SteynOnline

A selection of readers letters on Mark's experiences this week at the hands of the
Canadian thought police.

SLOW SALES OF ‘ANIMAL FARM’
I was wondering if anyone in Canada has ever read a book called "Animal Farm"
written by George Orwell. It was mandatory reading in the junior high school I attended down here in in the Great Satan. It's about a group of pigs who lead their fellow farm animals in a revolt against their drunken, tyrannical farm owner. At the end of the story, the pigs become as bad if not worse than the farm owner - they even begin to resemble him physically. Orwell, a devout socialist, wrote the classic novel to warn his fellow socialists of the tyrannical leanings of socialism. Apparently, few have heeded his concerns, as Canada's HRC proves. Look around that courtroom and tell me which ones resemble pigs. Oink oink! Canada is not alone in trying to impose its McCarthy-like thought control over its citizens. France, too, is in a long struggle to subdue the masses to comply with the socialist status quo.

Mark Spinelli
Chicago, Illinios

FREE TO OFFEND
Society requires the freedom to offend. See here.

Stephen B Waters
Rome, New York

DIEFENBAKER SUPPORTED STEYN
I just want to share my "Quote of the month" with which I sign off my emails It might be apropos.

Ben Fairless

"Freedom includes the right to say what others may object to and resent..."
John G. Diefenbaker

THOSE PESKY LEGAL TRADITIONS
Hi Mark, long time reader, fourth or fifth time writer.

Sooooo....like all your fans, I have been following the 'trial' with great interest.  And honestly Mark, I guess I was being naïve, but I really thought these higher profile cases would finally kick start the revolution, as it were.  By and large, I try to be a happy warrior, but I've come to the conclusion these past couple days that Canada's probably a goner.  I don't know Mark, I hope I'm wrong but after cruising through the various Steyn/Levant/Shaidle/et al links and checking out the blogs, I have to say, it scared the f**king bejeesus out of me.

I'm only 33 but amazingly, I've been selected for jury duty twice (quite rare according to the court staff).  Now both were criminal trials (2nd degree murder) so I have no direct experience with civil cases but at least both are part of a proper legal system with all those pesky legal traditions like reasonable doubt, evidentiary standards, burden of proof, etc. etc.; obviously quite unlike these various thought police abominations.

Anyway, I recall the respective judges - who incidentally would tear these commissars and sock puppets to shreds - going on for hours delivering the jury charge, explaining the various definitions in painstaking detail, delineating our legal obligations (not to mention those of the crown and defence), following proper procedure (removing the jury from the court for various motions to ensure legal propriety; keeping jurors separated from the lawyers, witnesses and family members) and on and on and on.  In short, an actual court answerable to the rule of law.

But the manner in which these show trials are conducted.....well, breathtaking is not a sufficient word for it.  I knew already, but I didn't REALLY know....if you know what I mean.  Like you, I've been following the antics of these commissions for years and was still astounded.  Welcome to the asylum indeed. 

I can't even imagine how unreal this all sounds to Johnny and Jane Canuck. Actually, I suppose I can since I've been trying - with widely varying degrees of success - to draw people's attention to this issue.  They are largely indifferent, or they simply can't imagine such nefarious activities taking place in the true north 'strong' and 'free'.  For example, I occasionally harass a couple of lefty editors at the local rag (London 'Free' Press) at what passes for their blogs and the best I can get out of them is to agree that sure yeah, protecting free speech is important; but at least the commissions help "further the debate" or some such nonsense (and of course they are completely oblivious to the sad irony of such sophomoric sentiments).

What the hell is it about $100,000+ educations that turn so many people into f**king morons?  We have journalists largely indifferent to freedom of expression, lawyers actively circumventing the rule of law, a supposedly 'conservative' party uninterested in preserving the fundamental underpinning of Western Civilization; and the silence of the Trudeaupian citizenry is deafening. 

We're done.  Trudeau did his work well.  But if we're going down, I for one am at least going down swingin'....at least until this 'frozenback' is forced to swim across the St. Clair River to find one of those jobs Americans just won't do.  On the bright side, no matter who wins this November, I doubt I'll have any problem successfully documenting my undocumented status.

As always, best regards.

Matt Hillier
London, Ontario

P.S.  In case you're curious about the trial results; we twenty three typical WASPy Londoners found the black guy not guilty and convicted the white underage kid (who was sentenced as an adult; shocking I know, but it does happen).  I tried to be more racist so as not to disturb Barbara Hall's sensibilities or sinecure, but just couldn't get my fellow jurors on board.

HOW DO THEY GET AWAY WITH THIS SH*T?
I was there today [Tuesday].  Don't get it wrong on Andrew Rippin.  He is sets himself up as dhimmi-one.  What is a dhimmi?  What's a "madhab"?  What is "sunna"?  Media personnel who don't know that in 2008, need to be put on trucks in the "Ice Road" season.

Re Steyn-Circus. I am told that the NY Times sent a reporter.  I heard someone with a NYC accent saying, "How do they get away with that shit?" in reference to HR Tribunal practise in Canada.  But what will he report?   I had to remove my hat before entering the hearing room; Muslims were allowed to wear their head garb.  Verdict:  Complainants will win the case, not on merits but because if they lose then the cosy Human Rights bureaucracy will be diminished. However, Steyn et al employed first order Toronto lawyers with Defamation expertise, and think-on-your-feet Trial experience, which could put the Tribunes under unwanted scrutiny, should they advance justice and find against the Muslim Complainants.  As Steyn has written, HRC processes are Show Trials; they don't take a complaint unless they intend to uphold it.  They want to produce a finding that will prop the discredited HR process.  I am guessing that Defendant attorneys are getting about $3000 each per day.  Then there is the prep-time, and accomodation and travel fees. Could approach $100,000 in this phase. 

Re the "Harding" case (Ontario Court of Appeal, 2001, be aware that the Supreme Court of Canada rejected appeal of same, thus, accepting the insipid reasons of the court below.  FYI:  the notion of "wilful blindness" was concocted to allow application of Canada's "hate" laws based on claimed "effects" of hate communications on protected persons, regardless of intent.  I attended today's  session in Room 105 (Robson Square), as did Ezra Levant (whose media credentials allowed use of a tape recorder. Again, it was a slow day in the Provincial Court building, but the Tribunal remained set up in a room that allowed seating for 6 media personnel (8 attended), and only 14 members of the public.

Levant downplays the testimony of Andrew Rippin, who refused to say if he is a Muslim. Rippin isn't smalltime; Routledge commissioned him to update the pre-911 dhimmi dogma spewed by F E Peters and Marshall Hodgson.

Although Rippin was evasive to a pathological degree, I saw the Tribunes make copious notes when he claimed that the concept of "fitrah" binds Muslims only to a belief in a singular deity, and that the Koran is only the fixed word of god, alterable by alternative interpretations. Ergo:  revelation is bound by progressive history. He claims that the abolishment of slavery is proof that exegesis is more valuable than re-contextualized Koran factum.  And he claimed that it is improper to perceive "sects" within the Muslim political community (ummah).  Under cross-examination, he was forced to defend prior accusatory statements that he made against "Wahabism," although he admitted that bin Laden was one of those variant "exegetes."

