|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CAJ stance in Maclean's case questioned
June 5, 2008
- Posted by Regan Ray
J-Source contributing editor and Ryerson journalism professor John
Miller applied to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal this week to be heard
as an intervenor in the case against Maclean's magazine and columnist
Mark Steyn. His application was denied and his testimony will not be
heard by the tribunal. He wrote a blog post (reprinted below) about the human rights case and dissects Steyn's article “Why the future belongs to Islam."
Miller asks if Steyn's article meets the basic criteria for responsible
journalism. His answer? "Not by a long shot." Miller's application to
testify was discussed in the liveblogs
of those attending the tribunal, including that of Maclean's national
editor Andrew Coyne and conservative activist Ezra Levant. The case has
prompted a nationwide debate on the role of human rights tribunals in
Canada and writers at JournalismEthics.ca look into the issues in a
series on offensive journalism. Ron Friedman examines
the rising role of these tribunals in restricting free speech in
Canada. For some, such traditional means of response are just not
enough and Sunny Dhillon writes
about the increasing trend toward online advocacy through Facebook and
other social networking sites. And Catherine Rolfsen looks to other
parts of the world to find varying perspectives on what makes for
offensive journalism in a feature article for the series.
A reprint of John Miller's post (with comments from J-source readers below): Journalistic opinion is hailing Mark Steyn, of all people, as the new poster child for freedom of expression in Canada . I beg to differ. His xenophobic and Islamophobic writings in Maclean’s magazine have prompted a complaint by Muslims to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. Hearings are being held in Vancouver this week. Section 7(1) of the B.C. Human Rights Code prohibits anyone from publishing any statement that “is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt” because of their religion. That is the law as it stands, and everyone must obey the law. The problem with the Code is that it seems to treat all types of publication alike. Section 7(1) provides no basis for distinguishing between legitimate examples of free expression, such as a carefully researched piece of journalism, and speech which should be proscribed, such as a racist polemic. Without some objective test or measure for what constitutes hateful publication, the principles of free expression and freedom of the press could conceivably be jeopardized by this legislation. The Canadian Association of Journalists has intervened in the case to argue for a narrow interpretation of Section 7(1). It is proposing that the following factors be considered in determining whether a published statement is hateful or contemptuous: (a) What the intention of the author was (why it is said); (b) Whether the statement was expressed in “good faith;” (c) Whether the statement was relevant to a subject of public interest; (d) Whether it “was believed to be true;” (e) Whether or not it has been shown on the evidence to have silenced the target group or hindered the free exchange of ideas. While I applaud the CAJ for trying to guide the tribunal in its interpretation of Section 7(1), I wish to argue that its proposed criteria are unsatisfactory and troublesome for several reasons: First, they are not objective or measurable. How can the tribunal know what the intention of an author was, or whether a statement was expressed in good faith? Secondly, they are unreasonable. Why should the tribunal force a group maligned by hateful speech to prove that it has been silenced as well? Thirdly, they are inadequate to distinguish hateful speech from legitimate speech. Even racists can argue that they believed a hateful statement to be true and that it was in the public interest to publish it. Balancing the rights of free expression and equality in the application of Section 7(1) is a worthwhile and necessary goal of the B.C. hearings. (Ethical disclosure: The tribunal turned down my application to intervene after the lawyer for Maclean’s objected. What follows is the gist of what I wanted to say.) A good test for how to determine the balance between these two important rights is suggested in the recent statement of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which found it did not have jurisdiction under its legislation to consider this same complaint. But it did say the following: “It is often said that with rights come responsibilities. It is the Commission’s view that the media has (sic) a responsibility to engage in fair and unbiased journalism. Bias includes both an unfair and one-sided portrayal of an issue as well as prejudicial attitudes towards individuals and groups based on creed, race, place or origin, ethnic origin and other Code grounds. Freedom of expression should be exercised through responsible reporting and not be used as a guise to target vulnerable groups and to further increase their marginalization or stigmatization in society. “ www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/news/en/resources/news/statement The Ontario Commission said the media have a significant role to play in either combating societal racism or refraining from communicating and reproducing it. It defined Islamophobia as “a form of racism that includes stereotypes, bias or acts of hostility towards Muslims and the viewing of Muslims as a greater security threat on an institutional, systemic and societal level.” The Maclean’s article, it said, was an example of Islamophobia. In its defence, the editors of Maclean’s claimed “the article in question was a legitimate piece of journalism written and published in good faith.” So was it? Does Steyn’s article, “Why the future belongs to Islam,” published in Maclean’s on Oct. 23, 2006, measure up to the standards of responsible journalism? Not by a long shot. His argument rests on four questionable premises, none of which is attributed to sources or accompanied by reliable evidence. Premise #1: “Demography is the most basic root of all. A people that won’t multiply can’t go forth or go anywhere. Those who do will shape the age we live in. Demographic decline and the unsustainability of the social democratic state are closely related.” Premise #2: Islam has serious global ambitions, and it forms the primal, core identity of most of its adherents.” Premise #3: “The modern multicultural state is too watery a concept to bind huge numbers of immigrants to the land of their nominal citizenship. So they look elsewhere and find the jihad.” (He also says that while not all Muslims are terrorists or support terrorists, “enough of them share their basic objectives.”) Premise #4: “On the continent the successor population is already in place and the only question is how bloody the transfer of real estate will be…Native populations are aging and fading and being supplanted remorselessly by a young Muslim demographic.” Mr. Steyn’s lack of attribution or evidence violates journalism’s discipline of verification, namely (as defined by Kovach and Rosenstiel’s The Elements of Journalism): “Seeking out multiple witnesses, disclosing as much as possible about sources, or asking various sides for comment, all signal such standards.” Two of his premises – #1 and #4 – oversimplify the complex field of demography and misstate the facts. A well-documented article in The Economist in June 2007 debunks such assertions and, interestingly, refers specifically to Mr. Steyn as a “conservative polemicist:” “American observers from Walter Laqueur, an academic, to Mark Steyn, a conservative polemicist, argue that Europe is fast becoming a barren, ageing, enfeebled place. Vast numbers of old people, they reckon, will be looked after, or neglected, by too few economically active adults, supplemented by restless crowds of migrants. The combination of low fertility, longer life and mass immigration will put intolerable pressure on public health, pensions and social services, leading (probably) to upheaval.” (Source: The Economist, June 14, 2007, “Suddenly the old world looks younger”) The article quotes demographic studies showing that 16 European countries, with a total population of 234 million, now have fertility rates of 1.8 or more. Half are above 2.0. Despite near-panic about “inevitably” declining population, then, some European countries are growing quite strongly. They tend to be in northern Europe, from Sweden to France. Many of these, of course, are social democratic countries with child-care supports (France, the Netherlands and Scandinavia, contrary to Steyn’s assertion that such states discourage “the survival instinct”). And it’s not because of immigration in general, or Muslim immigration in particular. The Economist cites a study by Laurent Toulemon of the Institut national d'études démographiques (INED) which found that immigrant women in France do have high fertility (2.5 compared with 1.65 for French-born women). But because immigrants make up only one-twelfth of women of childbearing age, this raises the national fertility rate only slightly. Mr. Steyn’s premise #4 – that “the successor population is already in place” – is also contrary to the facts. Aside from France (10%) and the Netherlands (5.4%), the Muslim populations of the rest of the countries of Europe are all under 4 percent, and countries like Italy and Britain have Muslim populations roughly equal to Canada’s 2.5 percent. The idea that Muslims in Europe will be in a position to demand special concessions like Sharia law in the near future is unlikely. He is content to quote people without checking out their facts. He quotes a Norwegian imam, who says “every Western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children.” This is a statement of fact, and is easily checked out, but neither Mr. Steyn nor the magazine bothered to do so. The facts, as established by France’s INED, are that in France, like everywhere else in Europe, the birthrate among immigrant mothers drops quickly