From a Globe and Mail editorial:

It is easy enough to understand why Muslims took offence in both instances (the Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant cases - BD). The Mohammed cartoons, which prompted violent protests elsewhere after their initial publication, were designed to test the bounds of tolerance. And the excerpt from Mr. Steyn was derided by The Economist as "an alarmist screed" that is "notable for its simplistic demographic projections."

It is perhaps even understandable that Muslim organizations, seeking to use all of the available channels to make known that they had taken offence, would file complaints with human-rights commissions, if only for the publicity. Less clear is why those commissions would take seriously, even for a moment, the notion that privately owned publications do not have the right to offend or that they are required to give equal space to both sides of every issue.

Neither Maclean's nor the Western Standard published materials that incited violence or other injustices against Muslims. They did not violate anyone's human rights. Recognizing this, the commissions should have immediately identified the cases brought to them as nuisance complaints and dismissed them. That they have not done so suggests a change in their mandates is much needed. ...

"It never occurred to us that this instrument, which we intended to deal with discrimination in housing, employment and the provision of goods and services, would be used to muzzle the expression of opinion," Canadian Civil Liberties Association founder Alan Borovoy recently lamented. Yet that is precisely what the commissions are doing - if not through their punishments (typically relatively small fines), then through the public shaming of those deemed to have caused offence, not to mention the legal costs of those who must defend themselves from complaints. It's time to rein them in before further damage is done to Canadians' right to free expression.

It would be interesting to find out how the Globe reacted to the 2002 Alberta Human Rights Commission decision in the case of Harvey Kane and the Jewish Defence League vs. Alberta Report. See the bottom of the Levant post for details.