Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« The myth of the "Hispanic" vote | Main | William F. Buckley, Jr., R.I.P. »

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Syed Sohawardy on Syed Sohawardy

Syed Sohawardy, the man who launched the human rights complaints against Ezra Levant and the Western Standard has an op-ed piece in today's Straight Goods online newspaper:

The re-printing of the cartoons wasn't about free speech. The originals are readily available on the internet for any who wish to see them. The reprinting is rather about forcing people who are deeply unhappy about the cartoons, and who would not seek them out, to be faced with them again. This is hurtful to many in the Muslim community, and can create ill-will between Muslims and non-Muslims. (Interestingly, other Canadian newspapers and magazines came to the same conclusion.)

Read the entire article here.

Posted by Matthew Johnston on February 27, 2008 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e5508661e18833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Syed Sohawardy on Syed Sohawardy:

Comments

>"The reprinting is rather about forcing people who are deeply unhappy about the cartoons, and who would not seek them out, to be faced with them again."

Yes, sure, everybody knows that Canadian Muslims are FORCED to purchase and read the Western Standard./

Considering that Mr. Sohawardy went to the police and then to the AHRC, it is reasonable to think that he does know what the word 'forced' means.

I think Mr. Sohawardy is defaming Ezra Levant by claiming Mr. Levant was, "forcing people who are deeply unhappy about the cartoons, and who would not seek them out, to be faced with them again."

Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-27 8:55:15 AM


Create ill-will between muslims and non-muslims? Sort of like sticking your tongue out at someone who's about to behead you?

I say make the cartoons a permanent logo on the website. They want us to leave the planet. Maybe it's time they realize we're not going quietly.

Posted by: dp | 2008-02-27 9:05:16 AM


I wonder what PR firm he hired to spin that story?

The guy was insulted and used the state to punish those who hurt his feelings. That makes him scum. The only reason he's backing off is because he's been exposed as the thug that he is.

I've met lots of Muslims in Bosnia, including Imams. They were very pleasant and reasonable people to deal with.

This Sohawardy is some kind of wannabe politician and is the exception to the other Muslims I've met. He should be ashamed of his past actions and even more ashamed of his feeble little attempt at a PR ruse.

Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-27 9:37:19 AM


"Prof Soharwardy is the founder of Muslims Against Terrorism. Soharwardy is also the head of the first ever Dar-ul-Aloom (Institute of Islamic scholarship) in Calgary, Alberta, Canada where he teaches Islamic studies. Prof Soharwardy lectures in Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton, Mississauga, Brampton, Richmond Hill, Markham, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver on monthly basis."


It would seem that this guy has a traveling Jihadi road show going. Either that or he's making millions on a never-ending talk circuit. What really is there to say month after month anyway. We know where he's coming from. In any case, I don't believe a word that comes out of this guys mouth.

And Ezra, don't meet with this snake, unless you have him scanned for C8 and semtex.

DEATH TO THE HRC!

Posted by: John West | 2008-02-27 9:41:26 AM


Just for the record (if anyone care) this article is just a reprint of the one in the G&M two weeks ago.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-02-27 9:47:56 AM


>"This is hurtful to many in the Muslim community, and can create ill-will between Muslims and non-Muslims."

Muslim and infidels might have enmity on the basis of cartoons?

Who knew?

You'd think that because Muslims(which means 'those who submit to Allah') call 'non-Muslims' kafirs(infidels which is a pejorative or derogatory term) and the Koran forbids friendship with kafirs, that the enmity is built right into Islam.

As for how 'those who will not submit' feel about Islam(which means submission to Allah) well the fact that they aren't submitting is a good indication.

We'll just ignore those kafirs who don't care or know enough to care, who by definition, wouldn't care about the cartoons either.

Muslims Against Terrorism:
Muslims, who are under the threat of death if they leave Islam, define 'terrorism' somewhat differently than kafirs.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-27 9:59:24 AM


Nevertheless his general claim--that Ezra published those cartoons to get a dig in at Muslims--is true enough. This is certainly what the ex WS employee that Ezra is now suing suggested.

