Canada's thought police censoring a journalist who speaks out against Islamic imperialism... is the USA next?

Question

"If Maclean's, Canada's top-selling magazine, is found “guilty," it could face financial or other penalties. And the affair could have a devastating impact on opinion journalism in Canada generally.

As it happens, Canadian human-rights commissions have already come down hard on those whose writings they dislike, like critics of gay rights.

Nor should Americans dismiss this campaign against Steyn and Maclean's as merely another Canadian eccentricity. Speech cops in America, too, are forever attempting similar efforts - most visibly, on college campuses."
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12162007/postopinion/editorials/canadas_thought_police_72483.htm

Thanks (((Lucid))) :)

Answer 1

Wow. That is interesting. Being sued by an intolerant religion for stating that they might be intolerant of our more liberal ways.
Hopefully the courts will see that they are proving how intolerant they really are.
Why do we tolerate this ?

Answer 2

After 9/11 many politicians spoke of an Islamic plan of world domination. They said Muslims were trying to re-establish the Ottoman Empire, or trying to unite the world under a global 'caliphate'.

President Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein had plans to attack the US, first with nuclear weapons and then, when he couldn't prove that, with WMD, unmanned aircraft, etc. etc. This was a big part of his justification for invading Iraq in the first place.

American media gave these accusations face value, even though they knew they were false, because they made good copy. But should media be allowed to do this, to publish accusations and stories that they KNOW are false? In the US they are, apparently in Canada they're not.

Years ago, the Christian Right made the accusation against gays that they were all child molesters. Gays couldn't reproduce, the argument ran, so they have to -recruit-. This was not just a lie, it was a MALICIOUS lie. Christians admit today that it isn't true, and wasn't then. Do you think people should be allowed to say such things about whole classes of people that they know are lies?

You call this 'opinion journalism'. Of course opinion is allowed more freedom than reporting 'facts'. I'd have to read the piece in question to tell you what I thought. In American journalism these days, standards are really deteriorating, and the line is often blurred between opinion or commentary on one hand and the reporting of -fact- on the other hand.

Answer 3

I haven't read Mr. Steyn's book and I am pretty sure that none of the people who are criticizing you for writing this post have read it either. I don't know what Mr. Steyn said or if he really incited anybody to anything. I don't know if he said that Islamic Extremists are not compatible with Canadian culture or if he said that plain, ordinary Muslims weren't. I would bet that the other writers here don't know either.
I might ask these critics if they would like the Taliban taking over their local government? Now, I am not saying that the average Muslim who lives in the west is anything like the Taliban but there are Muslim extremists that live in both Canada and the US--and they do not wish good things for our culture.
What this comes down to is this: That anyone who disagrees with anything that anyone writes will now feel free to take them to court about it. With that mind set I would be entirely within my rights to take "Garwy" to court for calling people of faith "religious lunatics" who deny the Holocaust, believe in white supremacy, and support intelligent design. Tsk, tsk, tsk Mr. Garwy. This is a perfect example of hate speech and ignorant bigotry. You should be sued.
What, may I ask, will people be allowed to write now? Only things that the government and every minority in the country can support and agree with? Did ANYONE in this Muslim group that is suing Mr. Steyn think about writing their own book or article refuting what Mr. Steyn said and giving evidence and citing research showing that Mr. Steyn is wrong? Of course not. That's because they want the government to do their heavy lifting for them. And everytime that any group sues someone for writing something they don't like, and everytime they win, you can well be assured that everyone living in this country will be less free to say anything.
People are not too stupid to discern the difference between bigotry and reasoned, although unpopular opinion. Why don't you give them the chance to do that.

Answer 4

The questions that are being brought by the human-rights commissions are a valid concern. They are going to be asking if the journalist in question is spreading hate.
There are many people that write opinions that are not "politically correct". However, there are some that write hate articles that can teach to hate other races or minorities. This is what is in question.

The USA, Canada, and many European countries already censor many writers such as the KKK and Zundle that write questionable articles.

Answer 5

Freedom of speech does not give freedom to incite hatred.


The guy has not been found guilty yet, so let's wait and find out what the ruling is and the reasoning behind it.


You can criticise gay rights, you are not allowed to portray gays as sub-human, that is the law. If people sail close to the law they deserve to get warned about it.

My suspicion is that you want 'freedom of speech' when you want to slam the Muslims and brand them all as child-killing monsters, but are first in line demanding the arrest of Muslims doing the same thing.

Sorry, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and while the laws stand as they do and should, I will not tolerate either position.

Answer 6

Well even from that very biased article it is clear that unless he has a lot of irrefutable evidence on his side then he is inciting religious hatred. While human rights may say you should have the right to free speech, it also says you should bear the consequences of that. Intolerance and hatred are NOT human rights, though your comments on gay people hint that you demur from that opinion and reserve the right to hate people for the way they are born (possibly by making equally ludicrous claims that its a choice, which of itself would not justify hatred anyway).

The point is that in a properly free Western democracy with a strong record of human rights like Canada (and unlike the US) there is a forum to test this sort of thing. And that forum is being used. It would be wrong to pre-judge its conclusions, and unconscionable to claim that the process itself constitutes censorship.

Answer 7

{{{Morganie}}} Another insightful post. I am dismayed by most of your answers. I think its crystal what is happening, in our country as well as other western countries. Look at the UK alone and the hate crimes laws over there. Muslims are becoming a more protected class in the UK and now potentially Canada. We eventually get there as history shows, just takes us a bit longer! With the UK legistlating gay jokes are a crime under the hate crimes bill and Canada legislating that people cannot have any religious ornamentation for Christmas even on their front lawns...its clear where this is going.

Just thought I would pop on, answer and say Merry Christmas!

Answer 8

I don't understand how a group of Muslims suing a magazine means that Canada has a "thought police." Could you explain that part?

And I wouldn't say the USA is next, because frivolous lawsuits already happen all the time in America.

EDIT
It looks to me like the writer is jumping to conclusions, especially since the only thing the Canadian government agreed to do was hear the case, which I think is a good thing. If they had refused, they would have violated due process.

Answer 9

america is in the grip of religious lunatics who need to defend their right to post 'opinions' including the supremacy of the white race, the falsity of the holocaust, and the scientific credibility of intelligent design.

but in fact every true democracy has a right - and sometimes a duty - to protect its electorate from the dissemination of dangerous lies.

the mark steyn case hasn't been heard yet. nobody yet knows what he has been accused of saying, nor what his justifications for his statements were.

if mark steyn has been saying things which were untrue and dangerous, then some legal redress would be in order. i think it unlikely, but the case has not been heard yet.

freedom of speech does not extend to the right to yell 'Fire' michievously in a crowded theatre.

only kent hovind would pretend it did.

and you (and the catholics by the look of it).

Answer 10

The days of political correctness for Islam should end this day and this hour. Why can they desecrate Jesus Christ with every form of filth in print, pictures and speech and we cannot even draw a cartoon that depicts Reality?