In an episode of TVO’s The Agenda, British author Mark Steyn was welcomed to share his views and join in a debate opposing three Muslim law students who wished to share their dissatisfaction with both Steyn and Maclean's magazine. Steyn holds very controversial views regarding the quickly changing demographic of the Muslim population in western countries that the law students believe are based upon racist generalizations. Steyn’s work has even been published in the popular Canadian magazine, Macleans. In this particular episode of The Agenda, The Osgoode Hall graduates, Khurrum Awan, Naseem Mithoowani and Muneeza Sheikh primarily appeared to voice their dissatisfaction with Maclean's decision to publish twenty two articles yet declined them
…show more content…
In his novel, America Alone, he states that due to the fact that western countries have an aging population, they require an influx of immigrants in order to sustain the economy, as the majority elder population relies upon welfare. These immigrants belong mostly from Muslim majority countries, therefore causing a significant increase in the Muslim population in western countries. Of these Muslim immigrants, Steyn claims that 40 percent wish to live under sharia law, and rather than assimilating, second generation immigrants will often turn towards radical jihadism. Steyn goes on state that Muslims will quickly become the majority in western countries, thus resulting in a global takeover that causes the practice of sharia law to be inevitable. In his novel, Steyn says, “Of course not all Muslims support terrorists, though enough of them share their basic objectives: the wish to live under Islamic law in Europe and North America” (cite). These claims made by Steyn, though initially are based on facts as he cites statistics, are substantially harmful claims as he insinuates that he is referring to all Muslims as a whole, not a small, extremist …show more content…
Mill would say that this treatment towards the Muslim population in the west is wrong, yet predictable as minority groups are rarely ever fully accepted in society. In the case of the three law school graduates versus Maclean's magazine, Mill would argue that the government absolutely should play a role in the governing of speech; this is not in order to penalize Steyn or his views, but rather, the government should interfere as Maclean’s magazine is infringing upon the Muslim members of society’s right to freedom of expression, and freedom to debate their side of the argument. Maclean’s magazine is silencing the three law graduates by not allowing them to submit a counter argument in order to be published. The three law graduates are not requesting a retraction, nor are they requesting an apology; they are simply requesting that the religion they belong to should not be blatantly demonized without them having the opportunity to counter the claims being made. John Stuart Mill believed in healthy, educated arguments and in not allowing for a counter argument, Maclean's is silencing the Muslim population of Canada. On the subject of the difference of opinion, Mill has
In his novel, America Alone, he states that due to the fact that western countries have an aging population, they require an influx of immigrants in order to sustain the economy, as the majority elder population relies upon welfare. These immigrants belong mostly from Muslim majority countries, therefore causing a significant increase in the Muslim population in western countries. Of these Muslim immigrants, Steyn claims that 40 percent wish to live under sharia law, and rather than assimilating, second generation immigrants will often turn towards radical jihadism. Steyn goes on state that Muslims will quickly become the majority in western countries, thus resulting in a global takeover that causes the practice of sharia law to be inevitable. In his novel, Steyn says, “Of course not all Muslims support terrorists, though enough of them share their basic objectives: the wish to live under Islamic law in Europe and North America” (cite). These claims made by Steyn, though initially are based on facts as he cites statistics, are substantially harmful claims as he insinuates that he is referring to all Muslims as a whole, not a small, extremist …show more content…
Mill would say that this treatment towards the Muslim population in the west is wrong, yet predictable as minority groups are rarely ever fully accepted in society. In the case of the three law school graduates versus Maclean's magazine, Mill would argue that the government absolutely should play a role in the governing of speech; this is not in order to penalize Steyn or his views, but rather, the government should interfere as Maclean’s magazine is infringing upon the Muslim members of society’s right to freedom of expression, and freedom to debate their side of the argument. Maclean’s magazine is silencing the three law graduates by not allowing them to submit a counter argument in order to be published. The three law graduates are not requesting a retraction, nor are they requesting an apology; they are simply requesting that the religion they belong to should not be blatantly demonized without them having the opportunity to counter the claims being made. John Stuart Mill believed in healthy, educated arguments and in not allowing for a counter argument, Maclean's is silencing the Muslim population of Canada. On the subject of the difference of opinion, Mill has