The Steyn Decision: Offensive, Not Hate

The full text can be found here. The relevant bits:


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.

Macleans Magazine As Corporate Welfare Bum, Part III

Terrence Watson has a nice post on the Western Standard's Shotgun Blog here, which refers to several earlier posts of mine on the topic of Maclean's Magazine and its $3,000,000 per year subsidy from the Canadian Heritage Publications Assistance Program(PAP), which offset[s] the mailing costs of Canadian content magazines and non-daily newspapers mailed within Canada. This is just a rewrite of a comment I made on the WS blog:

Part of what I wanted to communicate in these earlier posts (esp. to people who might be pissed off with MaCleans etc. for publishing allegedly offensive material like Steyn's) is that there are other, less controversial and maybe more effective ways of expressing your displeasure than via HRC complaints. Comparisons to C-10 aside, we should all agree that, if we ever figure out what "offensive" means, we should be able to call a magazine like Macleans for being offensive if they're doing it on the government dime.

More generally, there ought to be at least a set of methods of protest which both Right And Left can agree are legitimate. So for example: boycotts. If pro-lifers can actually convince Disney to be less Gay-centric by refusing to visit Disneyland, and thus causing Disney to hemorage profits, more power to them. Same with picketing: If Mo Elasmry's bunch could dig up forty Muslims to wave placards in front of the Rogers building, they would get far more positive coverage for their cause, and far less media hassles, than channeling their aggression through HRCs.

When such methods are employed, the whole argument that "you are trying to silence debate" becomes irrelevant. OF COURSE I AM TRYING TO SILENCE DEBATE. I personally would have Macleans sack Steyn and hire someone that finished highschool (I, for example, am available). But the point is: there ought to be some common ground on which means are legitimate for accomplishing this end.

Cutting MacLeans PAP funding seems to me to be one of these legitimate means.

An interesting tidbit from the Shotgun Comments section:

In the final days of the Citizens Centre Report (the final incarnation of Alberta/BC/Western Report), the decision was made to reject this funding. The magazine went out of business just a few months later.The rejection didn't put the magazine under, but it didn't help. The argument for accepting the funds had long been that the magazine would put itself at a competitive disadvantage by ripping up the cheque. That is, if all other magazines were accepting the money (as they did), we would be tying a millstone around our necks by not accepting the money too.As well, it could also be argued that, in light of the fact the government took large amounts of money from us in the form of taxes, accepting the Heritage money was simply a matter of getting back some of the money that was ours to start with.

The Western Standard, by the way, accepted the grant money: $132,000 in 2006-07, for example. See: http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pap/pubs/report-rapport/annualreport2007/7_e.cfm

Terry O'Neill

You mean Über Capitalist Ezra Levant accepted government funds? Oh My!