* Faisal Joseph, a lawyer from the Canadian Islamic Congress who is representing the four students, argued that “journalists can’t write just anything.”
* “You have to be responsible. There are limits on freedom of expression, people seem to forget that,”
* Wouldn’t that be nice for our Muhammedan subversives?
* Muslim students file rights complaints over Maclean’s article
* But Muslim Canadian Congress defends Maclean’s freedom of expression
Four students at Toronto’s Osgoode Hall Law School are accusing Maclean’s magazine of violating their human rights over an article titled The Future Belongs to Islam.
* Which is what every Muhammedan cleric has been telling us ever since we started listening, innit?
They’ve filed complaints with the federal, Ontario and British Columbia human rights commissions over the October 2006 article.
The article discusses the high birth rate among Muslims and speculates that Islamic people could become the majority population in Europe. It also says some Muslims are violent radicals.
* Now ain’t that the truth? Who said ‘we will outbreed you with the bellies of our women?
Naseem Mithoowani, one of the Osgoode Hall law students bringing forward the complaint, said the article was one of a series of articles offensive to Muslims.
“This isn’t just one article in a context of fair and balanced media. This really was the straw that broke the camel’s back because it’s one in a string of articles that are anti-Islam and anti-Muslim,” she told CBC News.
* Being anti-Islamic is a matter of self-preservation, because Islam wants us dead or converted or in dhimmitude-slavery, resistance is not an option, but every citizens duty.
Khurrum Awan, another of the students, said the group will argue before the commissions that such articles tend to subject Muslims to hatred or contempt.
* You see, they just wanna be loved by you…and do everything possible to shut you up.
“To say that we share the same basic goals as terrorists … if you look at the theme of the article in the context, it is putting that label on all of us and I felt personally victimized,” he said.
Maclean’s said it stands behind the writer of the article, Mark Steyn, and it is confident the human rights commissions will find no merit in the complaint.
Faisal Joseph, a lawyer from the Canadian Islamic Congress who is representing the four students, argued that journalists can’t write just anything.
“You have to be responsible. There are limits on freedom of expression, people seem to forget that,” he said.
* Are there? Guess we need the Muttawa, the Islamic religious police, to enforce those ‘limits’- won’t we?
* But surprise, surprise:
‘This is Canada, not Sudan, Egypt or Pakistan, where the press is stifled.’
â€”Sohail Raza of the Muslim Canadian Congress
But Sohail Raza, a representative of the Muslim Canadian Congress, said Maclean’s had the right to publish the article.
“This is Canada, not Sudan, Egypt or Pakistan, where the press is stifled,” he said. “There is absolute freedom of expression and people have an opportunity to voice their opinion.”
Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association said the organization is concerned about the human rights complaints process.
It’s too easy to claim an article may subject a group to hate or contempt under commission rules, Borovoy said.
“Even truthful articles describing some of the awful situations in this world could run afoul of this law, it is so broad and such a potential threat to freedom of speech,” he said.
* Indeed. And that’s a worry, as we can see above.
But it gets better:
Anti Steyn Bigotry Backfires:
* Here’s a far left halfwit who attributes to Steyn quotes that actually came from Norway’s parasitic scumbag Islamofascist Mullah Krekar, who is still not deported. The good mullah sux Norway’s welfare system dry and threatens his hosts that he ‘can’t control’ those angry supporters of his when they start blowing shit up, something that good Muslims are known to do when they get upset with the filthy kuffars, and that’s just about always:
* Here Mark Steyn responds to a pretty spectacular screwup by Jim Henley:
Jim HenleyÂ (pictured)Â has his say on my present legal woes:
The excerpt from Mark Steyn’s America Alone that ran in Maclean’s last year is far more blatantly racist than I figured it would be when I began reading it. I knew Steyn was a bigot, with a 1920s obsession with demographic decline. (Cf. Tom Buchanan in Gatsby, who can’t stop talking about Rise of the Colored Empires, “by this man Goddard.”) But I imagined Steyn was more adroit in his use of code words and deniability feints. No! “Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes” is merely the most spectacular example of – not code words. I’m not completely shocked that Steyn would write with such frank bigotry, or that Regnery would publish it. I’m somewhat surprised that an establishment organ like Maclean’s would run it.
Nor am I surprised actual existing Muslim Canadians would take offense at the article. The article can’t touch me, an Anglo American, in the same way it can hit the emotions of a Canadian Muslim – it can’t feel as personal to me as it can to them… Mark Steyn is a racist douchebag in addition to being a ridiculous figure…
Etc. The words that so offend him are, indeed “frank bigotry”. However, if you read my racist diatribe, you’ll see the bigotry is not mine but Mullah Krekar’s:
* Norway’s Nightmare: Mullah Krekar, terrorist scum
“We’re the ones who will change you,” the Norwegian imam Mullah Krekar told the Oslo newspaper Dagbladet in 2006. “Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. 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.” As he summed it up: “Our way of thinking will prove more powerful than yours.”
Hello, Mr Henley? Anybody home in there? Those are quotation marks, because they’re someone else’s words – not the blatant racism of the racist douchebag Steyn but of a prominent Scandinavian imam. It’s tempting to say to Jim Henley, “Douchebag, douche thyself”, and leave it at that. However, in an attempt to divine his thinking on the subject, I’d like to ask him this:
What is it precisely about this statement that makes it “blatantly racist”? That a Euro-Muslim imam uttered the words? Or that an “Anglo American” (if I can be said to count as such) was culturally insensitive enough to reveal the mullah’s words to a wider audience? Is the problem Krekar’s “frank bigotry”, or “Anglo Americans” boorish enough to let the cat out the bag?
Or, if that’s too much for him, perhaps he could at least issue a clarification.