Flagrant Attack on Freedom of the Press

[jefferiah]

J

Nevertheless, there IS a difference. It's all about words...

In your case you used a much much harsher example than anything Mr. Steyn said. You take a sentence out the whole where he uses Islam as a general term and yet his writings do not asser the idea that all Muslims are part of a conspiracy. It's common to make general statements. People do it everyday. It should not become a criminal act simply because you are actively trying to interpret it that way.

Do you think everyone who says something in a generalized way should be legally liable? Like when someone for instance talks about Quebeckers or Christians and sometimes forgets to mention that they mean a certain segment of those groups. That would be quite ridiculouse. It is nice and considerate to make sure you say those things clearly, but when you fail to I think it is far from a criminal act. And given the entirety of Steyn's article I think he makes it very clear, despite your pretzel like contortions to twist it into the new "Protocols".

Now back to what Kuzadd said...

She said that most christians are willing to kill to fulfill their sick fantasies. Here she goes out of her way to say its not some radical faction of Christianity. She says most. And she is basically making them out to be a criminal threat. Do you think that she should be legally liable to anyone who is offended by this? I would certainly say that this exceeds, in its harsheness, what Mr. Steyn said in his article.

Edited December 13, 2007 by jefferiah

[Michael Hardner]

J,

In your case you used a much much harsher example than anything Mr. Steyn said. You take a sentence out the whole where he uses Islam as a general term and yet his writings do not asser the idea that all Muslims are part of a conspiracy. It's common to make general statements. People do it everyday. It should not become a criminal act simply because you are actively trying to interpret it that way.

It doesn't matter if I used a harsher example, as I wasn't talking about Mr. Steyn's piece at that point. I was responding to this assertion of yours:

You are being ridiculous again. What difference does it make if he says radical Islam or all of Islam.

To say that there's no difference in the terminology, from a legal perspective, in indeed ridiculous.

Should it be illegal ?

Let's go through this methodologically.

Question one: Should any hate literature be illegal or not ?

If the answer is 'yes' then how do you define it ?

Do you think everyone who says something in a generalized way should be legally liable? Like when someone for instance talks about Quebeckers or Christians and sometimes forgets to mention that they mean a certain segment of those groups. That would be quite ridiculouse. It is nice and considerate to make sure you say those things clearly, but when you fail to I think it is far from a criminal act. And given the entirety of Steyn's article I think he makes it very clear, despite your pretzel like contortions to twist it into the new "Protocols".

The entirety of the article serves to vilify Muslims and make them appear, on the whole, entirely subhuman.

Now back to what Kuzadd said...

She said that most christians are willing to kill to fulfill their sick fantasies. Here she goes out of her way to say its not some radical faction of Christianity. She says most. And she is basically making them out to be a criminal threat. Do you think that she should be legally liable to anyone who is offended by this? I would certainly say that this exceeds, in its harsheness, what Mr. Steyn said in his article.

No I don't think that she should be legally liable to anyone who is offended by it, because being offended as I have said many times has nothing to do with this. I don't think Steyn's piece should be looked into because it is offensive either.

If you restate the question to remove the reference to being offended, then we might have something to discuss.

Thanks,

[JerrySeinfeld]

Better question:

Is it hate literature if it's true?

[jefferiah]

J,

It doesn't matter if I used a harsher example, as I wasn't talking about Mr. Steyn's piece at that point. I was responding to this assertion of yours:

To say that there's no difference in the terminology, from a legal perspective, in indeed ridiculous.

Yes, there is no difference, because for one what he was saying was not as harsh as what you were saying. You say that does not matter. But you are being completely thick in the head. For instance if someone said Muslims are all nice people, would you have them charged with a hate crime, for making such a broad generalization? Now you keep asserting that because in a sentence here and there he says Islam and not radical Islam that this means he is asserting some global conspiracy involving every single muslim. I don't think you even believe yourself, Mr. Hardner. I know that no one here gets that idea from his article, since in other places he clearly points out the distincition between radical islam and islam.

Should it be illegal ?

Let's go through this methodologically.

Question one: Should any hate literature be illegal or not ?

The only case where it should be illegal is if there is a direct command to violence.

[jefferiah]

No I don't think that she should be legally liable to anyone who is offended by it, because being offended as I have said many times has nothing to do with this. I don't think Steyn's piece should be looked into because it is offensive either.

