Maclean's Magazine - which published the excerpt of Mark Steyn's America Alone that is now the subject of much "human rights" consternation in the great white north - has fired back at the tyrants who run the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Here's their side of the story regarding how this whole mess started:

Not surprisingly, the article generated enormous reaction from our readers. In the weeks following publication, we printed 27 letters to the editor, reflecting a broad range of opinion on the merits of Steyn's thesis. This is more letters than we've published on any other subject in recent years, and several of those we did publish were part of a campaign run by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Washington and its affiliate in Ottawa. But six months after the story appeared, and long after we believed the debate had subsided, we heard from a group of law students angry about the article, and demanding a meeting. Normally we wouldn't meet with aggrieved readers regarding a six-month-old story. But because it involved sensitive issues, we agreed to sit down with them and to discuss their concerns.

The students complained that the story and the cover image we used, presented a prejudicial and sinister image of the Muslim community and stoked unreasonable fears of a Muslim conspiracy to take over the world. To bolster their complaints they selected a handful of other articles from the magazine that they felt presented an unfair and negative portrayal of Muslim people.

We answered that Steyn's article was an interesting and well-researched essay expressing the opinion of the author. We pointed out that nowhere does it suggest there is a plot for global domination involving the entire Muslim community (in fact, he distinguishes between various factions in the Muslim world, moderate and radical). Furthermore, we had already printed many letters dealing with precisely the same counter-arguments the students were raising. We demonstrated that our magazine is staunchly supportive of peace-loving, law-abiding Islamic-Canadians. Indeed, we have taken several editorial positions explicitly in support of the Muslim community, including the right of Muslim women to wear whatever religious garments they choose, and the merits of public funding for Muslim religious schools. Finally, we explained that Maclean's is dedicated to asking provocative questions and fostering debate on important public issues.

This did not satisfy the students. They demanded the right to respond with an article of equivalent length, by a writer of their choosing and with a cover of their own design. The editors of this magazine would have no opportunity to edit the article except for spelling and punctuation. According to their terms, they would be free to write anything they wanted, however inaccurate or unreasonable or offensive or libelous or criminal or otherwise unsuited for our publication.

They also wanted a substantial sum of money donated to a charity of their choice. If we refused any of their terms, they said they planned to bring a human rights complaint against us. They said they were also contemplating a criminal action against us.

We told them that we couldn't possibly meet their demands. No publication could. It would violate an editor's responsibilities to his publication, his readers, and his profession. We told them we would rather go out of business than to give over complete control of space in the magazine to anyone on such terms. We stand by that decision. Faced with their ultimatum, we asked if there was anything else we could do to satisfy them. They said "no" and smiled.

They overplayed their hand. Now they're running the risk of having their illiberal cudgel of a commission shut down. Nice work, gang. And be sure to read the whole thing; it's an excellent summation of and response to this whole mad situation

Mark Steyn rings in the month of March with a heckuva column:

The "human rights" racket is a disgrace. Canadians are not notably "hateful" people. To be sure, deep in the human heart lurk dark prejudices that may occasionally be furtively expressed to like-minded persons over a drink or two. But discrimination in housing and employment on the grounds of gender and race — the original justification for creating the "human rights" pseudo-courts — is all but extinct, so a self-perpetuating nomenklatura has moved on to invent new rights — like the human right to a labiaplasty or a joint on someone else's property. You'll recall the Osgoode Hall law students who objected to my book excerpt in Maclean's demanded a five-page cover story in response, unedited, with the students determining the artwork and the cover art, along with a financial contribution to their "cause." As any self-respecting publisher would, Kenneth Whyte told them he would rather go bankrupt — much as Mr. Kindos seems likely to. The Osgoode students have since explained that they went to the "human rights" enforcers because they were only trying to "start a debate," and mean old Maclean's was preventing their voices from being heard. They have repeated this mournful plea in lengthy editorials they've written for, at last count, the Globe And Mail, the National Post, the Toronto Star, the Toronto Sun, the Ottawa Citizen, the Calgary Herald, the Montreal Gazette, the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, the London Free Press, and no doubt a few other publications. That's the reality of Canada's "Islamophobic" media: they've been given acres of op-ed real estate to yell that their voices are being silenced and all they want to do is start a debate — even though, in none of their many columns, do they actually start it.

Mark Steyn, as usual, is correct:

My book's thesis — that most of the Western world is on course to become at least semi-Islamic in its political and cultural disposition within a very short time — is "alarmist."