The Rippin testimony exemplified a problem with the Human Rights Commission process.  Although findings are subject to judicial review, Commissioners are forced to deal with defamation issues, that are clearly beyond their competence, and jurisdiction.

The Defendant' attorney, Julian Porter, succeeded in suppressing testimony as to the discernible "meaning" expressed in the article (by Mark Steyn).  In fact, the Defence strategy is to rely on cross-examination alone.  Under primitive local justice, neither the complainant nor the defendant has an obligation to testify.  How can someone substantiate claims of sufferance of the effects of "hate," without discussing said effects.  Don't worry, the Tribune will discern those effects. 

Why did Mark Steyn offend the parasitic human rights circus?  According to Rippin's dhimmism - in light of the Islamism of Ziauddin Sardar (New Left Review, Muslim Monitors, et al) - Steyn's article of offense, causes creation of a "dangerous other" (used as noun), against which "the West" (Sardar hesitated in using that term) induces "anger" (read:  "hate").  Unfortunately for Steyn, complainant attorneys are well aware that each commissioner has made a career of attacking alleged conceptions of "the other."  They are prisoners of a rhetoric of Western self-loathing, that requires punishment of those who deny Western Civilizations pathological shame.  Never mind that the Commissioners are all middle-aged Caucasians; they are human weather-vanes for non-Jewish, minority blame.

Complainant attorney, Faisal Joseph, set them against a national media that is "consistently denigrating Muslim Canadians."  As for the Complainant – Mohammad el-Masry (Waterloo University) - his personal agenda is to "de-colonize" media.  

El-Masry (Egyptian-Canadian) doesn't make a good human rights champion.  In one interview he condoned terror attacks against ANY Jewish Israeli over 18.

I may not attend tomorrow, but Porter says he will seek squelch of testimony as an "expert" by someone named "el-Kassim."  Could be Murin el-Kassim, who lectures against the bogey, "islamophobia."  He  doesn't mind being listed with Wahabis.

"r9g92004

LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THE DECAPITATION
Too bad you couldn't get the same coverage from the Globe as these guys!

Duncan Floyd
Halifax, Nova Scotia

WHEN WOLVES ARE SHOT, DOGS GET NERVOUS
From the live-bloggers' accounts, the whole thing sounds like a Giant Cluster Farce; a bunch of Keystone Kourt Kops trotting out their Keystone Kase.

But the sad thing is, the idiocy of the whole thing has little bearing on the outcome. It's like justice in the old Soviet Bloc:

Dog #1:  I hear you're fleeing the country. Why?

Dog #2:  Haven't you heard? They're going to shoot all the wolves.

Dog #1:  But you're a dog, not a wolf.

Dog #2:  How do you prove that after they've shot you for being a wolf?

That's the state of justice in these Keystone Kases. (Much like in
Conrad Blacks' I might add.)

Larry Eubank
Bloomington, Indiana

WHO CARES ABOUT CANADA ANYWAY?
Mark, here's what I don't get:

Why not just turn the human-rights-abusing canucks over to the devil and be done with it?  Take up residence in Manhattan and profit joyfully from your book as people in the western world who are allowed to have ideas buy it and enjoy your writing.

I mean, I understand the fight for freedom, but really...who cares about Canada?  You could even write a book about writing your book and how Canada wouldn't let you.  It could be a spectacularly hysterical episode of South Park (I reminisce of the episode in which Canadians went on a hunger strike until the rest of the world paid them more attention and money - near the end of the episode after a starvation holocaust, they finally set the strike leader afloat on a piece of ice into the north
atlantic).

Alternatively, you could just forget the court fight and make a PDF of your book available for download to IP addresses in Canada.

I don't know...I just have a hard time imagining that this mess in Canada is worth all the trouble.

Benjamin A. Collins

NOT ONLY THE CLOCK IS BROKEN
Your friend, Mr. Coyne, might take note of the perfect metaphor for the absurdity that he is being subjected to : the clock in that dungeon is stuck at 8 .. Broken, like the legal system in this Province and, I dare say, this once brave and honourable country.

Matthew S Bingham

DOG AND PONY SHOW
Please tell me this thing is dog and pony show. I hope these plantiffs have  no chance of actually winning the trial, right?

Vikram Reddy

CRASH AT MY PLACE
Steyn Dude,

If it gets really bad, you and your brood are welcome to crash at my place.

Ross Johnson

THE LEFT-WING ABYSS
It's a shame you have to suffer the insufferable. It is hardly a surprise. The Confederation that is Canada is analogous of a large college campus. Political correctness run amok with millions of its citizens cheering on the state. Anxious to put to bed once and for all the "American" notion of free speech. I for one find the whole spectacle amusing, curious as to how far Canada will plunge into the
depths of the left wing abyss. I'm hoping for deeper and faster. If it's inevitable, get it over with. The state organ (CBC) will cheer on the government then congratulate itself on how "multicultural" they are. What  else would one expect from a nation that was happy to allow a beer commercial to define itself.
When all is said and done and you are an ex pat living permanently in the U.S. write another best seller. May I suggest the title? "Little reeducation camp on the Prairie".

Rick Ankofski
Chandler, Arizona

SHOCK AND DISBELIEF
I have been following the trials and tribs of Steyn and Levant with great interest, even modestly contributing to the legal costs of Mr. Levant.
 
This note is in response to another followers commentary posted last week on your site.  It is a confirmation of the BC gentlemen's conversation with a friend regarding the ridiculousness of the countywide HRT's in general and, Section 13(1) in particular.
 
At a get together this past Friday evening, my wife though I should bring up the issue with my guests.  At first I declined as I find acronyms and booze a poor mix but then I remembered the above posting and thought to put the thesis to the test.
 
As testified to by the above and on cue, the reaction went from disbelief to close scrutiny to shock and to discussions as to the staggering effects on free speech.  The guest were a wide array of the political spectrum and had heard something of this story but had never took the time to investigate.
 
While, as I was drinking and what not, I may have blurred the "victim/complainant" as a filthy handed, public dope smoking malcontent with buggered up privates, I was able to convey the gist of the situation.  All asked for me to send links to sites I was frequenting.  Th de-normalization is in full swing.  Levant is correct... Fire.   Them.  All.
 
I regret though that the complete swing will not arrive in time to save you today.  It is very regrettable that you will be denied your ability to make a living in the Dominion of your birth.  Not much need for Macleans now with you gone and Coynes' brain having become carbon -taxed.
 
Check that.  Macleans deserves my support for the stance they have taken with the sock puppets.
 
Good Luck just the same though.  Let's hope that your readership will not become limited to America alone and nowhere else.
 
Ken Jones
Cambridge, Ontario

BUGS AND BUNNIES, NO PROBLEM
I just watched the TVO debate in it's entireity, and I think I finally understand where those three kids are coming from. They aren't trying to quash free speech. Perish the thought! They are merely trying to improve it. You are therefore free to publish anything you want about the Muslim world, provided that:

1) You quote only happy, well-adjusted, westernized Muslims. That other sort of Muslim shouldn’t be of any interest to anyone.

