Yes, you and Voltaire. But people like Steyn and the Indie's own Bruce Anderson are likely to stir up fear in the Moslem communities and provide ammunition to the extremist minority (whoa re their mirror image).

"many Israelis deny and celebrate the palestian nakba"

Deny and celebrate? Isn't that just a little bit silly? One or the other, surely.

Oliver Kamm spends his life defending cluster bombs, extraordinary rendition, the deliberate nuking of civilians, and the ultimate war crime under the Nuremberg conventions - unprovoked invasion. While I of course agree with his statements about the lunatic Holocaust denier who posted here, his comments should be seen in this context.

"The thesis of the book is that Europe’s Muslims – 3 per cent of the population – are ‘outbreeding’ the rest of us..."

"It is a piece of bigotry, based on garbled statistics and ugly prejudices."

In other news, Italians in Milan have inexplicably changed their naming preferences:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3550085,00.html

Because former disk jockies are supposed to be light weight when compared to searing leftiwing intellects such as Marx, Lenin, and, my personal favourite, Joe Stalin. It's all part of the Rebel Sell. Anyone swim the Yangtze lately?

You have to hand it to Hari: he may be a conceited twit and a relentless purveyor of inane mush masquerading as informed commentary, but he does have backbone, does he not.

Why, here he is, declaring proudly to “stand shoulder to shoulder with the enemy.” Who else but the gravest threat to intellectual wellbeing: a Canadian columnist, who doesn’t happen to share Hari’s let’s-kiss-up-and-hug philosophy of cultural self-debasement. Good going, there.

Mr. Hari stands up to be counted in defense of Steyn’s right to free speech. Thanks, man! Maybe, though, it’d be rather more expedient right now to relay the concept of free speech to the chaps who’ve just bombed the Danish Embassy in Pakistan over the Muhammad cartoons.

Mark Steyn's America Alone is just 200 pages, and now it's available in paperback. That is, it's short and inexpensive. It's already quite a bestseller, so purchasing it in paperback doesn't even noticeably further enrich the author. So the way is wide open for one to get a copy, read it, and decide for oneself whether Mark Steyn's understanding of Europe's demography and politics is really so plainly absurd in all its major points.

I'll offer that, having read the book myself, I'm fairly well persuaded that Europe is in deep trouble. I have enough self-awareness and candor to be able to admit that I've been credulous on various matters during my life, and that I could be so again. I've learned that one must be very cautious of what "everyone knows." In some quarters, I think everyone knows that Europe is on the leading edge of social progress and is moving steadily toward an enlightened, prosperous future.

Steyn has no chance of winning in the kangaroo courts that the HRCs have become.
Go to ezralevant.com to see how bizarre they really are.
You have a dog and you want to move into an apartment that doesn't allow large dogs?
No problem, claim it's a seeing eye dog.
You're not blind? No problem, collect $12,000.00 for hurt feelings.
The HRC isn't getting enough complaints? Have one of the investigators post that a senator is a n----r and a c--t to try to get something going.
Oh, and hack into a private citizen's wireless account to do it to try to hide your tracks.
It's beyond bizarre.

I've just come from the lobby of the BCHRC courtroom in Vancouver Canada where this grotesque scene is playing out in tedious detail. My colleagues at a number of blogs are detailing it for publication this evening and beyond.

As a preliminary, at 8:00 am we assembled on the sidewalk outside the provincial court house and held picket sings and handed out leaflets to some curious passers-by, most pleasant enough, except for the two heavily made-up ladies exiting a taxi, boot stuffed with four cases of briefs, legal in this case. They were joined by a young man who attempted to carry two of the four cases of documents into the courthouse. Funny, no one offered to help though there were roughly forty people watching. I was busy that day and couldn't.

Some protestors held picket signs reading-- nothing at all. Blank. Those who noticed it realised the sense, though many lawyers were too busy to notice anything and gave off the wrong impression of being dense.

As the time came of the hearing to begin, the majority of the crowd made its way into the courtroom, leaving half a dozen reporters locked out. They didn't seem to realise they had to be at work on time to get a seat. While a group of bloggers and others directly interested in this case stood talking over the details in detail, the reporters read each others newspapers for stories ot follow up on later. One reporter did show some interest in this case and asked who Mark Steyn is. The Canadian equivalent of the BBC sent a video cameraman, but he too showed up too late to find anyone other than a ten year old boy and his father from out of town to show on the nightly news.

