| Mark's moment with the Ministry of Truth |
| Thursday, 29 May 2008 | |
|
A selection of readers letters on Mark's experiences this week at the hands of the FREE TO OFFEND DIEFENBAKER SUPPORTED STEYN Ben Fairless "Freedom includes the right to say what others may object to and resent..." THOSE PESKY LEGAL TRADITIONS 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 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? 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. 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. LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THE DECAPITATION Duncan Floyd WHEN WOLVES ARE SHOT, DOGS GET NERVOUS 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 Larry Eubank
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 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 Matthew S Bingham DOG AND PONY SHOW Vikram Reddy CRASH AT MY PLACE If it gets really bad, you and your brood are welcome to crash at my place. Ross Johnson THE LEFT-WING ABYSS Rick Ankofski SHOCK AND DISBELIEF
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 ENEMY OF FREE SPEECH INDEED "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
"It must be 'criminal' justice indeed that should condemn a work as a substitute for I wish you all the best. D A Neill
Sheri Glaub RETURN OF THE STORM TROOPERS An Old Whig IF ONLY Our every good wish. Tom and Dorothy Minchin BC BESTSELLER? David E. Ward
Give 'em hell and take care, Matthew P Grealish WISHFUL THINKING I'M AFRAID 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 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 1948: Give 'em hell, Harry. 2008: Give 'em mis'ry, Marky. 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 RIDICULOUS Michael Connor STALINIST Warren Zoell
A MUSLIM SUPPORTER WRITES... 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 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 I apologize for the length of this e-mail. Once again, best of luck in your defense of freedom. Name withheld on request WE’VE SEEN THIS BEFORE, IN CUBA Today, you listed the tricitynews.com blog under steynsuits. 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…. "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 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 Larry Eubank SPEECH BUBBLES 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 CAN YOU JUST IGNORE THEM? 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 …OR A BROWN PAPER WRAPPER GO UNDERCOVER NOT AVAILABLE IN BC John MacKay
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 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 GOVERNMENT EMBOLDENED 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 ANOTHER GREAT TRIBUNAL DECISION 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 CHINA COMES TO CANADA 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 HOW CAN WE HELP? 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 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…. 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 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
Dear Mr Steyn, the West needs you. Best wishes from Germany! Robert Wegmann
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
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 COMMON LAW AND COMMON SENSE BECOMING RARER 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 CANADA EMULATES BRITAIN’S DETERIORATION 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 DOCUMENTARY PROSECUTED 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 - 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 The Telegraph piece is here. Herbert Thornton BEARDED DOGS AND SEVERED HEADS 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 POOR STUDENTS Kim ROARING DEFIANCE SILENT BUT SUPPORTIVE Gordon Dean CLASS ACT 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 A RELIGION BASED IN ANGER 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 THE REAL CULPRIT IS THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT 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 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
DEAD WHITE LARDBUTS 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 Ted S. ‘EVOLVING’ LAW 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 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
|