Special Report: Mark Steyn Is Not Alone

The American Spectator ^ | 1/15/2008 | Brooke M. Goldstein

[Aristotelian]

Plenty of other authors and counterterrorism experts are being sued by Islamists to shut them up.

Award-winning author Mark Steyn has been summoned to appear before two Canadian Human Rights Commissions on vague allegations of "subject[ing] Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt" and being "flagrantly Islamophobic" after Maclean's magazine published an excerpt from his book, America Alone.

The public inquisition of Steyn has triggered outrage among Canadians and Americans who value free speech, but it should not come as a surprise. Steyn's predicament is just the latest salvo in a campaign of legal actions designed to punish and silence the voices of anyone who speaks out against Islamism, Islamic terrorism, or its sources of financing.

The Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC), which initiated the complaint against Steyn, has previously tried unsuccessfully to sue publications it disagrees with, including Canada's National Post. The not-for-profit organization's president, Mohamed Elmasry, once labeled every adult Jew in Israel a legitimate target for terrorists and is in the habit of accusing his opponents of anti-Islamism -- a charge that is now apparently an actionable claim in Canada. In 2006, after Elmasry publicly accused a spokesman for the Muslim Canadian Congress of being anti-Islamic, the spokesman reportedly resigned amidst fears for his personal safety.

The Islamist movement has two wings -- one violent and one lawful -- which operate apart but often reinforce each other. While the violent arm attempts to silence speech by burning cars when cartoons of Mohammed are published, the lawful arm is maneuvering within Western legal systems.

[danneskjold]

[moonhawk]

No, I don’t liken Mormonism to Muslims...and I don’t think the OP was doing that, either. You’re just playing the bigotry card, just like the Muslims. But the historical point is true, and the tactic may work to defeat these terrorist a-holes.

BTW, Mitt is my second choice...assuming Hunter is a non-contender, of course.

[Peter Libra]

From the text.

In 2006,after Elmasry publicly accused a spokesman for the Muslim Canadian Congress of being anti-Islamic,the spokesman reportedly resigned amidst fears for his personal safety

I took a look at the website for the Muslim Canadian Congress. I have bookmarked it. Seems to be encouraging in the belief that there are cooler heads out there. The Human Rights Commissions have far too much power. That power is partly that which is vested in public fear.

Not good for Canada. Events will show whether they after all, are a paper tiger- if challenged.

[PGalt]

Thanks for the ping, Anti-Bubba182. Great thread. Thanks for posting Brooke M. Goldstein’s outstanding article, Aristotelian.

[maine-iac7]

But the historical point is true, and the tactic may work to defeat these terrorist a-holes.

you liken the Mormons to the Muslims and promote using the same "tactic" used on the Mormons to defeat the Muslims....

The "tactic" used on the Mormons was mobs that attacked, murdered -including bashing babies heads against walls - and drove them from state to state and finally, in self preservation, to the wilds of the west - and not so much in protest of their religion as to drive them from their beautiful homes and well established and prosperous farms, which they then took over for themselves.

You still think the Mormon/Muslim association you use is valid and call ME a bigot?

Amazing

[moonhawk]

I did not call you a bigot..nice red herring, though.

I said you called someone else a bigot, when he was referring to a political strategy. He did not bash Mormons, much less their babies’ heads against any walls.

He said a political strategy that was used to end bigamy—Do you support that, BTW?—could be used against CAIR and/or the Canadian equivalent.

I didn’t see him equating Mormonism to Islam, especially todays Mormons.

But keep crying..I’ll get you a hankie.

[SatinDoll]

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. But I think a way to achieve that end is to look to the discrepancy between our nation’s heritage, constitutional practices, and our culture.

We don’t kill someone just because they have a different religion. Many Americans think their religion is the only correct path to righteousness, but religous wars haven’t been fought here, at least not with armies. We also don’t kill those who decide to convert to another religion, though some groups practice “shunning”, and individuals are allowed their exercize of personal liberty and religou choices unhindered by threats of death.

Islam is completely at odds with our cultural values and functions more like a cult: you can get in but you can’t get out. Try to, and you’re dead.

We would be following the moral high road, leading the way for other nations caught in a multcultural quagmire of their own making. It isn’t like we are demanding a religion to convert, only change one aspect of its accepted behaviors. The killing allowance is a horrifyingly cruel method for controlling religous adherents and is a violation of Western Civilization’s cultural norms, completely out of stem with our values. If Muslims want to live in our nations then that is one value they MUST accept.

And it must be done officially, with an united Islamic officially acknowledged acceptance.