If you restate the question to remove the reference to being offended, then we might have something to discuss.

Ah but you understand that unless one is offended (or is trying hard to be offended) it is unlikely that one will file a human rights charge. Now once someone does that it would be up to you as a Human Rights Commissioner to decide whether there are grounds for the case.

You said that Steyn paints all Muslims in a bad way. You supply a few statements with the broad term "Islam". You say that there is no excuse for that generalization (which are commonplace things), even in light of the fact that throughout his writing he makes it clear that he is referring to a certain demographic within the very large demographic of Islam.

Now Kuzadd's own statement refers to a broad group---Christians. And in no way can you say it was simply a broad general slip up amongst other things, because she did not clarify it elsewhere. In fact, she said "most Christians". Personally I think she should not be liable either. But according to the standard you are applying here, in your own view she most definitely should be as equally deserving of investigation as you say Mr. Steyn is.

[Moxie]

Personally I consider the complaint with the HRC to be a constitutional issue, we are suppose to be allowed freedom of expression. There was no hatred or call to violence in the quotes at Maclains, none. Yet a political arm of Islam is using our socialist nanny system to silence any voice that speaks out against Radical Islam and Political Islam.

Here's an article that details what Polical Islam is doing, surprise it's happening in socialist England also.

Link; http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/rogerkimbal...g_soon_to_a.php

Snippet: Last summer, Cambridge University Press announced that it would pulp all unsold copies of its 2006 book Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World by Robert O. Collins, a professor emeritus of history at the University of California, and J. Millard Burr, a retired employee of the State Department. Why? Becuase Khalid bin Mahfouz, a Saudi banker, filed a libel claim to quash the book. According to a story in The Chronicle for Higher Education , Cambridge instantly capitulated, paid “substantial damages” to Mr. Mahfouz, and even went so far as to contact university libraries worldwide to ask them to remove the book from their shelves. They seem to have been successful in their request: I have searched high and low for the book in academic libraries and public libraries and have found that, although it is listed as “not checked out,” it is nowhere to be found.

Suppressing books he doesn’t like seems to be a hobby of Mr. Mahfouz’s. His web site lists successful actions against three other books Reaping the Whirlwind: The Taliban Movement in Afghanistan, Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for Bin Laden and Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed—and How to Stop It. As Robert Spencer explained in The Washington Times, one notable feature of Mr. Mahfouz’s legal actions is that he has sued various American authors in Britain, where libel laws favor the plaintiff.

Britain’s libel laws have given rise to the phenomenon of wealthy “libel tourists,” who sue there on the slimmest British connection [e.g., the fact that a book may be available through Amazon.com] in order to ensure a favorable ruling. Mr. bin Mahfouz had the good fortune of having the case heard by Judge David Eady, who has a long history of strange rulings in libel cases — rulings that generally ran in favor of censorship and against free speech. In connection with another of these rulings in May 2007

Continued at link above.

[Michael Hardner]

J,

Yes, there is no difference, because for one what he was saying was not as harsh as what you were saying. You say that does not matter. But you are being completely thick in the head. For instance if someone said Muslims are all nice people, would you have them charged with a hate crime, for making such a broad generalization? Now you keep asserting that because in a sentence here and there he says Islam and not radical Islam that this means he is asserting some global conspiracy involving every single muslim. I don't think you even believe yourself, Mr. Hardner. I know that no one here gets that idea from his article, since in other places he clearly points out the distincition between radical islam and islam.

...

The only case where it should be illegal is if there is a direct command to violence.

Good for you for stating exactly where you expect the line to be drawn. I would draw the line in a different place, and I think that's at the root of our disagreement. For if you draw the line where I draw it , basically at the place where the writer is trying to dehumanize an entire race, then words like "all" or "very" are indeed important.

You've given me something to think about.

Ah but you understand that unless one is offended (or is trying hard to be offended) it is unlikely that one will file a human rights charge. Now once someone does that it would be up to you as a Human Rights Commissioner to decide whether there are grounds for the case.

You said that Steyn paints all Muslims in a bad way. You supply a few statements with the broad term "Islam". You say that there is no excuse for that generalization (which are commonplace things), even in light of the fact that throughout his writing he makes it clear that he is referring to a certain demographic within the very large demographic of Islam.

