I must confess to reading with some amusement some of the comments that were posted on a multitude of websites in the blogosphere about last night's program with Mark Steyn and the "Maclean's Three."
So much of it was inaccurate. But I guess it reflected the constantly shifting sands that were under our feet as we tried to put that program together.
Plain and simply, it was a much more difficult endeavor than normal. So kudos right away to our producer Wodek Szemberg for doing so.
Here's a bit of the behind-the-scenes.
We've been trying to get Mark Steyn on this program ever since his "America Alone" book came out almost two years ago. I tried dealing with his publicists at Regnery Publishing, but couldn't get a response. Mark told me on the program last night that he doesn't get many requests from Canadian media.
Well, he had a ton of requests from this program (both from Wodek and me) but for some reason, Regnery never responded to any of my requests. Wodek’s requests were responded to, but declined.
So I should start by saying (as I did last night) that I was delighted to finally have Steyn in that chair.
The initial agreement that Steyn's people made with Wodek was to have Steyn open the program with a one-on-one interview about his book, and the allegations previously before the Ontario Human Rights Commission, related to his piece in Maclean's Magazine.
Wodek also offered to have Steyn join a panel discussion afterwards, although at that point, the guests were not chosen.
Eventually, after a suggestion by producer Judy Brake, Wodek decided to try to book the "Maclean's Three" (the law students who became active against Maclean’s and wrote a lengthy content analysis of Steyn’s piece and others).
So at this point, we had agreement for a one-on-one with Steyn, plus a three-on-one discussion following.
Then, Steyn’s publicists saw our website indicating who would be on the debate and offered to have the author join the debate. Wodek communicated that offer to the “Maclean’s Three,” who rejected it.
They said there wasn’t enough time to prepare. Moreover, they felt Steyn was getting his time alone, and they wanted theirs.
So back to Steyn we went. His people wanted to ensure that he would have the last word, and therefore wanted the "Maclean’s Three" to open the program, followed by a Steyn one-on-one.
We came back and said, it didn’t make sense to do things in that order, given that we needed to first understand the content of the book and the Maclean’s article that were so unacceptable to representatives of the Muslim community.
(You thought booking TV shows was easy, right?)
Since the "Maclean’s Three" still weren’t willing to debate Steyn face-to-face, our executive producer Dan Dunsky, suggested another compromise: start with a one-on-one with Steyn, continue with a three-on-one debate, followed by a second one-on-one with Steyn, offering him a chance to rebut the accusations.
This isn't something we've done before, but in the interests of finding the diplomatic compromise that would allow everyone to participate, we offered this and everyone agreed.
Now, admittedly, this is a lot more negotiating than normal. But you should also know that it's typical for our producers to deal with these kinds of things all the time. Some guests won't come on with others. Some guests only want to come on live. Others insist on taping early. It's all part of the mix of a producer's job to negotiate conditions under which guests will appear.
If you saw last night's program, you'll know that all of our best laid plans, in the end, didn't matter.
Steyn challenged the three complainants to allow him to join the debate. After considering his request (on live TV no less), they insisted they have time alone (as he did), after which they were content to have him join.
That seemed eminently reasonable to me, and so we made it so, all of it happening on the fly.
For what it's worth, I think the "Maclean's Three" made the right call by engaging in a debate with Steyn. They would have looked like hypocrites had they not, given that they've been calling for an open debate on the subject matter for weeks.
The program was certainly one of the most heated we've ever done, although I believe it stayed civilized almost all the time. We ensured at the outset there would be no shouting or name calling and our guests to their credit stuck to those rules.
What you didn't see was that after we got off the air and the cameras and lights were shut off, all four participants stayed in the studio for another hour discussing the issues with Wodek and another producer, Navin Vaswani, who helped Wodek with the show.
To Steyn's credit, he may have offered the first olive branch when he said as I was closing the show, "would you guys like to go for dinner?" One of the lawyers immediately said, "No!" They may not have broken bread, but they did continue the dialogue.
What became clear is that the rancor that started the evening was gone by the end of it. We're now trying to see whether we can bring all four participants back some time towards the end of the month, in hopes of having a somewhat calmer discussion about the actual arguments in Steyn's book. We didn't get to much of that last night because so much time was taken up with questions about whether Maclean's was practising good journalism or not.
While there may be several morals to this story, one I'd like to highlight is this: many bloggers were taking potshots at various parties yesterday as the behind-the-scenes negotiations went on. While it may have made for provocative reading, much of it bore no resemblance to the truth at the time, and obviously not to what transpired in the end.
It reminded me of an expression I recently heard: 90% of what we worry about never happens.
The blogosphere bloviated with insults yesterday over fears that the parties would not debate each other.
In the end, they did. If you missed it, audio and video of the show is available on Tuesday's episode page.
I have sometimes been disappointed by your show due to the spin and predictable positions taken by the usual troupe of guests.
Yesterday was a treat to watch. Credit goes to you and all the show personnel for being flexible and therefore making it real.
After hearing Steyn and the students, I thought the students would be eaten alive, but to their credit and the moderator the debate was quite enlightening, for me anyway.
Good job!
posted by Les on 07 May 2008 at 3:03 PM
Mr Paikin, I suspect mine is one of the websites you allude to which commented negatively on last night's show. Thank you for taking the time to leave a comment. In my post, I stated that I observed you to be biased toward Mr Steyn's position. I still think that's the case, but I now suspect it was more a case of having to deal with the in-studio chaos, and not necessarily a genuine slant on your part. I apologize if you found my post insulting, and I remain a great fan of yours and of The Agenda.
I think an important point that the "MacLean's Three" were dancing around, but never managed to elucidate clearly, is that journalistic style can be as important as content. It's Mr Steyn's bombastic and sneering style that I believe denudes Muslims everywhere, as does his explicit catering to a small but very vocal minority of extreme racists in Canada.
Upon second viewing of the show this morning, I found your moderation more fair, in light of the chaos and stress that no doubt surrounded you.
posted by raywat on 07 May 2008 at 3:15 PM
TV That makes you think is right on for The Agenda. Most programs are very good. Last night's was exceptional. Reality came through and was a real treat. Excellent job in moderating a difficult situation. Kudos to Steve for a great job. Congratulations to all the participatants for maintaining "realitive cool" under hot conditions and definitely a "hot topic". Thanks for all the web links. I have looked at many of them but have not read them all yet. I had no idea how difficult it would be get get people to come on to free public television in Ontario and present their views. I look forward to further education on this topic in upcoming programs. Mark Steyn's book is now on my reading list and I will purchase it soon. Thanks to TVO for great educational television.
posted by citizenmdb on 07 May 2008 at 3:52 PM
May 6th program, with Mark Steyn and the three law school complainants (through Canadian Islamic Congress) to the Human Rights Commission about the excerpt from Steyn’s book “America Alone” in Maclean’s magazine, was not easy, however, you and TVO did the right thing. Subsequently, it turned into an honest, vigorous hour.
The more I listened and closely observed their facial expressions and actions I realized Steyn was right about 2nd and 3rd generations that could be more acrimonious and radical than the parents and grandparents.
Perhaps the three educated apologists and appeasers must question the Muslims who created the Global Jihad and animosities, question their religion, question themselves. “Know Thyself” as is inscribed in the forecourt of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi.
They did make one good point that journalists and writers, specifically Mark Steyn, might be hiding behind the quotes of known celebrities, obscure Muslims, press, media, historians, and authors. Did they mean that this might be his opinion but he used the quotes so he could avoid the rancour? Satirist Steyn is a forthright fellow, and frankly I concur with his comment that the Muslim population is increasing. Hence, he certainly wasn’t hiding. As a matter of fact I read somewhere that the following is an interpretation from the Qur’an: “Spread out and procreate. We will outlast them.”
I think Mark Steyn should consider suing them for calling him a martyr and generally insulting his integrity. He should sue Barbara Hall of the OHRC for false pretences. She probably has a burkha at home, prepared just in case. Am I Islamophobic? Since 9/11 and before that, I suppose so.
Finally, the articulate Mark Steyn might have said to the three, “I do fear what is happening around the world, so how would you make me, us, feel safer?”
Continue the awareness Steve Paikin.
www.onwardjames,blogspot.com
posted by Onward James on 07 May 2008 at 4:12 PM
Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is compelling television.
