Steyn on the future of Western society

BC_chick · June 14, 2008

The building in North Dakota was apparently left untouched too.
But innocence is no defence - just ask the parents in Beslan or those of clubgoers in Bali.

BC Chick, this is not a competition about how many innocent people have died (as much as I fear that in this future war, it may become one.) Nor is this a question of Swedish or American governments or people provoking rape or death.

We Westerners travel around the world and conduct our lives as we see fit. We are free people, women and men, black and white, gay and straight. This freedom that we take for granted in our daily lives conflicts with other people on this planet.

It is foolish to pretend that this conflict does not exist.

Who is denying this conflict exists? Certainly not me. It's just that unlike you - who places the blame solely on one side of this conflict ("America's only crime in that rape was wearing a short skirt") - I choose to see the kinds of meddling that poor innocent America does in M.E. affairs which fans the flames for extremism.

It takes two to tango. Sorry, c'est la vie.

jbg · June 15, 2008

And, more to the point, it doesn't at all support the original point you made.
Canada to my knowledge isn't importing anything near that number of refugees. I'm interested, though, in finding out more data if you have any to offer.

Fundamentally you agree with me. No influx should be unlimited in size. Further, any new group should be more or less compelled to assimilate.

Peter F · June 15, 2008

Are you from the middle east or something?

Almost halfway between BC and NFLD. So if you are writing from BC then, Yes I am from the middle east.

Peter F · June 15, 2008

Well, I too read Steyn's book and I've noticed that many of his points are being ignored or misquoted in this thread.

Wich one's have been misquoted? I posted direct quotes from DoP's article. Since my contention is that Mr.Steyn's article carries alot of hate within it I have left out sections where I detected no hate. The 2 or 3 paragraphs about Japan, for example. Or Russia.

If I have been misquoting him I would like to be made aware of it.

You can always find Muslims who are as reasonable and as modern as the rest of us. So what? Mainstream Christianity has to deal with fundamentalist "Jim Jones" elements. We don't try to excuse the Jim Jones type sects because most other Christians are not as whacko. We deal with the whackos! The same is true of any groups of militant Muslims and how they compare to mainstream Islam.
We have to deal with them firmly, not pretend they don't exist. We certainly shouldn't consider changing our own society to fit their vision!

We have to deal with who? Good muslims or Bad muslims? According to Mr. Steyn good muslims are the exception, not the rule (and even then secretly support terrorists!)

Then again, the point is neither here nor there. Mr.Steyn makes absolutely no mention of any requirement to 'deal' with muslims either good or bad. In the typical fashion of a Bigot, he constructs his article so that it leads to one conclusion but then doesn't actually write the conclusion. The conclusion left blank and the reader fills it in for themselves. There is only one conclusion to be concluded from the essay

and Steyn defends himself by claims of 'I didn't say that' When it appears to be the entire point of the essay.

You concluded, from the essay, that Muslim immigration is, if not the deathknell of Western Liberal Democracy, certainly a very serious problem that must be dealt with....yet Mr Steyn never ever said any such thing. So why would you conclude that that was the point of the excerpt?

He wants his Hate-cake but doesn't want it to be called hate-cake. He wants it called legitimate debate.

but I digress. back to your point

You can always find Muslims who are as reasonable and as modern as the rest of us. So what? Mainstream Christianity has to deal with fundamentalist "Jim Jones" elements. We don't try to excuse the Jim Jones type sects because most other Christians are not as whacko. We deal with the whackos! The same is true of any groups of militant Muslims and how they compare to mainstream Islam.
We have to deal with them firmly, not pretend they don't exist. We certainly shouldn't consider changing our own society to fit their vision!

So who's excusing terrorists or those who actively support terrorism? Who's allowing the chopping off hands of thieves? Who's allowing honour killings? Who's allowing divorces by repetitions 'I divorce you'?

Britain? France? Holland? Malmo Sweden? Nobody. In fact, you are correct: we try to deal with whacko's not non-whacko's.

But Steyn makes no distinction, except the 'obligatory' one. The 'obligatory' distinction is then lost in the rest of the story of busses of old europeans being oppressed by gangs of muslim youths etc.

Steyn is talking about Islam and Muslims and not the wacko's amongst them.

