The Shotgun Blog
« It's like ra-ee-ain on your wedding day | Main | Henry Morgentaler's pointed pen »
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Steyn debates critics, critics offended
Here's Mark discussing his articles, his book, his critics, the HRCs, the Western Standard Shotgun Blog, and–at last–debating the three remaining Osgoode Hall Law School student-complainants on The Agenda with Steve Paikin on TVO. It's not short, but it's an entertaining watch.
Posted by Kalim Kassam on May 8, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e5522f93988834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Steyn debates critics, critics offended:
Comments
Mark Steyn debated some Do-gooder Hall law school students, and they're offended by what he said?
Not surprised. Quite pleased actually.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-05-08 4:29:55 PM
That was an extremely unpleasant experience. My video stream kept freezing and almost every time I had a still image of those three troublemakers baring their teeth and menacing with their outstretched hands.
I think Steyn certainly made his point, and the complaint was shown for what it really is. One point I wish he'd picked up on was the bald guys definitions of MacLeans vs the CIC website. He feels that Macleans must have strict rules and public scrutiny, while the CIC website is a special interest site belonging to his group only. Sort of like "what's mine is mine and what's yours is ours". Maybe it's time to take a closer look at some of "their" special interest writings.
Steyn got quite a chuckle when one of the girls said "the law is evolving". Doesn't that statement really help to make his case? It's going to evolve a lot faster considering those three are about to become lawyers.
Posted by: dp | 2008-05-08 4:32:52 PM
I find it ironic, and tragic, that two leftie-liebrals from Tronna are able to criticize anyone on the issue of race. These same people now favor racial segregation in Toronto's schools. Sad, truly sad.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-05-08 5:49:31 PM
OMG... These three students can't see the facts and are offended by those very facts. How clueless!
Posted by: winston | 2008-05-08 5:57:18 PM
I watched the original airing.
Quite simply, if you watch it again, you will notice that their original complaint was ALLEGEDLY their inability to respond to Steyn's article.
If you watch carefully, you will also notice that Steve Paikin gave them every opportunity to respond to Steyn's article.
Finally, watch it again and you will notice they weren't actually interested in responding to Steyn's article.
They were only interested in justifying why they brought Maclean's before the human rights commission.
By negating the opportunity to respond to the crux of the debate, they proved they were not actually interested in having a debate.
They were only interested in attempting to intimidating anyone interested in having a debate.
Watch it again...You'll see it for yourselves.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-05-08 6:11:50 PM
You're quite right h2o. Did it also occur to you that the three were unsure of their purpose? They appeared as they'd been coached for one event, but not prepared for the impromptu direct debate. I really don't believe these three are behind this issue. They're being directed by someone.
I think the girl on the left was kind of getting into Steyn. Maybe there's a spark of western values in that girl.
Posted by: dp | 2008-05-08 6:35:27 PM
dp,
I did not notice that. I noticed 3 people who disliked what Steyn wanted to say and wanted to prevent him from saying it.
The question is "why do they want to stifle debate on the impact of Muslim demographics in Western Society?"
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-05-08 6:39:22 PM
h2o- Maybe they really are afraid of some sort of violent backlash. If they really think we're capable of that sort of behaviour, they sure haven't learned much about us, have they? Didn't they come here in the first place because we're so tolerant?
Posted by: dp | 2008-05-08 6:45:55 PM
dp,
I haven't yet reached any conclusion on their motives. Only their objectives.
I did consider your proposal. It is valid.
They could simply be tired of the negative publicity of their heritage. It would be entirely understandable though not ethical.
They could also be fully aware that Steyn is correct that a silent demographic shift is changing and are desperate to keep it silent because it suits them.
They could simply be opportunistic and want to make a political/legal career name for themselves.
They could be ideological lefties interested in furthering the destruction of Western cohesiveness in the name of Leftist fascism.
etc.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-05-08 6:52:45 PM
Guys:
If you go to the Macleans website, you'll see today's response to the sock puppet students, who actually did not file the HRC complaint.
Macleans offered to host a debate between Steyn and the complainant, CIC president Elsmary, and have offered to publish a transcript of the debate.