2) In the event that you feel compelled to quote some crazed fanatic bent on the destruction of western civilization, kindly confine said quotes to fanatics born and raised within the confines of Canada.

3) Don’t try to get around #2 by finding some goofball Newfie to quote. We’re on to your tricks.

4) In the event that you or Macleans publish a piece disparaging anyone, anywhere, you must follow it with an immediate retraction – or perhaps the retraction should proceed the article – as well as paying for television and radio time sufficient to allow those who have been attacked to set the record straight.

5) Each and every joke published should be followed by the parenthetical: “just kidding”. This will protect the rights of sarcasm-challenged part of the populace.

See? No one is trampling on anybody’s rights. Now, please get started on a wonderful piece that’s all about bugs and bunnies. We’re all looking forward to reading the new, improved Mark Steyn.

Rich Trzupek
Palatine, Illinois

ENEMY OF FREE SPEECH INDEED
Today is trial day  and I wish you all the best. I was going through my diary/commonplace book for 2003 [not searching for anything] when this cutting dated September 3rd  caught my eye:

"Richard Warman, a lawyer at The Human Rights Commission is suing The Northern Alliance and its leader after the group's web site branded Mr Warman 'an enemy of free speech' and 'a misguided witch hunter'."

I wonder why this interested me all those years ago?

Jeannie L'Esperance
Ottawa

IF YOU CAN'T REFUTE, CONDEMN
Your candor, wit and easy command of both fact and reason make you one of Canada's
greatest assets. 

"It must be 'criminal' justice indeed that should condemn a work as a substitute for
not being able to refute it." - Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792

I wish you all the best.

D A Neill
Ottawa, Ontario

INTO THE TEMPLE OF DOOM
I cannot believe they are going through with this. This should give you a
good laugh
Http://iowahawk.typepad.com/
Iowahawk has a hilarious parody
of your "Adventure".

Sheri Glaub

RETURN OF THE STORM TROOPERS
From the viewpoint of Liberal Fascism, aren't the instrumentalities of contemporary Leftism such as these "Human Rights Commissions" the functional equivalent of Mussolini's Blackshirts and Hitler's Brownshirts?

An Old Whig

IF ONLY
You're on trial on behalf of all of us. I wonder if it has pierced the dim recesses of the CHRCs' brains that whatever negative verdict they pronounce on you is going to be echoed on them within a matter of months.

Our every good wish.

Tom and Dorothy Minchin

BC BESTSELLER?
You are going to write a book about this, aren't you?

David E. Ward

BETTER THAN MOLSON
I am a fan of your writing and listen to you during your visits to Hugh Hewitt show and Dennis Miller show.  Best of luck with the Human Rights Tribunal this week!  You're my favorite Canadian import and America is better off for your presence.

Give 'em hell and take care,

Matthew P Grealish

WISHFUL THINKING I'M AFRAID
Mark:  I see that you are on the spit for roasting the day after tomorrow in Vancouver.  As a Canadian/Naturalized US citizen living in Washington State, I must admit that I am not surprised by the fact that a HRC in BC took up this complaint.  There is a  certain moral smugness about our Hollywood North that I find quite off putting  at times.  It's gotten so bad recently that I almost wish for Obama to be elected just so I'll stop hearing Canadians pontificating about how "America would never elect a black man". And I'm a Republican!!  Course a lot of those folks thought Hillary was a
lock for the candidacy as well.

To my main point.  Why is there no backlash to these ridiculous complaints filed by a tiny and vocal group of Islamic activists using our (il)legal system to suppress free speech?  I've read nothing about this in either of Vancouver's major papers at all.  It seems to me that there must be video and print evidence of hate speech out there that could be turned against these types.  Surely you can't turn 17 Canadian young people, (the majority named Mohammed), into Prime Minister beheading, Parliament blowing up Jihadis without inciting them with something inflammatory.  It's my understanding that any Canadian can file a complaint against hate speech, for no cost, and it's up to the person so charged to fund his own defense. So, c'mon my fellow Canadians and Steyn supporters, man up.  Find the
evidence, write your complaint and see what happens.  If the HRC refuses to take it up, that's proof more than positive that they have an agenda, whether it be ideological or cowardly.  And, if they do take it up, well, let the hate monger bear the weight of the system they choose to abuse.  I'm betting if a few of these suits were fired back, that this type of government sanctioned intimidation would cease.

I think if this thing is decided against you, a phalanx of your Canadian fans should charge ahead with charges of Islamic hate speech to see what happens.

Sick and tired of having our freedoms turned against us, I remain

A huge fan of your writing and free speech.

Leonard Hamm
Point Roberts, Washington

This should be a lot of fun, ...said by a confident Steyn supporter.

Enjoy the moment. I will.  My guy is agile, mobile, and hostile.  In other words, he's ready. He has trained hard over a few decades for this moment.

JG
Beloeil, Quebec

RIDICULOUS
Good luck with this ridiculous trial.

Michael Connor
Australia

STALINIST
In regards to your main event coming up on Monday, GOOD LUCK AND GOD SPEED. I hate to say it but when dealing with Stalinistic funtionaries like them you are going to need it (we all will). God Bless.

Warren Zoell
Edmonton, Alberta

A MUSLIM SUPPORTER WRITES...
I'm born and raised in Vancouver, B.C., the home of the Mark Steyn inquisition of 2008. I'm a Muslim, born, raised, confirmed, etc.
 
I've read your columns for about eight years or so, and have laughed, fumed, agreed, and pouted over your various takes on vaious issues. I even perused one of the ones about theatre (trying to impress a girl...long story).
 
The point is, i've agreed and disagreed, but not once did a I feel my human rights violated. Not once did I feel the need to sue, run to a human rights commission, nor demand that the publication or website in which that particular column appeared give me equal access to write a response.
 
This includes the day when I picked up the Maclean's issue feauring an excerpt from America Alone. That day, I read your piece, and the first thing that struck me was...demography. I mean, that is the central theme... it was all about the great demographic paradigm shift. And you know what? It was/is concerning. My parents moved to Canada in 1974 (7 years before my birth) for a reason. They were attracted to Canada's adherence to a fair and balanced legal system, and a free society that my parents were fortunate to have witnessed growing up in Fiji, which had also been a British colony. The traditions of Western civilization that made this society just, peaceful, free, secure and economically hopeful were the reasons they and countless other immigrants moved to Canada. It certainly wasn't the weather. Today, that society is being challenged, as this demographic shift is occurring.
 
I am writing in my support of you in the case of the Canadian Islamic Congress V. Maclean's.
 
Muslim groups don't just target the Mark Steyns and Ezra Levants of this world. In my community here in BC, I was openly criticized by the local Muslim bigwigs for writing an article in a Muslim paper in which I talked about the stupid call by Muslims to protest Denmark in the wake of the Danish cartoons. I also received flack after one of your columns (the one about 'Mustafa Shag') inspired me to write a
column on the thin skinned faux outrage of some Muslims in ridiculous and frivolous matters: from the 'offensive' Dairy Queen swirl in the UK to the Nike shoes that kinda, sorta, looked like they said "Allah" in Arabic script if you squinted and turned your head oh-so slightly to the left and were in the right light.
 