You are correct to say we need to deal firmly with militants of any religion/creed. Nor should we be changing our own society to fit the vision of those militants. To that end we arn't. Steyn, I think, never said we are! But he certainly structured the entire argument to lead to that conclusion - without actually saying it.

August1991 · June 15, 2008

Who is denying this conflict exists? Certainly not me. It's just that unlike you - who places the blame solely on one side of this conflict ("America's only crime in that rape was wearing a short skirt") - I choose to see the kinds of meddling that poor innocent America does in M.E. affairs which fans the flames for extremism.
It takes two to tango. Sorry, c'est la vie.

BC chick, you refer to US "meddling" in Middle Eastern affairs. I don't know how you define "meddle" but we live in such a world that Western habits and values are bound to conflict (or be perceived as "meddling") with fundamentalist Muslims.

In the past, for example, it was possible for the Saudis or Iranians to isolate their societies from Western practices. That's increasingly difficult.

BTW, I don't think that's Steyn's main thesis but it leads to a similar conclusion.

Wich one's have been misquoted? I posted direct quotes from DoP's article. Since my contention is that Mr.Steyn's article carries alot of hate within it I have left out sections where I detected no hate. The 2 or 3 paragraphs about Japan, for example. Or Russia.
If I have been misquoting him I would like to be made aware of it.

It's your contention that Steyn's article carries alot hate. Someone else might arrive at a different conclusion. Who should decide whether it really constitutes hate?

WIP · June 15, 2008

I fear that too many Leftists believe as you apparently do: "The West wore a short skirt, and Bush took advantage of her skirt to beat up on the neighbour." In Left-think, Bush somehow made the West wear a short skirt.
I'm sorry but I have travelled to many countries, I am what I am, and I don't think that I should apologize for my short skirts.

We should have no fear to take or defend our Western values wherever we want.

As previously pointed out by BC chick, your charge of blaming the victim is totally ludicrous and doesn't even make sense! The simple point I am trying to get across to you is that a shocking event that has great emotional impact leads many people to put rational thinking aside as they rally round the Flag and put their faith and trust in their leaders; and according to Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, the Bush Administration began planning the Iraq Invasion just days after they entered the White House. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/

9/11 provided a convenient excuse to execute the plan, since Bush's high approval ratings at the time made Congress and the MSM go weak at the knees and go sparingly on questioning the link between regime change in Iraq with the war against Al Qaeda and the Taleban.

WIP · June 15, 2008

I do believe that, but no, that's not what I was saying in that specific post.
WIP's quote to which you were responding implied that GW abused 9/11 and misled a nation taking advantage of their collective anger and fear fresh after the attacks.

Your response about blaming the victim is irrelevant and does not address this point. It does, however, address the another school of thought which states that America's foreign policy contributed to 9/11.

IOW... I was saying you have your two rebuttals mixed up.

I wouldn't connect U.S. foreign policy directly with 9/11 or other terrorist attacks, but the simple fact is groups like Al Qaeda wouldn't be able to function if there wasn't widespread resentment over the U.S. presence in the MiddleEast, propping up unpopular regimes in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and continual attempts to control the flow of oil.

August1991 · June 15, 2008

I wouldn't connect U.S. foreign policy directly with 9/11 or other terrorist attacks, but the simple fact is groups like Al Qaeda wouldn't be able to function if there wasn't widespread resentment over the U.S. presence in the MiddleEast, propping up unpopular regimes in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and continual attempts to control the flow of oil.

Do you hate the US and the US government to such a degree?

WIP, whose side are you on in this? Can you even recognize that there are two sides or are you so post-modern that for you, black is white and green is blue?

Acording to you, America used the provocative dress of its daughter to lead to rape so that America could beat up the neighbour's son, or something.

----

WIP, I suspect you are a typical North American liberal. People such as yourself travel around the world, behave as typical westerners and provoke endless forms of cultural conflict. This is the "imperialism" or "meddling" that is at the root of this modern terrorism.

The Iranian and Saudi regimes, to name two, can no longer isolate themselves from Western liberals such as yourself.

We can argue about whether Bush's decision to invade Iraq was the correct way to go about dealing with this problem but it is simply wrong to say that the problem started with Bush.

