Then he could leave the rest of us alone who earn less than 100k/yr.

I lost my first job to affirmative action 28 yrs ago.

28 years I’ve had racists like him scheme against me because I’m white. Whose disadvantaged?

Why do we have any immigration when affirmative action is in play? People we’re bringing in but no one wants to hire them? We should do like the Bahamas domestic hiring first!

Do the honourable thing John if YOU have had it too good quit your job. Don’t tell others who are no where near as well off as you that we should lose jobs. Still it explains why shares in the star are falling so rapidly.

I got nothing from my parents to feel advantaged, and I don’t share your guilt, my dad never owned slaves did yours?

My forefathers built this country someone moving here voting for parties that demand racist hiring is nothing less than theft of our inheritance.

Why are we angry, are you out of touch or what.

Gazillions? Did a professional journalist really say this.

But that is what you do best.

I’ll bet sir you never seen first hand the “Peace and love” you refer to. Ever seen what the Taliban offer? Love like – cutting the tongues out of 12 yr old girls, for talking to Western soldiers. Peace and love, like raping women 20x over for doing the same.
Peace and love like cutting off the males genitals and stuffing it down there throats, a little trick passed down by the VC during that little conflict.

You disgust me sir. I’m so very glad for every person like you – there are people who stand for equality – no matter ones colour or religion.

I’ll bet you have never dealt with anything more serious than the odd serious classroom conflict.

“you dont want peace and love, you want control”

Thank you Robert – Well said!!!!!!!!

you can blog until you are blue in the face and your real purpose isnt going to be hidden OR covered up.

you amongst other want to control what i am allowed to see and read. you want the right to not be offended by absolutely anything.

the great philospher House said ” it aint gonna happen”.

you dont want peace and love, you want control.

Your rebuttal to Ezra Levant has been challenged:
http://deborahgyapong.blogspot.com/2008/11/ezras-google-experiment.html

I do argue that Steyn’s article in Maclean’s was not responsible — because the “facts” he bases his opinions on are distortions, fabrications and selectively twisted to suit his purposes. I blogged on this before the B.C. human rights tribunal made its ruling. You can read it at http://www.thejournalismdoctor.ca

You can also read my rebuttal to Ezra Levant there.

Yes, the blogosphere is big enough to accommodate even ageing journalism perfessers!

Peace and love, baby.

we want to hear the WHOLE story that hasnt been sent through a filter deemed appropriate by someone like you.

i read the macleans article and it was not an opinion , it was reporting. i also read a list of the demands of the detractors of the article. to say they were ridiculous would be an understatement of the century. fortunately the magazine had the balls to stand up for themselves.

i want journalists to be able to tell me the whole story without fear of reprisal. its obvious you dont like that idea and its really too bad. you are like a cancer on freedom of the press. and the recent election of a conservative government is the cure.

i will not have the likes of you telling me what i can and cannot read or be told.

You talk about journalistic responsibility – yet you FAILED or chose not to tell people the whole story.

You failed to mention the shake down attempt by Khurrum Awan and fellow puppets for 10K

You failed to mention that Khurrum Awan was caught Lying during the trial.

I could go on but you get the point – You failed.

Here is a quote from KA
“We have made our point, we have made our statement and whether we lose at
all three tribunals it really doesn’t matter. We have already won just by
going to the Tribunal and sticking it to the haters out there such as
yourself.

In fact even when we “lose” we win. We have told the haters out there such
as yourself, and your ideological friends such as Kenneth Whyte”

Who do you think he means by “we”?

As comapred you:

“People like me have had our way far too long to invoke sympathy.”

Who are people like you – White people? Did I miss the free hand outs for being white? Did I get a better job becuase I’m white? Did I get promoted faster in the PPCLI cause I’m white?

My whole family are immigrants, they didnt speak a word of English when they came to Canada – Did they get anything handed to them for being white?

I’ll die standing up – You sir are already on your knees.

In a comment you say

I asked Ezra later why he chose to justify his printing of the cartoons with such aggressive language, when in actual fact he handled the matter responsibly and with some delicacy, printing comments from all sides. He really didn’t have an answer for me.

As for his argument that he was a victim of bureaucracy gone mad, and it cost him $100,000 in legal fees …. Ezra is a lawyer. Why did he have to hire someone else to defend him?

On the first point, if your question was phrased as above it contains its own answer. Why should he add anything? But are you suggesting there is some great egregious fault in opening with “aggressive language” before transitioning into open, balanced dialogue? Do you feel “aggressive language” is inherently wrong, or only when it is used to express certain points of view? Or that switching to dialogue in a more balanced tone is bad journalism?

