The Shotgun Blog
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
The CIC's Insulting Offer
Here's the Canadian Islamic Congress' insulting offer to Maclean's.
In exchange for Maclean's publishing a mutually acceptable response to the Steyn article from an agreed upon author, we would be prepared to settle this matter
What garbage. Since when do pressure groups get to select an author and have an article published in someone else's magazine? This is absurd. If they want to publish an article, then they should buy or start their own general-interest magazine. The only proper response to this "offer" is to tell them to go to Hell.
Indeed - the proper response to this offer would be something like the following:
Dear Mr. Jospeh,
I'll leave you to fill in the blank yourself. As I like to say - two words, seven letters.
That's all that these morons deserve. There's no point in attempting to conduct a reasoned discussion with would-be censors. There should be no negotiation, no discussion, no compromise, no niceness. These people don't deserve to be treated with kindness or politeness. When you attempt, as these people have, to strange free expression - especially when you attempt to do so on behalf of those waging war against our civilization - you deserve nothing more than the absolute contempt of free people everywhere.
I believe that it was, by way of Churchill, Alexander the Great who once said that the peoples of Asia were slaves because they had not learned to pronounce the word, "no." I put it to you that, in the age of commissions and commissars, the best defense available to us is the doctrine of (again, fill in the blank) "XXXX You." There's no cause for debate here - because these are issues that free peoples don't have to debate. I am free and will continue to be so for as long as I live, and if you don't like it... Well, you can guess the rest.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The CIC's Insulting Offer:
Just read their presser. Wow. Some balls. I'm eagerly awaiting McLean's rebuttal.
Posted by: Jeff | 2008-04-30 11:01:15 AM
The CIC seem like true champions of freedom. We should not be concerned about groups like them having increasing political clout. Should we?
Posted by: TMt | 2008-04-30 11:04:17 AM
No doubt the author would be Dr. Elmasry, the Canadian Islamic Congress head and electronics professor at Waterloo University.
The very same Imam who thinks that all Israelites over the age of 18 should be made targets.
I hope Macleans doesn't cave since the CIC won't publish any opposing views in their widely circulated newsletter. Trust me, I've tried it's futile.
Posted by: Mark-Alan Whittle | 2008-04-30 11:12:13 AM
Brutal. Do they listen to themselves talk?
"...in our op-eds, we made clear that
what we are seeking is a reasonable opportunity to respond."
By virtue of getting an op-ed, were they not already given reasonable opportunity to respond?
Posted by: daryl | 2008-04-30 11:17:00 AM
>Dear Mr. Jospeh,
No, You've got to show them that all their hard work to get us to understand their culture has paid off.
You gotta insult them in terms of their own cultural sensibilities.
(No Dear or Mr. which is short for Master ya'know)
You should lick the soles of my sister's army boots.
I'm typing while chewing back bacon, drinking Canadian Club, and petting my dog who is loving it so much he's farting in an Easterly direction
I will NEVER submit
Posted by: Speller | 2008-04-30 11:17:20 AM
Be a man. Grow a pair of balls. If you mean to say "fuck you", then say it. Are you afraid of the word "fuck"? Do you think it somehow is more mature or polite to imply the word "fuck" in such a way that any six-year-old knows what you mean without actually saying it?
Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck.
It's just a word. If you mean it, use it. If not, then don't be a cock tease and just allude to it. I don't think you have to worry that any child will wander onto this webpage and be scarred for life by seeing the word "fuck". Even kids know to stay away from your posts. Are you afraid your mother will see it? Pussy.
Now on the issue at hand, the correct response is, of course, not to say "fuck you" but to say nothing at all. Ignore them completely. Maclean's has taken the right position and made that clear already. There is nothing more to add. Why give these guys any more attention than they deserve?
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-04-30 11:25:37 AM
As Steyn himself points out in a post before the news conference, these guys are not even the plaintiffs in the Human Rights Action against MacLeans.
So, they're in no position to demand a rebuttal since techically, they are not the allegedly aggrieved party.
MacLeans should tell these guys to **** off, in print.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-30 11:27:24 AM
Aaah ha ha.
XXXX XXXX XXXX!
Am I offending you Fact Check?
Don't you think it's ironic that on a post about a free speech issue, Fact Check takes issue with Yoshis' free speech, folks?
Hey Fact Check, free speech means someone is free NOT to write blue if they don't want to, ya fascist.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-04-30 11:39:54 AM
Fact Check - on my own blog, I swear as much as I like. Here, since this belongs to someone else, I'd prefer to keep it (relatively) clean.
Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-04-30 11:48:33 AM
The most fascinating part of FC's post was his use of ‘cock tease.'
Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-30 11:50:51 AM
Definitely, set you free.
FC imagines he is implying something about Yoshi, but it really reveals a lot about FC himself.
What I always find interesting is that Leftists pose as defenders of "gay culture" while constantly using it as a pejorative.
They not only hate us, they are self-hating and very conflicted people.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-04-30 12:03:25 PM
My mom used to tell me that if you hate somebody, you're only destroyng yourself.
Say, for example, somebody says they hate Dubya.
Curiously, Dubya has never said a bad word against say, FC.
The longer I live, the more my mom's wisdom proves to be true.
Oh, well. All we can do is pray that some day they will choose to step out of their own self-designed darkness.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-30 12:11:28 PM
Wasn't the fact that MacCleans refusal to publish
their rebuttal the catalyst for the filing of the complaint? If so, what's changed?
Same shit-Different day.
Posted by: Gerry | 2008-04-30 12:18:30 PM
What's changed is that the people who called today's news conference are not the plaintiffs in the claim against MacLeans.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-30 12:40:47 PM
Mark Steyn said.. :
"Presumably they will offer to shut down the case in return for a more modest right of reply without some of the more absurd demands they made last time round. It will sound "moderate" and "compromising" and "reasonable", all the things mainstream Canadian opinion likes. But, if Maclean's were to accede, it would be setting a very dangerous precedent: it would reward the CIC thugs for their bullying."
..... before the press conference.
Posted by: Sounder | 2008-04-30 12:54:20 PM
"Don't you think it's ironic that on a post about a free speech issue, Fact Check takes issue with Yoshis' free speech, folks?"
It would be ironic if I had said he has no right to use "XXXX" instead of "fuck", but I didn't. I just noted that when everyone knows what word he means it is silly not to use it.
SYF: "The most fascinating part of FC's post was his use of 'cock tease.'"
Speller: "Definitely, set you free.... What I always find interesting is that Leftists pose as defenders of 'gay culture' while constantly using it as a pejorative."
You are confusing "cock tease" with "cocksuker", I think. Had I used "cocksucker" as an insult, you might have a point. But being a "cock tease" is a negative description - both when applied to gay men or when applied to straight women (as it more often is). Never mind. I would not expect two homophobes like you to understand the difference.
SYF: "My mom used to tell me that if you hate somebody, you're only destroyng yourself."
Interesting, as I have never posted that I hate Adam (or Dubya... how did he get into the conversation?). But Adam has posted these gems: "I hate Ron Paul and his supporters. I despise them with every fibre of my being. They are the scum of the Earth." and about Obama "I hate the man so." In fact, he spends a lot of time telling us about his hatred for people.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-04-30 12:55:33 PM
Yet another clue to FC's personality.
His use of the perorative word ‘homophobes.'
Don't know about you, but I'm not afraid of no homos.
Could you please keep your nose out of a commentary directed at speller, not at you?
Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-30 1:04:06 PM
Since the people who called the news conference are not the plaintiffs in the case, MacLeans need not even entertain the request.
What are they going to do if MacLeans refuses? Sue?
Yep, that'll get them some sympathy.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-30 1:07:58 PM
Yeah, sure, Fact Check.
We all feel the love.
It exudes like rays of sunshine from your 30-Apr-08 11:25:37 AM post./
>"But being a "cock tease" is a negative description - both when applied to gay men or when applied to straight women (as it more often is)."
I'm not confused, Fact Check.
Maybe you think ADAM is a woman.
Is that your explanation?
Or are you so wrapped up in your homoerotic world that you think straight men are "cock teases"?
You're the confused one, Fact Check.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-04-30 1:07:59 PM
Let's see if the BC CHRT pulls an ON HRC ploy - declines to hear the the filing as being not within their purview, but then Czarina Barbara Hall - Chief of the ON HRC - proceeded to both slam MacLeans and in effect deliver a public verdict of guilty on the filing that never took place.
On top of this, her response was not to look inwardly at what is a huge mess within the ONHRC but to announce even more draconian investigative procedures to be put into effect June30.
Let the June hearing within the BCHRT take place.
Posted by: calgary clipper | 2008-04-30 1:09:57 PM
There's been a rumor floating around for some time. This latest display seems to confirm that rumor. Yes folks, fact check is roger's girlfriend.
Posted by: dp | 2008-04-30 1:10:33 PM
All I know is roger was beyond redemption.
There's still hope for fact check, who seems to have intellectual capacity above that of a gnat's.
