# Banned in Canada - Mark Steyn`s America Alone



## 54/102 CEF (14 Jun 2008)

This is a VERY good book. Want to give the NDP a crushing headache? Read this first - how demographics affects what old time Big Government can't do for your by Mark Steyn - "America Alone" 

Amazon link http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=america+alone+steyn

The writer on YOUTUBE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K375rwCgTSs

Admiral Nimitz "Strong Horse - Weak Horse" lecture at UCal Berkley Mar 2007 http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-901941866095630816&q=mark+steyn&ei=nqxTSJeLJo6IrQLUhaHZDg&hl=en

More good stuff - http://homepage.eircom.net/~odyssey/Politics/Quotes/Steyn_Terror.html


----------



## TrexLink (14 Jun 2008)

Looks interesting, but _"Banned in Canada?"_  Where did I miss that?


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (14 Jun 2008)

It seems amazon.CA is willing to sell and ship this book to Canada. http://www.amazon.ca/America-Alone-End-World-Know/dp/1596985275/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213455411&sr=8-1 I even can get a deal if I buy it with a related book The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Islam (and the Crusades) .  

After a quick read http://www.freedomtoread.ca/docs/challenged_books_and_magazines.pdf I don't think this book is banned in Canada.  

If it is Chapters is in trouble - 

Eaton Centre 
Indigo  28 220 Yonge Street 
(416)591-3622  

1st Canadian Place 
Indigospirit  10 1 First Canadian Place, Unit SM18 
(416)869-1079  

World's Biggest Book Store 
Chapters  14 20 Edward Street, 
(416)977-7009  

Commerce Court 
Coles  3 199 Bay Street, P.O. Box 159 
(416) 868-1782  

Brookfield Place 
Coles  4 161 Bay Street, P.O. Box 116, 
(416)861-0166  

Bay & Bloor 
Indigo  31 55 Bloor Street West 
(416)925-3536  

.... a quick search showed it is in almost every chapters/indigo and faux chapters store in Toronto.  

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the book is not banned, infact I think you only implied it was to gain attention.  Now I wonder if the book will really give NDPer's a headache.  Judging by the books it it linked to:

Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought
  Liberal Fascism: The Secret History Of The American Left, From Mussolini To The Politics Of Meaning | Jonah Goldberg 
The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Global Warming: (and Environmentalism) | Christopher C. Horner 
The Force Of Reason | Oriana Fallaci 
The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Islam (and the Crusades) | Robert Spencer 

I'm thinking it is another insipid American political book.  I miss Ann Coulter,  she was sooo much fun.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Jun 2008)

I haven't read it yet, but perhaps it's not the book that is 'Banned in Canada'. More so, maybe his sober outlook and musings on Islam. Our politically correct society refuses to accept what he is saying?


----------



## X-mo-1979 (14 Jun 2008)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> Now I wonder if the book will really give NDPer's a headache.



Now why would people who are informed give the NDP a headache?The NDP dont have much of a track record for using things like "facts" or use of things like "reality".


----------



## Sythen (14 Jun 2008)

I just bought this book last week end.. Not far into it, but I can already tell its gonna be a great read. The book isn't banned in Canada, the author just put "Soon to be banned in Canada" on the cover, as a reference to the ongoing CHRC complaint against Macleans and him.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (14 Jun 2008)

You will enjoy it. Watch the video to get the main ideas.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (14 Jun 2008)

I just got back from Chapters,  I saw the book there... so I took a few minutes to read it.

The pre-pre-introduction, is titled "soon to be banned in Canada the 2008 paperback version" or something to that tune.  It sounded offensive, so I had to read it.  I got about to the part where Ontario socail assistance promotes polygamy.  (which was slightly after he said because of higher birthrates and waves of immigration Islam will take over socially progressive countries and kick out the non-muslims through overt and covert means) 

There are some valid points, but I think some of the reasoning is faulty.  Basically it presupposes that the innate core of Islam is inherently opposed to any sort of civilized society.  I have to disagree with that.  I'm not saying popular interpretations of Islam wont cause horrible distruction,  but the same could be said about certain interpretations of any religion.

Is anyone here seriously suggesting that Canada begin an immigration policy similar to what Australia had before 1973?


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Jun 2008)

No freedom of speech eh ?


