After a week-long hearing, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal is now weighing its decision on a complaint that a Maclean’s magazine article subjected Muslims to hatred and contempt.
“There has never been a case in this country that has had such clear, concise evidence, ever,” Faisal Joseph, lawyer for the complainants, said in his closing arguments Friday. “There will never be any more demonstrable evidence of hatred that has been perpetrated by this article.”
The complaint against the article - written by Mark Steyn, titled Why the Future Belongs to Islam and published Oct. 23, 2006 - was made to the B.C. tribunal by Naiyer Habib, an Abbotsford cardiologist and B.C. director for the Canadian Islamic Congress.
This followed a complaint by Ontario resident Mohamed Elmasry, the president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, on behalf of Muslim residents of B.C.
It alleges the magazine discriminated against Muslims on religious and racial grounds contrary to section 7 (1) of the B.C. Human Rights Code.
Joseph criticized Maclean’s editors, who had refused to publish a rebuttal, of equal length and prominence, by offended Muslims to the original Steyn article, which was based on excerpts from his book America Alone.
“The complainants seek, under . . . the B.C. Human Rights Act, an order directing (Maclean’s owner) Rogers Publishing Inc. to publish a counterview article to the article Why the Future Belongs to Islam, or, in the alternative, a summary of at least the tribunal’s judgments and findings and a declaration (that the excerpt) was hatred and contemptuous,” Joseph said.
Maclean’s lawyers said from the outset the proceedings “constitute an unjustifiable infringement of freedom of the press,” and did not call witnesses to defend the article.
In his closing arguments Friday, Maclean’s lawyer Roger McConchie suggested the real complainants were the three young Muslim advocates - a trio of Ontario law students - sitting with Joseph. They had been “forum shopping” and found the B. C. tribunal.
McConchie noted that Elmasry, one of only two official complainants, did not attend the hearing.
“Maclean’s respectfully submits that the tribunal must draw the inference that (the excerpt) does not seriously engage his interest,” although Elmasry claimed to represent “Muslim residents in the province of British Columbia,” McConchie said.
McConchie said last week that Maclean’s doesn’t accept that the tribunal is entitled to monitor editorial decisions on what should and shouldn’t be published.
Steyn, who was present for Friday’s closing arguments, has said that he hopes Maclean’s loses the human rights case, so that it may appeal to a “real” court of law.
During the hearing, the tribunal heard from complainant Dr. Naiyer Habib, who said the 2006 cover story by Steyn “demonized” Islam and contributed to discrimination.
The tribunal also heard from an expert witness who said the article contained numerous examples of common stereotypes of the Islamic religion and Muslim people.
Dr. Faiza Hirji, an instructor at the Carleton University School of Journalism and Communications in Ottawa, pointed to specific paragraphs of Steyn’s article that she found problematic. Many represented the propagation of common implied stereotypes of Muslims and the Islamic religion as being associated with terrorism and violence, and having plans for domination and destruction of Western society that should be regarded as a threat.