Posts
Will Canadian Muslim Lawyers Drop Complaint Now?
By Ali Eteraz / December 17, 2007
It would appear that Macleans Magazine, Canada, who got involved in some controversy with some Canadian Muslims for publishing excerpts Mark Steyn’s America Alone, has published a rebuttal (from Canadian Muslims no less). Here is the masthead at Macleans right now:
Here is a section from the article:
Muslims are not a homogenous entity. Far from it. Like all other faith communities, we are divided along sectarian, ethnic, class and political lines. Even a casual tourist to the Muslim lands will vouch for these divisions.
Whether it is Acehnese fighting Javanese domination in Indonesia or the secularists lined up against Islamists in Turkey; be it the Leftists of Pakistan facing up to the Ultra-Right religious parties or the Egyptian “Enough” activists debating the Muslim Brotherhood, Muslims are as divided in their vision of the future as are Christians or Jews.
Yet despite this clear evidence of ethno-social diversity and political division, many Western observers often view all of Islamdom as if it were a monolithic Islamist mob. At times their fears are grounded in ignorance, but quite often it borders on an alarmist fear of the Muslim world.
An insider to this whole affair who has been commenting at my blog keeps insisting that the human rights complaint against Macleans is based on a statement by the editor that he “rather go bankrupt.”
First of all, I imagine that he meant that the rather go bankrupt than publish something he is being forced into publishing (a position any one who has ever ran any publication will concur with).
Second of all, it is clear that with the aforementioned article Macleans has sufficiently given space for rebuttal. Three pages.
Third, I’d like to note that in this whole affair, Mark Steyn has consistently demonstrated his affirmation of free-speech. He even linked to my blog post in which I essentially advised my readers to mock him.
Finally, if I may generalize, I hope that out of this whole affair, the Candian Islamic Congress, which backed the entire enterprise, has learned something of value about how to operate in a pluralist democracy when it comes to media. If you want to be taken seriously by media, and you want to rebut people, you don’t do it on the basis of law suits, but on the basis of your intelligence and persuasion.
It appears to me that many (immigrant) Muslims do not quite understand the principle of media independence. This same problem was at issue in the Danish Cartoon Fiasco. One of the things that the Muslim protesters wanted was that the Danish government apologize for the newspaper. I’m sorry, but while there are such things as state-run newspapers in many parts of the third world, the entire edifice of the liberal democracy rests on the antagonism between the newspaper and the state. If a state is supposed to apologize for a newspaper (or in the Canadian case condemn it), you are essentially forcing the state and the media to be on the same side.
That must not be allowed to happen (by the way, it strikes me that in my little sermon there is a lesson for the current administration as well, which has been so effective in merging the line between itself and the media).
POST A COMMENT
but I certainly do believe in cause and effect. There's no question that those who publish inflammatory material in already combustible environment – and that's why your "museum in Brooklyn" analogy doesn't work: the Christians in general don't feel that they are under attack, while Muslims (justifiably) do – yeah, so, those who publish inflammatory material in already combustible environment are acting recklessly (and I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here by assuming that it wasn't their intent to case mayhem) and they are – in part – responsible for the consequences.
True, they didn't commit any crime in this case, but if they are decent people they should apologize, express regret. That's just what's required by common decency. IMO.
http://alieteraz.com/
Atheists don't believe in cause and effect. Hume 101.
Expressing regret might be the "Human" thing to do, but its certainly cannot be mandated, or even expected, and most certainly not coerced.
"And I do disagree. If there is such thing as cause and effect in this world, then those cartoons cause people to die, simple as that. And the consequence was easy to predict."
Ali is right. No one had to die.
Your views supports blackmail. It also diminishes freedom of speech. Yours and mine.
Suppose  your declaring yourself an atheist outrages some and will then go on to kill someone; maybe you, maybe a close relative of yours. Does that mean that you are responsible for those murders?
