The CHRC's ruling said of the article that, "the writing is polemical, colourful and emphatic, and was obviously calculated to excite discussion and even offend certain readers, Muslim and non-Muslim alike."
However, the Commission ruled that overall, "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.
[4] Maclean's greeted the CHRC's decision stating that it "is in keeping with our long-standing position that the article in question, 'The Future Belongs to Islam,' an excerpt from Mark Steyn's best-selling book America Alone, was a worthy piece of commentary on important geopolitical issues, entirely within the bounds of normal journalistic practice.
"[5] The magazine also stated that "Maclean's continues to assert that no human rights commission, whether at the federal or provincial level, has the mandate or the expertise to monitor, inquire into, or assess the editorial decisions of the nation's media.
"[5] The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal heard the case over a five-day period beginning on June 2, 2008; Mohamed Elmasry was not present.
The co-complainant in this case is Naiyer Habib, the BC board director for the Canadian Islamic Congress, who filed the complaint on behalf of all Muslims in British Columbia.
Ayoub also disputed Steyn's portrayal of Islamic extremism as mainstream saying that the extremist fringe represented less than one million of the total 1.5 billion Muslims.
Julian Porter, the lead counsel for the magazine, asserted that Steyn's article "does not meet the standard of hatred or contempt, and that's what we'll argue later in the week".
"[9] If Maclean's were found to have violated BC's Human Rights Code, it could have faced sanctions, including payment to the complainant of "an amount that the member or panel considers appropriate to compensate that person for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect or to any of them."
[9] The day after the hearing ended, Khurrum Awan, one of the complainants in the BC case, spoke to a meeting of the Canadian Arab Federation and complained that since Maclean's is not a member of the Ontario Press Council or any similar body there is no authority within the profession of journalism, that can "condemn the journalist, condemn the publication, direct them to publish a letter to the editor."
[10]At the Niagara-on-the-Lake conference of the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies in June 2008, Wahida Valiante, national vice-president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, stated that the commissions are the only recourse available to minorities treated unfairly in the media since membership in press councils is optional and criminal hate speech charges require the consent of the federal Attorney-General.
[11] Valiante compared Steyn to James Keegstra, an Alberta high school teacher who taught and tested his students on how Jews "created the Holocaust to gain sympathy.
"[11] Haroon Siddiqui, a columnist for the Toronto Star, wrote that "Only genuine misunderstanding or deliberate distortion can explain the media's mostly one-sided discourse on the case of Maclean's before the federal, as well as the Ontario and British Columbia, human rights commissions."
[13] The Tribunal stated that "With all its inaccuracies and hyperbole, [the article] has resulted in political debate which, in our view, [B. C.'s hate speech human rights law] was never intended to suppress.
In fact, as the evidence in this case amply demonstrates, the debate has not been suppressed and the concerns about the impact of hate speech silencing a minority have not been borne out.
[13] Mark Steyn, who wrote the offending article, stated that a lesser-known writer without a media conglomerate in his corner probably would have been convicted, adding that
It has made me understand just how easily and incrementally free societies, often for the most fluffy reasons, slip into a kind of soft, beguiling totalitarianism.
Life was chugging along just fine, chastising non-entities nobody had ever heard about, piling up a lot of cockamamie jurisprudence that inverts the principles of common law, and nobody paid any attention to it.
Maclean's argued that because Awan is not a resident of British Columbia, he should not be allowed to give testimony about the harm the article allegedly caused to Muslims in BC.
Despite not having jurisdiction, the Commission published a statement saying that Maclean's media coverage "has been identified as contributing to Islamophobia and promoting societal intolerance towards Muslim, Arab and South Asian Canadians".
[15] In an interview, Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall stated that "When the media writes, it should exercise great caution that it's not promoting stereotypes that will adversely impact on identifiable groups.
He said he knew the complaint would probably be dismissed, "but we thought this would be an excellent way to demonstrate the gaping hole in human rights legislation in Ontario, and the [Commission] has done exactly that."
[18] Kay also stating that the OHRC statement was "a genuinely frightening manifesto written by people who have a thinly disguised contempt for press freedom and heterodox opinions."
"[19] Mark Steyn, who wrote the article in Maclean's that the complaint was based on, commented that "Even though they (the OHRC) don't have the guts to hear the case, they might as well find us guilty.
Part of our job is to identify discrimination and to work to address it, but more often it is putting out a statement, having a debate, meeting with people, discussing and understanding the impact.
[20] The editors of Maclean's denounced the OHRC for its "zealous condemnation of their journalism" accusing them of "morphing out of their conciliatory roles to become crusaders working to reshape journalistic discourse in Canada."
"[20] The editors claimed that "[Hall] cited no evidence, considered no counter-arguments, and appointed herself prosecutor, judge and jury in one fell swoop.
"[22] Elmasry sharply criticized British Columbia MP Keith Martin, who proposed scrapping the hate speech provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act.