SteynOnline

Aidan Maconachy "reviews" America Alone:

In addition to the use of terms such as "gook" and "yellow peril", Steyn makes laudatory reference to the "white women" of America who produce more white babies (1.85 or thereabouts) than Canadian or European women.

I'll give Mr Maconachy $10,000 if he can tell me the page of America Alone on which I use the word "gook". When he's through with that exercise, he might like to tell us which of his teachers in his evidently extensive "formal education" advised him that it's a good idea to "review" a book without having read it.

[UPDATE: Mr Maconachy apparently isn't interested in the 10 grand, and has now changed the wording of his post without acknowledging the amendment. That doesn't address its larger problem - that he has simply regurgitated Johann Hari's talking points without attempting any independent verification. For example:

In his most recent outing he makes laudatory reference to the "white women" of America who produce more babies (1.85 or thereabouts) than Canadian or European women. What has "white" got to do with anything? It doesn't even reliably denote a race. Does this imply that American women with non-caucasoid skin pigmentation produce offspring of a less desirable sort? Steyn walks into these self-made traps that betray where he is really coming from, and then attempts to slither his way out of them by way of disclaimers of the "I am not a racist" variety.

How does he know it's a "laudatory reference" when he hasn't read it? The only person "walking into self-made traps" here is the cocksure wannabe pundit confidently pontificating on the motivations, the argument and the vocabulary of a passage of writing he doesn't know, hasn't seen, hasn't bothered to read. Who's "spinning reality" here? Maconachy isn't doing a critical review of my book, he's doing an approving review of Hari's review. Big deal.]

[UPDATE UPDATE: More post-post editing from Mr Maconachy:

Although this post references "America Alone", it isn't a straight "review" of Steyn's book, so much as a look at some of the themes in his work that attract negative attention - most recently from CIC and Human Rights in Canada.

No, it's not. It's a regurgitation of the themes from Johann Hari's review in The New Statesman. Give it up, man. You're making yourself look ridiculous. If you're that desperate to write about me and my book, we'll send you a review copy. Usually, my publisher sends out the review copy before the review's been written, but in your case we'll make an exception.]

It's not quite as full-throated as the PEN Canada statement, but nevertheless in this morning's Globe And Mail Susan Swan, chair of the Writers' Union of Canada, edges toward joining the good guys:

Margaret Wente (Eye Of The Beholder - March 1) leaves the impression that I am only interested in defending left-wing writers and not writers with more conservative views such as Mark Steyn. If Mr. Steyn feels he is being unjustly persecuted, he can enlist my help. One of my jobs as chair of The Writers' Union of Canada is to defend all of our 1,700 member authors from unfair censorship.

A bit qualified for my tastes, but who knows? I may yet take her up on the offer.

I heard yesterday from across the Atlantic (I'm traveling in Europe) that the Ontario Human Rights Commission has declined to hear the Canadian Islamic Congress suit against Maclean's on the grounds that they deal in denials of service on the basis of race, creed, etc, and a magazine is not a "service". That's certainly true in the case of Maclean's: many of us haven't serviced anyone in years.

To recap: Three cases were launched against Maclean's and me. One against Ezra Levant. The score so far: Two-zip to the freespeechers.

Just for the record, this now means the Sock Puppet Three have nothing to do with either of the cases that are going forward. They are no longer even potential complainants. So their phenomenal dominance of Canadian newspapers may be reduced from one unreadable op-ed a day to merely a couple per week.

The plaintiffs in British Columbia, at the trial beginning in June, will be Dr Mohamed Elmasry and Naiyer Habib. The plaintiff in the federal case is Dr Elmasry alone. C'mon out, Elmo. Your sock puppets are riddled with holes and your little fingers are peeping through. 

I don't even know what any of this stuff means, but eat your heart out, Warren!

PS In this post, Warren refers to "the young Muslim students who objected to Mark Steyn calling them vermin". Where exactly in the alleged hate crime do I call them "vermin"? A timely answer would be appreciated. Or do I have to do the old Kinsella shtick and advise him to "retain counsel"?