toward the local norm in less than two generations. This reflects factors such as universal female education, rising living standards, the effect of local cultural norms and availability of contraception. The science of demography is not as simplistic as Mr. Steyn portrays it. His menacing reference to Islamic “will,” and particularly the will of young Muslims, as a threat to the West also appears to be questionable. As a 10-country Zogby International opinion poll in 2002 showed, young Muslims do not hate the West. They actually admire Western technology and lifestyles, although they disapprove of U.S. policy in the Middle East. Mr. Steyn’s attempt to use anecdotal evidence to back up this claim also fails the test of accuracy. For example, he cites a 2006 incident in which Moroccan “youths” beat to death a 54-year-old Antwerp train conductor. He says three youths were arrested but the ringleader escaped because most of the 40 bystanders were too intimidated to come forward to help police. He uses it as an example of weak-willed Europe letting wanton and unprovoked violence by young Muslim immigrants go unchecked. In actual fact, the conductor, Guido Demoor, was not “beaten to death;” he died of a subarachnoid hemorrhage caused by a pre-existing condition, according to newspaper accounts of the trial. Nor was he murdered. The charge against his one attacker, an adult, was assault and battery, and he received a conditional sentence. Charges were dismissed for lack of evidence against the other five suspects, some of them youths, who were all arrested within two days from descriptions provided by bystanders. Other specific claims in the article are questionable. For example, Mr. Steyn states that high birthrates in Muslim countries “will give tiny Yemen a higher population than vast empty Russia” by mid-century. Yemen’s population in 2007 was 22 million, and Russia’s was 141 million. Barring some historic collapse of the Russian population, Yemen is not going to overtake it by 2050. A projection by the U.S. Census Bureau says Russia’s population will decline marginally before reversing itself and registering a low rate of growth in the early part of this century. Another example: He cites the example of a London judge who agreed “to the removal of Jews and Hindus from a trial jury because the Muslim defendant’s counsel argued he couldn’t get a fair verdict from them.” Not true. Although the judge did make such a ruling, no Jews or Hindus presented themselves for jury duty for the 2003 trial of the Muslim cleric, Sheikh Abdullah el-Faisal. The cleric was convicted of counselling murder on the evidence, mainly tapes he made calling for the death of non-believers. A simple Google search (as I have done here) shows the selectivity and carelessness Mr. Steyn used in his research, almost as if he set out to tailor the evidence to his thesis that Islam constitutes a threat to the West. This violates several of the standards for responsible journalism cited in Kovach and Rosenstiel. It is contrary to the value of keeping the news comprehensive and proportional – specifically by “inflating events for sensation, neglecting others, stereotyping or being disproportionately negative.” It violates the discipline of verification – specifically by not “seeking out multiple witnesses, disclosing as much as possible about sources, or asking various sides for comment.” And it runs contrary to a journalist’s first obligation to the truth – specifically by neglecting “the professional discipline of assembling and verifying facts.” His article in Maclean’s seems to fit the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s definition of bias in that it constitutes “an unfair and one-sided portrayal of an issue.” I agree with the Commission’s opinion that this article is Islamophobic because it “includes stereotypes, bias or acts of hostility towards Muslims and the viewing of Muslims as a greater security threat on an institutional, systemic and societal level.” Mr. Steyn and Maclean’s also appear to violate a great many of the principles and guidelines for reporting that the Canadian Association of Journalists adopted in 2002. They include (to name only the most obvious ones): Fairness: Our reporting must be fair, accurate and comprehensive. When we make mistakes we must correct them. We respect the rights of people involved in the news and will be accountable to the public for the fairness and reliability of our reporting. We will not allow our own biases to influence fair and accurate reporting. We will report all relevant facts in coverage of controversies or disputes. Accuracy: Reporters are responsible for the accuracy of their work. Editors must confirm the accuracy of stories before publication or broadcast. Editors must know in detail the documentation to support stories and the reliability of the sources. Access: We will encourage our organizations to make room for the interests of all: minorities and majorities; those with power and those without it; disparate and conflicting views. Discrimination: We will avoid thoughtless stereotypes of race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status. Indeed, one is tempted by this evidence to conclude that Mr. Steyn’s article was not journalism at all, but a “polemic” – which my dictionary defines as a selective attack. It lacks the discipline of verification, which Kovach and Rosenstiel say “separates journalism from other modes of communication, such as propaganda, fiction or entertainment.” The result is an article that, in its tone and substance, portrays the influx of Muslim immigrants into Europe and North America as a “threat” to the fabric of Western society and to democracy itself. It alleges, without citing any factual evidence, that Muslims are part of a global conspiracy to take over Western societies, and that all Muslims, because of their beliefs, need to be seen as the enemy because “enough of them” personally share the basic goals of terrorists and provide, through their mosques, a support network for terrorism. They are incapable of being loyal citizens of Western societies and turn to radical “Jihadism” as an inevitable consequence. A year ago writer Johann Hari reviewed Mr. Steyn’s book, America Alone, from which the Maclean’s excerpt was taken. Writing in The Independent newspaper on June 2, 2008, he said: “It is a piece of bigotry, based on garbled statistics and ugly prejudices. But free speech includes the right to make claims that are wrong, stupid or abhorrent – or it is no freedom at all. The way to rebut Mark Steyn is through argument. His case is weak; it will never win in an open row. Expose the facts. Rebut his figures. Laugh at his ignorance. The truth is strong; trust it.” I agree with that statement with one exception: Maclean’s chose to give Steyn’s views maximum exposure, filling the cover and several pages of a magazine that claims a readership of 3.1 million across Canada. Even if it wanted to (and it plainly doesn’t), the publication would not be able to give counter arguments or factual corrections the same exposure. Nor would any other publication in the country. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Fatal error: Cannot break/continue 1 level in /home4/journal2/public_html/english_new/include/search-engine/api.php on line 360
Comments are now closed on this article.
Thank-you for contributing to the discussion.
So Miller, I don't want to hurt your feelings but I gotta say, once I got down to your explanation of why the conductor was't really murdered, I began to think the article was actally a hoax - you couldn't seriously expect us to accept your break in the causality, could you? I mean, we all learnt this in school, like 12 years old. You take your victim as you find him. If you demand money with menaces and the frightened old geezer drops dead of a heart attack, it's murder boyo, not manslaughter - better if you'd have got mad and stuck him. When did you begin to let go and slide into the totalitarian world view? I'm interested because middle class, educated Germans in the 30's must have had to confront many of the same compromises, before it all went terribly wrong (for them and 60 million others) No, I didn't check the population count. Well, good luck with the political appointment you're hankering for but don't forget what happened to the officers in charge of the Bastille, who were just doing their jobs.
'Bye-bye.
LP
Miller: "there are legitimate limits in the law on freedom of expression, including libel, including hate speech, including certain aspects of what you can say in advertising."
These are only reasonable restrictions to free speech when the infraction comes before a real judge, in a real court, who recognizes "truth" as a defense if it is proven. A defendant in such a trial would have rights not likewise afforded to the respondent in an HRC hearing (like representation!). If the case was found to be frivolous or vexatious, the defendant could seek financial redress – not in the HRC. Previous court decisions could be expected to have some relationship with –if not impact on- the case in hand, unlike HRCs where no such precedent exists. And this is just the procedural stuff, to say nothing of their actual body of decisions – the human right not to have to wash your hands when you work at McDonalds, the human right to smoke pot on other people’s commercial property even if they object, the human right to force a reluctant plastic surgeon to repair your butchered sex change operation even if he’s not comfortable with it, and on and on.
But surely you know all of this, you’re a university professor, you don’t need us to teach you this stuff. You MUST know all of this, and yet you pledge your support to this bizarre, illiberal apparatus. You offer to speak on behalf of a group who thinks that Macleans should have to surrender 5 pages of their magazine (including editorial control, cover art, and no say in selection of the author) and make a cash payout (i.e. Dane-geld) to a charity of the extorters’ choosing – extorters who would take their case to THREE different jurisdictions to get what they want.
