Shouldn't be read on the bus

I shouldn't read Mark Steyn where anyone else is in earshot. He's got a column on the often amusingly ironic differences among MEPs in Brussels:

The SNP is antipathetic to homosexuals, whereas Krisztina Morvai, the attractive blonde Jobbik member just elected to the Euro-parliament, is a former winner of the Freddie Mercury Prize for raising AIDS awareness. I can’t be the only political analyst who wishes that, instead of a victory speech last Sunday, Doktor Morvai had stood on the table in black tights and bellowed out, “We Are The Champions.”

Of course, none of these political differences make the slightest difference to what the European Union actually decides and does. People who think the EU is run by its Parliament, and that its parliamentarians have any kind of power to effect anything that it decides and does, aren't paying attention.

But it's fun to watch them sometimes anyway. A bit like watching old episodes of Yes Prime Minister while Britain crumbles.

The Elephant in Styen's Drawing Room?

I like Steyn, as all my regular readers know, but I have to say there are two areas he never touches upon and I am beginning to wonder why.

He talks a little in this columnabout immigration and indicates that he ususally avoids direct questions about it. But lately whenever I read him I find myself asking questions about two other areas he doesn't seem to like to talk about.

If you believe in mass immigration, you do so because it’s a talisman of your own moral virtue. If the economic argument for immigration is reductive even when it’s not plain deluded, the psychological one is not to be disdained. On the one hand, mass immigration is the price posterity levies on old-school imperialists: “They are here because we were there,” as they say in the Netherlands. But, if like Sweden you never had an imperialist bone in your body, they’re still here: “They are poor because we are rich.” And, if you’re a small urbanized nation like the Netherlands, the “challenge” of immigration is just the usual frictions that occur when people from the countryside—in this case, the Moroccan countryside—move to the cities.

So it’s the consequence of your urban planning, or your colonialism, or your wealth, or just plain you. We’ll blame anything rather than confront the central truth—that when an old, relatively unicultural society admits in a short space of time a large, young, fecund population from somewhere else, you are setting in motion a process of transformation. Caldwell asks the obvious question—“Can you have the same Europe with different people?” and gives the obvious answer: no. “Europe is not welcoming its newest residents but making way for them.”

I'm just going to pretend for a moment that I am interviewing the Great Steyn. (Likely the closest I'll ever come).

Mark, if Islam is bad, (and I think we can agree more or less on this outrageous generalisation,) and it is the absence or failure of a robust native religion that has allowed it space to grow in the dry garden of European culture, is there perhaps not a logical follow-up to our criticism? Is there some native religion that could do with a little watering to revive it? If Islam is bad and we need a religion that will stand up to it, can you suggest one? (I'll give you a hint...those big tall pointy stone buildings littered around Europe...the ones they like to have concerts in lately...)Isn't it clear that there is an obvious solution to this religious vacuum problem? Why do you never mention this?

Mark, you talk a lot about the aging of the populations of the west,

In the end, that coy French euphemism for the, um, rioters of no particular socio-religious persuasion—“youths”—gets to the heart of the matter: youths are youthful, and ethnic Europeans aren’t.

and the foolishness and shortsightedness of the immigration solution; can you think of a solution for the shrinking workforce and tax pool that does not involve immigration? Anything spring to mind when you talk about the birth dearth? Anything that we might do in legislation? Anything at all?

I'm extremely irritated.

A friend of mine said I could borrow his copy of America Alone, which, believe it or not, I've not read yet. (Come on, I've seen ALL of the Great One's videos on YouTube a hundred times.)

I wanted to get into it this long weekend (Long live the Queen!!! ...even though she's been dead a hundred and eight years).

But he went off to Tuscany for the weekend and forgot to give it to me. Leaving me with nothing but the last half of (my sixth in a row) Terry Pratchet novel, and a collection of essays on Zionism and 1930s Europolitics by Hannah Arendt.

But now I see that Kathy has a review of his new book out.

What?

What?

What?

A new book?

Who knew about this?

Steyn is incapable of writing a tedious line. As reviewers noted about his last book, the demographic doomsday tome America Alone, reading Mark Steyn can be the most fun you’ll have getting depressed

So hard to keep score

The Steyn writes:

the lunchtime poll at Toronto's CITY-TV thought was the big issue arising from Aqsa Parvez's murder:

Do you think society discriminates against women who wear a hijab?

Gotcha. It's our fault.

So, let me see if I've got this right.

Aqsa Parvez was murdered by her family because society discriminates against Muslims?

OK, I think I get it.

