Deborah Gyapong writes:
I wonder upon what basis the BC Human Right Tribunal assesses that Maclean's Magazine and the Mark Steyn article is not based upon fact, since the magazine nor Steyn never offered any defence of its facts. I see that it's the acceptance of the "expert witnesses" produced by the complainants:
"We have accepted the expert evidence of Drs. Rippin and Ayoub that the Article contains historical, religious and factual inaccuracies...."
That's something I considered while reading the panel's "findings." Was this panel interested in prosecuting discrimination, or were they writing a book report for ninth grade English Lit?
You can read their findings in this 51-page document. It takes you on a meanering walk through the mind of a bureaucrat. Lots of subsection-this, italics-case that, putting a lawyer's capital A on Article to sound cool throughout, so forth. Like most bureaucrats, they try to come off as experts on everything. I love the language in this bit:
The Article expresses strong, polemical, and, at times, glib opinions about Muslims, as well as world demographics and democracies.
And I, like to use, at times, many commas, when I write about important, really important, topics, like whether, or not, it's even possible, to be glib, about world demographics.
What cracks me up about the human rights thugs is this desire to play Expert. Yet in their appendix, the only thing they quote is Steyn's book. So much for looking into those historical and factual inaccuracies. The least they could have done was Google it.
How do they know that Steyn's article is "glib?" Because they say it is: "It contains few scholarly trappings..."
Ha! Take that, Steyn. Not only are you a smear merchant, you're also a dope.
Fact is, the human rights thugs are D-U-M-M dumb when it comes to "scholarly trappings." Take a look at this hilarious analysis: " Read objectively, the tone and content of the Article was not nearly as offensive as some of the Internet blogs which post-dated it. While such blogs do provide some evidence that the Article exposed the complainants to hatred and contempt..."
Somewhere in Steyn's article there must have been a message in invisible ink: "After reading my Article (capitalized to sound legal and cool) you must go and blog about Muslims. Use plenty of hatred or contempt."
How is it possible that a blog written by some dude in Jersey shows that Steyn's article exposed the complainants to hatred? If anything, the article - excuse me, Article - exposed the blogger to hatred because he was the one who blogged about it.
The best part of the book report comes in section 158. This one's a beauty: "The Article may attempt to rally public opinion by exaggeration and causing the reader to fear Muslims, but fear is not synonymous with hatred and contempt."
I'm still slapping my knee over that one. Honestly, it's the laugher of the year. Let me get this straight: I'm not allowed to write a blog telling people to hate Muslims or Jews, but I am allowed to write a blog telling people that they should run and hide if they meet a Muslim or a Jew? Please explain how that wouldn't be contemptuous of either of them.
The tribunal can't explain that, of course. After reading this latest of verdicts, you come to see they they can't explain anything at all. In fact, they've painted themselves into one hell of a corner:
"Why did you burn a cross on that man's lawn? Do you hate him?"
"No. He freaks me out. Gives me the heebie-jeebies."
"Oh. Why didn't you say so? You're free to go."
3 comments:
Guess that makes the judges, and all involved in the process a bunch of unskilled,leftist, antiChristian douchebag bureaucrats.
I hereby incite everyone reading this to hate and defame them. Oh, and by the way Canadian thought police: I'm writing this from Illinois, which until at least the next inaugural won't yet be an overtly socialist country---so, until you annex the Midwest, I'll continue to defame and disparage to my heart's content.
Good on ya, Mark Steyn. Keep up the hard work and frank speech.
M Lyster
Libertyville, IL
The Human Rights tribunal must love the look of "egg on their faces"! Their 37 page meandering laughable justifications for their non-ruling is hilarious. Want to prove it. Make them sit down to diagram every sentence in it. That alone would give them some real duties, instead of the quasi-judicial, bureaucratic nonsense that seems to make up their days. The one way to deal with these dopes is through ridicule. They are absurd. They should have their salaries revoked and the proceeds given to housing for the homeless. Then something positive might still come out of their nonsense and their pretense that somehow they are competent to decide whether to take the dog out for a walk! Laughable, but it would be more fun even if they were made to reimburse the legal costs accrued by Steyn, Levant, and the magazine, preferably out of their own pockets, so they can see how it feels. I cannot begin to describe the contempt in which they are held in my mind and the minds of many others such as Keith Martin, MP from B.C.
Having now read the Tribunal's 51 page Document, I am filled with hate for Tribunal members who are unprofessional in their exercise of governmental powers. The Tribunal admits that this very post is valid evidence that the Document which provoked me to write this here is suspect. The eminent Members of the Tribunal must, by their own reasoning, be brought before another impartial Tribunal and defend themselves at their own expense against this allegation of human rights violations against more professionally-inclined bureaucrats. Of course there can be no governmental immunity that permits officials to engage in hate crimes. Let the hearings begin.
Post a Comment