Best comments from Andrew Coyne's liveblog on HRC debacle

I enjoyed finding Hillarious comments on a blog in an earlier post, and enjoyed the comments even more on Andrew Coyne's blog during this whole Maclean's/Steyn fiasco even more.


Jay Currie, yet another stellar blogger, has been meta-live-blogging the scene, and doing a bang-up job. (I love the way he writes!) His commenters are equally funny and insightful, but, alas, it would be overwhelming to incude EVERYONE'S, so I'll have to stick with Andrew's.

So without further ado, here are my completely arbitrary selections, in all their unedited glory:

(WARNING: Content-specific. You won't get it unless you first visit steynonline.com, or read this.)

***********


Day 1, Part I:

--comment by Tarek Fatah on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 1:43 pm

If this case can be summed up, it would be:

“The Muslim Brotherhood vs. Canada.”

I excitedly waiting for the cross-examination of El-Misery. However, I am willing to compromise if his boy-band is allowed to shoot themselevs in the foot first.


--comment by Jeff on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Big thanks to Andrew for live-blogging this and keeping me from accomplishing anything at work today. Thanks!

--comment by Henry V on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 2:31 pm:

“…or, guilty in defense, be thus destroyed?”

--comment by rzr on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 2:33 pm:

“hallmarks of hate”

isn’t that a section in the greeting card store?

--comment by Louis Nettles on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 3:10 pm:

Alas where’s Rumpole when you need him. The perfect lawyer for hopeless case.

--comment by rc on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 3:32 pm:

“to make the point that Steyn’s article encouraged others to view Muslims with hatred.”

This whole proceeding is encouraging me to view the entire Canadian judiciary with hatred. So should the CHRC now sanction itself?

--comment by Rich Trzupek on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 3:36 pm:

Might I suggest that our friends to the north add another verse to their national anthem - one that reflects the new reality? How ’bout this:

O H-R-C!
They will watch what you say.
Don’t piss them off, or they’ll put you away.

In print and air, on web and wall
They don’t like it when you’re mean.

We’re little kids
And H-R-C wants to keep us clean.

So shut your mouth, and stop being rude.
Thanks H-R-C; now Canada is screwed.

Thanks H-R-C; now Canada is screwed.

--comment by d. andy jette on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 3:43 pm:

Not to nitpick…but if one more person types “McLeans”…I may file a human rights complaint on behalf of the “Canadian Letter ‘A’ Booster Club.”

--comment by Mitchell Young on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 3:45 pm:

How about MacClean’s?

--comment by Rich Trzupek on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 3:57 pm:

Frankie baby:

“Where’s the free speech when it comes to posting comments on this blog?”

This would be Mclean’s blog, so they are exercising THEIR free speech by determining what content THEY approve THEIR blog.

You, on the other hand, get to exercise YOUR free speech and decide what content YOU have on YOUR blog.

(Isn’t that neato-cool the way that works?)

Now then, if big brother comes along and tells me that I can’t insult someone on my blog, that would be denying me this little fundamental right that everyone is excited about.

I am tempted to sign this “Captain Obvious”, but I don’t want the HRC invading Chicago…


--comment by Robert W. on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 4:04 pm:

C’mon Sammi, it the government. They’ve had a loooong morning and need a little nap after din-din. Give ‘em a break!

Day 1, Part II:

--comment by Jack on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 4:55 pm:

The Fahion police need to know what Ms. McNaughton is wearing on this auspicious occassion. Submit your report immediately.

--comment by Bob Williams on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 5:49 pm:

Where in either of these documents is it stated or implied that anyone has a “right”to live a life free of being offended by what others have to say?

Where in either of these documents is it stated or implied that someone deemed to be “wrong” in a context of “political correctness” does not have every “right”to be “wrong”?

Well, see, the doctrine of multiculturalism emanates some penumbras, one of which empowers the state to make you be “nice,” or else.

--comment by Sheila on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 6:00 pm:

“The common thread: you have to prove guilt based on the facts of the case at hand.”

Facts, truth - oh, oh. Such things aren’t considered a defence by the Captain Kangaroos who preside over these farces.