----------



## Sythen (14 Jun 2008)

Zell, another thing he points out is that out of every country with a population of 20% or more muslims only 3 are considered "free". The core of the muslim religion is inherently opposed to a free society. Even now in Canada, every so often you see a news story about a radical cleric, or teacher trying to preach jihad or whatever. Take for instance that muslim girl's school that opened in Toronto a few years back?

And when you say interpretations of any religion can be destructive (sorry, don't really know how to make the cool quote thing) its true, but how many right now are at war with Canada? I think you should watch some of the videos of Steyn on youtube, and listen to what he has to say.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (14 Jun 2008)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> I just got back from Chapters,  I saw the book there... so I took a few minutes to read it.
> 
> The pre-pre-introduction, is titled "soon to be banned in Canada the 2008 paperback version" or something to that tune.  It sounded offensive, so I had to read it.  I got about to the part where Ontario socail assistance promotes polygamy.  (which was slightly after he said because of higher birthrates and waves of immigration Islam will take over socially progressive countries and kick out the non-muslims through overt and covert means)
> 
> ...



Better to read through the book or at least listen to the Videos - Videos are great.

His main point is the 1945 World Order guided and protected by ABCA Countries led by USa and TO A LESSER EXTENT the UN to about 1960 is gone, AND IT WONT BE COMING BACK. Now its all about  demographics - depite being the Great Satan to a host of "Dead Ender" countries (with respect to Donald Rusmfeld) - the USA will end the next 25 years way ahead of the rest of them because their population is replacing itself while France, UK, Germany and all the places that give lots of holidays and great pensions are headed for the old folks homes as their population growth is headed through the floor.

Canada, by the way, is in the losing population side of the equation. Bye Bye pensions, and assorted government freebies, hello sky high taxes. 

There is a way out of this mess - intensive education driven programs for those who remain - be Singapore - and it wasn`t me who said that -  its was Bill Gates.


----------



## scoutfinch (14 Jun 2008)

The book has not been banned in Canada.  I bought a copy of it _last year _ in Chapters.  It's a good read so long as -- like anything else you read -- you keep in mind the political leanings of the author.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Jun 2008)

Not banned, but if the BCHRC has its way it could be, and the Ontario Human Rights commission managed to issue a statement which simultaneously say they had no jurisdiction over magazines but still condemning McLean's magazine for publishing an excerpt from "America Alone".

Given the unrestrained use of HRC's against political speech (and also Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation or SLAPP suits against Free Speechers), we need to work very hard to keep the free speech we have and ensure people like Mark Styen can continue to write and be published.


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Jun 2008)

I've read a few of Steyn's columns, and I have to say, he's pretty radical. When he starts using demographics alone to explain genocide, I get uneasy. His suggestion that Islam is inherently "undemocratic" is ridiculous of course. He is extremely selective in his examples. Iran once had a democracy, until it was overthrown by a CIA backed coup. Of course he doesn't mention this fact , well known by even the most amateur critic of the "West." The three nations that contain a measure of freedom (and are 20% Muslim) also don't have oil, and the threats to internal freedom in these nations was largely from the Christian populations (and governments). Now I think all religious fundamentalism should be stamped out, but we must remember this applies to all religions. A radical cleric in Toronto in no way worries me more than a radical televangelist (ie Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell) who has an audience of millions. 
'


----------



## X-mo-1979 (16 Jun 2008)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I've read a few of Steyn's columns, and I have to say, he's pretty radical. When he starts using demographics alone to explain genocide, I get uneasy. His suggestion that Islam is inherently "undemocratic" is ridiculous of course. He is extremely selective in his examples. Iran once had a democracy, until it was overthrown by a CIA backed coup. Of course he doesn't mention this fact , well known by even the most amateur critic of the "West." The three nations that contain a measure of freedom (and are 20% Muslim) also don't have oil, and the threats to internal freedom in these nations was largely from the Christian populations (and governments). Now I think all religious fundamentalism should be stamped out, but we must remember this applies to all religions. A radical cleric in Toronto in no way worries me more than a radical televangelist (ie Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell) who has an audience of millions.
> '



Are the televangelist telling his congregation to kill jew's and muslims?Teaching kid's that daddy is a martyr/hero for blowing himself up and killing a pile of civilians?
Didnt think so.

