Last week, the Link published a CUP article titled “What is a 'soft jihad'?” on Ezra Levant, the publisher of the now defunct tripe known as the "Western Standard". The author of the article, Jonathon Van Maren presented Lavant as an “activist” for “free speech”. Fawning over Levant, Maren failed to mention that Mr. Levant is a right wing extremist himself. The Western Standard was known to be homophobic, ultra-right wing, racist, anti-abortion, promoting deadbeat dads, Islamphobic, blindly pro-Zionist and extremely pro-war.
Mr. Levant and his magazine were so vehemently against publicly owned media that one of the covers of the magazine boasted that by the time the Conservatives are done with the CBC, no one will be able to recognize it. The "Western Standard" took it upon itself to raise controversy because it was a failing magazine. Levant knew very well that those images of Mohammad will raise controversy and so he published them in pursuit of pure sensationalism. If he cared for freedom of speech then at least one issue of that awful magazine would have had an article by a credible journalist that was not on the Can-West media conglomerate payroll. This is how the magazine was promoting itself: “In the Western Standard, "capitalist," "gun owner," "tobacconist," "America" and "men" won't be dirty words. On the other hand, "bureaucrat," "social worker, " "CRTC" and "United Nations" will be treated with caution.”
Meanwhile, on his blog, Van Maren poses the question "Why has the history of Western Civilization been whittled down to an ‘intellectual’ rant howling about the historic mistreatment of minorities?" This statement raises a floodgate of issues. This proves Mr. Van Maren’s questionable understanding of history, politics and journalism. His blog boasts his publications. When ‘journalists’ of this kind get a voice in community magazines and newspapers, the state of journalism itself should be brought into question.
Centuries of progress on racial and religious issues is at stake when individuals can on one hand posture as ‘activists’ interested in freedom while in the same breath denigrate historic struggles against colonial injustices.
4 comments:
A few brief points (I'm the author of the article you have a problem with): first, you made no attempt to disprove anything in the "what is soft jihad article?", you only expressed your dislike for the Western Standard. A cheap journalistic trick that devoids you of the resonsibility of actually making a point. Second of all, just because a journalist doesn't agree with you, does not mean he/she is not credible--that is an unbelievably narrowminded point of view(just saying, since you seem to enjoy throwing around words like "bigot", which I find rather ironic). Thirdly, your review of my "revisionist history" article on my blog shows that you clearly did not make it through the introductory paragraph, or you would realize that my article states far from what you erroneously claim (good journalism,btw). Fourthly, if you had checked into my writing AT ALL, you would realize that I am absolutely not a humanist--I'm more of a follower of Thomas Hobbes. This probably makes me worse of a person/journalist in your books, but I'm just pointing out that your research is abysmal.
To conclude, you seem to think that those who come from a conservative standpoint are useless as journalists. I would put forth that those who cannot even do their research enough to reubtt arguments or figure out that the person they were criticizing isn't a humanist cannot be a journalist not because of their views, but because they simply cannot research.
I wait in fear for the "wrath of the khan".
Calling Ezra Levant an advocate for "Free Speech" is like calling Hitler an advocate for human rights.
I never thought you were a humanist. I know you and conservatives like you are 'Materialists' just like your other hero Thomas Hobbs.
White supremacy is a sickness that needs to be addressed in all human beings. If you do not consider how your writings and conservative leanings effect the lives of people of color and masses all over the world, then you need to re-consider your point of view.
Your article was masquerading as one that cares for the masses and for freedom of speech and freedom of press. Plus it was insinuating that those that call out racism and Islamphobia are somehow practicing some form of 'soft terrorism'- because I know you have no idea what the word 'jihad' actually means and you use it in the most derogatory pejorative way- since Conservatives pride themselves over their black and white view of the world- with us or against us sort of thing.
I want you to have no doubts, you will be called out on your bigotry- now and forever!
Your complete failure to address anything in the articles I've written and instead re-expressing your disdain of Ezra Levant as a person and babbling on about "white supremacy" and your hatred of Conservatives--which I wager from your replies you know nothing about other than rhetoric. FYI, I have studied Islamic history and current Middle Eastern affairs extensively, as well as touring Israel, Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinian Territories. I assure you I know the meaning of jihad and both its correct uses and misuses. Your replies are pure rhetoric (ie, Godwin's Law--the first one to compare their opponent to Hitler loses-google it), and devoid of any research into the issues--at least none that you display. To avoid this conversation becoming laughable, please do some research and argue intelligently.
Your blogpost Arshad, made me nostalgic, to say the least, for the days of the Western Standard. Man I loved that magazine. May it Rest in Peace.
Post a Comment