| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Will FAIR revise its "Islamophobia's Dirty Dozen" list to drop Mark Steyn, now that Canada's Thought Police have acquitted him of "flagrant Islamophobia"? (Background on the case here.) But this is no victory for free speech: the laws under which he was tried still remain, and he was acquitted solely due to the public pressure that has been brought to bear on the Thought Police by this case. Steyn comments:
Mark Hemingway is right to say that free speech in Canada "does not exist in any meaningful way". As the British Columbia "Human Rights" Tribunal's rambling and incoherent decision makes plain, Maclean's and I were acquitted of "flagrant Islamophobia" for essentially political reasons - because neither the court nor its travesty of a "human rights" code could withstand the heat of a guilty verdict. Jay Currie puts it well:The way I read this decision is that it imposes a two part test: a) are your words offensive and hurtful? b) are you a major media organization with deep pockets represented by serious lawyers. If “a” and not “b” you are a hate monger; if “a” and “b” you are engaged in political debate.[...] I sympathize with the Canadian Islamic Congress, whose mouthpiece feels that, if the British Columbia pseudo-judges had applied the logic of previous decisions, we'd have been found guilty. He's right: Under the ludicrous British Columbia "Human Rights" Code, we are guilty. Which is why the Canadian Islamic Congress should appeal, and why I offered on the radio an hour ago to chip in a thousand bucks towards their costs.
Kathy Shaidle, the valiant Canadian warrior for free speech (oh, that there were ten thousand of her) has a round-up here, and she and Pete Vere comment on the verdict:
MARK STEYN NOT GUILTY OF "FLAGRANT ISLAMOPHOBIA," SAYS TRIBUNALAUTHORS OF NEW BOOK ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS
CALL VERDICT THE EXCEPTION WITHIN A SYSTEM
STACKED AGAINST THE ACCUSEDTORONTO (October 10, 2008) -- Today, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal handed down a not-guilty verdict in the case of Maclean's magazine and its columnist Mark Steyn.
The case, prompted by charges of "flagrant Islamophobia" made against Steyn and Maclean's by the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC), focused critical attention on Canada's controversial Human Rights Commissions. Today, the Tribunal ruled that Mark Steyn and Maclean's did not violate the human rights of the complainants merely by reporting facts and accurately quoting sources.
The Steyn trial, along with other lesser known but equally troubling cases, are chronicled in the new book The Tyranny of Nice: How Canada crushes freedom in the name of human rights, written by Kathy Shaidle and Pete Vere (www.TyrannyOfNice.com)
Authors Kathy Shaidle and Pete Vere commented today on the verdict in the Steyn & Maclean's case:
"Unfortunately, this decision is only a partial victory for Mark Steyn, Maclean's magazine and every other writer and publisher in Canada.
"This Kafkaesque trial cost taxpayers dearly, while many Canadians struggle to make ends meet. More importantly, it cost Canada its international reputation as a free, just and tolerant country. While Steyn and Maclean's won, most defendants are found guilty; the HRCs boast of a nearly 100% rate of conviction.
"We can only hope that this case and all the others chronicled in our book will help make the continued existence of Canada's out of control, draconian Human Rights Commissions an issue in the coming federal election.
"If elected Prime Minister, what will Stephen Harper, Stephane Dion, Jack Layton or Elizabeth May do to rein in the powers of human rights commissions and protect freedom of speech and freedom of the press?"
Posted by Robert at October 11, 2008 6:09 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Mark Steyn my hero and so thankful he is there for the fight to win!
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 11, 2008 6:59 AM
From article: More importantly, it cost Canada its international reputation as a free, just and tolerant country.
Canada is slipping. Several serious incidents in the recent past indicate that Canada ain't what it usta be. Freedom and 'thought police' are inconsistent with each other, and can't exist in the same time space at the same time.
The ranks of the 'thought police' (no matter what fancy name they give themselves), are saturated with mean spirited, punishment happy, egoistic hypocrites. Look and see how they handle the power that has been given them...
They are the enemy within...Islam did not invent this ignoble trait in kufrs but they certainly exploit it. And the exploited are either are too blissed out on their own power to notice, or don't care. Either way, Canada is sinking fast and the rest of the west will follow, if it follows Canada's path.
Protect free speech and castigate those who threaten it. And above all, stop electing mean spirited, punishment happy, egoistic hypocrites
to public office and power positions...
Have Obama on your mind when you enter the voting booth...then vote for McCain...