On the second point, have you never heard the proverb “he who argues his own case has a fool for a lawyer”?

Further, surely you know that the only reason all three of Ezra’s cases on this same charge were dismissed was because of his effective and aggressive defense. Should he have spent less, considering the HRC conviction rate?

What did he stand to lose? A small fine, perhaps half of what he spent? Who knows? What if he lost three times? What was to prevent further iterations of the same case being initiated in other jurisdictions? But as a professor of Journalism, surely you know that the financial penalties are a mere nuisance compared to the other aspects of typical HRC rulings. They can take away editorial control and coerce public statements that violate one’s own convictions. What is worth more — a journalist’s money, or his journalistic integrity?

In the same comment you say:

I certainly did not consider Mark Steyn’s rant to be responsible journalism,

Really? I would be very interested in your rationale. I note you don’t say it is “bad journalism” — apparently you accept that Steyn is one of the great wordsmiths of our day, and that this piece was both well written and adequately researched.

In what sense was it not “responsible”? Are you speaking to the truth of its content? Please, then, point to some factual errors. If by “irresponsible” you mean “factually incorrect” then surely you mean something specific — it’s not a gut feeling. Here I don’t mean minor points of trivia (I defy you to produce a piece of similar scope and force in the popular media that does not contain glosses or slips). I’m talking about grievous, major misrepresentation of things ascertainable in the public record, or the manufacture of unsupportable statements about matters of fact.

Perhaps, as several critics have said, you mean that Steyn’s piece is largely factually correct but one-sided….

Welcome to the world of journalism.

Perhaps you mean it is factually correct but “irresponsible” because it contains truth that should not be openly advertised because of the potential consequences (as one might say about someone posting detailed online instructions on how to infect a large population with a deadly virus). Then I would argue the opposite — it is precisely the silence of our journalistic watchmen on subjects like this, more fearful of being branded “hateful” by the guardians of sensitive language than of real threats to our future, that places our society in grave danger.

Now I regret articulating my remarks so hastily, as I’d like to see a reply from one professing to be a scholar of journalism, and on the other side of the fence, so to speak. For this I should formulate things better. But I’ll let that version of my thoughts stand, for now, and ask:

Why should “Journalists” have privileges, rights, restrictions or be judged by any different standard than anyone else presenting their thoughts in a public forum?

Or, focussing on the act instead of the actor, why should “acts of journalism” fall into a different category than “acts of blogging” or “acts of entertainment” or “acts of public speaking” by those not of the journalistic profession, or by journalists not exercising their journalistic prerogative at the time?

Why should such distinctions be recognized in law? Why should you celebrate with whoops and hollers (as in your transcribed speech) when they become enshrined in law and yet another legal distinction is made between classes in our society?

And, why should “good journalism” be immune from legal proscription while “bad journalism” is not?

Should a hateful, racist, misogynist piece that is well-researched and written get the green light, while a poorly researched piece that butchers the English language but promotes love and brotherhood be subject to a huge fine if, say, a Nazi or misanthrope finds it loathsome and presses charges?

Exactly what is this ameliorating quality called “good journalism” that gives an author a free pass in a court of law? What is this insidious evil called “bad journalism” that renders a piece of writing subject to prosecution?

And why, dear professor, does one whose own livelihood depends on this profession so strongly advocate interference and regulation of it by a coercive outside agent — i.e., the government?

This is astonishing. You may as well ask why anyone would need a lawyer at the HRC, or why they would bother defending themselves. A doctor may occasionally self-diagnose, but for major surgery, she’ll probably go to another doctor. So it is with lawyers and representation at a court or any administrative body that has the kinds of powers that the HRCs have. Ezra Levant should not have had to spend that money– it’s liberal democracy 101– the constitution protects us from arbitrary and intrusive actions of the state. The power of the HRCs to bypass a key restraint on the power of the state– the right to freedom of expression– is counter to the fundamental structure of our system of government, as the current Chief Justice of the SCC wrote in Taylor. That’s what the “something” is that you’ve noticed people are upset about.

I believe we must reject the notion that “journalists” (whoever they are!) have a special set of rights that do not apply to other citizens.

“But your honour, I’m a journalist” should not be an admissible defense in any court of law in a free society. I am livid that a “Professor of Journalism” would celebrate the introduction of such stipulations! Perhaps someone will object: it is not whether a person was a journalist but whether what he wrote was “Responsible Journalism” that is the key point. Well then I ask whether ANYONE has access to this defense? Or is it a privilege accorded to only the elite?

