Muslim spokesman plays musical chairs with imaginary furniture

See, Daniel, you and your Muslim friends need to start your own magazine, instead of being whiny little parasites.

You have no right to demand that a private enterprise provide you with a place at some imaginary “table.”

There is no table.

Want a table? Build your own. Like the founder of Maclean’s did a hundred years ago, when millions of Middle Eastern Muslims were still illiterate.

(Hey, wait, they still are! Wouldn’t your time and money be much better spent teaching those foreign millions to read and write, instead of picking on Canadians who already can, and for exercising their perogrative to do just that?)

Steyn’s article is about the Islamification of Europe. It was never stated nor implied that Mr. Mosquito “represented” Canadian Muslims.

So what if you’d never heard of him before; now you have. Proceed.

This weird collectivist obsession Muslim spokesmen have is quite disturbing. All their talk about their “community” gives me the creeps.

They are forever crying “not ALL Muslims” (as if that was ever the point — once again, Paul Revere didn’t ride through Boston shouting “SOME of the British are coming…” He didn’t have to, because people then weren’t as stupid as they are now. This “some, not all” rhetorical trope is SO very, very tired, guys. Get a new one).

Or “so-and-so isn’t a legitimate spokesman anyway” (as if only specially appointed individuals can speak and should be listened to. I’m forced to assume that this is the Muslim mindset though, otherwise they wouldn’t express it this way so often.)

Just shouting “That’s not true” isn’t sufficient. More details please.

While we’re on the subject of imaginary furniture, maybe Muslim spokesmen could stop playing “musical chairs” with the Steyn issue. I see from this doofus’ letter that suddenly “it isn’t about what Steyn wrote” or “about money”.

This week “it’s about” wanting a “polite dialogue.”

But what if the next person you pick on doesn’t want a polite dialogue, thank you very much? So what? What if I don’t respect your religion, and actually think it’s pretty silly? Tough cookies on you.

What happens when you change the alleged “point” of this case yet again tomorrow or next week or next month, desperately trying to stay one step ahead of our superior reasoning and rhetoric, not to mention the growing outrage about this case in Canada, and abroad?