The Steyn article discusses changing global demographics and other factors that the author describes as contributing to an eventual ascendancy of Muslims in the 'developed world', a prospect that the author fears for various reasons described in the article. The writing is polemical, colourful and emphatic, and was obviously calculated to excite discussion and even offend certain readers, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
Overall, however, the views expressed in the Steyn article, when considered as a whole and in context, are not of an extreme nature as defined by the Supreme Court in the Taylor decision. Considering the purpose and scope of section 13 (1), and taking into account that an interpretation of s. 13 (1) must be consistent with the minimal impairment of free speech, there is no reasonable basis in the evidence to warrant the appointment of a Tribunal.
For these reasons, this complaint is dismissed.
All of which should be profoundly unsurprising to anyone who followed the complaint without an interest in self-martyrdom.
But--calculated to offend?--that oughtta be enough to have Macleans' PAP subsidy revoked. When Heritage Canada responds to my torrid emails inquiring as to how to launch a complaint, Kenneth Whyte and Mark Steyn and co. will have to start buying their own stamps.
4 comments:
My guess is that to stop the subsidy you'd have to hire a lawyer and sue the federal government.
Gracious in defeat; keep working on it BCL, you'll eventually get it right. :)
Happy Canada Day to all.
Even those few found not guilty should be punished somehow!
That's where big bad Barbara Hall comes in garnet. And if that doesn't work, BCL is working on Plan B.
Post a Comment