Northern stand

Last updated on May 20th, 2017 at 07:24 am

Facing insane demands from idiots, the Canadian magazine Maclean’s responds:

We told them that we couldn’t possibly meet their demands. No publication could. It would violate an editor’s responsibilities to his publication, his readers, and his profession. We told them we would rather go out of business than to give over complete control of space in the magazine to anyone on such terms. We stand by that decision.

Well said. More of that, please, from publications worldwide. Further stand-by-that-decision news from Mark Steyn.

Posted by Tim B. on 04/19/2008 at 04:12 PM
    1. Not all Canadians are wimpy.

      Just as a further note, Maclean’s is a Canadian institution, which has meant a completely liberal edifice. This has started to change since a new guy was hired to run it, (I forget the position), he came from the National Post, which is why the likes of Mark Steyn are allowed on its pages now.

      Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2008 04 19 at 05:02 PM • permalink

 

    1. Maclean’s.
      Editor-in-Chief
      Kenneth WhytePublisher
      Kenneth Whyte

      Cheers

      Posted by J.M. Heinrichs on 2008 04 19 at 05:12 PM • permalink

 

    1. I just did a one year digital subscription as my way of supporting Mr. Steyn and McLeans from the USA via Australia. Gotta love those Internets.

      Posted by Rotorhead on 2008 04 19 at 05:45 PM • permalink

 

    1. I didn’t see this until I posted on the next post. This is a major issue in all Anglo countries.
      Getting rid of our oppressive extra-judicial ‘human rights’ commissions is much needed in Australia too.  Did anyone chosen for ‘the best and brightest’ in Canberra put forward the ‘new idea’ of reforming these monsters?
      That’s my measure of whether this gabfest was pathetically Left PC, or not.

      Posted by Barrie on 2008 04 19 at 06:52 PM • permalink

 

    1. Show them the window way out of the building.

      Posted by stackja1945 on 2008 04 19 at 06:58 PM • permalink

 

    1. Macleans and Mark Steyn are fighting the good fight.

      Think of our very own David Marr and Robert Manne claiming that the Howard Government stifled debate and allowed no one (ie, them) to speak!  It was more a case of not many wanting to listen to the tripe spewing forth from their mouths and keyboards.

      They should be following this Canadian case very carefully.  That way, they might learn what stifling debate really means.

      They might also give some thought to how the concept of human rights, embedded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights link – one of the most succint and clear statements of exactly what is meant by human rights and their accompanying responsibilities – is now being distorted, manipulated and exploited.

      Eleanor Roosevelt would be turning in her grave, as would the others who nearly 60 years ago helped draft the Declaration with such high hopes of mankind.

      We are failing them.

      Posted by ann j on 2008 04 19 at 07:01 PM • permalink

 

    1. As a populace, we need to ensure that people considering the ‘ideas’ coming out of the 2020 circle jerk are well aware of what’s going on in Canada.

      Posted by duncanm on 2008 04 19 at 07:42 PM • permalink

 

    1. Coercive utopians need to be met head-on early in the piece, at the risk of over-reacting to what appears to be a handful of idiots. If people of good will ignore the first moves, next thing the lunatics are in charge of the asylum, oourtesy of Bills of Rights, UN Charters and stacked Human Rights Commissions. For example the local gay lobby.

      It happened during the industrial revolution when agitators circulated lies about the factories which the factory owners ignored because they were so silly. The lies are now the historical record thanks to biased historians of the left and the economically illiterate non-left.

      It will happen with the so-called stolen generations if we let it. We need to remind people of the truth, that there are many records of saved people but very few of genuinely stolen children. We also need to pay tribute to John Howard and Mal Brough as the first people to get serious about protecting the women and children of the remote settlements. Never let that be forgotten, whatever you think about other aspects of the mixed (social democrat) Howard legacy.

      Posted by Rafe on 2008 04 19 at 08:02 PM • permalink

 

    1. Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, Cathy Shaidle, and others of the Canadian blogosphere have been laying down a withering fire, with the result that the only people still publicly supporting the HRCs are present and former HRC staffers and a few leftist idiots.

