Saturday, October 31, 2009

Macleans Retracts, Will Steyn Apologize?

Something Dawg and others have already picked up, and
...something Maclean's would have realized months ago if they had only been paying attention. Of course, the first article Mark Steyn wrote on the topic, in which he accused CHRC Investigator Dean Steacy of criminal wrong-doing, is still up. So I will be sending Mr. Steyn yet another email suggesting that he apologize to Mr. Steacy and have Macleans put the article down. We shall see what kind of man he is.

23 comments:

The Mound of Sound said...

"We regret the statement"? That hardly sounds like a fullsome apology. That rag shouldn't be let off the hook on the strength of mealy-mouth regrets.

Ti-Guy said...

"Hacked into the email account." They can even get the details of their defamation right.

Mitka said...

Yes great idea BCL re: email to Steyn. I tried to inform our friends at BCF seems he has installed a new censorship tool for people like me whom he doesnt want around. Now when I click on his site it automatically goes to a site called "Toolshell.org". So BCF no longer wants dissenting opinions. Gotta love the censor!!

RuralSandi said...

"wants no dissenting opinions" - how freedom of speechy of him.

Ti-Guy said...

That's nothing new with Mr. Kathy Shaidle. He started deleting my comments looong ago. Even those in which I didn't insult his short, fat, thoroughly unpleasant and racist civil marriage partner.

Jay Currie (so he claims) put him in charge of his blog once and he never let my comments (and a few of Dawg's) out of moderation. And then Currie lied about it.

This, fundamentally, is what the speech warriors are all about. Naked, unbridled, unapologetic censorship.

Contrast that with liberal/lefty/progressive bloggers like BCL, Stageleft, My Blahg, Canadian Cynic, Dawg's Blawg (well, most of them, really) who rarely, if ever censor.

Paul S said...

Can't the CHRC force Canadians against their will to 'apologize"? Let them do that.

And since Canada's HRC's were the instigators of this illegal vendetta against Steyn, proper etiquette would stipulate that they initiate the first apology and financial reparations.

Seems only fair to me.

Mitka said...

And the other thing is that these rightwing cavedwellers rarely know of what they speak.

Look at Paul S above, he claims the CHRC "instigated" the complaint against Steyn.

Well firstly the complaint was never against Steyn it was against McLeans and secondly the CHRC were not the instigators. The complaint came from a group of Muslim students.

Hell if they can't even get the basic facts right why should they be be believed on anything else?

On the matter of their censorship, seems to me they are now running quite scared. Mark Freiman and Bernie Farber of the CJC did a professional and masterful job explaining what needed to happen in order to fix s13. A friend who was at the hearing (in stark contradiction to what was reported by Levant who was not there) told me that most of the committee members including the Tories couldn't get enough of Freiman's position. They saw it as an organization that is top of its game as compared to Levant and Steyn who testified the week previous. They were like pouting children in comparision. Seems he got through to them and the word is getting out. Its no wonder they don't want any more dissent on their medievil blogs.

Ti-Guy said...

Look at Paul S above, he claims the CHRC "instigated" the complaint against Steyn.

You mean Paul S. lied? I'm shocked. Shocked and disappointed.

Paul S. is actually a pretty smart person. It's just that he's a malicious liar.

Paul S said...

Well, are Canada's HRC's going to apologize or not? The CHRC was never mentioned in my post.

As for the Muslim students, yes, they went forum shopping until they found some government bureaucrats who would harass, and violate both Steyn's and Levant's constitutional rights.

I would expect the much more serious grievances committed by these HRC's should be addressed first. It only seems fair.

Ti-Guy said...

The CHRC was never mentioned in my post.

You mean this one:

Can't the CHRC force Canadians against their will to 'apologize"? Let them do that...etc.

Anyway...

As for the Muslim students, yes, they went forum shopping until they found some government bureaucrats who would harass, and violate both Steyn's and Levant's constitutional rights.

More malicious lies.

Are lies like potato chips to you, Paul? You just can't stop at one?

Paul S said...

Like I said the first time, the CHRC was never mentioned as the instigator of the frivolous complaints.

Surely you can distinguish between the CHRC and its' provincial counterparts Ti?

Secondly, the claim of forum shopping is well documented.

Lastly, shouldn't you be out stealing little childrens' candy by now?

Ti-Guy said...

Like I said the first time, the CHRC was never mentioned as the instigator of the frivolous complaints.

Moving past this latest twist in Paul's labyrinth of lies...

Secondly, the claim of forum shopping is well documented.