The question then arises: fair enough, guys, what would it take to alarm you? The other day, in a characteristically clotted speech followed by a rather more careless BBC interview, the Archbishop of Canterbury said that it was dangerous to have one law for everyone and that the introduction of sharia — Islamic law — to the United Kingdom was "inevitable." No alarm bells going off yet? Can't say I blame you. After all, de facto creeping sharia is well established in the Western world. Last week, the British and Ontario governments confirmed within days of each other that thousands of polygamous men in their jurisdictions receive welfare payments for each of their wives. Still no alarm bells? I see female Muslim medical students in British hospitals are refusing to comply with hygiene procedures on the grounds that scrubbing requires them to bare their arms, which is un-Islamic. Would it be alarmist to bring that up — say, the day before your operation?

Syed Soharwardy has dropped his "human rights" complaint against Ezra Levant, who had the temerity to engage in free speech in a (supposedly) western nation. This isn't really a victory, as Soharwardy will not face any legal repercussions for his illiberal abuse of the system. That is, unless Levant gets his way:

I understand that Soharwardy has an Op-Ed in tomorrow's Herald in which he effectively admits his complaint was motivated by Saudi-style censorship, not any Canadian belief in human rights. In other words, he admits what I've alleged all along: he was hijacking a secular "human rights" commission for his radical Islamo-fascist agenda. But now he wants us all to pretend he didn't.

Well, back in the land of real laws and real rules of court, there's a tort called "abuse of process", and Soharwardy has just admitted to it.

For two years, this corrupt, radical imam has hunted me using the resources of the taxpayers of Alberta for the "thought crime" of publishing a cartoon he didn't like. I had a preliminary discussion with my lawyer today. My aim is to file an abuse of process claim in the Court of Queen's Bench within the month. Whether or not I sue the commission itself, and its inquisitor Shirlene McGovern, is something I haven't discussed yet with my lawyers.

When the chief complainant in a two-year censorship exercise admits the whole thing was improper, an abuse of process suit is not just about recouping my losses. It's about holding a little fascist, and the government agency he hijacked, to account, and having grown-ups -- that is, real judges in real courts -- tell them that what they've been doing is morally and legally wrong.

Go get 'em, Ezra. Ace offers this comment:

Have at 'em, Ezra. Make sure the Canadian authorities go on record, one way or another, as to whether freedom of speech and freedom of thought are "peculiarities of American law" or the natural rights of Canadians as well.

He's started a Union of Bloggers to help defend bloggers against bogus defamation lawsuit threat (in Canada, anyway) and is personally defending a blogger who goes by the handle Blazing Catfur (Nice!) against one such bogus claim:

I contacted Kinsella to advise him that I was legal counsel for Blazing Catfur. I didn't expect what came next.

First, Kinsella demanded to know if I was licensed to practise law in Ontario. I thought it was a trick question: all Canadian lawyers now have the right to practise law across the country. I thought Kinsella was just joking around, but he wasn't -- he genuinely didn't know that, and he told me he was going to immediately (it was Sunday night, if I recall) write a letter to the Law Society to put a stop to my shenanigans!

Interprovincial mobility is probably the single largest change to the practise of Canadian law since law firms were allowed to advertise; the fact that Kinsella didn't know that -- and even doubted me when I gently broke the news to him -- was stunning. I'm guessing the guy doesn't do a lot of law, though he talks a good game to bloggers.

One of those fun posts to read, that's for sure...

It turns out that Ezra isn't the only Levant to have been harassed by a Canadian "Human Rights Commission"...

Specifically, letters from lawyers demanding retractions. Fortunately, Ezra also responds to said letters:

3. I am not a physician, but I can assure you that my discovery of Soharwardy will be fairly described as proctological.

All that in a good post on the media and defamation law...

Iowahawk got ahold of Ezra Levant's interrogation report from the AHRC:

Defendant says some snippy remark about "irony of 'Human Rights' Commission." I tell him he is entitled to his opinion. He says "I wish that were a fact," all smart-alecky. I hand him AHRCC Pamphlet 7401, "Your Canadian Rights To Keep Your Opinion To Yourself."

It can happen here. Ezra Levant is being hauled before a government commission in Canada (a supposedly free, Western nation) to account for his thoughts:

Today at 2 p.m. I will appear before an Alberta "human rights officer" for an interrogation. I am being interrogated for the political crime of publishing the Danish cartoons in the Western Standard nearly two years ago.

As a lawyer, I've been in different courts and tribunals, but I've never experienced a kangaroo court first-hand.

This is disgusting. I'll be following his blog closely over the coming days and weeks. I suggest you do the same.