Anyway, check it out.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-08 6:53:12 PM
SYF,
Again, the refusal to debate serves only to prove the point that it isn't debate they want. Just submission!
There is nothing to be gained by being sidetracked over who said what to whom about which offer to publish or televise what.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-05-08 6:56:10 PM
I just want to add that these 3 clowns pointed to the Western Standard blog as indicative of hate speech.
Well, I have never advocated for or incited hate speech at this blog.
Therefore, using their criteria, I want to accuse them of intolerance for blanket criticism of this blog and bloggers. If stereotyping is bad, then they shouldn't have stereotyped the bloggers at this blog.
Bigots!
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-05-08 7:01:23 PM
This goes to show you what watching only the CBC does to your brain.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-05-08 7:09:00 PM
water dog:
Originally, Elsmary refused to debate Steyn on the TVO show.
Today's development has Macleans offering to print results of a debate.
Check it out on their website.
I predict Elsmary will chicken out. I'm sure his sock puppets will hate that.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-08 7:25:40 PM
SYF,
It's a given. They don't want to debate Steyn's thesis. They want to shut him down. They want to shut down any discussion related to the changing demographics of Western Civ vis a vis Muslims.
They only debating they will do is either one sided bomb-throwing or obfuscation of the issue(as evidenced by the TVO 3) where side issues and grievances are aired.
I just hope someone files a human rights complaint against the 3 TVO characters for their sweeping negative generalization of an identifiable group (ie. Western Standard blog posters).
My complaint has just as much merit as their complaint. I want equal time to defend our culture against their negative, biased, and unproven rhetoric.
That's their complaint against Steyn and MacLean's. Watch the TVO program in full. I want what they want.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-05-08 7:40:26 PM
Further to my human rights complaint.
I want to know why it's ok for the TVO 3 to object to Steyn quoting a European Iman because this shouldn't be taken as representing Islam yet the TVO 3 can represent a few WS blog posters as representative of WS posters in general.
I demand equal time. Preferably Osgoode hall! If this is the best that this place has to offer, the HRCs are Kaput!
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-05-08 8:10:09 PM
Now, according to Kinsella's site, the students drafted the complaint on behalf of the CIC.
And, Kinsella is calling Steyn a chickenhawk for not debating him at next month's Human Rights meeting.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-08 8:34:26 PM
"negative generalization of an identifiable group (ie. Western Standard blog posters)."
Cry me a river h2.
Posted by: Marc | 2008-05-08 8:41:15 PM
Marc,
So negative generalizations of an identifiable group are ok with you? I take it then that you find these 3 complainants as having no foundation or basis for their complaint as described on TVO against Mark Steyn.
I do expect consistency.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-05-08 8:44:12 PM
I think Mr. Steyn made some good projected out looks but may not have looked to what may be the root of the problem based on his comments. I will have to read the book to fully confirm. This is what may missing. If I were a globalist (Bilderbergs),one would want a society that is controlled, subservient to laws whether religious or enforced by policies. The rural populations I would argue is where the larger families originated and the governments have systematically culled these farm populations. (Over 63,000 farms in Canada alone in the last 20 years). A Mao or Islamic society of a people with no property, subsisting and cheap labor would be ideal. These restrictions are being developed for the western societies. Police states. This way I could feast on the rest of the world undisturbed.
Posted by: Guess What | 2008-05-08 8:46:18 PM
It's a conspiracy, I tell ya.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-08 8:53:06 PM
GW,
Well then, it's a good thing that you aren't globalist (Bilderberg).
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-05-08 8:55:58 PM
Ernst Zundel is to Orianna Falluci as the TVO 3 are to
1) Hirsi Ali.
2) Irshad Manji
3) Salman Rushie
Choose one.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-05-08 9:06:28 PM
"So negative generalizations of an identifiable group are ok with you?"
I read the Shotgun.
This blog is the champion of negative generalizations of identifiable groups.
Those three were sounding as a bunch of thin skin as well.
Posted by: Marc | 2008-05-08 9:11:35 PM
Free on line documentaries Google:
Secrets of the CIA
Truth and Lies of 9/11
911 The Road to Tyranny
Terrorstorm
Endgame
Bohemian Grove- child consuming Moloch
American Dictators
Skull and Bones own an Island, Deer Island.
