We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Saturday, May 10. 2008
Stick with it to the debate with the three Canadian†Moslem lawyers (or law students?). Video:
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
This is a piece worth watching and archiving.
Mark Steyn appears on a Canadian show, The Agenda, hosted by Steve Paikin (who I thought did a nice job) in part to discuss his book American Alone .
Also appearing on the show, but ostensibly originally to be on another segment were three Islamic Canadian law students who have filed complaints with various Canadian commissions concerning "free speech" and their "right" to be published in Canada's largest magazine, McClains
The tort is that they feel that after McClains had published a series of articles on Muslims they should have the right to respond in the magazine. McClain's refused their demands citing the myriad of other media outlets that have carried their side of the story.
Mark S. was dragged into the discussion due to his style of writing that the Muslims claimed defamed all Muslims.
The interview takes some time to watch but is well worth it.
I do not want to give it all away here but rather will fall back to the famous Senator from Pennsylvania, Arlen Spector's vote in the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton using the obscure Scottish "not proven"...I won't say which side didn't do the "not proven" part but would love to hear from other contributors on how they felt about the sand monkeys Muslims puking presentation.
Rather than exulting in free speech and free ideas, these three are attempting legal thuggery. Regardless of their case (and ridiculous Canadian laws and/or agencies), anything like this has a freedom-stifling effect. Why? Defendants have to hire lawyers, for starters.
I don't call decent Moslems sand monkeys, but these people - not Jihadists for sure - demean themselves and their adopted country's values by bringing this to the law instead of to the marketplace of ideas, where it belongs.
BD ? ...very nice choice of an very good program.
H‚bu ? [img] http://tinyurl.com/5lqnxt [/img]
now I must go eat taco wife has prepared for me...yeah
What's the Arabic term for 'A trio of shitbirds'? When they can't shout him down, they insist that he's quoting 'obscure' muslims that no one ever heard of. Like the Ayotollah Khomeni. Yep, there's a real unknown.
That trio needs their arse kicked, as we used to say.
If enough Canucks saw the TV show, it might make a difference. I'm just glad I'm not a [s]victim[/s] citizen of Canuckistan.
Carl H. ... I agree with your sentiments expressed -- except if there are three muslim idiots involved, they don't have only one arse among them. They have three. . . arses. Or maybe I'm wrong. They may be deformed in more than one way.
The Muslim's complaint was focused on not getting their message out. As Steve Paikin , the moderator /host and Merk Steyn both pointed out this is a global world with more than enough outlets for their message to get covered.
I believe it was Paikin that pointed out that it's a world where you can draw a few cartoons in Denmark and have an Embassy a half a world away burned down as a result.
Even to the uninitiated it is apparent the grievance is that the Muslims inability to sell themselves as freedom loving people willing to allow full expression of others ideas to be heard. It is in full keeping with sharia and the Qu?ran. They just want the world, that's all.
Let's do the beach tomorrow Habu honey.....
sure baby.....I'll drive....
Poor Stayn, but he wasn't pulled anywhere.
He willing defames Islam and shold not be surprised, which he is not.
He loves the way defaming makes him money.
I can defame Islam with fewer words and more insight but ain't lookin' fer monetary compensation and drag ner turned me on.
Don't know how ya conclude these thre are Jihadi's but yall have them pegged with your assesment.
They are attempting legal thuggery but are making a mess of it.
Islam attempts to instill a love of brigandry in all it's male minions but only a few can master it and superimpose it upon North American culture.
The boys get a chub for their effort to violate a hostile culture from within.
Curious, that this headline follows the fuckin' duck with dog.
Steyn's view licits a proper lead in... hell, it is his view.
Or is it the fuckin' dog on duck.
Steyn's playing the duck for the camera.
It's only a job, when all is said and done.
It is interesting to see that the three involved want far more than what the general public normally gets from Macleans: they don't want just their letters printed, but want full editorial control over a piece and as much space as they deem necessary.
They want that via court ruling.
Say what you will about the rest of their argument, but the point of taking editorial control of a piece away from a privately owned magazine should be chilling to anyone who believes in freedom of speech. As Steyn points out the piece of his in question got lots of letters coming in, and only at the three month mark do these three take any notice of it... does or does not Macleans have the freedom and right to say 'we have covered this topic enough'?
Utilizing an organ of the State to remove control over privately held property is something done only in the extreme for such things as common use roads. These three want that extended down to editorial control of a magazine. That should be extremely worrying for anyone in Canada and those covered under the basis of Common Law. That is a direct attack on the basis of English derived Common Law, and should be a horror to anyone watching this happen. If the State can utilize eminent domain to go after the freedom of speech, then there is, literally, nothing to stop State from taking everything under its control.
Just think of it as an attempt to an hostile takeover, a buyout without any money.
That's the Muslim way.
The boys deserve a chum for the attempt.
In one hundred years, if there is any Muslim left, their grandkids may perfect the western habit.
She may not be your cup of tea AJ... but Kathy has a sharp eye and an even sharper tongue on the situation you describe.
What a chiclett!
I wager Missy Kathy doesn't take comments well.
She swallows Stayn ewhole, too.
Line em up shcmucks.
Maybe Stayn's the dog and Katy is the duck butit's probably the reverse.
Looks like a new world record for consecutive incoherencies. Congrats!
My condolences upon your mental challenges, Tomcat.
Let me slow it down for ya.
Five' Fury is probably BD's dog and abused mensch, Mark Steyn, is the fucked duck.
Yea, that breaks down true to fact.
tom c say incoherent
me grok right brain giddy
blick splick it ub for babble fury
spa fon foo fighter finagle frabbish
Yea, spiff gibberish spoo kabooble lickedy split be bop de bop shoo bop
Thanks for clearing that up, Einstein. Challenging the most challenged is a pleasure? Frobble gop!
sure it's a pleasure -- the most-challenged are the least-challenging. Frab snabble.
Mr. Tom, me amusement is always elevated when dweebs, like ya, find entertainment communicating with folks they swear to God are not understandable and less than their intelligence will merit responce.
Boo likes Johnny Cash.
Maybe, yall should split the pea.
Let me help ya.
That leaves ya with 1/2 of 1, spike.
very few native speakers of Gibberish left. most passed away, due to exploding hyoid bones.
A straight-up 50$ nassau against a blind guy is challenging as well. Supposes me....
yep -- tho the fifty is probably safe, you still gotta play the whole 18. take forever, too, with that blind guy.