Elmasry’s complaint that Maclean’s discriminated against him as a Muslim and the Muslim community at large by publishing Steyn’s essay, described as “flagrantly anti-Muslim” is frivolous and false.
Elmasry is incapable of grasping what freedom means – he is on public record for insisting all adult Israelis are legitimate targets for Palestinian suicide bombers, only apologizing under duress – since he comes from a culture where freedom is mostly non-existent.
But it is outrageous that the HRCs are willing to entertain such frivolous complaints as Alberta’s did in accepting a similar complaint against Ezra Levant, the publisher of Western Standard, now out of business.
The objection of Islamists that discussions of Islam and Islamism – the latter being a totalitarian ideology – is offensive deserves contemptuous dismissal, not an investigation by the HRC at taxpayers’ expense.
The complaint by anyone – least of all Islamists as determined foes of liberal democracy – of being offended by the general robustness of free speech would be indicative that the complainant cannot distinguish between speech that could be construed as maliciously directed at an individual, or a group, and speech in all its variety and vigour that makes for free discourse in the media and academia.
Freedom comes with cost, and the cost of freedom of expression enshrined in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms is finding someone occasionally offended, yet this cannot be the basis for bridging or censoring the most fundamental right of an open society. (Salim Mansur)
Another Muslim comes out swinging for free speech. I particularly find this statement ridiculously simple but no less profound: “freedom comes with a cost”. In other words, it’s not free. It costs. And that’s why liberals don’t really believe in freedom since they don’t believe they have to pay anything for it. It consumes their whole perverse idea? Free lunches for everyone and let the government pick up the tab.