Ryerson j-prof John Miller takes a run at the notorious 2006 Maclean's article ("The future belongs to Islam") by conservative polemicist Mark Steyn.

Actually, writing at thejournalismdoctor.ca, Miller also uses the p-word:

... One is tempted by this evidence to conclude that Mr. Steyn’s article was not journalism at all, but a “polemic” – which my dictionary defines as a selective attack. It lacks the discipline of verification.

The result is an article that, in its tone and substance, portrays the influx of Muslim immigrants into Europe and North America as a “threat” to the fabric of Western society and to democracy itself. It alleges, without citing any factual evidence, that Muslims are part of a global conspiracy to take over Western societies, and that all Muslims, because of their beliefs, need to be seen as the enemy because “enough of them” personally share the basic goals of terrorists and provide, through their mosques, a support network for terrorism. They are incapable of being loyal citizens of Western societies and turn to radical “Jihadism” as an inevitable consequence.

A year ago writer Johann Hari reviewed Mr. Steyn’s book, America Alone, from which the Maclean’s excerpt was taken. Writing in The Independent newspaper on June 2, 2008,  he said: “It is a piece of bigotry, based on garbled statistics and ugly prejudices. But free speech includes the right to make claims that are wrong, stupid or abhorrent – or it is no freedom at all. The way to rebut Mark Steyn is through argument. His case is weak; it will never win in an open row. Expose the facts. Rebut his figures. Laugh at his ignorance. The truth is strong; trust it.” 

I agree with that statement with one exception: Maclean’s chose to give Steyn’s views maximum exposure, filling the cover and several pages of a magazine that claims a readership of 3.1 million across Canada . Even if it wanted to (and it plainly doesn’t), the publication would not be able to give counter arguments or factual corrections the same exposure. 

Nor would any other publication in the country.

A few things for tonight:

1. Let's agree that it's a shoddy piece of journalism (I've argued before that in some ways, it's more of a attack on what Steyn sees as the weak, secular, sterile, nanny-state West than it is on Islam). How does it violate the human rights of Muslims in Canada, or of any Canadian or B.C. Muslim in particular?

2. Given that freedom of expression is a fundamental freedom in this country, how does that freedom square with the human rights legislation provisions being relied upon by the Canadian Islamic Congress in this case?

3. Does Miller think freedom of expression is secondary to any identifiable group having a right to have nothing said about them that might upset them?

4. If a group is offended by an article, how much rebuttal space should it get in the publication/broadcast, and how much control should it have over story placement, cover treatment and other aspects?

5. Should the commission find against Maclean's even if the complainants can't show they suffered one documentable act of discrimination brought about by the article's publication?

6. I'd like John to read this from an Alberta Human Rights Commission ruling on a complaint against Alberta Report:

The Panel strongly suggests that Mr. Byfield, as the editor of the magazine, seek out for himself and his staff the information he needs to satisfy himself that he and his publication will not cross the line between what is tolerated and what is discriminatory communication. Of particular interest is the understanding that discrimination is not about the intention of the publisher (in this case); it is about the impact on the vulnerable group, from their point of view (emphasis mine - BD). There are accessible resources to assist him, including the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, legal counsel and private consultants who offer human rights education.

I wrote this in response:

Wow. So if a particular group thinks it is offended by something, then ipso facto, their human rights have been violated?

If that's indeed the correct interpretation, does John feel about that? Or does he think my interpretation is wrong?

7. Does he know if it's true that no complainant has ever lost in bringing a human rights complaint against a media organization? That's what I've heard, but I can't verify it tonight.