Bravo Mark Steyn!  This is the way to stand up to those who would silence us in the name of “understanding.”

This is what defending our principles looks like.

Steyn shines a brilliant spotlight on a barbaric culture (that has no independent tradition, in law or society, of freedom, individual rights, or free speech) that uses our Western traditions of freedom and law against us to suppress Western freedoms...and does so, to our shame, with the aid and comfort of the new Kommissars of the so-called Human Rights Commissions.  Bravo Mark!!

man, Steyn owned those wanna be censors
he destroyed them

Muslims want to stop free speech and they will do it anyway they can. They cry about how someone compared them to mosquitos but their bretheren has threatened Mark Steyn. I’m on Mark’s side....way to go. Protect free speech and don’t let the Muslims tear down the system as they want to do.

I’ve noticed worldwide that many Muslims work very hard to silence any critical speech concerning Islam.  It seems they want to be a protected class, worldwide.  Essentially imposing a sharia law where one cannot criticize Islam or Mohammad onto non-Muslims.  I believe the Muslims have a word to describe that category of people, and the word is dhimmi.  Look it up.

The 3 muslims reply to Steyn`s statement of criminalizing speech was that they were not, being that they were using the extra-judicial star-chamber human rights boards. Technically true but the results are the same. Human rights boards can levy heavy financial penalties, demand written apologies and order that such speech be banned by that person. In essence the same results whether in a civil,crimminal, or human rights court.

Hate is a feeling and unless acted upon in a violent way, legal. I hate people who would deprive me of my inalienable rights and work politically to defeat them at every turn but I`m not going to go out and try bomb them all like William Ayers. Ayers did and he`s not only a Professor but has a direct relationship with Barack Obama and could be the next Secretary of Education. Zundle hates and if I acted out in violence only I would be responsible even though 99.9999% of Canadians see Zundle as a crackpot.

What is going on in Canada is nothing less than thought crimes being adjudicated by the politically correct radical left.

Spot on R.E.

People are too busy trying to embrace multiculturalism that they don’t even realize it will be the end of us.

Muslim’s don’t want to enact Shira law on Canada?  Does Shira limit speech of Infedels that critizes the religion of Islam?  Yes it does! 

Looks like they are trying to impose Shira on Canada.  Styen is right!  We just saw it.  Are Candians going to stay free and be able to say what they think about any subject or are they going to permit these Muslims to control speech wihen they want to speak about Islam’s weaknesses and need for change in adjusting to Western civilization.  Or does everyone have to keep submit to a superior group who has the right to dictate what should be said and thought about Islam and Muslims?  Shira is not coming to Canada.  A major part - controling speech challenging Islam is already there!

Sara is exactly right.
“you can’t say that about us!”
why not?
“Because we say so!”
here’s a little poem, stay for the surprise ending
http://cruxy.com/info/7386

but to me, the worst part of this is the government’s role
Sten’s article was not offensive, it was informative
the complaint should have been dismissed immediately

another important part of this, in my opinion, is the way the Muslim “scholars” were trying to deny that anything happening to the European countries could be relevant to Canada
but of course it is relevant, it serves as a concrete example of the possible
Steyn is an advance warning of things to come, and those he warns against want to muffle that warning
they know exactly what they do
they want to keep Canada in the dark about their plans

Thanks to people like the three Muslim law students, freedom of speech is under attack in Canada because of the increasingly fascist forces of political correctness.  Their mission is to take away Mark Steyn’s right to express himself.  Due to their efforts, Canada is less and less democratic by the day.
It should alarm everyone how far these people are willing to go to silence and censor anyone who dares to voice an opposing point of view.
Mark Steyn is absolutely correct to point out that Muslim culture and freedom of speech cannot coexist because they never have.

For all you Muslims out there:  Become Canadian or leave.  Get used to Free speech or get out of this coun try.  Go live in Iran or Syria.

Battle of Tours

over

and

over

and

over again.

Mark Steyn is an international Paul Revere

danger is coming, and he is trying to warn people

his enemies want him silenced, so that he can not warn the rest of us

Western Civilization is under attack

I wonder if many of the commentors here actually watched the interview and debate or are just chiming in, minds already made up. The law students comported themselves in a reasonable manner, did not interupt Steyn. Steyn, ever the Henny Youngman of the right wing, did not return the favour.

Everyone had something to say. The law students main point: that Steyn and the other “victims” are exagerating the complaint, misrepresenting it as a law suit. In fact their freedome of speech has not been curtailed at all. There will be a decision made by a human rights commission in British Columbia next month, and the results of that decision may have a serious impact on publishing of Steyn’s book in Canada.

