What made Budd Schulberg run

Cineastes can’t acknowledge the power of his work because of a decision he made in 1951

by Mark Steyn on Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:40am - 65 Comments

They were pretty good seats, too. As a 20-year-old Dartmouth student, Schulberg visited the Soviet Union and was shown its artistic glories. He fell in love with the theatre of Vsevolod Meyerhold, Stanislavski’s wayward disciple. Meyerhold loved the older stylized dramatic forms—commedia dell’arte, pantomime—and refused to confine himself to Socialist Realism. So in 1939 Stalin had him arrested, tortured and his wife murdered. He was shot by firing squad in February 1940.

How about that? Executed over a difference of opinion about a directing style. As “persecution” goes, isn’t that a little more thorough than, say, being denied a writing credit on Hellcats of the Navy, as happened to Bernard Gordon? More to the point, if it’s all about “personal loyalty,” then what about the loyalty owed to Meyerhold by all those young American artistic lefties he befriended and inspired? Or is the “personal loyalty” owed not to persons but to the noble cause, in service of which any individual is dispensable? Even today, we continue to draw a distinction between Nazism and Communism—between the bad evil and the good evil, the evil that’s philosophically sound, admirably progressive and just ran into one or two problems on the ground, like a great movie idea that went off course in development.

In 1937, Schulberg wrote a short story about an ambitious kid on the make in Hollywood, and then decided to expand it into a novel. Demonstrating the same hands-on approach as Comrade Stalin with Meyerhold, the Communist Party told him to ease up on the Jewishness of the central character, and portray the striking screenwriters more appealingly. Happily, the American Commies lacked the enforcement regime of Uncle Joe. So Schulberg refused, and published What Makes Sammy Run? as written. In essence, he broke with the Reds for artistic reasons.

But he learned a broader lesson in the way they operate. The great speech in On The Waterfront comes in the back of a cab, as Terry Malloy (Brando) lays out the reasons for his failures, as a boxer and as a man.

“That skunk we got you for a manager,” says his mobster brother Charley (Rod Steiger). “He brought you along too fast.”

“It wasn’t him, Charley, it was you,” Terry replies. “You remember that night in the Garden, you came down to my dressing room and said, ‘Kid, this ain’t your night. We’re going for the price on Wilson.’ You remember that? ‘This ain’t your night!’ My night! I coulda taken Wilson apart! So what happens? He gets the title shot outdoors in the ballpark—and what do I get? A one-way ticket to Palookaville . . . I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am . . .”

It’s beautifully muscular prose that achieves a kind of blue-collar poetry. It’s Brando’s signature scene, and Schulberg’s surest claim to a place in the pantheon. It’s too good not to admire, and yet, even in their acknowledgement of its power, the cineastes can’t quite go all the way with Terry Malloy and acknowledge why it’s great—as if somehow the Schulberg who wrote one of the best screenplays of its era and the Schulberg who “rat-finked” on the Hollywood Reds are two hermetically sealed entities rather than entirely consistent, the one being the logical consequence of the other.

A few days after Schulberg died, a man called Kenneth Gladney went to congressman Russ Carnahan’s “town hall meeting” in St. Louis to protest plans for health-care “reform.” He was set upon by Democratic enforcers from the Service Employees International Union and so badly beaten that, at the time of writing, he’s in a wheelchair. He happens to be black, and the SEIU goons taunted him with racial epithets. But it doesn’t matter. He committed the same sin as Terry Malloy or Budd Schulberg. He broke with “his” gang, and must pay the price.

Budd Schulberg was a lifelong liberal, but, unlike most of his comrades, he understood the artist’s obligation to live in truth—and he found a terrific way to tell the story. If it’s any consolation to his detractors, the studio bosses who enforced the blacklist didn’t get it either. Kazan and Schulberg took On The Waterfront to Darryl Zanuck, head honcho at 20th Century Fox. Zanuck turned them down. “Who,” he said, “gives a shit about longshoremen?”