Bravo Steve.
posted by ty_____ on 07 May 2008 at 4:40 PM
Steve, I really enjoyed the debate last night, it really left me thinking. I saw so much in that episode that I hardly know where to begin. I don't want to "side" with anyone by offering my point of view on this issue. Although I jokingly want to offer a word of advice, "be careful that Earnst Zundel doesn't launch a rights commission lawsuit against you demanding that you stop exacerbating Zundelaphobia" I found all of the guests to be thoughtful and passionate. It is also great to put faces to the issue. I think with a touch less arguing and a little more listening these two parties may have actually made a great step towards understanding. If you think it could be contained, I would love to see them all come back, I'd also like a rights commission rep and a maclean's spokesman to sit on the panel and talk about what's really at the bottom of this, although I suspect a lot of it is about selling magazines, appearing to be protecting people, and too much free time.
posted by Jeff on 07 May 2008 at 5:11 PM
Mr. Paikin, It was very big of the "Macleans Three", as you call them to consent, on the fly, to engage in debate with Mr. Steyn. Sadly, with all the to-and-fro, the program just didn't have the time to get at the real issues promoted by Steyn. You certainly made a valiant effort to move the debate in that direction but the 3 wanted to focus on the Macleans issue. As one regular viewer, I would like to see another program with Steyn and the 3, or others with an opposing view in a full hour long discussion about the merits (or lack) of his book and his views. These things are worth a more complete airing. Thanks and best wishes.
posted by beluga on 07 May 2008 at 5:29 PM
I was happy to see the students finally acquiesce and debate Mr. Steyn. After all, that's what they wanted or so they said. It was unfortunate those moments when everyone spoke at once, but you did an excellent job moderating a difficult situation.
I was rather disgusted to hear Khurrum Awan compare Oriana Fallaci to Ernst Zundel. You gave him the opportunity to correct his remark, but he chose to stand by it. I don't see how any sane person can compare the two.
Have you considered airing the point of view of other Muslims? These lawyers and the CIC do not speak for all Muslims in Canada, and there are many who support Macleans' stance in this dispute. I am referring specifically to the Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC). Their website is: http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/
From their mission statement: "As Muslims we believe in a progressive, liberal, pluralistic, democratic, and secular society where everyone has the freedom of religion."
It would be refreshing to hear an alternate viewpoint from within the Muslim community. Please consider asking them to be on your show.
posted by SJT on 07 May 2008 at 5:36 PM
Steve:
Last September when you interviewed me, you introduced me as a fellow who has "written me lots of letters telling me how to do my job better".
This time, I'm writing to say that nobody - nobody - could have done that better than you did it last night. It was absolutely gripping television.
I salute you and the whole production team.
Cheers,
Paul McKeever
posted by Paul McKeever, Leader, Freedom Party of Ontario on 07 May 2008 at 7:25 PM
Hi Steve & TVO producers
One of your best shows - and you Steve really excelled as the critical journalist / interviewer / moderator that you are!
I admire M Steyn's work - read his book - subscribe to MacLean's - I'm also a lawyer and think the recent grads did a pretty good job - also happy that you & TVO may have facilitated a detente
I'm with M Steyn in saying that present day pan-muslim relations is a very important and compelling story - I think this theme carried the show - not every one would get his wicked turn of phrase - and this being politically-correct Canada - one has to watch being wickedly funny
It was a great show - all are to be congratulated - especially you (on the fly) and your producers - remarkable TV!
Bill G (London Ont)
posted by Bill Gallagher on 07 May 2008 at 8:22 PM
Good show, Kudos to you and your guests for trying something different. I'd love to see more TV like that. Looking forward to the next time. Keep up the good work.
posted by bobm on 07 May 2008 at 8:29 PM
Exceptional television. I don't think I had ever seen anything quite like it. The format as it turned out was quite good. 15 minutes for each side to explain themselves and then 20 minutes to go up against each other. In the end the person that came out best I thought was Mr Paikin himself. The moderator did a good job at keeping control of things, was obviously well versed in the issues and tried hard to explain it all to those of us who hadn't kept up with all this in the past.
posted by MAB on 07 May 2008 at 8:38 PM
Excellent, best in class show, well moderated, and relevant. Thank you for a topic that was important and well defined with limits. (Topics that are too broad like, 'where is God', just lose focus.) I thought that M Steyn could have made some very logical and convincing points but lost credibilty by interspersing them with disparaging, sarcastic comments into his main thesis and exagerated sometimes frivolous claims . While the young students resisted all attempts to draw them into a 'personal' battle. The irony is that he is partly right and partly wrong. Although 'globalization' is often accepted as an undisputed premise today in all subjects, the reality is; that muslims in North America are nevertheless still 'oceans apart' in their reasons for emigrating, ambitions, comportment and philosophy from muslims in Europe, most notably France. There is a severe problem in Europe, while I think that Canadians of all origins need to give ourselves credit for getting along for the most part, very, very well.
posted by dsbarclayeng on 07 May 2008 at 9:00 PM
great job. as always. But I would much rather have a million more muslims like your 3 guests than 1 more of" say anything to get read and make a buck" sad excuse for a white guy. Journalism is under attack and for good reason. Please resist the people who want more of this Springer type spectacle.
posted by freerangehuman on 07 May 2008 at 9:10 PM
I agree wholeheartedly that you did an amazing job negotiating your guests and the topic. I was however disappointed with the "Maclean's Three." They looked like 1st year law students trying to impress their prof. during a mock trial. They stood no chance with their goings on about the Human Rights Commissioin. Should the debate have gone on longer, it would have been even more obvious.
Love the show, will be watching.
jonathan wiebe
posted by Drop Anchor on 07 May 2008 at 9:16 PM
Rarely have I been so infuriated as I was by the position of the 'Macleans Three' in the show last night. I literally felt ill after watching them.
Free speech is one of the keystones of our society. It dosen't mean freedom from being offended. I am often offended, but I don't go snivelling to the OHRC to abuse our system into taking away other peoples abilbity to express their offensive view points. It dosen't mean mandating equal time to all points of view on magazines run by private companies.
It does mean playing 'king of the hill' with every idea out there. If your point of view has merit through the force of its arguments and supporting evidence, eventually it may make it to the top and stay there against all comers. It especially protects the minorities right to express their views. Those who wish to create laws to supress views offensive to them being expressed must beware. One day they may come after you! Lawyers should know better.
I had to watch Christopher Hitchens lecture at UofT on free speech immediately afterwards in order to feel clean again.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6379618149058958603&ei=p0YiSKHlIYvu-wHeseXHAQ
It also left me thinking of Henry VI and Shakespeare. Ah, but I shouldn't say this as it may be offensive to lawyers. Lets have the OHRC decide whether that play can ever be performed at Stratford again. In fact, The Merchant of Venice has some pretty hatefull speech in it. Have the OHRC ban that while there are at it. Where shall we stop. I'm offended by bits of the Quoran. I demand that the OHRC mandate that every copy of the Quoran sold in Ontario provide half of the pages - allow equal space - for me to discuss my secular point of view. I want the OHRC to compell Christian churchs to provide equal time for me to present at their church services - every Sunday. What fun.
posted by secular on 07 May 2008 at 9:19 PM
Absolutely fascinating show, excellently moderated. I agree with the final question proposed for Stein in Onward Jame's blog.
I agree with Jeff that Stein is all about selling magazines.
I agree with Sheila J. Tofflemire that panel representing a cross section of the Moslem community should be assembled. They should discuss only the conclusions that Stein comes to, but without Stein anywhere in earshot.
GMB
posted by Lem on 07 May 2008 at 9:35 PM
I wasn't disappointed by the behaviour of the MacLean's 3, because frankly, I expected them to behave the way they have been portrayed. Whiny, petulant spoiled children who are throwing a temper tantrum when they didn't get their way. And please, "don't interrupt me sir, I didn't interrupt you" (when did he learn that, day 2 of law school?) And then he goes and talks over Steyn. And then these crybabies refuse Mark's gracious offer (shows how sincere they are). Democracy, which includes free speech, is not always nice and polite. Sometimes it's fractious, raucous and abrasive. That happens when people are allowed the freedom to express their opinions. What I took from last night's show was that the MacLean's 3 don't like Canada, they want to inflict their rules on everybody else. I have read Mark's book, and while it is OK, frankly, IMHO it was somewhat sensationalist and I suspect was meant to be controversial. Although, to be fair, Mark is an opinion journalist, and that what they do, they write opinionated pieces. The whole human rights involvement in this thing is definitely out of control though.
posted by Mike on 07 May 2008 at 9:42 PM
Steve: I am afraid that in Wodek's and your desire to have a debate between Mark Steyn and the complainants, you unfortunately let Steyn hijack the show once it was under way. Mr. Steyn was not really interested in letting you interview him as was clear by his desire to ignore you as the interviewer and challenge the complainants. When have you ever let a guest or panelist or a political leader change the format or rules of a show or a debate midway through the actual event? Once it wad decided that there would be some discussion with the complainants and Mr. Steyn, the show completely lost its focus. I suspect the reason was that Mr. Steyn and you wanted to debate primarily the merits of his book while the complainants came prepared to talk more about Steyn's column as representative of their overall concerns with Maclean's. As a result you came across as annoyed and cut off several answers very directly in a way that I have not seen before on the show.
