[IbnMardhiyah]

For all non-Canadians who haven't been in the loop: ... several months ago Maclean's magazine [one of Canada's national rags] ran an Islamophobic article by right-wing drummer boy Mark Steyn called "The Future Belongs To Islam". It recieved a lot of coverage, and a heck of a lot of replies from both sides of the fence.

The Canadian Islamic Congress [CIC] and a group of law students, frustrated with Macleans' uber-conservative and prejudiced attitude towards publishing a fair response to the article, launched a lawsuit against Macleans', accusing them of human rights violations.

The lawsuit is being led by a former federal prosecutor.

Ken Whyte, editor-in-chief of Macleans', responded by posting the following: Maclean's editor responds to CIC allegations | Macleans.ca - Canada - Features

And then the actual law students from Osgood Hall who launched the complain in the first place, responded with this:

Originally Posted by Naseem Mithoowani

As you all may or may not be aware, while in law school I joined a group of Osgoode students who initiated human rights complaints against Macleans for their Islamophobic material, and especially an article authored by Mark Steyn (The Future Belongs to Islam).

This issue has recieved a TON of press (google it!) but much of it is based on some misinformation.

I want to clear the air - first of all, our goal was never to stifle free expression.

In fact, our group of law students met with Macleans representatives before we launched any type of action in the belief that Macleans would be willing to allow a ** mutually acceptable ** author to publish a response to the article.

We thought that Macleans would be interested in furthering the debate by allowing the same community that they had targeted a chance to fight back. Unfortunately, we were told that Macleans would "rather go bankrupt" then publish such a response.

I believe that this is contrary to the goal of freedom of expression in its truest form - to encourage a debate among interested parties.

We then felt it necessary to launch human rights complaints. These complaints do NOT name Steyn as a Respondant. We have NEVER asked for an apology from Macleans or Steyne. The issue is NOT about attacking journalists or any one viewpoint - it's about ensuring that a media outlet with the national coverage and respect that Macleans enjoys remains balanced and fair.

Currently, we are looking for individuals to help clear the air by either submitting full op/ed peices to papers or at a very minimum, by sending letters to the editors of major newspapers. A sample is attached below for the Globe and Mail.

If all you can do is cut/paste this to the Globe and Mail that would be great - all newspapers track the number of responses they get to an article. If you wish to tailor it to another newspaper [ie; the London Free Press] I can help you with that.

Email it to: letters@globeandmail.com.

If you wish to do more, PLEASE do not hesitate to contact me - I can help you write articles to submit, etc.

This message ESPECIALLY goes out to students with access to student newspapers.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Editor,

On December 6, your paper dedicated significant space to Margaret Wente’s strong criticism of the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC). In it she also ridicules a handful of earnest law students working with the CIC to inform human rights commissions about Maclean’s track record of publishing biased and Islamophobic stories. In a particularly Islamophobic article, author Mark Steyn makes assertions like “…not all Muslims are terrorists—though enough are hot for jihad to provide an impressive support network of mosques…” and that multiculturalism has resulted in Muslims having far too much freedom of movement in Western society.

I am shocked to know that Canadian’s national magazine is being used to promote these arguments. I am even more shocked that people are attempting to shut down a national dialog on media fairness by attempting to riducule the complainants for bringing this matter to light.

This is going to get ugly, because it'll really bring the haters pouring outta the walls.

Keep watching, more to come.

I request everyone reading this - whether Canadian or not - to email the Globe and Mail with the response above as a template, or even the entire response itself, signed with your name.

[Variable]

I don't think this is going to go anywhere. As tasteless as the article may have been (I didn't read it), it's Maclean's magazine, they can print what they want. And if the law students involved were insistent on dictating the rebuttal's length, the magazine's cover art etc., they aren't going to get too far.

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by Variable

I don't think this is going to go anywhere. As tasteless as the article may have been (I didn't read it), it's Maclean's magazine, they can print what they want. And if the law students involved were insistent on dictating the rebuttal's length, the magazine's cover art etc., they aren't going to get too far.

They're asking for equal terms.

Your reply kinda goes to show what a bitter pill that is to swallow.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

They're asking for equal terms.

Your reply kinda goes to show what a bitter pill that is to swallow.

They're asking to take the reigns over major sections in an issue of their magazine. I don't know of any business that would hand over that level of control to anyone.

The press isn't obligated to offer equal terms to anybody. It sounds like this guy was a jerk, but neither do I think they're gonna make any ground by turning it into a human rights issue.

And I don't see how my reply did anything to demonstrate how it's a 'bitter pill'

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by Variable

They're asking to take the reigns over major sections in an issue of their magazine. I don't know of any business that would hand over that level of control to anyone.

"Take the reigns over major sections of an issue" ... ? That's a bit of hyperbole, don't you think? Its one only issue, and only one article. They're looking for a mutually accepted writer, and they want his / her work published within a pre-set limit [pages / words] with no editing. And they want to do the cover, for that issue. If you had seen the cover on the issue in question, then you would realize that this is a fair request.