Bookmark and Share
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

    Steyn's journey back through far-right time continues. First he's reviving the domino theory in Vietnam; now it's McCarthy redux; what's next? Demanding answers for the Reichstag fire?

    • LadyinVA

      History isn't your strong suit, is it?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

        There are ladies in Virginia?

    • LadyinVA

      History isn't your strong suit, is it?

  • Classwarrior

    Re: Kenneth Gladney

    Gee mark, you don't do much fact checking do you? Take a look:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK0eFXa1nX4&fe…

    Next assignment: Stop being a stenographer for the Israeli lobby in Washington.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/KimberlySmith KimberlySmith

      Yes stop that and start being a troll for Aryan Nation and the Muslim Brotherhood instead like…ahem…..Classwarrior. Who collects the beer cans from the trailer park while you vomit online?

    • Fun fact

      As was pointed out in that video, Mr Gladney is seeking donations to help pay for his medical treatment, because he has no health insurance.

    • Barbara West

      Don't stop Mark! I cannot believe the two-faced behaviour of the lib left. They are able to ignore the killing of people by their own people; accept honour killings; and, want to accept these people into Canadian society who in turn want us to run our country by their rules. Too bad there are no Schulberg's & Kazan's around today. When a parasite is loose in our midst it needs to be revealed!
      Aunt 'B'

  • Stephen

    "…we continue to draw a distinction between Nazism and Communism—between the bad evil and the good evil, the evil that’s philosophically sound, admirably progressive and just ran into one or two problems on the ground, like a great movie idea that went off course in development."

    Who is "we" and where are "our" descriptions of "Communism" as "the good evil" ?

    In fact, what passes for free-market capitalism these days is a better candidate for a "sound" and "progressive" evil that has just "run into one or two problems on the ground."

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

      http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/15-…

      here is 1.5 million more little problems on the ground….doesn't sound "progressive" or seem "sound" at all.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

        oh we are cheering for poverty now????

        • Stephen

          I think "we" are no more cheering for poverty than "we" are declaring Communism "the good evil."

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

            i think that capitalism, as practiced, is every bit as flawed as applications of communism have been….

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    Loved the piece. A very fitting obituary.

    The final line encapsulates the left to perfection.

  • Anon

    Gee mark, you don't do much fact checking do you?

    Facts are for little people.

    I didn't read this latest piece of Steynian effluvia. Did he libel anyone?

    • JimmyF

      That's right. Don't bother reading the article. That would be too tough for the old noggin.

  • Floridabob

    Death, destruction and despair brought by "progressives" and Communism cut an irreparable swath through civilized humanity in the last century, continuing to this day in hellholes such as N. Korea. Stalin's attempts to infiltrate American institutions after WWII are well documented should one examine the record honestly. "Progressive" Hollywood's blatant dishonesty, and lack of interest, about the real record of Communism is evidence enough of how "courageous" the current crop of lefties is. I love the ease with which Mark Steyn gets under such thin skins.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

      Assuming a bit of basic honesty, you have to distinguish between Americans who joined the Communist party in the 1930's and 1940's, before the horror of Stalinism was well known, and those (extremely few) who endorsed it even after the truth came out, 1956, 1968, etc. And, of course, practically nobody endorses Communism today and maybe three or four people are apologists for Stalin. Talk about beating a dead horse. Meanwhile we have one M. Steyn writing nostalgically about Joe McCarthy, even though domestic Communism was never, ever a threat to the United States and the whole sick farce was manifestly a mini version of totalitarianism, in which only a right-wing lunatic could revel. I think Steyn has laid his cards on the table with this piece: far from being a defender of freedom, he would actually endorse any amount of State control over public opinion, provided he approved of the State's agenda. That's the real message here, and it's what Americans can look forward to if the Glenn Beck / Steyn / Limbaugh lunatics ever con their way into power again. Fortunately their capitalist masters won't tolerate lunacy for long, but it would be a rather disturbing episode if it ever came to pass. I would prefer it if the stakes were lower.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

        The piece is about Budd Schulberg, a famous Hollywood screenwriter who recently died.