--comment by John W on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 6:42 pm:

Note to Sheila:

Speaking as a boomer generation member in good standing, I have to respectfully correct you. This silly, offensive, and utterly undemocratic tribunal is, indeed, the classic definition of a “kangaroo court”…but it has NO relation or resemblance to the late, great Bob Keeshan, aka. “Captain Kangaroo” who was a beloved children’s TV pioneer and who, along with his dear aides Mr. Greenjeans and Bunnyrabbit, will always be a force for democracy, decency, and for eating your vegetables and drinking your milk. Now its late. And its a school night. Time for bed. (smile)

--comment by Rich Trzupek on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 6:07 pm:

Frank Stringer said:

“Piss-Christ so-called artworks and seriously unfunny cartoons which insult Big Mo or whatever are, it seems, not even controversial - fair game, let’s have more of ‘em! I’m sorry, but that’s not only intolerant it’s not the kind of world any right minded person would want to live in.”

So we’re going to regulate both taste and cartoonists, eh? Can we start with Celine Dion and “Cathy”? PLEASE??

--comment by Jeff on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 7:12 pm:

Frank: Every time you post some off-topic nonsense, a Unicorn dies.

--comment by trzupek on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 7:17 pm:

Damn, I’ve been edited! As a Yank, can I get in on this whole HRC thing now? I think I’ve been terribly wronged, in some terrible way. (Plus, I could use some new wheels).

I will confess to be being Polish myself, but my daughter IS 50% Mexican — if that helps….

--comment by Bob Williams on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 7:45 pm:

I am getting the impression that Canada is not REALLY a country. I think it is a great big honking American Univeristy.

em>Ooh! That hurt my feeling, so I’m going to petition the Dean Of Multicultural Programs to have you fined and expelled.

--comment by Bob Williams on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 8:32 pm:

I’m starting to worry about Mr. Coyne. I hope he hasn’t been taken into custody and charged with Second Degree Aggravated Sarcasm.

--comment by Ed Minchau on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 8:56 pm:

“The moderators would like to keep this discussion more-or-less on topic and will delete comments that aren’t. As an example, we consider the Guantanamo Bay discussion not even remotely on topic.”

I find that offensive; as I am a poor debater, you have injured my delicate sensibilities and exposed me to ridicule and hatred, and I demand that Macleans Online publish my rebuttal, which will consist of the word “Gitmo” 5000 times (because although a reader might not “get it” after the first 4000 times, those last 1000 will surely convince all). Also, I wanna be on the cover of Macleans. And a pony and a plastic rocket.

Actually, the pony isn’t for me, it’s for my friend Frank. It can be the horse he rode in on.

--comment by Anna Keppa on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 10:04 pm:

p.s. to Pompous, who said::

“Why should you care? You don’t live here. You live in a country where the Pentagon (and thus the Government) pays generals to propogandize to its own people over the pubic [sic] [sorry, but .... ROFL!!!! -- Eowyn] airwaves.”

Why should you care? You don’t live here.

See how easy it is to play that stupid game?

When you gather together the neurons to actually make an argument, report back to me.

--comment by A *Pompous* Canadian on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 10:47 pm:

Somwetimes you can offend groups by saying accurate and truthful things about them.

--comment by The Opinionator on Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 9:27 am:

You know things are bad when the NYT reporter is stunned.

--comment by cdbmausa on Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 11:45 am:

At an HRT in BC
Poor Steyn’s in the dock, dear me
For writing rude things
In a mag called Macleans
Oh! Canada - land of the free?

Day II: A Day that Will Live in Entropy:

--comment by Sheldon Kotyk on Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 12:25 pm:

I can’t wait… I’m so excited to see my tax dollars at work.

Anyone know what the carbon output on this money guzzler is? Is it taxed?

--comment by TerryG on Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 12:44 pm:

So nice of BC to hold Ontario trials.

--comment by WL Mackenzie Redux on Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 1:09 pm:

“Now entering three reports on racism and Islamophobia in other countries”

Where is this trial again??…On planet Aibohpomalsi?..oh well that’s ok then..

--comment by Bob Williams on Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 1:15 pm:

“Can someone explain to me what the prosecutor(?) needs to prove in order for the panel to find Macleans guilty?”

Given the rules of rules of evidence do far, i imagine they’ll throw Steyn in a pont. If he drowns, he’ll be innocent.

--comment by Sheila on Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 1:39 pm:

10:28 AM by Coyne:
“We’re breaking for probably half an hour or so while the panel considers the question.”

Translation: Time for the troika to flip another coin. Or maybe it’s rock, paper, scissors - best two out of three.

--comment by MikeH on Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 1:56 pm:

Man - where are the Marx Brothers when you need them? - as in “A Night at the Human Rights Commission”.


