If you want an insight into how little a bunch of Muslim crazies can fail to learn at Osgoode Hall Law School, take a little gander at the official complaint against Macleans by three dedicated worshippers of Islam, the dirty false religion of Mohammed, who walked the earth as an angel and an agent of Satan.

The first thing you observe when you read the 70(!) page complaint is that it reads less as some sort of coherent argument against an alleged assault on Islam by the magazine as put together by three men who will soon become lawyers, and more like some sort of Grade 8 exercise in "highlighting the relevant points of opinion articles". After each article by Mark Steyn or Barbara Amiel (those Derka-Derkas do hate the Jews, don't they? they even insert the header before Amiel's column on the book "Londonistan" as "The press darling who became 'the Jew'"), the students proceed to list the main points of the article, at no point save one or two challenging the authenticity of the statements.

For example:

Other examples of fear mongering include:
• The extent of the terrorist threat to Canada is grossly exaggerated by presenting unsubstantiated allegations of fact: Canada has allegedly been infiltrated by Muslim terrorist, bases of anti-Canadian and anti-Western hatred have been set by Canadian Muslims, and a high number of Muslim Canadians have devoted themselves to “radical Islamism” and have acquired “combatant status” with terrorist enemies.
• Private and public places of worship such as private homes and universities are alleged to be centers of radicalization and terrorist planning.
So, then, this would be wrong? Macleans has in both its opinion and its news stories on Muslims documented their allegations of firebrand Imams believing Bush committed 9/11, RCMP arrests of Muslims plotting crimes against Canadian targets, etc. etc. I can offhand link to this CSIS report or this Canadian Press story. What do these child-rapist Mohammed, Satan's angel and founder of the perverse Islamic pseudo-religion followers have to dispute them? Their constant claims that these stories are just fear-mongering?
The extent of protests that occurred in some predominantly Muslim countries following the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in Denmark, are grossly exaggerated to represent that the most Muslims reacted in a violent manner to these publications.
So they didn't read this story, I'm guessing. And I am aware that while these articles are referring to come violence, the students claim Macleans implies "most Muslims" reacted this way. From what I can see, the students are suffering from a form of identification bias, where any article written about any Muslim which refers to him as such is seen as a blanket description of 100.00% of all Muslims, as opposed to being brought up for comparison or cultural factors consideration.
A “substantial number” of Western Muslims are alleged to share the basic goals of terrorists, namely the imposition of an oppressive branch of Shariah law on Western society and its citizens. No evidence is presented for this assertion although it is probable that it is a gross misrepresentation based on the support by a large number of Muslims for the use of religious arbitration to settle some family law matters. Such support would hardly qualify as a sharing of terrorist goals as alleged by Maclean’s.
Except there is evidence, whether "presented" or not, for this assertion. It has absolutely nothing to do with "Muslims supporting religious artibration in family law", and everything to do with stories such as the London tube bombers' imam supporting the bombings, or closer to home 12% of Canadian Muslims, totally some 84,000 people, supported the plot to behead the Prime Minister. Do the offended students not feel that a population the equivalent to Fredericton or Prince George is a fairly "substantial number", all things considered?
