...or Steyn on the lamb
Officially, it's three-strikes-and-out for El Mo & the Socks at the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission, the Ontario "Human Rights" Commission and the British Columbia "Human Rights" Tribunal. But the tireless "human rights" apparatchik Pearl Eliadis isn't going to let any tedious technicality like three dismissals get in the way of her pushback against the Steyn-Levant threat to the deranged Dominion's "human rights" racket. She returns to the fray in a long snoozeroo of a piece in Maisonneuve magazine called "The Controversy Entrepreneurs" - a not-quite-good-enough concept she's been valiantly attempting to plant in the zeitgeist for some months now. "The Controversy Entrepreneur" is meant to be me, frantically milking my notoriety, although dear old Pearl seems to be the one who can't let go of the udders. Anyway, here's an excerpt:
In December, Awan, Mithoowani and Sheikh—a fourth complainant has since dropped out—filed human rights complaints against Maclean's with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC). The complaints singled out Steyn's article "The Future Belongs to Islam," which predicts a Muslim global takeover, and Maclean's refusal to provide space for a rebuttal, as discriminatory. (Steyn clarified that he was not trying to say that "the cities of the Western world will be filling up with sheep-shaggers.")
The sheep-shagging bit sounded a bit odd to Scaramouche, who went looking for the source. It's not a "clarification" of "The Future Belongs To Islam" or anything to do with that piece at all, but, in fact, comes from an entirely different column:
Signora Fallaci then moves on to the livelier examples of contemporary Islam -- for example, Ayatollah Khomeini's "Blue Book" and its helpful advice on romantic matters: "If a man marries a minor who has reached the age of nine and if during the defloration he immediately breaks the hymen, he cannot enjoy her any longer." I'll say. I know it always ruins my evening. Also: "A man who has had sexual relations with an animal, such as a sheep, may not eat its meat. He would commit sin." Indeed. A quiet cigarette afterwards as you listen to your favourite Johnny Mathis LP and then a promise to call her next week and swing by the pasture is by far the best way. It may also be a sin to roast your nine-year-old wife, but the Ayatollah's not clear on that...
I enjoy the don't-eat-your-sexual-partner stuff as much as the next infidel, but the challenge presented by Islam is not that the cities of the Western world will be filling up with sheep-shaggers. If I had to choose, I'd rather Mohammed Atta was downriver in Egypt hitting on the livestock than flying through the windows of Manhattan skyscrapers. But he's not.
As Scaramouche comments:
So it appears that it was that late, great holy rollah, Khomeini, who brought up the subject of sheep-shtupping and whether or not, having had one's way with lambikins, it was appropriate to then ingest him/her for lunch. The idea was not, as Pearl Eliadis would have you believe, something that suddenly popped into Steyn's mind, "flagrantly Islamophobic" though she and the sockies may consider that mind to be. Steyn was merely riffing (and goofing) on the Ayatollah. In which case, maybe the Socky triad should consider hauling the late Ayatollah's mouldering carcass in front of the HRCs, since, clearly, he's the one who had the "dangerous" ideas.
I'd go a little further. Pearl Eliadis' idea of a "diverse" "multicultural" society is one in which it's okay for ayatollahs to riff on sheep-shagging but not okay for others - and she and her fellow "human rights" hacks will be the arbiters of which persons are permitted to raise the subject. Sorry, but that's the death of liberty.
Ayatollah Khomeini was the single most influential Muslim of the last 30 years. He was a murderous thug, but at another level he was a ridiculous figure, as any man who issues rulings on when it's appropriate to eat one's ovine concubine must surely be to any civilized society. I reserve the right to make what gags I want to about the Ayatollah, and I reject the jurisdiction of a self-important third-rate plonker like Pearl Eliadis over the jokes of a free people.
One of the pathetic aspects of these "trials" is their prostration before identity politics. In Vancouver, the "expert witness" called by the absent El Mo's mouthpiece was a Muslim professor flown in from Philadelphia. He testified that he didn't think the Muslim youths rioting in France were motivated by Islam because that wasn't the impression he'd got from reading the papers - presumably The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Philadelphia Daily News, maybe The New York Times or The Washington Post. I've been to Clichy-sous-Bois and the other Muslim ghettoes of Paris. I know well what role institutional Islam plays in the local power structure. He's never set foot in those places. In real courtrooms, repeating what he'd read in the papers would count as "hearsay". But because he's a Muslim he's the "expert" on the French riots, and because I'm not a Muslim I can't be, and shouldn't be commenting on it. Just like the Ayatollah can do the sheep shtick, but I can't.
Canadian post-Christian secularists might like to note that ultimately this is the death of rationalism and objective inquiry. And buffoons like Pearl Eliadis are entirely on board with that.