Of course, they LIED about making those demands, but you were there so you must already know that. For the last five months (in various venues including an extremely one sided discussion hosted by our own school), they claimed there was no demand for money, and that the author would be “mutually agreeable.” Then they finally admitted under oath that they LIED about those things, acknowledging there actually WAS a demand for money, and that there NEVER actually was an offer for a “mutually agreeable” author until the story went public and they started getting "heat" for their stance. This all came out in the very courtroom you went to, to speak on their behalf.
I ask myself “How? How can this nonsense happen in Canada?”
And then I read an article defending it, by a university professor (at my own school no less), whose superior knowledge of history and journalism must afford him a unique understanding of the importance of free speech, whose calling is to help shape and sharpen the minds of the next generation of thinkers, and he can’t do any better than to (falsely) accuse Steyn of racism, and suggest we all just pipe down and go on obeying an unclear "law" ("likely to expose" to "hatred or contempt") enforced by self-serving bureaucrats. Is that the depth of insight required to get tenure these days?
I think something as precious as the right to free speech deserves, at a minimum, the protection of the ACTUAL law when it is being challenged, not the flimsy subjective relativism it is exposed to in these ridiculous HRC star chambers. There is no clearer way to say it: we don’t have free speech because we are a democracy, we are a democracy because we have free speech.
Let's see if I understand Professor Miller correctly. Call my child "ugly" once and it's an opinion. Call my child "ugly" a hundred times and it's hate speech to which I have redress through the Human Rights Tribunal. Give me a break. Anyone who repeatedly calls your child ugly is a boor; but so what, the world is full of boors. And Professor Miller, what's the Human Rights Tribunal supposed to do if my child is in fact "ugly"? I can see the headlines now: "By A Vote Of Two To One The BCHRT Ruled That No Compensation Was Warranted Because The Child Was Ugly."
I believe the world would be better off if all opinion related speech were allowed. [I don't have any statistics to back up that statement. I looked for them on Google, but Google didn't have a connection to my mind--so the Google search was futile.] Let the shame of the community, not the courts, decide what speech is "appropriate".
Advice to the "commentors" who enter into a dialogue with a supporter or supporters of Professor Miller: "Don't get in a pissing contest with a skunk, the skunk's piss smells worse than yours, and the skunk doesn't mind getting pissed on." [Again, I have no reference to back up that statement--sorry.]
Reed Coray,
USA
Unlike many on this list, I post on my own email, under my own name. There is no need for anyone to look for sock puppets for Miller. I am here.
I start from the position that Maclean's defended its publication of Mr. Steyn's article as "legitimate journalism published in good faith."
I am merely asking what it is we regard as good journalism. Does it have something to do with the discipline of verifying facts?
I think it does. So deal with that.
I do not think the absolutism of "free speech" cuts a lot of ice. Someone posting under the name of Ron Good, who I presume is not the Ron Good, lawyer, of my acquaintance, said: "My right to freedom of expression, for example, is not contingent on some positive action of mine that satisfies someone else--it is mine because I am human. Period."
I presume it is not Ron Good, lawyer, because a lawyer would know that there are legitimate limits in the law on freedom of expression, including libel, including hate speech, including certain aspects of what you can say in advertising.
What is troubling in this discussion is that we seem to have reverted into one of two camps -- the one that upholds freedom of speech and of the press at all costs, and the one that says that there should be political corectness. There is a lot to be said for the grey areas between these two extremes, and that was what I was trying to explore in what I wrote about the Maclean's article.
The vitriolic response, including several personal emails alleging vile things about my lineage, are distressing and revealing. It makes me depressed about the ability of journalists, or people who profess an interest in journalism, to deal with nuance and the basic discipline of verification that lies at the heart of decent journalism.
Do you not think facts matter anymore? Do you not think writers owe readers an understanding of what they have waded through before they assert their opinions?
I give credit to two journalists I admire, Claude Adams and Bill Dunphy, to correctly keep us focussed on the facts, and not what you wish to be the facts.
Let the debate continue, but please stick to the facts instead of personal invective. I am a journalist after all, and therefore thick of skin. Personal invective cuts no ice. I must remain true to verifiable facts.
As I recall, Steyn did not indulge in racist polemic. If polemic it was, it was a religion, not a race, that he was criticising, an entirely different thing, a matter of faith, not birth, and entirely open to question or even ridicule.
Mr. Miller apparently doesn't understand the most elementary fact underlying Steyn's argument - that a birth rate under 2.1 reflects a declining population and a rate over 2.1 reflects a growing population.
Either Mr. Miller doesn't get that or his math skills are a little rusty. In hilarious ignorance, he confidently states that "immigrant women in France do have high fertility (2.5 compared with 1.65 for French-born women). But because immigrants make up only one-twelfth of women of childbearing age...". USING HIS OWN STATISTICS, this means that the overall birth rate in France is 1.7 - a seriously declining population. Yet he seems to have mistakenly concluded that a rate of 1.7 qualifies France as a European country that is "growing quite strongly".
The CAJ should add another principle to their guidelines: "Our reporting must not expose our stupidity."
It would take far too long to pick apart Miller's entire article; let me just examine one claim:
"He is content to quote people without checking out their facts. He quotes a Norwegian imam, who says “every Western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children.”"
Does Steyn quote the imam for his statistic or because the imam's statement backs up his claim that Islamists want to take over Europe by having more children?
How many petro-dollars did you get to write this muck?
Like you, I am wary of anecdotal evidence, but your attempts to rebut some of Steyn's anecdotal points are more ludicrous than you perhaps realize.
Regarding the train conductor supposedly murdered by muslim youths, you respond triumphantly that he wasn't "murdered", he died of a pre-existing condition while being, er, beaten by, er, muslims. Do you realize how crazy that sounds?
Secondly, regarding the trial jury in which a muslim defendant asked for Christians and Hindus to be excluded. "Not true!" you exclaim triumphantly, while conceding in your very next sentence that the judge did indeed make such a ruling on the jury selection. Your point is that, in the end, no Christians or Hindus were jury candidates anyway. I'll say this slowly - the point is not whether any particular denominations were actively excluded from the jury, the point is that the judge was willing to make a ruling to this effect. I look forward to seeing your spirited defense of a Christian who asks this same judge to exclude Muslims from any jury he might have to face.
Mr Miller calls Mr Steyn a Xenophobe. Now, whether Mr Miller is correct in assuming all muslims are strange & foreign is contentious, but granted Mr Miller has indeed adequately researched & weighed his position on that matter, attributing an abnormal fear of it to Mr Steyn is rather a stretch.
<em>It is often said that with rights come responsibilities.</em>
That is often said, but it is a complete non-sequitor. It's not true.
My right to freedom of expression, for example, is not contingent on some positive action of mine that satisfies someone else--it is mine because I am human. Period.
It is not half of some outwardly imposed "bargaining" process.
In other words, my right is not synonymous with, nor a mere "legal permission". It is something I properly have--and will fight to protect and maintain--even when it is denied.
Dunphy, with all due respect, Steyn is the one trying to spark a debate. Miller is the one who supports the use of the state as the vehicle to limit the terms of the debate - controlling if not extinguishing the spark, in my opinion. Nice of you to drop by just to point out that you're too enlightened to stay; don't let us keep you.
I was going to offers my thoughts and comments here on Mr. Miller's toughtful, if somewhat controversial, defence of the BC Human Rights tribunal, but after seeing how the substantive issues at stake are being confused and conflated by the many angry, deeply partisan commenters, I see that, sadly, it is probably a waste of time.
Too bad, these issues need a reasoned, rational airing which, agree or disagree with him, Mr. Miller was trying to spark.
Bill Dunphy
Prof. Miller,
Your essay is an example of what should happen in response to a polemic like Steyn's: take your best shot at refuting it.
