Warren Kinsella makes Smearniak look good
Kinsella has just claimed that Mark Steyn said Muslims "breed like mosquitoes" (among other things).
Obviously, he has learned nothing from Jim Henley, who made the same claim a few months ago. Of course, the words are not Steyn's, but those of a prominent Scandinavian imam.
We didn't have to wait long for Henley's apology. How long will we have to wait for Kinsella's?
(P.S. Harper's magazine included the caveat that these words have been "attributed" to Steyn. Of course, if they have been falsely attributed to Steyn, it says more about the ones doing the attributing that it does about Steyn. In any case, Kinsella didn't include caveats. Time for a libel suit, maybe?)
UPDATE: Others have weighed in, here and here. Meanwhile, this guy is asking the Canadian Islamic Congress for help in proving Steyn's racism, apparently unconcerned that it is led by a man who thinks all Israeli adults are legitimate targets for suicide bombers.
Obviously, he has learned nothing from Jim Henley, who made the same claim a few months ago. Of course, the words are not Steyn's, but those of a prominent Scandinavian imam.
We didn't have to wait long for Henley's apology. How long will we have to wait for Kinsella's?
(P.S. Harper's magazine included the caveat that these words have been "attributed" to Steyn. Of course, if they have been falsely attributed to Steyn, it says more about the ones doing the attributing that it does about Steyn. In any case, Kinsella didn't include caveats. Time for a libel suit, maybe?)
UPDATE: Others have weighed in, here and here. Meanwhile, this guy is asking the Canadian Islamic Congress for help in proving Steyn's racism, apparently unconcerned that it is led by a man who thinks all Israeli adults are legitimate targets for suicide bombers.
posted by Chris Vanoostveen at 12:41 PM
18 Comments:
Funny that you seem to ignore the rest of the words that were published. Just read his articles if you have any doubt.
How about you apologies to Muslims and the rest of us for smearing those who try to speak up against hate.
Unless...wait... do you agree with Mark Steyn?
Vlad,
The misquitoes quote, which you falsely attributed to Steyn at the top of your post, was actually from a European imam. Steyn was just quoting him. I think you owe Steyn an apology.
I also am not inclined to take you, or anything else you write on this subject, seriously. But, let me ask you an honest question. If the mosquitoes quote is hateful, where's your outrage at the racism of Mullah Krekar, who actually uttered those words?
Unless...wait... do you think only white guys like Mark Steyn are capable of racism?
I can't take anything you write seriously because your attention span is limited to the fist quote which was corrected...
You can try to wiggle around it but facts are a stubborn thing and the fact is Mark Steyn has uttered significantly worse words.
I think everyone is capable of racism and I consistently speak out against hate on all sides.
The day Mullah Krekar gets to regularly publish his views in Canada's Magazine like Macleans with one million readership, I'll be sure to compare him to Mark Steyn.
I've answered your question, can you honestly answer mine. Do you support Mark Steyn's views against Muslism?
You didn't "correct" the quote, you deleted it. Again, you owe Steyn an apology.
My "attention span" is wide, actually, but I have no tolerance for those who so blatantly and maliciously misquote and mischaracterize someone's statements, as you have done here.
Oh, and by the way, I didn't realize that you need to have a weekly column in Maclean's and a million readers in order to attract condemnations for hate. Tell that to your buddy, WK, the next time he goes hunting for swastikas in washrooms.
As I said on your site, if you can be bothered to provide quotes in context, with references, then I'll take another look.
As for Mark Steyn's views against "Muslism" I have two responses: (1) Learn to spell; and (2) I oppose Islamism, or radical Islam, that you can see so clearly in the writings and teachings of Mullah Krekar. I wish you "anti-racists" would spend a few moments condemning racists like him.
Well here is one article:
http://vladglebov.com/?p=103
And I already condemn all forms of hate. You are the one that only seems to only condemn hate one way.
I wish you "anti-Islamists", would condemn hate against 99.9% of Muslims who are as non-violent as your average Christian & Jew.
I also wish that you stop calling it "radical Islam" because in reality anyone who kills or encourages violence against innocent life is not practicing Islam. There are 1.5 billion practicing Muslims that can tell you that Islam is a peaceful religion. You only seem to want to listen to the 0.01%.
