~ WARRIOR QUEEN KATHY SHAIDLE (UPDATED): “Who cares what a lawyer thinks? Lawyers got us into this mess.” Dr. Weevil: Helping Mark Steyn. “Smell those expensive pants on fire!”; and “George Jonas speaks veeeeerry sloooooowly for the benefit of the jumped up little parasitical twats currently harrassing Maclean’s“; and ““Why Muslims can’t debate”: our readers write“; and “Toronto’s Catholic Register on the Macleans/Mark Steyn fiasco that’s making Canada a laughing stock“; and “As. I’ve. Been. Saying. All. Along“. Older link: Steyn v. Muslim bullies: big union boss piles on …. (fivefeetoffury)
~ STEYN: THE CANADIAN ISLAMIC CONGRESS vs MACLEAN’S: CHRISTMAS WITH COUNSEL — Keeping an eye on the big picture: “Here’s my bottom line: I don’t accept that free-born Canadian citizens need the permission of the Canadian state to read my columns. What’s offensive is not the accusations of Dr Elmasry and his pals, but the willingness of Canada’s pseudo-courts to take them seriously” …. (MS)
~ MAGISTATS: “Law Is Cool blogger leaves deceptive and uninformed comment.” Smell those expensive pants on fire! …. (magicstatistics)
~ JIHAD WATCH— Free Mark Steyn! Defend Canadian freedom of speech. Various comments …. (jihadwatch)
~ DR. SANITY: ♫ “All I want for Christmas is to Free Mark Steyn; less postmodern whine for some peace divine… ♫ all I want for Christmas is to Free Mark Steyn…So I can wish you Merry Christmas!” ♫ …. (drsanity.blog)
~ MARK STEYN, my favourite columnist to the World, is under attack, by the CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION. What does one suppose a “HRC” might be? A form of fertility treatment, or a death-weapon against Western liberalism? …. (libertarianalliance)
~ MERRY CHRISTMAS, Dear Atheist (and Free Mark Steyn!, too) …. (innocentdoves.blog)
~ UPPING THE EXILE takes on Law Are Cool …. (tigerinexile)
~ VOX DAY— Heil Canada! …. (worldnetdaily)
~ THIS SORT OF THING just isn’t acceptable to anybody, whatsoever, whomsoever …. (elfyourself)
~ LOOKS LIKE IT’S Man-up time in Canuckistan …. (stoopidpeopleshouldntbreed)
~ FLAPJACK: Targeting Mark Steyn– “.. please make some sort of noise about this matter, lest free speech – and intellectual debate – suffer a serious defeat at the hands of “the offended ones.” …. (mindofflapjack.blog)
~ IN FLAGRANTE; The case against Maclean’s; A free Dominion …. (steynonline)
~ VIA NROTC: “Racist is as racist quotes” …. (nro)
~ VIA STEYNONLINE: “I can’t believe I’m going to subscribe to Maclean’s” …. (steynonline)
~ MARGARET WENTE— So who’s fuelling the prejudice? …. (canadiancoalition)
~ ALL KINDS of comments over at Law Am Kewl …. (lawiscool)
~ THANKS, fellow bloggers, for all the incoming links. Keep spreading the word, and don’t let the turkey-overload or New Year’s blurries cause us to forget this fight in 2008 …. (google)
~ NO MORE BLOGGING here for now– It’s Christmas Eve. Have a Merry & an Happy …. (magicstatistics)
Lo! He abhors not the Virgin’s womb;
Very God, Begotten not created.
O come, let us adore Him,
O come, let us adore Him,
Christ the Lord.
