Thursday, May 22, 2008
Kathy Shaidle describes the Orwellian situation faced by Canada's MacLean's magazine and author Mark Steyn in the face of "Human Rights" complaints: Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'. The sock puppets are the young Muslim-Canadian law students who have filed the complaint, and Steyn confronts them on Canadian television. The show is worth watching, and is available in seven parts on YouTube. Here is part one, and you can then follow the links within the video to the remaining parts:
The Muslims in the piece make an interesting argument that we're going to see more of. We saw Jessica Masse of the Islamic Society of Boston/Muslim American Society make a similar argument in that horrid movie about the ISB's problems. That is: That Muslims "over here" shouldn't be tarred in any way with what's happening with the Muslim communities "over there". It is, they argue, unfair.
There's an obvious problem with that argument, however. In order for it to work, it has to be fully true. Those of us who look at what's being espoused over there and are trying to warn people about what that means for over here have to be assured that there really is no connection worth worrying over. Among other things that means:
1) North American Muslim groups must not be funded from overseas.
2) They must not look for or draw leadership -- either actual individual leaders or importation of any ideology -- from overseas.
3) They must find some way of proving that new immigrants from abroad have somehow magically had all those "bad attitudes" melted off them the moment they took three steps in this promised land of Freedom.
That's three I can think of right off, and unfortunately few domestic Muslim groups respect these sorts of concerns and issues, though some, (like AIFD, and AIC), do.
I watched it and what struck me was that their complaint seemed to be that:
They don't like what they THINK Mark Steyn secretly believes about all Muslims. (They ignore every qualification he makes.)
They don't like what they ASSUME Steyn's writings will make other people THINK. They assume it will lead to violence.
They put quite a lot of words in his mouth.
What's omitted from the conversation is the other factors that give hapless Canadians and other Westerners a bad impression of Islam: the suicide bombings, the fatwas, the beheadings of school girls and film makers, 9/11, and all that.
Methinks those factors are just a little more influential than speech.
I don't know. I don't think Steyn came off as well as he might have. The Muslim man was obnoxious; and his comparison of Fallaci to Zundel horrid. But Steyn was loud and rude, actually a bit bullying. And that was unnecessary on his part because the moderator was already on his side.
The Muslims may have had a point about access to the media in an unfriendly political culture. I think that, though everyone may have freedom of speech in Western countries, if major media outlets are against you, and if you have to resort to legal measures to appear even on less prominent media, then you're not dealing with a level playing field. And while websites are useful, they are no replacement for national media. They have less reach, and mainly address readers on their own sides.
Look at the Jews in Britain and France. They have freedom of speech. They can have their own websites, and they can always write letters to the editor. But with the BBC, The Guardian, the Independent, The Observer, The Statesman, and The Economist against them and Israel [with the Telegraph no longer their dependable friend and Times not so great], and with Le Monde and French television against them...well, that freedom of speech doesn't really mean very much.
Sure, British and French Jews won't be arrested for speaking out; they won't have to fear a knock on the door in the middle of the night. But their freedom of speech is hampered by their lack of exposure. I think it was the editor of The Observer who said that, whenever he received a letter on the Middle East that was from a Jewish name, he refused to read it.
Another point: If one quotes the most embarrassing spokesmen on the other side--the loose cannons, so to speak--without giving any sense of how representative such spokesmen really are, then one is still lying, even if the quotes are word-for-word accurate. I bristled when Kahane was quoted--accurately for all I knew--as a figure who represented Israel's intransigence.
On the other hand...I have to wonder why Muslims didn't just seek out other major media outlets in which to publish ads, letters or op-ed pieces. Or perhaps interviews with friendlier journalists. Surely MacLeans isn't the be all and end all. And many magazines take an editorial stance, with little or no space for the opposition. So, the Muslims should have sought out a more liberal paper or magazine that would have welcomed them. That makes me think that maybe the Muslims were trying their hand at intimidation, punishing MacLeans rather than looking for self-expression.
I think that Sol's points do deserve attention, but the format of the show--of any talk show like this--doesn't make it easy to delve into questions in any depth. The moderator tried bravely to control things, but tempers flared, and only the most simply expressed points or boisterous statements could be heard.
The three were wrong in implying that all Canadian Muslims are innocent; they have to address the fact that some support for terrorism does exist in Canada, as elsewhere. They also may be distorting the situation in Canada when they imply that the media are against them, thus turning the Canadian population against them. MacLeans wasn't their friend, but I cannot believe that, in politically correct Canada, they couldn't find friends elsewhere in the media.
Steyn's case was weakened by what seems like a resort to bluster and exaggeration in his writings, perhaps using the juiciest quotes and anecdotes to support dramatic political conclusions. And he reflected that mode in his behavior. You can express truths in such a caricatured manner that they become half truths and even libel.
And I cannot help wondering if Steyn did falsely describe himself as a defendant in the complaint. The three said it was the magazine that was the defendant, that he wasn't even involved.