Michael Hardner · June 15, 2008

Fundamentally you agree with me. No influx should be unlimited in size. Further, any new group should be more or less compelled to assimilate.

jb,

They need to accept the constitution of the land, and - yes - large influxes should be avoided.

That's my agreement.

bush_cheney2004 · June 15, 2008

I wouldn't connect U.S. foreign policy directly with 9/11 or other terrorist attacks, but the simple fact is groups like Al Qaeda wouldn't be able to function if there wasn't widespread resentment over the U.S. presence in the MiddleEast, propping up unpopular regimes in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and continual attempts to control the flow of oil.

Then you also feel that UN interventions in the region, particularly those materially supported by the Unites States, are also "meddling"?

Suez Crisis = meddling

Camp David Accords = meddling

Gulf War I = meddling

BC_chick · June 15, 2008

BC chick, you refer to US "meddling" in Middle Eastern affairs. I don't know how you define "meddle" but we live in such a world that Western habits and values are bound to conflict (or be perceived as "meddling") with fundamentalist Muslims.
In the past, for example, it was possible for the Saudis or Iranians to isolate their societies from Western practices. That's increasingly difficult.

Black gold. If it weren't for the black gold, there would be no meddling at all. The Saudis aren't meddled with enough, while other "unfriendly" (IOW uncooperative) nations are seen as rogue, even if they are doing nothing differently than the Saudis.

Iran's history with America did not start in 1982, try 1950's. You wanna to know why Iranians don't trust America, find out about Operation Ajax.

How about meddling in M.E. affairs by allowing Israel to do whatever it wants on lands that have been legally shown to belong to Palestinians?

There is a lot of meddling going on whether or not you choose to see it.

BTW, I don't think that's Steyn's main thesis but it leads to a similar conclusion.
It's your contention that Steyn's article carries alot hate. Someone else might arrive at a different conclusion. Who should decide whether it really constitutes hate?

The only issues I have stated my opinion about on this thread were 1) that your response to WIP was completely irrelevant and out of character for you, and 2) when pushed and asked, that yes, I do believe America's actions have helped fan the flames of extremism.

I wouldn't connect U.S. foreign policy directly with 9/11 or other terrorist attacks, but the simple fact is groups like Al Qaeda wouldn't be able to function if there wasn't widespread resentment over the U.S. presence in the MiddleEast, propping up unpopular regimes in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and continual attempts to control the flow of oil.

Absolutely! That's what I meant when I said America's policies fan the flames for extremism, but maybe I should've made a better distinction.

Currently in the middle east there is a land-based uprising (Palestinians), a religious-uprising (Al-Qaeda), as well as a political one (Iraq). Yet, there is a nice all encompassing word like "terrorism" attributed to them in order to make it easy to fire into the masses without conscious. Such measures give credence to the land-based and political conflicts and make things easier for extremist leaders to persuade others to their side.

When GW says there is a line in the sand and you're with us or against us... then proceeds to start bombing the hell out the region, guess which side the secular and/or moderate Muslims are going to go?

WIP · June 15, 2008

Do you hate the US and the US government to such a degree?

Any criticism of your sacred cow appears to be hatred!

WIP, whose side are you on in this? Can you even recognize that there are two sides or are you so post-modern that for you, black is white and green is blue?

No, there's been enough of this black and white BS! Sometimes you have to be curious enough to ask how someone living in one of those non-descript hell-holes you want to bomb back to the stoneage, would see the situation from their vantage point!

Acording to you, America used the provocative dress of its daughter to lead to rape so that America could beat up the neighbour's son, or something.

Well, you can call it whatever you want, but I notice that you don't want to deal directly with the questions of why GW stretched the WOT to include Iraq.

----

WIP, I suspect you are a typical North American liberal. People such as yourself travel around the world, behave as typical westerners and provoke endless forms of cultural conflict. This is the "imperialism" or "meddling" that is at the root of this modern terrorism.

I'm not rich enough to be a world traveller, but I would have thought that invading countries and setting up permanent occupations to exploit theri natural resources was the proper definition of imperialism! I guess if I agreed with these stupid arguments for imperalism, I'd be a typical conservative! Call it what you want, there is no logical reasons behind your continued support for these policies.

