Mark Steyn asks us for help:
I hope the Law Is Kool Aid guys are on to this:
Mr. Steyn,
I am afraid you have been punked by an Internet hoax. There is no “Mark Steyn.”
Don’t believe me? I can prove it! Look:
1) You have not provided a citation to an article written by a reputable scholar and published in a peer-reviewed journal that references any “Mark Steyn.”
2) QED.
Greg Forster
Mari Matsuda, “On Causation” (2000) Colum. L. Rev 100:8 2195 at 2199, n. 15.
Now all we need is a citation to an article written by a reputable scholar and published in a peer-reviewed journal that confirms the Khomenei quote.
So the argument here is that no fact need be admitted, recognized, conceded, in absence of a “citation to an article written by a reputable scholar and published in a peer-reviewed journal.”?
That’s the argument, right? Right?
Law is Cool: No, the argument here is that before the editors of Canada’s national news magazine publish a quote that has been identified as a hoax, they verify and at least challenge the writer who ripped it from a
convictedindicted hate criminal and a Persian girlfriend.Steyn can dance around this all he wants, this is the point we’ve emphasized all along.
Hi Guys
I think you fail to distinguish between wisdom and academia. There are many academics, who have proven rates of scholarship but are prone to playing with the truth. See the late and undistingusihed (sic) Edward Said who lied about almost anything including his birthplace [unsubstantiated statement]. There are also those less schooled, whose counsel is sought and whose wisdom is unparalleled, and whose research capabilities are enviable.
Aside from regurgitating PC ideas, your humorless blog enforces the stereotype of unthinking liberals.
If you were wiser peopel (sic) you would apologise to Mark Steyn and move on, the fact that you did not shows that you will make whinny (sic) lawyers, who will never admit to their clienst (sic) that they made a mistake
Law is Cool: It would be nice if we’ve made a mistake, but we haven’t.
Our position is that editors of Canada’s national news magazine should at least do some fact checking before publishing controversial quotes.
That’s a position defensible no matter what Steyn whines about.
You have not shown that there is anything inaccurate about his quote that would make it unwise for Macleans to publish it. On the other hand Mark Steyn has quoted from a translation which many scholrs (sic) have approved of, even if you have shown two, who seem embarrassed about its contents, and chose to criticize it. Anyway their criticisms have more to do with nuance than with translation.
Most importantly none of your purported scholars has claimed it to be a hoax, so to argue that Steyn fell for a hoax makes no sense.
Admit it you thought he quoted from the Little Green Book which he did not. After disproving you, you resort to all other whiny (sic) arguments.
Your stupid ad hominem attacks on someone so much smarter and on someone so much braver (Fallaci) just proves the poverty of your argument.
If I was a condmened (sic) man, I certainly would not want you defending me
____________________________________________________________
Law is Cool:
David, you clearly did not take the time to read our most recent post on this subject where we provide documentation of two academic scholars in this field who explicitly refute or alternatively provide strong support that at the very least throws the validity of the substance of “The Blue Book” into question.
We will spell it out for you, again.
1) The quote has been identified as a hoax by the experts we list here
2) The specific translation Steyn claims to use has been thoroughly discredited here
3) Steyn has not provided a single accredited scholar, or publication, that approves of either the translation or the quote in question
We don’t need to admit anything, it’s all in writing. Please learn to distinguish what we cite as other people’s claims, and when we make our own. The only claim we’ve made on this issue is that the editors should have provided more scrutiny.
The other issues are simply a challenge we’re waiting for Steyn to respond to. He’s danced around them, but hasn’t addressed any directly.
You cited the comments of two scholars but failed to provide a link to their actual articles. The criticisms of these scholars that you cite are very general. From this I infer that there are no specific criticisms of the passages Steyn quotes. I further infer from your failure to provide alternate translations that you cannot.
The high school dropout wins again, and once again you will refuse to publish my comment. But maybe Steyn will.
I am curious, as are others, how the number of comments on one of your posts went from 8 to 6? Did they evaporate in the fierce glare of your intellects?
