Mark Steyn on CAIR: "Dialogue up to a Point"
(CAIR is the US-based Council on American-Islamic Relations)
.....
Mark Steyn on al-Husainy: Democrats Wrong to Invite Imam's Prayer(Imam Husham Al-Husainy is director of the Karbalaa Islamic Education Center in Dearborn, Michigan)
.........
Judge for yourselves.
Is Mark Steyn truly an advocate of unfettered free speech?
If so, can his position as a self-syled champion of civil liberties be reconciled with the call he makes in these videos for the silencing of certain, allegedly "non-moderate" Islamic-American voices in the public square?
It appears that the issue boils down to this.
Mr. Steyn has regularly called for the muzzling of Islamic-American leaders whom he deems as inadequately moderate. Certain Islamic-Canadians leaders, in turn, now seek to muzzle Mr. Steyn.
I think we should be hearing from all of them.
Why? In spite of all the dubious positioning and hot air by both sides, the issues at stake go to the very root of crucial policy deliberations throughout the Western world.
Not only is the dialogue essential - it is the only way to move forward.
Canadian law does not, and must not, preclude this critical discussion on a central issue of our time.
Finally, one last point. The videos make it plain that Mr. Steyn invites political dialogue with moderate Islamic-Americans. As hyperbolic as his views may be, he does not suggest in any fashion that all Islamic-Americans are extremists. Significantly, many Islamic-Canadian leaders do not endorse the human rights complaints against Mr. Steyn.
......
Comments invited and welcome. Having said that (and based on recent experience), I'm reminding readers on all sides of the aisle that I will remove any comment containing profanity, racism, vulgarity or gratuitous personal attack.
And for readers who are new to this issue, there is more here.
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net
EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE
8 comments:
Yes I understand your policy.
Any criticism of your repostings
from far-left hate sites
will be regarded as a gratuitous personal attack
and
no doubt
this comment will be as well.
God catch! Today at my site I've got Mark arguing that white supremacists should be free from legal harassment.
Surely you can see the difference between excluding radicals from polite company -- peer pressure, really -- and bringing in the coercive censorship of a state human rights commission.
A politician refusing to associate with someone is completely voluntary -- it's freedom of association in action. It's far different from the punitive processes of Canada's hrc's.
Mr. Steyn has regularly called for the muzzling of Islamic-American leaders whom he deems as inadequately moderate. Certain Islamic-Canadians leaders, in turn, now seek to muzzle Mr. Steyn. I think we should be hearing from all of them.
Surely there is a difference between legal sanctions and saying that you wouldn't invite someone. There's a difference between legally sanctioning a magazine for publishing something, and canceling one's subscription or starting a boycott. If people want to boycott MacLean's for publishing Steyn, go right ahead; I don't think that infringes on free speech the way that bringing the CHRC down does.
I'm not sure I understand you. I, for one, feel that there's a substantial difference between someone saying "MacLean's IMO should not have published that excerpt of that book by Mark Steyn," and "The CHRC should investigate MacLean's for publishing that excerpt of that book by Mark Steyn."
You may not feel that they are different, but I think it's going to far to accuse someone of inconsistency because they do make that distinction. To me, saying that the two things are equally is like saying "You're either with us or against us."
I don't think that gratuitous personal attacks should be made illegal, for example, but I don't go around insisting that all comment moderation by blog authors violates free speech. I also would not even find it troubling if someone said, "Hey, you have a pretty decent blog, but you really should moderate or erase the gratuitously offensive comments that some people are leaving on your blog."
really, Advocate Wise, is this the best you can do?
Steyn only wants to hear from community leaders he personally approves of, who are only a very small segment that support his views (numbering in the low hundreds at most).
He seeks to infer that everyone else is somehow "not moderate." He does effectually suggest "that all Islamic-Americans are extremists," because he consistently mischaracterizes and rejects over 95% of them.
To clarify, the complainants against Maclean's never sought to muzzle Steyn; it's not even directed at him. They requested that Maclean's publish a responding piece by a mutually agreed upon author (statements about demands free of editorial oversight appear to be false). The entire case is premised on the magazine refusing the engage in public dialogue, and an extensive history of predominantly one-sided coverage.
MacLeans publisher Ken Whyte has a very public letter stating Law is Cool complaintants wanted five full magazine pages untouched by MacLeans; the cover of the magazine and control over artwork etc. Dozens of letters had already appeared in MacLeans between the time of the Steyn book excerpt appearing in Oct/06 and your year later HRC complaint issue. MacLeans is not some Islam tromping racist magazine really is it. I sense that if your pre-HRC argument were strong enough, Canadians would have agreed with you. If your argument deserved debate, then that is what you are getting.
Post a Comment