I think it’s a mistake even to permit this discussion without questioning the underlying assumption that, somehow, something a “journalist” says is in a different category than something a non-journalist says in a similar forum. I don’t believe such a distinction ever should have been made, but in today’s open blog-dominated world of “journalism” the distinction between those elite who consider themselves “journalists” and the unwashed masses has gone the way of the dinosaur.

The same is true for those who would like to hold “journalists” to a more restrictive standard than regular citizens. Journalists should have neither more, nor fewer, rights than other citizens with regard to free speech. Frankly I’m shocked with the notion that — for example (a) Mark Steyn could write something in MacLean’s with impunity but if I post the article on my office door or read part of it to a colleague, or say something equivalent to it in public then I am considered guilty of a hate crime and punishable by law; and (b) the reverse: I am free to run around posting or spewing my thoughts about this and that, but if Mark Steyn says the same in a national magazine he might be put to trial for it in a Star Chamber.

Free Speech is supposed to liberate us from this notion that some groups are privileged by immunity from criticism; conversely it should liberate us from the notion that some groups have privileges and/or criminal responsibilities for things that do not apply to others.

Mr. Miller: I cannot help but comment on your comments here on this site. You suggest that Scott is an angry white kid, just stopping short of calling him a racist. He answers you graciously and quite eloquently and you dont even acknowledge his response? He makes the point that christian beliefs are much more often the target of hate speech than muslim beliefs and you respond with saying that Ezra is a lawyer who should defend himself?

On that point, let me respond that as a lawyer myself, we are strongly advised never to represent ourselves. Moreover, lawyers have areas of expertise, and defending yourself in an area of law in which you have no expertise is even more dangerous. Lastly, who cares if Ezra is a lawyer? What about those who are muzzled for life by these commissions and who are not lawyers.

Sir, you speak of responsible journalism as if you were the source of all that is right and true. I must admit to be dumbfounded by such arrogance. You should be aware that many find your advocacy in this case to be completely irresponsible. I shudder to think that your irresponsible teachings find their way into a Ryerson classroom and into the head of young impressionable minds – after all, if journalists should be subject to adjudication by the state to ensure that they are “responsible”, surely you will agree with me that university teachers, having an audience which is vastly more malleable than journalists, should also be closely supervised.

Perhaps you would like to consider a future in which you need to get your curriculum pre-approved by a state bureaucrat, and every now and then a government inspector could pose as a student in your classroom to ensure that you do not stray from government imposed orthodoxy.

Sounds orwellian and utterly ridiculous? Indeed. Well then why would you advocate in favor of such measures for journalists?

I tried to intervene in B.C. to advance the argument that “responsible journalism” should be considered before any human rights tribunal action. I certainly did not consider Mark Steyn’s rant to be responsible journalism, even though Maclean’s defended it as such.

I asked Ezra later why he chose to justify his printing of the cartoons with such aggressive language, when in actual fact he handled the matter responsibly and with some delicacy, printing comments from all sides. He really didn’t have an answer for me.

As for his argument that he was a victim of bureaucracy gone mad, and it cost him $100,000 in legal fees …. Ezra is a lawyer. Why did he have to hire someone else to defend him?

And he didn’t win his case; the imam dropped his complaint. Ezra, the last I heard, is planning to sue him.

You said nothing about the BC HRT ruling and praised Khurrum Awan to the max, so I leapt to the conclusion that you wanted him to win. My apologies for the leap. If you were “reasonably pleased” with the ruling, may I ask why you tried to intervene on behalf of the complainants?

In response to your final comment, speaking for myself, I’m angry that Canadians who express their opinions on political and social issues are being punished by being hauled before human rights commissions and, at the very least, forced to pay huge legal fees and, at most, ordered not to express their opinions for the rest of their lives. This official stifling of free speech needs to stop.

I’m a Christian and my most deeply-held beliefs are “pilloried” all the time, but I live with it. It’s the price of living in a free society.

A “manipulative” account? How so? I was reporting the facts of Awan’s intervention as I gathered them from interviewing both Elmasry and Awan, and reading several accounts of Ken Whyte’s version of his meeting with the law students.

You also leap to a rather large conclusion when you say “it’s obvious Miller thinks Awan deserved to win.” As a matter of fact, I was reasonably pleased with the decision in B.C. I was merely applauding him for standing up for what he saw as a more representative view of Islam.

Think what you want about what I said, but kindly get your facts right.

And, hey, thanks for taking the trouble to transcribe my speech. You have a very good-looking blogsite, by the way.

For my part, it was interesting to look out at the audience and see so many Ezra Levant supporters and know that nothing I said would be even listened to seriously. Judging from the circle who gathered around him afterwards, hanging on every word, you are young, well-educated, articulate, white and very angry about something. I’m curious to know what that something is.