0.01%, eh?
A recent CBC poll found that 12% of Canadian Muslims supported the terrorist plot to kidnap and behead the prime minister and blow up Parliament and the CBC building. Granted, that's nowhere near a majority, and most Muslims are peaceful. But 12% represents many thousands of people.
And I call that radical Islam, yes. I condemn it. I also condemn you for smearing Mark Steyn with the words of a European imam. If you want to call someone a racist, you might bother to actually quote them, rather than some racist imam in Norway.
As others have pointed out, many of the quotes you listed are from Steyn's review of a book by Robert Ferrigno. As one notes, "Why is it that those who favor censorship seem so ignorant about the stuff they want to censor?"
Why indeed?
As I wrote on your site, you're a bigger fool than Jim Henley was three months ago for posting this same garbage.
Your source is wrong Chris.
You should read the article:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/12/muslim-poll.html
You'd find that those questions were asked as part a "survey" that interviewed a relatively small group of Muslims:
"Interviewed 500 Canadian Muslims and 2,045 members of the general population between Nov. 30, 2006 and Jan. 5, 2007 and is said to be accurate within 4.4 percentage points and 2.2 percentage points..."
If you look at the results:
"Asked about the arrests last summer of the 18 Muslim men and boys who were allegedly plotting terrorist attacks in southern Ontario, 73 per cent of the Muslim respondents said these attacks were not at all justified and 82 per cent said they had no sympathy for those who wanted to carry them out."
Further, you don't know what the exact question was. Therefore, you don't know how the question biased the results. Those Toronto 18 haven't been proven guilty of anything, in fact about half of them are out on bail. You don't know how the question or those conditions biased the results.
According to your source, he rounds it down to 7% (I don't know where he got that number from, there is no source link which means it could be false), but even if it were true, thats not thousands, thats about 35 people out of that survey of 500... its no wonder the pollster said its really marginal and too small to take seriously. Polls are not perfect so you should listen to pollsters before using it for your arguments, it gives your readers false information.
Btw, those Toronto 18 that you speak off, since 2006 there still hasn't been a trial. About half of them have been released on bail, which means some of them aren't as dangerous to the public as people think. I assume you believe in "innocent before proven guilty"rule. I'd wait before they are convicted before you quote their alleged plot.
You can find out more info here:
http://toronto18.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=38&Itemid=1
Anyway, I gave you a link to a post where there are direct links to Mark Steyn's articles.
http://vladglebov.com/?p=103
Good luck with your blog.
Wow. Do you understand what a poll is?
You survey a sample to gain perspective on the larger population.
Since 12% of the Canadian Muslims polled supported the plot to kill the prime minister and blow up the parliament buildings, we can reasonably infer, as a matter of statistics, that about 12% (+/- 4%) of all Canadian Muslims share these views.
That's a hell of a lot more than 35 people... it's somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000.
Maybe you could check out one of UTM's statistics courses? And perhaps one on English as well. Good luck with that.
Actually I am a Commerce and Finance Specialist so I understand what a survey is. You should listen to what the pollster for that poll has said. 500 people is hardly a representative sample and within such small sample and if you count the margin of error, the result is "too small to take seriously" according to those who analyze polls.
Further, 12% did not say that they supported a plot to kill the prime minister...Where is your source? The question was completely different.
But you of course don't care about the truth and will continue to spew ignorance.
Look, I have a degree in statistics. I analyze polls. You can make great inferences about large populations from very small sample sizes; that's why we use polls.
In this case, 12% +/- 4% means that somewhere between 8% and 16% of Canadian Muslims think a plot to blow up parliament and kill the prime minister would be justified. My source is here.
Where's your source for the 0.01%?
Where's your source for the allegation the sample wasn't representative of Canadian Muslims?
Spend more time in class, or at least try to do some research before you post this nonsense and make a complete fool of yourself.
If you are telling me that you think that biased article (I think it might be an opinion piece) is a legitimate source... please tell me which company you work for analyzing polls so I can tell everyone I know not to use your services.
The typical sample size used in basic political polls that are reported on CNN are at least 1000 people... and even thats considered to be too low by analysts.
To base your ENTIRE argument on that... well I think you get my point, I'd rather not reduce my self to the same level of derogatory remarks.
