Backlash to Maclean's "Disturbing New Poll"

Barbara Kay in the National Post takes to task Maclean's Magazine for chiding Canadians as intolerent based on some poll findings. I meant to post on this, but I think Kay sums it up well. I expect better from Maclean's

Of the many features offending against minimal standards of objectivity in this poll, two stand out as especially discrediting.

One is Maclean's' solicitation of editorial commentary on the poll numbers from Ihsaan Gardee, executive director of Islamism-supportive CAIRCan. CAIR-Can has never repudiated Islamic terrorism and fellow-travels with the Muslim brotherhood. The Brotherhood is openly committed to the promotion of stealth jihad, and is universally acknowledged as the intellectual fountainhead of Sunni Islamic radicalism. No media organ should invite such an extremist institution to pass moral judgment on Canadians.

The other is Maclean's' overt editorial criticism around the very low level of acceptance for shariah law. Hostility to officially sanctioned shariah law is falsely linked here with negativism toward Muslims. In fact Canadians' opposition to shariah represents a wholesome rejection of Europe-style cultural suicide.

It is offensive that Canadians should be implicitly labelled racists for upholding democratic ideals over willfully blind multiculturalism. To regard the phrase "clash of civilizations" without ironic quotation marks is not a sign of hostility toward individual Muslims. On the contrary, national self-interest demands that we view Islamism and the dangers posed by radicalized Muslim youths with dread.

Read the whole thing.

Great Ezra Levant Interview

Ezra at his best on a CBC radio interview. If you want to understand the Canadian and Provincial Human Rights Commissions farce clearly, listen to this. Scroll to Part 2.

via: Ezra Levant

Things Were Easier During the Cold War

Wasn't it nice when we knew the Commies were the bad guys? We hated the Soviets openly and they hated us. Our ideologies clashed. These days, after 9-11 we still haven't defined who we are fighting. And we're fighting two hot wars. As President Obama reminded us today:

“The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam.”

Bush used to say the same thing. Sometimes you have to ask simple questions. Like: Does Islam have any part in it? I'm not saying we should get reckless. The politicians are probably doing the right thing. But as a citizen, I prefer our enemy to be more clearly defined. Not talking about problems doesn't make them go away.

Hitchens on the UN Anti-Blasphemy Resolution

This is why Hitchens is great. Kudos to Lou Dobbs here as well.

Ontario HRC Harass Business Owner

We've seen so many of these ridiculous "human rights" complaints. They're beyond parody:

The middle-aged woman with the man's voice, among other unseen attributes, turned out to be a transsexual who had yet to undergo the surgical transformation from male to female.

And now, her request to join the gym has landed Mr. Fulton before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

(...)

"I will be a homeless person, living in the street and eating out of a gutter, before they get a penny out of me," Mr. Fulton said after yesterday's fruitless mediation, which ended short of its scheduled three hours. "I'm stubborn, and I feel like I'm being pushed around by these people."

The Ontario Human Rights Code forbids discrimination or harassment based on sex, which includes issues of gender identity.

(...)

"I think the important thing to remember there is how they identify themselves; what their sense is, that they are living as a man or living as a woman," Ms. Edwards said. "Regardless of whether they're preop or postop, it's their lived gender that's important."

Mr. Fulton, however, cited a section in the same rights code which allows service providers to restrict access to facilities "to persons of the same sex on the ground of public decency." And to his mind, the display of male genitalia, even on someone who self-identifies as a woman, could be construed as indecent by other women at his gym.

They're trying to ruin this guy's life over making a common sense business decision. This makes me extremely angry. Imagine a woman in the club encountering a guy with a - excuse the term-dick in the shower or change room. They would resign their membership.

It's legal to get a sex-change operation. (I would debate that it shouldn't be, that it is subjective psychology and mutilation, but I can argue that another time.) But for god sakes, it's your choice to do it. You are going to have to put up with the inconveniences. This business owner had the unfortune that "she" walked into his life.

Babs Hall Wants National Press Council

The National Post has an op-ed about Ms. Hall's quest for a censorship council. Frightening stuff:

As if Barbara Hall's own crude, broadsword agency were not destructive enough of free speech rights, now the Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) wants a national press council to further chill free expression in the media. And she is not looking just to curtail newspapers, talk radio and television news. Ms. Hall wants any new press council to have jurisdiction over Internet sites and blogs, too.

