Maclean's magazine dodged a bullet -- the human rights complaint lodged against it by some aggrieved Muslim law student over a Mark Steyn diatribe against Islam will go no further in Ontario.

However, that doesn't mean the Ontario Human Rights Commission is fine with the article. Far from it.

Here's the OHRC's April 9 news release.

Here's the full statement.

If you care to review earlier posts:

Where the commission gets it wrong, IMO, is with its apparent inability to differentiate between reportage and commentary.

Steyn's piece was an excerpt from his book America Alone. The Maclean's article, published in October 2006, was headlined The Future Belongs To Islam.

First of all, the commission described the articles as "Islamophobic," defined as "a form of racism that includes stereotypes, bias or acts of hostility towards Muslims and the viewing of Muslims as a greater security threat on an institutional, systemic and societal level."

Much of the outcry in this case centred on the possible curtailment of freedom of expression by opening up the media to human rights tribunals. Here's the full text of what the commission has to say on that issue:

The Commission supports freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, as enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Freedom of expression is recognized as a cornerstone of a functioning democracy. It promotes many societal values and has a role in individual self-fulfillment, attaining the truth, securing participation by members of society in social and political decision-making, and maintaining a balance between stability and change in society.

It is often said that with rights come responsibilities. It is the Commission’s view that the media has a responsibility to engage in fair and unbiased journalism. Bias includes both an unfair and one-sided portrayal of an issue as well as prejudicial attitudes towards individuals and groups based on creed, race, place of origin, ethnic origin and other Code grounds. Freedom of expression should be exercised through responsible reporting and not be used as a guise to target vulnerable groups and to further increase their marginalization or stigmatization in society.

In Canada, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute, nor should it be. There are examples of reasonable limits on the right that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Human rights codes themselves contain some limits on the right. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act that prohibits the telephonic spreading of hatred or contempt on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination is a justifiable limit on freedom of expression. The Criminal Code also puts limits on freedom of speech in order to deal with situations it defines as hate crimes.

The Ontario Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination and harassment in five social areas: (1) goods, services and facilities, (2) housing accommodation, (3) employment, (4) contracts and (5) membership in unions, trade and vocational associations. The Code cannot prevent people from holding intolerant views but does prohibit people from acting on them when one of the above social areas is engaged.

Section 13 of the Code makes it illegal to display or publish certain kinds of offensive material. But its limits on freedom of expression are narrow. For the Code to apply, the offending item must be a notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other similar representation that indicates an intent to infringe, or incite others to infringe, a right under the Code. Therefore, a sign would fall within this section, but a five-page article conveying the same message would not.

Limits to freedom of expression under some other human rights legislation in Canada are broader, stating that no person shall publish, issue or display before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol or other representation.

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.

Steyn isn't a reporter. He's a columnist, one who writes from a conservative perspective. He's paid to have a point of view, which by definition means some form of bias.

While Steyn is a very witty guy, he went off the deep end in his writings on his old patron Conrad Black when the latter was on trial, and some of his writings in the piece in question are themselves questionable at best. For example:

I wonder how many pontificators on the "Middle East peace process" ever run this number:

The median age in the Gaza Strip is 15.8 years.

Once you know that, all the rest is details. If you were a "moderate Palestinian" leader, would you want to try to persuade a nation -- or pseudo-nation -- of unemployed poorly educated teenage boys raised in a UN-supervised European-funded death cult to see sense? Any analysis of the "Palestinian problem" that doesn't take into account the most important determinant on the ground is a waste of time.

The OHRC itself didn't give any examples of Islamophobia within the Steyn piece. I guess the above excerpt could be considered Islamophobic by the commission's definition, but it's Steyn's point of view -- dubious though it may be.

Free and open debate will sometimes mean foolish and offensive things will be said. But perhaps the way to deal with that is to have more debate.

Here's how a Globe and Mail editorial from Friday outlined the genesis of the complaint:

The Canadian Islamic Congress demanded not only an opportunity to reply, but also equal space in Maclean's with full control over the editing and front-cover promotion. When this was reasonably refused, the CIC complained to the human rights commissions of Canada, Ontario and British Columbia.

The Canadian Islamic Congress has a website. If you can find the response it would have liked to submit to Maclean's anywhere on it, please shoot me a link.

It did find room for a news release in which it heartily endorsed the OHRC's findings.

More to come (sleepy time) ...