To nobody's surprise, Macleans magazine has chosen to weasel out of its earlier (alleged) promise offering complainants in the CHRC case against the magazine an opportunity to "have their say". You can link to their full response through the term "weasel" above, but I would like to make note of one statement in it:
The article in question [Mark Steyn's "The Future Belongs To Islam"] was a legitimate piece of journalism written and published in good faith.
Yeah, a legitimate piece of journalism...which Macleans hosts in the entertainment section of their website, at the moment featuring an interview with Kim Cattrall:
'I didn't want to take the Samantha role — at 40, I didn't think I was sexy enough'
Lets be clear on this. While I'm not a lawyer, the legal consensus seems to be that the case against Macleans is rather weak, and the complaint against them should probably never have been launched.
That said, the best outcome now would be if the CHRC follows the lead of the OHRC and decides essentially that, yeah, Steyn's writings are Islamophobic, and detrimental to the social order, and yeah Macleans has gone into the crapper ever since Kenneth Whyte and the other clowns from the National Post took over, but their horseshit does not meet the standard required to trigger a sanction under Canadian Human Rights legislation. And while the likes of Steyn or Ezra Levant only nominally qualify as journalists--they use, as Syed Soharwardy has argued, press freedoms to create hatred against Muslims--it is necessary to put up with their bullshit just in case a real journalist at a respectable publication should decide to tell some hard truths at some point in the distant future.
Give Macleans a stern lecture, but let 'em go, in other words.
PS. I note that Whyte does the Cattrall interview himself. Nice of the boss to take all the difficult assignments.
Taking your partisan attacks for what they are, which is shameless, the most important part of your post was that the COMPLAINTS SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
ReplyDeleteAnd your also right that they are Islaphobic in the same way that Elmasry and the CIC are Zionistphobic.
I'm curious to see if Elmasry(the goofball who said all Israelis over 18 should be targets for terrorists) will take the bait and a debate with Steyn.
Steyn will crush the little muslim weasel.
I find it amazing, yet distrurbing that people on the left and far left(like yourself) have this infatuation with muslims and turn a blind eye to all the radicalization that is happening here in Canada's mosques.
Its pretty ignorant putting on the blinders to such an important national security issue.
I find it amazing, yet distrurbing that people on the left and far left(like yourself) have this infatuation with muslims and turn a blind eye to all the radicalization that is happening here in Canada's mosques.
ReplyDeleteYou're the one who's infatuated, you brain-damaged and drug-addled stalker.
"turn a blind eye to all the radicalization that is happening here in Canada's mosques."
ReplyDeleteReally? I have quite a few Muslim fiends andnieghbours and I have never seen this. On the news I see 17 idiots in Toronto who may have managed a paintball attack and nothing else.
Other than that, I hear nothing that is any more outrageous that what Charles McVety, or Tristan Emmanuel spew from their Christian pulpits.
So, why don't you just go join the Klan like all the other bigots, k, johnny?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteYou're the one who's infatuated, you brain-damaged and drug-addled stalker.
ReplyDeleteI see Ti-Guy's arguments are as articulate and insightful as ever.
As for the topic at hand, why the hell should McLean's offer ANYONE a chance to "have there say"? Oh, I'm sure you've covered all the reasons in earlier posts, but I can't be bothered to go through them. Regardless of how offended I might find a given publication, (Note, I've never been offended by a magazine) I don't believe I have the right to rebuttal on what the pages of their property.
That should read, "Regardless of how offensive..."
ReplyDeleteI don't believe I have the right to rebuttal on what the pages of their property.
ReplyDeleteI see Panty's arguments are as articulate and insightful as ever.
The sad part is, he actually thinks dusting off this stale argument is brilliant.
"That said, the best outcome now would be if the CHRC follows the lead of the OHRC and decides essentially that, yeah, Steyn's writings are Islamophobic, and detrimental to the social order, and yeah Macleans has gone into the crapper ever since Kenneth Whyte and the other clowns from the National Post took over, but their horseshit does not meet the standard required to trigger a sanction under Canadian Human Rights legislation." - BCL
ReplyDeleteThat's quite a mouthful BCL (and a run on sentence too I believe ;)). Everything considered, why even bother?
The HRC's are out on a (broken) limb here. Attempting to use HRC's for political and ideological reasons when there is no legal authority backing them up is a failed cause. Time to fly the white flag.