Steyn on the future of Western society

[DogOnPorch]

Fair enough re: Spencer. While I find some of his stuff is rather compelling, it is presented in such a way that one feels he/she should be choosing sides. This is why I prefer 'hacks' like Pat Condell when it comes to commentary on 'radical' Islam. He isn't selling a book.

Curious. Did you watch Steyn and the three Muslim law students video listed at the start of this thread?

Personally, I think the three are grasping at straws re: Steyn = Hate Speech.

Do you really think that's the mission in Iraq? Conversion to Christianity? Or are you just pulling my leg?

------------------------------------------------------

If Steyn is even remotely right in his predictions, two bad things will happen. First, he will become even more insufferable than he is now...

---David McKie, "The Guardian"

[White Doors]

BD, if you read the book which you admit you have not you would be aware that Steyn makes no assertion that Muslims birthrate will remain unchanged, he merely states they will be coming down after the western birthrates.

Overall, the issue with Islam is not with the relgion, the issue with it is that it is really also a constitution.

That's the whole problem in a nutshell. Political Islam is less compatible to western values than communism was.

The whle point Steyn was making was that western democracies need to stand up and maintain their liberal constitutions, not make new rules for radical islam to pretend to be hyper PC.

And ironcally, look where he is at now.

I think anyone who is concerned about the future of the west and freedom of speech in particular, should be very concerned with the efficiency of the human rights tribunals of overturning 800 years of our legal heritage because the PC cause du jour get 'hurt feelings'.

The problem is not them - it is us.

[August1991]

I'm curious: if civil unrest carried out by poor and disenfranchised youths in the ghettos of Sweden and France are evidence of a global Muslim conspiracy, what conspiracy was behind the riots by poor and disenfranchised youths in the ghettos of Harlem, Watts and Chicago in the 1960s?

To ask that question is almost to fall into Steyn's forecasted world.

Where are relations between blacks and White Americans? And what do places like south Boston or the Bronx or downtown Detroit look like in 2008?

More critically, given Steyn's assumptions, what are birth rates among blacks and whites in America? (From what I know, black mothers are on average younger and more single but otherwise they are similar.)

----

IMV, Steyn raises good questions that deserve reflection. It is unfortunate that political correctness simply dismisses out of hand many of his questions. However one slices it, the western world does face an impending demographic change. Labour statistics already show what's happening if not a simple walk on a downtown street.

The West also faces serious questions - as it has in the past - about what constitute "western values". In the past, white Europeans colonized much of the world. Nowadays, we send NGOs and aid workers to train the locals. It seems that 19th century missionaries achieved better their task of spreading western values.

As to your point BD, that the Muslim world is not monolithic, the Left's references to the "Muslim street" or the "Palestinian cause" certainly seem monolithic or solidaire. Supposedly, Americans "provoked" this reaction from a single entity, the Muslim world.

More precisely however and closer to my thinking, a small percentage of idiots started the Lebanese Civil War. A small percentage of Muslim idiots could provoke a similar war in the West. Sarajevo was reduced to Beirut in a few years. We have to find a way to resolve this problem before it gets more serious.

[HisSelf]

Another great quote - this one from Steyn though:

"Canadians grow up as the world's biggest "observer culture"

He says that the 49th parallel operates as the world's biggest store window, with Canadians looking in.

Again, I'm pleased to find out that he is such an insightful wit and that I still disagree with him.

This is hugely amusing. So what would happen if somebody were to publish a book saying that Jews were taking over the world and backed it up with specious data like Steyn did?

Steyn is an idiot. This too shall pass.

[August1991]

Steyn is an idiot. This too shall pass.

Thus speaketh the political correctness.

The Oracle Has Spoken.

[HisSelf]

Thus speaketh the political correctness.

The Oracle Has Spoken.

What can I say? Steyn's 'facts' have been shown to be specious by no less a light than BNN. If he had written a book saying that Jews were taking over the world with this kind of 'evidence' he would be roundly condemned.

[DogOnPorch]

What can I say? Steyn's 'facts' have been shown to be specious by no less a light than BNN. If he had written a book saying that Jews were taking over the world with this kind of 'evidence' he would be roundly condemned.

So censorship, then?