Now Kuzadd's own statement refers to a broad group---Christians. And in no way can you say it was simply a broad general slip up amongst other things, because she did not clarify it elsewhere. In fact, she said "most Christians". Personally I think she should not be liable either. But according to the standard you are applying here, in your own view she most definitely should be as equally deserving of investigation as you say Mr. Steyn is.

I don't think that 'being offended' is or should be material in the question.

As for the comment against Christians, I have the same principle on these things for any religion and on various boards I have engaged in debates with liberals who have Christian-bashed. Hopefully, that should explain my position on that.

[jefferiah]

J,

Good for you for stating exactly where you expect the line to be drawn. I would draw the line in a different place, and I think that's at the root of our disagreement. For if you draw the line where I draw it , basically at the place where the writer is trying to dehumanize an entire race, then words like "all" or "very" are indeed important.

You've given me something to think about.

I don't think that 'being offended' is or should be material in the question.

As for the comment against Christians, I have the same principle on these things for any religion and on various boards I have engaged in debates with liberals who have Christian-bashed. Hopefully, that should explain my position on that.

No but the primary reason for someone to launch a complaint is offence. But it is your job not to determine a person's reason for the charge but whether or not the act was a crime. Here Kuzadd provides you with all the elements needed to make a case according to your own standards. She refers to a group. Not only does she make a broad generalized statement which could be taken either way, but she outright says "most" Christians, and she implicates them as dangerous people. Therefore she could be charged with spreading hatred about a group according to your own standard.

In Steyn's case he continually mentions that he is only referring to one specific demographic that exists in the minority within the entire demographic of Islam.

And you keep arguing about this statement, or this choice of words, etc etc. Don't you see how ridiculous that is? Do you think that the future of freedom of speech should be determined with semantic debates over the shading of this word or that word? Don't you see how bloody painstaking that is, and how it is apt to result in more frivolous cases than cases where justice is services. Well because he used this word as opposed to this word in this statement and put a plural possessive noun here and a preposition over here, well then he is a criminal. Cmon, Mike.

[jefferiah]

For if you draw the line where I draw it , basically at the place where the writer is trying to dehumanize an entire race, then words like "all" or "very" are indeed important.

Yes and that is ridiculous. And he did not use the word "all". Do you think "very" should be made criminal? For crying out loud man!

He did not try to dehumanize an entire race. First off, Islam is not a race. Secondly, he continually makes reference to the fact that he is only talking about a certain faction of Islam. If he uses the word Islam in some cases without the word "radical" in front of it, it still does not change the meaning. Now come on do we have to start having laws where we nitpick people's opinion columns to see there choice of words or if they forget to name which subsect they are referring to in every single sentence. Puh-lease. His article does nothing to further hatred of Islam. Seriously I have read it. No one takes it that way. You seem to, by conveniently twisting it to say something it doesn't, but I dont think you even believe that. These human rights charges are doing a great deal though to further the hatred of Islam.

[Michael Hardner]

J,

No but the primary reason for someone to launch a complaint is offence. But it is your job not to determine a person's reason for the charge but whether or not the act was a crime. Here Kuzadd provides you with all the elements needed to make a case according to your own standards. She refers to a group. Not only does she make a broad generalized statement which could be taken either way, but she outright says "most" Christians, and she implicates them as dangerous people. Therefore she could be charged with spreading hatred about a group according to your own standard.

She qualified Christians by saying 'most' which Steyn didn't do.

As I said already - " I have the same principle on these things for any religion".

In Steyn's case he continually mentions that he is only referring to one specific demographic that exists in the minority within the entire demographic of Islam.

And you keep arguing about this statement, or this choice of words, etc etc. Don't you see how ridiculous that is? Do you think that the future of freedom of speech should be determined with semantic debates over the shading of this word or that word? Don't you see how bloody painstaking that is, and how it is apt to result in more frivolous cases than cases where justice is services. Well because he used this word as opposed to this word in this statement and put a plural possessive noun here and a preposition over here, well then he is a criminal. Cmon, Mike.

No, I don't. Words have meaning, and there is no way of getting over that cleanly.

I could frame this so you yourself would have to get tripped up by your own definition.

You think that a call to violence constitutes hate literature.

What if it's an implied call to violence ? What if the violence is referred to metaphorically ? What if someone simply quotes a snippet of scripture that implies that certain people should be killed ?

Is that hate literature ?