• 80% of Canadian Muslims imams are alleged to be “radical” based on the assessment of an Italian imam who visits Canada “every now and then.” This allegation is linked to the further (racist) assertion that Muslims at large have a culture of handing over their kids to radical imams in order to radicalize them. These two false allegations are combined to assert that the Canadian Muslim population is mostly radicalized.
• The assertion that there exists an extremist fringe among Canadian Muslims and that this fringe will shape the Canadian Muslim community to also become radical. It is also alleged that young Canadian Muslims at large are being indoctrinated with fundamentalism, being indoctrinated by extremist clerics, and being indoctrinated to impose Islamic law over non-Muslim westerners.
No editing here folks, they literally have put these two points together: to wit, Macleans believes that 80% of Muslims are radical, and that they are an extremist fringe. Can't these law students understand that the 80% claim is not being cited as accurate as a number but rather indicative of a belief or pipe-dream? Apparently not.
The reaction of some Muslims to the Pope’s comment regarding the Prophet Muhammad is grossly distorted to represent that Muslims at large responded to these comments in a violent manner. The context of the Pope’s comments is exploited to allege that Islam is a “medieval system” that has not reconciled itself with reason, and that Muslims are an uncivilized people incapable of engaging in a reasonable discussion with the Pope.
So, uh, any other religions go on wild violent protests because of somebody's comments lately? When these students can find another religious group acting this way in 2007, then they can talk about this issue. Until then, just shut up.
Another central theme of these articles is the portrayal of Muslims at large as people who possess values that share nothing in common with Western values such as freedom, democracy, and human rights.
And so you think the best reaction to this is to run to the nearest kangaroo court and, in a shameless attack on freedom, democracy, and human rights, try to get government fiat to shut down those mean people who said things you didn't like. I'll say it again, folks, don't hire any lawyers graduating from Osgoode Hall Law School this semester!
The use of some unfortunate incidents in some predominantly Muslim countries to represent that Muslims in general suppress and oppress women.28 A growing Muslim population is posited as posing a severe threat to women’s rights. In particular, Muslims are alleged to believe that men are better than women, and to believe that honour killings of women are acceptable. It is also alleged that a growing Muslim population in the West will result in women being prevented from participating in protests, women being forced to wear burqas, and women being assaulted and abused by Muslims unless they are wearing “Islamic coverings.”
Are England and France two of these "predominantly Muslim countries"? Because if you read on in their own complaint, they quote the following passage from a January 9, 2006 Mark Steyn article:
But the "honour killings" are getting closer. In London last summer, the police announced they were re-opening investigations into 120 deaths among British Muslim girls that they'd hitherto declined to look at too closely on grounds of "cultural sensitivity." There's a small flurry -- enough almost to form a new category for the Governor-General's Awards -- in books itemizing the violence to women, gay men and other approved groups in the new EUtopia: Claire Berlinski's Menace In Europe and Bruce Bawer's While Europe Slept are a staggering accumulation of riveting vignettes, like the non-Muslim girls in les banlieues of France opting to wear veils and other Islamic coverings to lessen the likelihood of being abused and assaulted in the streets.
There you have it: honour killings in the West, as well as non-Muslims women harassed in the West. Exactly the stuff in real life that the students object to being talked about.