There is a reason why the production of the show should be done prior to the show beginning and not on air on the fly. It is similar to Bismarck's comments on politics and not really wanting to know how sausage is made. The end result might have made more exciting television but it did not make for more informed debate because there were not common expectations on what should occur during the debate portion.
Finally, just one more comment about the free speech argument. If people listened to the complainants, they said very clearly that they never asked Maclean's not to print Mark Steyn or remove him as a columnist. All they wanted was to have a person that both they and Maclean's would agree to write a response which also would leave Maclean's with editorial control. How is this limiting free speech?
posted by Oxford on 07 May 2008 at 9:51 PM
Free speech has everything to do with it.
Having government bodies compell private organizations to hand over editorial control of their magazines because someone has been offended is a terrifying prospect. Once you open this door, where does it lead? Your comment has offended me. I demand the OHRC compell you to publish my comments in your blog post! I demand that, you must give equal time to my point of view in every one of your postings. Alternatively, we can find someone who we both agree to write your blogs for you. Oh, but now you are not the one talking. It is not your speech. It is not the company you built up. Your free speech is gone. It seemed like a subtile distinction at first. Hitler only wanted the Sudentenland. At first. We monkey with this at our peril.
Evolution is offensive to some. By the same reasoning they should be able to demand - and get - Creationism be given equal time in schools. Ernst Zundel must be offended by talk of the Holocaust. Equal time for Holocaust deniers in schools! Compelled by the government.
It this the Canada we want? Legislating political correctness is very dangerous.
posted by secular on 07 May 2008 at 10:23 PM
Secular: One would think that Maclean's would have loved to continue the debate and dialogue by having a different view being presented on this topic that they have already admitted generated a lot of interest. As a regular reader of the Globe and Mail, I often see columns a couple days after a controversial one is printed rebutting it. This is healthy for public discussion and is consistent with the values and importance media outlets claim they have in a democracy. The fact that the complainants put forward that the person would be both mutually agreeable to them and Maclean's meant that the magazine was maintianing editorial control. Why the editors at Maclean's did not want to support more dialogue and debate is beyond me.
posted by Oxford on 07 May 2008 at 10:38 PM
Mine seems to be a minority view. I just can't understand why Tues. night's program was set up in the manner it was - even if it was on the fly. Steyn was so inflammatory in every way that whatever of value he may have to offer is easily lost. I felt he hijacked the show - being given the opportunity to both open and close the show. He continually misrepresented the Human Rights issue the law students were seeking to have recognized. All-in-all it should sell more of Steyn's books. But it would have been interesting to hear a less self-centred and inflammatory rebuttal to the issue. I think Steve Paikin is normally a great interviewer and moderator, but this show just didn't work well. And the Agenda is pretty much my favorite TV program. I was disappointed last evening.
posted by MarleneK on 07 May 2008 at 10:56 PM
Whether Macleans should have loved the debate or not is miles besides the point. Having a government body compell them to debate the topic in their pages is. The freedom not to say anything is also a part of free speech. I don't disagree that it is common, healthy and desirable to print rebuttals and various points of view. In a competitive media landscape it is a feature that may atract eyeballs and be good for business. The editors at Macleans are responsible to their shareholders. It is their business to decide how to run their business. Not the OHRC or the 'Macleans Three' or you or me. If Macleans is not providing the range of viewpoints you desire, you are free to choose from dozens (hundreds - thousands!) of other media sources competing for your eyeballs. I could have some sympathy for their viewpoint if Macleans were the ONLY source of information for all Canadians. The 'Macleans Three' are not being stopped from getting their message out there. Why the draconian measure of forcing a private company to do their bidding? This is legislating political correctness. Punishing someone from having a different point of view. It is very dangerous.
posted by secular on 07 May 2008 at 11:16 PM
I'll echo the other commenters here: you are obviously one of the smarter, more professional, more engaging, and also more courteous interviewers in the business. I've often wondered why you've never been lured away by one of the bigger networks. TVO is certainly lucky to have you, and that was more than evident last night.
I hope that Steyn and the 'Maclean's Three' do return to the program. There has been no shortage of angry accusations and self-righteous posturing on both sides of this issue, so it was nice to see the interested parties sitting down and actually talking to each other (if somewhat chaotically).
Steyn came across as rather pompous during his one-on-one, but was vastly more persuasive in the debate. The position taken by the law students is problematic: on the one hand, they pointed out that their complaint was not against Steyn, but against Maclean's; they just wanted a debate, and Maclean's denied them the opportunity. Then they went on to claim that the excerpt from Steyn's book promotes hatred, and that hatred-promotion should be prosecuted. In order for their position to be consistent, they should be going after Steyn directly.
As it is, they end up arguing that the article promoted hatred only because they were denied the opportunity to respond (and this despite the numerous letters that Maclean's printed objecting to the article). And so it seems like their main concern is to have some control over what is printed in Maclean's magazine, and that denying them that control is contrary to human rights. And that is a pretty absurd position to take.
I'm of the view that section 13 of the HRC should be abolished, and that complaints against hate speech now constitute a real threat to freedom of expression in this country. The three articling students, all obviously very intelligent people, disagree. But if they want to be logically consistent, they need to rethink their arguments.
posted by DaveZ on 07 May 2008 at 11:17 PM
Great, great program, especially to see the Commonwealth take on the Caliphate, and then to see the issues worked out with civlity instead of the violence we see every day from street gangs to Palestine to Iraq to Afghanistan. Although I am supportive of Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant - especially as their organizations are under fire for exercising their free speech rights, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda as well as other terrorists and wanna-be terrorists could learn quite a bit from these three young Muslims... like putting down their arms, renouncing terrorism, and engaging the West in dialogue. I also hope this show garners many awards & plaudits for Mr. Paiken and his crew. A massive moment in history just happened.
I also have to put in a word edgewise for the former Ontario Education Minister Sandra Pupatello, Ontario Liberal (aka Lady Churchill) who reformed this program - BRAVO ZULU to my exemplar. Her guts just contributed to saving civlization, probably no surprise to Ontarians and others (like this Yank) who remember her bravery in 2002 and 2003 against the Ontario PCs who bullied her for speaking out against gov't waste & cronyism and even threatened my hero with litigation.
Thanks for all you do, TVO. You and your guests did the right thing.
posted by JosefK on 08 May 2008 at 2:22 AM
Observing the panel members. It is illogical to demand tolerance for one's cause from others, while displaying stark intolerance toward fellow humans and their thought directions. This dichotomy makes this invaluable democratic right highly problematic. Bellingerence not peace results
posted by AnneW on 08 May 2008 at 8:49 AM
congratulations to all, only wish we had similarly stimulating shows on the BBC - never watched the show before but have added to my favourites & look forward to watching future session between the participants Northumberland UK
posted by bryan hewson on 08 May 2008 at 10:31 AM
First, Mr. Paikin, let me join the dominant chorus of well-wishers on an excellent program that certainly was unique in many ways.
In case you are able, as you suggest, to get the four debaters back into the studio, I would suggest that every listener read beforehand the reference paper attached to the Agenda "Macleans Magazine: A case Study of Media-Propagated Islamophobia". It provides a revealing window into the mindset of these three Muslims and probably,by extension, many of the other Muslims in Canada. I only wish they would have expended their energy (70 page paper) on telling us what they are doing to influence the members of their group to integrate into the Canadian milieu rather than seek militant avenues to fight and challenge our customs and institutions and thereby undermining our own security by providing justificications to radical Islamists to commit acts of terrorism. We, too, are offended when we are told by Islamic websites that we are kuffars and do evil things on Thanks-Giving and Christmas and that Islam is the one and only true religion for the entire World and that eventually everyone will convert to Islam or else........! I have not heard any Muslim organization in Canada, except the MCC, try to find a common ground with us infidels.
On another note, I chuckled when I read that Mr. Steyn invited his opponents to dinner. Of course, they declined. Let us all not be naive. This discussion is very serious with very serious repercussions. The West and Islam is clearly on a collision course. It is not just a lively debate about global warming. And even that discussion has let already to dramatic threats by Suzuki to jail all politicians that don't accept his and his cohorts views.
These three lawyers have a lot of explaining to do!
posted by Burt on 08 May 2008 at 10:51 AM
A landmark program in the history the country’s finest current affairs show.
While Steyn is a funny writer (similar perhaps to PJ O’Rourke – including the facile worldview), in person he’s a braying boor. As one of your other commenters has remarked, he seemed to be not so much interested in debate as in hijacking the show.