Unfortunately since literature is just words, by definition, you and I will have to deal with interpreting them.

[Michael Hardner]

J,

Yes and that is ridiculous. And he did not use the word "all". Do you think "very" should be made criminal? For crying out loud man!

See my quote above.

Try this one:

Some Irish get what is coming to them. Some Irish deserve what is coming to them. Some Irish deserve to be killed. Some Irish should be killed. The Irish should be killed. Kill the Irish. Kill the Irish wherever you can find them.

He did not try to dehumanize an entire race. First off, Islam is not a race. Secondly, he continually makes reference to the fact that he is only talking about a certain faction of Islam. If he uses the word Islam in some cases without the word "radical" in front of it, it still does not change the meaning. Now come on do we have to start having laws where we nitpick people's opinion columns to see there choice of words or if they forget to name which subsect they are referring to in every single sentence. Puh-lease. His article does nothing to further hatred of Islam. Seriously I have read it. No one takes it that way. You seem to, by conveniently twisting it to say something it doesn't, but I dont think you even believe that. These human rights charges are doing a great deal though to further the hatred of Islam.

I'm not twisting it. I'm talking about whether this is hate literature, and unfortunately as wording and phrasing does matter in figuring out how it could be interpreted.

[jefferiah]

Some Irish deserve what is coming to them. Some Irish deserve to be killed. Some Irish should be killed. The Irish should be killed. Kill the Irish. Kill the Irish wherever you can find them.

Lol Mr. Hardner you keep outdoing yourself in pretzel-like contorting. You must be an ace at Twister. Steyn did not say that some Muslims or all Muslims should be killed. Come off it now. He never said anything like that. You are reusing the same pathetic tactic again. What he said was Islam has global ambitions (which is true), and the entirety of his article made it quite clear that he meant only a certain segment adhered to this principle. A certain small segment. That is the meaning the entire article conveys, and it is far cry from saying "most" Muslims are dangerous. You are something else.

So I suppose if his article had consisted of one statement alone, and that statement was "Most Muslims are quite willing to kill in the name of Islam," you would consider it acceptable then.

Edited December 14, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

You think that a call to violence constitutes hate literature.

What if it's an implied call to violence ? What if the violence is referred to metaphorically ? What if someone simply quotes a snippet of scripture that implies that certain people should be killed ?

No not exactly, there are already laws against inciting violence. But what is this about an "implied" call to violence. That is something now. Are you a mind reader, Mr. Hardner? How are the courts supposed to deal with these "implied" calls to violence? How does one quantify something like that? Yikes, you could people in jail for saying "Good day, Sir" if you thought it implied something. And I think you are the only one who is implying that there is some implied call to violence within that article. No one else seems to get that idea.

[Oleg Bach]

No not exactly, there are already laws against inciting violence. But what is this about an "implied" call to violence. That is something now. Are you a mind reader, Mr. Hardner? How are the courts supposed to deal with these "implied" calls to violence? How does one quantify something like that? Yikes, you could people in jail for saying "Good day, Sir" if you thought it implied something. And I think you are the only one who is implying that there is some implied call to violence within that article. No one else seems to get that idea.

The press is totally controled. I knew the son of a well know journalist..he went into the buisness of writing. He dropped out and he said to me "They will not print the truth" - same as the Canadian versions of that pill gobbling nut Rush Limbauh - who will say just about any thing to earn a living...will also say anything - and if a radio talk guy mentions that Bush and his minions are like Hilter - and suddenly his counter parts the neo-con mouth pieces will scream as if the very name of Jesus the Christ was being blasphemed - protecting a misfit American president - and Lord Black the honoray Judiac that formed middle east policy via the Jerusalem Post...lied to the world and put silly editorials into the mouths of the Jews...but ironically Mr.Greenspan punished Conrad for journalistic offences by selling him out during his trial - there is no freedom of the press when you have rule not by committee but by singular power hogs such as Black who now sufferers for his offence against Israel - and if you look at photos of Greenspan - you can see - the relief on his face that Black is now out of commission - for the mayhem this Napoleonic hobbist caused in Israel.

[Michael Hardner]

JEff,

Lol laugh.gif Mr. Hardner you keep outdoing yourself in pretzel-like contorting. You must be an ace at Twister. Steyn did not say that some Muslims or all Muslims should be killed.

No he didn't say that.

