An update from a previous post.
John Miller, a journalism professor, has a new reply for Mark Steyn. He challenges his characterization of quotes (a mistranslation of a mistranslation of an unverified quote), and asks these questions,
What responsibility do you have as a writer to avoid inaccurate stereotypes?
What onus do you feel, as a person who has considerable influence, to promote understanding, not just tear us further apart?
Why do you resort to personal insults when the issues — most of which you have not addressed — are journalistic: Do you select facts only to justify your point of view, or is your point of view justified by the facts?
Steyn’s response is to threaten to get him fired, and get this, call him a “dickhead” and tell him to f-off.
What a clown.
We’ve moved on since high school Steyn. So should you.
Steyn threatened to have him fired? Did you actually read the post? Steyn attacks Miller for being a supporter of the BC human rights complaint, which he believes would have had a highly negative effect on his writing career. He then goes on to state that this is why he has such a negative opinion of Miller. The relevant graph:
“Are you perhaps beginning to get a glimmer of a clue as to why I don’t want to be your Facebook friend? Interestingly, even the aforementioned Messrs Hari and Greenwald, while continuing to find me vile and disgusting, regard as an abomination the so-called “human rights” suits you supported. But perhaps you’d genuinely find it less distressing if I stopped calling you “Professor Waggy-Finger” and instead tried to get you kicked out of Ryerson and made it illegal for you to practice whatever the hell it is you practice anywhere in Canada. If so, just say the word.”
This is not a threat to have Miller fired. This is rhetorical device, essentially along the lines of “How would you like it if I did it to you?” To say otherwise is just dishonest.\
Law is Cool: Nah, it’s a subtle threat. We’ll stick to that.
When placed in context with his subsequent expletives, it’s clearly provided with hostile intent.
Delicacy of interpretation and rhetorical skill are both vital to your work, but you can’t spot such an obvious reductio ad absurdum?. That redheaded imp you hate so much was heaping ridicule on the notion that he’s a dangerous man by pointing out that he’s nowhere nearly as dangerous as the people trying to fine him, fine his publishers, and frighten him and any prospective Canadian publishers into submission. There’s a world of difference between saying what you think of someone in salty language between belly laughs and diverting free men from their life and work to spend months defending their livelihood and possessions. Steyn shows the absurdity of any equation or reversal of the “dangers” posed by him and the dangers posed by the oppressors who tried to make his writings unpublishable, by making Miller the absurd offer to quit merely ridiculing his views and calling him names, and go after his job instead.
Law is Cool: There is far less of a stretch between that position than the one that Steyn proposes – that Khomeini is advocating bestiality. As students of comparative law, it’s relatively easy for us to point out the Fallaci (sic) of this.
There are generally several major legal precedents on bestiality in Islam. The first is that there is that although it is a criminal act there there is no specific punishment (ابوداؤد), the second is that it is a capital offence and the animal is also killed because it should not be consumed (ابوداؤد, ترمذی, ابن ماجه, Ø£Øمد ). Proponents of the first position suggest a variety of sanctions, which can include mandatory sale, or alternatively a prohibition of consumption as a punitive measure.
It’s not quite different than what we find in ויקר×,
A far cry from condoning bestiality, but then Steyn doesn’t read Farsi, Arabic, or Hebrew, and barely reads legalese English.
Steyn never said that Khomeini advocated bestiality, nor did he say that Islam approves of bestiality. I’d like to see you prove that with a quote of his.
Further to that, despite the fact that all three human rights commissions: Ontario, Canadian, and B.C. did not find MacLeans/Steyn of promoting hatred, your site seems to still want to implicate Steyn in promoting hatred. On what basis? Do you not accept the findings of the 3 tribunals? This is not prudent behavior on your part.
Law is Cool:
We have already addressed your first question already here. He repeats the statements several times as valid, for example stating more recently,
The more he talks, the more he makes a fool of himself. We do have more material on hand, but we intend to share it at the appropriate time. It’s a fair assumption he’ll continue to go on.
We haven’t taken a position on the second point at all ever on this site, we’ve only commented on what others have said. And considering we were not parties to the complaints, but observers who were viciously attacked by Steyn supporters regardless, we are reluctant to hear from that demographic about what is prudent and what is not.
I wish I could be as word wise as Steyn. He ripped your argument to pieces and yet you continue? Why?
Law is Cool: Actually, he’s completely ignored everything we’ve said here.
We’re waiting for the actual ripping of our substantial arguments to begin, instead of dancing around side issues and name-calling.
Face it – you guys lost (and look like fools). Miller apologized and then wanted to get into a debate with Steyn about his opinions. I have no problem with Steyn telling him (and you guys) to go f*** yourselves. He, as I do, appreciates free speech and both you and Miller should be ashamed of supporting charges against him.
“I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it.”
-Voltaire
Law is Cool: It would be nice if Steyn even once responded to anything we’ve actually said. Miller didn’t have the information we had until just now, and we do have plenty more if Steyn does choose to start (not even continue, because he has yet to address this or this directly).
We’ve addressed the Voltaire quote here (do you guys get all your material from the same dump bin?), and as an anti-Semite whose works greatly contributed to pogroms across Europe, you’re right in character to be citing him along with the neo-Nazis.
I think these Steyn fans must be either illiterate or willfully blind.
By reading their sites, there is absolutely no mention of the issues you raise regarding accuracy of translations or due diligence by the publishers.
Is that really the extent of their thoroughness?
And no word from Steyn on those issues yet either. Figures.