Steve Paiken, you did a masterful job of controlling a volatile situation on the fly. One, admittedly “armchair”, cavil: I did get the sense that you deferred a little to Mr. Steyn at the expense of the “Macleans three”. An unfair criticism I know, I’m sure he is not an easy character to keep in check and in comparison to three law students, he’s obviously much more experienced in a live interview situation.
One point that I thought got a bit lost, as the show was wrapping up when it was made, was that using the words of a Norwegian imam to characterize Muslim values is similar to portraying Ernst Zundel as a typical white Canadian.
Very much looking forward to the next installment in this excellent debate.
posted by simonb on 08 May 2008 at 10:59 AM
Steve Paikins's performance on this show was embarrassing for public broadcasting. I had been impressed with his moderating skills a few years ago, but it's obvious he's not up to the task when it comes to guests one senses he has a personal he is personally acquainted.
We are exposed to the first part of the program, in which Mark Steyn is allowed to orate continuously, make any number of assertions unchallenged and completely hijack the segment with ridiculous calls to guests off-camera. All of this elicits only amused looks from Paikins, who's seems generally entertained.
Then, in the segment with the three students, we have Paikins hectoring and interrupting and insisting every fact or assertion be examined in minutia to determine its validity. And once again, catcalls and interruptions from Mr Steyn off-camera are treated more entertainment than anything else.
Paikins disgraced himself, but then, when it comes to his friends, we've seen that before.
It's no small wonder I don't bother with The Agenda anymore. It is rarely any alternative to informed discussion I can get elsewhere.
posted by Lou on 08 May 2008 at 12:16 PM
One of the best-handled TV shows I have ever watched. Excellent!
posted by NobasB on 08 May 2008 at 12:28 PM
I'm a cranky old fossil, and I criticize the Agenda a lot. But I was absolutely astounded by the show, not for its dissemination of information (more confusion than anything else), but for the wonderful spontaneity of it all. In this age of carefully rehearsed, tightly controlled talk shows and 'opinion' panels (e.g. the usual suspects on stone-faced Mansbridge's by-the-numbers 'At Issue' crew), this was actually LIVE, IMPERFECT television; in short, HUMAN television. It sparked fits of nostalgia in my cynical old bones; it reminded me of programs 20-30 years ago, when a viewer just didn't know what to expect. This was great theatre. Steve Paikin looked (inevitably) flustered , but that was quite wonderful: better to look flustered, ergo human, then the usual sitting statues (aka moderators) who have become boring, predictable and over-over-rehearsed. The viewer almost knows what sentence, what PARSING, they're going to use next.
I commend all of you at the Agenda for being unafraid of looking unsure. That just doesn't happen ANYWHERE on television these days.
posted by grog on 08 May 2008 at 12:54 PM
I served my country for ten years as a member of Princess Patricias Canadian Light Infantry. Like my grandfather and his father, I felt in an honor to serve my country. Like so many others they laid their lives down for a Canada that is rich in history and has always had a sense of fair play. Can we call the current actions of the CHRC and its ugly cousins fair? Is this the Canada, people fought and die as for? Regardless of anyone’s political stripe, I’m sure you’ll agree that free speech and free press are vitally important to any liberal society. We might not like the things some people say, but this is Canada and most believe in the right to say them.
These are two sorry three bit cheap punks. If they felt that seriously about it. They would have filed civil and criminal suit. Its a cheap at best. I might give these three one iota of respect if they were at least honest as to thier or the CICs political agenda.
Cheap terrorist attack is what it equates to in my mind.
posted by ExGrunt on 08 May 2008 at 1:55 PM
Must agree with the perceived majority. Best TV I have seen in a long time. Reality programming could learn a lot from this show.
posted by tigerregis on 08 May 2008 at 2:11 PM
While I do understand that the three students weren't prepared for what was about to confront them - a good job well done. Best debate since Studio 2 and I think the first time that Steve felt a little bit out of balance. What Mark, MacLean's, the three guests (that didn't get there twenty minute preparation) and The Agenda have brought forward a timely topic for us all, even at the risk of offending a few (our own governments do it every day). Unfortunate that the other individuals and organizations Steve contacted turned down an invitation to participate. The best results occur when each "corner" of the debate is in the "ring". I'd like to hear more Steve - maybe in the form of a town agenda.
posted by fletcher on 08 May 2008 at 2:29 PM
Steve handled the situation pretty good. The Steyn fellow had his time, I thought the repeating challenge inviting the 'three' over to speak was done with sarcasm. All parties involved are nasty, spiteful, sarcastic types. Steve is a nice guy and I give him credit trying to handle the situation graciously.
I haven't read anything Steyn wrote, I don't qualify to comment on his writings. I do live in a predominantly muslim neighbourhood with a mosque nearby. All houses sold have muslims move it. Fine, no problem here.
Muslims bring their ideology to Canada. Don't tell me my dog that I take for walks carries disease. Little boys are conditioned to hate women. I have seen 10 year olds scream at their mothers calling them names not fit on this blog. The "men" of the family sit by and smile. 'Yea, let her have it'. I have been called names walking to my house, all by little snod nose (muslim) boys.
I know this 'hood here doesn't represent all Muslims, heck no. These here are suni. They are dispised by some of the other msulims for not integreting into Canadian society.
There will be huge problems to come in Canada. Look at France and the rest of Europe.
I will have to read what was printed in Macleans's mag. I do know if a Canadian of Jewish descent is insulted, it would not be printed in Maclean's or any other daily, weekly rag.
I don't think it's necessary to bring these 4 back on TVO. All 4 are opinionated and set in their ways.
When I do get insulted by the males of this religion, I simply say, welcome to Canada. We do love to own pets, and why don't they do their research before entering this country?
posted by K.Wyman on 08 May 2008 at 2:47 PM
Ex-grunt: Yes we have free speech but it is not now nor has it ever been absolute. We have had libel laws for years and more recently other restraints on what is considered permissable in our country.
K. Wyman: I too have heard such comments too from children but I live in a small town that is primariy WASPish in its nature. As you aptly point out, it does not mean all Muslims are like that. I only wish Mark Steyn can make the same distinction between Muslims who do want to do harm and those that want the same goals and aspirations that most of us as Canadians want.
posted by Oxford on 08 May 2008 at 3:12 PM
As a retired reporter, I am amazed at your fortitude, quick accumulation of responses and, above all, your patience.I think I would have done a hairy if so much vitriolic content had come pummeling at me (re show with Styn and Maclean's three). Hope you don't get a nervous breakdown from this very commanding job. I certainly admire your dedication and wish you the best in your future endeavors.
Barbara
posted by Writeful on 08 May 2008 at 6:14 PM
The WATCH VIDEO link on your site is broken. That is, it shows only the first THIRD of the program. Was this a mistake? Don't you intend to put the whole video online?
posted by Glen1212 on 08 May 2008 at 6:27 PM
A wonderful exchange! You presided over a most invigorating show Steve - the kind that never happens in Muslim controlled countries. There is a reason why democracy has never risen spontaneously in Muslim countries. The Mullah's control thought and punish anyone who challenges their control. Engaging in such wonderful free flowing dialogue is nowhere on their radar. If the three Muslim students were operating in a Muslim country they would be (or at least the male one of them would be) a judge in a court of Sharia Law handing out a sentence of apostacy to Mark Steyn and ordering him stoned or beheaded. Orthodox Muslim countries have absolutely no concept of human rights and freedoms. I want to see a debate that gets to the crux of the matter and compares the garbage Mullahs preach faithfully from the Qur'an with the Christian principles of free western societies. Keep up the great work!
posted by Believer123 on 08 May 2008 at 6:35 PM
Some have commented on Mark Steyn's appearance and questionable behavior on your show the past evening with the law students. I would be somewhat steamy if I had to defend myself, free speech and free expression on live television infront of three of my 'victims'. This issue is serious and Mr. Steyn is at the centre of it. So-called Human Rights in many forms will eventually become meaningless if the presentation of the complainers meets the present standard of measurement to challenge and revoke them. In light of the tremendous attention and endurance this issue has, the law students (victims, remember) appearance and overwhelming sense of entitlement and self-importance was evidence enough for me that the future remains in question. Great show. Groundbreaking stuff.
posted by Whetherhelm on 08 May 2008 at 7:59 PM
As a female, living in the GTA, I can easily attend events held by groups of all three major religions. I am not embarrassed to wear a hijab and I have entered a mosque for a tour. I learned a bit. It's much easier for a woman to mingle with other nationalities/religions. We're not as threatening as a male. In order to lose fear of the unknown, why not go on a Saturday afternoon tour. Call the imam ahead of time and you as a non muslim will be welcome.