But really I'm saving the best for last. You the good Third Edge of the Sword reader(s) may be able to find trinkets in the tome that interest you (at 70 pages, its at least 4 times longer than the longest Kevin Taft book) more than this one. But for my money, this is the bit that takes the cake:
A notable feature of Maclean’s journalism has been the publication of alleged statements of facts and generalizations about Muslims which can only be described as racist and xenophobic. Added to this has been an attempt to promote the work of writers and “intellectuals” broadly recognized as promoting hatred and Islamophobia. The publication by a reputable national magazine of these racist and xenophobic statements represents an attempt to normalize the use of a racist language and to legitimate the work of writers and “intellectuals” broadly recognized as promoting hatred and Islamophobia. Examples include:
• The historical conquest by a Muslim monarch of the present day city of Istanbul is used to represent that present day Muslims at large believe in the sodomizing and beheading of Europeans.
• The representation that Muslims at large engage in sex with minors and animals.
• The assertion that Muslims utilize useful products imported from the West while providing only extremism and terrorism in return.
• The representation that a large number of Muslims are sheep-shaggers.”
This article attempts to promote the hateful and racist views of an Italian writer, Oriana Fallaci, wanted in several countries in Europe for the publication of hate material against Muslims and cited by the United Nations as a promoter of racism and xenophobia against European Muslims. Ms. Fallaci is portrayed as a fearless and heroic figure who is authoring “magnificent screeds” on how Europe can “save” itself from Muslims. Her citing by several countries and institutions for the promotion of hatred is attributed to the alleged Muslim ppersecution of journalists and the Muslim exploitation of the legal system. Flagrantly racist and false statements are made about Islam and Muslims. Muslims are portrayed as people who condone and engage in sex with minors and animals, and who wish to sodomize and massacre Europeans. Another feature of this article are its attacks on laws prohibiting hateful and discriminatory publications against identifiable groups. According to the author, these laws are being exploited by Muslims to persecute writers who narrate the “truth” about Muslims.
Both of these passages are in regards to the Mark Steyn column "Celebrate tolerance, or you're dead - Oriana Fallaci appeals to Europe to save itself. Good luck" from April 28, 2006. The resonating feature of these "talking points" being brought up is that apparently these law students have no understanding of the English language. Immigrants, perhaps? It would explain most of why they wrote what they wrote. Let's start at the top: are they sure that "racist and xenophobic" are the only way to discuss the (admitted!) "facts about Muslims" being brought up in, wait for it: a newsmagazine? How about "relevent and frightening and accurate"? And why not analyze Steyn's reference to the fall of Constantinople as intended, as a foil (or not-so-foil) to the contemporary Islam of Ayatollah Khomeini's Blue Book? As Steyn writes:
for example, Ayatollah Khomeini's "Blue Book" and its helpful advice on romantic matters: "If a man marries a minor who has reached the age of nine and if during the defloration he immediately breaks the hymen, he cannot enjoy her any longer." I'll say. I know it always ruins my evening. Also: "A man who has had sexual relations with an animal, such as a sheep, may not eat its meat. He would commit sin."
If the Ayatollah's statements are being taken out of context somehow, it is the student's responsibility to show us where. Otherwise, "The representation that Muslims at large engage in sex with minors and animals" doesn't seem entirely inaccurate, does it? Even barring this, Steyn in fact notes how Muslims aren't doing that, when he comically writes:
I enjoy the don't-eatyour-sexual-partner stuff as much as the next infidel, but the challenge presented by Islam is not that the cities of the Western world will be filling up with sheep-shaggers. If I had to choose, I'd rather Mohammed Atta was downriver in Egypt hitting on the livestock than flying through the windows of Manhattan skyscrapers. But he's not.
Quite explicitly here, Steyn is comparing "old" Islamic traditions (ie. "sex with 9 year olds, as done by Mohammed, the dirty angel of Satan spreading Lucifer's dark pseudo-religion of Islam) with "new" Islamic traditions (ie. blowing up Bali beach resorts and murdering Russian schoolgirls). I agree that neither of them put Muslims in a positive light, but rather than complain about it, why can't these three illiterate immigrants simply prove Steyn wrong or admit that their fake religion has a large variety of social ills? Nah, its easier to claim "representation that a large number of Muslims are sheep-shaggers" when the opposite is true, and hope that a Human Rights Commission NDP-voter agrees with their attack on the evil white man. Even the bit about Oriana Fallaci "wanted in several countries in Europe for the publication of hate material against Muslims and cited by the United Nations as a promoter of racism and xenophobia against European Muslims" is proving Steyn's point. He doesn't perhaps "promote" her as much as the illiterate immigrant trio claim so much as highlight some of what she writes. Indeed, that the students are even pursuing this case to a human rights tribunal indicates that they want to do to Steyn the same thing that the Europeans did to Fallaci: criminalize speech they disagree with. Steyn even tosses in the complaint by Muslims against the Western Standard into the mix, reminding us that these three students have already thrown their lot in with an assault on free speech that should not be forgiven.

According to the authors, this article makes "7 implications": the last three are the real gems:
5. Oriana Fallaci is wanted in several European countries for the promotion of hatred and racism against Muslims only because Muslims have ganged up on her and are exploiting the legal system to their advantage.
6. Laws have been made in Europe in order to permit Muslims to win lawsuits by invoking bogus claims of religious and racial discrimination.
7. Muslims routinely launch meritless lawsuits against writers.
Now where would we get that idea??

Update, 6:26pm: Courtesy of Small Dead Animals:
The daughter of a British imam is living under police protection after receiving death threats from her father for converting to Christianity.

The 31-year-old, whose father is the leader of a mosque in Lancashire, has moved house an astonishing 45 times after relatives pledged to hunt her down and kill her.

The British-born university graduate, who uses the pseudonym Hannah for her own safety, said she renounced the Muslim faith to escape being forced into an arranged marriage when she was 16.

She has been in hiding for more than a decade but called in police only a few months ago after receiving a text message from her brother. In it, he said he would not be held responsible for his actions if she failed to return to Islam.

Officers have agreed to offer her protection in case of an attempt on her life.


A study this year found that 36 per cent of British Muslims between 16 and 24 believe those who convert to another religion should be punished by death.