Of course, using the typically topsy-turvy logic of most modern rights crusaders, Ms. Hall has convinced herself that this thinly veiled censorship board would actually be the ultimate free speech defender. She seems to think the best way to preserve free speech is to limit it.

(...)

Similarly, making all writers, bloggers and broadcasters hostage to a national press council is merely the first step toward letting the Barbara Halls of the world decide what you get to hear, see and read. To that, we say: "No, thanks." And so should every newspaper reader, Web surfer and television viewer in the land.

There's no way I'm letting a dogmatic, commie like Babs get her mitts on the Daily Salt Shaker, that's for damn sure!

Stages

Mark Steyn has a powerful piece about his thoughts after his testimony to the Ontario legislative committee reviewing the Human Rights Commission. (read)

... Once you accept the degree of state management that the citizens of modern social-welfare democracies now take for granted, why be surprised that your rulers are no longer prepared to treat you as "citizens"? America is now catching up to the happy condition of Canada and Europe - the Big Nanny security state in which you're relieved of every adult responsibility - to provide your own health care, to look after your family, to work to support them. Why then be surprised that Ontario's Liberal and NDP members assume you can't be entrusted to think for yourself? Or that President Obama talks of his fellow citizens as if they're lame pets and feeble-minded urchins? It may yet prove the case that the Big Government security-blanket state can co-exist with a lively level of individual
liberty, free speech and intellectual inquiry, but the results from the heart of the free world are not encouraging.

(...)

... If, in the interests of "cultural protection", the state keeps foreign newspaper owners, foreign bookstore owners, foreign TV operators out of Canada, why be surprised that, in return, it assumes the right to police the ideas disseminated through those newspapers, bookstores and TV networks it graciously agrees to permit?

UPDATE: To see what all the fuss about Mark Steyn is, check out his excellent book America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It

Steyn Blasts Ontario Human Rights Commission

Free speecher Mark Steyn had some choice words for an Ontario legislative committee reviewing the need for the provincial human rights commission. He's at his best when battling.

"Free societies should not be in the business of criminalizing opinion," Mr. Steyn, a columnist for Maclean's, told members of Ontario's standing committee on government agencies.

"When you go down that road, all you do is lead to the situation that you have in, say, Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, you can't start a newspaper and print what you think, so if you object to the House of Saud, the only thing you can do is blow stuff up."

And from the transcript we have this quote:

Mr. Mark Steyn: Yes. Let me just talk about this hateful words business. This is again the sham of this Human Rights Tribunal, in that it does not treat all hate equally. At the time—you claim, for example, to be interested in women’s rights. We have honour killings, we have arranged marriages against the wishes of the brides in this province. The Human Rights Tribunal is silent about that.

It always amazes me that western so-called feminists have nothing to say about arranged marriage, burkas and honour killings. Why is it politically incorrect to mention that? It's something I'll never understand about leftist "tolerance."

UPDATE: Christina Blizzard of the Toronto Sun interviews OHRC Commissioner Barbara Hall:

It was her response to Steyn's criticism of OHRC's silence on honour killings that shocked me.

"There are thousands of things that happen in the province of Ontario on a daily basis and we don't comment on all of them," she said.

But, I spluttered, women are being murdered.

"As I said, we are a small commission.

"There are many problematic things that happen in our community and
we have to make choices because we can't respond to everything," Hall said.

So honour killings are merely "problematic"?

Here's a woman who's advocated for years on behalf of women's rights. She found time to crucify Steyn and Maclean's, but she's too busy to raise the issue of women who are being murdered over some hideous interpretation of "honour"?

Madness in the UK School System

It's too late, but Britain should try the melting pot theory when it comes to cultural assimilation. Here are two similar stories from the UK school system.

I was forced out for trying to axe Muslim-only assemblies, claims head mistress.

Separate Muslim assemblies were reportedly held at least weekly, led by a parent and open to non-Muslims.

A teacher, who asked not to be named, said: 'The head inherited the separate assemblies and she took careful advice on what to do.

