ninme

Macleans - Free to speak
Human rights commissions are undermining the fundamental Charter rights of all Canadians. Protest while you still can. FROM THE EDITORS

We published that story because we felt it was a compelling perspective on significant world events, from one of Canada’s most interesting and celebrated journalists. Besides Maclean’s, Steyn’s work has appeared regularly in the Wall Street Journal, the Daily Telegraph, and The Atlantic monthly, to name just a few. His book was an international best-seller, and its author remains a highly sought public speaker all over the world.

Not surprisingly, the article generated enormous reaction from our readers. In the weeks following publication, we printed 27 letters to the editor, reflecting a broad range of opinion on the merits of Steyn’s thesis. This is more letters than we’ve published on any other subject in recent years, and several of those we did publish were part of a campaign run by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Washington and its affiliate in Ottawa. But six months after the story appeared, and long after we believed the debate had subsided, we heard from a group of law students angry about the article, and demanding a meeting. Normally we wouldn’t meet with aggrieved readers regarding a six-month-old story. But because it involved sensitive issues, we agreed to sit down with them and to discuss their concerns.

I think we’ve all heard the story of what happened next.

This did not satisfy the students. They demanded the right to respond with an article of equivalent length, by a writer of their choosing and with a cover of their own design. The editors of this magazine would have no opportunity to edit the article except for spelling and punctuation. According to their terms, they would be free to write anything they wanted, however inaccurate or unreasonable or offensive or libelous or criminal or otherwise unsuited for our publication.

They also wanted a substantial sum of money donated to a charity of their choice. If we refused any of their terms, they said they planned to bring a human rights complaint against us. They said they were also contemplating a criminal action against us.

We told them that we couldn’t possibly meet their demands. No publication could. It would violate an editor’s responsibilities to his publication, his readers, and his profession. We told them we would rather go out of business than to give over complete control of space in the magazine to anyone on such terms. We stand by that decision. Faced with their ultimatum, we asked if there was anything else we could do to satisfy them. They said “no” and smiled.

Interesting. Very interesting.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission announced it would not hold a hearing into the students’ complaints. The commission agreed with our position that it does not have the jurisdiction to hear the case, because this magazine is not a service as defined in the Ontario Human Rights Act (there are minor variations among the provincial human rights acts). However, even as she dismissed the case, chief commissioner Barbara Hall issued a scathing four-page rebuke of Maclean’s and other media outlets, accusing us of being racist and spreading “destructive, xenophobic opinions.”

“Islamophobic attitudes are becoming more prevalent in society and Muslims are increasingly the target of intolerance, including an unwillingness to consider accommodating some of their religious beliefs and practices,” she wrote. “Unfortunately, the Maclean’s article, and others like it, are examples of this.” She accuses us of “portraying Muslims as all sharing the same negative characteristics” and of “perpetuating and promoting prejudice towards Muslims.”

We did nothing of the sort. And if we had any concerns that Steyn’s article might have constituted hate speech, we would not have published it. We consider it deeply troubling that Barbara Hall, or any other government-appointed official, would take it upon themselves to publicly impugn this magazine and its journalists without so much as a hearing. She cited no evidence, considered no counter-arguments, and appointed herself prosecutor, judge and jury in one fell swoop.

Nobody seems to mention what this statement of hers, and her making herself prosecutor, judge, and jury, says about their would-be verdict. Since she feels so strongly that they’re Islamophobic meanies, how likely would it have been that they get a fair trial, hmmm?

As we told the students and the commissions, we believe that HRCs have no business monitoring the work of privately owned publishing concerns. And because we do not believe HRCs should presume to serve as editors-in-chief of Canadian publications, we will not be defending the content of our journalism when we appear before the commission in June. We will simply defend our right to practise journalism, to engage in intelligent, lively, and informative debate on matters great and small, subject to the laws of criminal libel and incitement that rightly protect citizens.

We wish to assure you, our readers, that our commitment to do so remains as strong as ever. And we thank you for your overwhelming support.

Hurrah, Macleans. Honestly, I wonder how a Newsweek or a Time would have reacted to this. I bet they would have folded in a matter of days, if they hadn’t already capitulated at the conference table.