<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Steyn responds to Law is Cool</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawiscool.com/2007/12/21/steyn-responds-to-law-is-cool/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawiscool.com/2007/12/21/steyn-responds-to-law-is-cool/?nucrss=1</link>
	<description>The law school blog and podcast from Canada</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:09:38 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: lawiscool</title>
		<link>http://lawiscool.com/2007/12/21/steyn-responds-to-law-is-cool/comment-page-1/#comment-376</link>
		<dc:creator>lawiscool</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:56:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawiscool.com/2007/12/21/steyn-responds-to-law-is-cool/#comment-376</guid>
		<description>DWPittelli: Yes, when this occurs domestically, this action usually follows. The hypotheticals you propose are not at issue, it&#039;s before a tribunal.

Ron: all it takes is one.

Vince P: Thank you for the links. This is a Law 101 site, so we will humour you a brief answer. Statements in Iran are obviously ultra vires to any tribunal in Canada. The context and delivery of these statements also appear markedly different than the ones in question here.

ActualLawyer: Appears from your IP address that you are from the US, like all the other readers here. As one of the other readers noted above, we do have slightly different perspectives about “free speech” in Canada.

John:  Interesting insights from our southern neighbours.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>DWPittelli: Yes, when this occurs domestically, this action usually follows. The hypotheticals you propose are not at issue, it&#8217;s before a tribunal.</p>
<p>Ron: all it takes is one.</p>
<p>Vince P: Thank you for the links. This is a Law 101 site, so we will humour you a brief answer. Statements in Iran are obviously ultra vires to any tribunal in Canada. The context and delivery of these statements also appear markedly different than the ones in question here.</p>
<p>ActualLawyer: Appears from your IP address that you are from the US, like all the other readers here. As one of the other readers noted above, we do have slightly different perspectives about “free speech” in Canada.</p>
<p>John:  Interesting insights from our southern neighbours.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://lawiscool.com/2007/12/21/steyn-responds-to-law-is-cool/comment-page-1/#comment-373</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:16:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawiscool.com/2007/12/21/steyn-responds-to-law-is-cool/#comment-373</guid>
		<description>If the United States is going to be in the business of forcibly spreading democracy, the next logical target is Canada. Few casualties would be involved because Canadians obviously lack courage- otherwise extra-judicial bureaucrats would not be permitted to censor speech on a whim. Canada&#039;s refusal to screen immigrants for minor tendencies like terrorism poses a threat to US security and, unlike Mexico where the government is merely incapable, the Canadian government chooses to harbor likely terrorists rather than appear to &quot;racially discriminate&quot; against people of a certain religion. We would be doing them a favor by invading, though initially they probably wouldn&#039;t be very grateful.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If the United States is going to be in the business of forcibly spreading democracy, the next logical target is Canada. Few casualties would be involved because Canadians obviously lack courage- otherwise extra-judicial bureaucrats would not be permitted to censor speech on a whim. Canada&#8217;s refusal to screen immigrants for minor tendencies like terrorism poses a threat to US security and, unlike Mexico where the government is merely incapable, the Canadian government chooses to harbor likely terrorists rather than appear to &#8220;racially discriminate&#8221; against people of a certain religion. We would be doing them a favor by invading, though initially they probably wouldn&#8217;t be very grateful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ron L.</title>
		<link>http://lawiscool.com/2007/12/21/steyn-responds-to-law-is-cool/comment-page-1/#comment-370</link>
		<dc:creator>Ron L.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:00:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawiscool.com/2007/12/21/steyn-responds-to-law-is-cool/#comment-370</guid>
		<description>&quot;Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace&quot;

There&#039;s the problem. Do you honestly believe that any of Mark Steyn&#039;s regular  readers are even capable of a breach of the peace? Most of them are over 45 and employed. The worst they&#039;ll do is start boycotting Pakistani restaurants.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace&#8221;</p>
<p>There&#8217;s the problem. Do you honestly believe that any of Mark Steyn&#8217;s regular  readers are even capable of a breach of the peace? Most of them are over 45 and employed. The worst they&#8217;ll do is start boycotting Pakistani restaurants.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DWPittelli</title>
		<link>http://lawiscool.com/2007/12/21/steyn-responds-to-law-is-cool/comment-page-1/#comment-369</link>
		<dc:creator>DWPittelli</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:51:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawiscool.com/2007/12/21/steyn-responds-to-law-is-cool/#comment-369</guid>
		<description>It seems to me that there&#039;s nothing in the &quot;Public incitement of hatred&quot; law that says &quot;Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty...&quot; could just as easily apply to members of the same &quot;identifiable group.&quot; 

