Just more rhetorical bait and switch, from co-religionists for whom the tactic is practically enshrined as dogma, unfortunately.
Posted at 2007-12-20 19:38:30 [PermaLink]Kenneth Whyte claims ..."I would rather go bankrupt than let somebody from outside of our operations dictate the content of the magazine. I still feel that way."
You may well get your wish. What do you think the CHRC has been up to? The CHRC is in the business of issuing rulings dictating the content of 'apologies' and recantations of offending web posts.
The only safe editorial position for Canadian writers is 'middle-of-the-herd'. Expressing a viewpoint or opinion near the edge of acceptability will get you taken down (or financially nipped) by CHRC-trained attack dogs (like Richard Warman).
The CHRC is rapidly turning Canada into a doublethink factory, with rulings that attack any conservative thinking on immigration or foreign policy as somehow alien to "multicultural" values and equivalent to a hate crime.
US nanny-staters are taking aim at conservative media strongholds such as talk radio with an Orwellian monstrosity called the "Fairness Doctrine," designed to subvert the First Amendment, just as "hate crimes" attack freedom of speech from another angle.
The slow erosion of American freedoms might be imperiled by the US's proximity to a "country" like Canada, a multicultural confection distinguished only by its libtard mediocrity.
Poor babies! - it's sad that they're morons.
Posted at 2007-12-21 00:40:07 [PermaLink]Mr. Elmasry (president for life of the Canadian Islamic Congress) only publishes praise for articles and himself on his organization's website. Many were the times I wrote to complain about the content of those articles. Not published once.
Posted at 2007-12-21 07:08:19 [PermaLink]do I sense that the CIC and these "law students" have bitten off a bit more than they can chew here?
I mean, it's one thing to go after some printer, or some pastor, but a big publisher is something else... like when Joseph McCarthy decided he was big enough to take on the friggin U.S. Army.
With hope, this is the beginning (the very beginning) of the "human rightist" harassment of traditional civil rights and freedoms.
thanks
"I would rather go bankrupt than let somebody from outside of our operations dictate the content of the magazine. I still feel that way."
I've done my bit to help. I subscribed to Macleans which is something I haven't done for at least fifteen years. I plan on buying Steyn's book as well when it comes out in paperback in two weeks.
As for the various HRC's, I can only hope this backfires as people begin questioning just why we have a Charter that supposedly guarantees freedom of the press when a cabal of socialist hacks feel free to trample it at will.
As for the Muslim law students whose noses are out of joint, since when are publications obligated to publish whatever readers deem fit? Start you own blog or publication and let's see your ideas on how the Religion of Peace (tm) conducts itself.
My human rights include the right to get published in any magazine or newspaper that prints something I disagree with? Hot diggety!! I wish I'd known this years ago.
Posted at 2007-12-21 13:05:28 [PermaLink]Also, what the hell is a "secular Muslim"? Isn't that sort of like a Christian atheist??
Posted at 2007-12-21 13:09:08 [PermaLink]Ellie,
Good question. Many, but not all, are.
U.S. News and World Report
Jay Tolson, 4/8/07
[External Link]
"In St. Petersburg, the Secular Islam Summit, sponsored by a humanist organization called the Center for Inquiry, featured Muslim speakers who ranged from angry ex-believers to devout reformers. They differed sharply on particulars, but all shared the conviction that Islam must be compatible with secular democracy. Their closing manifesto, 'The St. Petersburg Declaration,' affirmed the separation of mosque and state, gender equality in personal and family law, and unrestricted critical study of Islamic traditions."
The St. Petersburg Declaration [External Link]