conservative commentators who called them “nellies”.

The implication, as Shaidle saw it, was that in the minds of LawIsCool’s member bloggers, “gay” would necessarily have to equal “wimp” for them to make that connection and comeback.

My reader writes thusly:

“$500 says ‘LawIsCool’ are in fact a couple of homosexuals in Toronto”

I think that was the reference in question.

Your intentional mischaracterization is clearly libelous. Maybe they’ll take you to a CHRC.

There are two points I might make; first, it was not my characterization, but rather a funny bit of commentary from a lady known for her unique wit, which I found amusing and re-posted here. Part of the ebb and flow of blogging is this sort of criticism of people one acknowledges as opponents within the blogosphere — taking statements made and running with them. It’s not intended as libel, but as a critique of the intellectual inconsistency of the LawIsCool crowd.

More importantly, though, yes, I do realize that someone could haul me before the CHRC for any number of comments made on this site. That’s a risk I accept in doing what I do, saying what I say, thinking what I think, and believing what I believe. But so what? Someone may say I’m libelous and haul me before the government to answer for that…but any such person would, in so doing, reveal themselves to be a coward, a fascist, and a censor.

And thus reveal themselves to be an enemy of Canada in a way I could never dream to match.

Finally, a point of fact: while it is true that the LawIsCool types quoted the particular comment that my reader likewise cited, they follow up the quotation with this remark:

Other adjectives used include “nellies” and fairies, among other things, because apparantly standing up for marginalized communities to which one does not belong to is considered feminine (the women are especially offended).

They’ve been called “nellies” (or “wimps”, or similar) by more people than have made bets as to their sexual orientation, so that is the more significant component of their response. So what’s this talk about mischaracterization, anyhow, I wonder?

One is tempted to agree with Kathy Shaidle; how else ought we to interpret this?

LawIsCool progressives think “gay” = “wimp”

How else to interpret their leap of illogic, that our calling them “nellies” makes us  “homophobes”?

I don’t “phobe” “homos”, but maybe LawIsCool should: most of the gays I’ve known (male and female) are far from wimpy, and could easily whip LawIsCool’s collective ass.

(Shut up, you know what I mean…)

But then, this wouldn’t be anything new, would it? Rare is the person more willing to accuse an opponent of being of questionable sexual orientation than an irate leftist.

As is always the case:

A bunch of kids are misusing old fairness-in-housing laws to harrass Canada’s oldest magazine, and a bestselling author, bringing themselves, the Muslim community and the whole nation into disrepute into the process, and some commenters here are concerned about our “tone.”

If your response to the /[Mark Steyn] case isn’t tainted with outrage, sarcasm and a profound sense of urgency, there is something wrong with you. Your priorities are warped. As warped as the complainants’ and their apologists.

The crowded theatre really IS on fire this time, and you’re chiding me to keep my voice down, and stop shoving you towards the exit for your own good?

I’m getting as worried by these prissy attitudes emerging around this case as I am about the case itself.

Just so.

Update: More goodness:

I still don’t get it: if the “radical, Saudi-trained, anti-Semitic imam who has publicly called for sharia law to be enforced in Canada” who brought these “charges” against [Ezra Levant], can do so by filing a “hand scrawled complaint” [in which he claims to be a direct descendant of the (false) prophet Muhammad — Ken], why can’t Levant or Mark Steyn just respond to the HRC with a fax photo of their butts?

That’s the only appropriate response to this bull.

I’d fax them a picture of a bull’s butt, myself. But that’s minutia.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

It’s most interesting to note how LawIsCool shuts down the ability of people to put in opposing points of view in their comments section. That is their right. How would he feel if a human rights commission ordered LawIsCool to give equal time to opposing points of view after costing them a fortune in defending their right to close their comments section? He wouldn’t like it I am sure. But I guess, to paraphrase George Orwell, some people are more equal than others and their rights to freedom of speech more equal than others.

I’ve had commentators at the site tell me that the people going after Mark Steyn are the ones that have all their facts in line, and that Steyn’s would-be censors have consistently been gracious and non-insulting. We’ll leave aside, perhaps, mention of how — one of the key figures behind LawIsCool — accuses those who disagree with him of being mentally unbalanced, or how he has dismissed comments he disagrees with as ’spam’ (what wonders they have done for spam bots on the ‘Net if they can now respond to discussions on topic and coherently). And we’ll ignore how he has re-written yet other comments he has found fault with.

Deborah Gyapong�s commentary is worth reading in full, and is an excellent analysis of just the sort of people who are pursuing the case against freedom of speech in Canada. In some respects, it’s nice to know that Daniel Simard is as consistent in his denial of people their basic human right (as per the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document I am sure Simard is otherwise quite fond of) to free speech…but that doesn’t change the fact that he’s being an arsehole who is denying people their basic human right to free speech.

(In Soviet Russia, hat tops you: Kathy Shaidle)