The problem is, you're not content to stop there. It isn't enough for you to argue freely with those whose opinions you dislike. You want to silence them.
I'm an active, practicing Mormon. During the Mitt Romney campaign in the U.S. there were false, offensive things said and written about Mormons every day. The civilized man rolls his eyes and sets about better educating his fellow citizens. The tyrant insists they shut up.
You, sir, have revealed yourself a tyrant.
Had the professor argued for facts and sourcing alone, the uproar here would have been somewhat less uproarious. Note, our dear professor’s own facts and sourcing have taken quite a beating in the comments below – but is he guilty of anything other than sloppiness? Miller argued beyond that though – and into the gray area that you yourself identify, that of “fairness.” You and the state might be simpatico on what is “fair” today, but what about tomorrow? Maybe tomorrow, “fair” means what a conservative majority deems “fair” (as other commenters have rightly pointed out). If a conservative majority packed the HRCs with patrons who towed the conservative party line, and anti-christian or anti-establishment journalism became state-actionable, the leftist landscape of Canada would look like it just heard the brown note. I don’t want that any more than I want what is happening now.
Steyn’s politics? Hilariously presented, scrupulously sourced, and well argued. That’s how I describe them. Accurate? Open for debate. Or rather, temporarily open for debate.
That last sentence should send chills up your leg – and not the good Chris Matthews kind of chills, but real, actual, “Holy shit my country is becoming a laughingstock” chills.
Ryersonian, you use the term "soft fascism" to characterize a professor who argues that a journalist be required to check his facts and source his information. Every editor I have ever known does the very same thing: he'll spike a story, column or otherwise, that violates the basic principles of fairness and verification. Is this "fascism," is this censorship, or is this good professional practice?
Also, if Prof Miller is a soft fascist for what he argues, how would you describe Steyn's politics?
I think people should be visceral and ugly when discussing this issue, personally. And base, and boorish, and any other adjective you can conjure that suggests more than just a casual acquaintance to the grotesque activities of Canadian human rights apparatus. THAT should truly offend you. My delicate sensibilities aren't offended when I encounter someone who posts mean stuff, and I know who’s making a reasoned point and who is not. I trust most are of equal resilience and perception.
The thing that really offends me is that the soft fascism proffered in this article is being taught –implicitly, if not explicitly- in my very own school. I sincerely hope some of the posters here are your colleagues, sir, but I doubt it - save for two, perhaps.
To wit, poster “Good stuff”...if you aren’t Miller himself, then you have just hitched your wagon to the most obviously dim star in the nebulous journalism community. I have to say I applaud your moxie, sir.
(“Marxie” is maybe more applicable).
I agree with the statement
"I am horrified that a professor of journalism (Miller) would take a stand in support of the Human Rights Legislation on speech."
Indeed how scary it was to read his comments and obvious own 'hate' of Mr. Steyn.
How shocking in the free land I came to now being turned into a country none of us (from the free world of the UK ) recognize.
Mr. Miller should consider that if freeom of speech is lost in Canada - his and every writer in this country is included.
First, I do not hate or dislike Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikk or any other religious group. They are all welcome to live peacefully in my Canada and they are welcome to practice their religion under the laws of my Canada.
However, they are not allowed to subvert our society's laws or freedoms nor bring their grievances from afar. My Canada is a place that my father and his fellow country men fought & died for to ensure we live in a free democracy, free from tyranny and fascism.
I want my Canada to be a place where our media and our citizens are free to report, opine, debate, discuss or expose all facets of life in the world in which we live in today.
As a Canadian, I refuse and will fight to my dying breath to ensure that my government in whatever form (in this case the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals) cannot and does not dictate to me or my fellow Canadians what we can think, discuss, debate or opinate about in our public forums (medias) regardless of the subject and regardless of whether someone's feelings "might" be hurt. We have criminal laws and defamation laws to deal with those who may cross the line into real hate crimes or inciting others to commit "acts" of hate or violence to my fellow citizens (Canadian or otherwise).
The bottom line is as Canadians we have the wherewithal and the right to decide for ourselves what is relevant or not and whether we believe a point of view as valid or reject it. I will not accept a paternalistic, condescending BIG BROTHER telling me otherwise nor anyone who believes they can trample my rights under the Charter of Rights & Freedoms to conform with their narrow version or interpretations.
As Voltaire so adequately stated in 1727, "Liberty of thought is the life of the soul."
Steyn is as irresponsible to Islamicists as H.L. Mencken was to anti-evolutionists. That is why both are responsible journalists.
Mr. Miller's logic is so densely illogical as to defy description. Mr. Miller is the one who should be tried for violating the rights of anyone who wants to read writing that actually makes sense.
Wow, the visceral and ugly tone of this thread, in reaction to what to me seemed a pretty reasonable argument by Miller, tells me that fear of "the Other" is still pretty prevalent in our society.
Paranoia once again trumps reason, and invective drowns out critical thought. That pretty much sums up Steyn's book, as well as those who defend him. I happen to believe in his right to write (and Maclean's to publish) anything he/they want. All I ask is that the discussion it generates be civil and thoughtful.
Truth is beautiful thing. You admire it and claim that the role of journalists should be to find it and verify it.
But did you not know that even the precious truth is not a defense in a hate crime trial before a Human Rights Commission in Canada?
It does not matter, it's of no consequence, it's irrelevant to these commissions if Mark Steyn was telling the truth or not. It may still be hatred and contempt.
Miller's argument is the most specious I have read in a long time.
He violates his own espoused principles of research and verification, for instance, quoting an outdated study to "refute" Steyn's stats on Russian population decline -- check out this 2005 article for balance: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_158/ai_n8680968/pg_1, Russia, the Sick Man of Europe. Russia, as it turns out, is in fact undergoing a "historic collapse" of its population, as Miller should have known even from his cursory Google search, unless he was cherry-picking data himself.
He chastises Steyn for using Mullah Krekar as a source. Steyn did nothing of the kind. He quoted Krekar to illustrate a point about Islamic extremism, not as an expert on demographics (although the mullah's figures were not far off).
He contends that the train conductor Guido Demoor's death was due to a pre-existing condition, as though that excuses the beating. It was Mr. Demmoor's fault for being so fragile that he went and died, apparently. (Look up the fragile skull doctrine of tort law, Professor. Not knowing your victim had a pre-existing condition doesn't get you off the hook.)
He goes on about objective standards for determining hate speech, as if that was even possible, and offers nothing but his own subjective opinion. Justice Potter Stewart's pornography standard comes to mind -- "I know it when I see it."
If this is what is taught in journalism school, it is no wonder that so many people don't trust the mainstream media with its transparent leftist agenda anymore.
Mike Baughman
Chicago, Illinois, USA
What else is one to expect from a pseudo leftist like Miller? In their hearts they know their ideology has been relegated to history's dustbin. Miller's polemic is just another example of the caricature that the left has become.
I'm glad someone from the journalism community is speaking up for justice.
I find Mr. Miller's essay hateful and contemptuous of Islamophobes, and wish to pursue a complaint.
If he's such a great journalism instructor which of his students is as widely published as Mark?
"Discrimination:
We will avoid thoughtless stereotypes of race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status."
The prof says the above LOL what bull he should have a disclaimer, unless you are male, Christian, a farmer, a minority who votes conservative, well any conservative, any "privileged" white, a gun owner, an unborn child, stay at home moms, members of the military....
"Another example: He cites the example of a London judge who agreed “to the removal of Jews and Hindus from a trial jury because the Muslim defendant’s counsel argued he couldn’t get a fair verdict from them.” Not true. Although the judge did make such a ruling,..."
Then it is true!
Presumably the prof would be ok with this Christian saying if I'm on trial I don't want any Atheists, or Muslims there either.
No no no he would call that HATE! But a Muslim does it and we need to be tolerant. I need to print this for my garden.