As such, when some Imam defames Islam by pronouncing support of terrorism or a fatwa of murder, then he should be reported for breaking this law. After all, some of these comments are much more inflammatory than anything Steyn has written.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems to me that there&#8217;s nothing in the &#8220;Public incitement of hatred&#8221; law that says &#8220;Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty&#8230;&#8221; could just as easily apply to members of the same &#8220;identifiable group.&#8221; </p>
<p>As such, when some Imam defames Islam by pronouncing support of terrorism or a fatwa of murder, then he should be reported for breaking this law. After all, some of these comments are much more inflammatory than anything Steyn has written.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DWPittelli</title>
		<link>http://lawiscool.com/2007/12/21/steyn-responds-to-law-is-cool/comment-page-1/#comment-368</link>
		<dc:creator>DWPittelli</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:43:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawiscool.com/2007/12/21/steyn-responds-to-law-is-cool/#comment-368</guid>
		<description>&quot;CIC figures indicated a 1600% increase [in anti-Muslim &quot;hate&quot; crimes] post-911.&quot;

And that&#039;s due to Mark Steyn and other writers critical of Muslims? Or maybe some Muslims did something on 9/11/01 which led to this hatred? I&#039;ll have to go look it up.

At any rate, I don&#039;t see how those gross figures are useful in indicting Steyn, whose column(s) should be judged on their own merits. (For example, if I say &quot;kill the Muslims&quot; at a public rally, then I should probably be prosecuted for saying what is &quot;likely to lead to a breach of the peace&quot; regardless of any proximate, let alone national, statistics on Muslim-killing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;CIC figures indicated a 1600% increase [in anti-Muslim "hate" crimes] post-911.&#8221;</p>
<p>And that&#8217;s due to Mark Steyn and other writers critical of Muslims? Or maybe some Muslims did something on 9/11/01 which led to this hatred? I&#8217;ll have to go look it up.</p>
<p>At any rate, I don&#8217;t see how those gross figures are useful in indicting Steyn, whose column(s) should be judged on their own merits. (For example, if I say &#8220;kill the Muslims&#8221; at a public rally, then I should probably be prosecuted for saying what is &#8220;likely to lead to a breach of the peace&#8221; regardless of any proximate, let alone national, statistics on Muslim-killing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vince P - Chicago</title>
		<link>http://lawiscool.com/2007/12/21/steyn-responds-to-law-is-cool/comment-page-1/#comment-367</link>
		<dc:creator>Vince P - Chicago</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:24:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawiscool.com/2007/12/21/steyn-responds-to-law-is-cool/#comment-367</guid>
		<description>Back in 2002 there was a similiar &quot;Speaking the truth about Islam = hate&quot; human rights case in Australia.

Read one of the witness docuements as he evualated if the statements made about Islam were the truth:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/Witness%20Statement.pdf
(comment abbreviated)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Back in 2002 there was a similiar &#8220;Speaking the truth about Islam = hate&#8221; human rights case in Australia.</p>
<p>Read one of the witness docuements as he evualated if the statements made about Islam were the truth:<br />
<a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/Witness%20Statement.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/Witness%20Statement.pdf</a><br />
(comment abbreviated)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vince P - Chicago</title>
		<link>http://lawiscool.com/2007/12/21/steyn-responds-to-law-is-cool/comment-page-1/#comment-366</link>
		<dc:creator>Vince P - Chicago</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:09:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawiscool.com/2007/12/21/steyn-responds-to-law-is-cool/#comment-366</guid>
		<description>Where is the lawsuit against Iran?

Iran: Europe will become a Muslim continent, says Khamenei&#039;s spokesman 


Tehran, 21 Dec. (AKI) - Europe will eventually become a Muslim continent, according to a representative of Iran&#039;s supreme leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei. 

&quot;In a dozen years, Europe will be an Islamic continent,&quot; said Rasul Jalilzadeh on Friday as he was speaking to the basiji, a voluntary organisation in the capital Tehran. 

&quot;The Islamisation of the European continent is imminent and this step favours the arrival of the Mahdi,&quot; he said, referring to the 12th imam of Shiite Islam. 

Shiites believe that the Imam Mahdi, who disppeared as an adolescent, will return to bring an end to chaos and bring universal justice. 

