The Islamic Republic of Canada
 

Coming soon to a continent near you.

Steyn said the CIC and law students acting on its behalf aimed to shut down debate by making it more trouble than it's worth for editors to run pieces on controversial topics.

But he added, "In using quasi-judicial coercion to squash debate, they make one of the central points of my argument -- that a proportion of Islam is inimical to Western traditions of freedom -- more eloquently than I ever could."

The "offending" article.

Re: The Islamic Republic of Canada
 

First.

Re: The Islamic Republic of Canada
 

Steyn is a cryptoracist, cryptofascist scumbag and an idiot. So I see why you would like him so much.

And yes, the article is offensive.

But I don't see how this reaction is any more "inimical to Western traditions of freedom" than the average reaction of the Catholic League. Overheated yes. Typical though for any Western religion.

I think it shows they have been paying attention and are integrating well.

Re: The Islamic Republic of Canada
 

The Muslims should have a chance to run an article of equal length and stupidity, albeit not in the same magazine.

Re: The Islamic Republic of Canada
 

That'll shut them up for hating our freedom!

Re: The Islamic Republic of Canada
 

Teh Newfie FTW.

Re: The Islamic Republic of Canada
 

Well, it's stupid when the Muslims do it just as it's stupid when Christians complain about far less offensive things.

Re: The Islamic Republic of Canada
 

Time to wiretap all of Canada to protect freedom.

Re: The Islamic Republic of Canada
 

as Scarlatti points out- Rex Murphy had some good stuff to say on this:

CBC.ca | The National | Archive | Rex Murphy | Human Rights Gone Awry

go CBC! :D

Re: The Islamic Republic of Canada
 

How is wanting a chance to rebut something "squashing debate"?

Re: The Islamic Republic of Canada
 

What's disturbing about the comment section on the linked page is the amount of unoccupied intellectual space between what appear to be quite polarised viewpoints.

Most of the "free speech" advocates make no effort at all to qualify their statements with any condemnation of the apparent hysterical tone of the original offending articles ("TEH MUSLIMS R COMING!") and quite a few seem outright in agreement with said (I noted more than one post of the "This is a Christian Nation" variety). The overall impression is that, for many "free speech" advocates, the tone and hysteria of the article would be unproblematic even if there was no threat of thought-policing its author and publishers. Perhaps for some its simply a case of the threat of the loss of free spech being more fundamental than the distant threat of such opinions expressing themselves as political discrimination, but there is a strong implication in many of the comments of approval for the actual hysteria-mongering that started all the fuss.

On the other side of the discussion there are frequent comparisons to demonization of the Jews prior to the Holocaust and the "denial" of a right to response being itself suppression of free speech. Clearly the Nazi's did not give their Jewish victims a chance to respond, whereas one assumes Canada has many avenues for offended Muslims (and non-Muslims who find hysterical Muslim-bashing offensive) to freely express their disgust. So the comparison is spurious.

If this is possible in theory but difficult in practice because of institutional barriers, I would sympathise with their position, since it would prejudice the right of those subjected to criticism to be heard. Sometimes I think Americans (and it appears Canadians) are a little too hung up on institutionally protected free speech at any cost*. In societies with massive inequality and seriously disempowered and unpopular minorities, it can equate to a one-sided, prejudicial hate-fest. But Canada doesn't strike one as such a nation and little evidence is presented for this thesis.

*I think the great value of freedom of speech is simply that it allows societies to explore the phase space of all possible ideas without arbitrary and irrational barriers being put in the way, thus enabling more rapid social evolution. But when an idea and its variants have already been tested repeatedly with horrifying results, it becomes reasonable for some societies to close certain avenues if the idea set they're terminating is well enough defined not to risk occluding a near relative that is worthwhile. So, for instance, I agree with (my limited understanding of) many central European anti-Nazi laws.

Re: The Islamic Republic of Canada
 

That would be like me wanting you to give me a chance to breathe. What they want is to exert control over the content of a media outlet that doesn't belong to them.

Re: The Islamic Republic of Canada
 

Macleans is a Canadian newsmagazine that's received plenty of governmental protectionism and publicly funded breaks over the years. It's hardly in a position to pose as the strictest defender of freedom from public institutions.

The single most striking thing about the backlash, including from Rex Murphy, the Fraser Institute's most reliable press-release-reader, is its misrepresentation of the students' challenge. Steyn is not the object of the complaint; no hate-speech laws are being invoked; the complaint does not say that Steyn shouldn't write as he pleases, nor that Macleans shouldn't publish it.

The complaint is that material that is hysterical, grossly inaccurate, and calculated to spread alarm about an entire culture of people should be presented with an opposing view as well. The students in question did not even demand to present the opposing view; they proposed a response by a mutually-agreed commentator.

As it turns out, I think that this legal challenge is not a good idea, though naturally it's hard to find too much fault with anything that further decreases the odds of yguy's living in one's country. Anyhow, it's hardly a no-brainer; there are reasonable arguments against simply hoping that a completely unregulated "marketplace of ideas" will reward sober clarification as strongly as it rewards vile demagoguery of the Steyn variety. But the OMFG FREEDUM!1!! brigade seems to be avoiding an accurate characterization of the actual issue with a consistency that strongly suggests deliberate misrepresentation.