"Mr. Steyn’s attempt to use anecdotal evidence to back up this claim also fails the test of accuracy. For example, he cites a 2006 incident in which Moroccan “youths” beat to death a 54-year-old Antwerp train conductor. He says three youths were arrested but the ringleader escaped because most of the 40 bystanders were too intimidated to come forward to help police. He uses it as an example of weak-willed Europe letting wanton and unprovoked violence by young Muslim immigrants go unchecked.
In actual fact, the conductor, Guido Demoor, was not “beaten to death;” he died of a subarachnoid hemorrhage caused by a pre-existing condition,"
So according to this prof if you beat someone up and they die you can't say the people beating him up killed him. Then they wonder why people are so disrespectful of the media.
A lawyer might be dumb enough to believe it and the left might be dumb enough to believe that. Maybe the prof has some pre existing conditions I could put to the test.
What a crock the guys treatise for Stalinism is full of gobbldygook like this.
Hey prof move to Russia or China they already have the free speech laws you want here. Oh and what about Marks charter right number 2? Oh wait we hate conservatives so they don't get them. Just child pornographers like Robin Sharpe, et al.
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
Now your next homework assignment is to apply your comments to the CBC. That will be a challenge!
Mr. Miller, I just hope you never get appointed to one of those Human Rights Commissions. And by the way, how do these people get appointed? What qualifications do they have to decide what you and I can and cannot read? Be careful what you wish for. What if the Conservatives get a majority, and start appointing their own human rights commissars with their own opinons of what constitutes 'hate'? Will YOUR opinion suddenly be deamed 'hate' one day?
Dear Professor,your constant recourse to holy writ to allow,legitimise,journalism as anything other than a content analyis carried out under controlled and verifiable circumstances by accredited and approved bodies producing balanced and nurturing results reflecting "Canadian Values" explains why, like CSJ, you are producing hacks instead of writers.As a long time observer and visitor to Canada,I have always been amazed that so many exotic bylines can produce such identikit pap.If you really believe that Islamism is just another legitimate part of the warp and weave of the rich tapestry of the multicultural state then I think it is you who needs to do some research beyond your comfort zone of received methodology.Banishing Steyn won't resolve the issues he raises,and they are of real import to a great many people worldwide.
Hogwash!
You don't like Steyn because he doesn't fit into your left wing world view. The real problem with lefty jourlnalists like you is that you think you are moderates! Your refusal to see anything beyond your limited liberal scope is utterly amazing...and pathetic.
There IS a demographic shift in the western world. There IS a loss of heritage in Canada:
Saguenay, Quebec
Western Catholic Reporter
May 23, 2008
"The Quebec human rights commission has asked members of the Saguenay city council to stop praying before its meetings.
In a May 15 release, the commission said the city contravened its obligation to be neutral by starting its public meetings with the recitation of a prayer.
The members of a municipal council are the representatives of the state, said M. Gaetan Cousineau, commission president.
They have the right to their personal beliefs, but, during the exercise of their public functions, they do not have the right to favour or give the impression of favouring one religion more than any other."
There are many cases where our great nation is taken advantage of:
Diane Francis
Financial Post
Published: Saturday, May 17, 2008
"Condos in Vancouver and Toronto are often empty because they are adresses of convenience. Owners work abroad tax-free but pretend to reside in Canada to qualify for immigration, health care and other entitlements and ultimately citizenship for themselves and relatives."
May 23, 2008
Nicholas Keung
"When Canadian immigration officials in New Delhi began to notice the same guests appearing in photos of different weddings submitted as evidence for sponsoring overseas brides and grooms to Canada, an alarm went off.
Officers at the visa post pulled out all the other spousal sponsorship files to compare notes, and further investigations would discover several local temples were actually involved in "rent-a-guest" operations, setting up wedding ceremonies for immigration purposes."
A simple Google search was all it took for me to unearth violent statistics regarding Islamists:
6/8/2009 (Khost, Afghanistan) - Four Afghans are shot to death at point-blank range by Talibanis while sitting in their car.
6/8/2008 (Lakhdaria, Algeria) - Fundamentalists stage a double bomb attack, killing those who rushed to help victims of the first blast.
6/8/2008 (Ghazni, Afghanistan) - Eight Afghan are murdered in a Mujahideen ambush.
6/8/2008 (Mogadishu, Somalia) - Islamists ambush a military convoy in a civilian district, leaving some twenty people dead.
6/7/2008 (Helmand, Afghanistan) - Holy warriors kidnap and murder a journalist.
6/7/2008 (Kismayo, Somalia) - A journalist is shot to death by Muslim militants.
Is this writing hate speech or am I simply quoting statistics? You may regard it as hatred sitting on the left, where everything and everyone is "equal". From my perspective, these are facts that you would ignore, delete or suppress because it jeapordizes your fragile world view. A view that's been driven into you since you were a journalism student. Would you be an objective journalist? Reading your post, I highly doubt it.
And while you may not agree with Mr. Steyn's writing style (perhaps not mudane enough for you, professor), label him reactionary or xenophoibic, he does have the right to publish his findings just as you have the right to disagree with him.
James Thompson
Ottawa.
What the hell is going on in Canada? Thank God for the First Amendment down here.
The Steyn case shows more clearly than anything I could imagine that it is not individuals or magazines who are a threat to human rights, it is governments. There is no more terrifying, dehumanizing, oppressive force involved in this case than the Human Rights Commission wielding the power of the Canadian government.
When a man is not free to speak his mind on a controversial issue without being persecuted by the state, *that* is a violation of human rights.
I stand aghast that such a mockery of justice could be allowed to proceed in a supposedly free country, and that ostensibly educated people like you approve of it.
John Miller worte:
"The article quotes demographic studies showing that 16 European countries, with a total population of 234 million, now have fertility rates of 1.8 or more. Half are above 2.0. Despite near-panic about “inevitably” declining population, then, some European countries are growing quite strongly. They tend to be in northern Europe, from Sweden to France.
Many of these, of course, are social democratic countries with child-care supports (France, the Netherlands and Scandinavia, contrary to Steyn’s assertion that such states discourage “the survival instinct”)."
Nonsense:
Sweden: 1.67 children born/woman (2008 est.)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sw.html#People
France: 1.98 children born/woman (2008 est.)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html#People
Netherlands: 1.66 children born/woman (2008 est.)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nl.html#People
Norway: 1.78 children born/woman (2008 est.)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/no.html#People
Finland: 1.73 children born/woman (2008 est.)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fi.html#People
Denmark: 1.74 children born/woman (2008 est.)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/da.html#People
John Miller worte:
"The article quotes demographic studies showing that 16 European countries, with a total population of 234 million, now have fertility rates of 1.8 or more. Half are above 2.0. Despite near-panic about “inevitably” declining population, then, some European countries are growing quite strongly. They tend to be in northern Europe, from Sweden to France.
Many of these, of course, are social democratic countries with child-care supports (France, the Netherlands and Scandinavia, contrary to Steyn’s assertion that such states discourage “the survival instinct”)."
A birthrate of 1.8 is still below the replacement level so you are in essence supporting Steyn's thesis. I also submit to you that unless you are simply plagiarizing every idea you write it is impossible to source every idea. This is why it is called an opinion piece, and besides just because you quote someone else doesn't make the idea gospel, it simply means that someone else thought of it first. Finally whatever happened to "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it" (I'm sure the quote isnt exact but it is the general meaning). The proper way to discredit someone is to write a response to their thesis and to destroy their ideas by writing a better paper. The fact that these "Sock Puppets" seek to censor him only lends credence to Steyn's thesis that Islam is out to destroy the Western way of life as the loss of the freedom of the press and freedom of expression would be disastrous to any democratic society.
Dear sport, classic PC Left Liberalism. Bravo.
Dime a dozen, though, eh? Thus you're not a best seller I noticed.
Yes, it's all the fault of Mark Steyn the thought criminal. Check. Steyn is not a racist nor a bigot, and you know it. But um, you on the other hand in your cheery article, definitely are an ad hominem slinger of the PC kind, eh?