Look up a synagogue in the yellow pages and call and you will also be made welcome to visit. Ditto for non Christians, give a church in your neighbourhood a visit. We don't live in the middle ages where we have a fear of the unknown?
The three Macleaners would not be allowed to voice their opinions in their parents' country. Maybe if Steyn hadn't quoted certain touchy subjects, the three wouldn't have had to come on TV to dispel some of the myths surrounding Islam.
I will watch the video again, for those not familiar with the islamic religion or Steyn, the show didn't solve anything. IMO. Steve Paikin is to be admired, he held up pretty good.
I think there are more important issues that should be addressed. The destruction of old historic artifacts in Iraq. Peace should be made in Israel and my biggest fear if ever the US were to attack Iran. Who cares about Maclean's mag.
posted by K.Wyman on 08 May 2008 at 8:06 PM
Very interesting show. I have to give credit to the show for jumping rather bravely in this direction. I have to agree with one of the others that it didn't really accomplish much to put these two groups together, as they were obviously going in opposite directions. However, it was refreshing to see a show that was more, Studio 2, with Steve more involved in the discussion. What this show did accomplish was to show how far Macleans magazine has swung to the right. I'm quite ashamed of what Macleans has sunk to in journalistic integrity. Several months ago I commented on Andrew Coyne joining the magazine and said that either he has flopped to the centre or Macleans has gone over to the dark side. I have to admit I was wrong. Andrew hasn't moderated, he is still as narrow-minded as ever and so Macleans has obviously made some editorial changes. To allow some borderline neo-nazi like Steyn to grace its pages is a sad day for all Canadians, but at least the show revealed this much to the rest of Ontario. It will be interesting to see what else they write about in the days ahead. Unfortunately all of this just supports my theory that as our society declines (rise,peak,decline,just like the Romans) that society inevitably moves more right-wing. We will see more of this phenomenon as we proceed into the future.
posted by peaceman on 08 May 2008 at 10:06 PM
About seven years ago, I noticed the Quran in my library (translated into English) and thought it might be interesting to read this book to better understand Moslems and their religion. At that time I was interested in learning about the different religions of the world. After reading the first part of the Quran I became so terrified that I fell to my knees in prayer and was very determined to become a Moslem. Of course, realistically, it would be very hard for me to worship five times a day at the specific times required by the Quran - but I was determined at the time to try (or else I'd get fried).
So to make a long story short - I was a Moslem for a few days. In fact, I became very serious. I continued reading the Quran, page after page. After a while the violent threats and precise details of horrendous suffering and torture that awaits those who just happen to be brought up in a different religion or for whatever reason might hold a different opinion and view - became too much for me.
Worst of all are the threats against "hypocrites" - that is - those who pretend to be Moslem but don't really practice the religion. Strictly speaking (from the point of view of the extremists) this might apply to the peaceful Canadian Moslems who might be somewhat unfamiliar with the entire Quran and only partially practice the religion. After "hypocrites" are the "idolators". A good part of the Quran talks about how Christians wrongfully idolize Jesus (who is respected as a prophet but nothing more). It even talks about how in the final judgement of mankind, Jesus will come before Allah and deny the Christians and say that he never told them to idolize him. Idolatry of course extends to other religions as well. That is why the Moslems destroyed an ancient Buddha statue that was very precious and valuable to the Buddhists. I can't remember what the Quran says about atheists. I do remember something like it's better to worship nothing than to idolize some god that is not the true creator of the universe: Allah. I became very angry at this god who is so vainglorious that he threatens the creatures that he supposedly made without lifting a finger to help them or the world in any way. Now to make a long story short - after careful thought (as well as reading other books) I am now an atheist. Some selected parts of the Quran do give some good advice. Also, it is amazing the advanced scientific and mathematical understanding the Arabic Moslems already had in the seventh century when this book was supposedly written. Yet if read as a whole - from front to back - there is a lot of violence threatened and encouraged by Allah against those who do not practice the Islamic religion. The fact that so many Moslems take certain parts of the Quran very seriously (memorizing it from an early age) and are now killing or ready to kill anyone who does not practice their religion - disburbs me. I should have a right to express this concern without "politically correct" Canadians wagging their finger at me. Of course, I do realize that there are peaceful Moslems in Canada. Many of these people volunteer and just wish to live a decent life. These kinds of Moslems focus more on some of the positive orders given by the Quran (to be appreciative/thankful; to help those who are less fortunate; etc.) But how can you tell a peaceful Moslem apart from a recently immigrated terrorist? These extremists are all over much of the world now - I'm sure some are in Canada too.
posted by Prudent on 09 May 2008 at 9:55 AM
Doc posted "Know the Truth and the Truth Shall set you Free" in the "Talk About Everything Else" section on 05 April 08 (now on page 6 or 7 of that section). Here Doc shared the story of how a well-respected Moslem professor in Egypt began to notice some of the contradictions of his religion. He became confused because he wanted to be kind and peaceful - yet everyone around him was ready to kill anyone who is not Moslem. When he voiced his concerns he was arrested and tortured nearly to death. That is why I call these people "mental" - meaning the extremists. I do admire this former Moslem professor who intended to be kind and peaceful and had the courage to express his concerns about the violent attitudes of the Moslems around him - nearly at the cost of his life.
posted by Prudent on 09 May 2008 at 9:59 AM
I can't help but wonder if these three troublemaking lawyers just want publicity and fame.
posted by Prudent on 09 May 2008 at 10:01 AM
To all of you who took the trouble to post your comments. It was, to say the least, an unusual program. To follow up, we're trying to get the four participants to come back and continue the debate they had in the studio after we went off the air. We did want to discuss more of the points in Steyn's book, as opposed to simply the case against Maclean's. Hopefully, we'll have the chance later in the month.
posted by Steve Paikin
on 09 May 2008 at 11:00 AM
I never read Mark Steyn's book. I don't intend to because it might be too depressing.
However, based on his interview on the Agenda, if I heard correctly, I think he was complaining that "white" people aren't having enough babies to keep up with the increasing Moslem population.
That's ridiculous - and I'm very concerned that this would be very harmful to our planet. We don't need more "white" babies. We need less babies throughout the world.
I refer to the overpopulation discussion on the Agenda's forum and I hope no couple who might read Mark Steyn's book takes him seriously. I already heard about this crazy idea posted by someone else - that white people need to have more babies. Very crazy.
Couples should think about what kind of future their baby might have in this uncertain world of future food shortages, energy shortages, peak oil concerns, lack of job opportunities, etc. Will their children be able to afford the high cost of living? Will they be able to feed their children when oil is no longer available and food and other resources are depleted?
posted by Prudent on 09 May 2008 at 11:40 AM
The show was had only one person who was composed and judicious enough to be appealing, reassonable and competent and that was our very own Steve Paiken. The others were all passionate zealots of varying degrees of intelligence information and decorum. Clearly (to me) the MacLeans Three are the offspring of the Chicago seven the York State five or whatever and the all the vigourous "cause" fighters of the past...and I expect that they will have offspring too..as long as passion remains part of vibrant adolescence. Mark Steyn is a smart ass.. a wise guy, a provocateur. If there is a clever and funny way to say something he will say it that way with no regard for the effect it might have on readers not sharp enough or witty enough to "get" the wit of his statements. "Vicious wit" it has been called here by someone and I've tried it myself often with none of the success that Mr Steyn has evidently enjoyed.
I think that youngsters have a habit of speaking and feeling impetuously. Frequently the more inteligent, the more impetuous. The better they are at backtracking and restating and talking faster and louder. They have a pious belief in their rectitude and a certainty about the purity of their position. I thought that as I listened to them on your program..and how much they sounded like my granddaughter who is a Student for a Free Tibet. I understand that she believes in her cause, but I do not think that it is the ONLY cause or that there are not other things going on in the world that "deserve" as much or more focus..This, by chance or opportunity happens to be the cause du jour but is stin no better and no worse and no more important and signifacant than any other cause.
And it's Mark Steyn's career to be Mark Styne so I give him the leeway to do that and listen with a grain of salt in my ear.
When I read comments about what muslims do and are and teach I wonder if anyone has learned what diversity means. It means different. And each of us is different from the other. To a degree. Little boys yell at their moms, vilely and disrepectfully in as many languages as we speak..Violence or disrepect of women is not a Muslim monopoly nor even a particular characteristic. Crime and misdemeanors occur in all nations, all ethnicities all human beings. Some people are just plain rotten, born rotten, made rotten, choosing rotteness. Some eoople are sainly, born helpers and healers, or trained helpers nd healers or having chosen helping and healing. We could not do without them. Because must of us are neither rotten nor saintly but just doing whatever gets us by. Cursed or blessed with conciences some do better than others but perhaps it's just skill or certainly much is chance and accident and randomness. Thank God we do not all get everything we deserve. Years ago there was an American satirical writer. This was in the sixties, time of raucous (opinionated) youth to three of who I was Mom. There wasa character in DeVries book I was reading who regarded herself as a liberal and who deplored the student demonstrations and the shouts and cursing being heard. "But" sh said "I guess you can't blame ALL of them for the faults of MOST of them" (Emphases mine...because I'm not subtle). I see this same comment occurring in some form throughout your pages all the time. When will we ever learn, when will we ever learn.