The Iranian and Saudi regimes, to name two, can no longer isolate themselves from Western liberals such as yourself.
We can argue about whether Bush's decision to invade Iraq was the correct way to go about dealing with this problem but it is simply wrong to say that the problem started with Bush.

And thanks to Dubya's decision to invade and never leave, the Iranians have become the real winnners in the MiddleEast. When GW leaves office next year, they should send him a nice bouquet and a bottle of wine for getting rid of their chief local enemy.

August1991 · June 15, 2008

Black gold. If it weren't for the black gold, there would be no meddling at all. The Saudis aren't meddled with enough, while other "unfriendly" (IOW uncooperative) nations are seen as rogue, even if they are doing nothing differently than the Saudis.
Iran's history with America did not start in 1982, try 1950's. You wanna to know why Iranians don't trust America, find out about Operation Ajax.

How about meddling in M.E. affairs by allowing Israel to do whatever it wants on lands that have been legally shown to belong to Palestinians?

Nepal has no Black Gold but it has many western tourists. Indonesia has tourists and Black Gold but in different places from where the tourists go. And what do you say of the foreign meddling in China or, hmm, Burma? All face political troubles. BC chick, it is facile and simply wrong to blame the destruction of the World Trade Center in NY on the politics of Iran in 1953.

The world has changed since 1953. Now, millions of people travel on airplanes daily. Daily, billions talk/text on a cell phone, many across an international border.

Saudi Arabia and its Black Gold, Iran and the natural talent of its people (and its Black Gold), are bound to attract Western liberal foreigners. They'll travel to Saudi and Iran, Nepal and China and even Burma. Black Gold will make Saudis and even Iranians rich and able to travel abroad.

Underneath this all, it is cheap to travel and to communicate. In 1952, a Saudi patriarch could protect his family. Now, he can't. His daughters want to wear tight jeans, paint their faces like magazines and they want to text.

I think we're facing a "conflict of civilizations" but IMV, it's an age old conflict.

Steyn carries this conflict a few steps further, and makes it sound dire. He argues that our civilization (in its European version) is unsustainable on demographics. Steyn argues that a modern social welfare state is a Ponzi-scheme that requires ever more younger people willing to pay benefits to older people. Steyn also argues that our western civilization is unwilling to defend (or even recognize) our core western values. We are not willing to defend or transmit our values to the foreigners that we admit into our midst supposedly to make up for our demographic shortfall.

In short, Steyn's book is mistitled. It's more about Europe than it is about "America Alone".

I'm not rich enough to be a world traveller, but I would have thought that invading countries and setting up permanent occupations to exploit theri natural resources was the proper definition of imperialism! I guess if I agreed with these stupid arguments for imperalism, I'd be a typical conservative! Call it what you want, there is no logical reasons behind your continued support for these policies.

George Clooney and Susan Sarandon can afford to travel in name, if not in fact. Most of the world thinks of Hollywood when it thinks of America.

At the personal level though, western tourists abroad tend to be urban gays or couples with no kids. Who else can afford to travel except immigrants going home for a visit? Even on business travel, western urban young (unencumbered) liberals tend to predominate. Who else can afford the time to travel? Admittedly, there are the western (and Japanese) older pensioners on group tours.

In short, westerners abroad (and there are zillions of them now) and western cultural ideas abroad (since Charlie Chaplin, at least) are the greatest form of modern "imperialism".

In comparison, Bush Jnr is no imperialist at all.

Edited June 15, 2008 by August1991

Peter F · June 15, 2008

Uh, no one is saying that Islamic groups or parties should not exist. We are objecting to several people (Muslims) trying to silence others. To use your example, how would you feel if the Communist Party of Canada tried to silence criticism of Marxist beliefs on the grounds that such criticsm opened Communists to possible hatred?

I would say the communist party would have to show some examples of inciting hatred and not just political disagreement. I would also say that the HRC's of the land get to make that determination.

Certainly people are allowed to object to individuals filing complaints and/or trying to silence others. Thus this entire thread. People are also allowed to argue that the complaints are justified and that the 'others' should not have such stuff published.

There is something vaguely frightening in this argument that "it's the law and we have to respect the law". I suspect that in Nazi Germany (where restrictions on freedom of speech were also commonly applied to keep order in society), someone also said "that's the law and you have to obey it".

