Sock Puppets Regurgitate

Same PreFab Vomit, Different Day

Students and Islamic Congress Make Settlement Offer to Maclean’s – Publish a Reasonable Response from a Mutually Acceptable Author

TORONTO, April 30 /CNW/ – Today the law students who launched human rights complaints against Maclean’s made a public offer to settle the matter without a hearing before the quasi-judicial British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. The students and legal Counsel to the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC), are testing the sincerity of Maclean’s editorial statement that the magazine’s editors were prepared to consider a reasonable response to Islamophobic content, including the October 2006 cover story, The Future Belong to Islam, by Mark Steyn.

Published after the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s condemnation of Maclean’s, the editorial refers to a March 2007 meeting between the students and Maclean’s senior editors, Kenneth Whyte and Mark Stevenson, in the presence of Maclean’s legal counsel, Julian Porter. In the editorial, the editors claimed that Maclean’s had been prepared to “give them (the students) an opportunity to have their say, but they gave us no opening for reasonable conciliation.”

“The assertion that the editors were prepared to consider a reasonable counter-view article to Mark Steyn’s Islamophobic polemic is a complete fabrication,” said Muneeza Sheikh, one of the students present at the meeting.

SHHH! Mohamed Elmasry, the prime-mover of these shenanigans

“They categorically refused to publish any response whatsoever, stating that they preferred bankruptcy.”

“Despite this response, we continued to try and resolve the matter. We wrote directly to Ted Rogers and asked for a meeting,” said Khurrum Awan, a member of the student group. “Our legal counsel indicated at our press conference last year that we were prepared to meet with Mr. Rogers or his representatives to discuss a resolution. And in our op-eds, we made clear that what we are seeking is a reasonable opportunity to respond.”

“Not once did Maclean’s reciprocate our desire to discuss a response that would resolve the matter,” said legal counsel Faisal Joseph.

“However, in light of the editors’ latest assertion we are making a fair and reasonable proposal today.

In exchange for Maclean’s publishing a mutually acceptable response to the Steyn article from an agreed upon author, we would be prepared to settle this matter.”

“We hope that Maclean’s will reciprocate our efforts to resolve this matter without a hearing before an independent quasi-judicial body in British Columbia,” continued Joseph.

For further information: Legal Counsel for the CIC, Faisal Joseph, (519) 672-4510



~ Steyn on this piece of theatre: Repositioning

~ Gyapong: A potentially perilous moment

~ Shotgun Blog: “The CIC’s Insulting Offer

~ SoCon: “KoolAid Keeps Flowing


3 thoughts on “Sock Puppets Regurgitate

  1. The refusal of MaCleans to publish their response was the reason why the complaint was filed in the first place. What’s changed? Nothing!

  2. You spelled Maclean’s wrong Ralph. That, and you have the facts in the case incorrect as well, aside from that, I agree with you.

  3. Well, well, well.

    I have been following all the “news reports” and comments from other bloggers regarding flagrantly bogus “human rights” complaints against Maclean’s et al. for a period of time now.

    Today, I read something in print that has not been mentioned before, and of course, it would come from the guy who has some big ”neuticles” –

    Mark Steyn:

    “Indeed. If you attempt to pressure somebody by threatening to file charges, it’s extortion. In this case, the CIC are attempting to pressure Maclean’s by dangling the possibility of lifting the charges.”

    Here’s a question: Is Maclean’s magazine considered “property?”

    Criminal Code Part IX: Offences Against Rights of Property
    Robbery and Extortion

    346. (1) Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done.

    Is there a remote possibility that the CIC and their [mis]representatives have gone beyond the manufactured, manipulative mandates by Canada’s quasi-judicial Kangaroo Court monikered munchkins and ushered themselves – to be possible defendants in a real court room setting on extortion charges?

    To date, I have personally committed $1000 (non-government funded/after-tax dollars) to the various “Blogger’s Defense Funds”, purchased two copies of the New York Times Best Seller – America Alone (by Mr. Neuticle(s) himself), and last Wednesday I swung by the “freemarksteyn” site and purchased T-shirts for the family – “Tanks” for the design BCF.

    I am also proud to say that I have recently purchased a subscription to Maclean’s – Canada’s Weekly Newsmagazine.

    In my humble opinion, if I were the spokesperson for Maclean’s magazine, this would be the response to the CIC and their [mis]representatives:
    “Start bookin’ your flight(s) to B.C. and don’t eat at McDonald’s on South West Marine Drive in Vancouver before the hearing. We wouldn’t want you to “pull” a “Vigna” on us – and bail!”

    Oops, silly me. I forgot. This is only a Kangaroo Court. The complainants don’t even have to show up.

    Hang on, someone’s at the door…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s