Human rights commissions are useless to begin with (see the Assal satellite dish case). I already wrote my local MP in support of repealing section 13 and supporting Keith Martin's Private Member's Bill. However, she is the NDP Defense Critic (Dawn Black), so she's too busy grilling the Defense Minister on the well-being of our enemies in Afghanistan.

I was fortunate enough to hear Ezra Levant speak at the Fraser Institute last week. As he said, this is an attack on our liberties. This is an effort by individuals who come from a place where a free press is not values, imposing their values on Canada, not adapting to the values of the land. When the government's quasi-judicial kangaroo courts act as their allies, it makes America Alone that much more chilling and relevant, as the change in our values happens right before our eyes. The very
values that I, and countless other Muslims benefit from and prosper from, and run to to escape the horrific living conditions in the Muslim world, are allowed to be destroyed, and the government is an accomplice.

The very reason I write in Muslim newspapers, as much grief as it gets me, is because the extremism is a Muslim problem. I have to speak out to our community. Its the responsibility of Muslims to do this, just as it was the responsibility of Catholics to address child molestation in churches. Yes, when it kills 3,000 people, it becomes the world's problem, but as Muslims, it is our cross to bear (no pun
intended). The details in your excerpt, as it appeared in Maclean's should have been written by a Muslim and distributed in Mosques a long time ago. The fact that you quoted the Ayotollah didn't anger me. I was only anger when I had read what he said, as a representative of Muslims. You sir, have done a marvellous job, and I salute you.

I apologize for the length of this e-mail. Once again, best of luck in your defense of freedom.

Name withheld on request
Vancouver, B.C

After reading what appears to be an editorial, I sent them the following:

“I am from Cuba, now in the US...

To this day the Castro brothers have used the same argument that you  present about how only responsible speech should be allowed. In fact,  they used the same "fire" in the theater ruse.

At the beginning, under the pseudo glow of freedom we all supported  it. After all, who wants someone to yell fire in a crowded theater...  and get away with it. It made sense.

Then the law of unintended consequences came in... and the rest is history. Unless you are among those who consider the Castro brothers "leaders" of Cuba and Augusto Pinochet the former "dictator" of Chile,  you might have to move to the US... Maybe even be a neighbor of Mr. Steyn.

The Castro brothers, to this day, still proclaim that Cubans enjoy freedom of speech and the press.

I lived to see the results... but from Florida.

With your mind set...It is likely that we will be sharing my new country.”

Ramon V Martinez

I’VE HEARD THAT QUOTE BEFORE….
You have to wonder about a government that can punish people for what they say, even if what they say is true. Mark quotes the Justice Department as saying:

"The defences of truth and fair comment remain available to torts such as defamation and seditious libel, regardless of the medium in which they occur. However, none of the traditional media can avail
themselves of these defences in cases of alleged hate propaganda, whether the communication appears in print, on television or on a website."

I ran across a similar quote recently. It's Heinrich Himmler, specifying punishments for certain crimes:

"The following offenders, considered as agitators, will be hanged: anyone who makes inciting speeches . .  forms cliques, loiters about with others; who for the purposes of supplying the propaganda of the opposition with atrocity stories, collects true or false information about the concentration camps."   (Quoted in The Rise of the Nazis, Charles Freeman.)

So if you collected "true or false" information that reflected badly on the regime -- or in Himmler's characterization, meant to supply propaganda -- you were subject to punishment. In our day, it's not
"atrocity stories," but so-called "hate" that the regime disapproves of.

Larry Eubank
Bloomington, Indiana

SPEECH BUBBLES
My fellow citizens and neighbors sometimes pain me. Don't we teach our children from their early years, whenever they hit another child, "Use your words"? Talk. Communicate. Share ideas. Defend your arguments. Gather your facts. Listen. Demand proof. Insist on logic. Isn't that what modern civilization is built upon? Extend that to the political sphere. We say (or used to say, before judges usurped our freedoms) that there was no need for violent revolution in a place like America or Canada because all you had to do was to convince your fellow citizens to vote along with you.
How can people be so stupid as to think that a democratic society—or even civilized society--can be sustained without freedom of speech?  The argument against free speech is the same argument used against gun rights--that free citizens cannot be trusted with ideas any more than they can be trusted with owning firearms. Now THAT's an evil argument, but I'm not going to suggest that expressing such ideas should be made illegal, for a simple reason--arguing against bad ideas is part of one's intellectual formation. No belief is worth a dime if it can't be questioned. No evidence or testimony can be allowed in court without rules of evidence and counterargument (HRCs excluded).

The Right in this country is stronger intellectually than the Left in part because conservative beliefs are derided and insulted and dismissed in the MSM every day. When we fire back, we do so fully understanding what our critics are saying. The intellectual insipidity one sees on the Left these days is a result of living in a bubble where ideas are never challenged. As far as worries about Nazism or Communism or the other Big Ism whose Name We Dare Not Mention--fanaticism takes root in societies where people are mentally weak. Intellectually vigorous societies have a high level of immunity to extremism. Don't fear the freak on the fringes shouting out his madness: but be very afraid when the core of your citizenry no longer remember what citizenship entails. Finally, if political correctness provides some kind of immunity to Nazism, why is the PC Left a seething hotbed of Jew hatred (I'm sorry--"anti-Zionism") these days?

Ezra Marsh
Baltimore

CAN YOU JUST IGNORE THEM?
What happens if ... you and/or MacLeans just ignore the probably-forthcoming injunction and continue to publish whatever you want?  Would they sue you, or would you go to jail?  Wouldn't that bring even more attention to this ridiculous anti-free-speech Tribunal?  Not that I'm that gung-ho about a husband and father going to jail for his principles, but you seem so dedicated to defeating them.  Wouldn't bringing attention to their fundamental inefficacy (by continuing to publish) help?

Is what you're doing making any difference at all in Canada?  I only hear about the horrible injustices via Instapundit; not so much how people might be rallying around you.

Debbie Kurtz
Highland Park, Illinois

…OR A BROWN PAPER WRAPPER
I don't suppose you will be producing a looseleaf edition of America Alone for the Canadian market?  It would make the samizdat easier to copy and spread after you are banned and exiled.
 
Mike Riordan

GO UNDERCOVER
Have you considered telling the HRCs that your entire career has been an undercover investigation of Islamophobia? I mean, his personal connections aside, what legal basis does Warman have to claim the right to an exemption from Section 13 other than his personal word that he's conducting undercover investigations? He's not deputized or anything. Apparently, as a legal matter you can just appoint yourself an undercover investigator.
 
Greg Forster
Indianapolis, Indiana

NOT AVAILABLE IN BC
Anticipating a  "loss" by Macleans/Steyn to the B.C. Human Rights Commission might provide an opportunity. Presumably, the ruling will only affect that province, so the cessation by Macleans of publishing or distributing the magazine there will provide a short term loss of revenue, but a huge increase in their overall distribution and stimulate the wider debate that's badly needed. Imagine what a "Not-Available-in-B.C." asterisk would do.

John MacKay

CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGERS
You have reduced Mr. Awan's comparison of Muslim use of HRC's with Jewish use of the same to mere economic terms. Essentially, Jewish groups have picked on poor white Nazi shnooks with little influence while the Muslims have shown even greater chutzpah by taking on wealthy and poerful media institutions.

