The hell they didn’t.
Read the prologue to his 2006 book: charges were pending at that time and he was facing prosecution for “hate speech.”
So they were dismissed.
It’s an odd set of laws where a writer can be fined and even imprisoned for expressing a political opinion, if that opinion offends an easily offended ideology like Islam.
Canada is too much like England.
PS
Here you go, snowy: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/item_6dD0aACtm0IHKpZ76wqqaM;jsessionid=004303DCD4B9399FC967EED02CA1E0B4
“The plaintiffs allege that Maclean’s advocated, among other things, the notion that Islamic culture is incompatible with Canada’s liberalized, Western civilization. They insist such a notion is untrue and, in effect, want opinions like that banned from publication.”
Heh.
The most extraordinary thing, I think, about your “political writings and expressions” star chamber is that it prosecutes “homophobic” speech as diligently as it ferrets out “Islamaphobic” writings, images, public comments, etc.
And the two things are incompatible.
Steyn makes this point: How do you think the Democrat base—women, gays, etc.—would like living under sharia law?
As he puts it, we conservatives, well, we grow beards, take on a couple more wives, hide the beer & scotch—no big thing.
So Canada’s speech star chamber summons Steyn in order to weigh and determine whether banning any and all speech critical of Islam is “incompatible with Canada’s liberalized, Western civilization.”
And then they dismissed it. Good on them. The complaint should have been promptly placed in the round file.
But no one expects the Canadian inquisition ....
Canadian Islamic Congress’ complaint . Can you read ? It does not say the Canada complaint .
Do you understand the meaning of “ “the views expressed in the Steyn article, when considered as a whole and in context, are not of an extreme nature “ . Obviously not.