As some of you more politically-active know, this word (for the syndicate of Canadian Human Rights) describes the hatred and bigotry of people aimed toward the degradation of Islamic camaraderie. Recently, this is shown through the discussions of Islam in Canada who viciously attack Mark Steyn for an article in MacLeans magazine. More precisely, the head of the Canadian Islamic Congress has sued MacLeans magazine on grounds of hate speech and inciting discrimination of the Islamic populous. Now let me refrain from claiming Canada’s serious denigration of civil rights regarding freedom of speech, but question the premise of this "hate speech". No quote from the article has been singled out in direct relationship with inciting readers to hate the common Islam. No blurp, no opinion and no distortion of facts have been even interpreted as "hate speech". What these prosecutors are describing as "hate speech" are the unequivocal facts presented throughout the article that lead to an irrevocable conclusion. Statistics, percentages, quotes from imams themselves have been taken into this article and it's jurisdiction to put together a relatively accurate statement that Islam is numerically taking over. No, these people are claiming "hate speech" because MacLeans has refused to produce an editorial in response. Let's put this into perspective, a private media is told that it is obligatory to provide an article from an alternative source. What free speech is there when you are DEMANDED to produce an editorial that isn't under your discretion? Instead of going to many other willing free press such as Toronto Star, Globe & Mail, Calgary Star, National Post or Ottawa Citizen (which they scrupulously did do), they decided to single out MacLeans and force them to post what they wanted. Yes folks, this is Canada for you. These "moderate, educated scholars in Islam" show their true faces when they directly avoid debates. In the entire time Mark Steyn has been attacked for his article being called a radical, neocon, Islamaphobic, racist, fascist or nazi, (which in themselves are synonymous to hate speech) he has not once declined a free open debate with these aggressors. In a recent TVO debut regarding this fiasco, it became apparent that the option for a debate was declined by these very “prosecutors” (3 students who filed the lawsuit). How peculiar and ironic considering these same people "support" freedom of speech. In conclusion you may speculate "why is the title 'Islamaphobia'?". It is a hoax, one giant hoax used by these politically correct activists to silence freedom of speech and censor factual evidence. Discrimination (and incitement of it) has become a means to condone factual information in order to placate a certain growing minority. Ultimately it shows that people prefer to be happy and ignorant than knowledgeable. Who cares about the facts, it's discrimination because it's the inconvenient truth!