Ezra Levant was in person and charming, but no signs of Steyn, who might well have been looking for work as a radio host, given that if he were to lose this case he will never again be allowed to write on Islam, one of the many penalties of losing to the thought police here.

This case might well continue till Thursday or beyond, by which time it is possible the fat lady in the center seat of the tribunal will finally have an idea beyond, oh, ice-cream? cookies? Frankly, it's hard to tell from the gaze on her face what she thinks of munching. It hardly matters. Like the writer who has posted the original piece above, she is determined by ideology and influence of the mob to do what she always does, and that is find in favor of the complainant. Steyn is guilty, as are we all, woe to us, worthless sinners that we are.

Free speech in Canada is a precarious perch, though perhaps it's better than Britain's, what with the p.c. there a greater threat than anything Steyn details accurately (if one bothers to actually do the work of checking) here in Canada.

Assuming we can go to press, as it were, with a further account of the procedings today, we will and we will continue till this case is over, for better or for worse.

About the female "sock puppets," as Steyn refers to the three (of the original four) who signed on with Elmasry, the original complainer, I did strike out. No talk of free speech over cocktails and a late dinner. No, not even with an offer of some sharia spankies and jihad whoopies excited these babes. Muslims are so hard to figure.

I do protest.

"And of course, there's a deeper unease. Hari really needs to believe that Steyn is a racist...that he hates jihadis because they are not white. Otherwise he may have to deal with reality and his little lefty world may fall apart."

Er... Hari has done a lot more to oppose jihadis than Steyn, like working undercover to expose them. Hari hates jihadis too, he just doesn't think all Muslims are jihadis!

Could you be more specific about the "garbled statistics" please? Some of them appear to be supportable. Thank you.

I'm guessing a link to this article has been passed around in pro-Steyn circles from some of the replies above. Regarding the most recent post, it's worth spending two-thirds of an article declaring what a nut Mark Steyn is in order to show just how ridiculous some of the free speech we ought to be standing up for is. Calling him worthless and loathsome is not immaterial, it's precisely the point of the article - that despite what a prat he is, his right to free speech must not be allowed to be quashed on those grounds.

"Why do you always point out he's a former disk jockey?"

You'd have thought that Jeffrey Archer's former researcher would be rather reticent about sneering at people's previous lines of work wouldn't you?

Johann,

I completely disagree with your disagreements (with Steyn), but am thoroughly heartened by your thesis.

We can -- should, and will continue to -- debate with claws extended, but still recognize the handful of core values which should be unquestionable. These moments should be kept much handier than they have been when the vitriol starts flowing.

Cheers from across the pond

Er... as a student Johan worked for a publisher who assigned him to work on dozens of books. Hardly shameful!

"Er... as a student Johan worked for a publisher who assigned him to work on dozens of books. Hardly shameful!"

Er... as a disc jockey Mark Steyn played music people enjoyed hearing. Hardly shameful!

I agree that targeting 2/3 of the original post for childish diatribe on Steyn's latest book is a little over the top. The book, which I have read, is actually meticulously researched, and I have checked some of it for accuracy. Now, you can debate whether his conclusions are correct (and based upon the news of the UK and other parts of Europe on Islam, initially it looks to be a pretty good hypothesis) but they certainly are not wacky. You would do well not to mock that which you cannot defend. But support for the right to say things which may or may not be wacky is all important. New posters here don't find Steyn wacky, the regulars think he is. Who decides? To the regular posters and readers of this site, what happens when what you think isn't wacky comes under the gaze of the HRC. I will accept the backhanded support for a cause that should be important to us all. I hope we all agree that in the end, that is the important thing, not the specifics of my arguments or yours.

I've never considered myself a 'Leftist', but verily it seems I'm going to have to reconsider where my beliefs sit in the scheme of things. This distinction always seems to come about when compared with things across the Atlantic. I'd gather being 'left' of any of the positions stated above wouldn't even make me a Christian Democrat, but granted it may well be 'left' of your point of view.

I can't wait to tell my friends and family I'm a 'Leftist'. Hahaha.

"None can or does refute Steyn's factual observations or demographic analysis."

Yadda yadda. Hari did just that in his review (go make a case against that review on the perfectly reasonable grounds Hari settled). He doesn't have to do it again but can safely call Steyn a poor journalist and poor social researcher in future articles - like this one. The Onus is on you tragic people.