I don’t support the claim. I’ve read Steyn’s book. I think his writing constitutes fear mongering but I would rather see his presentation of statistics challenged. I don’t support the complaints against him but am amazed at the mischaracterization of the debate here.

If you didn’t see the law students interrupt Steyn then you didn’t watch all five videos.  Steyn was far more courteous to them than they were to him.
So-called human rights commissions these days represent the biggest threat to freedom in western societies.  They are made up of far-left narcissists determined to silence everybody on the right while tolerating the truly intolerant voices of radical Islam.

Your are right Tom, the students interrupted Steyn many times.  The Host held up his hand at them and said in frustration, “please, please”.  Notice how some apologists dishonestly try to smear Steyn in order to discredit him.

Is it me, or is anyone else getting the “We’re sorry, this video is no longer available,” message.

Just how well do you think those two young ladies would get on, were they in one of the “stans” or Saudi Arabia? Not a whole lot of bright young female lawyers in that part of the world.  A pity that these kids aren’t working to change the persistant and pervasive mistreatment of women in the Islamic world.
Oh, but that would be dangerous. Far easier to target free expression in the masochistic West.
Pathetic.

Thanks for posting this very informative debate.  I am on Steyn’s side in this, which makes me one of the “haters” I guess- because I just hate to see free speech stifled.

In my opinion there should not be any so-called “hate” laws; these only serve those who want no debate about their feelings, and supress any arguments about whether those feelings are “correct”.

Here’s hoping that in future generations people still have the freedom to have incorrect thoughts and to express them.

I feel like a switch and bait routine has been pulled on me.  You allow me to view the first three videos, but when the heart of the matter comes up, you prevent me from seeing the last three.  If that is your intent, you should take all videos off the net.  Please explain why this happened.
Thank you

I am a fan of Steyn’s and I watched all the videos, thus:
**Both sides interrupted but I think Mark was worse. Frankly, I thought the young Muslim law students made a good impression and one good argument. Interestingly, the way the women were dressed (hair uncovered, etc) would get them beaten in many parts of the world. They did not at all seem the way I had visualized them before today.
**By appearance at least they seem well-assimilated and to resent being tacitly compared to their more fanatical co-religionists elsewhere. Given this, I found myself wondering: Why didn’t the magazine give them a chance to respond? Not that they had to, but why not? I’m not familiar at all with MacLeans (I’m in Texas) but don’t most journalists claim to want to present both sides? Wouldn’t this have been a good thing for MacLean’s to do?
**To the extent I could follow all the simultaneous talk, there seemed to be a mis-match between the resentment over not being allowed to respond to MacLean’s and the fuzzy idea of stirring up “hate” versus “offending someone.” I think that is the essential issue: I’m offended--indeed, really offended--therefore you’re being hateful. To me, that’s the PC nub of the whole thing.
**Finally, I thought the moderator did a very good job in a very tricky situation; we could use him on American TV.

I’m not sure Johnny Maudlin watched the same videos that I watched. His remarks about the lawyers bear no relation to what happened.

Canadians should be very concerned about what their government is trying to do to free speech. You can’t have “almost” free speech anymore than a woman can be “almost” pregnant.

To those of you having trouble: reload the page & try again, it worked for me!

Wayne

Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
H. L. Mencken

I’m getting the:
“We’re sorry, this video is no longer available,” message as well. Pity. I was looking forward to hearing the rest of it.

Unfortunately only the first three videos are availabe on utube.  Guess someone does not want to let us see them debate in person. 

Is there a transcript available somewhere.

They’re all still available for me, just refresh.  It’s worth it.

Videos seem to be back.  I think I’ll buy Mark’s book. I’ll also cancel my trip to the Canadian Rockies.  I don’t want to spend my money someplace where free speech is not supported.

There should be no “human rights”.  Just let the guy write what he wants to write.  If people have a problem with it then boycott the magazine of arrange of finance your own retort.

End of story.

How proud are Canadians that those three are lawyers in their system? Our centuries old of heritage from English Common Law means nothing to them. You are starring into the face of what the stupid socialist multi-culturalism and Nanny State pc dogma has brought you.  It’s disgusting.

The video seems to be intermittant from youtube.  It’s available in it’s entirety at The Agenda website:

http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/

Wow, Steyn who should be seasoned in this got pwnd by some kids, that was embarrassing. They out argued him and made him look silly.

While I hold very definite opinions on the content of the ‘debate’ it’s the program itself which begs comment.  In sum, the conduct of the host and his even handedness resulted in informative, civil, and very important interaction between obviously well informed and passionate adversaries.  I’m not Canadian, but it’s programs like that make me wish I were.  And I am confident that “free speech” will remain that way as long as this high level of debate is maintained somewhere.