A Swift Sunrise 
Read the links to the logical deconstruction of those anti-hate mongers at Law Is Cool who secretly edited one of the free comments posted to their blog, before shutting down all comments when the flow of those comments started to go against their pro-Love for Islam meme. I would suspect that they believe that proving them to be infected by some anti-free speech mania which is hardly legal in country founded on free speech, is, by the viciousness of proving them to be stupid and un-enlightened, some newly proscribed form of hate. When proving your opponents to be not only wrong, but stupidly wrong falls, or is perceived to fall so close to the emotion of hate, does it not become illegal to prove your opponents wrong in such a way? I am, unfortunately, trapped by my own logic. If thinking your opponents are stupid is a form of hate, then I am amazed at how stupid I think those not brought up in the Western Tradition are. Not to worry though. I do not hate those who do not believe in Free Speech. I just have to feel sorry for them, and regret the loss of freedoms that the legal inablity to freely argue with them brings. But still. Between the love that compels me to agree with my opponents out of the fear of invoking their wrath, and the freedom to call an idiot by the name he or she has justly earned in disagreeing with me, I choose Freedom. And I refuse to call such a Freedom Hate, as long it is freely granted to both sides and is limited to Speech only. Would that our opponents could perceive this not as Hate but the Love of Freedom that it is.
And Oh Yes. Free Mark Steyn!
As a completely objective third-party observer of this entire diatribe, it really does seem that Steyn supporters have taken the low road.
People like Kathy are right, that for fans it will really make no difference either way. But for those still undecided and on the fence, such crude personal attacks do nothing to advance their position.
Most troubling of all is that supporters here fail to accurately identify the issue. It has nothing to do with Free Speech; rather, whether the speech involved in this case transgresses the limits that are put in place even in open societies.
Because this balance is not portrayed here as it is on other sites (there does not seem to be enough opposing ones listed here to make a complete assessment), it leaves this side looking much less credible.
Some of us aren’t fans of Steyn, but are fans of free speech and middle ground debate. We aren’t extended the same courtesy by “minorities”, our replies are usualy met with HRC lawsuits.
There is no high ground anymore, that’s been taken away from us long before we knew there was a rug under our feet.
Steyn could be right, Steyn could be wrong. However, being a former Ontario resident where 17 terrorist “suspects” were arrested, amoungst other things…., Styen’s article came about 15 years too late for some of us who has watched the cultural shift happen in plain sight, along with it’s tolerance level.
Quebec, Ontario and BC are gone in terms of muslim immigrants. They are heading out to the East Coast and Alberta as well.
Most people will scream for “ban muslim immigration”, got news for you folks, they aren’t immigrants anymore than you are.
They were immigrants 30 years ago, now they are Canadian, British, American, Australian, ect.
Who’s really to blame?
That would be us voters, or rather NON voters.
Styen is just an example that’s going to far, there are many more examples which you don’t know aboutand will never know about until “rights” tribunals are exposed for the bias, one sided clown courts they really are.
The only side who isn’t credible, is the muslim side.
When was the last time you heard outrage when a Candian soilder was killed liberating their cousins/aunts/uncles/brother/sisters/moms/dads/preists/ect?
We’ve heard plenty of outrage about crosses on soccer jerseys, ham sadwhiches, teddy bears, hibjabs, food, looking at them for christ sakes!
Everything is offensive to them, everything non islamic that is. Yeah, well, this is not an Islamic country (yet!, and i do mean that).
John C, I thought much like you did 20 years ago, I changed my thoughts 7 years ago (note, before 9/11).
I’m going to assume you are American and don;t have the privlage of living with a MASSIVE amount of muslim immigrants. Don’t worry, that luxury wont last long.
If you are even intrested in on what’s going on, don’t look at Canada currantly, as we are not to far off from the UK in terms of losing our freedoms, democracy, and opinions.
How did we get here?
Easy answer; by ignoring the REAL issues in our society.
I’ll let you think about that in terms of what you feel is important, then ask yourself this, do your issues benifite a group of people or everyone?
Canada is still focusing in on groups of people and not everyone.
Happy new year
Most troubling of all is that supporters here fail to accurately identify the issue. It has nothing to do with Free Speech; rather, whether the speech involved in this case transgresses the limits that are put in place even in open societies.
Wrong. No one is alleging that Steyn committed fraud, slander, or libel. No one is alleging that state secrets were revealed, or there was an incitement to riot, or any other communication that served to threaten life, limb, or property. And those are the only limits that are put in place in actually open societies. Anything more is specifically a restriction on Free Speech.