-----------------------------------

The cloud of smug over South Park develops, and begins to combine with that of San Francisco. McFriendly then reveals that the cloud of smug from George Clooney's 78th Academy Awards acceptance speech — which claimed that Hollywood was "ahead of the curve" on social issues — will soon drift into the center of the "super cell" and create "the perfect storm of self-satisfaction"...

---South Park: Smug Alert!

[bush_cheney2004]

So censorship, then?

Yes...but not in the United States...the NYT wades in on the Steyn flap:

"What we're learning here is really the bedrock difference between the United States and the countries that are in a broad sense its legal cousins," Steyn added. "Western governments are becoming increasingly comfortable with the regulation of opinion. The First Amendment really does distinguish the U.S., not just from Canada but from the rest of the Western world."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/11/ame...hate.php?page=3

[Peter F]

Overall, the issue with Islam is not with the relgion, the issue with it is that it is really also a constitution.

That's the whole problem in a nutshell. Political Islam is less compatible to western values than communism was.

The whle point Steyn was making was that western democracies need to stand up and maintain their liberal constitutions, not make new rules for radical islam to pretend to be hyper PC.

If Political Islam is incompatible with western values (I agree, by the way) in the way communism is, I must ask 'so what'?. We allow communist party's to exist and run for seats in parliament; we allow the Marxist-Leninist party to exist and run for parliament; we allow the Christian Heritage party to exist and run for parliament; we allow many partys whose outlook and/or political aims are inconsistant with Western liberal constitutions.

Why should we treat any future "Islamic" party (as yet there are no such party's in canada as far as I know) any different?

As far as I understand Western Liberal values, we allow people to have a political voice.

So if Mr.Steyn is pointing out that "western democracies need to stand up and maintain thier liberal constitutions" then the question is: what is not being maintained that needs standing up for?

On the other hand, it is may be that some future "Islamic" proponents will not seek change through the political system but seek thier political goals through the use of violence. What is the west not doing that Mr. Steyn believes it should be doing to deal with that?

We have passed laws that specifically address "terrorism", that allow the police to arrest and detain suspected individuals without the usual processes. The government has been spending large amounts of cash over the last few years to increase our security capabilities.

So what doe's Mr.Steyn mean? He doesn't say. Apparently our governments are not doing something/s that need be done. But no mention of what those things are.

I beleive Mr.Steyn doesn't explain what 'Stand up' means because he is a typical lily-livered bigot.

I think what he means is to protect our western liberal values and 'stand up', the thing not being done is restricting those of the Muslim faith from immigrating to Canada.

And why? Because Muslims, by virtue of being muslims, are dangerous to our society. There is no differentiation between radical muslims and non-radical muslims...all muslims are radicals and therefore dangerous in that, at the very least, they have many children.

That, I believe is Mr. Steyn's message. If it is not hate (and I believe it is) it is certainly bigotted, and his intent is to convince others in our Western Liberal Democracies to view muslims as a threat..

And ironcally, look where he is at now.

Actually he is right where he was before - no difference. Mr.Steyn is not being dragged before any HRC's nor is he being 'regulated' by the government. He likes to create the impression that the state and bleeding heart liberals are out to get him via the HRC's but it is a lie.

Macleans magazine is being brought to the HRC's for publishing Mr.Steyns articles - and rightly so.

I think anyone who is concerned about the future of the west and freedom of speech in particular, should be very concerned with the efficiency of the human rights tribunals of overturning 800 years of our legal heritage because the PC cause du jour get 'hurt feelings'.

Encouraging the belief that muslims are dangerous pepple and should be treated as dangerous people is encouraging hatred not hurting feelings.

Perhaps HRC's should get dumped. Perhaps not. If so then I fully believe the charges against MacLeans are legitimate and need to be investigated and judged. If not via the HRC's then certainly via the usual courts

The problem is not them - it is us.

Quite so.

[White Doors]

As far as I understand Western Liberal values, we allow people to have a political voice.

So if Mr.Steyn is pointing out that "western democracies need to stand up and maintain thier liberal constitutions" then the question is: what is not being maintained that needs standing up for?

Are you thick? Look at the titleof the thread for starters. Compromising our standards of free speech because some muslims don't like what some guy said about them. They are going to the HRC because they feel 'offended'. Being offended is a fundamental right in western liberal democracies

You could also revisit how Ontario almost brough in Sharia law for civil matters. We need to defend OUR rule of law, not an imported one. If people move here it should be because they like how we are now, not because they want to change us to where they came from, else why would they move in the first place.