It is funny how way off base you guys are. The point has absolutely nothing to do what either you guys or Steyn says – it is that you both have a right to say it without fear of being thrown in jail or censored. You guys believe that he is spewing hatred and Islamophobia (he disagrees). He thinks (as I do) that you guys are a bunch of pretentious lawyers in short pants (I’m assuming you guys disagree). I want to live in a country where I can say whatever I want, whenever I want, without fear. Stop trying to argue any different or I’ll get you thrown in jail for disagreeing with me… oh wait..
Law is Cool:
If you look at this specific episode of posts relating to Mark Steyn (there has been a very long absence of them), you will see that it has to do with the accuracy of his sources, his qualifications to assess important and terribly complicated global issues, and the professional ethics of the publishers of not demonstrating due diligence when dealing with highly controversial and unsubstatiated material.
The issues you raise are not discussed at all. And no, he has yet to address any of the issues listed here.
And you’re right, we would disagree with his characterization. Quite a few of us are not guys, although some of us do like short pants, even in the winter.
DaveW:
I am unclear on the censorship issue. I don’t remember the Macleans complaint ever asking for censorship. Further, I don’t recall Mr. Steyn being a defendant or respondent in that complaint. He was never named. Nor was he the subject of any criminal complaint.
I simply don’t recall anyone trying to “throw in jail or censor” anyone else. Correct me if I am wrong.
Lawrence & Law is Cool – As I’m sure you know, the article that was the subject of the complaint was written by Steyn. Whether he was named in the complaint or not is beside the fact. Whether he responds to the Law is Cool queries is beside the fact. Whether the HRC asks for censorship (which I know they didn’t – nor did I say that they did) or just a slight modification of a publication is beside the fact. The point is that the HRC should not exist in the first place and anyone who supports the original complaint (ie. Miller) should be ashamed of themselves.
I am all for calling out people who do not correctly source their quotes, etc. But, let’s be honest here, the complaint did not have to do with that – it had to do with the fact that a bunch of kids got pissed off at it and decided to go take Macleans et al. to the HRC because they got their feelings hurt. Perhaps they should have just grown up and engaged Steyn in a debate rather than running to the HRC.
The beauty of our soceity is that we can engage in debate, such as we are now, without fear of recrimination. Please don’t support people who are trying to change that.
Law is Cool:
Actually as Steyn points out himself, there were several dozen articles that were the subject of the complaint, not all of which were authored by him.
We’re not talking about the complaint here. If we were, it would have nothing to do with feelings being hurt, but people’s faces, homes, property, jobs, etc. due to an increase in hate crimes resulting from the false stereotypes being perpetuated.
The last thing Steyn is trying to do is engage in debate, and we’ve seen witness to this on this site, where even attempting to criticize him from a neutral position results in scathing ad hominem attacks completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. The intent of HRCs as expressed in SCC judgments is to foster greater debate by identifying those individuals stifling the speech of marginalized communities that do not have access to the same media outlets that people like Steyn do.
That’s the law in Canada. You can try to change it, just don’t inadvertently become one of the free assets for their defence team because you actually bought their false propaganda. You can see some of their faulty thinking (and flawed understanding of Canadian law) here and here.
We’re closing the post again, seeing how as usual it has gone off track. Steyn has yet to respond to the actual issues we raise above.
DaveW:
A preliminary disclaimer: though I am a contributor to this website, I do not speak for Law is Cool. Neither the website nor I were involved with the Maclean’s HRC complaints in any way; none of the complainants writes for this website. Personally, I haven’t even read the full text of the complaint nor the full text of the HRCs’ decisions. My opinion on this is peripheral and should not be taken as representative of the views of my colleagues.
Admittedly, we’re getting a little off topic here (my fault), but I wanted to respond to your comment. First of all, thank you for keeping it civil.
I do not believe that the complaint asked for any modification of the article in question. It did not ask for censorship in any way, including by modification of the article.
You seem to agree that the complaint did not ask for outright censorship of the article. I appreciate that. But a lot of Mr. Steyn’s supporters have mischaracterized this complaint as being about censorship. They have suggested that this complaint, and indeed, the HRCs, were trying to curb the right to freedom of speech. That was not the case at all. Incidentally, Steyn himself has done nothing to dispel these mischaracterizations – quite the contrary.
You say that the “grown up” thing to do would be to engage in open debate about the role of Muslims in Canadian society. The irony is that that is exactly what the complainants were asking for!
The substance of the relief sought was an opportunity for the Muslim community (at least as represented by the Canadian Islamic Congress) to have equal space in Maclean’s magazine to explain their side of the story. They approached Maclean’s directly and asked for the opportunity to rebut Mr. Steyn’s article, and Maclean’s turned them down.
Maclean’s position was that it was a private publication and was entitled to print whatever it saw fit. It did not have to publish rebuttals, even if it meant Muslims were being portrayed overwhelmingly in a negative light. The Human Rights Commissions for the most part agreed with that position. They felt that they did not have the jurisdiction to order a publication to publish a rebuttal. Quite frankly, I agree with that. I personally think that Mr. Steyn’s article and the other anti-Muslim articles published over the past couple of years in the magazine were in very poor taste. But even so, I don’t think that a private publication should be forced to publish the contrary view. As Maclean’s pointed out, it was open to the Canadian Islamic Congress to publish its own news magazine if it wished to publicize a rebuttal.
Again, the irony here is that the complaint was always about open debate, and it was Maclean’s that denied the Muslim community that opportunity!