I agree with Mark Steyn, why can't they both lose? farber is one of the principal reason that section 13 of the thought police act has not been modified. It is great to watch Steyn shred him. farber is a danger to free speech in Canada and doesn't seem to be too familair with truth.
But, whether he reprinted it legally or illegally, he’s the publisher of everything I quoted. Ezra Levant, Canada’s great free speech warrior, likes to spell Bernie “Burnie”—i.e., as the most prominent supporter of Canadian state censorship, Mr. Farber is that perplexing paradox, a Jewish book burner. But in this case, “Burnie” is attempting retrospectively to burn his own book: the piece I cited is an unsigned editorial published under the CJC banner, atop a CJC assertion of copyright, with no disclaimer and with no link to any external site. So, given the amount of disassociation in last week’s issue—Mr. Farber disassociating himself from his own publication, Maclean’s disassociating itself from me—I would like to disassociate myself from last week’s “Editor’s Note.” I stand by my original point. It is astounding and disgraceful that the CJC should publish an editorial that ends by crowing about the same thuggery that underpins “Israeli Apartheid Week” and that shut down Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech at Concordia.
Why would they do such a thing? Well, ask Bernie, not me. But my guess is that, not for the first time, the CJC’s pro-censorship instincts got the better of its pro-Jewish ones: eight of the nine paragraphs are the sort of things the CJC says all the time. The Coulter passage is where that logic leads—to street mobs acting as ideological enforcers. Jews, of all people, should not be cheering Canada’s descent down that path.