Oh, I get it, according to you, most everything is groovy with Islam and a laugh a minute in Europe too.
Great Logical Fallacy and mental, moral gymnastics, bub, as per usual 'of denial, of denial'.
Um, Islam is not a race, but a religion. It is a faith and to the faithless, it's merely an ideology and an idea. The dopey neo-totalitarian idea that these things cannot be discussed except er, your way, is bogus and monstrous.
I'm a Christian but I don't want or need Christianity protected from criticism or ridicule. Everyone should be able to speak, and be tested in the marketplace of ideas", and not just with the diversity of your opinion.
You're er, rebuttal is pretty off, Jim. It appears you don't like Steyn personally, hmmm? He threatens to shift a perhaps lazy, comfortable and long held morally vain paradigm? OK, I'll give what ya seem to be lookin' for.
Ok, YOU are superior to anyone who is not as maybe faux 'tolerant' as you protest you are. Hows that?
Good luck with that, kid.
Jihadwatch.org, thereligionofpeace, Brussells Journal, stophonourkillings etc, etc, may disagree. Um, maybe check out Dr Sanity dot blogspot or dissectlef.blogspot.com and get help.
Hey, 'journalism' today. What a crock, fraud and cover for often fake rationale, and authentic mediocrity, lies, abasement and cowardice. But I would never say that.
"It must be 'criminal' justice indeed that should condemn a work as a substitute for not being able to refute it." Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man.
Yours in boredom, Colonel Neville.
Dear Sir,
Are you insane? I am serious when I ask that question. And let me ask another question. Who are you to determine what "hateful" speech is and whether or not such speech "harms" someone, or a group of people for that matter? Who is anyone to judge? If I wish to call someone a "fag", or a "white oppressor", or a "right wing Christian nut", or an "Islamic nut", it is MY business to speak. When YOU get into the business of filtering or punishing my speech you have entered the realm that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao so comfortably dwelt within. Give it a rest, come off that very high horse of yours, and stop trying to impose YOUR will on others. And although he has not yet been imprisoned (not yet, I say), let me state now - FREE MARK STEYN!
James Cicalese, Indio, CA
What pure, unmitigated rubbish.
"Free speech for me, but not thee", eh Miller? Your censorship is showing, Dearie.
Great smackdown of this laughably weak argument here:
http://tinyurl.com/3ncxeg
mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm
I am horrified that a professor of journalism would take a stand in support of the Human Rights Legislation on speech.
Free speech is either free or it isn't. Unless the speech leads to immediate action to illegal acts by others, already covered in criminal law, there should be no limitation.
If anything the CAJ intervention is weak and limiting in itself. The CAJ has no business in setting itself up as the group who should set the rules for free speech. What arrogance!
For you, Miller, to claim the State should take a role in "distinguishing between legitimate examples of free expression, such as a carefully researched piece of journalism, and speech which should be proscribed, such as a racist polemic" is pompous and arrogant. Thank goodness for the internet which, for the moment, limits the "thought police" like him.
Of course governments like China already follow Miller's prescription. The Chinese Constitution says all the right things about freedom and liberty, with the proviso that the Government decides what those things actually mean in practice. This is what Miller proposes and what is already the case in Canada.
I do not need some politically appointed hack on a commission or a self important professor to tell me what I should be allowed to read.
Miller shows an amazing lack of knowledge of the history of development of English law, democracy and freedom of the press, unforgivable in one who has somehow managed to teach at university level. He would take us back in time. One despairs at the lack of intellectual vigor at journalism schools if Miller's teachings are an example. Shame on him.
Robert Herron
Sounds like a pettifogging timeserver to this reader.
Let's argue, but your transparent attempt to limit opinion betrays hypocrisy in your claim to be for free speech.
The only thing troubling here is the attempt to rationalize an indefensible position such as the one Miller puts forward.
So Macleans and Steyn are 'wrong' and should therefore be silenced by a government tribunal? No journalism is responsible journalism? Please.
Fortunately, not even the BCHR tribunal put any validity whatsoever in hearing this nonsense, although it sounds like they could have written it themselves.
Steyn didn't write his book as a journalistic article. He wrote it as a polemic. So it is disingenuous of you to complain that an excerpt of a polemic doesn't meet the standards of journalism.
I appreciate your presentation of facts and will weigh that in the scales on the opposite side of Steyn's book, but your argument against the CAJ's position seems to boil down to "if we leftists aren't allowed to summarily decide what is and isn't hate speech, how on earth are we going to quash it?" As a person in favor of free speech, including speech I find offensive, that is troubling to me. Maclean's should have the right to publish whatever opinion they want, regardless of whether or not you find it offensive.
<i>(b) Whether the statement was expressed in “food faith;”</i>
Typo.
The very article you write lacks most of the standards that the journalistic code is supposed to abide by. It is simply a polemic dressed up as objective and factual. Certainly you are expressing your opinion just as Steyn has done. He did not write an academic book. He simply expressed his own beliefs as he sees them. Like you. Take it or leave it.
Every day I read the left-wing rants of Lawerence Martin and Jeff Simpson in the Globe and Mail. I do not go to the human rights tribunal because the Globe journalists express half truths and show disdain for Conservatives and consequently annoy me.
Who are you to decide, or the Human Rights tribunal, if free expression and private propery rights should be curtailed under certain conditions as determined by you and the commission.
Let the courts decide.
This is the whole point of this controversy.
Greg Stockton
Are you nuts? Everyone in the civilized world is laughing their ass off about this.
Hmmm. Some hair-splitting by the author regarding the death of the bus driver. Rather glib dismissal of the contention demands for Sharia in Europe, especially England would grow. (I suppose Steyn wasn't anticipating Rowan William's advocacy of same, however circumlocutious the good Archbishop's reasoning.) Slippery use of demographic figures and polling by Miller as well. Frankly, not a convincing argument made here, I have to say. (Disclaimer: I enjoy Steyn's writing. I like shit-disturbers, especially in an era of rampant media self-censoring, and cack-handed defense of bad social policy. It is a pity the writer was unable to present his views at the disgraceful HRC hearings in B.C. Anything that would push these otiose "judges" into finding for the complainants would have been for the best.)
Yours,
Robert Quinn
Osaka, Japan
All I can say is, thank God I'm an ugly, capitalist-pig American with my ugly First Amendment rights. But seeing what's happening north of the border is scaring the hell out of me. How much longer till we too have to put up with this kind of nonsense?
Food Fight!
Typical garbage written by a liberal elitest. Only speech which agrees with his views should be allowed. He even shows his narrow mindedness by banning his own students from writing in an independant newspaper.
Plus if steyns arguements are faulty, how come in Russia and Germany they are paying for people to have kids. If immigration is not a problem how come in Britian they are trying to create laws to limit immigration? The authors search probably consisted of just looking at negative reviews which is typical of lazy elitist professors
Some other reasons why I think the above piece violates its own standards of good reporting.
Many of the demographic studies used to refute Steyn's arguments in the Economist were not available to Steyn when he wrote his book.
"Many of these, of course, are social democratic countries with child-care support" ---Of what relevance is this other than it seems to reflect a bias of Mr. Miller's preference for social democratic countries.
I would also urge readers to read arguments by Deborah Gyapong that deal with other aspects of Mr. Millers arguments http://deborahgyapong.blogspot.com/
Terry James
Vegreville, Alberta
This is the epitome of "thought police" rhetoric.
I disagree strongly with your arguments and I think you have made what I call "errors in logic" as you have dissected this piece.
First "He cites the example of a London judge who agreed “to the removal of Jews and Hindus from a trial jury because the Muslim defendant’s counsel argued he couldn’t get a fair verdict from them.” Not true. Although the judge did make such a ruling, no Jews or Hindus presented themselves for jury duty for the 2003 trial of the Muslim cleric, Sheikh Abdullah el-Faisal."---- The fact that no Jews or Hindus presented themselves does not change the judges ruling or Steyn's argument.