First, though, he'll have to stop acting in the pompous way his nic suggests ... as if he's the final arbiter of facts. Uh, huh.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-30 1:19:27 PM
The problem is of course that the Macleans editorial did offer the students an opportunity to have their say. So will they stand by their word or not?
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2008-04-30 1:26:50 PM
"The problem is of course that the Macleans editorial did offer the students an opportunity to have their say. So will they stand by their word or not?"
Posted by: bigcitylib
And the students turned that fair offer down. Their decision, live with it.
Posted by: Sounder | 2008-04-30 1:36:33 PM
The entire April 16 editorial is available on the Macleans website.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-30 1:44:46 PM
The whole entire, Canadian (my butt) Islamic Congress can go F**k themselves. Macleans can go into oblivion on this one if they cave.
Posted by: Liz J | 2008-04-30 1:47:29 PM
No, they said the offer was not made.
Try and look at this rationally. Macleans will not get any action out of the Federal or Provincial governments over this. They've already been slapped down by B. Hall at the OHRC. They're circulation has been in freefall since Whyte took over, so obviously turning Macleans into the Weekly National Post hasn't been a good idea. What could they possibly gain by dragging this out other than another half dozen subscriptions from a few white nationalists?
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2008-04-30 1:48:30 PM
...What could they possibly gain by dragging this out other than another half dozen subscriptions from a few white nationalists?
playing the racist card now are we BCL.
Posted by: spike | 2008-04-30 2:05:28 PM
Could it be that BCL really meant to say ‘a few Whyte nationalists?'
Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-30 2:10:06 PM
In context, CIC's offer is pure extortion:
"In exchange for Maclean's publishing a mutually acceptable response to the Steyn article from an agreed upon author, we would be prepared to settle this matter"
What's missing: "and, by the way, if we can't settle on an acceptable response from an agreed upon author, we'll drag you through a corrupt system that will eventually force you to accept our terms, or something worse."
Kind of like a gangster: "Hey, buddy, how much money you got in that wallet? Think we can come to a mutually acceptable division of your funds? By the way, if we can't find our way into a mutually acceptable division, I'm just going to take your wallet and shoot you in the head."
Seems like a reasonable offer, right?
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-04-30 2:49:27 PM
"What could they possibly gain by dragging this out other than another half dozen subscriptions from a few white nationalists?"
Probably a little self respect, protection of the right to free association and free expression (their expression) as opposed to blackmail as proposed by the Muslims.
Posted by: Sounder | 2008-04-30 3:28:12 PM
I'm confused about what the hell is going on with this issue.
Personal arguments about " cock teaser" and use of the F bomb do nothing to clarify it.
Am I just stupid or something?? Or maybe others are?
Posted by: gerry | 2008-04-30 3:53:14 PM
No, gerry, you aren't stupid.
Not yet IMO.
That language is typical troll bait to derail the discussion and set you free and I couldn't resist responding because Fact Check is such an easy target and Yoshi doesn't deserve the kind of attack FC made.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-04-30 4:15:10 PM
I was hoping for an intelligent discussion here. Too bad these threads keep getting high-jacked by the trolls.
Starve them. Don't respond to them. They HATE that. Don't name them, don't answer their, usually, foul-mouthed comments. If you don't feed their egos, they'll be outta here.
Posted by: batb | 2008-04-30 6:30:52 PM
Quite right that Yoshida doesn's deserve that kind of attack. In fact, he deserves to be dragged into an alley and beaten bloody with motorcycle chains; it would be a more appropriate reply to someone, like your Adam, who urges torture and murder upon those he sees as "enemies". Happily for "Yoshi" (sounds like one of those Olympics mascots), FC appears to prefer to use words to humiliate the members of the remedial reading class.
Posted by: truewest | 2008-04-30 6:41:22 PM
truewest? Not even close.
Adam's enemies just happen to be Canada's enemies. You're with us or against us. Bring on the chains.
Posted by: dp | 2008-04-30 6:46:48 PM
"In fact, he deserves to be dragged into an alley and beaten bloody with motorcycle chains; it would be a more appropriate reply to someone, like your Adam, who urges torture and murder upon those he sees as "enemies". "
As someone entering this discussion mid-thread, I can't help but seem a similar pattern between truewest's thirst for blood vs. truewest's characterization of Adam's thirst for blood.
You disgust me!
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-04-30 7:01:21 PM
Fact check said
"Are you afraid your mother will see it? Pussy."
Don't you mean "cunt"?
"It's just a word. If you mean it, use it. "
"Be a man. Grow a pair of balls."
(Please direct all complaints to Fact Check's Acceptable Word Service Bureau)
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-04-30 7:21:40 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.