I think you underestimate the size of the red herring that Awan presents. Jewish groups are fighting to shut down hate groups that actively threaten physical harm to the Jewish community as part of their raison d'etre. Your recent link to far right blogger "Igor Alexander" shows that these haters of Jews will always blame the Jews, even for the actions of Muslims. There is hardly an event or venue in the Jewish community that does not require additional costs and presence of security services, not because of some imagined harm that may take place, but because of continued actual physical harm that does take place against Jewish people, places and property. One can certainly question whether Jewish organizations are doing the right thing in using HRC's to fight their battles. The even larger question is why the mainstream Jewish groups have concentrated their defense against the sorry little Nazis blogging to no one as opposed to the larger Muslim groups and individual Imams who actively preach violence and murder against the Jews.

The Muslim HRC claims are entirely different. There are no threats to the Muslim community at large. No article or publication or writer that has published any of the articles that bother the Muslim groups has ever intimated that violence or extermination of the Muslim community is proper or desired. (Your book was written to wake up the West to gather themselves and rediscover what made our civilization
great, before we get nudged aside by another civilization that has only failed states and misery in its less than illustrious history. ) There is a large chasm between the actual physical threat that is faced by the Jews and the fabricated and imagined threat the the Muslims would attribute to media articles that are well researched and truthful (and never refuted as to content by these Muslims).

The Jews are trying to protect themselves from clear and present (and past) dangers. The Muslims are trying to eliminate any future public discussion about the danger posed by their own people who incite and act in the name of their religion. One use is defensive, one is offensive, in many ways.

David Klein
Toronto, Ontario

GOVERNMENT EMBOLDENED
I came across this article yesterday about the Town of Oshawa's city council approving a draconian bylaw which would give its bylaw inspectors sweeping powers in investigating complaints and searching private property. Of particular interest to me was the fact that while an inspector would still require a warrant or order to search private property, a refusal to grant a request by an inspector to search private property becomes an offence in and of itself, so if you don't acquiesce to the state's "request" to search your home then you can be charged for your refusal to do so (and this for an alleged bylaw infraction!).

It seems that the OHRC's desire to give itself the power to tell us what we should be able to read in the media has, at least here in Ontario, emboldened other levels of government to intrude into our private lives to promote their own ends.  This seems to be the general consensus of government these days: "we know what's good for you, and we will take whatever steps we deem necessary to insure that you get it."

David Brooker
Thornhill, Ontario

ANOTHER GREAT TRIBUNAL DECISION
Here's a decision I became familiar with a couple of years ago where a Peel Regional Police Officer, a former Brit mind you, had the temerity to ask a shoplifting suspect if she spoke English prior to investigating her for shoplifting.

The tribunal even found she lied while giving her evidence, yet that wasn't enough to prevent Bab's gang from awarding the "victim" 20k.

Matt Watson
Burlington, Ontario

CHINA COMES TO CANADA
Just thought I'd send you a note of encouragement and let you know that you have at least two readers. I bought 'America Alone' in hard-cover (I'm not one of those wait-for-the-paperback squishes. well, yes
I am, but in your case I made an exception).

I know you are very busy, what with committing hate crimes, appearing before the Ministry of Truth, having impromptu debates, and fending off WK syndrome, but I wanted to ask you a question.

Do you see a kind of convergence of ideologies happening where once systems that were thought opposites are becoming indistinguishable from each other ?

For instance, China, a communist one-party state has adopted in many areas the outer trappings of Western free enterprise, and, from all appearances, one could walk down a main street in Shanghai and think you were in any modern city in the West, until you transgressed some diktat of the Chinese 'Dear Leaders'( mixed country metaphors but you get the idea). Compared to Canada, an ostensibly democratic multi-party state which is adopting the Thought Police ideology and where one discovers that the multi-parties are really one continuum with different shades of red.

It seems to me that all over the world, this kind of levelling, if that is the right word, is taking place. It does not have a name like Socialism, Capitalism as yet but it seems very real.

The only country where this malaise has not taken complete hold is in the U.S.A. The debate/fight in the U.S. is ugly, crude, infantile,crass but at least it is an actual fight, not a whimpering capitulation.

I hope you soldier on, it must be costing you a great deal, and I don't mean simply financially. You are standing in the breach fending off the PC hordes armed with their deadly 'thurteens' - one touch is invariably fatal.

Your other reader

Len Winn
Ottawa

HOW CAN WE HELP?
James John's letter irks me to no end.  I keep hearing about all these "Republicans" who have now switched to Democrat and I just never believed it.  So, I don't believe the Mr. John is a regular reader of NRO otherwise he wouldn't have written such vitriol. 

Hey, do you need any money for your fight against the Islamofascists up there in Canada?  I have looked on your website to see if you have a donation weblink and have failed to find it.

Also, I read America Alone and thought it was absolutely fantastic and have been giving it away as gifts for my friends' special occasions.

So, have a good weekend and keep up the great work,

Claude Bylinski
Sacramento, California

MARK REPLIES: The best way to support me in my battle against Canada's "Human Rights" Commissions is to click over to the Steyn Store  and pick up a book. You get some great reading and I get your cash. It's win/win. And to help persuade my editors that publishing Steyn remains commercially viable despite the legal bills we also recommend a subscription to Maclean's - it makes a great gift if you've got a Canadian pal, either walled up in the deranged Dominion or at liberty abroad.

ANNE, AVRIL, AND UM….
I have followed your travails with the Human Rights Commission for some time, but I (foolishly) assumed that justice would be done.

Being an American, I think that this situation calls for midnight rides, ringing churchbells and the mustering of the Alarm Companies on Lexington Green. 

I don't know much about Canada, but is it possible that something similar could be arranged up north?  I don't know exactly who the modern-day Sons of Liberty would be, but there have to be SOME brave Canadians who will stand beside you.

The only names that spring to mind are Avril Lavigne, Juice Newton and Anne Murray, so you may be on your own.

Still, it is a start...

Good luck and, since I am still allowed to say it on this side of the border, God bless you.

Andrew Batten

IT’S A CRAZY MESS
Mark; I just finished reading your latest column in the May 26th Maclean's. I can't say I am surprised at the "verdict" handed down by the thought police disguised as Human Rights Commissions. Any perceived injustice done to Muslims by another group, in this case Maclean's, is seen by the left loonies as a hate crime. If I remember correctly, this whole mess started because you were quoting a Muslim cleric,or leader in the article which offended so.

Is that not crazy? Taking a writer and his magazine to the HRC because of what a fellow Muslim said, and you repeated? What kind of country do these government flunkies want us to live in? Are we to be afraid of any and all criticism of another group because it may offend them?

 I really loved the part of your column that compared what they were doing to how" justice" is done in a Muslim country. It seems Canadian law is not good enough, they now want their own laws and relief for real and imaginary grievances.

God help us if the government ever buckles under the weight of special interest pressure and allows things like Sharia law to become entrenched here.

I recently bought your book America Alone, and hope to see you speak sometime in the future.

Keep up the fight for our most basic of freedoms, the right to free speech.