Y'see, Aqsa wanted to blend in with her high-school friends and have what in Western countries we call a "normal life" as a Toronto teenager. But this was only because her high school friends, the high school itself and Toronto/Western civilization only present one kind of lifestyle choice as acceptable. This meant Aqsa didn't want to wear a hijab or do any of the other things that Muslim girls are supposed to do. The reason she didn't want to wear one is because we white (Christian...sort of...) Westerners are bigots who have created a heteronormative...oh, wait, wrong guilt trip racist environment in which only behaving like a white (Christian...sort of...) Westerner is acceptable. Thus putting Aqsa in an insoluble dilemma of choice which her family helpfully solved for her.

Ah.

Good.

Got it cleared up.

* ~ * ~ *
The Montreal Gazette...
"Of any faith or none"...

Muhammed Parvez might have been fighting a losing battle trying to make Aqsa wear a hijab, but that hardly sets him apart. Few are the fathers, of any faith or none, who have not clashed with their adolescent daughters over something...

Sooo...can we take it then that the helpful Montreal Gazette is helpfully recommending Mr. Parvez's method - described by helpful Lloyd as "compressing" her neck "to the point she couldn't breathe" - to fathers of "other faiths or none"? Or is this just OK for the Islams?

Wait wait...

I'm still trying to figure this out.

It's OK for the Islams because their religion says it is. Got it. And we have to let them do it because we have to respect the diversity that makes Canada great. Right. Good.

What I want to know is, does that mean that followers of other religions (or none) can't compress their teenage daughters necks to the point where they can't breathe? What if there's something about teenage neck-compressing in the holy writ of other religions (or none)?

What if I want to compress someone's neck who isn't related to me within one or two degrees of consanguinity?

What if we start a new religion that allows the compressing of the necks of other people? Journalists, say.

Is there some sub-section of the Department of Canadian Heritage where you get your new Holy Writ notarized before you can commence neck-compressing?

Is there a stamp you have to get or something?

and another damn thing...

Ooo ooo I know her! I know her! I'm vicariously cool!


Wendy, Kathy and Denyse in Tranna doing cool fun Mark Steyn-related things. I wish I were there.

The Committee broke at noon for lunch and I hooked up with Kathy Shaidle and the other Cool Kids like Dr Roy and Rick McGinnis. We retired to the basement cafeteria, where I dropped Mark a note on where to join us. He later did, and held court to a passel of his adoring public. Those of us who were in the morning session briefed him about who he would be dealing with inside.

We went upstairs in time for the afternoon session, where Mark was due to speak. This much you already know from my BlackBerry blogging (which is a pain in the ass, by the way, and not recommended except in cases of dire Steynian emergency). Here’s the link to his transcript, thanks to Denyse.

When his part of the hearing was over, Steyn and his Steynettes (us aforementioned Cool Kids) headed out into the hall where he did a small media scrum.

Wow! Yeah, heh. Just hanging with our buddy Mark (may-he-be-forever-in-print) Steyn. Yah.

The Great One is Speaking! The Great One is Speaking!

No no, not him,

I mean the STEYN! Duh.

Put aside the bitter partisanship, so "childish" and "petty," and we can all be grown up about this and do the things that need to be done. The idea of a politics conducted within less ideological and more technocratic bounds is seductive. It's how things work in much of Europe: You have a choice between a left-of-center candidate and an ever so slightly right-of-left-of-center candidate, and, regardless of which one you plump for, you wind up with the same old smidgeonette right-of-left-of-right-of-left-of-center government.

The result has been to deliver a society of permanent high unemployment, unaffordable entitlements and deathbed demographics – even before the economic downturn put more immediate question marks over the future.

"...what we used to call before the multicultural age: 'facts'"

The Great One doing his stuff



the pause that refreshes.

Like Mosquitoes ~ Meanwhile back to the Great Steyn

(may he live forever.)

Hey, you said it buddy, not me.

“We’re the ones who will change you . . . Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children.“

Mullah Krekar
As Quoted in America Alone

The Great Steyn

...peace be upon him.

A free Dominion
Steynposts

Sunday, 09 December 2007
David Warren gets to the nub of it in today's Ottawa Citizen:

For more than twenty years, in this column and elsewhere, I have been writing against the human rights commissions, which have quasi-legal powers that should be offensive to the citizens of any free country. They are kangaroo courts, in which the defendant's right to due process is withdrawn. They reach judgements on the basis of no fixed law. Moreover, “the process is the punishment” in these star chambers -- for simply by agreeing to hear a case, they tie up the defendant in bureaucracy and paperwork, and bleed him for the cost of lawyers, while the person who brings the complaint, however frivolous, stands to lose nothing.

My hope is that this case against Mark Steyn and Maclean's will be fruitful. It will be, if it inspires enough people -- especially journalists, of all political persuasions -- to express outrage at what has been done; and inspires Canada's free citizens into the necessary political action to put an end to the human rights commissions themselves.

