So the council took the magazine to "court," but not a real court. These tribunals have all the rigor of a student government star chamber.
vor der Fakten nicht zählen,
There are no rules of evidence and, again, truth is not a defense.
deren Vertreter schon vor Verfahrensbeginn Partei ergriffen haben,
Dean Steacy, an investigator for Canada's national commission, explained it nicely: "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value."
und deren Definition von "Volksverhetzung" einzig darauf basiert, wieviele Leute sich beleidigt fühlen
Hate speech is essentially defined as anything certain "victimized" people find offensive. So, if a group is sufficiently offended to complain to a human rights commission, the burden of proof has already been met.
spricht auch die Zeitung aus Kalifornien Klartext und wiederholt Steyns grundlegende Aussagen aus dem im Jahre 2006 im Maclean´s Magazine erschienenen und Anstoß erregenden Artikel "The future belongs to Islam".
It was particularly scandalized by Steyn's argument that rising birthrates among Muslims in Europe will force non-Muslims there to come to "an accommodation with their radicalized Islamic compatriots."
Note: Steyn's article was published in 2006, before Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, supported that point earlier this year when he said that it is "unavoidable" that Britain will ultimately have to incorporate some elements of Sharia into its law in the spirit of "constructive accommodation."
You might think that if Steyn had been able to quote Williams or someone else who'd expressed that view, he and Maclean's wouldn't be in trouble. You'd be wrong. One of the council's chief gripes with the article is that Steyn quoted a Norwegian imam who said that "the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes." An accurate quotation is no defense when giving offense.
Allerdings handelte die Los Angeles Times erst auf Dhimmitude der New York Times, deren einziger Artikel zu Mark Steyn sich nicht mit der Beschneidung der Meinungsfreiheit beschäftigte, sondern mit dem Umgang anderer Länder mit "Volksverhetzung":
As the Atlantic's Ross Douthat observed, the New York Times' only story on the case suggested "that the 1st Amendment is a peculiar and quite possibly outdated feature of the American political system, along the lines of, say, the electoral college or the District of Columbia's lack of congressional representation." By implication, it also lumped Steyn in with rabid Nazis and Holocaust deniers.
Without outlining what Steyn wrote, the Times launched into a discussion of how "hate speech" is treated in the U.S. and elsewhere. Quoth the Times: "Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Israel and France forbid the sale of Nazi items like swastikas and flags. It is a crime to deny the Holocaust in Canada, Germany and France
Der gesamte Artikel der Los Angeles Times findet sich hier.