[White Doors]

Encouraging the belief that muslims are dangerous pepple and should be treated as dangerous people is encouraging hatred not hurting feelings

I'm assuming you can tell me where this was done in the maclean's excerpt or the book itself?

thanks!

[bush_cheney2004]

...Encouraging the belief that muslims are dangerous pepple and should be treated as dangerous people is encouraging hatred not hurting feelings.

But encouraging the same sentiment about Americans is perfectly OK!

"Damn Americans...I hate those bastards".

[DogOnPorch]

I'm assuming you can tell me where this was done in the maclean's excerpt or the book itself?

thanks!

Here's the article.

-------------------------

In the days after 9/11, we heard innumerable reprises of the lazy leftist trope 'poverty breeds terrorism.' But the Arab world is wealthy. It suffers, as David Pryce-Jones has said, from intellectual poverty.

---Mark Steyn

[Peter F]

Are you thick? Look at the titleof the thread for starters. Compromising our standards of free speech because some muslims don't like what some guy said about them. They are going to the HRC because they feel 'offended'. Being offended is a fundamental right in western liberal democracies

Wrong. They have gone to the HRC because they contend MacLeans published an article that contravenes section 7.1 of the BC Human Rights Code...wich states:

Discriminatory publication

7 (1) A person must not publish, issue or display, or cause to be published, issued or displayed, any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that

a. indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons, or

b. is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt

because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or that group or class of persons.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a private communication or to a communication intended to be private.

So your contention that "They are going to the HRC because they feel 'offended'. Being offended is a fundamental right in western liberal democracies " is a pure and complete figment of your imagination.

The charge isn't that MacLeans 'offended' them but that MacLeans action is illegal under the HR Code.

You could also revisit how Ontario almost brough in Sharia law for civil matters. We need to defend OUR rule of law, not an imported one. If people move here it should be because they like how we are now, not because they want to change us to where they came from, else why would they move in the first place.

Yes, lets revist how Ontario 'almost' brought in Sharia Law....what bill was that again? I can't find any record of the debates in the legislature concerning that bill. Oh! Make no wonder - There weren't any! Thats how perilously close Ontario came to overthrowing the constitution of the country and enacting Sharia law.

Edited June 12, 2008 by Peter F

[Peter F]

But encouraging the same sentiment about Americans is perfectly OK!

"Damn Americans...I hate those bastards".

Of course its not OK. See British Columbia's Human Rights Code.

[White Doors]

Wrong. They have gone to the HRC because they contend MacLeans published an article that contravenes section 7.1 of the BC Human Rights Code...wich states:

So your contention that "They are going to the HRC because they feel 'offended'. Being offended is a fundamental right in western liberal democracies " is a pure and complete figment of your imagination.

The charge isn't that MacLeans 'offended' them but that MacLeans action is illegal under the HR Code.

Yes, lets revist how Ontario 'almost' brought in Sharia Law....what bill was that again? I can't find any record of the debates in the legislature concerning that bill. Oh! Make no wonder - There weren't any! Thats how perilously close Ontario came to overthrowing the constitution of the country and enacting Sharia law.

Exactly, which is why the HRC and the provincial counterparts need to have the sections removed from their acts preventing them from ruling on these manners.

Now, perhaps you can explain to me how the article in macleans which DOP linked for you contravenes this section as it how stands in BC or section 13.1 of the HRC.

Thanks

[Peter F]

I'm assuming you can tell me where this was done in the maclean's excerpt or the book itself?

thanks!

Thanks to Dogonporch for providing the link to the article.

Following are the excerpts from the MacLeans article that is likely to expose Muslims to hatred and/or contempt:

Mr Steyn:

If you'd said that whether something does or does not cause offence to Muslims would be the early 21st century's principal political dynamic in Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and the United Kingdom, most folks would have thought you were crazy. Yet on that Tuesday morning the top of the iceberg bobbed up and toppled the Twin Towers.

Relating Muslims in general to a terrorist attack.

If you were a "moderate Palestinian" leader, would you want to try to persuade a nation -- or pseudo-nation -- of unemployed poorly educated teenage boys raised in a UN-supervised European-funded death cult to see sense?

Moderate Palestinian in quotes - Whats that usually mean? Unemployed poorly educated teenage boys raised in Death Cult

Age + Welfare = Disaster for you;

Youth + Will = Disaster for whoever gets in your way

Islam has youth and will, Europe has age and welfare.