Speaking of which:

To: The Parliaments of Canada and all Provinces and Territories

A Free Dominion

We, the undersigned Canadians, declare our firm and unequivocal support for free speech. We categorically reject any effort on the part of the government or any of its organs to limit free expression of opinion...

From deep in the wreckage of Jim Henley's shattered blog post, Kathy Shaidle uncovers a comment worth preserving:

I am sick and tired of white liberals apologizing for the subhuman filth that has degraded my beautiful religion. The Islam that I practice stresses self-discipline and tolerance for one’s neighbors. I have fought the Wahhabi scum in both Afghanistan and Iraq and will be going back to Iraq soon to finish the job. I personally find it pathetic to find that I am fighting in Iraq to give Iraqis a right to free speech, while Canada seeks to chill legitimate political discourse.

It's hard to expect "moderate Muslims" to speak out when the broader "moderate" community sounds like Jim Henley.


The plaintiffs respond
Steynposts
Saturday, 08 December 2007
Muneeza Sheikh, Naseem Mithoowani, Khurrum Awan, Daniel Simard and Ali Ahmed, the law students who claim their "human rights" have been breached by Maclean's have a letter in today's Globe & Mail:

Margaret Wente says law students like us should be concerned about free speech (So Who's Fuelling The Prejudice? - Dec. 6). She's right! Which is why when Maclean's published the Mark Steyn article The Future Belongs to Islam last year, we met its editors and asked that they publish a response to its Islamophobic content from a mutually acceptable author, from inside or outside the Muslim community. The intention was to engage Mr. Steyn about his views on Muslims.

Maclean's said it would rather go bankrupt than publish any response - hence, our human-rights complaints. The issue is whether minority communities have the right to be part of the free speech that directly relates to them and not to be excluded. Our research indicates Maclean's published 18 articles with similar Islamophobic content between January of 2005 and July of 2007. How many articles have been published in response by mainstream Muslim organizations? None.

The irony is, if we had responded to the Steyn article by throwing rocks at the offices of Maclean's, we would have heard: If only Muslims would use the avenues available in a free and democratic society to engage in civilized debate. When we do, Canada's largest newsmagazine says it would rather go bankrupt and right-wing journalists wail about law students asserting their rights as citizens of a free and democratic society.

The publisher and editor-in-chief of Maclean's is Ken Whyte. His version of events is a little different:

The student lawyers in question came to us five months after the story ran. They asked for an opportunity to respond. We said that we had already run many responses to the article in our letters section, but that we would consider a reasonable request. They wanted a five-page article, written by an author of their choice, to run without any editing by us, except for spelling and grammar. They also wanted to place their response on the cover and to art direct it themselves.We told them we didn't consider that a reasonable request for response. When they insisted, I told them I would rather go bankrupt than let somebody from outside of our operations dictate the content of the magazine. I still feel that way.

Why did the "victims" wait five months before demanding a right of reply? By that time, Maclean's had already published 27 responses to the story - more than on any other Maclean's cover story.


A sporting offer
Steynposts
Friday, 07 December 2007
Ali Eteraz asks whether you can be "pro-Muslim and also pro-speech", and then makes an offer to the Canadian Islamic Congress:

Why don’t they just go publish their rebuttal elsewhere? In fact, if they are willing to drop their Human Rights complaint I will help them get published in The Guardian.


"Toothless Canada borrows crescent fangs"
Steynposts
Friday, 07 December 2007
Abe Greenwald thinks Maclean's and I are going to have our work cut out winning in British Columbia. This point struck a chord:

This is from “The Future Belongs to Islam”:

In a few years, as millions of Muslim teenagers are entering their voting booths, some European countries will not be living formally under sharia, but -- as much as parts of Nigeria, they will have reached an accommodation with their radicalized Islamic compatriots, who like many intolerant types are expert at exploiting the "tolerance" of pluralist societies.

So, is that “flagrant Islamophobia” or a tragically prescient summation of the predicament in which Steyn now finds himself (sooner than “in a few years” I may add)? In fact, this case is more than a potential misstep for Canadian lawmakers; it’s also an example of “tolerant” Europe’s ability to team up with “tolerant” Canada and “tolerantly” force Canadians to be more “tolerant.”

The Cassandra Club

Now Steyn gets to say it too...

"If it's a Muslim who finally makes it to the Supreme Court of Canada with a polygamy case, I'd reckon their lordships will rule that forbidding it is an unwarranted restriction of charter rights. And I'd wager a few of those justices will be happy to license polygamy if only to prove that their demolition job on 'traditional marriage' was legally grounded rather than mere modish solidarity."

Anyone want to take that bet?