In the Independent last Sunday, British pundit Johann Hari spared a grudging word of support for his old adversary -- conservative commentator Mark Steyn.

From JohannHari.com (posted June 1, 2008):

Is there anything easier than defending the right to free speech for people you agree with? I love Salman Rushdie’s novels, so arguing against the Islamist fanatics who want to kill him is simple. The real test of your commitment to free speech is whether you defend it for people you detest.

Today, the free speech of a man I loathe is being threatened. A former disk jockey called Mark Steyn is appearing before the British Columbia’s Human Rights Commission. They have the power to punish anybody whose speech is “likely to expose” people to “hatred or contempt.”

They are adjudicating on a book called ‘America Alone’, which I reviewed a year ago. The thesis of the book is that Europe’s Muslims – 3 per cent of the population – are ‘outbreeding’ the rest of us, and are so close to taking over and imposing shariah law there will be “mass evacuations” of white people from France in 2015. He describes as “correct” a friend who talks about “beturbanned prophet-monkeys”, and openly celebrates the birth of “white” babies. (George Bush reportedly gave a copy of the book to all his West Wing staffers.)

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.

But the Islamic students who reported Steyn to the commission have made it look like he must have a strong argument – one so demonic in its force it needs to be shut away behind prison bars. You’re offended? I’m offended. But you are not feeble children. Offend him back, in argument, every day if you like. Oh, and I’m also offended by the passages in the Hadith that call for gay people to be killed. Want to ban them? Thought not.

We can get into a puerile game where we all shriek to silence the people we disagree with. Or we can grow up, and have an argument. That’s why – for today, and only for today – I am standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Mark Steyn.

I would point out Hari made a few, rather substantial errors of fact in his column:

They aren't adjudicating on Steyn's book; the complainants are targeting Maclean's magazine, which published an infamous excerpt in 2006.

Even if they were putting Steyn himself in the hotseat, the commission would have no power whatsoever to have Steyn jailed.

The key point worthy of debate is to what extent you have to be "right" in order to enjoy freedom of expression.

Let's assume Steyn's demographic projections are bunk, as journalism professor John Miller contends.

Hari takes a witty shot at Steyn's claims in one Independent article published on July 13, 2007 entitled Ship of Fools -- about a U.S. neocon cruise:

The idea that Europe is being "taken over" by Muslims is the unifying theme of this cruise. Some people go on singles cruises. Some go on ballroom dancing cruises. This is the "The Muslims Are Coming" cruise – drinks included. Because everyone thinks it. Everyone knows it. Everyone dreams it. And the man responsible is sitting only a few tables down: Mark Steyn.

He is wearing sunglasses on top of his head and a bright, bright shirt that fits the image of the disk jockey he once was. Sitting in this sea of grey, it has an odd effect – he looks like a pimp inexplicably hanging out with the apostles of colostomy conservatism.

Steyn's thesis in his new book, America Alone, is simple: The "European races" i.e., white people – "are too self-absorbed to breed," but the Muslims are multiplying quickly. The inevitable result will be " large-scale evacuation operations circa 2015" as Europe is ceded to al Qaeda and "Greater France remorselessly evolve[s] into Greater Bosnia."

He offers a light smearing of dubious demographic figures – he needs to turn 20 million European Muslims into more than 150 million in nine years, which is a lot of humping.

In a CBC Radio appearance today, Khurrum Awan, one of the law students who helped bring forward the complaint, said Maclean's wouldn't let them "participate in the discussion," so that's why they brought forward the complaint.

However, in an April 30 news release on the Canadian Islamic Congress website, the CIC doesn't exactly define what they want.*

* I stand partly corrected. I found a copy of the offer to settle, which includes this:

1. Maclean’s magazine agrees to publish a mutually acceptable counter view article to its October 2006 cover story, “The Future Belongs to Islam” by Mark Steyn (the “Article”), within a period of three months commencing Wednesday April 30th, 2008.

2. The author of the said counter view article will be one that is mutually agreed upon by Maclean’s Magazine and the Complainants in the human rights complaints submitted
with the British Columbia, Ontario, and Federal Human Rights Commissions. In the event that the parties are unable to agree upon an author, the matter will be referred to a
mediator. The identity of the mediator is to be mutually agreed to by the date of Monday May 12, 2008.

3. The said counter view article will of a length that permits an adequate response to the 4840-word Article.

Maclean's claims that the complainants want control of the cover and to publish a 5,000-word article that can't be edited.

For all the complaints about Maclean's shutting them out of the debate, I ask anyone who reads this to go to the CIC website and find, in 10 seconds or less, the prospective text of any response. Let me know how you do.

As I looke, this headline jumped out at me: ZIONIST ISRAEL AT 60 - A HISTORY BUILT ON ETHNIC CLEANSING 

No loaded language there. But the CIC is about protecting Muslims from stereotyping, not restricting its right to attack Israel.

Here's another news release regarding Maclean's, from April 9, 2008: Ontario Human Rights Commission Acknowledges "islamophobic," "xenophobic" And "destructive" Content In Relation To Maclean's Articles

But there's little explanation on the website of why the human rights complaint was launched, the text of the complaint, or analysis and rebuttal of the article itself, from the time of the article's publication in the Oct. 23, 2006 issue or forward.

If you hunt around, you can (eventually) find this 70-page document: Maclean's Magazine: A case study of media-propagated Islamophobia, which covers Maclean's articles published from 2005 to 2007.

I've reviewed portions of it here, and I must say I was not impressed.

To slightly rephrase what I said earlier, how does one deal with bad journalism that offends an identifiable group (we can leave bad media criticism for another day) if it is merely offensive and/or stupid but not defamatory or criminal hate speech?

The law students and CIC want a huge chunk of Maclean's editorial real estate for a rebuttal. I'm having trouble thinking of any publication or program that would acquiese to such a demand -- or has ever acquiesed to such a demand.

One could also add, should ever acquiese to such a demand.

Maclean's national editor Andrew Coyne said this morning that the complainants were willing to withdraw their complaint if Maclean's accepted the "offer to settle." That raises the following question: Is this more about punishing Maclean's for not knuckling under?

If the CIC wants to be heard in its complaints about Maclean's, why doesn't it make better use of its own website?

There are other options available to the CIC. If it really thinks Maclean's has demonstrated a pattern of anti-Muslim reportage and commentary, then why not organize a boycott? Did they hold a public rally outside the offices of Maclean's? How about a petition?

Maybe none of those approaches would inflict as much damage on Maclean's as the process that has just ended. Maybe this is the human rights equivalent of a SLAPP.

Addendum

I would note there is some divergence on this issue in the Muslim community. From the Muslim Canadian Congress website:

April 10 - MCC shocked at OHRC decision to trumpet Islamist cause