Some people think Mark's articles are "radical" I find he say's what most of North Americans are thinking....but don't due to racisim issues.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (16 Jun 2008)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> He is extremely selective in his examples. Iran once had a democracy, until it was overthrown by a CIA backed coup. Of course he doesn't mention this fact



WTF are you talking about?!?  The US supported (well sort-of, in Carter's ridiculously mealy-mouthed way) the Shah (who was the last of a series monarchic dynasties which had existed since the Middle Ages) against a popular theocratic revolution.  The revolution was successful and eventually evolved into a somewhat democratic theocratic state (an "Islamic Republic"). The conspiracy theory is that the US secretly supported the revolution against the monarchy, because the Shah was too progressive, or overtly friendly to the US (which of course makes no sense, as is the case with most conspiracy theories).  On the other hand maybe we shouldn't let reality, exposed by the free speech of _radicals_, get in the way of _"fact(s), well known by even the most amateur critic of the 'West'._"


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Jun 2008)

Televangelists have blamed 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina on acts of God, as punishment for homosexuality, and other "immoral" aspects of modern life in the US. That to me is pretty radical. Many of these televangelists also support Israel, because they believe that once Israel is dominant in the Middle East, Jesus will return and smite all non-Christians, at which point all Christians can return to the Holy Land. Again, pretty radical.


----------



## Loachman (16 Jun 2008)

Aden_Gatling said:
			
		

> WTF are you talking about?!?[/i]"



Ummmm...



			
				Aden_Gatling said:
			
		

> The US supported ... against a popular theocratic revolution.



Have you wondered *why* the "theocratic revolution" was "popular"?



			
				Aden_Gatling said:
			
		

> The conspiracy theory is that the US secretly supported the revolution against the monarchy,



Reference, please. I don't recall ever hearing that conspiracy theory, and I was alive at the time. It doesn't really make sense in light of the capture of the US Embassy and lengthy hostage-taking, does it?



			
				Aden_Gatling said:
			
		

> because the Shah was too progressive,[/i]"



Substitute "rep" for "prog" and you'll be a bit closer to why the "theocratic revolution" received so much support.



			
				Aden_Gatling said:
			
		

> or overtly friendly to the US



That was because he had no power without US backing.

Read about SAVAK.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Televangelists have blamed 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina on acts of God, as punishment for homosexuality, and other "immoral" aspects of modern life in the US. That to me is pretty radical. Many of these televangelists also support Israel, because they believe that once Israel is dominant in the Middle East, Jesus will return and smite all non-Christians, at which point all Christians can return to the Holy Land. Again, pretty radical.



This Christian "radicalism" does not even come _*close*_ to Islamic radicalism.

Please provide me with some examples of influential Christian radicals (individual nutcases do not count) who have advocated for the wholesale slaughter of races/religious groups, forced women into burkas, denied them medical care, prevented them from driving, beheaded those who disagreed with them.

There is simply no comparison.


----------



## catalyst (16 Jun 2008)

I work at chapters, and when I'm back at work on Wed I'll find out what the scoop is. 

I know it was on our shelves as of last night because I put more out (its a 'new/hot' thing).


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Jun 2008)

> WTF are you talking about?!?  The US supported (well sort-of, in Carter's ridiculously mealy-mouthed way) the Shah (who was the last of a series monarchic dynasties which had existed since the Middle Ages) against a popular theocratic revolution.  The revolution was successful and eventually evolved into a somewhat democratic theocratic state (an "Islamic Republic"). The conspiracy theory is that the US secretly supported the revolution against the monarchy, because the Shah was too progressive, or overtly friendly to the US (which of course makes no sense, as is the case with most conspiracy theories).  On the other hand maybe we shouldn't let reality, exposed by the free speech of radicals, get in the way of




Prior to the Shah was Mossadeq, who's only crime was nationalizing the oil industry. Say what you want about his economics, that was definitely an internal Iranian issue, something that has nothing to do with the UK or US. 




> This Christian "radicalism" does not even come close to Islamic radicalism.
> 
> Please provide me with some examples of influential Christian radicals (individual nutcases do not count) who have advocated for the wholesale slaughter of races/religious groups, forced women into burkas, denied them medical care, prevented them from driving, beheaded those who disagreed with them.
> 
> There is simply no comparison.