INFOWARS.com
These are only a sampling of some of the conspiracies for the pie plate hat wearing. Like a new conspiracy has never happened, give me a break. Reported, only when CFR MSM has no choice.
Posted by: Guess What | 2008-05-08 10:19:34 PM
GW:
Try www.abovetopsecret.com
Plenty of conspiracy theories theories to keep you busy for month.
Capice?
Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-08 10:23:31 PM
HRC Alert! HRC Alert!
This time against a Nova Scotia cartoonist.
Details at:
www.jihadwatch.org
Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-08 10:46:43 PM
Marc,
"I read the Shotgun.
This blog is the champion of negative generalizations of identifiable groups."
No. Some posters do this. A blog is comprised of a group, like Muslims, and hence can't be pinned down by a single attribute.
BTW, your attempt to portray this blog in such a manner also qualifies as championing a negative generalization of an identifiable group.
Pot meet kettle.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-05-09 4:35:01 AM
'Sorry. Late to this thread. This was my take a couple of days ago on Mark Steyn's appearance on TVO's The Agenda:
Mark Steyn appeared on TV Ontario's The Agenda last night, with three Muslim articling lawyers (students at Osgoode Law School): the three Sock Puppets, as Steyn calls them.
He's right. Unfortunately, I caught only the last half hour, where the three stooges (well, they seemed like three stooges, stumbling all over their arguments, knocking anyone and anything out of their way as they indignantly refuted everything Steyn said--not articulately or intelligently, I might add) showed how unprepared they were for this debate and how out of touch they are with Canada's history as a free and democratic country.
Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the Canadian Islamic Congress, who takes full advantage of the nyet-to-free-speech-or-offending-anyone-except-Christians-let's-take-'em-to-the-Human-Rights (sic and sick)-Commissions-gulag-Canada-has-become, were manipulating their puppets (useful idiots?) like mad, with the puppets’ only rejoinder to Mark Steyn being a fall-back on bleating "But these Human Rights Commissions are in the law of Canada and that's why we're using them."
To any suggestion that Human Rights Commissions are a parallel legal system to Canada's already established legal institutions, there were only shouts and confused reasoning, to whit: “multiculturalism is embedded in the law of Canada, so you can’t criticize it”—well, actually, this is something one of the women said to Mark Steyn after the show, but it represents the Sock-Puppet-Threes’ type of reasoning throughout the “debate.”
When male sock puppet Khurrum Awan compared Ernst Zundel to Oriana Fallaci, you could see the penny beginning to drop for Steve Paikin who, himself, has had his puppet strings pulled by the multi-culti ghost of Trudeau over the past number of years. To Paikin’s twice-asked question to the three marionettes about whether it is permissible to offend anyone in Canada, more shouts and confusion.
Posted by: batb | 2008-05-09 5:44:00 AM
My one recurring thought as I watched these three babbling fascists; this is the future of Canada, and Canadian law?
They simply proved Steyns point for him.
Particularly the point that we have no one to blame but ourselves for allowing these immigrants to be coddled to the point they are allowed to think hurt feelings should be protected by law.
The most chilling statement was the one that the law is evolving, this of course is right out of the leftist, fascist handbook.
The thought these three (and I'm sure many more) are a step away from Canada's legal system, perhaps a judgeship, who knows they could one day be appointed to the supreme court, is incredibly shocking and chilling to me.
Posted by: deepblue | 2008-05-09 8:16:53 AM
deepblue
You are right on the money. We pick the people that make the laws. Pick better people. If people are being picked for you denying your democratic rights, then pick someone from one of the other parties that represents your riding. Soon the picking of people will stop.
Posted by: Guess What | 2008-05-09 9:29:17 AM
Particularly the point that we have no one to blame but ourselves for allowing these immigrants to be coddled to the point they are allowed to think hurt feelings should be protected by law.
