This morning I laid eyes on three young Muslim terrorists.

I'd be happy to give the police a detailed description, but they wouldn't be interested. In the Magical Land of Upside Down we call "Canada" -- which is the ancient Ojibwa word for "kick me" -- those three terrorists are victims, you see.

The passengers on United 93 decided they would rather die than allow their plane to be hijacked on September 11, 2001.

I have never been prouder to be a Canadian than the day I heard Ken Whyte say he would rather Maclean's magazine go bankrupt than allow it to be hijacked by a handful of Muslim beligerents.

At this morning's press conference, held by the Sharia Creeps, we were promised a big "settlement" announcement in the absurd case of Steyn & Maclean's v. A Bunch of Sock Puppets and Their Anti-Semite Master Behind the Curtain.

In a dazzling demonstration of both taqiyya AND hudna, we received no such thing. 

The three law students -- or rather, their obnoxious lawyer, who did all the talking -- simply reiterated their original demands: that Maclean's magazine honor the students' imaginary "right to rebuttal" (a right that exists nowhere in English common law or centuries of journalistic and publishing practice) by letting them publish 5,000 unsolicited and unedited words in someone else's magazine.

Despite the repeated (I lost track at 6) attempts by the National Post's Joseph Brean to get them to explain what exactly was different about this new and improved "settlement" offer, no clear answer was forthcoming.

Then, after insisting again and again that the case "had nothing to do with Mark Steyn", the lawyer proceded to read large chunks of Steyn's "controversial" essay in Maclean's.

He was obviously counting on the assembled audience to cluck disapprovingly at these excerpts, but all I heard was muffled laughter at the funny bits, and myself fuming at his chronic mispronunciation of Oriana Fallaci's name.

Why did he read these excerpts? Because, he claimed, NOT ONCE since this case began in December did anyone EVER report Steyn's offending words, which were "the heart of the case" even though only moments earlier, the case "had nothing to do with Mark Steyn."

Sigh.

Never mind the "sheep-shagging" and "mosquito breeding"; that is all just SO December 2007. Now what REALLY offends these students (and, their rep insisted on numerous occasions, the entire Muslim community in Canada) was Steyn's use of the word "fiercely" -- as in a "fiercely bearded" imam.

"We're here because of a goddam ADJECTIVE now?" I "asked" RightGirl, beside me.

My outburst caught the attention of one of the female law students on the dais, and we engaged in a evil eye staring match for the next 15 minutes. Heh. Made 'er blink.

And of course, we had to hear about four different times about Ken Whyte's "disgraceful" bankruptcy comment, which they are totally and utterly obsessed with.

See, this is why there hasn't been a Muslim Reformation:

there must not be an Arabic equivalent of "Here I stand, I can do no other."

Their wee Borg-like brains cannot fathom such independence of spirit, such defiance in the face of the great and mighty Islam. Especially defiance by a mere infidel, and his "pig" (or is it "dog"?) stooge, the suspiciously surnamed "Mark Steyn" -- whom this case has nothing to do with and don't you forget it while I read more excerpts from the previously unheard-of essay which we are basing our whole case on even though NO ONE ELSE HAD READ it in Canada's biggest and only newsweekly and between the covers of a bestselling book -- until I read it to you, just this minute. 

And we're supposed to believe these people invented chess.

"Can you ask a question without losing it?" Wendy whispered to me.

"I doubt it," I replied.

When the lawyer recognized me during question time, it was -- I am so not kidding you -- just after he "answered" another question by reiterating his outrage at Whyte's defiance.

"What do you make of such a thing? I ask you?!" the lawyer asked rhetorically, with faux outrage.

I raised my hand, and he nodded at me.

"Well, what I make of it is that there still may be hope for the right to private property in Canada." (Titters from the peanut gallery.)

"In any event," I continued, "can you explain why the man whose name actually appears on all three of these human rights complaints against Maclean's, that is, Mohammad Elmasry, isn't here today? Could it be because you'd like to distance yourselves from him, since he was captured on video declaring that all Israeli civilians were legitimate targets for Muslim terrorists?"

Their lawyer is so stupid, this was his actual answer:

"Why didn't you ask me about the other students who aren't here today because they had to write exams?"

I refrained from replying "They can write??" and said instead,

"Because I don't give a damn about them, I asked you about Elmasry."

"Will you let me answer, madam?"

"Why didn't you just answer when I asked you the first time?"

"That incident was investigated four years ago and was settled. I am representing Mohammed Elmasry here. Why don't you call him on the phone if you want to talk to him so badly!"

Yes, he really did say that. A grown frickin' man. What next? "Marsha, Marsha, Marsha"??

As usual at these events, the best part came just at the end, when all the well rehearsed talking points have been exhausted, the folks on the dais have been forced to (sort of) answer actual questions, but are still a bit buzzed and cocky from being the center of attention for an hour.

First he upted the ante by hinting darkly at "death threats" being made against the Muslim law students. OK, one: that line forms behind me, and two: leave it to these people to get more upset over mere threats of death than about the actual deaths of 3000 people in downtown New York at the hands of their little co-religionists, or the actual deaths of any number of people who've been offed for... publishing stuff Muslims didn't like. No sense of irony, these people.

Just before standing up to go, the lawyer asked us, with unconcealed glee, to remember that the BC Human Rights Commission "could order Maclean's to publish the rebuttal" if Maclean's still refused to run one voluntarily.

RightGirl let out a very loud "tsk."

I let out an even louder "F*ck that shit."

There were more "f*cks" where that came from, down the hall, down the escalator and down the sidewalk.  Oh yes, many many many, yelled by yours truly all along Front Street West. The doormen at the Royal York are probably still wondering who the "mo-fos" are who "need to start their own goddamn magazine."

Listen: if these Muslim students and their puppet masters don't like the imaginary Islamophobia they accuse Maclean's of stirring up by publishing negative reviews of Little Mosque on the Prairie, wait 'till they get a load of the real Muslim-hating they unleash when they de facto shut down Canada's oldest magazine...

A magazine, I'd like to remind them, that was started by Lt. Maclean over 100 years ago, using his own goddamn money without any goddamn taxpayer subsidies and postal breaks and whathaveyou.

That's what intelligent, resourceful people do when they want to "make their voices heard."

Of course, these aren't intelligent, resourceful people we're talking about. These are parasitical victocrats with fifth rate minds, determined to destroy their host nation one magazine, one taxpayer sponsored nuisance suit, one welfare harem, one OHIP-paid-for genital mutilation at a time.

Easier than flying airplanes you could never have invented into buildings you never could have built.

Law school is so much more expensive and time consuming than flying lessons, it's true, but when you're through, you don't even die. You get to take over the country instead. With the citizens footing the bill.

God, I hate living in Canada.

UPDATE: 

Dear Scold,

    Me and a few of my law school cohorts had a term project go a bit wrong and now we are offering hunda to the Islamophobes at Macleans magazine.

    Many of the Islamophobic bloggers are making fun of us and suggesting that we pay the costs of our CHRC complaint and appologize.

    Is this not an insult to Islam?

    Can we behead them?

    Allah Akbar

    Socky al Sockpuppet

    (PS. We are only asking you because our Imam is hiding under the bed afraid that he will be the next victim of the Islamophobe Steyn next, how do you call it, show tune.)