I really don't see anything impractical about the request. Its just that Macleans' isn't interested in fairness although they like to shout about how they're balanced and all that.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

"Take the reigns over major sections of an issue" ... ? That's a bit of hyperbole, don't you think? Its one only issue, and only one article. They're looking for a mutually accepted writer, and they want his / her work published within a pre-set limit [pages / words] with no editing. And they want to do the cover, for that issue. If you had seen the cover on the issue in question, then you would realize that this is a fair request.

If I were in charge of something of this nature there is no way I'd relinquish control to a third party, especially over the cover of my magazine. Even if it was for one issue only. Anyway, their periodical is just that, it's not a forum for debate, and they aren't obligated to make it one.

If it's this much of an issue, vote with your dollars and don't buy Maclean's. Find another venue to publish the response. But pulling the 'human rights' card out over this is what seems like a bit of a hyperbole to me.

[IbnMardhiyah]

Dude, its not ABOUT relinquishing control, its about calling Macleans' out on their claim that they're fair and balanced.

Categorizing it as "relinquishing control" is hyperbolic.

[Variable]

Saying: "here, you design the front cover of our magazine this issue, do it how you want we won't lay a hand on it" - that's relinquishing control. That's the problem I'd have with it... if Maclean's simply doesn't want to do it because they don't want to devote anymore space to the counter argument, then that's their prerogative.

But I, and I'm gonna bet whatever court they bring this before, is going to have a difficult time seeing where anyone's human rights have been violated.

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by Variable

But I, and I'm gonna bet whatever court they bring this before, is going to have a difficult time seeing where anyone's human rights have been violated.

Are you familair with the complaint itself?

Originally Posted by Faisal Joseph

This article completely misrepresents Canadian Muslims' values, their
community, and their religion," said Faisal Joseph, a former crown attorney,
who represents the complainants. "We feel that it is imperative to challenge
Maclean's biased portrayal of Muslims in order to protect Canadian
multiculturalism and tolerance."

They went down this route after Maclean's made it clear that they didn't want to entertain a fair response to Steyn's smear job. Maclean's has been on a tear recently, publishing several Islamophobic articles over the past few years.

If they have the right to publish whatever they want, then Canada's Muslims have a right to challenge them.

If this was a case of articles being published against Israel or Jews, then the cries of anti-Semitism would make everyone deaf. For God's sake, lets try to practice the equality that we love to bark about so much. Is that really such a tall order?

[Variable]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

If they have the right to publish whatever they want, then Canada's Muslims have a right to challenge them.

If this was a case of articles being published against Israel or Jews, then the cries of anti-Semitism would make everyone deaf.

I'm not interested in what everyone 'would' be doing if it was against Jews. That's a tired deflection. And yes, Canada's Muslims have the right to challenge Maclean's for publishing something they felt was unfair. They can do that through any variety of media.

What they don't have the right to do is force Maclean's to publish something they see as more favourable in their own magazine. The fact that these folks are claiming that it's their human right to do so is pretty ridiculous.

It's an interesting notion of freedom of press - that if anyone disagrees with an opinion piece, they're required to offer an equal amount of space to those who take issue with it. That's not how it works here though.

[Timbit]

Well, I certainly won't be reading Maclean's again.

Write them some polite letters to tell them they're racist and you won't be reading their magazine again... and then get a counter-argument published in another magazine.

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by Variable

The fact that these folks are claiming that it's their human right to do so is pretty ridiculous.

It's an interesting notion of freedom of press - that if anyone disagrees with an opinion piece, they're required to offer an equal amount of space to those who take issue with it. That's not how it works here though.

With all due respect, you really missed the boat on this one.

No one is claiming its their "human right" to force Macleans' to follow the dictates of one particular group.

What they are claiming, in case you missed it, is that human rights is about "...promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion." [link] And if Macleans' is routinely engaging in smear jobs, maligning, and broad character assassinations of entire groups [in this case, Muslims in the West and in Canada, particularly] then yes, there will be a challenge to such behavior within appropriate context.

I mean, how would this be any different from the Serbs writing malicious propaganda pieces against Croats and Bosniaks, exclusive and prior to any physical hostilities?

[Variable]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

With all due respect, you really missed the boat on this one.

No one is claiming its their "human right" to force Macleans' to follow the dictates of one particular group.

What they are claiming, in case you missed it, is that human rights is about "...promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion." [link] And if Macleans' is routinely engaging in smear jobs, maligning, and broad character assassinations of entire groups [in this case, Muslims in the West and in Canada, particularly] then yes, there will be a challenge to such behavior within appropriate context.

I mean, how would this be any different from the Serbs writing malicious propaganda pieces against Croats and Bosniaks, exclusive and prior to any physical hostilities?

Thanks for the uh... Wikipedia link. The only way I can see them leveraging any legal action is if they call this hate speech. Which it falls far short of. This isn't a teacher who's got a classroom full of impressionable young students with no escape... it's a journalist who wrote an opinion piece. It may be a very strong opinion, alarmist and utterly absurd. But it's a long shot to say that what he was writing was a violation of human rights. Give me a break. I like Timbit's strategy... vote with your dollars, voice concern about Maclean's - but claiming this as hate speech is seriously reaching.