--comment by Sad2beacanuck on Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 2:24 pm:

Yep, bad Mark Steyn, for not liking Little Mosque on the Prairie. “WE RULE, you must like it, and appear in it as an Imam.”


--comment by David on Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 3:14 pm:

Pity this hearing is in BC and not Alberta as “Little Kangaroo Court on the Prairie” has a sort of ring to it. :)

--comment by John H on Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 3:17 pm:

Ezra had provided the link to Joseph’s employer, the law firm Lerners LLP based in London, ON. Here’s some of the promo from their website:(I’ll * the part that jumped out at me wrt what’s going on here)

The law firm that puts strength on your side

Lerners, one of Ontario’s leading law firms, is dedicated to providing all of our clients—be they individuals, businesses, institutions or corporations—with exceptional legal counsel.

***Precedent setters
Our lawyers are renowned for taking on complex class action cases, even to the extent of creating new law where none existed before. Our groundbreaking, high-profile court cases often create a stir in the media and favourable outcomes for our clients. ***

Wow…they must be tireless; they’re chasing an ambulance (full of hurt feelings) right across Canada!

--comment by Krista Janicki on Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 4:50 pm:

`No, no!’ said the Queen. `Sentence first–verdict afterwards.’

`Stuff and nonsense!’ said Alice loudly. `The idea of having the sentence first!’

`Hold your tongue!’ said the Queen, turning purple.

`I won’t!’ said Alice.

`Off with her head!’ the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.

`Who cares for you?’ said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by this time.) `You’re nothing but a pack of cards!’

--comment by Fred on Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 5:38 pm:

Andrew,

You be careful now. There are so many kangaroos hoping madly about in that room, someone could get hurt.

--comment by Jeff on Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 6:51 pm:

Wait…I get it now.

This is the most elaborate hoax in the history of hoaxes. Asthon Kutcher is going to come out and tell MacLean’s they’ve been Punk’d…right?

RIGHT?

--comment by Fred on Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 8:50 pm:

This blog could be the Pilot script for a new CBC sitcom. . . .

“Little Tribunal in the Rain Forest”

--comment by Terry Gain on Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 10:05 pm:

The CBC would not run it unless it was named “Commenters In Wonderland”.

--comment by Zach on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 6:37 am:

Please be careful with the way you reference witches and the scandalous events in Salem. You are dangerously close to fomenting hatred of witches, which could land you in a tribunal of your own. At least once the BC Human Rights court determines that their jurisdiction expands into the net, and across all other arbitrary barriers, like borders.

--comment by richfisher on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 11:54 am:

“Now I really hope these guys win, and maybe you’ll care a little more.”

Like I care what you think: “Go Offend Yourself”

Day III: Die Another Day:

--comment by Eric on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 1:01 pm:

“She talks very quickly”. This is obviously a stereotype of professors in communications at Carleton School of Journalism who do doctoral work on media “constructions” of religion and nationalism in Bollywood films.

--comment by Erik Larsen on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 1:04 pm:

Day Three of “Malice in Wonderland”

--comment by TerryG on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 1:09 pm:

What does Bollywood have to do with Muslims in Ontario, who have come to Vancouver, to grieve their case on behalf of the primary complainant who stayed at home in Ontario? Is this a movie?

--comment by ebt on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 2:00 pm:

The phrase Steyn used was in fact “wobbling blancmange”. “Fromage” doesn’t wobble.

--comment by SK on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 2:02 pm:

EBT: oddly enough, because of that quote, I went and made blancmange today, just to see what it was like. It does wobble! And it’s not too bad.

--comment by Bob Williams on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 2:26 pm:

I admit it. I hold an ugly stereotype of a Canadian as an unhappy barber who would much rather be a lumberjack.

--comment by Theatreoftheabsurd on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 3:17 pm:

Oh my G_d! You mean Mr. Steyn and Mcleans are just out to make MONEY? GASP! Controversial Opinions presented just to rake in filthy lucre! How dare they! To the (for the present time) metaphorical gallows with them, post haste!…Thermodynamics beckons…

--comment by SK on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 3:51 pm:

Bleh, I’ve just bored myself to tears. I blame Steyn!

--comment by Laura on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 4:53 pm:

This is all Roo Diculous.

--comment by Eric on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 5:30 pm:

Has anyone began planning “Radio Free Canada” yet?