Posted by: duh_swami at October 11, 2008 7:04 AM
I want to remind JWers not to confuse Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, the bad FAIR with the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the good FAIR.
Posted by: RBLA at October 11, 2008 9:05 AM
i bet yall wished you had a First Amendment to wish upon, don't you? if yall get to many more muslims around there you wish you had a Second Amendment too.
Posted by: theygottago at October 11, 2008 9:11 AM
Guilty? Not guily? The 'decision' is irrelevant. WHO the F-CK are THEY to render these 'sentences'. That is the key point.
Posted by: poetcomic1 at October 11, 2008 10:00 AM
People, from our own country, viz., "Jackbooted thugs intimidate citizens (re: Obama).
A must-read from "Chandler's Watch":
Posted by: darcy at October 11, 2008 10:06 AM
To be a Human Rights Commissioner apparently the first requirement is that one be a wus, a coward, and a lib apologist.
Hurray for Mark Steyn and hurrah for free speech, but these commissioners live to fight another day. They should be done away with.
The Oprahsization of the quasi judiciary.
What pusillanimous pukes.
Posted by: dgene at October 11, 2008 12:02 PM
Readers who wish to read the pdf of the British Columbia HRC's decision can find the link to it at the FreeMarkSteyn site. In their write-up, the HRC "kangaroo" judges claim:
115 “Both [Rippin and Ayoub] agreed that the [Steyn] Article’s description of an Islamic conspiracy with ‘serious global ambitions’ to dominate the world, and create what the Article calls ‘Eurabia’, has no basis in the Qur’an or Islamic traditions. As part of their beliefs, adherents of Islam are not exhorted to conspire to take over the world…”
119 “…Dr. Rippin described the Qur’an as requiring Muslims to show respect to other communities and tolerance of other religions.”
129 “…Based on their evidence, the Panel accepts that the article contains numerous factual, historical, and religious inaccuracies about Islam and Muslims. Maclean’s did not call evidence to the contrary.”
Those apologists for Islam, Rippin (a mild apologist) and Ayoub (an extreme apologist), did not substantiate any of their claims, though their claims were accepted, by the "judges," as "expert" testimony. There is plenty of material in the Quran, Hadith, and Sira supporting imperialistic Islamic global ambitions. Of course, Maclean's/Steyn did not bother to refute those claims because they were hoping for an opportunity to fight this out in a real court. Still, the HRC's statements above are now being quoted in the mainstream media, and it would be useful for some expert critics of Islam to refute the "expert testimony" of Rippin and Ayoub.
---------
"If elected Prime Minister, what will Stephen Harper, Stephane Dion, Jack Layton or Elizabeth May do to rein in the powers of human rights commissions and protect freedom of speech and freedom of the press?"
Of these candidates, Harper (Conservative) is most likely to take a pro-free speech approach, combined with a critical attitude toward the human rights commissions. (Several years ago, Harper strongly criticized the HRCs, but subsequently, since he became Prime Minister, we have not seen any clear defense of free expression from him). Several Conservative politicians have expressed support for the free expression side in this controversy and have criticized the HRCs.
Posted by: Kinana of Khaybar at October 11, 2008 5:06 PM
"fragrant Islamophobia" - is there some sort of smell test involved?
Posted by: tanstaafl at October 11, 2008 5:36 PM
"did not violate the Human Rights of the Complainants merely by reporting Facts and accurately quoting sources"
This quote leads one to believe that the Commission accepted the truthfulness of what was published.
Mark needs to bludgeon these people with more of the same. The Commission found itself on thin Ice and Mark has managed to crack it under their Feet. A few more hits and it will succumb to the pressure, sweeping it away with the undercurrent.
It is really immaterial why and how the Commission made its decision.The fact remains that they made it. The wound is fresh and one cannot allow it time to heal.
Go for the Jugular.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at October 11, 2008 8:05 PM
Suggested campus activity for Jewish and philojudaic Gentile students and faculty members, during 'Islamofascism Awareness Week'.
Get Andrew Bostom 's 'Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism'.
Assemble a relay team of readers, folding chairs, drinks (to wet the whistle), and (for reference purposes) the Qur'an and Guillaume's translation of the Sira (some other texts might be handy, too, but these are the minimum).
Around morning-tea time set yourselves up in a suitable location on campus, say, in a sunny corner of the quadrangle and - having announced the title, author, and date of publication of the text - read aloud the 'Introductory Quotes' (giving the name and identity of each speaker).