        The McCarthy era defined a great part of his life since he was villified for "ratting out" Hollywood Communists. This was in 1951, incidentally, well after the truth of Stalinism was known and shortly before Stalin died. Schulberg did this because he had been pressured to make his writing more favorable to Communism, according to his testimony.

        Steyn is writing about a great artist and the events that marked his life. It is ridiculous and somewhat repulsive that you are pretending McCarthyism and Communism are akin to "beating a dead horse" in this context, with an ensuing rant about "right-wing lunatics" and a couple of talk-show hosts.

      • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

        The piece is about Budd Schulberg, a famous Hollywood screenwriter who recently died.

        The McCarthy era defined a great part of Schulberg's life since he was villified for "ratting out" Hollywood Communists. This was in 1951, incidentally, well after the truth of Stalinism was known and shortly before Stalin died. Schulberg did this because he had been pressured to make his writing more favorable to Communism by a cadre of said communists-in-the-closet, according to his testimony.

        Steyn is writing about a great artist and the events that marked his life. It is ridiculous and somewhat repulsive that you are pretending McCarthyism and Communism are akin to "beating a dead horse" in this context, with an ensuing rant about "right-wing lunatics" and a couple of talk-show hosts.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

          And why, pray tell, dear Gaunilon, has M. Steyn selected Budd Schulberg as the subject of his column, if not to vent against the Communists of 1948, as though they had anything to do with anything?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

            Two simple answers:

            (1) Budd Schulberg died earlier this month. When a great man dies, it's not uncommon a columnist to write about his life, particularly when said columnist knows that the man's peers will try to ignore the event because they lack the character to appreciate his life.

            (2) Communism is neither dead nor irrelevant today; rather it been a major factor in shaping the world of today for good or ill. It has much to do with everything, and in this case it has a lot to do with the late artist whose life Steyn is honouring.

          • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

            Two simple answers:

            (1) Budd Schulberg died earlier this month. When a great man dies, it's not uncommon for a columnist to write about his life, particularly when said columnist knows that the man's peers will try to ignore the event because they lack the character to appreciate his life.

            (2) Communism is neither dead nor irrelevant today; rather it been a major factor in shaping the world of today for good or ill. It has much to do with everything, and in this case it has a lot to do with the late artist whose life Steyn is honouring.

          • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

            Two simple answers:

            (1) Budd Schulberg died earlier this month. When a great man dies, it's not uncommon for a columnist to write about his life, particularly when said columnist knows that the man's peers will try to ignore the event because they lack the character to appreciate his life.

            (2) Communism is neither dead nor irrelevant today; rather it has been a major factor in shaping the world of today for good or ill. It has much to do with everything, and in this case it has a lot to do with the late artist whose life Steyn is honouring.

          • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

            Two simple answers:

            (1) Budd Schulberg died earlier this month. When a great man dies it's not uncommon for a columnist to write about his life, particularly when said columnist knows that the man's peers will try to ignore the event because they lack the character to appreciate his life.

            (2) Communism is neither dead nor irrelevant today; rather it has been a major factor in shaping the world of today for good or ill. It has much to do with everything, and in this case it has a lot to do with the late artist whose life Steyn is honouring.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

            "Communism is neither dead nor irrelevant"

            Give me a break. You might as well say that Nazism is neither dead nor irrelevant. To be sure, the impulses that gave birth to both are still with us, but both movements are as dead as doornails.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

            Other than the few insignificant countries ruled by communism, you mean. Like China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba. I assure you, it's not insignificant to the millions living in fear of their lives for adhering to beliefs incompatible with Communism.

            But no matter. I'm sure you can see (even if you won't admit it) that Communism and McCarthysim are relevant to the life of Budd Schulberg, and therefore that your criticisms of Steyn for even bringing the matter up were quite irrational.

          • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

            Other than the few insignificant countries ruled by communism, you mean. Like China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba. I assure you it's not insignificant to the millions living in fear of their lives in those countries for adhering to beliefs incompatible with Communism.

            But no matter. I'm sure you can see (even if you won't admit it) that Communism and McCarthysim are relevant to the life of Budd Schulberg, and therefore that your criticisms of Steyn for even bringing the matter up were quite irrational.

          • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

            Other than the few insignificant countries ruled by communism, you mean. Like China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba. I assure you it's not insignificant to the millions living in fear of their lives in those countries for adhering to beliefs incompatible with Communism.

            But no matter. I'm sure you can see (even if you won't admit it) that Communism and McCarthyism are relevant to the life of Budd Schulberg, and therefore that your criticisms of Steyn for even bringing the matter up were quite irrational.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

            Of course they are relevant to the sainted life of Budd Schulberg, whoever he was (screenwriter for On the Waterfront? Oh), which is precisely why Steyn is reveling in his obituary here. If Schulberg had not cooperated with McCarthy, i.e. gone along with America's closest brush with State thought control, he would not be Steyn's hero du jour.

            If you think China and Vietnam are communist countries, it's basically pointless arguing with you. As to Cuba and North Korea, they have about as much relevance to contemporary politics as Bolivia and the CAR.

          • scf

            he would not be Steyn's hero du jour So what?

            Nice to see your excessive sympathies for the Koreans and the Cubans.

          • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

            Two simple answers:

            (1) Budd Schulberg died earlier this month. When a great man dies it's not uncommon for a columnist to write about his life, particularly when said columnist knows that the man's peers will try to ignore the event because they lack the character to appreciate his life.

            (2) Communism is neither dead nor irrelevant; rather it has been a major factor in shaping today's world for good or ill. It has much to do with everything, and in this case it has a lot to do with the late artist whose life Steyn is honouring.

      • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

        The piece is about Budd Schulberg, a famous Hollywood screenwriter who recently died.

        The McCarthy era defined a great part of Schulberg's life since he was villified for "ratting out" Hollywood Communists. This was in 1951, incidentally, well after the truth of Stalinism was known and shortly before Stalin died, although the villification lasted for decades. Schulberg did this because he had been pressured to make his writing more favorable to Communism by a cadre of said communists-in-the-closet, according to his testimony.

        Steyn is writing about a great artist and the events that marked his life. It is ridiculous and somewhat repulsive that you are pretending McCarthyism and Communism are akin to "beating a dead horse" in this context, with an ensuing rant about "right-wing lunatics" and a couple of talk-show hosts.

      • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

        The piece is about Budd Schulberg, a famous Hollywood screenwriter who recently died.

        The McCarthy era defined a great part of Schulberg's life since he was villified for "ratting out" Hollywood Communists. This was in 1951, incidentally, well after the truth of Stalinism was known and shortly before Stalin died (although the villification lasted for decades). Schulberg did this because he had been pressured to make his writing more favorable to Communism by a cadre of said communists-in-the-closet, according to his testimony.

        Steyn is writing about a great artist and the events that marked his life. It is ridiculous and somewhat repulsive that you are pretending McCarthyism and Communism are akin to "beating a dead horse" in this context, with an ensuing rant about "right-wing lunatics" and a couple of talk-show hosts.

      • BLBeamer

        It boggles my mind to imagine the criticism you could have written if you had bothered to actually read Steyn's piece. Your non sequitor-filled response indicates you have totally missed Steyn's thesis. Is English your native tongue?

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

          Your mind boggles? That would explain the sound of marbles rattling around inside a plastic cup.

        • wayne moores

          Oh, don't ya know, ole crazy jack spends his every waking moment raging and sputtering about everything and anything Steyn writes about. For someone he dismisses out of hand, he sure is obsessed with him. Wonder why. Cheers

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

            It's really no effort.

          • John

            it's nice to read intelligent comments now and then

      • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

        The piece is about Budd Schulberg, a famous Hollywood screenwriter who recently died.

