The Shotgun Blog
« The State of Play (2008 Thoughts) | Main | A new phase in my political life »
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Elmasry vs. Steyn
As Adam mentioned below, Mark Steyn and Maclean's have been taken to at least a couple of human rights commissions by the Canadian Islamic Congress.
I'm familiar with the CIC and their propaganda campaigns. (Funny enough, the news story on Maclean's website is itself CIC baloney -- they are in no way Canada's "largest" Muslim organization, despite their pretenses. Wikipedia has a quick bio of Mohamed Elmasry, their president-for-life.)
Here's a column I wrote about them after an encounter I had with Elmasry at a journalism conference last year. We were on a panel together, and he railed on about how the "zhoos" controlled the media. He received more than a polite response from the crowd of reporters, and a vigorous defence from a particular CBC radio producer in the crowd. Substitute a Louisiana accent for his Egyptian accent, and Elmasry's speech could have been given by David Duke. How he continues to get kid-glove treatment -- even on the Maclean's website! -- is amazing. Surely his public support for killing Israelis warrants some mention whenever he's quoted in the press.
After the National Post ran my column, the CIC served us with notice under the defamation laws. Of course, they had no case -- we had the defences of truth, fair comment, etc. -- so the CIC had to settle for a letter to the editor almost a year later.
But the CIC learned their lesson: there's no point suing in defamation law, where the CIC would have to pay for their own lawyers, and our lawyers if we won, and where silly things like the rule of law apply. Better to go to the human rights commissions where the taxpayer pays for the prosecution, traditional rules of evidence and procedure don't apply, and free speech is not protected. It still has all of the down-sides for the defendant -- the hassle, the cost, and a lower bar for a "conviction" -- but none of the cost for the complainants.
Speaking of which, the Western Standard's own human rights hearing is finally coming up, nearly two years after we published the Danish cartoons and were first hit with the complaints. We don't have an exact date yet, but the formal "investigation" meeting will be in January. Though we ceased publishing the magazine, we are still a corporate entity, and it's important to me that we see this human rights challenge through.
For your info, here's the hand-scratched complaint against us, and here's our reply. The whole thing feels like justice on the streets of Sudan or Saudi Arabia, more than Canada. I'm sure liberals who fight for the separation of church and state will be speaking out about this human rights complaint any moment now, as vociferously as if the Bishop of Toronto had taken a gay rights magazine to court.
I hope Maclean's fights their complaint hard -- if I know Ken Whyte and Mark Steyn, I'm sure they will. I just hope that the choice is theirs.
I wonder how long before the rest of the surrenderist press corps, the types who applauded Elmasry at that journalism conference, realize that this is their fight, too.
Posted by Ezra Levant on December 2, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54f93c51d8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Elmasry vs. Steyn:
» Sour Grapes from Ironic Surrealism II
Break out the cheese, another Islamic group whine fest is surfacing.
Macleans Editor Prefers Bankruptcy Over Balance
TORONTO, Dec. 4 /CNW/ - The Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) announced today that it has launched several human rights compla... [Read More]
Tracked on 2007-12-10 1:53:57 PM
Comments
Did you ever print the Iranian anti-holcaust cartoons, as promised? If not, I sense a different variety of chicken-shittery at play.
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2007-12-02 4:48:50 AM
Maybe we should keep Schreiber and deport Elmasry.
Religious/Ethnic turmoil does not belong anywhere in our civilized Western Democracies.It appears we have imported it to some degree with attitudes expressed by Elmasry on occasion which he seems to get away with. Trusting people who spout hatred is not smart.
We hope most who come here come for the right reasons, to be part of the Canadian mainstream and contribute to Canada, not to continue to fight centuries old battles.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-12-02 6:26:12 AM
CIC is just mimicking CAIR's recent actions in the US...down south CAIR is attempting to silence talk radio personalities who speak out against Hezbollah and Jihadism...they started with Mike Savage but there are other campaigns brewing....unlike Canada, Minority lobbies must got through the US tort law courts instead of some charter-isolated quasi judicial tribunal.... the US has a functional tort system which operates within the purview of commonlaw justice and constitutional legal guarantees...CAIR has recieved may counter suits pertaining to their cautions being malicious and their backers being groups and people outlaws by the US under the anti terrorism acts...they have dropped most of their suits when it became necessary to revel their funding and patrons in court-ordered discovery sessions.
CAIR has close links to terror organizations and the money trails are easy to spot.
My guess is CIC has similar links but better hidden by way of our self-loathing multicult media not being curious enough to ask CSIS what they have on these dogmatic terror apologists and anti semites.