Well, show us the goods then. Or is linking to a post at "Stain On Lain" hard work?

Lastly, shouldn't you be out stealing little childrens' candy by now?

Try harder. Like: "Shouldn't you be busy handing out prophylactics and carbon offsets to the kiddies instead of Hallowe'en candy?"

..or like that.

sue930 said...

Paul S said: "As for the Muslim students, yes, they went forum shopping until they found some government bureaucrats who would harass, and violate both Steyn's and Levant's constitutional rights."

And here is the truth, the fuss was really instigated by Levant et al. In the end there was not a peep from the CHRC or the Alberta Commission till they dismissed the complaints. What exactly is Paul's problem?

Mitka's report that Blazing Catfur is now censoring his blog comes as no surprise. Like Mr. Levant (his mentor) BCF does not have the whereforall to rebut. Im only surprised that he didn't take his wife's (5 Feet of Fury) idea and have no comments at all. In the end they are all cowards.

Gordon Underhill said...

BTW its not only BCF that blocks people it doesn't want to hear from, I am told that Scaramouche does the same. These people are all hipocrits. Free speech is not their issue, extreme rightwing ideology is their mantra.

Ti-Guy said...

Im only surprised that he didn't take his wife's (5 Feet of Fury) idea and have no comments at all.

She prefers to live her censorship vicariously through the actions of others. She gets everyone to do her dirty work.

Besides, I think she writes half of BCF's posts and has access to that big ol' "delete button" or whatever Blogger uses for that.

The free speech warriors are the real censors. Like everything else about them, their hysteria is driven by the fear of others doing what they are all too willing to do.

Contrast that with the rest of us, who think the right of free expression comes with responsibility. Now who could be afraid of that?

Mitka said...

Who could be afraid of that?
Hmmm lt's see
Ezra Leavant,
5 Feet of Fury (Kathy Saidle),
Blazing Catfur (Mrs. Kathy Shaidle),
Scaramouche (Mrs. Ezrav Levant the second),
Ms. Jay Currie,
and from time to time Babble if they don't agree with you

Ti-Guy said...

Who's "Scaramouche?" Am I to understand this is Ezra Levant's wife?

Getting away from the personalities here, what is clear is that the speech warriors are not interested in free speech or more speech to combat bad speech/hate speech. What they want are for their speech to dominate and for their ideas to prevail, despite the fact that their ideas are not as popular as they need to be with most people, nor are they able to be argued persuasively for great lengths of time or with any kind of intellectual vigour.

Paul S said...

And here is the truth, the fuss was really instigated by Levant et al. -Sue930

Incorrect. It was persons other then Levant who instigated the complaints with certain pliant HRC's.

But since the concept of protection for one of our fundamental freedoms is something that eludes you, this basic truth would escape you.

Paul S said...

Try harder. Like: "Shouldn't you be busy handing out prophylactics and carbon offsets to the kiddies instead of Hallowe'en candy?"

..or like that.
-Ti

Ok, I handed out Tamiflu to the kids and when that ran out, I gave them pamphlets from various pro-life groups.

Is that better? ;)

sue930 said...

Paul S said...
And here is the truth, the fuss was really instigated by Levant et al. -Sue930

Incorrect. It was persons other then Levant who instigated the complaints with certain pliant HRC's.

But since the concept of protection for one of our fundamental freedoms is something that eludes you, this basic truth would escape you."

You really do have reading comprehension issues. I used the word "fuss" not complaint. Back to grade 3 Paul S and please try to pass this time

Paul S said...

Nobody instigates a "fuss" Sue, they instigate a complaint.

And instead of attempting to defend the illegitimate actions of various HRC's, why not try speaking up for one of our most basic rights?

sue930 said...

Paul S what a sorry excuse you are for a person who thinks he is capable of debate. The English language is quite an instrument. One you seem to little understand. You see Paul S words can have numerous meanings (I know this will come as a shock so you best sit down) and "instigate is one of those words. Just to help you along as you continue to struggle with your grade 3 education here is the definition of "instigate as found in dictionary.com.

in⋅sti⋅gate  /ˈɪnstɪˌgeɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-sti-geyt] Show IPA
Use instigate in a Sentence
See web results for instigate
See images of instigate
–verb (used with object), -gat⋅ed, -gat⋅ing. 1. to cause by incitement; foment: to instigate a quarrel.
2. to urge, provoke, or incite to some action or course: to instigate the people to revolt.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/instigate

Thus Paul one can indeed "instigate" a fuss. Paul S back to your books now.

Mitka said...

Sue that was pretty funny