[haroldeveryman]

“It is an established principle of constitutional law that none of the rights granted in the Constitution is absolute. Freedom of speech, for instance, has its limits. Civil libertarians may have struck down obscenity laws, thus legalizing four-letter words like f– and s– and c–; but the very same people enacted hate-speech and hate-crime laws, as well as laws against work-place discrimination, that in effect illegalize other words, like n– and k– and s– and w– and ... you get the idea.”

Thanks for your reply. This is to take issue with Card’s opinion that none of the rights granted in the Constitution is absolute (Is this the science fiction writer? My son’s a big fan of his and I enjoyed reading “Ender’s Game”).

Anyway, here goes. Freedom of speech has traditionally been interpreted as speech in the sense of “expression of ideas”. The “civil libertarian” left has debased the concept of freedom of speech to mean speech in the sense of yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, or in a milder form, promoting the gratuitous use of four letter words in public expression. This is not done out of any love of freedom. On the contrary, being authoritarian control freaks, leftists hate freedom of thought.

So how does the left deal when confronted with speech that communicates ideas it doesn’t like. As Card notes, it suppresses such expression by enforcing politically correct language (a form of censorship). Occasionally, this boils over more severe forms of suppression such as shouting down speakers or storm trooper tactics as recently occurred when feminists ran off the President of Harvard. This is the opposite of what the framers of the constitution meant by free speech

However, in the paragraph quoted above, Card appears to accept the left’s concept of freedom of speech as valid. Once he goes down that road he is forced to conclude that “freedom of speech has its limits”, and that NONE of the rights granted in the Constitution (are) absolute. At that point, we have a “living constitution”, where rule of law is breaks down and “truth” is determined by government edict backed by the threat of physical force. An example of this occurred last year when a constitutional amendment was weasel worded by leftist members of the supreme court to permit misuse of eminent domain by local governments.

I believe that the words in the Constitution should be interpreted according to what they meant when they were written, e.g., that freedom of speech has to do with free communication of ideas (not incitement or conspiracy to harm people). This gives constitutional rights absolute meaning.

[SatinDoll]

Yes, Orson Scott Card wrote Ender’s Game.

I don’t know how this became a discussion about free speech - I ignored that part of Card’s discussion. Maintaining the Right to Kill as a major tenant of one’s religion, in this case Islam, has nothing to do with either Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Religion.

People in this country are allowed the freedom to worship any religion or speak their mind as long as they DON’T HARM ANYONE ELSE. Islam doesn’t respect our rights.

Islam maintains that its adherents have the right to kill: non-muslims at will during Jihad, anyone who dishonors them (honor killings - as recently happened in California), or any apostates to their religion. This is dramatically at odds with, not only the legal system and cultural values, but our Declaration of Independence.

We outlaw cults in this country and Islam - once in you can’t get out - is more a cult that a religion. I believe we must use any and all legal means at our command to either get them to leave or publicly force them to change their insistence on the Right to Kill. We cannot, it is intolerable, to have a religion inside out nation that maintains the right to kill anyone they wish.

[haroldeveryman]

“Islam maintains that its adherents have the right to kill: non-muslims at will during Jihad, anyone who dishonors them (honor killings - as recently happened in California), or any apostates to their religion. This is dramatically at odds with, not only the legal system and cultural values, but our Declaration of Independence.”

I don’t know whether the first sentence in the quote is right or not. Some Muslims argue that this is only true of some fanatic factions. O.K., but even if it is, is it Constitutional to outlaw a religion? The closest parallel to this situation I can think of is a cold war era opinion from the Supreme court concerning whether the Communist party USA should be outlawed on the grounds that it advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. The Supreme Court argued against the outlawing on the grounds that, .... are you ready? That advocating the the violent overthrow of the U.S. government is protected under freedom of speech. However, taking any action to overthrow the US govt, including specific planning or conspiracy, is illegal. So just substitute Islam for the now defunct Communist party USA and the year 2010 for 1955 and you have the likely Supreme Court reaction to an effort to outlaw Islam in the USA.

All I can say is be careful of what you wish for. It’s Christianity that religion haters in the US and their lawyers have set their sights on. It’s Tres Cruces New Mexico that they’ve tried to force a name change on, not La Crescenta, California. Even if it were permissible for a religion to be outlawed in this country, Islam might be the last one to go

[Doc Savage]

A world without Islam is a GOOD world! A VERY GOOD world!
Canada is sowing the seeds of it’s own destruction! Frankly, good riddance, eh!

[SatinDoll]

Islam enters into nations as a religion but is actually a politcal movement. Muslims and clerics will target anyone who criticizes them, and does so agressively. This is no religion of peace. And don’t believe the propaganda about jihad being about an inner struggle, it is not. Christian converts from Islam have told me that is a bunch of crap - jihad means killing infidels for establishing Islam world-wide. Period.