Love and good wishes...keep on providing us with brain fodder....delicious!
posted by pib on 09 May 2008 at 12:58 PM
The entire show is available to watch on on Tuesday's episode page.
posted by Rick Nye
on 09 May 2008 at 1:14 PM
The three law students have now been on The Agenda twice to explain their point of view. They are not even the complainants in the case against Macleans or Steyn.
Why not get a different point of view from other Muslims? These three and the CIC do not speak for all Muslims. Try the Muslim Canadian Congress (www.MuslimCanadianCongress.org).
posted by SJT on 09 May 2008 at 9:39 PM
Amazing show! But I would like to see a debate as to the merit of Steyn's assertion that there is, in fact, a long term plan inherant in the muslim philosophy to transcend all other religions around the world. Apart from the increasing numbers of obviously muslim folk in our communities, the most obvious manifestation of the muslim incursion is the ring of large and expensive mosques around the periphery of the GTA. Who is financing these edifices? If the money is coming from muslim oil-rich muslim states, it is a most unsettling phenomenon whereby we have a foreign government financing a cultural/religious tranformation within our society. Heck, it's almost as bad as the proselytising antics of the christian church for the past almost two thousand years. There is certainly cause for concern and further spirited debate. Evanski
posted by Evco on 09 May 2008 at 10:27 PM
Amazing show! But I would like to see a debate as to the merit of Steyn's assertion that there is, in fact, a long term plan inherant in the muslim philosophy to transcend all other religions around the world. Apart from the increasing numbers of obviously muslim folk in our communities, the most obvious manifestation of the muslim incursion is the ring of large and expensive mosques around the periphery of the GTA. Who is financing these edifices? If the money is coming from muslim oil-rich muslim states, it is a most unsettling phenomenon whereby we have a foreign government financing a cultural/religious tranformation within our society. Heck, it's almost as bad as the proselytising antics of the christian church for the past almost two thousand years. There is certainly cause for concern and further spirited debate. Evanski
posted by Evco on 09 May 2008 at 10:27 PM
Just watched in on the web. I read Steyn whenever I can - one of the wittiest writers in the English language today. Mind you, he did seem to lose it for a bit there, as he was beckoning the students to come on over and debate him. Steve Paikin is the best TV journalist in Canada - bar none! - and the show was handled with smooth expertise.
I must say, I felt a bit sorry for the students. They were clearly outplayed and outwitted, especially the young lady on the left, who fumbled for facts to support one of her assertions. The comaprison of that two-bit wingnut, Ernest Zundel to one of the outstanding Italian reporters and writers of the 20th century, Oriana Fallaci, is ridiculous and a bit sad, really.
One of the contributors here, Lou, says he gets his information from better sources. I'd be very interested to hear what those are. The Agenda is top of the heap...
Keep it up, Steve. And hey, isn't it time for a show about Frank Sinatra at the 10th anniversary of his passing. I happen to know you're a big fan, having accompanied you some years back while you crooned "My Way" :-) Oops, too much info??
posted by gtrvox on 10 May 2008 at 4:07 PM
I thought your show involving Mark Steyn and the three law students was outstanding. It's not often that you get to see something that has not been "packaged" so as not to offend someone.
My congratulations to everyone involved in the show - the guests, the people behind the scenes and, above all, yourself for having the guts to allow a good, honest discussion to take place. It made for fascinating viewing. Thank you.
posted by David in Etobicoke on 10 May 2008 at 10:48 PM
Compliments are due to The Agenda for introducing us to this subject in a way that let us see for ourselves what people were talking about: Who was calling for debate and who tried to avoid debate. But a question: we saw that the students were not prepared. They needed loose papers and couldn't show evidence when requested...was said to be forthcoming after the break...
Anyway, Steyn was the energy source of the show, even though the three were the complainants. Do we really need to hear more from these particular students ?
They had our time and our ears, but even though everyone is discussing them, nobody knows their names. They will never make a good case against Steyn's work, at their level of competence, and personally do not hold enough interest for us to learn their names.
Thanks Again, Nail
posted by nailinthecoffin on 11 May 2008 at 4:51 AM
I was, for the first time, disappointed by the way you chaired the debate, allowing Mark Steyn to keep it focussed on the merits of the case against Maclean's rather than on the merits of his views. Each time he made a complaint against the case—usually innaccurate and with inflammatory language—you invited the other panelists to reply. We never did get to a discussion of whether he endorses the views he quotes, whether his evidence supports his conclusions, or which poppulations conclusions apply to.
The viewer comments you read out on tonight's show reveal how much his takeover contributed to your listeners' inaccurate understanding of the issues.
Please do not reconvene this panel. If we need a debate on hate legislation and human rights commissions in Canada, please invite a group of well-informed people as you so often do. If you want a discussion of Mark Steyn's views, I'm sure you can find historians, political scientists and philosophers to give them knowledgeable and penetrating consideration.
Finally, by referring tonight to the other panelists as 'the Maclean's 3', rather than by their names, the Agenda makes them an anonymous collective rather than the individuals they are. You grant Mark Steyn the courtesy of using his name, rather than, e.g., 'the Maclean columnist'—and it's more than a mere courtesy.
posted by john h on 13 May 2008 at 2:23 AM
The whole crux of the Human Rights campain against Mark Stein sees to hinge on a propsed deal with Mcleans for quote "equal time".
Well this demand in and of itself is an attempt at "censorship"
Mcleans is a Private (non-government) magazine with the purpose of reporting stories, but ultimately making money. That's called free enterprise and like it or not , that is how we do things in this country. If everyone who disliked a story demanded (court action) a full page rebutal, there would be no creative control and a loss of freedoms going the other way.
If someone went to Saudi Arabia and "demanded" a full page rebutal to a book published by a Mousqe? Please - laughable. The Human Rights Commision should be dealing with real, seriois rights and abuses, not these silly frivilous attempts at free P.R.
posted by David from ississauga on 13 May 2008 at 11:03 AM
This episode really illustrated the differences in the Western (Christian based) and the Muslim mindset. The West has a tradition of debate and acceptance of criticism that is historical, Christianity spread by reasoned discourse, debate and good works (from Jesus to today) and from the start preached critical self examination (confession and penance). Islam spread differently and Muslims have a really difficult time honestly facing any kind of Western style criticism or scrutiny and they too easily default to violence in reaction which makes some western minds conclude that Islam is untenable. Twenty years ago most people in North America knew practically nothing about the Muslim religion but today we really do have a bad impression of it. You can’t really blame all of this on the media. Muslims themselves are responsible for this perception while at the same time complaining that Islam is under attack by the West. I would like to see a show that takes an honest but not indulgent look at this complaint. If attacking Islam includes being critical of it whether justified or not then we do have a problem and must deal with this now if we want to keep Canadian society peaceful and free – for all of us.
posted by Life is Wonderful on 16 May 2008 at 12:55 PM
posted by FreedomOfTruth on 16 May 2008 at 3:14 PM
What an absolute debacle this entire show is. Not only do fake smiles like Steve Paikin and Rick Mercer help pull the wool over Canadian's eyes about real issues, they act as if they are your friend.
I typed out a comment on this same page that was later deleted, talk about freedom of speech. So, whats the deal, Paikin, you respond to those that glorify your position and delete the ideologies of those who totally contradict you?
You should at least be man enough to let all sides of an issue out, instead of deleting my past comments. But of course, Steve Paikin doesn't want to inform Canadians about the difference between government issue of money VS. private bank issue of money.
or propaganda vs truth. In the style of all vilifying mainstream propaganda outlets, those complaining about Mark Steyn's outrageous ideologies were demonized and purposefully made less credible. Know, I know that contempt and purposeful demonization can never be admitted, as it is absolute lie and only supports a fascist agenda.
The war on terror is as fake as the war on drugs. The 'nation' of Americo (fascist control) is pulling a swift one on the citizen, and that truth will come out soon, if revolution is not achieved against the international system of global fascist control. Gas prices up, food prices up, electricity prices up, house prices up, taxes forever up and wages..... down.
Thanks a bunch to the elite of the country for plotting to eliminate the Middle Class to make way for the North American Union merger of America, Canada and Mexico.