Far be it for me to interrupt this little e-gathering of the Steyn Fan Club but this is becoming absurd:

Leftists on this site are no exception to the general rule that they think ad hominem attacks (name calling for the less erudite among them) qualify as "argument". The man's a prat, case closed! None can or does refute Steyn's factual observations or demographic analysis.

I'm afraid that Steyn's assumption that Muslims = a problem {whereas in reality extremists = a problem} is actually a crippling error that hamstrings the majority of his work. As such it is fair game. Hari is very much the shin-nipper and he unquestionably over-does it at times, but here he has a point.

It would be great fun to see the "disk jockey" debate one of these leftists in a formal setting where their number one strategy of mere invective would be taken from them and they would stumble about near mute for lack of cogent argument.

It would be great fun to see the bigot get a fact check. I've seen it done before and his articles invariably disintegrate shortly after they fall to pieces.

Still, Hari is one step above the bottom feeders who cannot even comprehend the absolute hypocrisy of defending "free speech for me but not for thee". Perhaps he will evolve further as he matures.

So the Muslims aren't the only inherently, indelibly and entirely irrational ones, it's also the young! What a charming outlook of the world you suffer from.

Could you be more specific about the "garbled statistics" please? Some of them appear to be supportable. Thank you.

His apparent assumption that everything will remain exactly the same as is now {is the same true since the late 1950s, I ask you?} and absurd over-estimation of the Muslim fertility rate remaining at today's levels {when a substantial proportion of the Muslim population are recent immigrants from a third world country with no education system} is the main complaint.

I think it apparent that Hari:

-is stupid or disingenuous or both. From speaking to people who knew him at university I'd plump for both.

He tends to obtain unfavourable reactions from people, yes. Everyone from George Galloway to the Dalai Lama's had a pop.

I personally have my disagreements with the man but here he is entirely correct: I would be upset if Steyn were to receive censure and censorship but my tears would be shed not for him; but for Liberty.

-really, really wishes he could write as well as Steyn.

He can, it's just Steyn seems to have a more powerful editing team. Hari frequently making annoying, niggling little errors that minor amendment would put right. It seems the chaps at the Indie aren't quite up to the task, but if you read "The Ship of Fools", the article he wrote while for The New Republic while in the unfortunate position of cruising with The National Review staff and associates {where he shows how deep this xenophobic frenzy over Muslim evil has been driven into the American right, mainly thanks to Steyn} this is not the case. In fact it's a damn fine read.

There are articles which are utterly irredeemable and entirely terrible from time to time, but not too often.

Steyn, meanwhile, writes skillfully but suffers from a tendency to make truly vast assumptions {that the number of apostates will not increase, that despite religious preaching the birth rate will remain the same after contraceptives are educated about and made available despite that not occurring in Catholic countries, that all Muslims have much the same idea and are A Danger, etc...} which rather weigh down his prose.

It's only if you can swallow his core nonsense you can relish the rest and even my capacity for suspension of disbelief is rarely up to the task.

I suppose that we might call him the finest fantasy writer of the early 21st century.

{Oh, and Oliver? I don't disagree with anything you said in that post. This is the first time that has happened for quite a while, so please get back to your preposterous defence of thoroughly discredited neo-Conservative nonsense so I can return to the comfort zone. For the time being just take a glance at the rest of this thread and take a gander at the people who enjoy reading and listening to you now. Charming lot, aren't they? I'm surprised nobody's used the word "Mudslime" yet. When you're done cashing in on them come back to the left, we're a forgiving bunch.}

If you support Steyn's rights, then support his rights. Don't spend 2/3 of your article calling him a nut, calling his work worthless, calling him loathsome.

Is our little Steyn fan taking unkindly to Johann exposing this petty bigots belligerent nonsense? Aw, diddums.

It's immaterial.

No, it's not.

Perhaps some more of us leftists would feel inclined to rush to his defence if he didn't right like such an agitated oik.

Factually correct or not, he has a right to express himself.

That's...Exactly what Hari says.

Cluster bombs: If we must bomb at all, bomb hard, bomb nasty, bomb ugly. or do you argue we should never bomb?

I argue we should use bombs that don't scatter massive amounts of highly explosive material in an indiscriminate fashion when targeting civilian areas. Especially if they then lay dormant and kill people at random long after usage.

Just as I argue we should use weaponry that doesn't char the longs before burning flesh to the bone, especially when targeting areas that have been blockaded and no males under the age of 17 permitted to leave.