There is also something vaguely frightening to the concept that the law should not be respected.

Considering that these hatespeach laws are actually the results of debates and passing of acts in this countrys various legistlatures peopled with elected representatives of the public, I have a difficult time saying that these laws deserve no respect. Laws that are in force in a democratic nation have some sort of legitimacy don't you think? I think so - even laws that I don't like. On the other hand sometimes the 'law is an ass'.

I don't think I have ever said "thats the law and you have to obey it". I most definately have said disobey the law at your peril. That I have said.

If the law exists and you contravene it, then its pretty childish to point fingers at those who lay the charges.

That is what is going on here. The three people laying the complaint are somehow out to undermine Western Liberal Society by acting within the law with the apparent aim to stop Hate against an identifiable group. I do not see them doing anything 'wrong'.

jbg · June 16, 2008

In the past, for example, it was possible for the Saudis or Iranians to isolate their societies from Western practices. That's increasingly difficult.

Sure it is. They want the benefits from selling oil to the West, i.e. money and the ability for the ruling class to live an obscenely affluent life style. They also want to keep Western influence at bay, at least insofar as it restricts their freedom to wreak havoc on other countries in their midst such as Israel, on the West, and on their own people.

Gee, they can't have it both ways. Too f*****g bad.

WIP · June 16, 2008

Sure it is. They want the benefits from selling oil to the West, i.e. money and the ability for the ruling class to live an obscenely affluent life style. They also want to keep Western influence at bay, at least insofar as it restricts their freedom to wreak havoc on other countries in their midst such as Israel, on the West, and on their own people.
Gee, they can't have it both ways. Too f*****g bad.

I can't see either theocracy in Saudi Arabia or Iran, holding on indefinitely. But it seems that War on Terror, threats of regime change, and even bombing Iran if they don't stop enriching uranium are helping the Ayatollahs stay in power, and not weakening them. There is a lot of resentment building up against the Iranian theocracy especially among young Iranians, but the invasion of Iraq and continual threats of bombing Iran have caused an upsurge in nationalistic sentiments and left moderates and would-be reformers in danger of being branded as enemy collaborators. Eerily similar to the way all opponents of the Iraq War were branded as unpatriotic regardless of their political beliefs.

i don't know how this will all end, but I can't see how a reformation of the Arab World happens unless the brakes are put on Dick Cheney's scheme to set up a permanent occupation in Iraq that would include control of the country's oil development, and there is a new policy of disengagement that will leave them to settle their own problems without being able to blame foreign interference:

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich: "Privatizing Iraq's Oil is Theft!" http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17769.htm

jbg · June 16, 2008

I can't see either theocracy in Saudi Arabia or Iran, holding on indefinitely. But it seems that War on Terror, threats of regime change, and even bombing Iran if they don't stop enriching uranium are helping the Ayatollahs stay in power, and not weakening them. There is a lot of resentment building up against the Iranian theocracy especially among young Iranians, but the invasion of Iraq and continual threats of bombing Iran have caused an upsurge in nationalistic sentiments and left moderates and would-be reformers in danger of being branded as enemy collaborators. Eerily similar to the way all opponents of the Iraq War were branded as unpatriotic regardless of their political beliefs.
i don't know how this will all end, but I can't see how a reformation of the Arab World happens unless the brakes are put on Dick Cheney's scheme to set up a permanent occupation in Iraq that would include control of the country's oil development, and there is a new policy of disengagement that will leave them to settle their own problems without being able to blame foreign interference:

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich: "Privatizing Iraq's Oil is Theft!" http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17769.htm

I guess these places were all hunky-dory before September 10, 2001.

BC_chick · June 19, 2008

I guess these places were all hunky-dory before September 10, 2001.

Person A: There was a fire, lingering, and present, for the last 30 years. Instead of putting out the flames, you poured oil all over it and now it's worse than it ever was before.

Person B: You're crazy if you claim that there wasn't a flame there before.

Person A: But, but, but I didn't say that, do you understand the meaning of making something "worse"? :blink:

Edited June 19, 2008 by BC_chick

Black Dog · June 19, 2008

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.