      The mistake the HRCs in Canada made was to go after high profile fighters.  Their normal fare to that point was “little people”.  But now it is all in the open, and these HRCs don’t do so well in the open.

      My concern is what is happening in the Australian states.  We heard a little from Victoria, but it has gone quiet again.  This HRC stuff is still under the rock here.  It needs the Canadian blogosphere treatment.

      Posted by Brett_McS on 2008 04 19 at 08:18 PM • permalink

 

    1. duncanm: “.. we need to ensure that people considering the ‘ideas’ coming out of the 2020 circle jerk are well aware of what’s going on in Canada.”

      They’re not aware of what is going on in Queanbeyan (well, nothing. But they wouldn’t be if there were anything going on).

      Posted by Brett_McS on 2008 04 19 at 08:30 PM • permalink

 

    1. #9 ‘the only people still publicly supporting the HRCs are present and former HRC staffers and a few leftist idiots.’

      Except that the laws that created these bureaucratic meddlers are still backing their power.

      Posted by Barrie on 2008 04 19 at 09:25 PM • permalink

 

    1. HCR and other such bodies may think they are protecting diversity in a multi-culti society, but if they succeed the result will be exactly the opposite: It will require everybody to blend into a great grey mass. Gag everyone so that no one gets offended.

      It is fascism sneaked trough the back door by idiots who actually believe they are preventing fascism.

      Stupidity and Political Correctness, really wanna make you puke.

      Posted by Mikael on 2008 04 19 at 09:36 PM • permalink

 

    1. #12 If by “great grey mass” you mean the culture of the most aggressive, the most violent and the most intolerant.

      Repression of free speech paves the road for such people.

      Posted by Brett_McS on 2008 04 19 at 10:18 PM • permalink

 

    1. #6

      “such high hopes of mankind.”

      Needs to be backed by a proper law.

      Posted by stackja1945 on 2008 04 19 at 10:33 PM • permalink

 

    1. Tim, I disagree. These “insane idiots” are not insane. They smiled after Macleans magazine declined their unreasonable offer. I suggest that this offer was deliberately OTT, made in the knowledge that it was unacceptable. This was an intimidation exercise designed to further increase fear of criticising/ showing the truth about Islamofascism.

      Had these people been concerned simply with making their feelings known, they would have submitted* a series of articles carefully explaining their issues for publication in the magazine, the way people normally do. They might have orchestrated a letter-writing campaign too.

      These actions would have recognised that the magazine is an arena that they are not by fiat a part of and in which it is a privilege to be published.

      Instead they sought to take over and define the operations of Macleans in dealing with their response.
      Since they do not wish to be part of society but dominate it and eventually be in charge, they made a point of making a ridiculous proposal – ie demanding their way of presenting an issue on someone else’s turf.

      This is nothing more nor less than a turf war, and these activists are interested only in provocative conduct that will act as leverage to bring in the human-rights commissions.

      Why did Macleans meet with these characters anyway? Magazines publish things all the time, it’s not as if there is a dearth of opportunities for these activists to have their say, if that’s all they were after.
      By agreeing to meet them well after the issue was dealt with in print, Macleans played into their hands and set themselves up for HRC interference.

      I am not blaming them – one does not generally assume a nasty agenda from every complainant; however, these complainants had an agenda and a plan and it worked. Now what was a simple article or two discussing an issue valuable to all Canadians is a chaotic fall into the pit of Human Rights, than which are no more perfidious violators than the Islamic states.

      I hope other magazines avoid this trap in the future and take careful heed of the Macleans example.

      Posted by carpefraise on 2008 04 20 at 04:09 AM • permalink

 

  1. The Ontario HRC is headed by an activist lawyer and politician?  Sounds like the Peoples Commission that Margo was forming.

    I wonder how that went?

    Posted by wronwright on 2008 04 20 at 08:15 AM • permalink