Unlike Signora Fallaci, I can’t claim face time with the Ayatollah. But I’ve read his writings in the scholarly translations, and cross-referenced them with the original Farsi, and I am familiar with his rulings on camel sweat, touching one’s beard after ejaculation, defecating in a dead-end street without the permission of its owner, and whether you can divorce your child bride before she’s begun menstruating. It’s unfortunate that the most influential Muslim of the late 20th century is a barbaric nutjob, but it happens to be the case.
So just to reprise:
Did I cite Oriana Fallaci accurately? Yes.
Did she cite Ayatollah Khomeini accurately? Yes.
Is there a volume by the Ayatollah commonly known as the “Blue Book”? Yes
Does it include rulings on sex with nine-year olds and what to do with a shagged sheep? Yes.
Did either of us mention a Little Green Book? No. In fact, the translation Oriana cites pre-dates The Little Green Book by a year.
I think Professor Waggy-Finger is doing what they call “projecting”. He’s accusing me of everything he’s been doing himself:
I took “somebody else’s word for it”. Er, no. That would be you, taking the Sock Puppets’ word for it on my book review.
I didn’t check the “primary source”. Er, no. That would be you, cavalierly announcing there’s no such thing as a “Blue Book”.
To be more charitable to you than you deserve, you assume that Oriana Fallaci and I so want to think the worst of Islam that we’ll fall for any old hooey. Actually not. On the other hand, you so want to think the worst of us blowhard provocateurs that you assume we’re as ignorant of Islam as you evidently are.
M J Murphy wrote: “I think you owe Dr Miller an apology.” Au contraire, I think “Dr Miller” owes me and Oriana an apology. Since he decided to go to such kinky lengths to catch my eye, he has accused me of failing to provide a source for a quote: False. He’s accused me of making up famous rulings of the Ayatollah: False. He’s declared flat out that there is no such thing as a Khomeini “Blue Book”: False. And people pay money to study “responsible journalism” with this guy? At least for his own ill-advised adventures in fact-checking, his unfortunate acolyte, M J Murphy of Toronto, isn’t charging cash.
If I were celebrated toilet photographer Warren Kinsella or leading Canadian Internet Nazi Lucy Warman, I’d sue. But I’m not. Nor, despite a flying visit to the Falklands and a couple of wet weekends in Wales, have I ever been attracted to sheep-shagging. But I imagine it feels a bit like dealing with Messrs Miller, Murphy and the Law R Cool kids: No matter how often you roger them senseless, they keep on bleating. I wouldn’t have bothered with this response were it not for the fact that Professor Waggy-Finger traduced not me but a great and courageous lady who is no longer here to laugh her magnificent scoffing laugh in his face. Oriana Fallaci is a hundred times the man John Miller is. Read her interviews with Arafat or the Shah and ask yourself whether she needs any posthumous lessons in “journalistic ethics” from an unread parochial poseur. And, if you are considering a career in journalism, think about what you’d like to be looking back on in 40 years’ time: Oriana’s resume or Professor Miller’s.
Prof Miller came on like the Fact-Checking Ethics-Bore J-School Ayatollah and limps off like a poor little lamb who has lost his way, as they sing in the barnyards of Qom. Professor Miller, M J Murphy and Law Is Cooclass="underline" The Shagged Sheep.
PRE-TRIAL
The stakes
THE SOCK PUPPET Three’s oft-heard cry is that this isn’t about “freedom of speech” or “censorship”; they don’t want to silence me personally, but are merely seeking the “right” to a reasonable response. The blogger Davin Burlingham addresses this point directly:
When I heard them repeat this position on television, I have to say I was shocked. Genuinely shocked. I will tell you why. These three are law students, correct? They are currently articling, which means they must have passed all their final exams, and are about to be called to the bar. Presumably they have demonstrated all the skills and their brains have imbibed all the knowledge needed to get through law school and find jobs. How, then, could they have failed to actually read the Code under which they are bringing a complaint? Take a look at s. 37(2) of the BC Human Rights Code, where it says:
(2) If the member or panel determines that the complaint is justified, the member or panel
(a) must order the person that contravened this Code to cease the contravention and to refrain from committing the same or a similar contravention
That is a mandatory injunction. An obligatory ‘cease and desist’ order. If the complainants win, the Tribunal has to order Maclean’s to stop running ‘Islamophobic’ articles. Not just articles by Mark Steyn, mind you; they have to stop running those articles period. Goodbye Barbara Amiel. Now, you might respond that Steyn wouldn’t be silenced, he would just have to pick his words more carefully. But think about it; the CIC is not just complaining about the excerpt from America Alone, but about a whole sheaf of Steyn’s articles. It’s pretty safe to assume that whatever Steyn has written about Islam in the last seven or so years would be considered offensive by the CIC. In the face of an injunction, then, he would either have to stop writing about Islam or stop obeying the dictates of his conscience as a writer.
The students may say they don’t want to silence Mark Steyn or anyone else. Their complaint, if successful, will do just that. It can do no other.
Just so. I’ve tried to make that point in interviews. The BC tribunal’s ruling will mean that I can no longer write for Maclean’s, and that Maclean’s itself will be highly circumscribed in what it can publish about the relationship between Islam and the west. On one of the central questions facing the world today, the editorial decisions of Canada’s largest news weekly will be determined by a British Columbia “court”.
Incidentally, lest you doubt that the intent of the Canadian Islamic Congress is to constrain dramatically the ability of Maclean’s to discuss Islam, consider this clause of the BC Human Rights Code:
39 (1) If an order is made under section 37 (2) (a), (c) or (d) or (4) or 38 (2), the party in whose favour the order is made or a person designated in the order may file a certified copy of the order with the Supreme Court.
(2) An order filed under subsection (1) has the same force and effect, and all proceedings may be taken on it, as if it were a judgment of the Supreme Court.
My career in Canada will be formally ended next month. But don’t break out the champagne and conga lines. If Maclean’s decides to comply with the ruling, it will not be a “news weekly” in the sense that the term would be understood by any genuinely free society. And one day there will be plenty of Jews and gays and all kinds of other fellows who’ll come to understand the damage this case has wrought.
PS With the trial only days away, a reader writes:
I have just heard you described on CBC radio as a ‘controversial American journalist’.
The dreaded ‘A’ word. You are doomed.
Oh, dear. Can I bring a “human rights” complaint against the CBC?
IN COURT
But we were getting along so well…