Sooey Says

I found this Globe editorial on an entry by a McGill Student who is in a spot of trouble with an ex-CHRC official (who has filed a number of complaints to the CHRC against Internet posters) for getting a couple of minor facts wrong in an earlier entry he did for the Tribune (a school newspaper) which was linked to by Mark Steyn in his ongoing battle to prove to his readers that it's not inciteful to write over and over and over that the Islamic Menace is trying to take over the world - because the Islamic Menace is trying to take over the world. Phew:

MissingThePointIsThePointOfOurEditorials,DearLongSufferingReaders

The editorial, if you can't be bothered reading a month-old Globe editorial this fine spring morning (and don't bother - it equates Ezra Levant's reprinting of the Danish cartoons mocking Mohammed with Mark Steyn's obsessive compulsive yellow alerts about the Islamic Menace taking over the world) pretty much dismisses the complaint against Macleans (via Mr. Steyn's yellow alert articles) as frivolous.

But is it? Or is it just that political incorrectness when it comes to Muslims is the new black? And that once one of their own is called out for crossing the line, all the good old-fashioned non-Muslim Pundits hold their noses and circle the wagons? Because here's what the Economist says of Mr. Steyn's point, which he has been making since 9/11, single-mindedly and with absolute conviction - regardless of reality:

And the excerpt from Mr. Steyn was derided by The Economist as "an alarmist screed" that is "notable for its simplistic demographic projections."

Okay. I'd add "obsessive" to the front of "simplistic demographic projections", remove "simplistic demographic projections", and replace it with "drivel", but I'm a Feminist - another target of Mr. Steyn's "obsessive drivel". Still, I'm not a visible minority, so I don't feel that same sense of grievance I'm sure I would if I were Muslim, and the ongoing subject of Mr. Steyn's "alarmist screeds" full of "obsessive drivel". Because it isn't "alarmist screed" in the singular, Mr. the Economist, it's "alarmist screeds" - very definitely in the plural. One might even say a "systematic campaign of alarmist screeds".

So, the Globe may not find Mr. Steyn's opinions very troubling - and indeed they might not be if they didn't appear regularly in Canada's alleged national magazine. But they do. And that makes this case quite different from what the media is presenting it as, and if the Canadian Human Rights Commission is true to its mandate, Macleans, via Mr. Steyn's "obsessive drivel", will be found guilty and fined accordingly.

Because otherwise, it looks to me like this - when the ex-CHRC guy complains about white supremacist posts on the Internet, he wins, but when the brown guys complain about the white pundit writing an alarmist screed about Muslims, in a national magazine, they don't.

And would there be such a terrifying Islamic Menace threatening our lives every second of the day if Mark Steyn (et al) didn't keep insisting there is? Because, you know, he also insists that women like me, Feminists, who do not necessarily support his accompanying belief that we must destroy this ubiquitous Islamic Menace before it destroys us - with violence - are also the enemy, not just to freedom in our own western democracies, but to women everywhere in the Muslim world.

So, is he really just a harmless Propagandist for the War on Terror?

Or does the CHRC have its work cut out for it on this one?