'But when she tried to stop them, she was accused of being a racist. She wanted to hold assemblies for all the pupils. That is what happens in most schools but some parents wanted things to stay as they were.

£100,000 BATTLE OF HEAD WHO STOOD UP TO 'MUSLIM BULLIES'

The mum-of-one said her troubles began in 2003 when four Muslim governors were appointed, including convert Paul Martin and Mumtaz Saleem.

They took control of reg-ular meetings, repeatedly demanding more formal Islamic worship in the predominantly Muslim school and closer ties with the nearby mosque in Woking.

When she fought back, Mr Martin claimed the ethos of the school was racist and alleged she believed Pakistanis were “less intelligent”.

An investigation later found she “had not been responsive to the needs of the faith community”.

I remember in high school there was a controversy about the tradition of putting the Our Father prayer on the speakers after Oh Canada for the morning ritual. Considering that the student body was multi-cultural it didn't seem fitting. Instead of simply stopping putting the prayer on, they had the principal read out various readings from other religions. I remember him reading some Hindu, and some Jewish scripture. It was very weird. It didn't work out. Pressed by a PTA motion, they had a vote for students on what we felt should be done. None of the options on the ballot were for no prayers at all. I wrote in on my ballot. "No prayers or reading for any religion." Others must have too because the whole thing was dropped and all we had was Oh Canada after that. The point is: Just make it secular. You can practice your religion at home. The Brits have become so politically correct they don't have the nerve to say that anymore.

Absurd "Human Rights" Complaint on Canadian Blogger

Free speech has been under fire in Canada in the guise of the provincial and federal Human Rights Commissions who deem to punish speech deemed "hurtful" to minorities. This has received much publicity over the last year when Maclean's Magazine, for articles written by Mark Steyn, were brought to the BC HRC Kangaroo Court here in BC. Also Ezra Levant had a complaint against him for publishing the dreaded Danish cartoons. Ezra Levant's website is dedicated to defending free speech,

Yesterday a blogger at Right Wing Canada received this threatening email:

Mr. Lawton:

I am writing today to inform you that as of 10:27am EST this morning, I have filed a claim against you under the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Among other hateful and inflammatory remarks made on your blog, ww.RightWingCanada.com, you referred to President Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama," citing that he is an Arab-American. This was made in a hateful and dirogatory manner, and such racist propaganda is forbidden under section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

I hope that you go down in flames like your other Nazi friends.

Ma-Z

This one doesn't pass the laugh test, but that doesn't matter. The thought police at the human rights commissions will doubtlessly "investigate" it. Your tax dollars at work.

I regularly visit Ezra, as mentioned above, and Mark Steyn's site for updates on the free speech issue.

Hitchens on Media Self Censorship

Christopher Hitchens has another must read article, on the Vanity Fair website, about the 1989 fatwa against Salman Rushdie and how that has frightened the media into pleasing fundamentalists. (Read the entire article)

So there is now a hidden partner in our cultural and academic and publishing and broadcasting world: a shadowy figure that has, uninvited, drawn up a chair to the table. He never speaks. He doesn’t have to. But he is very well understood. The late playwright Simon Gray was alluding to him when he said that Nicholas Hytner, the head of London’s National Theatre, might put on a play mocking Christianity but never one that questioned Islam. I brushed up against the unacknowledged censor myself when I went on CNN to defend the Danish cartoons and found that, though the network would show the relevant page of the newspaper, it had pixelated the cartoons themselves. And this in an age when the image is everything. The lady anchor did not blush to tell me that the network was obliterating its very stock-in-trade (newsworthy pictures) out of sheer fear.

Hitchens knocks down the multicultural sensitivity argument beautifully:

In other words, the situation is the exact reverse of what the condescending multiculturalists say it is. To indulge the idea of religious censorship by the threat of violence is to insult and undermine precisely those in the Muslim world who are its intellectual cream, and who want to testify for their own liberty—and for ours. It is also to make the patronizing assumption that the leaders of mobs and the inciters of goons are the authentic representatives of Muslim opinion. What could be more “offensive” than that?

Unless we have more people stand up for the importance of free speech, I imagine it will get worse in the future. Children in school are taught that the worst crime is to offend somebody.