Second "In actual fact, the conductor, Guido Demoor, was not “beaten to death;” he died of a subarachnoid hemorrhage caused by a pre-existing condition, according to newspaper accounts of the trial." Does this change the fact that he was beaten by a group of Muslim youths one of whom escaped because on an intimidated crowd.--------I would interpret the above to mean the court could not convict them of murder because of his pre-existing condition.
"the birthrate among immigrant mothers drops quickly toward the local norm in less than two generations. This reflects factors such as universal female education, rising living standards, the effect of local cultural norms and availability of contraception."--------Perhaps but you cite no sources to back up this point.
Moreover I think Steyn is a columnist and not a reporter, and I as a reader know that. I think all of the points he made are at least arguable, if not correct. I think you are as guilty as he is in starting with a position and then looking for arguments to support it. I suggest that you yourself have not brought all relevant information to bear on the arguments you have cited, and have broken your own rule.
• We will not allow our own biases to influence fair and accurate reporting.
Sincerely,
Terry James
Vegreville, Alberta
Anyone who has followed the actual proceedings agains Macleans in British Columbia will simply guffaw at Mr. Miller's "reasoned" and "nuanced" arguments.
When TRUTH is not an absolute defense ( whether or not it offends some group); when emotional offense is sufficient to trigger a "hate crime"; when centuries-old rules of evidence and procedure are not followed, but instead are swept aside to be substituted by the whim and caprice of autocratic "judges"; and when defendants are denied the opportunity to confront their accusers (where is Elmasry again?) it matters not a whit what the precise wording of the statute is.
In Soviet Russia millions were sent to the Gulag or the basement of the Lubyanka prison to be shot, after "proceedings" like the ones the HRC regularly conducts.
The trials were all very "legal", of course.
Your bias is showing. Your Marxist rhetoric does nothing but console those who hate Steyn's position. You would restrict the freedoms of all to punish one that you disagree with. The Tribunals are a farce and you hate that they are being exposed. Commisar miller you would have made a good party member circa 1924-1990.
Since the 3.1 million readers of Maclean's are clearly too many for your taste, at what readership level shall we nullify Mark Steyn's (or anyone else's) freedom of speech?
A million readers? 500,000?
Please tell us where to set the bar.
And you're a speech nazi.
CAJ's own rules of engagement on who is worthy to be published on their own comment page seems somewhat suspect;fairness recognized only by those who practice, teach or study journalism? PLEASE!!
Mark Steyn makes a fairly good syndicated living at practicing it while Mr. Miller seems happy to be stuck at the corner or Yonge and Ryerson and therefor unread. Anyone out there see the movie classic TEACHER'S PET with Clark Gable and Doris Day?? Said it all really. Not only are Miller's thoughts and ideas and opinions not anywhere on the marketplace of ideas on what is left of the very notion of a tough liberal democracy, people like him are responsible for the state a tough liberal democracy finds itself in. It's no bloody wonder, with this kind of thinking on display in our institutions of "higher learning" (cultural relativism) that Human Rights Commissions exist in the first place. As my girlfriend of East Indian origin told me almost ten years ago when putting her required "minority status" on a NDP inspired (BOB RAE) application form; "you guys gave away the farm". Fortunately she was Hindu and not a Muslim, so the comment was offered with the best of humour. I miss her.
John McKillop
Prague
So isn't the solution more speech rather than less? If Mark Steyn is full of it, I see pieces such as yours as a fine counterpoint (though you also play a bit fast and loose with your figures and rhetoric).
Do you really want some Central Scrutinizer looking over every journalist's shoulder, post-hoc, then criminalizing articles he deems insufficiently supported? Don't assume that those of your weltanschauung will always be working the levers of this body.
I think you missed his attribution of figures from the UN and European governemtns. He does present numbers, anecdotes quotes and news trends. Check the book.
Where to begin? Mr. Miller is a representative of the Great Canadian Diversity Machine so it is not surprising that he is unhappy with Mr. Steyn's writing. What IS suprising is that he manages to miss the point on so many aspects of the story. This is about the freedom of a writer to have a point of view and marshall an effective argument to support it. This is then open to criticism and argument and the great world rolls forward. It is not about the narrow legality of a "Human Rights Code" but about first principles.
There are few things in Mr. Miller's submission that are open to fact checking however the references to the US Census Bureau are bogus. Their international population data base shows Russia dropping from 140 million today to 107 milliion in 2050. Yemen will grow from 23 million to 71 million in the same time frame.
But these are nitpicking. Whether Yemen surpasses Russia in 2050 or 2075 is hardly the point: Russia IS suffering a catastrophic population collapse and Yemen is, as the Imam said, "breeding like mosquitoes."
Well we see how well written the article by the CAJ is by the lazy proof reading. Typical of the left.
{
(a) What the intention of the author was (why it is said);
(b) Whether the statement was expressed in “food faith;”
(c) Whether the statement was relevant to a subject of public interest;
(d) Whether it “was believed to be true;”
(e) Whether or not it has been shown on the evidence to have silenced the target group or hindered the free exchange of ideas.
}
'Good faith' is what I believe you meant, but you had to get to the protest against good sense, so you couldn't actually read what you wrote. Or it could be an obscure reference to the cafeteria scene in "Animal House" which has more composure the the C.H.R.C. you little fascist.
As I see it the Media is responsible for reporting facts. But you want them to be a tool in promoting your ideals, big brother. And I mean that in the Orwelean sense, you see it is always the Left that must try to destroy freedom, and community standards, they build nothing but a sense of entitlement in the groups they say are victims. Without the victims they have nothing to do, as their skill is in propaganda, they must have total control, God forbid a free thought work its way into the process. Oh Canada.
The article in McCleans was about a 'NOVEL' (Prayers for the Assassin) you do understand that it by definition it is a work of fiction. So the article was a review of a work of fiction, and this is against the law in Canada. . ? Oh Canada.
But those peace loving Muslims that take offense at any mention of what their brothers do in the name of Allah, have no comment on this story
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/06/05/gay-bashing-in-amsterdam-goes-unnoticed-in-us/
But reporting this in Canada is probably against the law.
Oh Canada...
Oh my, if this is what students in journalism are being taught, is it any wonder that investigative and responsible reporting has disappeared from Canada's MSM.
Rather than investigate and report the facts, Mr. Miller believes himself qualified to determine the motif behind Mr. Steyn's writings.
I ask you this - what "rules" should we as Canadians be following: the very cut & dried indications of the Canadian Constitution and Canadian law, or the vague outlines of section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Code? The rights to freedom of speech,expression, and religion are all in great danger as a result of this particular section in a code that does not even deign to allow itself to be governed by the standard rules of law. It simply runs rampant over our rights as Canadians, saying that it is "protecting" the rights of "other" Canadians. Aren't we all entitled to our opinions? Aren't we all entitled to the same rights?
"comment by Muslim Steynfan on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 1:38 pm:
Here is a copy of the letter I wrote Mr. Steyn 2 days ago, as published on his website:
I’m born and raised in Vancouver, B.C., the home of the Mark Steyn inquisition of 2008. I’m a Muslim, born, raised, confirmed, etc.
I’ve read your columns for about eight years or so, and have laughed, fumed, agreed, and pouted over your various takes on vaious issues. I even perused one of the ones about theatre (trying to impress a girl…long story).
The point is, i’ve agreed and disagreed, but not once did a I feel my human rights violated. Not once did I feel the need to sue, run to a human rights commission, nor demand that the publication or website in which that particular column appeared give me equal access to write a response.