As for the 0.01%, there are 1.5 billion practicing Muslims, check how many people Canada considers terrorists (who claim they are Muslims) and you'll figure it out. I should add that those who kill innocent life are not following Islam but instead have political goals.
Btw, if you compare that to KKK memberships and other fascist organizations like the skin heads... I think you'll find those numbers pretty comparable.
Every culture and community has its bad apples... deal with the actual bad apples instead of painting an entire community with the same brush.
If you stop hating on people, you'd be a lot more happier as a person too.
Btw, if you actually do have a degree in statistics, you'd look up the Environics and see their methodology.
They give people options like:
Somewhat ..
Maybe ...
Strongly..
or
A good thing
A bad thing
Equality good/bad
Don't know/No answer
I've tried to look up that particular survey of 500 Muslims and could not find it on their website.
You have to know the question that was asked and the layout of the answers before making such harsh accusations.
Vlad, I sense I'm wasting my time on you, so I'll be brief.
My source was the Environics poll, as reported on CBC. A sample size of 500 is perfectly sufficient. But don't believe me, head over here. For confidence level, enter 95%, and for interval, enter 4.4%. The population size is 700,000. Tell me, what's the sample size you need to be able to make a reasonable inference about the target population? 500?
But to you, 1,000 people is "considered too low by analysts." Right.
Thank you for educating me on the quality of UTM stats courses.
And as I understand it this question was yes/no. Even if it wasn't, and 12% of Muslims said blowing up parliament and beheading the prime minister was "somewhat" a good thing... well, I wouldn't find that very comforting. Would you?
Vlad, if you took a statistics course somewhere, I would suggest that you demand a refund. You know nothing about polling.
Thats because CNN polls are probably done at 99% confidence and that requires about 900-1000 sample size. Thats the standard sample size used in those polls, watch CNN if you don't believe me. The reason why those analysts believe even 1000 is not sufficient for political polls because a sufficient amount of political polls have shown to be inaccurate beyond the error margins. A review of polls and methodology was done after the polls went terribly wrong predicting one of the political races.
Now, lets get some facts straight. Based on the article:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/12/muslim-poll.html
The answer was not a yes/no. If you look at the results, the question asked if the Toronto 18 plots are "justified" and based on the results (I assume). The answers were: "Somewhat unjustified, Somewhat justified, etc." Thats not a yes/no and unless you have a source I suggest you don't tell people its a yes/no.
The reason why thats important is because the format of a poll can bias the results.
Any real statistician would know that a small percentage like 12% can be attributed to the bias of the question and answer because the word "justified" can mean different things to different people. Meanings of words can especially bias the results when you ask the question to a population who's first language is not likely English.
The question did not ask whether they support to blow up the prime minister... that is a lie and you should know better. Why do you insist on spreading lies?
Further:
"Environics vice-president Keith Neuman, is that despite everything that's gone on over the past few years, "these numbers do not suggest a minority that is feeling isolated and resentful.""
Thats the only conclusion that can be drawn from that poll accurately.
Unless you and your friend Timr think you know more then Vice-President of Environics... I ask that you apologies to all those thousands of Muslims that you falsely accused of supporting "blowing up parliament and beheading the prime minister."
Don't you realize that spreading lies like that can only further intolerance and hate? Canada is a multicultural country and you should think before you falsely accuse thousands of Canadian Muslims of supporting such things.
And if your pride does not allow you to apologies, at the very least stop repeating the same lie.
Um, no. Sorry, but you're just 100% wrong. The vast majority of political polls are done at the 95% level (hint: that's what "accurate 19 times out of 20" means), because polling is expensive and the 99% level isn't worth it.
You're right the question matters, and polls can be biased, etc. But this is a simple question about whether a terrorist attack against our prime minister and parliament itself would be justified. One would hope for a 100% response of "No, absolutely not." Unfortunately, a small (but still disturbing) number of Canadian Muslims apparently think it would be justified.
As Tarek Fatah has written, we have a problem with Islamic extremism. That's a fact.
Deny reality if you wish. But, a word of advice: Don't try to justify your ignorance with statistics. As timr wrote, you don't understand the subject.
http://vladglebov.com/?p=127
Post a Comment
<< Home