A distinction with no practical difference. Western birthrates are already low. What matters is whether immigrant birthrates will remain high enough to swamp them.

(Interestingly enough, in France, the epicentre of the usual fantasies about the rise of "Eurabia" the difference in fertility rates between immigrants and residents is minimal. It seems family-friendly socialist government policies are the answer to Steyn's problems, though probably not the one he's looking for. )

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.

The problem with Steyn is that he sees Islam as the bogeyman behind every closet and under every bed. A gang of thugs swarm a guy on a bus and it's their religion that's at fault. He probably blames Islam when his milk goes bad before the expiry date. It's the monomania that gets me.

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.

The problem is that remedies against hate speech already exist under the criminal code (ironically, thanks to the work of the Canadian Jewish Congress). The HRC's are most certainly overstepping their boundaries here-you'll get no complaint from me on that score. But people will always find ways to work the system: it's a significant leap of logic to go from that to a global Islamic conspiracy aimed at world domination. I've said it before: so much of this stuff borrows so heavily from the anti-semitic conspiracy theories of yore that its really hard to find the truth among the trash.

Edited June 19, 2008 by Black Dog

White Doors · June 20, 2008

The problem is that remedies against hate speech already exist under the criminal code (ironically, thanks to the work of the Canadian Jewish Congress). The HRC's are most certainly overstepping their boundaries here-you'll get no complaint from me on that score. But people will always find ways to work the system: it's a significant leap of logic to go from that to a global Islamic conspiracy aimed at world domination. I've said it before: so much of this stuff borrows so heavily from the anti-semitic conspiracy theories of yore that its really hard to find the truth among the trash.

I don't think that Steyn ever mentioned a global world wide conspiracy. What he seems to be concerned with is a population shift primarily away from people who have lived in a western liberal country their whole lives to a society that for the most part, relies on a religion for every facet of their lives. From 21st century thought to 7th century thought in a matter of a generation or two. This is bound to create conflct and if we worry more about the conflict than we do about preserving our western liberal traditions than our way of life is going to be in jeopardy.

Interesting you mention the Jewish groups first making use of the HRC's, here is Steyn's take on that, one that I could not improve on:

Mr. Awan observed that Jews had availed themselves of the "human rights" commissions for years but it was only when the Muzzies decided they wanted a piece of the thought-police action that all these bigwigs started agitating for reining in the commissions and scrapping the relevant provisions of Canada's "human rights" code.
He has a kind of point. Which is why some of us consistently opposed the use of these commissions even when it was liberal Jews using them to hunt down the last three neo-Nazis in Saskatchewan. Yet, accepting that the principle is identical, there is a difference. For the most part, the Canadian Jewish Congress, B'nai Brith and the other beneficiaries of the "human rights" regime went after freaks and misfits on the fringes of society, folks too poor (in the majority of federal cases) even to afford legal representation. These prosecutions were unfair and reflected badly on Canada's justice system, but liberal proponents of an illiberal law justified it on the assumption that it would be confined to these peripheral figures nobody cared about. You can't blame Muslim groups for figuring that what's sauce for the infidel is sauce for the believer — and that, having bigger fish to fry, they're gonna need a lot more sauce.

The first three organizations taken by Jewish groups to the federal "human rights" commission were the Western Guard, the Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations and the Manitoba Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Despite their fearsome names, none of these clear and present dangers to the peaceable kingdom had an in-house legal department, or a spare thousand bucks to retain outside counsel, or indeed a buck-and-a-quarter for the bus ride to the hearing. By contrast, the Muslim lobby groups' first three fish are Canada's newest political magazine (The Western Standard, whose print edition has since ceased publication); Canada's oldest and biggest-selling newsweekly (Maclean's); and the biggest daily newspaper in the Maritimes (the Halifax Chronicle-Herald). This is an entirely different scale of project. Muslim lobby groups have very shrewdly calculated that the "human rights" commissions are the quickest, cheapest and most coercive means of applying pressure to mainstream publications in order to put Islam beyond discussion — or at least beyond all but the most pink-marshmallow celebrate-diversity discussion.