You have strange notion of cause and effect if you think so.
And I do disagree. If there is such thing as cause and effect in this world, then those cartoons cause people to die, simple as that. And the consequence was easy to predict.
If you make a joke, someone takes it too seriously and someone else dies as a result – you're not a murderer, but you certainly should regret it and wish that you acted differently. I don't see why this is controversial.
http://alieteraz.com/
You write:
it might've been worth to mention it in your post.
Fair enough, I can see how apologizing – literally apologizing – would sound stupid.
But why not, say, express regrets? After all, IIRC, people actually died over the stupid cartoons. Cartoons printed in a Danish
newspaper. Certainly all the decent Danish people regret that someone
had to die because of the stupid cartoons printed in a Danish
newspaper. You're the Danish government, representing the Danish people. Why not express regrets? What, you're you – afraid to look like a sissy or something?
Please look at your language. I will punctuate it annoyingly so it has some effect on you.
"someone. had. to. die. because. of. the. stupid. cartoons.
That is wherein lies your gross error.
First of all, no one had to die. No one ever has to die. Muslims that rioted chose, as a consequence of losing their minds, to kill people. Further, Muslim fundamentalist leaders that instigated these riots — and there is one Egyptian cleric in particular — chose, as a consequence of being a demagogue, to encourage said rioting. I find it troubling, indeed, disturbing that there are people in this world who put the words "had to die" in order, and then follow it up with "because of the stupid cartoons." I pray to God you are not a Muslim, and if you aren't, I pray to God we never hang out together. I would be concerned that I because of some of my purported stupidities I might "have to die."
Ultimately, the Danish government killed no people. When a museum in Brooklyn depicted a Christ being urinated upon, or the painting of a Virgin Mary, it neither apologized, nor was the global Christian community (led by Giuliani) able to extract an apology out of anyone. Further, no one died.
Or perhaps let we infidels know why our understanding of sharia law is wrong, or at least limited. Sharia law's proponents and practitioners make an internally consistent and well-cited argument. On Islamic terms where do they err, and why?
Infidels opposed to brutality and barbarism are less and less desperate to believe we have authentic Muslim allies. Years of hearing that fundamentalists don't represent all of Islam, followed faithfully by the whine "You Too!" have had their effect.Â
 Mastering the patois of multi-cultural victimology may be an encouraging sign that Islam is not irreconcilably opposed to modernity, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient.
it might've been worth to mention it in your post.
Fair enough, I can see how apologizing – literally apologizing – would sound stupid.
But why not, say, express regrets? After all, IIRC, people actually died over the stupid cartoons. Cartoons printed in a Danish newspaper. Certainly all the decent Danish people regret that someone had to die because of the stupid cartoons printed in a Danish newspaper. You're the Danish government, representing the Danish people. Why not express regrets? What, you're you – afraid to look like a sissy or something?
"And when the government representing the Danish people is asked to apologize for some of its people being jerks and causing a lot of trouble abroad – that's, of course, just outrageous."
outrageous to ask a government to apologize for freedom of speech and of the press.
If you dont' like such freedoms you are free to move to a country where they don't exist.
http://alieteraz.com/
For Muslims who had nothing to do with terrorism to actually have to apologize for it.
But I imagine you support mutual retardation.Â
all the Islamic dignitaries are always forced to apologize for and condemn various transgression committed by their co-religionists. And if they don't condemn and apologize for something they had absolutely no control over nor any connection to in the first place, then often they themselves become a target of the righteous outrage. Ever noticed that?
And when the government representing the Danish people is asked to apologize for some of its people being jerks and causing a lot of trouble abroad – that's, of course, just outrageous. Must not be allowed to happen and let it be the lesson to the stupid inferiors.Â
Yeah, nice, Ali, very nice. And why wouldn't the government apologize, what's the big deal? I know I would if I were the PM. Nothing's wrong with being considered and polite.
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!