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux | 2007-12-02 8:01:36 AM
NS Human Rights Comission is administered by the NS Department of Justice which has caused consternation in Legal circles in the Province for some years -Appointees to the Commission are all by Political Patronage -latest appointees are all former Municipal politicians and bureaucrats and what in
Nova Scotia are called "Progressive" Conservatives
-they used to be all Liberals who rejected the word "Progressive" some time ago. If Stelmach had any guts he would terminate the Alberta Commission which
to say the least is laughable -At least in Nova Scotia most complaints (age discrimination and sexual harrassment)have a modicum of common sense
Macleod
Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-12-02 8:47:25 AM
I think there are excellent arguments now for launching a campaign to disband and do away with all the Human Rights Commissions in Canada. They are basically just an extra-legal form of Kangaroo Court that are being used against Canadian democracy by its opponents.
Posted by: Frank Hilliard | 2007-12-02 8:52:47 AM
"I wonder how long before the rest of the
surrenderist press corps, the types who applauded Elmasry at that journalism conference, realize that this is their fight, too."
Well said Ezra!
Ezra is absolutely correct in bringing this issue to the blogosphere.
Human Rights attack issues whether on The Western Standard, Mark Steyn and Macleans or Connie and Mark Fournier as freedom of speech matters in print aaas well as the internet as well are surfacing in Canada.
The Fournier scenario may be somewhat different but bears mentioning right here.
Connie (Wilkins)Fournier and Mark Fournier hosts of the blog 'Free Dominion' are currently involved in an internet speech issue by an seemingly well versed Human Rights Commision activist.
Who in the Canadian MSM will step forward to defend free speech in Canada?
Pay close attention folks and stay tuned!
Posted by: Joe Molnar | 2007-12-02 9:38:35 AM
Human Rights Commissions were introduced by the Federal Liberal Government of Lester B. Pearson, first at the Federal Level and later at the Provincial level by unthinking and ignorant Provincial Politicians of the period. From what I've seen in Nova Scotia and Ontario, they are indeed Kangaroo Courts, where for one thing the law of Evidence as promulgated in the Canada Evidence RSC Revised do not apply. Most Commission members or perhaps all have had no legal training whatever and
function in an aura of supreme arrogance and ignorance, a fatal combination for the administration of "Justice" in Canada. Where are Provincial Bar Associations in this regard?. Just asking, Macleod
Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-12-02 9:42:46 AM
Get this.
In Sudan, they want to kill a woman who permitted her students to name a teddy bear Mohamad, and yet here in Canada, they do nothing when a racist pig is named Mohamad. Where is the logic in that?
Posted by: Lady | 2007-12-02 10:09:56 AM
With the pending Standard's issue coming up in January, the composition of the HR panel that deals with this will be most interesting.
A sitting alderman with the City of Calgary remains for another term (2007-2010) as one of the three HR panel members of the Alberta (southern) Human Rights Commission.
How much more bizarre does it get - an elected official relying on voter support may well be adjudicating on a highly sensitive issue impacting freedom of speech.
The alderman obviously does not see the conflict of interest here - nor does the AB Gov't who named her as a panelist, not once but twice, under two different cabinet ministers.
I agree - the human rights commissions along with the IRB should be dismantled any time now. The positiions are nothing but blatant political patronage soft landings and the competence/ability of most of these people to be adjudicating in their respective areas is not at all great.
Posted by: calgary clipper | 2007-12-02 10:30:28 AM
You know what is so remarkable about the cartoons?
You can read all about the history of them on Wikipedia.
It is ironic that it is actually a Mullah has has stated that "the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes."
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1247400.ece
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1247400.ece
Posted by: Lady | 2007-12-02 10:56:44 AM
The first loss is that your governmental system requires Herculean efforts in order to speak freely in Canada.
What could be more "chilling" in this era of Global Warming?
You MUST win, of course, but far more importantly, you must carry forward and change the mechanisms of straight jacket government on freedom (at the same time as piddling weakling national defenses are put forward by that same government - just to draw bright line distinctions).
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-12-02 11:05:26 AM
[comment deleted]
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-02 11:05:33 AM
If these human rights tribunals are operating outside of the judicial system/court system. Why would anyone actually show up in front of them in the first place.
If they are widely known as Kangaroo courts they should simply be ignored.
If you are then arrested by a real court to answer for why you didn't show up at the phony Political Correctness pretend court, you would likely have a better chance of pleading your case there would you not?
If you out right refuse to attend a tribunal hearing but claim that you will only deal with the charges at hand in a real court, do you not have that right?
What actually is the extent of power of these non elected bullshit entities anyway.
I seems to me that their main power is the ability to ruin someone's reputation and not much else.
