You were correct that this settlement offer was substantially the same offer that was put to Maclean's in an initial meeting nearly one year ago. What has changed is that we have new information about Maclean's position, as a result of their recent editorial in response to the statement made by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which condemned the writing in question as 'contrary to the spirit of the human rights code', 'xenophobic,' 'destructive,' 'racist' and 'Islamophobic.' Through this editorial, we have learned that Maclean's editors claim to have been 'always prepared' to publish a reasonable response. We want to take them up on this offer.
Here's the relevant passage from the Maclean's editorial:
Since that meeting, the students have been communicating an inaccurate version of what transpired. For example, it's not true, as they claim, that we said we would rather go out of business than allow them right of response; we said we'd rather go out of business than allow them to respond entirely on their terms. They claim now that they would have settled for a reasonable right of response; we asked if they were firm in their position, and they said "yes." We were prepared to give them an opportunity to have their say, but they gave us no opening for reasonable conciliation. Several weeks later, we learned they had complained to federal human rights authorities, and to similar commissions in British Columbia and Ontario.
Not so easy to wriggle out of that. As an interesting side-note, if the Macleans website is any indication, Steyn's piece originally appeared in the entertainment section, where the more recent articles concern Snoop Dog and where to place the string section in a modern orchestra.