--comment by Muslim Steynfan on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 6:47 pm:

In 1995, we all watched the O.J. Trial. If you told me, that 13 years later, we’d be refreshing a web page to watch up to the minute text updates of a human rights tribunal, I would NEVER have believed you.

--comment by SK on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 6:49 pm:

When I write a musical based on this story, I’ll call it, “The Audacity of the Socks.” Just to be postmodern, I’ll make it a costume drama set in 18th-Century England.

I rather wish Julian Porter had accused Joseph of “chutzpah,” though, rather than audacity. Would have had Steyn fall out of his seat laughing.

--comment by Warren Z on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 6:57 pm:

It’s getting a might meaty.

--comment by Bob Williams on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 7:12 pm:

OMG! Somebody called somebody else a “scaredy-pants”! This may end up in further litigation!

Day IV: Habib and Habib Not

--comment by Statweasel on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 12:08 pm:

C’mon Habib - take the stand man. I don’t want to do any actual work today and you’re my diversion of choice.

--comment by Eric on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 12:16 pm:

Yes Dawood, I’m an uninformed American, so tell me of the barbarity that existed in Canada prior to 1977.

--comment by MamaFish on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 12:37 pm:

Oh, my mother had a simpler way of putting it: “You have to see the boil to lance it.” God bless her Newfie heart.

--comment by MamaFish on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 1:19 pm:

Newfie mother, actually, though no doubt my many Newfie Aunts (and other relatives) have said much the same. :)

--comment by Granton on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 1:21 pm:

Mama Fish, apologies, your mother.

I mean - I was referring to your mother, not your aunt. I wasn’t throwing out “Your Mother!” like “Your Mama wears army boots” or some kind of expletive or with some asperity.

--comment by Theatreoftheabsurd on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 1:09 pm:

Hmmm…Hockey team names…the Provincial Hegemonic Oppressors vs. the Municipal Contemptuous Prevaricators!

--comment by Bob Williams on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 1:13 pm:

Coyne:

“We’re back, and the first item for business is Joseph demanding an apology for yesterday’s “scaredy-pants” outburst, which he says is causing his client “stress.””

First, we have to clear up yesterday’s hate crime..

Har!

--comment by steve miller on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 1:30 pm:

I love that from the witness: “I read something that troubled me, so I Googled to find more things that would trouble me.”

In my day, we called that begging for a fight. But in Canada, this is called tuning the sensibilities against hate.

Go figger.

--comment by steve miller on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 1:34 pm:

“Daddy, that man hurts my feelings. He bad! Go hit him!”

Is that about the summary of the complaint?

--comment by Eric on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 1:35 pm:

I think its more like “Mommy that man hurt me”. This is a nanny state after all and we don’t want to promote patriarchy.

--comment by Theatreoftheabsurd on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 1:46 pm:

He purchased his pants under the belief that they were a courageous and protective defense against the elements. Now it is revealed to him that his pants are somewhat deficient in the “courage” department. One can only imagine his personal sense of humiliation! Surely he deserves to be compensated for his mental and emotional anguish!

--comment by Stephen on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 1:51 pm:

So if I post something like, the sky is blue, and some nut responds in the comments that because the sky is blue all should be eradicated….does that make the The Sky is Blue a hate crime? Or does it ake the comment a hate crime?

Think I will go read Kafka this afternoon.


--comment by Tim on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 1:53 pm:

“Would you prefer that this be an echo chamber, that everyone tow the same line and that “trolls” like me disappear a chance to debate?”

The very fact that you can post such drivel gives lie to your complaint.

Grow up, sir.

--comment by Jeff Patterson on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 2:00 pm:

Why isn’t Google on trial here? Not only did they disseminate Steyn’s hate, but have made all hate available all over the world.

--comment by sanwin on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 2:27 pm:

Dawood,

Did you buy all the shares in the ‘Extreme Hyperbole Factory’ ?

--comment by Grulkey on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 2:35 pm:

To our American friends, this is how reporting is done in Canuckland. Get all excited about an issue and then forget to plug in the batteries the night before! Good grief!!


--comment by John H on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 2:47 pm:

and now a musical interlude with AC/BC

--comment by Mick on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 2:55 pm:

What do Women Lib, Minority rights, and other issues come from? Anyone know? Free speech maybe? Do you think these ideas offended people in there day?

--comment by Kathryn on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 3:01 pm:

“Of the original article itself, he said he found the cover shot of women in burkhas “demonizing of Islam,”

If Habib sees a burkha as demonizing, let’s hope he never thinks of Saudi Arabia. I can’t imagine the case of the vapors he’d get.