Big government is a national security threat: it increases your vulnerability to threats like Islamism, and makes it less likely you'll be able to summon the will to rebuff it. We should have learned that lesson on Sept. 11, 2001, when big government flopped big-time and the only good news of the day came from the ad hoc citizen militia of Flight 93.

Islamism cannot be rebuffed and if they aren't rebuffed then 9/11 for all.

in the old days, the white man settled the Indian territory. Now the followers of the badland's radical imams settle the metropolis.

By "geopolitical," I mean that, if you think the United Nations and other international organizations are antipathetic to America now, wait a few years and see what kind of support you get from a semi-Islamified Europe.

Muslims hate America.

Europe, like Japan, has catastrophic birth rates and a swollen pampered elderly class determined to live in defiance of economic reality. But the difference is that on the Continent the successor population is already in place and the only question is how bloody the transfer of real estate will be

Bloody transfer as a result of Muslims

If America's "allies" failed to grasp the significance of 9/11, it's because Europe's home-grown terrorism problems had all taken place among notably static populations, such as Ulster and the Basque country.

Signifigance of 9/11 is that Muslims will kill.

But in the same three decades as Ulster's "Troubles," the hitherto moderate Muslim populations of south Asia were radicalized by a politicized form of Islam;

No longer moderate muslims in south Asia - now all radicals

Time for the obligatory "of courses": of course, not all Muslims are terrorists -- though enough are hot for jihad to provide an impressive support network of mosques from Vienna to Stockholm to Toronto to Seattle. Of course, not all Muslims support terrorists -- though enough of them share their basic objectives(the wish to live under Islamic law in Europe and North America)to function wittingly or otherwise as the "good cop" end of an Islamic good cop/bad cop routine.

Mosques are a support network of terrorism. Even the ''not all Muslims are terrorists '' support terrorism by being the good cop in the conquering of the west

at the very minimum, this fast-moving demographic transformation provides a huge comfort zone for the jihad to move around in. And in a more profound way it rationalizes what would otherwise be the nuttiness of the terrorists' demands.

Those muslims who are not terrorists support terrorism nonetheless

An IRA man blows up a pub in defiance of democratic reality -- because he knows that at the ballot box the Ulster Loyalists win the elections and the Irish Republicans lose. When a European jihadist blows something up, that's not in defiance of democratic reality but merely a portent of democratic reality to come. He's jumping the gun, but in every respect things are moving his way.

Muslim violence will be the democratic reality to come

In June 2006, a 54-year-old Flemish train conductor called Guido Demoor got on the Number 23 bus in Antwerp to go to work. Six -- what's that word again? -- "youths" boarded the bus and commenced intimidating the other riders. There were some 40 passengers aboard. But the "youths" were youthful and the other passengers less so. Nonetheless, Mr. Demoor asked the lads to cut it out and so they turned on him, thumping and kicking him. Of those 40 other passengers, none intervened to help the man under attack. Instead, at the next stop, 30 of the 40 scrammed, leaving Mr. Demoor to be beaten to death. Three "youths" were arrested, and proved to be -- quelle surprise! -- of Moroccan origin. The ringleader escaped and, despite police assurances of complete confidentiality, of those 40 passengers only four came forward to speak to investigators. "You see what happens if you intervene," a fellow rail worker told the Belgian newspaper De Morgen. "If Guido had not opened his mouth he would still be alive."

No, he wouldn't. He would be as dead as those 40 passengers are, as the Belgian state is, keeping his head down, trying not to make eye contact, cowering behind his newspaper in the corner seat and hoping just to be left alone. What future in "their" country do Mr. Demoor's two children have?

Again muslims = violence.

In a few years, as millions of Muslim teenagers are entering their voting booths, some European countries will not be living formally under sharia, but -- as much as parts of Nigeria, they will have reached an accommodation with their radicalized Islamic compatriots, who like many intolerant types are expert at exploiting the "tolerance" of pluralist societies

Unlike us, Muslims are intolerant

Wherever one's sympathies lie on Islam's multiple battle fronts the fact is the jihad has held out a long time against very tough enemies. If you're not shy about taking on the Israelis and Russians, why wouldn't you fancy your chances against the Belgians and Spaniards?

Muslims look forward and are willing to enter into violence with the west.

