Four students, one current and three recent graduates of Osgoode Hall, have launched human rights complaints against Maclean’s magazine for an article entitled, “The Future Belongs to Islam,” by Mark Steyn.
Below is a recent article from the National Post, giving a brief summary of the situation and an overview of the law students’ position.
Essentially their research has shown that the article in question is not an isolated piece; on the contrary, Maclean’s has published many editorials with similar discriminatory content and slanderous allegations directed towards the Muslim community.
All we want is a chance to respond
Naseem Mithoowani, Khurrum Awan, Muneeza Sheikh and Daniel Simard, National Post Published: Thursday, December 20, 2007
On Dec. 4, the four of us announced that we had launched human rights complaints against Maclean’s with respect to its October, 2006 article, “The Future Belongs to Islam,” written by Mark Steyn. In light of the attention our complaints are receiving — most recently, through an article by Ezra Levant published on these pages (“Censorship in the name of human rights,” Dec. 18)–clarifications are in order.
First, it is important to examine the actual content and thesis of Mr. Steyn’s article. Its basic premise is that, just as the “white man settled the Indian territory,” Muslims in the West are poised to take over entire societies, and the “only question is how bloody the transfer of real estate will be.”
Perhaps the Maclean’s article is best summed up by the following extract, in which Mr. Steyn inserts what he terms the “obligatory” of courses: “Of course, not all Muslims are terrorists — though enough are hot for jihad to provide an impressive support network of mosques from Vienna to Stockholm to Toronto to Seattle. Of course, not all Muslims support terrorists — though enough of them share their basic objectives.”
What should we do when a Canadian magazine publishes an article alleging that many Muslims are “hot for jihad,” and that they share the same basic goals of terrorists? True to Canada’s tradition of free speech, we decided to engage Mr. Steyn in a debate about his views.
We decided to follow the example of the Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC), a small but strident group of self-described “liberal secular Muslims,” which has come to the defence of Maclean’s. In its most recent media release, the MCC advised: “Mark Steyn’s article was definitely alarmist, but the answer to his challenge is to write a counter piece and demand that Maclean’s publish it.”
Unfortunately, the MCC’s advice came about nine months too late. On March 30, 2007, we met with Maclean’s senior editors and proposed that they publish a response from a mutually acceptable source. The response was negative, which resulted in our human rights complaints.
In his National Post article, Mr. Levant devotes much attention to the importance of freedom of expression in Canadian society. We agree, which is why we asked Maclean’s for an opportunity to debate Mr. Steyn. It is also why Mr. Steyn is not a party to any of our human rights complaints. We haven’t asked him for an apology or a retraction. Neither have we filed hate-speech complaints against him. He is free to do and say as he pleases.
What we did ask for, however, was an opportunity for the Muslim community to participate in the “free marketplace” of ideas. It is our belief that in its truest form, freedom of expression results in a lively debate among all interested parties — not just among those who play by their own exclusionary rules. If Maclean’s wants to publish articles alleging that many Muslims are “hot for jihad,” it has to provide an opportunity to respond.
This issue isn’t about attacking journalists or stifling free expression. It’s about ensuring that our media outlets provide a forum for open debate and argument. While we do not agree with Mr. Levant’s characterizations — and he may not agree with our position — the very fact that we can respond to one another in the same publication shows that some media outlets still value the showcasing of differing opinions. It is our hope that, as a result of these human-rights complaints, Maclean’s can join their ranks.
Here’s a tip to the 4 students- start your own mag! Who told you you have the right to demand that privately owned media is at your beck and call? Macleans isn’t the CBC.
It could be that these 4 have done us all a favour. By picking on Steyn and Macleans they’ve comeup against a pairing that won’t back down and consequently we’re going to get some light shone into the dark and dank recesses of these ‘Human Rights Commissions’ and their absurd PC bias.
I hear the sound fo backfiring. It is a nice sound. More, please, more.
Jez, when Canadian citizens characterize our tribunals as “dark and dank recesses of these ‘Human Rights Commissions’ and their absurd PC bias,” I think you make the case that these two should have been challenged a long time ago.
It is, perhaps, surprising that the EU country with the largest percentage of nominal Muslims, Turks and Bulgarian Muslims [decendents of Slav converts to Islam] and Tatars and Circassians, the Republic of Bulgaria, has been spared Islamist extremism [so far as I am aware – a while ago there WAS a one-off report that a “Bulgarian” Muslim had been implicated in a terrorist plot in Germany but the story then sank without trace.]
In Bulgaria, the party identified with the Turkish-minority interest, the Movement for Rights and Freedoms, is part of the unweildy but functioning governing coalition and the Deputy Prime Minister [and Minister with Responsibility for Disasters] is a woman of that minority – she sometimes wears a headscarf and sometimes she is bareheaded.
If there is a model for the integration of Muslims into European society, it is just possible that Bulgaria, the poorest and shabbiest member of the EU, might provide a model.
On the other hand, an outspokenly xenophobic anti-Turk, anti-Roma, anti-Eu, anti-NATO party, ATAKA, has the support of 10% – 26% of the electorate [the higher figure was obtained when they ran the only opposition candidate for the Presidency and there was a low turnout at the ballot box due to a general feeling of boredom with politics of any kind.]
Bill Corr
Dobrich, Bulgaria
billycorr@hotmail.com
DWPittelli: Yes, when this occurs domestically, this action usually follows. The citation of the Criminal Code was in response to his site, “Free Mark Steyn,” as his freedom is not at stake. The hypotheticals you propose are not at issue.
Ron: all it takes is one.
Vince P: Thank you for the links. This is a Law 101 site, so we will humour you a brief answer. Statements in Iran are obviously ultra vires to any tribunal in Canada. The context and delivery of these statements also appear markedly different than the ones in question here.
ActualLawyer: Appears from your IP address that you are from the US, like all the other readers here. As one of the other readers noted above, we do have slightly different perspectives about “free speech” in Canada.