Nice try Michelle.  Steyn neutered these law students with sharp repartee throughout the entire debate, as they sheepishly continued to advance their undemocratic, if not chilling, points of view.  Those might work in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, but in Canada we still have SOME freedom of speech left and these law students, though they tried, could not take Steyn’s away.
The two women looked lost barely knowing what to say and the man stuttered, gasped, and flailed nervously while Steyn remained calm and debunked point after point in short order.

We watched all 7 segments last evening ending around 9:00 PM US Central time...they worked just fine.  We were viewing them directly on youtube.com though.  Pretty easy to find if you enter “steyn paikin”.

As a US citizen, and I’m still a little confused about this whole argument. It appeared to be a bunch of bickering (although I think an honest to goodness unmoderated open forum debate would have been better). Two thoughts: (1) The three law students seemed to be arguing tactically about the Ontario HRC, while Styen was debating a more strategic (or existential) topic regarding the future of Western civiliation - which seemed to add to the confusion of the discussion; and more importantly (2) what is the purpose of the HRC? There was only passing reference to purpose the HRC, and when asked by Paikin, there was a confusing reponse which made it sound like an equal opportunity commission (ie disputes regarding housing, employment, etc). Specifically, what the HRC’s charter and its mission?

I thought Steyn’s intro was provactive......in creating the wealthest nation states known in human history, the West seems content to throw them away in a generation.

Steyn framed the argument beatifully in Paikin’s intro segment....the argument is about the West’s loss of purpose.

Recall the words of Benjamin Franklin when questioned regarding the form of goverment the American founders had developed: “A republic......if you can keep it.”

One part of this I found chilling was the law students’ expectation that they were entitled to a government sanctioned unedited rebuttal in a private magazine. This is the essence of fascism - not government ownership but government control.  It should be up to the owners/editors of McCalls as to what they want to publish, and up to the reading public whether they think it’s worth paying for.

These intolerant “students” are the product of illogical multiculturalism that can only permit criticism (or, more aptly, abuse) of western civilization.  They, and the corrupt institutions that coddle and promote them, are the enemy.  Mere open debate, and exposure to facts, will defeat them and their totalitarian agenda, which is why they’ll do anything to shut up their adversaries.

Viva Steyn!

The law students were attractive representatives of the Muslim community, not the hateful bearded foreigners spouting hate, but still what they were doing was promoting Islamic supremacism:  Islam can not be criticized.  While they were fairly genial and rational, the whole aim of their effort is to suppress views that they do not like.  Ignorant Muslims riot in the streets in response to ridicule of Islam.  Intelligent Muslims riot in court.  Both are different modes of the jihad against non-Muslims.

These Muslim law students just don’t get free speech.  MacLean’s magazine, a commercial enterprise, is not obligated to carry the opinion of a trio of disgruntled law students, who think free speech means making other people shut up and deliver your position for you. 

It’s also interesting that the Muslims made a big show about engaging Mark Steyn in a debate about his writing yet kept running away from exactly such an encounter.  It’s a demonstration of their hypocrisy.  They don’t want to debate their position.  They want to impose their position.

“Not the actual complainants” then why are they speaking at all?

I am curious about the fact that Steyn, at one point, stated that these three were not the actual complainants in the case against MacLeans...and ...the three did not deny that from the start. They could have just missed that comment by Steyn but I don’t know how...This coupled with the fact of how they were dressed and did present themselves in such an excessively civil manner leads me to wonder...just wonder...Is this the Islam some want us to see or is it the Islam they really hope to promote and are seeking to follow personally. If so, then address the issues within Islam...Challenge the issues within Islam...Are there no issues in Islam?What about a condemnation of the death threats on people like Steyn… Perhaps they just missed that brief comment by Steyn where he acknowledged that fact…

Oh, and why did Steyn leave that comment alone, “Law is evolving.” Is it just me or did anyone else sense a measure of confidence in her comment that such transformations as they are pursuing as inevitable. Yikes.

“the fact that Steyn, at one point, stated that these three were not the actual complainants in the case against MacLeans...and ...the three did not deny that from the start.”

they WERE complainants ... in the case that got dismissed.  to continue to refer to them as the “complainants” is dishonest though as there are two ongoing cases in which they have no part.

“why did Steyn leave that comment alone, “Law is evolving.”

because it opens a whole nother can of worms.  which they did not have time for on the show.  this is actually a rather disturbing development in law theory, that the law is “living” and that it is the responsibility of the judges to “reinterpret” existing law to new conditions or changing societal mores.

but this is not a new development either.  i’ve found essays detailing the rise of this philosophy of judicial activism dating back to the 40s.

Here’s an example of “evolving” law, and a judge who subscribed to the theory. 

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/22/news/germany.php

Agreed, The idea of “evolving law” is disconcerting.