I have said it before, If Mr.Steyn had contented himself with pointing out the demographics and how that will effect our future - who'd complain? Not me. But no. The Bigot Mr.Steyn has to trot out all sorts of bullshit about Muslims are violent people (with some 'obligatory'exceptions) who are, if not terrorists themselves, then certainly working hand in hand with terrorists to achieve the same ends.

This MacLeans article by Mark Steyn "The future belongs to Islam" is laced with hate from beginning to end.

Mark Steyn is a hate-monger. MacLeans should have, and no doubt did, realize it.

[White Doors]

hahahha

He is no hate monger. Your 'conclusions' of what he said leave alot to be desired.

When I said in a post before 'we' are the problem, I should have qualified that. It is people who think like you that are the problem. He is not a racist and not a bigot. If Islam comes to the west and made no demands for changes he would have never made the book as it would have been untrue.

These matters are best left to civil courts where there is already a system to redress libel and slander. They didn't do that because they know what he said is true and therefore it is neither.

Hence, if it is true, it cannot be racist or bigoted.

It can merely be un politically correct. And I agree that it is.

What I don't agree with is the ability of our government to tell us that we must be politically correct.

it's too bad that we have people like you who think this is perfectly ok.

[Peter F]

hahahha

Hence, if it is true, it cannot be racist or bigoted.

It can merely be un politically correct. And I agree that it is.

I rest my case.

[White Doors]

I rest my case.

you are giving up?

or are you saying it is good that we prosecute people for saying un politcally correct things?

If so, what about un-politically correct thoughts?

Should I be prosecuted for looking at a woman's chest? That's not politically correct. Should I be prosecuted?

Edited June 12, 2008 by White Doors

[Peter F]

you are giving up?

or are you saying it is good that we prosecute people for saying un politcally correct things?

If so, what about un-politically correct thoughts?

Should I be prosecuted for looking at a woman's chest? That's not politically correct. Should I be prosecuted?

Politically correct? Unpolitically correct? WTF are you talking about? The contention here is encouraging others to see Muslims with hatred and contempt. Where do you get this Politically Correct stuff? And since when has ogling a woman's breasts been political?

Should you be prosecuted? Absolutely. To the fullest extent of the law. Politics be damned.

[WIP]

Fair enough re: Spencer. While I find some of his stuff is rather compelling, it is presented in such a way that one feels he/she should be choosing sides. This is why I prefer 'hacks' like Pat Condell when it comes to commentary on 'radical' Islam. He isn't selling a book.

Curious. Did you watch Steyn and the three Muslim law students video listed at the start of this thread?

Personally, I think the three are grasping at straws re: Steyn = Hate Speech.

I never commented on whether or not Mark Steyn has the right to his opinions and McLeans publishing of this story before, because I never accepted the concept of hate speech laws in the first place when the Trudeau government created them, and still don't accept them now. The three students that were enlisted by the Canadian Islamic Congress to make this case are already working from a dangerous concept that some speech must be suppressed (at least in magazines and TV shows) regardless of whether it is true or false.

The students were handicapped in their quest to make a case that Steyn is portraying all Muslims as extremists just by the very fact that they are fronted by an organization of Muslim fundamentalists who broke with the mainstream Muslim Canadian Congress because they feel the MCC is too liberal and secular; so they can't condemn the original comment about "Muslims breeding like mosquitos," because the fundamentalists are their base of support! The only point they could make about Steyn's comments is that he does lead the average reader to consider all Muslims to be extremists just by his tactic of blending of embedding condemnations of Muslim extremists in general commentary of Muslims or Islam. But, again they are in no position to go in to detail, since the organization they represent, supports Sharia and the supremacy of religion over government!

Watching the show a second time reminded me again of that bizarre, symbiotic relationship that extremists of opposing sides share with each other -- point being that just as George Bush and Osama Bin Laden depend on each other to justify their actions, the C.I.C. needs anti-Muslim activists like Mark Steyn, and vice versa. Every time Muhammed Elmasry makes a statement supporting Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel or supports the introduction of Sharia, Mark Steyn has material for his columns and books; and every comment by Steyn about high Muslim birthrates and crimerates in Western Europe, and support for the invasion of Iraq, provides the Imams who back the C.I.C. with evidence that Muslims have to resist the broader culture that is hostile to them and feels contempt for them regardless of their personal views.