I will not accept lower regulation standards, privatized health care and water, hegemony of corporate control over government- and I will not accept as truth, the absolute lies that Mark Steyn tries to FEAR MONGER.
He is demonizing muslims, just as africans have been wrongfully demonized for the benefit of others......... just as natives have been demonized..... even capitalists were demonized and murdered by Stalin in Soviet Russia.......
It's all a mad mix of propaganda lies and some truths being used to sway the opinions of a society of decision makers, without having to resort to dictatorial measures.
If we want to start talking about how Martial Law is IMMINENT in North America and will come with it a Great Depression and merging of North American countries, then we might be talking about real issues with real importance to canadians.
Mark Steyn, Paikin and their other bigot friends are preaching a sordid siren song to persuade people that a circle is in fact a square.
Don't let the bombardment of propaganda and lies distort or dilute your focus and wisdom. This show is fodder for the system, t.v. in general slaves people to 'programming', and every major corporation that we buy items from is using that money to bring in a fascist state AGAINST them.
And Steyn wants to scare people into thinking that muslims, are vile beasts and will infest and take over the world if we don't stop them.
A**HOLE. PERIOD.
posted by FreedomOfTruth on 16 May 2008 at 3:34 PM
FreedomOfTruth - perhaps you should go back on your meds.
posted by secular on 19 May 2008 at 1:09 PM
Well, I just watched this debate and I think that those three people were actually brave enough to fight for their rights and make this national. I think that Mr. Steyn should of got his facts straight a little better and should of talked to more people about it. Even though their was a little shouting and name-calling, I think those three were smart and courgeous to go on national t.v and I would really want them to come back on the Agenda to learn more about this.
posted by Jo_champ_32 on 19 May 2008 at 9:13 PM
I am a forty-seven year old, third generation Canadian. I do Not Hate anyone. In addition to that, NO amount of hate-mongering will ever sway me to think or feel otherwise… I believe this statement is representative of MOST Canadians, and I firmly believe that every single Canadian, especially in such a radically-charged Global Community, should be extremely proud of this fact.
Specifically, I think that Islamic “PEOPLE” emigrate to Canada for one of four reasons: to escape oppression, poverty, war and/or to participate in shall we say, a much less racially charged form of Democracy. A stroll back in time I’m sure will remind everyone that Canada’s entire population consists of a collection of extremely diverse minorities.
When I visit other Countries, people have always found me as a Canadian to be pleasant, polite and sincerely and refreshingly friendly. I tell people that the reason for this is very simple… I grew up in Canada. We as Canadians embrace diversity, and understand strong opinions. At the end of the day, we are all Canadians.
Also, some Canadians will, as free speech gives them the right, express very cruel and insulting opinions. As a Canadian, reading this type of material only strengthens my commitment to maintaining a peaceful and harmonious attitude… As a matter of fact, I think that MOST Canadians would go out of their way to clearly demonstrate this philosophy to whoever thinks or feels otherwise…
I Hope that the young people on your panel understand that as far as I am concerned, Islamic people are more than welcome to live and breathe Canadian air… Take a deep, wonderful breath and smile. You live in Canada now…
I Hope that the older person on your panel understands how peaceful Islamic Canadians will react to racially-charged commentary. In Iraq, and please correct me if I am wrong; haven’t these Canadians in recent years lost over two million of their brothers and sisters, friends and relatives?
I will not pretend to understand their sensitivity. Look at it another way. Can We imagine how German Canadians felt during WW2? I can only imagine, and I must say that the thought horrifies me. Can We imagine how it would feel to lose 2 million Canadians abroad? I think not, and this is the point. We as Canadians can only imagine… When you travel, watch the news, read books, magazines, newspapers and surf the Internet, don’t you feel extremely thankful to be living in Canada? I, do.
As a Canadian, I have been raised to treat People with thoughtfulness and respect. To do so Honestly gives me the right to insist that people treat me in the same manner. This is how a democratic society is supposed to behave. I was also raised to understand that if you step into the ring and take a swing at someone, Canadians will lose respect for you if you start wining when that someone swings back…
What is that “They” say? Oh yes, “Timing is everything.”
In conclusion, it’s okay to think what you want and express those thoughts. However, if those thoughts and expressions hurt someone, a sincere apology should be forthcoming… Please note that this is my own personal opinion, and it should be understood that it is only one opinion. The opinion of one Canadian out of thirty-eight million…
Sincerely,
Daniel Dwight Cameron. Sudbury, ON. http://asawriter.blogspot.com
posted by asawriter on 19 May 2008 at 9:24 PM
When I watched this show, I could see the division between Mark Steyn, a savvy Writer & Journalist, and three young legal students for whom the issue was highly personal and emotional.
So the debate was enlightening but it wasn't a level playing field between both parties because on the one side you have an experienced (and loud) media personality paired with three concerned Muslim students.
The students presented their case better than I expected, yet as this is an emotionally charged issue for them they were unable to present a coherent argument against Steyn's article. However, the connections they were making do point to a clear concern, which with further prompting by Steve may have come out on the show. But Steve was quite busy playing the referee!....LOL
So what was this underlying concern the students were raising?
Well Steyn used statistical facts in his article to confirm that Muslim population in the West is growing. Use of statistics is rarely a problem; the problem arises with what you try to prove with them. Steyn uses the stats to raise an alarm, since he views the growing Muslim population as a threat. He then finds evidence to back up his assertion of a Muslim threat.
On the surface this threat might seem concerning but let us stop for a minute and examine this assumption. Let us change the Muslim context and look at immigration in general.
We know that immigration to Western European countries, North America and Australia has been growing. This means that these countries are becoming and will continue to become increasingly diverse--more multicultural, multiracial and multi-faith.
Now if I then assert that more immigrants is a threat to Canada and other countries, then that is an argument based on emotion, not logic. Yes, it is a threat to someone who wishes to keep Canada white, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant. But most people will not perceive a threat from immigration on its own. Often such a perception of a threat is the result of fear or of prejudices against people perceived as different.
Early Canadian immigration policies encouraged Anglo-conformity and felt that the best immigrants were from in order of hierarchy:
1. The British Isles i.e. English, Welsh and Scottish (the Irish weren't favoured at first) 2. Germanic or “Nordic” race from Germany and Scandinavian countries 3. Western Europeans 4. Eastern Europeans 5. Non-Europeans
After waves of European immigrants came to Canada during periods of economic growth and “proved” they could assimilate to Anglo cultural norms, the idea of Canada as a white country gained prominence and immigration by other races was controlled or stopped, such as, through the head-tax on Chinese and Japanese immigrants, and the Continuous Passage Act of 1908, which stopped East Indian (largely Sikh) immigration to a trickle until 1947 (when India gained independence).
Canada's immigration policies began to be free of racial considerations only after the Second World War, when people saw the horrors of hatred and racism under Fascism in Europe. In reaction to the World War II, pluralism and tolerance gained in acceptance. Policies of different countries started to reflect this new understanding.
What Steyn and others writers like him wish to do is turn back this openness. They view tolerance, multiculturalism and accommodation to immigrants as a weakness of democracies. They defend their views by pointing to how openness to immigrants (or Muslims) does not work i.e. immigrants are not assimilating fast enough, the West is somehow under attack or Muslims don't like us. This then gives justification for viewing Muslims (or any other group) with suspicion and being less open to them.
Ultimately when we read articles by Steyn or another controversial author, we need to look beyond the surface language and read what is really being communicated. That way the bias and prejudice in the writing can be explored in a meaningful way.
posted by Arvind Singh, Author of "Nexus: A Neo Novel" on 19 May 2008 at 11:17 PM
Steve, You managed them all well during the debate. Mark Styen is a good writer who quoted other known figures, and I think he has the right to do so. I think the thrios were taking the issue out of its context and blame Mr. Styen for someone else's words. I also believe the moslems have a legitimate concern with respect to Maclane magazine. I think magazines should allow good articles or rebattals to be written as long their language is clear enough and suitable to reflect the quality of the magazine, I know they can always respond to the writers on language quality and suitability issues. However, we live in a Democracy that the Islamic society can publish their own magazine and criticise other press and media as well as write whatever they wish is good enough for their community consumption.
posted by Shaft on 19 May 2008 at 11:55 PM
I watched your show with Mark Steyn and the three Muslims who took Macleans to the Human Rights Commission.It occurred to me that none of these students took on something more significant in human rights violations right here in Canada. Tarek Fatah was President and founder of the CANADIAN ARAB CONGRESS.Tarek Fatah was threatened by Muslims, right here in Canada, for his "moderate"views on Islam.He quit fearing for his life. I should repeat this again: Tarek Fatah, a Muslim, who founded the Canadian Arab Congress,was threatned by Canadian Muslims for being "too moderate"in his views on Islam,and resigned his post for fear of his life!
