Maclean's defends itself

The Ontario Human Rights Commission is a government agency with the power to impose penalties and sanctions upon private citizens and businesses. Maclean's magazine is a privately owned magazine with the power to impose nothing. But, hey, same difference, as far as the Canadian Islamic Congress's lawyer is concerned:

Critics of the OHRC statement have since complained that the commission made its findings without having first allowed Maclean’s to present its side of the story. This, they allege, is unfair. Ironically, it was Maclean’s editorial management that precipitated our human rights action when they would not allow for a representative response from the Muslim community, a chance to "present their side of the story," if you will, after Maclean’s published Mark Steyn’s ludicrous allegations that Muslims are engaged in a global conspiracy to take over the West in a "bloody" civil war, to colonize the West in the same way that the "white man" did to "Injun" land. This decision by Maclean’s management was upheld by the same individuals who are now critical of the OHRC statement as being in line with freedom of expression.

(Note, by the way, that Mr. Joseph is described as "counsel for...the four Osgoode Hall law students who filed a human rights complaint against Maclean’s magazine." In fact, CIC head Mohamed Elmasry is the complainant, despite his best efforts - successful, it would appear - to make the media believe otherwise.)

The magazine's unforgivable sin is its alleged failure to give the non-complainants an opportunity to respond to Mark Steyn's book excerpt. In an editorial, Maclean's tells its side of the story:

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.

The students complained that the story and the cover image we used, presented a prejudicial and sinister image of the Muslim community and stoked unreasonable fears of a Muslim conspiracy to take over the world. To bolster their complaints they selected a handful of other articles from the magazine that they felt presented an unfair and negative portrayal of Muslim people.

We answered that Steyn's article was an interesting and well-researched essay expressing the opinion of the author. We pointed out that nowhere does it suggest there is a plot for global domination involving the entire Muslim community (in fact, he distinguishes between various factions in the Muslim world, moderate and radical). Furthermore, we had already printed many letters dealing with precisely the same counter-arguments the students were raising. We demonstrated that our magazine is staunchly supportive of peace-loving, law-abiding Islamic-Canadians. Indeed, we have taken several editorial positions explicitly in support of the Muslim community, including the right of Muslim women to wear whatever religious garments they choose, and the merits of public funding for Muslim religious schools. Finally, we explained that Maclean's is dedicated to asking provocative questions and fostering debate on important public issues.

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.

Since that meeting, the students have been communicating an inaccurate version of what transpired. For example, it's not true, as they claim, that we said we would rather go out of business than allow them right of response; we said we'd rather go out of business than allow them to respond entirely on their terms. They claim now that they would have settled for a reasonable right of response; we asked if they were firm in their position, and they said "yes." We were prepared to give them an opportunity to have their say, but they gave us no opening for reasonable conciliation. Several weeks later, we learned they had complained to federal human rights authorities, and to similar commissions in British Columbia and Ontario.

Since we all have the inalienable right to get our responses published in newspapers and magazines now, has Mark Steyn threatened a human-rights complaint if the CIC won't publish his articles in their newsletter?

Damian P.

Posted by damian at April 18, 2008 07:18 AM