One thing neither side commented on during that debate, and I wish Steve Paikin had mentioned it, is that the Muslim Canadian Congress issued a statement condemning the C.I.C.'s action against McLeans: http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/20080410.pdf

I'm sure Mark Steyn was aware that not all Muslim groups supported efforts to suppress free speech, but mentioning this fact would not have served his purposes! If he really was just against extremism, why isn't he a vocal supporter of a Muslim organization that opposes sharia law and religious government and of course terrorism -- you would think that if Mark Steyn's objectives were the ones he claims to hold, that this would be the type of organization that he would be flying the flag over! But maybe he wants a "clash of civilizations" rather than a peaceful resolution! The end result is that extremists don't want a middleground that interferes with their aims of all out war.

Do you really think that's the mission in Iraq? Conversion to Christianity? Or are you just pulling my leg?

Put yourself in the position of the average Iraqi, who has seen his country invaded and occupied by an army of Christians who like the last story mentioned - make attempts to evangelize Muslims and put such emphasis on their religion that they have even taken action against atheist soldiers for holding secular meetings: http://www.thenafa.org/ofa/. So, regardless of any protestations, the U.S. Army seems to consider promoting Christianity as an essential ingredient to military life!

What if the situation was reversed, and a Muslim army was occupying your town, how would you view them when they attempt to convert the population and their officers express contempt for your religion? I don't think it's any strange coincidence that Iraq's Christian populations that lived through centuries of Muslim occupation were the first targets of ethnic cleansing and virtually erradicated from Iraq. Notice that the prominent Christian invasion supporters rarely if ever, mention this fact!

------------------------------------------------------

If Steyn is even remotely right in his predictions, two bad things will happen. First, he will become even more insufferable than he is now...

---David McKie, "The Guardian"

[White Doors]

Politically correct? Unpolitically correct? WTF are you talking about? The contention here is encouraging others to see Muslims with hatred and contempt. Where do you get this Politically Correct stuff? And since when has ogling a woman's breasts been political?

Should you be prosecuted? Absolutely. To the fullest extent of the law. Politics be damned.

no need to get upset when you lose an argument. The important thing is to learn from the experience.

[bush_cheney2004]

Put yourself in the position of the average Iraqi, who has seen his country invaded and occupied by an army of Christians who like the last story mentioned - make attempts to evangelize Muslims and put such emphasis on their religion that they have even taken action against atheist soldiers for holding secular meetings: http://www.thenafa.org/ofa/.

Yea....your average Joe Iraqi would ignore the invading non-Christians (e.g. Iran), or ballistic missiles aimed at other non-Christians (Jews).

So, regardless of any protestations, the U.S. Army seems to consider promoting Christianity as an essential ingredient to military life!

Unsupported conjecture....not supported by Muslim chaplains!

Army Chaplains are expected to observe the distinctive doctrines of their faith while also honoring the right of others to observe their own faith. The Army is a pluralistic environment. Rabbis, Ministers, Imams and Priests serve our Soldiers with conviction and commitment. While serving their own faith groups in the Army, chaplains also ensure and provide the means for others to observe their own faith in accordance with US law and regulations.

http://www.goarmy.com/chaplain/about_army_chaplain.jsp

What if the situation was reversed, and a Muslim army was occupying your town, how would you view them when they attempt to convert the population and their officers express contempt for your religion? I don't think it's any strange coincidence that Iraq's Christian populations that lived through centuries of Muslim occupation were the first targets of ethnic cleansing and virtually erradicated from Iraq. Notice that the prominent Christian invasion supporters rarely if ever, mention this fact!

Why would they? During Desert Storm, Iraqi women would go to Christian churches to beg for mercy from the obviously stronger "god".

[DogOnPorch]

I never commented on whether or not Mark Steyn has the right to his opinions and McLeans publishing of this story before, because I never accepted the concept of hate speech laws in the first place when the Trudeau government created them, and still don't accept them now. The three students that were enlisted by the Canadian Islamic Congress to make this case are already working from a dangerous concept that some speech must be suppressed (at least in magazines and TV shows) regardless of whether it is true or false.

I agree. It is dangerous ground that could just as easily be used as a weapon against their goals. One envokes Storm Troopers as bodyguards at their own peril...one might say.