Come off it now. He never said anything like that. You are reusing the same pathetic tactic again. What he said was Islam has global ambitions (which is true), and the entirety of his article made it quite clear that he meant only a certain segment adhered to this principle. A certain small segment. That is the meaning the entire article conveys, and it is far cry from saying "most" Muslims are dangerous. You are something else.

So I suppose if his article had consisted of one statement alone, and that statement was "Most Muslims are quite willing to kill in the name of Islam," you would consider it acceptable then.

You're jumping to conclusions.

What I would like you to try to do is tell me:

"Some Irish get what is coming to them. Some Irish deserve what is coming to them. Some Irish deserve to be killed. Some Irish should be killed. The Irish should be killed. Kill the Irish. Kill the Irish wherever you can find them."

Which of those quotes are hate speech and which are not ?

[Michael Hardner]

Jeff,

So I suppose if his article had consisted of one statement alone, and that statement was "Most Muslims are quite willing to kill in the name of Islam," you would consider it acceptable then.

Well, that one DOES put me in a pretzel. Not acceptable, but not illegal either...

[Michael Hardner]

Jeff,

No not exactly, there are already laws against inciting violence. But what is this about an "implied" call to violence. That is something now. Are you a mind reader, Mr. Hardner? How are the courts supposed to deal with these "implied" calls to violence? How does one quantify something like that? Yikes, you could people in jail for saying "Good day, Sir" if you thought it implied something. And I think you are the only one who is implying that there is some implied call to violence within that article. No one else seems to get that idea.

Enough of these silly jabs.

These are your very words:

And you keep arguing about this statement, or this choice of words, etc etc. Don't you see how ridiculous that is? Do you think that the future of freedom of speech should be determined with semantic debates over the shading of this word or that word? Don't you see how bloody painstaking that is, and how it is apt to result in more frivolous cases than cases where justice is services. Well because he used this word as opposed to this word in this statement and put a plural possessive noun here and a preposition over here, well then he is a criminal.

Now, tell me which of these sentences are hate speech and which are not without evaluating semantics and wording:

Some Irish deserve what is coming to them. Some Irish deserve to be killed. Some Irish should be killed. The Irish should be killed. Kill the Irish. Kill the Irish wherever you can find them.

YOU CAN'T DO IT.

If you accept the idea that some speech is 'hate speech' then you have to accept that semantics will have to be analyzed at some point.

[jefferiah]

Jeff,

Well, that one DOES put me in a pretzel. Not acceptable, but not illegal either...

Oh please. Kuzadd's quote was far worse than saying Islam has global ambitions.

[jefferiah]

If you accept the idea that some speech is 'hate speech' then you have to accept that semantics will have to be analyzed at some point.

Well I dont accept hate speech. The only case would be a direct call to violence in which case there are already laws against inciting violence anyway. Steyn did not make a direct call to violence. If he says Islam has global ambitions, or radical Islam has global ambitions is immaterial. Neither are a call to violence. Your Irish example is close to a call to violence, but even this falls short. It is not a command to kill the Irish but someone expressing the opinion that they should be.

And your Irish example is ridiculous. You've tried it before with something else. And I pointed this out to you. Because what you said about the Irish was definitely much harsher than anything Steyn said. You said harshness does not matter. So then according to your standard if one said all Irish people are very nice, then they would be guilty of a hate crime.

Edited December 14, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

If you accept the idea that some speech is 'hate speech' then you have to accept that semantics will have to be analyzed at some point.

When I spoke of semantics I was referring to the fact that you read Mr. Steyn's mind and said that he was shading words in a certain way. Or choosing statements that could possibly be taken in two ways. That is when semantics go to far Mr. Hardner. And as if that is not enough you bring up this "implied call to violence". Basically when a person in no way makes any call to violence you expect the law to intuitively divine these implied calls to violence. As far as I am concerned Mr. Steyn did not make any implied call to violence.

Mr. Hardner, I am sorry, but I am resting my case. You can argue with the wall if you like. I am sure even it has the brains to disagree with you. Your unreasonable comparisons to things like "Kill all the Irish" or turning Mr. Steyn's article into some anti-Islamic version of the "Protocols of The Elder of Zion" are out of this world.

