The CIC makes a counter-offer

Elmasry's sock puppets have offered Maclean's a slightly watered-down version of their initial demands:

The Canadian Islamic Congress Wednesday offered to withdraw human rights complaints about allegedly Islamophobic journalism in Maclean's magazine in exchange for the publication of a rebuttal within three months by a mutually agreeable author.

"If Maclean's is ready to consider an opportunity for the Muslim population to have its say, we are ready for reasonable conciliation," said Faisal Joseph, lawyer for the CIC. "One way or another it's going to be dealt with, either by agreement or by an imposed decision."

At a press conference at a plush Toronto hotel, Mr. Joseph lamented that the Rogers media empire, which publishes Maclean's, has been represented in the media as the plucky victim against the unchecked power of human rights commissions and their complainants. "Somehow David and Goliath have been interchanged," he said.

According to his proposal, the CIC's hate speech complaint before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, scheduled to be heard next month, will only be withdrawn if Maclean's publishes a "counter-view response" to a 2006 article titled The Future Belongs to Islam. That article, an excerpt from a book by conservative columnist Mark Steyn called America Alone, is the most controversial of the 22 articles the CIC has singled out as offensive.

"We're not going to say how long it's going to be, but it has to be long enough, and give the opportunity to be able to properly give a reasoned, analytical approach to the 5,000 word article [by Mr. Steyn]," Mr. Joseph said.

[...]

Mr. Joseph acknowledged that what he billed as a settlement proposal is not substantially different from what his clients unsuccessfully demanded of the magazine last year, prior to their complaints.

"To us, there isn't much difference, but to [Maclean's] it might be huge," Mr. Joseph said, explaining that they no longer want to control the art design, and do not expect "unfettered" editorial control over the rebuttal, only that it be "long enough" and "mutually agreeable." He also said the demand that Maclean's make a nominal financial contribution to a race relations charity has been dropped.

Jack Layton, not surprisingly, sides with the religious extremists. (They aren't Christers, so it's all good.) Kathy Shaidle, meanwhile, was at the press conference - and asked the question these guys should have been asked a long time ago:

"In any event," I continued, "can you explain why the man whose name actually appears on all three of these human rights complaints against Maclean's, that is, Mohammad Elmasry, isn't here today? Could it be because you'd like to distance yourselves from him, since he was captured on video declaring that all Israeli civilians were legitimate targets for Muslim terrorists?"

Their lawyer is so stupid, this was his actual answer:

"Why didn't you ask me about the other students who aren't here today because they had to write exams?"

I refrained from replying "They can write??" and said instead,

"Because I don't give a damn about them, I asked you about Elmasry."

"Will you let me answer, madam?"

"Why didn't you just answer when I asked you the first time?"

"That incident was investigated four years ago and was settled. I am representing Mohammed Elmasry here. Why don't you call him on the phone if you want to talk to him so badly!"

Yes, he really did say that. A grown frickin' man. What next? "Marsha, Marsha, Marsha"??

More here. Part of me thinks Maclean's should agree to publish a 5,000-word rebuttal - if the Canadian Islamic Congress agrees to run a 5,000-word pro-Israel essay by Mark Steyn on their website. We just want the opportunity to respond, after all...

Damian P.

Posted by damian at May 1, 2008 09:39 AM