Or course "individual nut cases" count. If we examine what the likes of Roberts, Falwell and Haggerty have said on TV, it is safe to assume that there are preachers out there saying far worse to their congregations. I think the two are definitely comparable. Roberts and Falwell in particular have come close to advocating the expulsion of Muslims from the US on live television, and have essentially given the OK to violence against homosexuals. We have to remember that these guys have to be careful of the FCC, the radical cleric in the street (or Christian minister for that matter) does not. I just think the latter is reported on less in the United States and Canada because we are Christian nations, so perhaps Christian radicalism takes a little longer to be noticed.


----------



## Loachman (16 Jun 2008)

Expulsion still does not equal wholesale slaughter.

Expulsion from the US is far less likely to happen, either.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (16 Jun 2008)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Or course "individual nut cases" count. If we examine what the likes of Roberts, Falwell and Haggerty have said on TV, it is safe to assume that there are preachers out there saying far worse to their congregations. I think the two are definitely comparable. Roberts and Falwell in particular have come close to advocating the expulsion of Muslims from the US on live television, and have essentially given the OK to violence against homosexuals. We have to remember that these guys have to be careful of the FCC, the radical cleric in the street (or Christian minister for that matter) does not. I just think the latter is reported on less in the United States and Canada because we are Christian nations, so perhaps Christian radicalism takes a little longer to be noticed.



Are you on drugs?
How the heck do you figure things like this would go unreported in a Christan nation?How about bountiful B.C?Ring a bell?Listen I'm not a Christan however to compare a few redneck preachers blaming global warming on Steven and Bruce making out DOES NOT COMPARE to radical Imam's in this country who openly call for the death of the infidels/kaffars(sp?).

As for those few "coming close"to asking for the expulsion of Moslem's (how does one come close?..boggling)maybe it's due to Muslims...ummm....I dunno BLOWING THEMSELVES UP AND KILLING INNOCENT MUSLIMS AND KAFFAR'S.

And before you compare the crusades stop.Tad bit of difference.To compare the two only blatantly shows how we evolved into a better form of human being above savages who would kill,Mame,behead women,children,men.

I will not live in under Shara law in my country.If your so against Christain-judeo values leave.


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Jun 2008)

It DOES compare when they too call for violence against someone. 

I am not on drugs. I AM in favour of moral values. I am not leaving.


----------



## Loachman (16 Jun 2008)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> It DOES compare



Extremely poorly.

Here's a simple explanation for the difference-challenged:

Mass Expulsion: Unpleasant, but you may be able to go back after the madness is over and may get some compensation and a government apology after a few years.

Mass Slaughter: More unpleasant, and you don't get to do anything again, ever, and you wouldn't care about compensation or an apology in the extremely unlikely event that they would be forthcoming. 

The former, from the US, is extremely unlikely. The latter, in, near, or around some Islamic Republics, is quite likely - especially if they perfect or obtain nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (16 Jun 2008)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> It DOES compare when they too call for violence against someone.
> 
> I am not on drugs. I AM in favour of moral values. I am not leaving.



Sure.If Billy graham is going into churches telling people the only way to God is through the murder of Muslims,then your argument would be slightly valid.

However look at the amount of issues mark's book has caused in this Christan society.Why?Due to the fact it is against someone who is not the majority.Every Liberal group/Islamic group have to jump on line and make a huge deal about someone stating facts...which may offend some.

Yet a Imam can be CAUGHT spreading hate,bringing in radical speakers from Europe,and where is the outcry?It doesn't happen.Why?Because we have this HUGE issue of being afraid to offend people.

Ever seen a cartoon of god? (Garfield comes to my mind).Did the Catholic mass's of St.John's Newfoundland protest and issue a death warrant on Jim Davis?No.Make a cartoon of Allah and what happens?

I think Mike has courage to write a book like this. I recall another author in Holland.....

Bravo Zulu to Mike for having the courage to write something he believed in.

How is Christianity working out in Iran these days Kilo?


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (17 Jun 2008)

I’ve found it interesting to see where this thread would go … I think it is going to a bad place so I’ll jam in a few points I think I’ll want to make later before this thread is locked.

On the topic of Muslim extremists taking control of our population/democratic system, interesting but I think unlikely.  I reject the premise that Islam in itself is incompatible with a pluralistic, socially progressive culture.   One problem with any religion based upon writings… you can read them in a way that means ANYTHING.   I know a few Muslims,  I can say with 100% confidence I have NO fear they are going to declare holy war on me.  (Although, I did have to endure a rather long lecture when I joked that “I’m not worried about suicide bombers, eventually they will run out of virgins and who wants to die only to find out you have to share.”)