        The McCarthy era defined a great part of Schulberg's life since he was villified for "ratting out" Hollywood Communists. This was in 1951, incidentally, well after the truth of Stalinism was known and shortly before Stalin died (although the villification lasted for decades). Schulberg did this because he had been pressured to make his writing more favorable to Communism by a cadre of said communists-in-the-closet, according to his testimony. It was a gutsy and costly move, and one which many Hollywood patricians still refuse to tolerate.

        Steyn is writing about a great artist and the events that marked his life. It is ridiculous and somewhat repulsive that you are pretending McCarthyism and Communism are akin to "beating a dead horse" in this context, with an ensuing rant about "right-wing lunatics" and a couple of talk-show hosts.

  • Mike Maguire

    mordenm – I think Steyn's point is that the Studio Management made the blacklist, not the State. The difference between the Hollywood era of the 1950's and our Canadian experience is that the head of Warner Bros. couldn't enter your home, search your residence, compel you to testify against yourself, fine you, jail you or order you to cease certain types of censored communications – the Canadian HRC's can and do. As for the lazy stab you take at comparing the Canadian experience to 'most societies' – surely you're capable of understanding that allowing the State to set the boundaries of non-criminal speech is the same as having no free speech at all – have we sunk that low in Canada that it's OK to brag that we're not worse than so and so's banana republic?

  • MisterStiffy

    I have not ever been able to understand how the Soviet Communists could murder millions of their fellow-citizens and yet, even to this very day, zealots on the Left in the United States defend the philosophy of Communism while ripping people like Mr Steyn when they point out its discrepancies and hypocrisies. Capitalism is not a perfect system but at least its citizens are free to make their own mistakes and not worry about the Siberian Gulag. Communists have killed millions of their fellow-citizens "for the cause." Capitalists make money, fight for the freedom, and produce citizens like Mr. W.C. Fields who said, "Never give a sucker [Communist] an even break." Yeah. That's the ticket.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    Loved the piece -a very fitting obituary.

  • Grant

    The struggle was never between Capitalism and Communism, as the propagandists would have people believe. It was a fight between Communism and Democracy. It is better understood in those more realistic and genuine terms.

    • Markus

      You are right, Grant. Capitalism is not an "ism" like communism. It's not something imposed from above and maintained by force. It's just what happens when people are allowed to do what they want with what they own.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

    Dalton Trumbo. Johnny Got His Gun.

    Please, Mr. Steyn. Another obituary. Please.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

    That is if you can find time among your many part-time jobs…

    http://mediamatters.org/limbaughwire/2009/08/18#0…

    However can you afford health insurance ?

  • Revnant Dream

    Thanks for a wonderful article Mr. Steyn. You really brought this guys soul to light. Including his triumphs & woes.

    Not to mention an era all too misunderstood. A World so frightened from near past tyrants. Reacting to those who survived, brining us to the brink of Nuculer war.
    Communists killed mega millions. People today forget that.
    Folks have forgotten a lot, most never want to know what..

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

    So I'm saying Steyn chose to write his obituary because it's an excuse to laud McCarthyism.

    Where are you sympathies for the Bolivians and the people of the Central African Republic? They don't count, eh?

  • ConfederacyofDunces

    People on the left understandably found the fearmongering and political grandstanding that McCarthy engaged in as head of the HUAC to be aesthetically unappealing, because McCarthy was an unrefined lout. Whereas Socialism and Communism has always had a romantic appeal to people long on superficial ideals and short on facts. One fact they conveniently omit is the recollection that McCarthy himself was initially primarily a product ofrough and tumble head breaking socialist labor union support in the Allis Chalmers factories in Milwaukee , which gave him his national political start.

    Also conveniently forgotten is the incomprehensible magnitude of atrocities committed by the totalitarian paranoid Stalin in the name of the Communist Party until his death in the 50s which resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of innocent people, not counting those killed in the conflict with Nazi Germany.

