To nobody's surprise, Macleans magazine has chosen to weasel out of its earlier (alleged) promise offering complainants in the CHRC case against the magazine an opportunity to "have their say". You can link to their full response through the term "weasel" above, but I would like to make note of one statement in it:
The article in question [Mark Steyn's "The Future Belongs To Islam"] was a legitimate piece of journalism written and published in good faith.
Yeah, a legitimate piece of journalism...which Macleans hosts in the entertainment section of their website, at the moment featuring an interview with Kim Cattrall:
'I didn't want to take the Samantha role — at 40, I didn't think I was sexy enough'
Lets be clear on this. While I'm not a lawyer, the legal consensus seems to be that the case against Macleans is rather weak, and the complaint against them should probably never have been launched.
That said, the best outcome now would be if the CHRC follows the lead of the OHRC and decides essentially that, yeah, Steyn's writings are Islamophobic, and detrimental to the social order, and yeah Macleans has gone into the crapper ever since Kenneth Whyte and the other clowns from the National Post took over, but their horseshit does not meet the standard required to trigger a sanction under Canadian Human Rights legislation. And while the likes of Steyn or Ezra Levant only nominally qualify as journalists--they use, as Syed Soharwardy has argued, press freedoms to create hatred against Muslims--it is necessary to put up with their bullshit just in case a real journalist at a respectable publication should decide to tell some hard truths at some point in the distant future.
Give Macleans a stern lecture, but let 'em go, in other words.
PS. I note that Whyte does the Cattrall interview himself. Nice of the boss to take all the difficult assignments.