Rasul Jalilzadeh believes that &quot;the Islamisation of Europe is one of the consequences of the Islamic revolution in Iran&quot; in that &quot;the messages and values that this revolution has transmitted to the Europeans, to convince them &quot;to abandon their current faiths and convert to Shiite Islam.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Where is the lawsuit against Iran?</p>
<p>Iran: Europe will become a Muslim continent, says Khamenei&#8217;s spokesman </p>
<p>Tehran, 21 Dec. (AKI) &#8211; Europe will eventually become a Muslim continent, according to a representative of Iran&#8217;s supreme leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei. </p>
<p>&#8220;In a dozen years, Europe will be an Islamic continent,&#8221; said Rasul Jalilzadeh on Friday as he was speaking to the basiji, a voluntary organisation in the capital Tehran. </p>
<p>&#8220;The Islamisation of the European continent is imminent and this step favours the arrival of the Mahdi,&#8221; he said, referring to the 12th imam of Shiite Islam. </p>
<p>Shiites believe that the Imam Mahdi, who disppeared as an adolescent, will return to bring an end to chaos and bring universal justice. </p>
<p>Rasul Jalilzadeh believes that &#8220;the Islamisation of Europe is one of the consequences of the Islamic revolution in Iran&#8221; in that &#8220;the messages and values that this revolution has transmitted to the Europeans, to convince them &#8220;to abandon their current faiths and convert to Shiite Islam.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TGunther</title>
		<link>http://lawiscool.com/2007/12/21/steyn-responds-to-law-is-cool/comment-page-1/#comment-364</link>
		<dc:creator>TGunther</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2007 14:49:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawiscool.com/2007/12/21/steyn-responds-to-law-is-cool/#comment-364</guid>
		<description>Actually, I&#039;m pretty sure Mr. Steyn just doesn&#039;t care whether or not the cockamamie HRC reads his blog or not -- he happens to think that they are an abomination, and is not afraid to speak his mind.  An opinion which judging by sentiments of someone approving of said cockamamie HRC&#039;s...

...I would hasten to agree.  

As an American who both values his First Amendment rights and fears the madness of some believers of the faiths of Islam (submission to Allah) and socialism (submission to &quot;do-gooders&quot;), it behooves me to call attention to threats made by radical believers of both faiths.

I must say that your choice of persecution for non-believers in your socialist faith -- threatening a man&#039;s freedom, dragging him through the indignity of &quot;cockamamie&quot; quasi-legal (or faux-legal) proceedings -- lacks something compared to the panache of Islam&#039;s adherents.  I don&#039;t think anyone will dress up for Halloween as a &quot;Human Rights&quot; attorney; dressing up as a suicide bomber or beheader is way more hip and trendy!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, I&#8217;m pretty sure Mr. Steyn just doesn&#8217;t care whether or not the cockamamie HRC reads his blog or not &#8212; he happens to think that they are an abomination, and is not afraid to speak his mind.  An opinion which judging by sentiments of someone approving of said cockamamie HRC&#8217;s&#8230;</p>
<p>&#8230;I would hasten to agree.  </p>
<p>As an American who both values his First Amendment rights and fears the madness of some believers of the faiths of Islam (submission to Allah) and socialism (submission to &#8220;do-gooders&#8221;), it behooves me to call attention to threats made by radical believers of both faiths.</p>
<p>I must say that your choice of persecution for non-believers in your socialist faith &#8212; threatening a man&#8217;s freedom, dragging him through the indignity of &#8220;cockamamie&#8221; quasi-legal (or faux-legal) proceedings &#8212; lacks something compared to the panache of Islam&#8217;s adherents.  I don&#8217;t think anyone will dress up for Halloween as a &#8220;Human Rights&#8221; attorney; dressing up as a suicide bomber or beheader is way more hip and trendy!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ActualLawyer</title>
		<link>http://lawiscool.com/2007/12/21/steyn-responds-to-law-is-cool/comment-page-1/#comment-363</link>
		<dc:creator>ActualLawyer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2007 14:31:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawiscool.com/2007/12/21/steyn-responds-to-law-is-cool/#comment-363</guid>
		<description>Hey, lawiscool:

&quot;I think you definitively demonstrated that such hatred is a genuine problem in North America, and we should take it that much more seriously.&quot;

So, one guy says something on a blog comment board, and that indicts the whole of North America?  That&#039;s about the same level of reasoning which would lead one to the conclusion that if one Muslim saws someone&#039;s head off, then they all would.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey, lawiscool:</p>
<p>&#8220;I think you definitively demonstrated that such hatred is a genuine problem in North America, and we should take it that much more seriously.&#8221;</p>
<p>So, one guy says something on a blog comment board, and that indicts the whole of North America?  That&#8217;s about the same level of reasoning which would lead one to the conclusion that if one Muslim saws someone&#8217;s head off, then they all would.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frozen fools deserve no freedom</title>
		<link>http://lawiscool.com/2007/12/21/steyn-responds-to-law-is-cool/comment-page-1/#comment-362</link>
		<dc:creator>Frozen fools deserve no freedom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2007 13:45:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawiscool.com/2007/12/21/steyn-responds-to-law-is-cool/#comment-362</guid>
		<description>You shmucks!  

These are Canadian lawyers, and so they have no concept remotely like American free speech.  If you want freedom, head south.  If you just want 11% beer, touques and backbacon, stay where you are.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You shmucks!  </p>
<p>These are Canadian lawyers, and so they have no concept remotely like American free speech.  If you want freedom, head south.  If you just want 11% beer, touques and backbacon, stay where you are.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