Help me understand this please.
Posted by: John | 2007-12-02 12:16:18 PM
"I seems to me that their main power is the ability to ruin someone's reputation and not much else."
That is exactly their aim, with no repercussions to themselves.
"The politics of personal destruction" - thank the Clintons and their acolytes for that.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-02 12:31:47 PM
Since we are stuck with these HRC's, perhaps people should flood them with complaints against CIC and all the other groups and individuals who preach and spout off hatred and Westphobic comments. The occassions for this far outnumber what they can come up with, and by flooding these useless HRC's the government may come to its senses.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-12-02 1:07:27 PM
The head of the New Brunswick Human Rights Organization flatly refused to appear before Provincial Justice Officials and their Minister to
whom she is and was responsible and continued to defy Provincial Government authority in public and the local Media. Premier Lord at the time a Lawyer by profession was unable to reconcile the situation and essentially did nothing -the lady should have been terminated -I suspect that if she remains in the position she is like many senior bureaucrats in NB contracted, The fact is of course the simple solution would have been, you appear as directed or we keep your paycheck. She said she "had the right, no to appear before the Government which employs her. Strange, ain't it. Macleod not in the least surprised. NS announced
a few days ago they will form a Special Human Rights Organization to deal with strictly Aboriginal complaints. Wait until the local Aboriginals generate a new claim on the two Bridges which span Halifax Harbour, which they think they still own. If the British were still in charge they would send Goreham's Rangers all Mohawks from New York to negotiate, using their hatchets and scalping knives. Macleod
Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-12-02 1:09:11 PM
Muslims scare me. They threaten to kill me or my relatives if I dare say Mohamad was an evil and wicked man; or if I drew his likeness on a doll's head; or if I dropped the Koran thing in the mud; or if I am a Christian; or if am a Jew. Hmmmm....
Posted by: dewp | 2007-12-02 1:47:54 PM
Alain ~
"The occasions for this far outnumber what they can come up with, and by flooding these useless HRC's the government may come to its senses."
. . . or at the least, it will dilute their available time so that they will not be able to go after decent Canadians.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-02 1:48:13 PM
[comment deleted]
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-02 1:51:10 PM
obc - yes, that is the whole point along with breaking their budget.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-12-02 2:02:49 PM
obc~
Muslims need to be protected from each other. Islam's like a big mafia from which death seems to be the only escape.
Posted by: dewp | 2007-12-02 2:16:07 PM
dewp ~
Then in kindness, we should assist them in achieving everlasting peace.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-02 2:17:55 PM
Ezra: You recently complemented Ujjal Dosanjh for his bold and brave stand against Sihk extremism. After reading the HRC complaint against you, which when looked at on its own I think should be thrown out. However, the emails and letters sent to Soharwardy were at best tasteless and at worst hateful.
As someone who applauds the bravery of Dossanjh, can you be brave and call-out the extremist perspective of Islam haters. You are in a leadership position here, and publicly pointing out examples (It makes me think that Ann Coulter was right - Muslims have to be converted to Christianity or killed if we are to survive. Posted by: obc | 2-Dec-07 1:51:10 PM)
... and making a stand against this form of extremism would not only make your own ideas more valid, but it would also demonstrate to the HRC that your motives were journalistic and not used to incite hate.
Posted by: holographic | 2007-12-02 2:36:45 PM
homographic ~
It's extreme to defend oneself by avowed killers who seek your destruction?
You probably want to negotiate your existence.
These killers will only negotiate if you are to die this week or next week - unless you are willing to convert to their cult, of course.
Until you Leftoids recognize who the enemy is and their ultimate goal, you will sleepwalk through what's left of your life.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-02 2:44:44 PM
Yeah right holo, just where are all the imaginary islamophobes murdering muslims and bombing their institutions? Answer nowhere, because they do not exist.
Such moral equivalence is disgusting.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-12-02 3:38:16 PM
holo, your comments are unbelievable. You can't be serious!
If you are, you're part of the problem and you yourself have one hell of a problem, you lack the capacity for reasoned thought.
Where the hell have you come from?
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-12-02 3:46:49 PM
"Where the hell have you come from?"
A University, of course!
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-02 4:16:21 PM
"just where are all the imaginary islamophobes murdering muslims and bombing their institutions?"
... Iraq. And moral equivalence? I am simply asking Ezra to stand up for a moderate position. Muslim (and Christian and Jewish) moderates are an ally against extremism and terrorism.
"If you are, you're part of the problem and you yourself have one hell of a problem, you lack the capacity for reasoned thought."