This includes the day when I picked up the Maclean’s issue feauring an excerpt from America Alone. That day, I read your piece, and the first thing that struck me was…demography. I mean, that is the central theme… it was all about the great demographic paradigm shift. And you know what? It was/is concerning. My parents moved to Canada in 1974 (7 years before my birth) for a reason. They were attracted to Canada’s adherence to a fair and balanced legal system, and a free society that my parents were fortunate to have witnessed growing up in Fiji, which had also been a British colony. The traditions of Western civilization that made this society just, peaceful, free, secure and economically hopeful were the reasons they and countless other immigrants moved to Canada. It certainly wasn’t the weather. Today, that society is being challenged, as this demographic shift is occurring.
I am writing in my support of you in the case of the Canadian Islamic Congress V. Maclean’s.
Muslim groups don’t just target the Mark Steyns and Ezra Levants of this world. In my community here in BC, I was openly criticized by the local Muslim bigwigs for writing an article in a Muslim paper in which I talked about the stupid call by Muslims to protest Denmark in the wake of the Danish cartoons. I also received flack after one of your columns (the one about ‘Mustafa Shag’) inspired me to write a
column on the thin skinned faux outrage of some Muslims in ridiculous and frivolous matters: from the ‘offensive’ Dairy Queen swirl in the UK to the Nike shoes that kinda, sorta, looked like they said “Allah” in Arabic script if you squinted and turned your head oh-so slightly to the left and were in the right light.
Human rights commissions are useless to begin with (see the Assal satellite dish case). I already wrote my local MP in support of repealing section 13 and supporting Keith Martin’s Private Member’s Bill. However, she is the NDP Defense Critic (Dawn Black), so she’s too busy grilling the Defense Minister on the well-being of our enemies in Afghanistan.
I was fortunate enough to hear Ezra Levant speak at the Fraser Institute last week. As he said, this is an attack on our liberties. This is an effort by individuals who come from a place where a free press is not values, imposing their values on Canada, not adapting to the values of the land. When the government’s quasi-judicial kangaroo courts act as their allies, it makes America Alone that much more chilling and relevant, as the change in our values happens right before our eyes. The very
values that I, and countless other Muslims benefit from and prosper from, and run to to escape the horrific living conditions in the Muslim world, are allowed to be destroyed, and the government is an accomplice.
The very reason I write in Muslim newspapers, as much grief as it gets me, is because the extremism is a Muslim problem. I have to speak out to our community. Its the responsibility of Muslims to do this, just as it was the responsibility of Catholics to address child molestation in churches. Yes, when it kills 3,000 people, it becomes the world’s problem, but as Muslims, it is our cross to bear (no pun
intended). The details in your excerpt, as it appeared in Maclean’s should have been written by a Muslim and distributed in Mosques a long time ago. The fact that you quoted the Ayotollah didn’t anger me. I was only anger when I had read what he said, as a representative of Muslims. You sir, have done a marvellous job, and I salute you.
I apologize for the length of this e-mail. Once again, best of luck in your defense of freedom.
Name withheld on request
Vancouver, B.C"
"The result is an article that, in its tone and substance"
Just a few weasel words like that qualifies your entire post as drivel.
Envy is consuming you.
Nothing in your post even remotely approaches your apparent calls for "fairness" and "accuracy". So I assume this means you will refrain from publishing until you can improve your journalistic integrity, lest you contradict yourself.
You took a very long time to say that you support the suppression of free speech.
You are quite right to wish to silence Mark Steyn.
He actually quoted an imam who got a fact wrong. That shouldn't be allowed. He separated France's native fertility rate into Muslim and non-Muslim instead of lumping them together to dilute his case. The nerve!
It's not as though people are allowed to say anything that upsets anybody. As you rightly point out, the law is the law and it must be followed. That's why I've never understood all the fuss over Rosa Parks. She was just a criminal, right?
Miller agrees that “The way to rebut Mark Steyn is through argument.” Yet he supports the idea that three government bureaucrats in BC should be able to shut him up permanently.
Then he makes categorical statements quite unsupported with any evidence:
“Even if [Maclean’s] wanted to (and it plainly doesn’t), the publication would not be able to give counter arguments or factual corrections the same exposure. Nor would any other publication in the country.”
Why would Maclean’s not be able to give counter arguments the same exposure? Why is it “plain” that it doesn’t want to? Just because it refused to submit to blackmail? Has he submitted a rebuttal for publication and been refused? Did he send a letter to the editor after the article was published? Perhaps an article to the Globe and Mail?
What a confused and ill argued essay.
You state that the law must be obeyed (as if it were holy scripture) and then in the next breathe you accept that the law is open to differing interpretation, as well as ignoring the laws which clearly state that the CHRCs should not be used to impede free speech.
Then you make much of how much you disagree with Mr Steyns opinions as if this somehow justifys censoring him. You even quote Johan Hari stating that the correct response to such ideas is to openly disagree and try and discredit them but then contradict that by stating that instead the ideas you disagree with should be censored. On the grounds that they were published by a wide circulation magazine.
What a completely confused argument. You seem to be implying that it's alright to publish such opinions you have decided are 'unreasonable' but only if they are in a magazine of limited circulation. Think about the logical extension of your argument. Every piece of journalism must be checked to see if it is acceptable or if it is a 'polemic'. Then a decision must be made as to whether the publication is too large to be allowed to carry such a piece. So that, presumably, a small town paper would be allowed to publish pieces that a large national paper or magazine would not be alloweed to.
Rather than searching for ever more convoluted ways to justify censoring opinions that you disagree with, perhaps you need to take a long hard look in the mirror and remember why freedom of speech is so precious and that freedom is only real if it is granted to all comers, even the so called 'racists' and other 'irresposible' elements.
So stupid and literally minded that only an academic could have written it.
You certainly do make some good points here. I read the original Steyn peice that Macleans printed. While I did agree with him in some ways, I was kind of concerned about his broad generalizations of Muslims. And I couldn't help but get the feeling that he had an "axe to grind" with the Muslim community. His article and also his book would have been much more scholerly, had he been more dispashionate, objective, and tactfull. When I read the part about the thugs beating-up the conductor, I couldn't help but get the feeling that he was thinking to himself, "what is this Neanderthal ethnic group even doing here?". And keep in mind, the tables could have very well been reversed in the form of a group of Neo-Nazi skin-heads...of which Europe has plenty...beating up an old Morrocan immigrant on his way to work. And I'm quite sure Mr. Steyn would NOT support the notion that all Europeans are malicious racists based on something like that.
As for assetion that multiculturalism is too watery a concept for immigrants to bind to with their new country of residence, I tend to agree with him. As naturalized immigrant from Jamaica who has been here for almost two decades, I still don't really feel like I'm "Canadian", even though my Canadian passport says that I am. But for Steyn to say that this causes Muslims in general to gravitate to something as extreme as "Jihadism", is, should I say, "stretching it a bit". Keep in mind of course, you will have a few hot-heads who become radicalized and become jihadists, but that is certainly not true of a whole community.
Should people like Mark Steyn and Mohamed Elmasry be silenced by official decree? Absolutely NOT!!! My beleif is that the truth of a matter will always rise to the surface for everyone to see it. The best way to deal with people who talk nonesence, is to simply let them talk their nonsence in public, so that it can be picked apart, word for word, and be publicly ridiculed and laughed at.
Besides, I personally don't trust ANY government to be the arbiters of what is, or is not to be said in public, without it causing some unneccesary damage to peoples liberties. If I did, I would be quite happy to live in a place like China or Singapore.
"Even if it wanted to (and it plainly doesn’t), the publication would not be able to give counter arguments or factual corrections the same exposure. "
Is that a legal requirement? I don't notice a rebuttal to your post, of equal length and prominence. What gives, are you a hate-monger?
My reply to this piece can be found at www.ottawawatch.blogspot.com
So you rightly argue against Steyn's book.
But the HRC is not arguing against the book, or even against Maclean's. It's arguing against the _right_ of Macleans to public what it wants to.
That's called suppression of free speech, and no matter how nice the paper is you're using as a wrapper, your argument still stinks like a dead fish.