Law is Cool: Like most of the scholarly world, mysterious to Steyn et al. as it may be, the articles are not available for free online. Please do pay money to support the efforts that Steyn did not undertake.
Steyn doesn’t publish comments anywhere, except for those he includes in posts.
The “Journalism Doctor” and “BigCityLib” have already conceded that Steyn’s references are genuine, though they’ve both made some feeble and unconvincing attempts to save face in the controversy. Perhaps you might put on your casuistic thinking caps and excogitate some credible response, lest they be taken for dunce’s cornets.
Law is Cool: We’ve provided more information since that neither of them previously had here.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
As lawyers-in-training I am deeply disturbed that you seem to have made a most basic error. It revolves around burden of proof, or more correctly, the burden of going forward with the evidence. You state that your complaint is not with Mr. Steyn but that,
“Our position is that editors of Canada’s national news magazine should at least do some fact checking before publishing controversial quotes.
That’s a position defensible no matter what Steyn whines about.”
I must have missed it in all the back and forth, but I don’t see anywhere in your posts or anyone else’s that you have cited where you show that Canada’s National news magazine did not rigorously fact check the quote of Ms. Fallaci that Mr. Steyn used. Do you have any proof that such fact checkling did not take place? Or have you assumed that it did not? If you have assumed it did not, then you have made a very basic error and one that will get you in trouble again and again in the practice of law.
Or, alternatively, is your current position, stated above, simply a fall back position that you have adopted once Mr. Steyn was able to substantiate the quote? Again, the issue here, according to you, is not the quote, but the fact check or non-fact check of the quote. What proof do you have that it didn’t take place?
Law is Cool:
Mr Knight,
Thank you for writing in. We do note that you link to Steyn and provide a favourable assessment of him on your own site.
No, our position has been consistent from the outset that vigorous fact checking did not occur. Please do keep in mind that even a civil burden of proof is not really required to provide a critique of professional ethics.
Failure of the editors can be established by:
a) the academically flimsy content of Steyn’s writing as published in Canada’s national news magazine
b) the overwhelming preponderance of evidence undermining the credibility of his sources and specific quote illustrated in this example
c) his own ignorance of said sources, which presumably he would be informed of if challenged in the nature described
d) his own admissions that such statements were made for “cheap laughs”
Furthermore, based on interactions with the publication, no interest or desire was expressed to either investigate the accuracy of positions adopted in their publication, or challenge them with alternative perspectives.
This is incredibly irresponsible behaviour for Canada’s only national news magazine, and their credibility has been put into question by the public as a result. As stated, there have been some positive developments since that may indicate they are taking this responsibility more seriously.
Dear Law is Cool. Not sure why you would want to defend the Ayatollah Khomeni. It’s very important to expose the Ayatollah Khomeni, because the current Iranian government still references Khomeni as their inspiration. Canada receives a daily influx of refugees from Iran who claim that they are being persecuted by these religious ayatollah’s in Iran to this day. The influence of Khomeni is still a relevant issue.
Further to that, the writings of the leaders of the Egyptian Brotherhood, have shown that they too have drawn inspiration from Khomeni’s Islamic revolution in 1979. Some of those members of the EB moved on to work for Al-Queda. Khomeni, even though he was a Shiite, is the “Lenin” of the radical global Islamic movement.
My opinion is that by vilifying Steyn, you’re missing the boat on what’s important: Khomeni’s ideology is more of a threat to the World than Steyn ever could be. I hope that some of you end up working in the field of immigration law so that you can have the chance to speak to some refugees from Iran.
Law is Cool:
Any of the concerns you mention do not justify factually incorrect information, and the perpetuation of misunderstanding, disdain, and hatred for other faiths. The implications for minorities in Canada are quite serious indeed, and override any utilitarian considerations you may provide.
On a side note, we have observed representation from thousands of Iranians in Canada that have opposed Steyn’s work as they feel it exposes them to discrimination (counsel for the respondents have this documentation).
We don’t try to defend anyone or anything that you identify, but would object to your characterization of threats, regardless.