Then read 'Note on the Cover Art'. That is: the story of the murder of Sol HaChuel Ha-Tsaddiqa [the Righteous Woman], in early 19C Muslim Morocco, on a bizarrely trumped-up charge of blasphemy and apostasy. For extra dramatic effect, find a pleasant-voiced young Jewish lady willing to read all portions of the text that are reported as Sol's own words; and, perhaps, to give, at the proper point in the text, the recitation of the Shema Yisroel, Sol's last act before her execution.
Around morning-tea time, a gentleman with a pleasant, scholarly voice reads aloud Ibn Warraq's 'Foreword'.
Any interested passers-by are requested to come back tomorrow to hear more.
On the second day, the fun really begins: the team starts in to read aloud the whole of Part One - 'Islamic Antisemitism: Jew Hatred in Islam'.
One reader is appointed as 'narrator' and reads in Bostom's voice.
Other people chip in as necessary to read the major quotations embedded within Bostom's text.
Some play the part of 'the historians' - reading all passages by non-Muslim scholarly observers. Others present 'the testifiers' - reading all passages written by non-Muslim victims of Islam, for example, Maimonides. Others represent 'the Muslims' - reading the passages from Muslim sources, whether Qur'an-Sira-Hadith, historians, jurists, or interpreters such as Qutb.
This would, I think, create quite a dramatic effect. (I experimented with reading portions of it aloud, while I was on holiday recently - it reads aloud very well, and the dramatic impact of the text is staggering, when read aloud rather than simply absorbed in silence).
I don't know how long it would take. Part One of Bostom's book occupies about 172 pages.
But I think a determined and pre-rehearsed team of readers, working together, mornings and afternoons, would probably complete it within the week.
Such a public reading, of part one of Bostom's book, by a mixed group of Jews and Gentiles, would be worth a try on any major Canadian or USA university campus.
The million-dollar question is this: would such a reading be permitted? How long before someone tried to stop it? (Make sure you have people ready and equipped to record the whole thing, visual and audio). And - would the readers be accused of 'hate speech' and 'Islamophobia'??
PS - I would *love* to do something like this - but I am in Australia, not America, and I am neither a faculty member nor a student at a university. This activity is something that I think would be best done by faculty + students, if they could muster the courage. For if the truth (about, for example, historic Muslim mistreatment of Jews) cannot be spoken in public in the main quadrangle of major western universities, then we really *are* in trouble.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy
at October 12, 2008 4:29 AM
Small correction to the above: the paragraph reading
"Around morning-tea time, a gentleman with a pleasant, scholarly voice reads aloud Ibn Warraq's 'Foreword'"
should be worded
"Then, around afternoon-tea time, a gentleman with a pleasant, scholarly voice reads aloud Ibn Warraq's 'foreword'".
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at October 12, 2008 4:35 AM
flowerknife,
You wrote: "This quote leads one to believe that the Commission accepted the truthfulness of what was published."
The quote you cited was of a blogger expressing an opinion. The Tribunal/Commission did not accept the truthfulness of Steyn's article. Rather, they judged, on the basis of the opinions of two Islam apologists, as follows:
[140] “We have accepted the expert evidence of Drs. Rippin and Ayoub that the Article contains historical, religious, and factual inaccuracies. However, their expertise did not extend to linking the inaccuracies in the Article to the probability that it would expose Muslims in B.C. to the level of ‘unusually strong feelings and deeply felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification’ required by Taylor.”
Of course, even if the kangaroo judges had accepted the truthfulness of Steyn's article, that would have been no defence for Steyn/Maclean's anyway.
I suspect, as do many others, that the kangaroo judges let Steyn/Maclean's off the hook because they feared (i) legal action that might have abolished their jobs and (ii) a large public backlash against the HRCs generally.
Posted by: Kinana of Khaybar at October 12, 2008 11:21 AM
Hey Tanstaafi
" Flagrant/ fragrant Islamophobia "
? Is there some sort of smell test involved ?
Have you experienced a roomfull of arses raised up westward....... yewwwwwwwwwwww......if that isn't fragrant/odoriferous { aroma-therapy} I don't know what is ??????
at October 13, 2008 4:08 AM
Kinana-
Thank you for the clarification and correction.
Was anyone involved in this affair knowledgeable about anything?
Do the Commissioners themselves have any knowledge of the subject?
Posted by: flowerknife_us at October 13, 2008 6:39 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)