Posted by: deepblue | 9-May-08 8:16:53 AM
One point that always seems to be avoided, though Steyn did hint at it, is that until multiculturalism became the mantra of the Libs and the left, people that came to this country did try and assimilate. The muslims only happen to be one of many groups that don't want to assimilate. The sooner the government starts basing immigration on what is good for the long term of the country, rather than on short term benefits, the better all we'll all be.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-05-09 9:31:06 AM
h2o
I prefer the former CIA agents telling their own stories. Thanks anyway.
Posted by: Guess What | 2008-05-09 9:50:36 AM
Police State see infowars
"A man with a heart condition was arrested, shackled, put in a DNA database, locked up for 18 hours and taken to court after police claim he dropped an apple core in the latest shocking example of enviro-tyranny being metered out by a cadre of brownshirt "community support officers" that now patrol British cities harassing citizens."
Posted by: Guess What | 2008-05-09 1:42:46 PM
deepblue: "...this is the future of Canada, and Canadian law?"
Yeah, that occurred to me too and, frankly, it scares the He** out of me. These so-called articling lawyers were extremely ignorant (both in manners and in lack of knowledge), arrogant, and bloody entitled--the legacy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his "enlightened" purge of Canada of anything-but-Judeo-Christian-and-British, which began in the late '60s.
We've replaced learning and politesse with sloganeering, jeering, shouting, and I'm-better-than-you-because-I'm-"multicultural"--meaning, of course, that I'm from away, I'm not a British descendant, and nor am I a Christian.
This cultural bullying, championed by our HRCs and their bloated, tax-funded bureaucracies, is ironic in the extreme, seeing as the only reason the come-from-aways want to live in Canada is because of the democratic freedoms we--and they--enjoy, based completely on the institutions whose roots lie deep within Judeo-Christian principles and values which they eschew.
Sadly, the spiritual depletion of our populace makes it next to impossible for most Canadians to discern what's actually happening right under their noses.
Thank God for the Mark Steyns, Kate MacMillans, Kathy Shaidles, Ezra Levants, and Fourniers, a thin I-don't-know-what-colour line between total insanity in "the deranged Dominion" (Mark Steyn's wonderfully apt appellation for Sad Canada) and common sense, which tells us we need to wake up fast and put an end to special tribunals for special-interest groups.
No more. And not one penny more of our tax dollars should be spent on the dismantling of the democratic institutions in Canada for which our fathers and grandfathers fought.
That's another thing that struck me: These upstarts and their families have done very little in the way of contributing to our country--certainly not in the establishing of our democratic institutions, nor in the fight for freedom during WWII--so who the **** do they think they are to be telling us how to live our lives.
Posted by: batb | 2008-05-09 4:07:52 PM
"Sadly, the spiritual depletion of our populace makes it next to impossible for most Canadians to discern what's actually happening right under their noses."
Like if only people that have a high spiritual life are able to recognize special religious behaviours or political glitches...
It's because of that kind of mentality that we're going nowhere.
Take Québec for example.
We're doing condos with our churches and in the same time, we're not affraid of adressing those questions properly, publictly and with honesty.
People here have stopped going to churches so it's certainly not for returning to middle ages.
Again, if you're not affraid of saying what's acceptable and what's not, everybody will benifit from it. Except maybe for the radicals from every corners; but then who cares ?
Those three are wrong to attack Stein's opinion simply because everyone should have the right to say whatever they want. It was the case when I was younger.
In the same time, I agree that Maclain's should give them a tribune so they can answer and give their side of the story.
This said, taking legal actions against the magazine for that reason...sounds like a joke.
It remembers me of when René Angelil sued local radio hosts for making fun of Celine. The story didnt went far since the entire province started to laugh at him.
There should be laws against legal actions taken on ridiculous motives.
M'am,
Since your request was that dumb, we, the Court, condemn you to pay Justice Canada the amount of 10 000 dollars.
Since it's your first offence we let you go for this time but I don't want to see you again until you have something serious to present.
Good day.
*
h2,
"No. Some posters do this."
Ur funny.
(It was sold and revamped for that reason.)
Posted by: Marc | 2008-05-09 5:18:33 PM
Marc,
"(It was sold and revamped for that reason.)"
Ur funnier.