There are popular interpretations of Islam that are useful to select groups (rich and powerful).  And yes if there was a majority of people in Canada who followed this teaching I’d be beyond “in a bad way”.  I consider this about as likely as how I’d be “in a bad way” if the Churches here suddenly took up their residential schools again – or to their other forced conversion techniques.   

(Bringing back the BC and Ontario connection:     http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0726-32.htm )

It is a sad fact that humans seem to have an endless capacity for committing depraved, horrifying acts when they see it in their direct interest to do so.  I don’t see it as fruitful to bring up which society is or was more horrifying to argue which is less valid.  I will point out however that our culture went through a period of time where we did things routinely that the Muslim world has never sunk to. I think because we in the west had a reaction and turned to science, logic and constitutions…

The only comparison I can make is with Canada and America.  We used to be WAY more conservative than our American neighbours.  Then George Klippert was arrested for having consensual sex with four separate adult men. (no not at the same time) He was obviously “incurably homosexual” and therefore he was declared a dangerous sexual offender.  (For those who don’t know, that means he will never be released from jail, the only way out is in a pine box)  This led Canada to change its laws and subsequently decriminalize homosexuality and re-evaluate our treatment towards many minorities. 

The pendulum pulled to far one way will eventually swing the other direction.  

Back onto topic,  someone on this thread mentioned being more afraid of Christian religious leaders. While they do have power here, in most cases they can’t issue marching orders to do violence or harm. (there are exceptions of course, the KKK - radical Christian group, Fred W. Phelps advocating violence,  etc etc)  I think it is appropriate to focus on immediate threats to yourself than obsess with potential problems 40 years down the road.  

Try this one: In the last 100 years, how many people have been killed by terrorists? That is everywhere, any definition of terrorist will do.  Now how many people have been killed in the last 100 years by governments that have temporarily restricted civil liberties?

If you are worried about a foreign culture immigrating here and breading like rabbits so they become large enough to exert their will on the rest of us, leading to restrictions on our civil liberties…I humbly submit that we have more immediate concerns. I don’t think we’re ‘past the tilting point’ yet. But I would like us to pay far more attention to some of the erosions to our rights than we are now.

--edited to change a typo.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (17 Jun 2008)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> If you are worried about a foreign culture immigrating here and breading like rabbits so they become large enough to exert their will on the rest of us, leading to restrictions on our civil liberties…I humbly submit that we have more immediate concerns. I don’t think we’re ‘past the tilting point’ yet. But I would like us to pay far more attention to some of the erosions to our rights than we are now.



What immediate concerns?What rights have I lost lately that I'm not aware of?


----------



## Blindspot (17 Jun 2008)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> If you are worried about a foreign culture immigrating here and breading like rabbits so they become large enough to exert their will on the rest of us, leading to restrictions on our civil liberties…I humbly submit that we have more immediate concerns. I don’t think we’re ‘past the tilting point’ yet. But I would like us to pay far more attention to some of the erosions to our rights than we are now.



Thou drippeth with irony.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jun 2008)

You should actually read "America Alone".

The loss of our rights and privileges is very subtle, many issues are off the table for discussion, either through political correctness, "Progressive" thought (try having a discussion about abortion at a Canadian University, much less the issues of war and recruiting), or threats of violence (only one publication in *ALL OF CANADA* dared to publish the "Mohammad" cartoons). Global Warming/climate change is another topic which has been distorted beyond belief, and to speak against the ruling orthodoxy is to court furious personal attacks.

The point is our civilization is based on a trinity of ideas: Freedom of Speech (which the Canadian Islamic Congress is attacking via the various Human Rights Commissions, and Islamists throughout the world are attacking through various means up to open violence against the speakers), Property rights (which are very restricted to non believers in Islamic lands) and the Rule of Law (Meaning independent judicial law, separate and not subordinate to theological or religious laws, unlike Sharia law).

Mark Steyn is to be applauded for pointing out the methods the various bully boys use against the collective freedoms of the West, and the reasons they are so confident they will be able to preveil against a much richer and more powerful society.


----------