Depends what your problem is. If your problem is that Muslims and homosexuals etc. exist then your reasoned thoughts are your problem.
Posted by: holographic | 2007-12-02 5:04:56 PM
Iraq??? Poor soul, suffering from BDS still, are you?
(Bush Derangement Syndrome)
Or would you have preferred Saddam still in charge, with his mass graves, mass rapes, biological warfare on Kurdish villages, and nuclear and chemical weaponry being planned and created?
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-02 5:16:52 PM
"and nuclear and chemical weaponry being planned and created?"
The what ?
Posted by: Marc | 2007-12-02 5:25:26 PM
Read some English newspapers, Mark - and you'll know what was going on.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-02 5:27:55 PM
Does listening Fox News work too ?
Posted by: Marc | 2007-12-02 5:31:11 PM
Holo, I have no problem with anyone who is merely living their life and minding their own affairs.
If this were the case we would not have had 9/11 or be fighting terrorism in Afghanistan.
We run into problems when people stray beyond the line of decency, respect for humanity and the rule of law.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-12-02 5:33:07 PM
Here's another lie about American support for the war in Iraq is proven wrong by your French papers:
"At the lowest point in February, barely half of Republicans (51%) said things were going well. Today, 74% of Republicans say the same. And while Democrats remain far more skeptical than Republicans, the proportion of Democrats expressing a positive view of the Iraq effort has doubled since February (from 16% to 33%).
"Independents' assessments of how the military effort is going remain far closer to the views of Democrats than of Republicans. Currently, 41% of independents offer a positive assessment, while half say things are not going well. In February, 26% of independents expressed a positive view of the situation in Iraq."
All this from the Leftist L.A. Times.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-02 5:34:25 PM
Holograph: Depends what your problem is. If your problem is that Muslims and homosexuals etc. exist then your reasoned thoughts are your problem.
Time to smell the coffee holowhatever: Muslims and homosexuals do exist indeed but usually never in the same place. Here is why:
Manchester’s leading Imam has confirmed that he thinks the execution of sexually active gay men is justified. Mr. Arshad Misbahi, who is based at the Manchester Central Mosque, confirmed his views in a conversation to Dr John Casson, a local psychotherapist.
Dr Casson said: “I asked him if the execution of gay Muslims in Iran and Iraq was an acceptable punishment in Sharia law, or the result of culture, not religion. He told me that in a true Islamic state, such punishments were part of Islam: if the person had had a trial, at which four witnesses testified that they had seen the actual homosexual acts.”
I asked him what would be the British Muslim view? He repeated that in an Islamic state these punishments were justified. They might result in the deaths of thousands but if this deterred millions from having sex, and spreading disease, then it was worthwhile to protect the wider community.”
“I checked again that this was not a matter of tradition, culture or local prejudice. ‘No,’ he said, ‘It is part of the central tenets of Islam: that sex outside marriage is forbidden; this is stated in the Koran and the prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had stated that these punishments were due to such behaviours.’”
Posted by: andré | 2007-12-02 5:36:09 PM
Liz J ~
The Koran calls for never ending jihad and the killing of infidels. When Islam chooses to undergo a Reformation, setting aside these precepts of their "religion", I would be open to accepting them into our country.
Until then, they all deserve our suspicions.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-02 5:37:43 PM
andré ~
Don't expect Homographic to change his opinion. He was indoctrinated with conservatives being the evil ones - and Muslims are part of the wonderful "diversity" we should embrace.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-02 5:40:56 PM
It seems there is nothing that Muslims can do or not do or say or not say that that does not worsen their image.
Muhammad was a pig. And they can't even seem to put lipstick on him.
Epsi
Posted by: epsilon | 2007-12-02 5:44:48 PM
As if we needed more proof that the Left is the new home of anti-Semitism today:
"Police raid Venezuela Jewish center"
Police raided Venezuela’s main Jewish social club on the eve of a national referendum.
The raid on La Hebraica late Saturday night occurred just hours before Venezuelans went to the polls to decide on constitutional changes proposed by President Hugo Chavez. The raid was seen as a provocation against the Jewish community, which is almost unanimously opposed to Chavez, a major ally of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and his leftist reforms.
The police raid took place as 900 Jews enjoyed an all-night wedding party at the nearby Union Israelita synagogue in Altamira, an upscale suburb of Caracas.
According to sources, members of the police unit that investigates drug-trafficking and terrorism broke the main gate of La Hebraica in the middle of the night, allegedly looking for weapons and explosives.
Officers searched the premises but found nothing, the sources said.
Venezuelans on Sunday were deciding whether to approve 69 constitutional amendments proposed by the Chavez government, including whether to eliminate presidential term limits. That would pave the way for Chavez to be re-elected indefinitely.