This is, surely, the rudiments of human decency.

Extraordinary rendition: Grabbing a murdering terrorist, dragging him off and handing him over to his enemies? Explain again why this is bad.

Explain to me how we have a 100% guarantee of it being a genuinely guilty man prior to a trial of any kind.

Deliberate nuking of civilians. Yup, also fire-bombing them, as in Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo. We righties are both loyal and numerate. One of 'us', including you silly ass lefties, is worth damn near an infinity of 'them'. Your son is my son and I'd kill half the world, maybe all of it, to defend him.

In other words, you are raging bigots who have no concept of inherent human worth and consider "the other" to be of less value than those like you. You can't see that a life's a life, regardless of who it belongs to and that making presumptions about billions of people and their worth is a daft idea. I would suggest, sir, that you spend some time abroad.

Ultimate Nuremberg crime: I assume he refers to Iraq.

I think we should invade countries when there is a good reason and cause. To depose a tyrant who was stockpiling WMDs is a good reason and a good cause, but when he turns out not to have had any while the invasion and occupation killed more than he could have then both cause and reason start to turn foul.

No doubt there's a bit of journalistic jealousy in there too. Look at the reviews on Amazon for Steyn - what would Hari give for those?

Steyn has a legion of American fans eager to gain some sensation of superiority over Europe. He provides that in spades by depicting Europe as doomed and writing a book called "America Alone", as noisy a roar of American Exceptionalism as you could hope to be deafened by.

After the WTC attacks there were plenty that reached the conclusion that no Muslims were good Muslims and he caters to this prejudice perfectly. A section of the population is a threat and this group of people are not really humans but a "problem" in search of a solution. Each of "their" heads should be counted against each of "our" heads and the more of "us" and less of "them" the better. "They" are incompatible with "us" and the best way for cliquishness to be dealt with is for red faced middle aged men to shout a lot about what a risk "they" are posing. The Other will contaminate and destroy all that we hold dear.

It's classic rightist rhetoric and it's been lapped up.

That he has obtained some willing to lavish praise disproportionate to his output is unsurprising, given these circumstances.

And of course, there's a deeper unease. Hari really needs to believe that Steyn is a racist...that he hates jihadis because they are not white. Otherwise he may have to deal with reality and his little lefty world may fall apart.

Johann has no love for followers of Jihad. If you are going to attempt an analysis of the man you should at least take the time to read the articles relevant to the topic before embarking on your amateur's voyage.

Actually, reading Steyn you find that his most cutting comments are aimed at the liberal left. Sure, he quotes radical imams saying that Muslims are breeding "like Mosquitoes" but it's the cowardly reaction of the western establishment that seems to rile him most.

Sweet stars above, a far-rightist who attacks the liberal left? Next you will be claiming that he opposes affirmative action, dislikes socialism and didn't enjoy the 1960s!

"Muslims jihadists are the nazis of now -"

And how many Muslims are jihadists? You lot seem to love demographs, so give me a figure.

"What the hell is it with you lefties and your total obsession with this one and only, tiny Jewish state, which has given so much to the world?"

That from the Palestinians they stole EVERYTHING.

One of the difficulties with the BC Human Rights Commission hearings on Steyn is that the plaintiffs were Ontario residents and decided to pursue their issue in BC because of different standards. Different standards in evidence, different standards in procedure, and different penalties. And different precedents which would have made an Ontario case for them most unlikely to succeed. So one wonders why there are different human rights standards depending on the province when there is a national Charter of Rights. In addition, this case has highlighted the fact that there are already Canadian criminal laws for inciting hatred, and that a claim of inciting hatred should have been conducted under a proper criminal procedure, with all the attendant requirements about evidence, cross-examination, etc. Plus, under criminal law, the defense of truth exists; which means that anyone telling the truth cannot be found guilty under the hate laws. Of course, whether Steyn's defense would have proceeded along those lines is speculative, but they have intimated that they would have considered it. This case clearly illustrates -once again - that the attack and defense of freedom of speech requires constant attention even within a rather well functioning liberal democracy.

Censoring Steyn will only backfire. It will only give him the “victim" status extremists like him want. The Best way to discredit Steyn and his ilk is to wait until the year 2020 and "Eurostan" is no where to be found.

Given Steyns disregard for personal freedom, separation of Church and State, rights for women and gays, we should probably call him "Mullah". As the old saying goes "familiarity breeds contempt".