I also wanted to know what you think average citizens like myself could do to keep this trend from spreading until none of us can speak our minds any more??

Mike Dickie
(fellow right wing blowhard)

GERMAN SUPPORT
Thank you!
Thank you!
Thank you!
Thank you!

Dear Mr Steyn, the West needs you. Best wishes from Germany!

Robert Wegmann
Frankfurt, Germany

AGAINST THE NINCOMPOOPS BUT WITH PLATO
Mark, I am glad you were the one who finally gives me online exposure on your site. Bravo.

But this pales in comparison to what I had said, i.e. supporting The National Post's article - are you saying you  would support freedom of public expression for Zundel and his ilk ? If that was really the situation, I believe there is no hope for democracy to survive in the short run (say another 25 years) because your espousal for freedom of expression will allow the worst in society to flex all their muscles.

This is why Plato did not support democracy - and neither do I, or at least not our western form of illusionary hypothesis of democracy - which is very different from the democracy practiced e.g. in Switzerland.

So, in this kind of second best situation, the National Post is correct in stating how Zundel, etc are called to account.

Mark, you're a such a far stone throw away from this situation - and I will fully support you in this situation with the HRC - but just because they are saddled with incompetent nincompoops doesn't mean they should be totally abandoned. However, if this would be the only choice, well again, I would support that option.

I's sure we'll be rooting for you all the way.

Peter Staniek
Montreal, Quebec

IF WE CAN DO IT TO ZUNDEL, WE CAN DO IT TO STEYN
Your less than avid supporter, Peter Staniek, thinks "Zundel and characters of his ilk who publicly advocate a racist propaganda should not be allowed permission to do so - never mind freedom of expression." How many "characters of his ilk" does Staniek think Ernst has in Canada? Would the number of neo Nazi's here even fill a good size banquet hall?

I spoke in Red Deer, Alberta a few years back and was somewhat disconcerted at the presence of holocaust revisionist, Jim Keegstra, in the audience. For all the publicity the Canadian Human Rights Commission had given him over the years, he was no more than a pathetic grey haired old man with no supporters,

Trying to suppress him by laying charges gave publicity and a platform for him to air his odious views, a platform he would never have had under any other circumstances.

Far better to use our free speech rights to ridicule absurd ideas and to hold the holders of those ideas in the societal contempt they deserve.

We do have a remedy for those who hate and act on it by burning a synagogue, defacing a Jewish cemetary or assaulting a Jew, or anyone else for that matter, it's called the criminal courts. Criminal acts should warrant swift  prosecution and severe punishment.

It's obvious from the spectacle we're witnessing, Peter, that if we can do it to Zundel, we can do it to Steyn et al. Better not to do it at all.

Hermina Dykxhoorn
Calgary

COMMON LAW AND COMMON SENSE BECOMING RARER
I am surprised that Mr Staniek does not "get it", and you are spot on (of course) with your reply.  I am afraid that Canada will not be alone - the UK already has a farcicial 'human rights' legislation and our new Glorious Leader here in Australia wants to introduce a national one as well.  We have a state one in Victoria that prosecuted (successfully, until overturned by the Court) two pastors that were caught making remarks by a couple of plants from then local Islamic society that were not sufficiently glowing about the benefits of Islamic rule.

Once you have a government that states what you can do and what you are entitled to ("happiness", "pursuit of your dreams") it has already started to decide how you should be living your life.  The HRC farce that you are going through is a natural extension of the belief that the Government knows better than you how you should be running your life, and how you should be behaving and what you should be writing, and will use its power to ensure that you do so.  This includes conforming to their idea of how you should speak and behave.

Like you, I am a product of the old English system of "common law". Part of this tradition was the belief that as a free-born Australian (or Englishman, or Canadian) I could do what I wished as long as it was not against the law.  That was my birth-right, and not something kindly given to me by the dictat of a beneficial government.  The government could tell me what I could not do - it could not tell me what I could do.  There is a fundamental difference that I do not think your opponents will ever understand.

 If in Australia and in Canada the politicians want to bring forward a law that will outlaw freedom of speech, and say that any discussion of Islam (or indeed of the Holocaust) is out of bounds, let them. Put it to the people, have them vote on it.  When the majority of people are either Muslim or supine, it will happen.  To hide behind activist judges and HRCs is a cop-out.  Don't pretend that you have freedom of speech by law and then use 'human rights' legislation to restrict it.

Good luck.  Your case will have ramifications here - the Human Rights ambulance-chasers are watching it closely.

Andrew Porter
Melbourne

CANADA EMULATES BRITAIN’S DETERIORATION
As a Briton now living in Canada since 1994, I am aghast at the rapid deterioration of the UK through the apparent suicide pact that the old country has with Europe - namely Muslim immigration. It would appear that, even if one shut down all Muslim immigration today, the hordes of Islam will still outbreed us with little effort.

Britain, I fear, is now lost. Town councils are building homes with toilets that face away from Mecca and kitchens designed especially for the preparation of halal meat. The liberals who are currently running the West seem absolutely hell bent on destroying true liberty.. Like lemmings, they rush towards the cliffs of cultural suicide only to be swallowed up in the murky waters of Islamofacism. Old England is no more. The recent  BNP (British National Party) electoral successes in England have been met with howls of outrage by the Labour party and the Lib-dems who shriek that they will not tolerate "fascism". Yet they embrace militant Islam, and continue to make thousands of tiny concessions, one by one, like a mental patient constantly cutting himself, slowly but surely bleeding to death. The BNP successes are surely more than just mere symptoms of the disillusioned white working class who have been made to feel like second class citizens in their own country, betrayed and scorned by the major political parties.

My greatest fear is that Canada is now heading down the same path. Canada has a civil society, civil laws, and a parliamentary system modelled closely on the UK. By the same token, Third World immigration has radically changed the face of the country since former Marxist Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, decided that Canada MUST become multicultural. And at any cost, it seems. Before you conclude that this email is being composed by a disgruntled skin-head, I am a red-haired Scot, my wife is Chinese and we have two wonderful children between us. However, it is quite bad enough that one cannot even drive through areas in greater Toronto that are now dominated by gun-toting Tamil gangs, Jamaican gangs and Korean gangs. Now that I live in Calgary, the traffic stops when the Muslim "community" centre on Barlow Trail empties out of hundreds of worshippers, all wandering across the road and handing out leaflets to motorists extolling the virtues of the "religion of peace."  Islam, they happily assure me, will be running Canada by 2050. The lefties who fought so hard for the "right" to allow homosexuals to marry, lesbian couples to walk our streets topless while holding hands, and changes in the law to allow 14 year old boys to be sodomised, one wonders where all this "liberty" will go once the Imans occupy parliament Hill.

It looks more likely every year that I shall be spending my retirement years in the relative security of the USA. Any houses for sale on your street, Mark?

Bill Gibbons
Calgary

DOCUMENTARY PROSECUTED
 I've just read a piece in the Daily Telegraph. It's headed "A state in denial needs reality checks".     I
think that's just as true in Canada as it is in Britain - maybe even truer.    

