“In a letter published in the Spectator on November 21, bin Mahfouz’s lawyers gloated over their victory against Ehrenfeld: ‘Rather than check her facts, defend her statements in open court, or acknowledge her mistakes, Ehrenfeld hides behind a claim to free speech. Thank goodness, the legal lights remain on in Britain to expose such harmful journalism.’
“‘Harmful journalism’ is what tyrants and despots call free speech, especially political speech that condemns their affronts to freedom. The ‘legal lights’ Mahfouz’s lawyers see is the bonfire they made of the Magna Carta. Thanks to Mahfouz and his ilk, the light of free speech is extinguished in Britain.”
(…)
“The Canadian Human Rights Commission is a multiculti kangaroo court. The complaint against Macleans will be adjudicated next year, and findings entered against the magazine. (Steyn told me that the CHRC has granted 100% of the petitions brought to it so far.) What then?
“Fines and other sanctions will be entered against Macleans along with probable injunctions against further ‘harmful journalism’ that offends Muslims. A case may be brought against Steyn himself later. Which means that he could be subjected to fines or other penalties in Canada for exercising his First Amendment rights in the US. And — because American publishers look to Canada for about 10% of their sales — Steyn may, like Ehrenfeld, find publishers unwilling to publish his work.”
