Canadian Islamic Congress human rights complaint
Main article: Human rights complaints against Maclean's Magazine
In 2007, a complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission related to an article "The Future Belongs to Islam", [33] written by Mark Steyn, published in Maclean's magazine. The complainants alleged that the article and Maclean’s refusal to provide space for a rebuttal violated their human rights. Further complaints were filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission refused in April 2008 to proceed, saying it lacked jurisdiction to deal with magazine content. However, the Commission stated that it, “strongly condemns the Islamophobic portrayal of Muslims . . .. . . . Media has a responsibility to engage in fair and unbiased journalism.” [34] Critics of the Commission claimed that Maclean's and Steyn had been found guilty without a hearing. John Martin of The Province wrote, "There was no hearing, no evidence presented and no opportunity to offer a defence -- just a pronouncement of wrongdoing." [35]
From June 2 to June 6, 2008, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal heard a similar complaint made to it; a ruling is pending.
The complaint before the Canadian Human Rights Commission has not been dealt with in final form as of June 2008. However, on April 2, 2008, the head of the Commission issued a public letter to the editor of MacLeans magazine. In it, Jennifer Lynch said, "Mr. Steyn would have us believe that words, however hateful, should be given free reign. History has shown us that hateful words sometimes lead to hurtful actions that undermine freedom and have led to unspeakable crimes. That is why Canada and most other democracies have enacted legislation to place reasonable limits on the expression of hatred."[36]
Yes, the Steyn “trial” is completely surreal - it is devoid of proper legal procedures, with merely a 3-member tribunal of leftwing activists presiding over a show trial which will institute a contemptible level of censorship of any publication that dares to criticize Islamo-fascists:
http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/06/06/liveblogging-the-macleans-trial-v-stand-and-deliver/
I wish the MacLean’s lawyers had presented only the most minimal defense, simply arguing against the right of the tribunal to adjudicate free expression issues at all. But I guess they have to make all their arguments that might be grounds for legal appeal if/when this decision goes against them.