The students were handicapped in their quest to make a case that Steyn is portraying all Muslims as extremists just by the very fact that they are fronted by an organization of Muslim fundamentalists who broke with the mainstream Muslim Canadian Congress because they feel the MCC is too liberal and secular; so they can't condemn the original comment about "Muslims breeding like mosquitos," because the fundamentalists are their base of support! The only point they could make about Steyn's comments is that he does lead the average reader to consider all Muslims to be extremists just by his tactic of blending of embedding condemnations of Muslim extremists in general commentary of Muslims or Islam. But, again they are in no position to go in to detail, since the organization they represent, supports Sharia and the supremacy of religion over government!

Those that think all Canadians...or any educated population...are so easily led around by their noses really just hold said population in contempt. All it says is that they think they're smarter and wiser than you and the guy next to you, as well. Mr Burns would simply release the hounds.

Watching the show a second time reminded me again of that bizarre, symbiotic relationship that extremists of opposing sides share with each other -- point being that just as George Bush and Osama Bin Laden depend on each other to justify their actions, the C.I.C. needs anti-Muslim activists like Mark Steyn, and vice versa. Every time Muhammed Elmasry makes a statement supporting Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel or supports the introduction of Sharia, Mark Steyn has material for his columns and books; and every comment by Steyn about high Muslim birthrates and crimerates in Western Europe, and support for the invasion of Iraq, provides the Imams who back the C.I.C. with evidence that Muslims have to resist the broader culture that is hostile to them and feels contempt for them regardless of their personal views.

I agree both sides feed off of one another. However, I think fellows like Steyn are a response rather than a cause. We wouldn't listen to him at all if certain events involving terrorists waving the Koran didn't occur. Seriously...in 1990...what did you think the most pressing problem on the planet was? Probably not Islamic terrorism.

Do you remember the few weeks before 9-11? Can you recall what the big news was? My wife and I both remember...there was a large string of shark attacks around the planet (dumb luck)...so many attacks that new-hounds were musing that there might be a shark-conspiracy. Odd what one remembers...

One thing neither side commented on during that debate, and I wish Steve Paikin had mentioned it, is that the Muslim Canadian Congress issued a statement condemning the C.I.C.'s action against McLeans: http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/20080410.pdf

I'm sure Mark Steyn was aware that not all Muslim groups supported efforts to suppress free speech, but mentioning this fact would not have served his purposes! If he really was just against extremism, why isn't he a vocal supporter of a Muslim organization that opposes sharia law and religious government and of course terrorism -- you would think that if Mark Steyn's objectives were the ones he claims to hold, that this would be the type of organization that he would be flying the flag over! But maybe he wants a "clash of civilizations" rather than a peaceful resolution! The end result is that extremists don't want a middleground that interferes with their aims of all out war.

To be fair to Mr Steyn, that's the same thing the 3 Muslim students said re: wanting a clash of civilizations. Steyn replied he'd rather be on his porch looking at the mountains. Do you recall that? Not sure what part it is in.

Hard to say what his real motives are, but we can both agree that one of them is selling books. As I mentioned earlier...or elsewhere, I forget...Pat Codell is in a similar vein while not selling books. It's up to you to judge if the message is different.

Put yourself in the position of the average Iraqi, who has seen his country invaded and occupied by an army of Christians who like the last story mentioned - make attempts to evangelize Muslims and put such emphasis on their religion that they have even taken action against atheist soldiers for holding secular meetings: http://www.thenafa.org/ofa/. So, regardless of any protestations, the U.S. Army seems to consider promoting Christianity as an essential ingredient to military life!

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The US military is certainly multi-faith...much like the country. Soldiers of every colour and creed, from every state of the Union, all serving in the same regiment/ship/squadron/etc.

What if the situation was reversed, and a Muslim army was occupying your town, how would you view them when they attempt to convert the population and their officers express contempt for your religion? I don't think it's any strange coincidence that Iraq's Christian populations that lived through centuries of Muslim occupation were the first targets of ethnic cleansing and virtually erradicated from Iraq. Notice that the prominent Christian invasion supporters rarely if ever, mention this fact!

First...like many in the West...I'm non-religious and god or gods don't enter into the daily equation of life. Second, this isn't the 8th century...and if it was, chances are Muslims would have been "occupying" my town. However, I agree there's a Christian element that has a bit too much influence in America at the moment...but come November, that'll likely change even if McCain gets in.

------------------------------------------------------

Avoiding offense means that we don't accept each other as equals.

---Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Edited June 13, 2008 by DogOnPorch