--comment by Bob Williams on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 3:12 pm:

Yesterday, I think the tribunal used their lunch break to watch Dr. Zhivago.

--comment by Chris on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 3:21 pm:

It’s quite a blow. Porter can’t ask Habib about any of Elmasry’s outrageous comments.

Quick, somebody post Elmary’s comments in a Free Republic thread, that should make them allowable.

--comment by Muslim Steynfan on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 3:31 pm:

Can someone please tell me how I can get on the stand and explain that Steyn’s article didn’t expose Muslims to anything but a good read.

--comment by James Goneaux on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 3:33 pm:

“The publisher is responsible for the content of the magazine. I can’t say whether these people are crazy people.”

Well, there goes the Beatles catalog. After all, they are responsible for what Charles Manson did

--comment by Stephen on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 3:34 pm:

FJ “that there’s some sort of collective consciousness among Muslims”

So if there is no collective consciousness among Muslims, then I guess they can’t be collectively offended….


--comment by Laura on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 3:56 pm:

Somebody buy Coyne a stiff drink.


--comment by b_C on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 4:24 pm:

Amazing that every time the ‘roos retire en masse to consider an issue, they come back with a boot to the respondant’s ‘nads.


--comment by Meany on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 4:27 pm:

The slippery slope theory is once again proven right.

This is why you don’t have ANY restrictions on free speech, or our rights. When you start making little exceptions here, and there, eventually those exceptions spread, and sooner or later, one of Canada’s most respected magazines isn’t allowed to publish articles on contentious subjects.

These “Human Rights” clowns MUST be stopped.

--comment by Granton on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 4:35 pm:

Hey Meany… as a clown I am offended by your remark.

***********

Day V: Stand and Deliver

--comment by b-C on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 12:44 pm:

Think the roos will ever roo the day they overrooed the roole of law, and trooth as a defence, and only pretended to roominate proodently on the trooly croocial issues of free speech … before delivering a predestined rooling to scroow those unrepentant, unrooly nasties at Maclean’s?

--comment by George on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 1:00 pm:

To all bloggers of similar elk:
Pls do a spell check before posting. Failure to do so may damage our crudibility.

--comment by MKN on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 1:10 pm:

Andrew — “Cover used again: the picture of the little girl, in particular. There’s an obvious contradiction here: Habib said yesterday she looked frightened and vulnerable, playing on stereotypes of women in Muslim life. Joseph says she looks ominous and threatening, like something from “a horror movie.” Well, which is it?”
*******
It’s logic, in Kangaroo Kountry.

--comment by Jack M. on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 1:11 pm:

“Also, he uses sarcasm.”
Th’ unkindest cut of all.


--comment by John H on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 1:11 pm:
I’m shocked! shocked to learn that Steyn uses sarcasm in his writings. The cad…

--comment by SK on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 1:15 pm:

And hearing this (especially that sarcasm bit), the Chief Tribunal rent their garments, threw ashes upon their heads, and cried with a loud voice, “Crucify him! Crucify him!”

--comment by Rich Trzupek on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 1:21 pm:

To follow down Warren Z’s track, here’s the suggested closing argument for Macleans:
“I don’t wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!”
Or would that be too much?

--comment by Bill Simpson on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 1:23 pm:

Sarcasm? Reminds me of this old Monty Python sketch about the Dinsdale criminal gang in london:
Vercotti, Doug (takes a drink) “I was terrified of him. Everyone was terrified of Doug. I’ve seen grown men pull their own heads off rather than see Doug. Even Dinsdale was frightened of Doug.”
Interviewer: “What did he do?”
Vercotti: “He used sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire.”


--comment by Tarek Fatah on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 1:29 pm:

Dear ‘Just Living,’
Try living a full and free life instead of hiding behind a cyber-burka(.)

--comment by Sisyphus on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 1:27 pm:

Well. After perusing all this,I’m puzzled as to
who is more worthy of contempt… the silliness
of navel-gazing HRCs, poor befuddled paranoid
Muslims who take a clown like Steyn seriously,
or the Whyte Post/MacLeans bitter boys who love
this crap. What to do? What to do?
As my Hiberian grandma used to say - “bad ‘cess
t’ye”


--comment by Blazingcatfur on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 1:37 pm:

Time to sharpen those pitchforks and light them torches;)

--comment by Sheila on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 1:42 pm:

“Wants a judgement ordering Maclean’s to publish a counter-argument to the piece.”
Well, if we could all have what we want, I’d be blond with a big bosom.


