Well, I have just finished reading Pearl Eliadis' brilliant Power Point demonstration.
Let me go through some of the pages.Pearl Eliadis sets the stage:
She claims the Maclean's on Islam articles spawned the "poisonous blogs."
Well, my blog started because I needed a platform to publicize my novel The Defilers
and to provide a platform for my journalism. I have been reading Mark Steyn for years--his columns and his books--and they have done nothing to make me hate or fear Muslims. In fact, I welcome the law-abiding Canadian Muslims who appreciate our Western way of life, who have strong family values, and who love our precious freedoms.
I do have concerns about the minority of Islamic extremists, but I am adult enough as are most Canadians and Americans, to separate between those who want to destroy us (Hint, Pearl, there was a certain event on Sept. 11, 2001 in New York City and Washington that gave me reason for concern) and the majority of Canada-enriching, law-abiding Muslims who have as much to fear from these extremists as any of us do.
My blogging in earnest started AFTER THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINTS AGAINST MARK STEYN AND EZRA LEVANT. THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINTS PROMPTED ME TO BLOG ALMOST EVERY DAY SINCE DECEMBER ON THIS ISSUE.
So.....there is the cause and effect for you: The Sock Puppets and their master Mohammed Elmasry are responsible for inciting me to blog about so-called human rights commissions. Ditto the complaints against Ezra Levant for republishing the Danish cartoons. The complainants and the commissions that accepted those complaints are the ones who are responsible for the "poisonous blogs they spawned," to use her distorted words.
I categorically reject, however, that my blog is poisonous.
As for the blogs using "distorted and deliberate use of language," well, I think her Power Point demonstration is full of distorted and deliberate use of language, so methinks she is projecting her own tendencies onto those she criticizes.
Human rights commissioners are
thought police. She can dress up $30,000 fines and forced apologies as "remedies" but no one except people like her are fooled by those euphemisms. These are punishments without due process. When truth is no defense, nor is fair comment, and anything a human rights commissioner disagrees with is deemed poisonous or extreme, then, there is no due process. But the size of the fines, in addition to legal fees could wipe out an ordinary person. Voila! what do you call someone with the power of the state behind their ability to punish, er, apply remedial fines in addition to the bankrupting legal fees but thought police?
I have kept up pretty closely with the blogging on this issue--at least from the pro-civil rights side---and her Power Point demonstration is the first time I have heard the words "Muslim Home Invasion." Mark Steyn's article barely mentions Canada. She
is promoting Islamophobia by using those loaded words. I have not seen even the angrier blogs use that kind of language. As for the comments sections, well, you never know these days if it isn't a human rights investigator or an undercover police officer planting hate.
Her "Muslin Home invasion" description of Mark Steyn's work has nothing to do with the overall thesis of his work. America Alone is really about people like Pearl Eliadis. People who express ideas that are evidence of our civilizational suicide. People who think our precious freedoms and rights are merely empty containers into which progressive thinkers like her pour any meaning they want. People who would chuck our civil liberties out the window and replace them with bureaucracies regulating even our thoughts and feelings.
Mark Steyn's articles and books are about the low birthrate in the West and the fact that our populations are going to halve themselves every generation until we can no longer support our social programs or our infrastructure. His essays are about the fact that we have no confidence in our future, that we no knowledge of our heritage, our history, and the fact that people died to give us the rights that people like Eliadis are trying so hard to take away.
"Should the law be frozen in the post-Cold War epoch?" she asks. She gives away her post-modern, progressive mindset in her rhetorical question. Old rights will disappear, like religious freedom for Christians, but new rights will appear, like that of radical Islamists not to be criticized. Presto!Pearl Eliadis: philosopher
"Speech IS the most powerful human act," she writes. My goodness!
"It shapes ideas, accounts for most of our communication .....blah blah"
Instead of writing before I think, since for me ideas usually precede speech rather than vice versa, I'll remember how the Gospel of John
opens. Maybe she ought to read it and think about the fact that many, many people wiser than she is, going back to Socrates, have profound things to say about truth and beauty and civil society and human freedom that she seems to know nothing about.
Let us pray for Pearl Eliadis that she might have true wisdom and understanding and a humble and a contrite heart, so that she will have some ideas before speaking, some perception, some light to guide her confused soul before she tries to regulate the speech of others. Obviously she has no clue about what built the most beautiful, most free civilization the world has known, no clue about its foundational ideas. No, people like her want to make those foundational ideas hate speech. Often real wisdom is without speech, without words. It's the ability to see clearly, to see what is, despite the confusing speech and distortions of those who think there is no truth, only power relationships. Father, please forgive her and her ilk for they know not what they do.Pearl Eliadis: are you an anti-Christian bigot?
She says there is no evidence of any commission ever ordering an editorial board to print anything. Well, Lori Andreachuk ordered the Red Deer Advocate
to print her seven page Stephen Boissoin decision and to print his forced apology.
"Successful cases against extremists are used as proof that very borderline cases against journalists might well succeed: bait and switch tactic," she writes.
Well....successful cases against extremists---have included cases against Christians for speaking up on religious doctrines. Does she think Christians are extremists? Does she think our rights to believe and to practice our faith should be taken away from us? Human rights commissions are attacking Christian institutions right and left. And, the process is the punishment. Even when complaints against Calgary Catholic Bishop Henry were dropped he was left with thousands in legal fees. The little Catholic Insight Magazine has spent $20,000 defending itself against human rights complaints from a man who thinks he is in a better position to tell what is Catholic doctrine than the priest who edits the magazine. As Ezra asks, who died and made Rob Wells pope?Pearl Eliadis: Mark Steyn ought to sue you
Nowhere has Mark Steyn ever ever referred to a "Muslim Home invasion." Those are her words and they are a distortion that, if they were made about me, would prompt me to file a lawsuit. He does not subject Muslims to hatred. As I said earlier, it is more likely that the actions of human rights complainants are subjecting certain individual Muslims and supporters to more contempt and outrage than anything Mark Steyn ever wrote.
Nowhere does Mark Steyn EVER incite violence.
To compare his work to that of the Rwandan radio station that called Tutsis cockroaches and directly incited murder is libelous and vicious.
Ezra writes: "That's an execrable comparison -- Steyn has not been accused of inciting murder
; again Eliadis blurs mere speech and violence. But, again, it wasn't a Rwandan radio station that killed people. It was soldiers with machetes."Read Ezra's detailed fisking here. Follow his link to the Power Point demo yourself.