Experts predicted a very close vote; results were not expected until late Sunday.
Saturday night's raid echoed one from November 2005, when Venezuelan police raided a Jewish school in Caracas looking for weapons. None were found.
HUGO CHAVEZ - the ally of Ahmedingdong of Iran - and now the dictator-for-life of Venezuela.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-02 5:50:20 PM
Get your hands on this book:
"Both In One Trench:
Saddam's Secret Terror Documents"
In 2003 the United States invaded Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Subsequently, the U.S. government collected millions of the Iraqi regime's documents and media items.
These Arabic documents have been translated and for the first time reveal the secret support Saddam provided to Islamic terrorism.
Transcripts from meetings in Baghdad showed the Taliban asked for help and Saddam's regime agreed to assist them even as the Taliban provided safe haven and support to Usama bin Laden and al Qaeda while it plotted the attacks of September 11th, 2001.
These documents reveal that the Saddam regime had a long history of cooperation with Islamic terrorists and was a legitimate target in the Global War on Terror.
The story revealed in these pages shows that the United States was correct in assessing that Saddam Hussein was a threat because of his support to terrorism. The United States was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power and stay to fight al Qaeda in Iraq.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-02 5:58:02 PM
Epsi, what blasphemy! Have you no respect for Miss Piggy!
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-12-02 5:59:16 PM
History will have a much different judgment on Bush than the Leftoids of this time. It will be filed under recent history as things are unfolding now.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-12-02 6:09:49 PM
Liz J ~
Indeed!
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-02 6:17:07 PM
The silly point of moral equivalence that Leftist Totalitarians like "holographic" wish to advance only works with muddled thinking persons (i.e. Leftists).
The Imam's "thinking" and pronouncements about death penalties for active homosexuals can be deflected to others (like myself) only if "holographic" can broad brush over the HUGE differences between traditional Christianity and Judaism, wherein homosexual activity is considered to produce a SPIRITUAL DEATH sentence for the sinner (i.e. sexually active homosexual, AND unmarried sexually active heterosexuals, for that matter). That is self-imposed spiritual "death" for a Catholic (with a clear avenue for spiritual forgiveness-redemption), as oppossed to actual Islamic-imposed physical death penalty upon their "sinners."
There is a huge difference among religious or moral philosophies, which Atheistic Communists wish to confuse among heavily secular (and likely potentially atheist) audiences of our horrible popular culture Leftist "main stream media."
Sloppy thinking leads to disregard for hard wrought freedoms as well as basic natural human rights, as Marc so clearly demonstrates by casually forgetting how Sadaam invaded (and tortured and slaughtered) his innocent neighbors in Kuwait and used poison gas to kill innocent citizens of his own nation.
We cannot allow our voices to be stilled or ourselves to be shied by the risk of the calumny perpetrated by guys like "holographic" to confuse Judeo-Christian religious philosophy, which has protected innocent human life throughout the millenia, versus the demonic murderous "religious" philosophy of Islam, which seeks primarily to conquer and enslave innocents.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-12-02 6:22:01 PM
Holo, congratulations. You have just qualified yourself as incapable of independent and reasoned thought. To equate the situation in Iraq with your version (along with CIC and CAIR) with "islamophobia" is insane.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-12-02 6:26:18 PM
And I guess I must repeat my question. Ezra said the anti-mohammed cartoons were all about free speech, not muslim bashing, and offered to reprint the Iranian holocaust cartoons, which might be taken to be anti-semitic, to prove it. Where are they?
Is Ezra a scared girly boy when it comes to offending anyone but Muslims?
Come out come out, scared Conservative girly boy.
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2007-12-02 7:04:38 PM
bigcitylib is a Leftoid par excellence. Why anyone would take him seriously is beyond me.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-02 7:08:14 PM
A tad off topic, but please go to the following site and vote no.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
The question is 'Do you agree that global warming is "an emergency unlike anything humankind has ever faced before?
Posted by: John | 2007-12-02 7:09:25 PM
John ~
Too late. They just posted a new poll on who is doing on-line shopping - clearly much more important. (s)
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-02 7:15:50 PM
obc,
"HUGO CHAVEZ - the ally of Ahmedingdong of Iran - and now the dictator-for-life of Venezuela."
lol!
minisculio chavezingio & ahamminidingydongydong!!
The two numpties it is!
I am still holding onto my sides!
We worried, for a long time, about having a Hitler rise to power again--and it never occurred to people that there could be more than one at the same time.
And how many gates to gehannah are there?
Posted by: Lady | 2007-12-02 10:26:09 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.