--comment by Rich Trzupek on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 1:44 pm:

“Claim that Islam is antiquated.”
Worked in that fabulous, rockin’ Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for a while. We would us one line that never got old, each time as we were about to touch down:
“Ladies and gentlemen, we are about to land in Jeddah — please set you clocks back 500 years.”
Not that there’s anything WRONG with that.

--comment by arj on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 1:47 pm:

I’m reading Faisal’s closing statement and the whole thing is just large wank. In the words of Bugs, “what a maroon”.


--comment by mick in oz on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 1:48 pm:

Daiwoo - oh so it’s a civilisation today! It was a race yesterday.



--comment by Kent Brockman on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 2:02 pm:
I’d just like to take this opportunity to say that I for one welcome our new Islamic Overlords.

--comment by Michael Teper on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 2:04 pm:

Hey, Mr. Joseph is being quite modest in his demand for a coerced rebuttal only. Prof. Lund got a coerced apology he didn’t even ask for!
Who knows, maybe Maclean’s will be slapped with an order never to publish anything ever again…


--comment by Stephen on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 2:10 pm:

“They need to be controlled or provide balance.”
And where does this stop and to whom does it apply?
Yes it is simple. Simply frightening.
Scratch a theocrat find a fascist.

--comment by Matt Harrington on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 2:10 pm:

As a US citizen, this has proved fascinating reading over the last week. Of course, we have the same kind of thing here–it’s called Academia.
“Also, he uses sarcasm!” I remember getting complaints on my teacher evaluations that I used sarcasm in my lectures. Who knows, maybe there’s an anti-sarcasm movement brewing we don’t know about. Soon, there will be legislation, anti-irony lobbyists, trauma support groups, etc.


--comment by Bob Williams on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 2:20 pm:

“Anything you say, or any thing you don’t say but we think you really meant to say, can be used against you in the Star Chamber.”

--comment by Calgary Clippper on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 2:25 pm:

Wow! The respondent’s summation - twenty words or less and then sits down. Fascinating to read the respondent’s approach - thanks for all you have done, Andrew.
So…. the ball is in the ‘Roos pouch now and we will have to see in due course what the baby looks like.


--comment by Brock on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 2:25 pm:

That’s great, it starts with a roo court,
birds, snakes, a magazine called Macleans,
Andrew Coyne is not afraid
…
It’s the end of the roo as we know it
It’s the end of the roo as we know it
It’s the end of the roo as we know it and I feel fine


--comment by Fred on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 2:33 pm:

Reading some of the Sock Puppets comments has hurt my feelings and, I believe, left me as Caucasian Canadian, open to ridicule and hate from the CIC.
Where do I go to file a Section 13 complaint against them ?

--comment by SK on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 2:45 pm:

I wonder how well the “reasonable person standard” can work here. Isn’t the “reasonable person” in Canada a seething, racist bigot, who requires the Human Rights Commission to restrain him from pogroms and murders and… and dirty looks, and being a meanie… and… um, sarcasm?


--comment by Mick on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 2:57 pm:

Don’t worry its to close to lunch for them to be listening. There is only on thought. I’m hungry and your guilty.

--comment by WhatDoesitMean on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 2:58 pm:

Question. I am very hurt by Al Gore, Greenpeace
etc, calling myself and my group Warming Deniers and other worse things
Might that be a hate crime in BC?


--comment by SK on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 3:05 pm:

(Big Storm Coming Through Here)
Gaia is angry at the Tribunal, and judgment is nigh. Run to the hills. Save yourselves.

--comment by sailorman... on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 3:21 pm:

FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!


--comment by D H Smith on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 4:17 pm:

My God, I was just thinking! When Macleans is convicted, we commentors must be guilty of something, right? “Accessories after the fact” or something!!
Before you scoff, remember what we’re dealing with here.
Kidding.
Sort of.

--comment by Blaise MacLean on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 5:02 pm:

Re: “As I left the courtroom for the lunch break, i was taken aside by a sheepish-looking court official, who said that he’d just learned that I had been “broadcasting” from inside the courtroom.”
All I can say is “Baaaaa”

*************************************************************************************

UPDATE: Whew! That's it, then -- many thanks to all who not only stopped by to read, but who helped support the fighters against censorship.

We will prevail.