I urge anyone here who agrees with what I am saying (whether you be Muslim, Jew, Christian or whatever) and does not like Mr. Hardner's and the CIC's version of free speech to sign the petition at:

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/a-free...t-the-hrcs.html

Edited December 14, 2007 by jefferiah

[Michael Hardner]

Jefferiah:

QUOTE(Michael Hardner @ Dec 13 2007, 10:29 PM) *

If you accept the idea that some speech is 'hate speech' then you have to accept that semantics will have to be analyzed at some point.

Well I dont accept hate speech. The only case would be a direct call to violence in which case there are already laws against inciting violence anyway. Steyn did not make a direct call to violence. If he says Islam has global ambitions, or radical Islam has global ambitions is immaterial. Neither are a call to violence. Your Irish example is close to a call to violence, but even this falls short. It is not a command to kill the Irish but someone expressing the opinion that they should be.

"Some Irish get what is coming to them. Some Irish deserve what is coming to them. Some Irish deserve to be killed. Some Irish should be killed. The Irish should be killed. Kill the Irish. Kill the Irish wherever you can find them."

??? Read the last two sentences ???

And your Irish example is ridiculous. You've tried it before with something else. And I pointed this out to you. Because what you said about the Irish was definitely much harsher than anything Steyn said. You said harshness does not matter. So then according to your standard if one said all Irish people are very nice, then they would be guilty of a hate crime.

You are missing the point entirely. I'm not using this example to compare what Steyn is saying to a call to violence.

I'm speaking to your criticism of parsing words and syntax to derive the meaning. You seem to think it's a ridiculous exercise, yet you believe the very same things I do. If we were arguing about a more strongly worded sentence, you would be doing the same pretzel dance that you find so ridiculous.

So then, what is ridiculous about it ?

I guess if you don't think "Kill the Irish wherever you can find them." is a direct call to violence....

[Michael Hardner]

J,

When I spoke of semantics I was referring to the fact that you read Mr. Steyn's mind and said that he was shading words in a certain way. Or choosing statements that could possibly be taken in two ways. laugh.gif That is when semantics go to far Mr. Hardner. And as if that is not enough you bring up this "implied call to violence". Basically when a person in no way makes any call to violence you expect the law to intuitively divine these implied calls to violence. As far as I am concerned Mr. Steyn did not make any implied call to violence.

Mr. Hardner, I am sorry, but I am resting my case. You can argue with the wall if you like. I am sure even it has the brains to disagree with you. Your unreasonable comparisons to things like "Kill all the Irish" or turning Mr. Steyn's article into some anti-Islamic version of the "Protocols of The Elder of Zion" are out of this world.

I urge anyone here who agrees with what I am saying (whether you be Muslim, Jew, Christian or whatever) and does not like Mr. Hardner's and the CIC's version of free speech to sign the petition at:

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/a-free...t-the-hrcs.html

I believe that Steyn is intelligent enough, and a good enough writer to realize how his words appear, how close they are to courting complaints, and what they mean to others.

Too bad you're leaving this thread before I get my answer, but I'll sum up my point thusly:

All the hyperbole and chest-beating about "freedom of speech" and so forth falls hallow when you realize that we both believe the same thing, only we draw the line differently. If I published a paper that said "Kill all Muslims NOW", you apparently would be against Freedom of the Press too.

There's no point in either one of us being high and mighty (or in your parlance for you to get "offended") because I draw the line a few feet away from where you draw it. Furthermore, I defer to Canadian law in this matter, and do not expect more or less censorship than the courts would apply.

Your complaint is with our legal system, so your petition is the right way to go.

Good luck.

[jefferiah]

J,

I believe that Steyn is intelligent enough, and a good enough writer to realize how his words appear, how close they are to courting complaints, and what they mean to others.

Yes, and they certainly don't appear to be a call to violence to me. They appear to you this way.

There is a point at which parsing words and syntax becomes less about searching for the truth, Mr. Hardner, and more about being over-analytical.

[Michael Hardner]

I s'pose so...

Maybe it's not all that bad after all...

Let's see what happens...

[jbg]

In a flagrant attack on freedom of the press, the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) has filed three human rights complaints against Maclean's magazine and its editor-in-chief, Kenneth Whyte, accusing them of spreading "hatred and contempt" for Muslims, by publishing an article by Mark Steyn on Oct. 23, 2006, entitled The Future Belongs to Islam.

The Muslims have chosen to live in a free society. They are free to choose to leave if they cannot bear its rigors.