Although the OHRC decided not to hear the complaint against Maclean’s, they have issued a strong condemnation of Islamophobia in the media.

The Human Rights Code in Ontario covers:
(1) goods, services and facilities
(2) housing accommodation
(3) employment
(4) contracts
(5) membership in unions, trade and vocational associations

But the statement issued by the OHRC also said,

The different approaches in various human rights statutes across Canada can send a confusing message and give rise to inconsistencies, depending on where a complaint is filed. For example, it is possible to initiate complaints about a magazine article in more than one province and, if the article appears on the internet, with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It is also unclear what matters trigger the application of the hate law provisions of the Criminal Code.

Clearly more debate on this issue is required in Canada. A comprehensive approach to the issue should be one of the goals. The discussion should be about how narrowly or broadly society places limits on freedom of expression in order to protect the human rights of its vulnerable members.

This statement explains why the complaint was also filed in B.C., where the Code is different and does provide jurisdiction (which Steyn has been puzzled over, despite supposed access to counsel, and the information clearly stated on our site).

In calling a “broader mandate,” the OHRC may also seek to address these issues by expanding its power in the future.

It also demonstrates that the issue of free speech is not a clear cut as some would have us think, especially on issues such as this, and needs greater dialogue and scrutiny.

The Commission’s statement said that this complaint has raised some very important issues that would not otherwise be raised. This call for reform, with the hopeful editorial modifications observed recently by Maclean’s, indicate a high degree of success from the complaint.

We have tried to provide some exchange on this site, and hope that more members of the general public investigate the issue further.

Despite declining to hear the issue, the Commission issued a strong condemnation of Maclean’s,

The Commission is concerned that since the September 2001 attacks, 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.

Unfortunately, the Maclean’s article, and others like it, are examples of this. By portraying Muslims as all sharing the same negative characteristics, including being a threat to ‘the West’, this explicit expression of Islamophobia further perpetuates and promotes prejudice towards Muslims and others. An extreme illustration of this is a “blog” discussion concerning the article that was brought to the attention of the Commission which, among many things, called for the mass killing, deportation or conversion of Muslim Canadians.

The Commission strongly condemns the targeting of Muslims, Arabs, South Asians and indeed any racialized community by the media as being inconsistent with the values enshrined in the Code. The impact on a community both in terms of the intolerant messages being conveyed and the knowledge that society is willing to accept their dissemination is profound. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Racism has confirmed the role of the media in contributing to a sharp increase in Islamophobia and its acceptance as normal in ‘the West’. Further, the Commission’s 2003 report Paying the Price: The Human Cost of Racial Profiling illustrates the social cost of stereotyping to individuals, families, communities and Ontarians as a whole.
(empahsis added)