It's remarkable how closely official attacks on free speech in Canada resemble similar official attacks in Britain.  In Britain, Channel 4 recently broadcast a documentary film Channel 4 documentary -
Undercover Mosque.    It exposed the fact that Clerics in Mosques in Britain were preaching hatred and how they verged on incitement to murder.    In its own way, the film paralleled Mark's
book America Alone,  about the growing conflict between Islam and western civilisation.

The official response to Undercover Mosque in Britain came from the West Midlands Police. They  alleged that Undercover Mosque incited racial hatred.  The Police Chief referred the program to the British Crown Prosecution Service and to Ofcom, the British TV regulator, and publicised what the Police were doing. This I think parallels the enthusiasm with which, in Canada, allegations against Maclean's magazine are being pursued using the Human Rights Commission.

The only comforting bit in this sorry saga is that Channel 4 have sued the West Midland Police for libel.    They showed that the allegations against them were completely false and have been awarded
substantial damages.

The Telegraph piece is here.

Herbert Thornton

BEARDED DOGS AND SEVERED HEADS
Your work almost makes up for the unfortunate fact that Canada has foisted Celine Dion on us in the states. Damn, but I enjoyed your last in NR. Good job, And, spot on.

When I first arrived in the Kingdom, I was greeted by the sight of a customs agent beheading a visitor's Kewpie dolls, on the grounds that said dolls might serve as a point of illicit worship.

Later, an American ex-pat would be arrested for walking her Scotch Terrier. That breed of dog has a long beard which, according to the local religious police, was designed as an insult to Islam (which encourages the growth of beards). Said lass was forced to shave her dog's beard.

It's hard for me, or for anyone who has spent time among these fanatics to write off their demands as business as usual. Thanks for not giving in to politically-correct thinking, and best of luck with the thought police in the Great White North.

Rich Trzupek
Palatine, Illinois

POOR STUDENTS
I just wanted to take a minute and say that I thought the TVO debate was a huge eye opener for non-Muslims in Canada.  The three students were definitely ill prepared and hard to understand as to why they were so pissed.  I  love how you responded to them and cleared up their misconceptions of your quotes and statistics.  Well done!

Kim
Ottawa, Ontario

ROARING DEFIANCE
Thought it was hilarious, though I dare say, sitting in the hot seat you might feel differently. I just finished watching your stint on THE AGENDA with the stooges. I don't know how you stood it. I couldn't stop laughing, particularly at the Yul Brynner lookalike. For lawyers-in-training, they seem to have precious little notion of "due process." Not that they would if they are nursing at the Human Rights Commission. This is a tough time for you, I'm sure. You've been magnificent in roaring defiance, but they have all the cards in the stacked deck. Never mind, we in America will always stick with you. It's even possible that Canadians will sheepishly say, what the heck happened, and heave this dreadful bunk overboard. It's a salutary glimpse at where American campus speech codes are headed.
 
Go on, great man!
 
Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

SILENT BUT SUPPORTIVE
Your points were clear and correct.(tvo). Please keep writing and speaking in Canada. 
The silent majority  supports you.

Gordon Dean

CLASS ACT
Just wanted to let you know that I watched the TVO debate, after being sent to it via Instapundit (how funny that I live in Toronto and had no clue it happened till a Kentuckian blogger flagged it to my attention).

Anyway, I thought you were a total class act, and by conducting yourself so well, both in demeanour and arguments, you showed your accusers up to be a bunch of total clowns.

Thank you for all your efforts to protect free speech in Canada.  With any luck, those ridiculous commissions will be axed and we can get back to arguing like we always did, fair and square.

Hope you had a couple of pints after that.  (If not, let me know -- I'm buying.)

Tim Doyle
Toronto, Ontario

A RELIGION BASED IN ANGER
I happened to watch your appearance on The Agenda on tvo. I'm not sure when it aired originally but I figure if those people can put in a human rights complaint months after you've written these articles, for what it's worth, I can at least e-mail you a word of praise for defending everybody's right to free speech in this country. And perhaps, opening up a few eyes in N. America and Europe.

I must admit, I rarely read Maclean's. I usually find myself reading it when I'm waiting for my car to be repaired or waiting to see a doctor. Unfortunately I never had the happy coincidence to catch one of your articles on this subject. So I cannot comment directly on your articles.

I can, however, humbly comment on my own experience with friends and acquaintances who happen to be Muslim. I have found that even moderates in the Islamic communities have a certain amount of empathy for these militant factions.

I have also found that most other religious and ethnic communities in Canada and around the rest of the civilized world have a tendency to stamp out radicalism before it can take hold and cause any long term political and social damage.

When the Sikh community in B.C. Canada was being infiltrated by militants,  they reassured the RCMP and various governing bodies that they would take care of it internally. Which is what they pretty much succeeded in doing.

A number of years ago the ultra-orthodox Jewish rabbis started their radical dogma in Israel and the Israeli Govt. put a stop to it.

Then there was the Waco Texas incident with David Koresh. One example among many in the U.S.A.

To sum up, I feel that Islam is a religion based in anger and I fear that the only way to defeat this global problem will be to do it with an iron fist. I am 44 years of age now and I hope I don't live long enough to see this global crusade/jihad.

Thank you for your time.

John Tilbrook
Welland, Ontario

THE REAL CULPRIT IS THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT
You were excellent! And so was Steve Paikin.

However, I think you spent too much time aiming at the wrong target.  Your three accusers were just kids who are ignorant of the ramifications of what they are doing.  They are essentially props for the real culprit, the Canadian government, which has convinced them that it is their right to use the power of government to force a private corporation to allow them equal time.

When you were challenged with the "mosquito" comment you explained it was a quote. Why even defend it?  What would have been wrong with you saying it?  Isn't it your Freedom of Speech right to say it?  Is there a more fundamental Human Right than Freedom of Speech?

You touched on the multiculturalism component, but I think it deserves more time than you gave it.  It is the self-loathing, self-important  multiculturalist agenda which have granted the three kids the status of "victim" which has allowed them to justify using government to advance their cause.  Having something negative about your religion isn't unique to them and they shouldn't be made to feel like it is.  They need some backbone.

I understand, though, that it would have been hard for you to talk past them and focus on the government when they were picking nits on your writings.  But the problem is so much bigger than that.

Dan MacLean

FREEDOM OF SPORTS
Moving to Canada because of the NFL?

I was reading the message board on ESPN.com about Arlen Specter's quest to bring the NFL under the federal government's domain (remember the good ole days when Republicans were for limited government??). One poster said he had had enough of government intervention and America looking like a joke, so he's moving to Canada. I don't know about you, but I'd rather live in a country that regulates the sports industry rather than one that regulates speech. It goes to show you just what a huge international news void we have here in the USA. America's press simply does not report on anything negative that happens outside our own borders, unless it's a natural disaster. This is why huge numbers of Americans (and growing in my opinion) believe only bad things happen in the USA and the rest of the world is some theme park full of characters from a fairie tale book.

