|
Here's a quick tour of reactions to yesterday's press conference and the "settlement" proposed by the Canadian Islamic Congress:
The only "news" to emerge was the revelation that NDP leader Jack Layton has thrown his lot in with the Canadian Islamic Congress and its Judeophobe terrorist-supporting president-for-life Mohamed Elmasry. Which is a bit like Barack Obama waiting till Jeremiah Wright launched his Aids conspiracy theory and then joining the Trinity United Church.
Unlike Taliban Jack, Ezra Levant figured out what's really going on:
I wonder if it will work: Mohamed Elmasry and his Canadian Islamic Congress are trying to become the Canadian version of Al Sharpton, the U.S. shake-down artist and race hustler.
Sharpton, and his competitor, Jesse Jackson, trump up grievances or outright manufacture stories to stoke racial anger, and then set themselves up as the mediators of those same grievances -- often with a hefty financial payment to them as part of the solution.
As far as I can tell, unlike Jesse Jackson, Elmo hasn't mandated "sensitivity training". Perhaps he reckons I'm beyond that. But otherwise it was a very Sharptonian affair - complete with the fresh-faced innocent "victims" of Maclean's "Islamophobia". Nevertheless, this was a piece of theatre. Not a single person in that room offering to "settle" with Maclean's is a party to the dispute: The only persons in a position to withdraw the complaints before either the British Columbia "Human Rights" Tribunal and the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission are the men who made them: Dr Elmasry and (his co-plaintiff in the BC suit) Dr Naiyer Habib. Enough with the understudies. Kathy Shaidle wanted to know where's the star of the show?
When the lawyer recognized me during question time, it was -- I am so not kidding you -- just after he "answered" another question by reiterating his outrage at Whyte's defiance.
"What do you make of such a thing? I ask you?!" the lawyer asked rhetorically, with faux outrage.
I raised my hand, and he nodded at me.
"Well, what I make of it is that there still may be hope for the right to private property in Canada." (Titters from the peanut gallery.)
"In any event," I continued, "can you explain why the man whose name actually appears on all three of these human rights complaints against Maclean's, that is, Mohammad Elmasry, isn't here today? Could it be because you'd like to distance yourselves from him, since he was captured on video declaring that all Israeli civilians were legitimate targets for Muslim terrorists?"
Their lawyer is so stupid, this was his actual answer:
"Why didn't you ask me about the other students who aren't here today because they had to write exams?"
I refrained from replying "They can write??" and said instead,
"Because I don't give a damn about them, I asked you about Elmasry."
"Will you let me answer, madam?"
"Why didn't you just answer when I asked you the first time?"
"That incident was investigated four years ago and was settled. I am representing Mohammed Elmasry here. Why don't you call him on the phone if you want to talk to him so badly!"
Well, because Canada's weeniest ayatollah doesn't seem to be taking any calls. I must say, if this is his level of barristerial repartee, I'd rather enjoy facing m'learned friend across a courtroom. As to the substance of their offer, Deborah Gyapong says:
Why do I feel like I am witnessing a slow-mo mugging?
The weapon in question is the human rights complaints.
The muggers offer to lower the weapon if they get what they want...
Her headline is "The Haggling Over A Piece Of Maclean's Real Estate". But "haggling" presupposes some kind of basic commercial transaction - purchase and sale. This case, as Miss Shaidle's riposte to Faisal Joseph suggests, is an attempt at property appropriation. After all, if the Canadian Islamic Congress is entitled to annex five pages of Maclean's, why aren't I entitled to have my say on the CIC website or in its newsletter? As Jay Currie puts it:
You can spin this attempt any way you like but that will not disguise the fact it is a species of blackmail.
Indeed. If you attempt to pressure somebody by threatening to file charges, it's extortion. In this case, the CIC are attempting to pressure Maclean's by dangling the possibility of lifting the charges. Mr Currie adds:
I trust that Macleans will respond with the contempt these blackmailers deserve.
Well, I would certainly hope so, although that's up to Maclean's. It remains the case that Elmo and his repertory company of ham actors have yet to dispute any facts in the excerpt from America Alone.
As I always say, it's not about me, and, however this shakes out, I'm in the twilight of my media career in Canada. But, if Maclean's accedes to this ludicrous proposal, it will not be the end, only the beginning - for Elmo and every other bully-boy propagandist will have a working template for how to cow any publication in Canada into submission.
|
