Perhaps not as expected, he makes some snide remarks about the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
But he goes even further; on Dec. 12 he said,
…these cockamamie Human Rights Commissions which are an abomination to any free society.
Maybe he thinks they don’t read his blog, or that they share his blatant disregard and respect for the legal system.
We know that he is obviously ignorant of Canadian laws (and ignorance is no excuse), especially when it comes to hate speech. He queries whether the remark above,”typically snubbing manner,” is also “illegal.”
Hardly comes under the definition of slander, especially considering the statements by the Telegraph that he endorses,
Flagrant it is — if, by flagrant you mean abrasive, unapologetic opinion. That’s Steyn’s speciality.
Steyn supporters have even started a Free Steyn movement, completely with petition.
The Criminal Code states,
Public incitement of hatred
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
But since this is a tribunal affair, and not a case being brought by the Crown before a criminal court, Steyn’s freedom is hardly at stake.
Violent hate crimes against Muslims are already on the rise in Canada, and Muslims (or those mistaken for them) are already the largest victims of hate crimes today. It’s a matter of time before an offender attributes their act to incitement by Steyn’s words.
More Tit for That
Steyn also responded to this post earlier today. Most of his comments do not deserve a response. Of course he never heard of this site, it’s intended for first-year law students in Canada. And yes, Daniel Simard is one of our team members and contributors, but the contents and the parties here are distinct from the complaint against Maclean’s.
Likewise, Maclean’s is Ted Rogers’ and Ken Whyte’s magazine. If they don’t want your guys writing on it, that’s their right.
Editorial discretion is not something this site has a problem with. But the editorial support by Maclean’s for content that is at the very least troublesome is something worthy of judicial review.
R. v. Keegstra states,
…while other non-criminal modes of combatting hate propaganda exist, it is eminently reasonable to utilize more than one type of legislative tool in working to prevent the spread of racist expression and its resultant harm. To send out a strong message of condemnation, both reinforcing the values underlying s. 319(2) and deterring the few individuals who would harm target group members and the larger community by communicating hate propaganda, will occasionally require use of the criminal law.
Note that Steyn does not allow commentary on his main site.