Martin Studowski
Milwaukee

DEAD WHITE LARDBUTS
Something important has gone completely unremarked in Warren Kinsella's outrage over your recording of indelicate names for various peoples (recently unwound on your site.)  Mr. Kinsella takes you to task for noticing that people use terms like "Chinks", "Japs", "wogs", "Injuns", "the Yellow Peril", "gooks" and "beturbanned prophet-monkeys", but in the same period and in the same publications that Mr. Kinsella reviewed, you also referred to white people as "whitey"(1) and "honky"(2), to Jews as "Hymie"(3), to Americans as "Lardbuttus Americanus"(4), to Canadians as "Canucks"(5), to two recent and revered American presidents as "famous morons"(6) and to yourself as a "dead white male"(7). Yet Mr. Kinsella takes no notice of these clear speech-code violations, though he surely came across these terms as he was searching for the terms he did mention.

Why the silence on the these hate-crimes?  Why does Mr. Kinsella only take offense at words for certain groups and not for others? Surely he doesn't wish to discriminate against some ethnicities and nationalities when practicing his important profession of taking vicarious offense? We hope that it is not the case that Mr. Kinsella is ... heaven forefend ... a bigot.  This would ruin our faith in him.

(1) Spectator, 7th September 2002
(2) Spectator, 28th December 2002
(3) Spectator, 7th September 2002
(4) Daily Telegraph, December 14th 2004
(5) References too numerous to mention.
(6) ditto
(7) Jewish World Review, July 10, 2002, and elsewhere.

Ted S.
New York

‘EVOLVING’ LAW
May all the Gods conspire to protect you from suffering even more dis-agreeable consequences of your bravery.

I applaud your work and whole heartedly embrace the principles you are protecting.

In a private conversation with a provincial supreme court justice, I was gratified to learn that many justices are shocked at the ease with which many Canadians are "shit-canning" our 800 year legal inheritance.

Charles Kux-Kardos

BUT I WAS WRONG AND YOU WERE RIGHT
I'm an 18 year old university student from Toronto Ontario who's been reading you, guiltily and clandestinely, for a couple months now. I've written you a couple of times before, but I didn't actually say anything of consequence. They were just stupid letters nagging you about your refusal to debate Warren Kinsella or some idiotic thing that I thought you said about homosexuality.

I'm just writing to thank you for something that you've given me that I didn't expect to find anywhere. In reading your work, your articles, and just generally acquainting myself with your worldview, and that of other conservatives, I realized something.

It steeled over me very gradually. I wasn't expecting it to, and I didn't know what to name it, but it kept pestering me wherever I went, nagging at me and refusing to go away, like a dog with a bone that just won't stop harrasing you to play with it. And all it was was the realization that you're right.

You're right about almost everything sir. You're right about the threats we face, you're right about who the enemy is, you're right about the dangers we face as an open society, and you're right about what we have to do to fight that enemy.

Essentially, my realizing that you're right meant that I became a conservative. Well, not that I became a conservative, but that I realized an important truth about the debate between conservative and liberal in western culture. And essentially that truth was that the debate is over, and liberalism won.

All the important assumptions that liberalism makes as a political philosophy have been integrated into the fabric of western culture and civilization. We have a democracy, we have a free press, we have the right to have an opinion and the right to dissent. You commented once briefly in an article that I can't remember about an author who went to Amsterdam hoping to find a libertarian paradise where everybody could do what they wanted and nobody was obligated to anybody. And what's interesting is that in reading you, I gradually realized that the reason that that paradise doesn't exist is because it already exists. We in the west have created a pluralist, liberal, tolerant society that works. It just works for its own sake, and is self-perpetuating because it works without outside help. So as much as I love the idea of multiculturalism, I've come to the realization that it might not be a good idea. It might be single-handedly ripping apart the fabric of western society, because it's the idea, insane in essence, that we should tolerate the intolerant for its own sake, because we need to tolerate everything.

It's essentially the most pernicious legacy of the 1960s, which is a time when young people all over the world became conscious of their own freedom from their parents, and realized that they were free to make their own choices, and to decide between right and wrong for themselves. But the thing is, we have free will, and we have a moral duty to choose right over wrong. And the right is self-evident, because virtue is it's own reward.

Have you ever seen the Matrix, Mr. Steyn? If not, you should, because you would enjoy it. It's about man triumphing over the machines and finally realizing that the power to control them rests within himself, and that he is obligated to stand up and fight for what's right, no matter how inconvenient it may be to him personally. And that's what it means to be a conservative. A conservative in the Burkean, independent, John McCain sense of the word. A true conservative believes in freedom, and is against fascism in all its forms, everywhere, which is, in essence, the belief that some human beings should have absolute power over other human beings.

And this idea is self-evidently evil. It's evil for it's own sake. It's evil because it's wrong. Fascism, whether it be religious fundamentalist, National Socialist, communist, or 'Liberal,' is wrong. It's morally wrong. It's wrong because it represents the willl to power.

And we aren't supposed to have power over each other. We're supposed to love each other, across race, across language, across religion, and across culture. And love and democracy are fundamentally compatible, because love as an ideal, as an abstract phenomenon, is just recognizing that other human beings have intrinsic worth and value for their own sake, and not because of what they believe.

And what's interesting is that realizing that you're right was an epiphany in and of itself. It was essentially a religious experience. And a Christian one. That's what took me by surprise. I wasn't expecting to find out, in such a blinding flash of the obvious, that to be a conservative also means, in essence, to be a Christian, because a Christian believes in love for mankind in the general sense. He believes in love for its own sake, for everybody, even his enemies, because love is pure, and love is all that we have. It's the only thing that separates us from the animals. Love is an ideal, it's an abstract, it's a concept that is just right in essence, right in form, right in truth. And we forget about it at our peril.

And the scary thing is, we are forgetting it. All around us, you see people forgetting the truth. They're forgetting it for a number of reasons and a number of factors. They're forgetting it because they put unquestioning faith in something other than God. They're forgetting it because they're putting their faith in ideas, and not in people. And because they're forgetting that to have faith in an idea and to have faith in a person are the same thing. Because God is fundamentally an irrational concept. And that's what makes him beautiful. God is real because we make him real, by believing in him.

Hegel once wrote that the progress of mankind is nothing more than the progress of the consciousness of freedom. Karl Popper, who hated Hegel, wrote that we need an open society in order to preserve freedom. What it means to be civilized is to be able to hold both those ideas in your head at the same time. And the best way to do that is as a Christian.

So you're right, Mr. Steyn. You're right about everything. You wrote in Macleans once about putting all the dots together gradually and coming to an unsettling conclusion. I read that and was unsettled myself. But I wasn't sure what it was that was unsettling me. And so I thought I hated you.

But I was wrong. I don't hate you Mr. Steyn, you're right. You're just right about everything. You're right about the threats we face as a society. You're right about what's happening to the world. You're wrong about some things, maybe, but you're right about a lot of others. And what I realized recently is that I can disagree with you without hating you. And as a liberal I didn't know I could do that. As a liberal I didn't think that was possible. As a conservative I realize that it might well be.

There's a great book out there by a guy name Chris Hedges talking about Christian Facsism, and warning about the danger that open societies face when they tolerate the intolerant. I'd recommend you read it sir, I think you'd enjoy it. And if you disagree with it, that's ok. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Disagreeing is good. That's what I've come to realize lately. And the only way to realize it was by becoming a conservative.

So thank you Mr. Steyn. Thanks for everything.

Nick Pullen
Toronto, Ontario