    When you tattle on "useful idiots" unwittingly assisting a mass murderer, in retrospect it doesn't seem quite so distasteful does it?
    But it doesn't matter. The left loves its mythology more than they love truth, their "good" intentions more than their bad results.

  • Chris

    It's good to see the lefties above demonstrating the vileness of the left yet again.

  • answerman

    Hey classwarrior
    Since when does a youtube video qualify as fact checking?

  • http://www.whatmakessammyrun.net Robert Armin

    Joe McCarthy was a Senator. HUAC was a committee in the House of Representatives. McCarthy (despite lending his name to the entire era) had absolutely nothing to do with HUAC or the investigation of Hollywood "Communists." The REAL villains were the Congressmen on the committee (incuding a young Richard Nixon) and the studio bosses who bowed to their tyrrany. I'll bet not one in a thousand Hollywood "liberals" has any idea of who J. Parnell Thomas was. He was the head of the HUAC committee who was already serving a prison sentence for taking kick-backs BEFORE two of the Hollywood Ten (Lester Cole and Ring Lardner, Jr.) arrived to serve their prison for refusing to answer HUAC questions.

    Kazan and Schulberg have remained liberal scapegoats for half a century because it was easier to remember just two names than all of the other people who were "Friendly Witnesses." Jerome Robbins and Abe Burrows were every bit as "friendly," but no one in Hollywood would boycott one of their works.

    Schulberg was both a great writer and an honorable man and deserves to be recognized as such. I'm proud to have known him.

  • Sam H

    Bravo Mr. Steyn, bravo.

  • Pablo over the seas

    A good read again thanks Mark

  • norm

    Nice obit.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_N M_A_N

    Don't forget, Mark, next time you're brought up before the HRC, feel free to name names.
    You'll be doing a service for your country, and nobody will think any less of you. Really, we won't.

  • http://knacelebritylacewigs.com lace wigs

    excellent article which demonstrates that some people never really move anywhere spiritually in their lives from the time they are younger to when they die. this guy had some questionable values.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/mordenm mordenm

    'I forbore to suggest to Lynda that the Hollywood blacklist was not what most societies would recognize as “persecution.”'

    The Canadian Human Rights Commission isn't what most societies would recognize as "persecution" either, just an occasionally-unjustifiable imposition. But that hasn't stopped Steyn from penning his unceasing sob story, nor portraying himself as the hunted hero of a guerilla war. Self-aggrandizement and disproportionality look the same on the Left and Right, I'm afraid.

  • Grant

    Budd Schulberg certainly did the right thing in naming those idiots for betraying their country, and they should have spent time in jail for treason and espionage. Let's hope that the record will one day show how brave men like Schulberg and Elia Kazan really were.

  • Jay

    Can you see no difference between a private business or industry refusing to hire someone, and persecution by a government with the power to imprison a person or forcibly confiscate his property?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    Actually taking someone's property and throwing them in jail if they continue to voice thought-crimes is generally regarded as genuine persecution.

    Granted, it's not quite Stalin-style persecution in which the perpetrator gets killed and his family sent to slavery in the Gulag, but it's definitely persecution.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    Actually taking someone's property and throwing them in jail if they continue to voice thought-crimes is generally regarded as genuine persecution.

    Granted, it's not quite Stalin-style persecution in which the perpetrator gets killed and his family sent to slavery in the Gulag, but it's definitely persecution, just not as far left (or "progressive", to use the politically correct term for you).

  • wayne moores

    Ah, yet another person who sees a show trial by our kangaroo court(HRC) as a mere piffle as long as they go after Steyn or anyone else who doesn't hold the same politically correct views as them. Sad really, when someone is so obsessed that they can't see the real threat to our freedom of speech and thought. I might invoke a dusty old cliche by Voltaire but I suspect the irony would be lost. Cheers.

  • John

    The CHC has been well exposed by others than M Steyn…it is an unaccountable kangaroo court which feels obliged to 'change thought'……no different from the book burners except the so-called Human Rights minions would erase more than the written word.,

From Macleans