When it was yours truly and Ezra Levant, the publisher of The Western Standard, taking the heat, it was easy to write us off as a couple of right-wing blowhards. Mainly because we are. But the Islamophobe du jour is the Chronicle-Herald's Bruce MacKinnon, a cartoonist who's won an Atlantic Journalism Award and is the very soul of moderation. Alas for him, the head of the Nova Scotia "Human Rights" Commission is a fellow called Michael Noonan, last heard from comparing his job to that of the South African blacks who stood up to "the jackboots of the state" in the Sharpeville massacre. In other words, he seems just the sort of vainglorious stooge who'll be happy to do the Centre for Islamic Development's bidding and place the Halifax Chronicle-Herald's editorial content under government regulation — or, as he would say if he were less hilariously un-self-aware, under "the jackboot of the state."

Black Dog · June 20, 2008

I don't think that Steyn ever mentioned a global world wide conspiracy. What he seems to be concerned with is a population shift primarily away from people who have lived in a western liberal country their whole lives to a society that for the most part, relies on a religion for every facet of their lives. From 21st century thought to 7th century thought in a matter of a generation or two. This is bound to create conflct and if we worry more about the conflict than we do about preserving our western liberal traditions than our way of life is going to be in jeopardy.

Give me a break. When Steyn and his acolytes spout stuff like , say:

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

It implies a monolithic, unified and, to some extent, organized entity is at work.

As an aside, when I see Steyn bandy about terms like "Muzzies" I have to lean to Peter F's side on the whole "Steyn is a bigot" thing. Would one bandy about "kike" or "Heeb" in such a cavalier manner?

White Doors · June 20, 2008

Honkie? I don't think the names are important so much as the group they are directed to wouldn't you agree? You can call all white guys rednecks, no problem, but any other names to any other groups is out of the question.

Also, Steyn didn't say that, I did - but thanks for the bank handed compliment.

In my view, political Islam is not generalizing to include all muslims.

The CIC would be 'political islam' to me and the other Muslim organizations in Canada, not so much.

I see leftists denouncing evangelicals of all stripes on here and I think you yourself has said less than kind things about them, ,but you refuse to think about 'politcal islam'? Did you ever ask yourself why the inconsistencies there?

Black Dog · June 20, 2008

Honkie? I don't think the names are important so much as the group they are directed to wouldn't you agree? You can call all white guys rednecks, no problem, but any other names to any other groups is out of the question.

It's interesting that there ar eno effective racial slurs that target whites for being white. You think there's a reason for that?

Also, Steyn didn't say that, I did - but thanks for the bank handed compliment.

I know you said it: hence "Steyn and his acolytes"

In my view, political Islam is not generalizing to include all muslims.

Okay: who's exempt? Where are the good Muslims? Here's a few snippets from your boy:

Islam, however, has serious global ambitions.
...

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.

In this narrative, there's two kinds of Muslims: jihadists or jihadist enablers. Note the obvious and glaring omission is any data to support the claim that "enough" Muslims (whatever that means) share the jihadist's ends and means.

The CIC would be 'political islam' to me and the other Muslim organizations in Canada, not so much.

Yet pace Steyn, they all share the same goals.

I see leftists denouncing evangelicals of all stripes on here and I think you yourself has said less than kind things about them, ,but you refuse to think about 'politcal islam'? Did you ever ask yourself why the inconsistencies there?

No inconsistency here. I've been pretty up front about being against any religious intrusion into matters of state, regardless of the creed. And it's not that I refuse to consider political Islam: simply that such definitions are imprecise and unquantified (see above, re: "enough Muslims").

Edited June 20, 2008 by Black Dog

White Doors · June 23, 2008

In this narrative, there's two kinds of Muslims: jihadists or jihadist enablers. Note the obvious and glaring omission is any data to support the claim that "enough" Muslims (whatever that means) share the jihadist's ends and means.

But that's the problem in denouncing the book without having read it. He supplied many polls from many countries to back up his claims. You should do more research before you reach a conclusion. Are you always this closed-minded?

Edited June 23, 2008 by White Doors

Black Dog · June 23, 2008

But that's the problem in denouncing the book without having read it. He supplied many polls from many countries to back up his claims. You should do more research before you reach a conclusion. Are you always this closed-minded?

I'm working from the excerpt which appeared in Maclean's which provided no such supporting evidence.