"Fearing for his life, Muslim Canadian spokesman quits post"
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/08/03/fateh-resign.html
The CBC never refers to Tarek Fatah as the "President and founder of the CANADIAN ARAB CONGRESS? I wonder why?
In any case it is ironic that these three Muslims who are outraged in regard to Mr.Steyns article in MACLEANS,and in a manner are trying to censor these types of articles,yet have remained silent in the face of a threat to the "moderate "voice of Islam.That threat did not censor that moderate voice of CANADIAN MUSLIMS..it silenced that voice entirely.
I think that this issue might me a good point of interest in the debate that follows tonights episode. By the way I think that Steve Paikin was great as a moderator,and I alo think that Mark Steyn is superb! As for the three young Muslims,their inexperience is matched only by their obtuse point of view.If anything they just made a case for Mark Steyn. I had no interst in buying his book ,but now I will.
Thanks and great show
posted by menodimi on 20 May 2008 at 1:31 AM
I had to include one more comment.I hope you do not mind. I would hope that someone would entertain the fact that there really is no such thing as "ISLAMOPHOBIA". The definition of a phobia is an irrational fear of something. If there only a single shark attack in the waters of your favourite beach,that would justify a phobia of Sharks. Yet there are terrorist attacks and or violence precipitated by the belief in Islam,which does not exclude even one day of rest.
Is that a "phobia"or just being realistic in the face of an ongoing epidemic of violence and terrorism precipitated by a belief in Islam? Of course I know that it is not politically correct to state a fact that offends alot of people..but after all it is what it is,and we should not have to wait until the condition gets worst..that condition is not ISLAMOPHOBIA..it is DHIMMITUDE!
posted by menodimi on 20 May 2008 at 1:41 AM
I have a problem with hundreds of articles and series published in Canadian newspapers. Noes this mean that if these law studens win their case, papers like the Toronto Star will be obliged to print (at their cost) all opposing articles? If so, either every daily newspaper will me about 20 pounds and 1 foot thick, or all newspapers will soon just go out of business. These are privately owned companies. Where do these people get off thinking that a private company should provide them with a forum, and also have to pay for it? Nuts! By the way, Mark Steyn blew those law students away. They seemed to just whine that they wanted a free fide at the expense of Macleans, and make personal attacks on Mark. I guess if you can't dispute the facts, then you complain about the "tone" of the article of personally attack its author.
posted by Mike W on 20 May 2008 at 11:53 AM
No one has the right to dictate to magazines, newpapers, book publications or media what should or should not be published, researched or reported. No one has the right to demand and get equal space. Only the publisher and editor have the right to say yea or nay. The Macleans 3 (muslim lawyers) are dangerous because they are trying to manipulate and change the law so that their religion can control and censor public and published information. It's been well known for decades that magazines and newpaper have their own biases (political, scientific, relgious..etc.). They have the right to publish articles and information from all international sources. People don't have to agree with it. If they are offended by it, they don't have the right to prevent the rest of us from having access to it, reading it or agreeing with it. Separation of church and state is a parliamentary act. It's my right as a Canadian citizen to have freedom from religion in public places, public institutions, public schools and universities. No one should be controlled or censored by religion.
posted by Quicksand on 20 May 2008 at 4:33 PM
A statement made by the female law student about Hitler being a Christian. That is not true. Hitler was an Atheist. He absolutely was not a Christian. Learn your history before making comments like that!
posted by jdf on 21 May 2008 at 12:23 PM
The writers of the of many of the 'passionate pleas for free speech' who have contributed to this blog may well wish to ponder the following report on events in Rome. It seems that Oriana Fallaci's dream scenario has been fulfilled posthumously.
'Fears of racist violence rise as gang goes on rampage in Rome'
The Guardian, Monday May 26 2008
Fears of rising intolerance towards migrants in Italy grew after a masked group armed with sticks went on the rampage in a multi-ethnic Rome neighbourhood, smashing shop windows while hurling abuse.
In the 10-minute blitz on Saturday, the group of between 10 and 20 men attacked a food shop owned by an Indian migrant and two stores operated by Bangladeshis, disappearing before police arrived.
The assault comes as Silvio Berlusconi's administration launches a crackdown on illegal immigration, and days after a mob firebombed Gypsy camps in Naples. Last month crowds at Rome's town hall welcomed newly-elected mayor Gianni Alemanno with fascist salutes.
Alemanno, a former neo-fascist, was voted in after promising to expel 20,000 migrants from Rome he said had broken the law. Yesterday he said he was "outraged" by the attack and promised "exemplary punishment for the guilty". Opposition politician Piero Fassino spoke of "an unbelievable wave of racist violence that can only provoke horror".
The Pigneto neighbourhood, where the attack took place, is a traditionally working-class area, recently settled in by migrants as well as students and artists. It has a reputation for peaceful co-existence, although locals said the masked assailants were probably from the area.
Police yesterday suggested the trouble had started earlier in the day with a row between an Italian man and a migrant over stolen money.
"Italy is not a racist country," said interior minister Roberto Maroni of the anti-immigrant Northern League party. "Episodes of this kind are sometimes inflamed by crimes committed by illegal immigrants."
Also on Saturday, Cristian Floris, who works for a gay website in Rome, was assaulted outside his house by two men.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/26/italy.race
posted by parvenave on 26 May 2008 at 4:49 AM
A couple of weeks ago, The New York Times Times published an Op-Ed article by Edward Luttwak (who writes occasionally in the Globe), titled "President Apostate?" which discusses Islam in the context of a prospective Barack O'Bama presidency.
Luttwak's piece, which can be found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/opinion/12luttwak.html was controversial, and stated as facts debatable issues in Islamic legal scholarship. The Times did not see an obligation to publish a piece with the alternative viewpoint, beyond the obligatory letters to the editor.
In Today's Times Clark Hoyt, the newspaper's public editor, weighs in on the issue ("Entitled to Their Opinions, Yes. But Their Facts?"). He criticizes the Times' insufficent fact-checking of what is written by Luttwak. Hoyt's column can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01pubed.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
The parallels are striking with the Maclean's/Steyn situation. It is remarakable that both the Times and Maclean's did not relinquish editorial control and stood by their writers' right for expression, however controversial or debatable.
Will the people offended by Luttwak go to some Human Rights court in New York? Is there such a thing down there? Or does the Ontario Human Rights Commission have any jurisdiction on the issue?!
posted by Imad Ferzli on 01 June 2008 at 5:28 PM
Awan is now complaining about comments made on TVO's website, after their debate with Mark Steyn.
Awan is now trying to use those comments made on the TVO website as evidence of Islamophobia to the BC Human rights (HR) tribunal aganist Maclean's and Mark Steyn . Which is legally ridiculous because it has nothing to do with their case with Macleans. How in the world did these so call law students passed their exams at U ot T?? Osgoode Law school standards must be slipping dramatically.
These law students don't want a debate. They don't want a back-and-forth. They want to censor anyone who dares to disagree with them. And, even those true liberals, like Steve Paikin, who make enormous airtime available to them, will be swiped at, and attacked. I hope Macleans and Mark Steyn will bring this case to the Supreme Court of Canada to challenge the powers of these so called Human Rights Commissions or should I say kangaroo rights commissions because they won't get a fair hearing with the BC HR tribunal.
posted by Double Speak on 02 June 2008 at 11:54 PM
During your excellent show, Mark Steyn accused a human rights tribunal of making a drive-by judgement. It seems to me, Steyn is frequently guilty of drive-by slanders against the Bosnian Serbs. Although he didn't mention them in your program, the Maclean's article (as I remember it) and his book America Alone and his other work contain many such jibes. Why does he swallow the Bosnian Muslim side on the Bosnian Civil War? He should read Canadian war reporter Scott Taylor on the Yugoslav wars or the excellent Peter Brock book "Media Cleansing" and he would surely see things in a different light.
posted by Slavophile on 15 September 2009 at 12:37 PM
*You must have a FREE TVO account in order to comment on posts
Don't have an account?
*You must have a FREE TVO account in order to comment on posts
Throughout my years at TVO, viewers have stayed in touch with me through letters, cards, faxes, emails, and phone calls. Here's another option: my blog. Through this forum, I'll let you in on some of what goes on behind the scenes of The Agenda. And I hope you'll send me your thoughts and constructive criticism on how we're doing as well.
The Agenda with Steve Paikin Allan Gregg in Conversation Big Ideas
Think Again
You did a great job
Not only in moderating a chaotic panel, but in not letting the tension stop you from asking tough questions. I thought you managed to expose the inconsistencies and ignorance on both sides. Well done.
posted by Padraic on 07 May 2008 at 2:46 PM