Ur also part of the problem.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-05-09 5:54:54 PM
r u gonna sue me ?
Posted by: Marc | 2008-05-09 6:05:50 PM
Marc,
I'm sure the various HRCs can find out your IP address and take it from there. Sad isn't it?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-05-09 6:15:02 PM
For "negative generalization of an identifiable group" ?
This is my real name I'm posting.
I'm waiting for all of you!
Posted by: Marc | 2008-05-10 3:00:25 AM
Marc
"This is my real name I'm posting."
And you are the only Marc on the internet, I guess. You are so brave.
Besides, h2o273kk9 is my real name. Why would I lie? Could you tell if I were?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-05-10 6:00:21 AM
Marc
"For "negative generalization of an identifiable group" ?
Isn't that the complaint behind the HRC attack on Steyn and MacLean's? Or did they rob and rape somebody?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-05-10 6:01:46 AM
water dog:
Have you been following the Halifax Chronicle story?
The Islamic complainants say that a cartoon insults all 1.8 bililon Muslims around the world.
It's a similar technique to what's being used against Steyn and Macleans ... identity politics.
My take on it is that an overwhelming majority of Muslims would object to being lumped into a bigger tribe. It's the old ‘insult me and you insult all my brothers.'
Somehow, I doubt if all 1.8 billon Muslims in the world are insulted.
I'm quite certain the vast majority of Muslims are embarrassed to be dragged into the debate.
I base that opinion on a BBC program I recently saw out of Doha, Qatar, in which one panellists stated that only 2% of the world's Muslims purport to extremism.
I believe those Muslims.
It's simply not true that the majority of Muslims would agree with violent jihadism.
Identity politics? The percentage may be a bit higher.
Bottom-line is that Muslims themselves have to speak out about the stupidity of the HRC actions, both against Steyn/Macleans and the new case against the Halifax Chronicle cartoonists.
Macleod, where are you on this topic?
Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-10 12:30:48 PM
Two percent of 1.8B is how many? Why don't the other 98% put them in their place and ensure that the world is a peaceful place? Intimidation and the Koran?
Posted by: DML | 2008-05-10 6:38:52 PM
Two percent of 1.8B is how many? Why don't the other 98% put them in their place and ensure that the world is a peaceful place? Intimidation and the Koran?
Posted by: DML | 2008-05-10 6:38:53 PM
I think 2% is a bit low. Just in Canada a survey showed 14% with extremist views last year. Also of those 86% that are moderate...well let's just say that if Israel is brought up and or the USA, the extremist view goes way up.
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-05-10 7:39:33 PM
So the accepted figures are that between 2% and 14% are extremist, and the rest are supposed to be "moderates"??
what is a "Moderate" anyway??
Mark Steyn once said "there were plenty of German Moderates during WWll, but a fat lot of good they did us"...
I don't buy this whole "moderate" thing at all. I'd feel a lot better if muslims decided to actively and openly clean house and take out the garbage.
If there are so many moderates opposed to extremism, I'd love to see a little proof. It'd make me feel a bit better.
As it is, I have no where to turn when my feelings are hurt, as I don't think any of the HRC's would give me the time of day.
Posted by: Steve | 2008-05-10 10:12:53 PM
Steve:
The HRC brings comfort to nobody.
As Steyn said on the Stromboloupolous show, the solution is for everybody to develop a thicker skin and Western cultures understand that better than anybody.
Christians have already learned this as ‘artists' try more and more radical things to try and ‘offend' them and try to get a reaction to which they can say “see, look how angry they are."
If you go to the Steyn, there's a link to a Rabble (Babble) thread in which an Iranian quite clearly pointed out how Iran stifled free speech. The writer also pointed out that the CIC does not speak for all Muslims. Neither does the Canadian Arabic Council.
So, for the Halifax complainant to say that a cartoon insulted all 1.8 million Muslims in the world is a totally absurd statement and it is being pointed out as such by other Muslims.
These guys are putting on a cloak, in which they purport to speak for a much larger following than they actually have.
Once they're culled out of the pack and it's shown those opinions represent their own individual opinions, that's when progress will be made and these jackasses silenced.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-10 10:32:20 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.