And don't forget, the WS website just issued a grovelling apology to Soharwardy due to some of the hate speech that appeared here in response to Ezra's last article/blog post in December.

The question, really, is should low level hate speech to be permitted because it masquerades as journalism? The answer is, probably, that yes we must allow people like Ezra and WS to hide behind free speech laws in order to guard against the possibility that someone with a more useful message might also be silenced.

Posted by: bigcitylib | 2008-02-27 10:11:49 AM


It looks like the foundation has been laid. The next great war will be between religion and socialism.

Whoops, that's happening now.

We're screwed no matter who wins.

Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-27 10:12:45 AM


"we're screwed no matter who wins"

Applies to just about every issue we're facing right now.

Posted by: dp | 2008-02-27 10:18:28 AM


dp: Unfortunately, you're right.

Bigcitylib: Free speech means...free...unregulated.

Motives are not the issue. Who cares what Ezra's motives were? He has the right to print freely...unregulated. Even if he had maliscious intent.

Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-27 10:22:25 AM


Syed sounds like another theocratic dictator in waiting, using Western liberal tolerance over-kill (HRCs) for Islamic playbook victim-hood. These babies need to be fully censured until they grow up and accept criticism like other religions. Meanwhile, the cartoon(s), as unsophisticated as they are, should be used as a symbolic trademark and displayed accordingly for all written and spoken word supportive of free speech.

As for their liberal enablers, it sounds like Kinsella and Dion are in a shrinking boat.

Time for Harper to grow some cojones and do the right thing regarding the HRCs. Stelmack is, unfortunately beyond hope!

Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-02-27 10:51:21 AM


John: Harper is a politician. His focus is on power. Don't be sucked into believing that he's some kind of hero.

Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-27 11:27:08 AM


I for one would love to see Ezra take up Mr. Socowardly's challenge to a "Code of the West"debate.
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=74ad99e5-4e56-43bd-be9f-1438806b4f3e&p=2

Broadcast it on youtube for the world to see the mealymouthed sleazy Iman exposed. It'll make the Danish cartoons seem like a walk in the park on a sunny Sunday afternoon.

Posted by: bocanut | 2008-02-27 11:44:14 AM


Veteran, that is the first statement you've made that I entirely agree with.

I still believe that Prime Minister Harper is capable of great good.

Mr. Harper has always been a staunch supporter of the devolution of Federal powers, which have been usurped by Ottawa, to the several Provinces.

In that there is still hope, but also it is something that cannot be done by a minority government.

The creation of two new Crown Corporations in the '08 Budget creates doubt, though.

"There is little choice in a barrel of rotten apples.”
William Shakespeare

Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-27 11:45:00 AM


I like the quote. So, would Shakespeare choose the least rotten apple? I think not!

If society wants to live free, it has to realize that ALL politicians have one central issue - Power. All other issues are on the back burner. Partisan politics gives us all false hopes.

The first step toward a free society is to stop voting and resisting those who tower over you.

Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-27 2:57:26 PM


bigcitylib

"Nevertheless his general claim--that Ezra published those cartoons to get a dig in at Muslims--is true enough."

And your proof of this is what?

"This is certainly what the ex WS employee that Ezra is now suing suggested. "

Oh, a disgruntled former employee said it.
So it must be true.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-02-27 5:07:40 PM


"The question, really, is should low level hate speech to be permitted because it masquerades as journalism? The answer is, probably, that yes we must allow people like Ezra and WS to hide behind free speech laws in order to guard against the possibility that someone with a more useful message might also be silenced."

bigcitylib, interesting statement. Low level hate speech you say? Permit it you say? Free speech should be a right that you or the governemnt has no right to permit in the first place.

Secondly, if you defined hate speech, I would guess any speech judged by that definition would either be hate speech or not. Calling it low level hate speech and then talking like you defend the right to say it, is really just expanding the definition. Nice try.

Posted by: TM | 2008-02-27 11:13:03 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.