Time Immortal

In the wake of the embarrassing actions of Mohamed Elmasry’s three Osgoode Hall law students (read: sock puppets) and the cowardice they displayed when faced with the prospect of having to debate Mark Steyn three-on-one, Maclean’s has responded to the attempt by Faisal Joseph and the Osgoode trio offer a non-settlement (read: shakedown) disguised as a settlement offer.

To sum up, Maclean’s has basically said thus: “we’ll tell you where to shove that offer.”

Ezra Levant has an excerpt of the text of Maclean’s response to the offer:

The time to discuss reasonable replies to Mr. Steyn’s piece was after the article was published and before the human rights actions were launched. For Maclean’s to agree to any “settlement” with quasi-judicial proceedings under way would be tantamount to an admission of wrongdoing on our part when we have done nothing but practise responsible journalism.

It would also be improper and damaging to the integrity of Maclean’s, and a troubling precedent in Canadian media, for us to agree to negotiate the content of our magazine in return for the withdrawal of quasi-judicial legal actions and relief from punitive costs of defending those actions.

Moreover, any settlement at this point would have to be approved by human rights authorities in Ottawa, and would thus involve an implicit acceptance on our part of the jurisdiction of human rights commissions to regulate the content of print media publications in Canada. That is an unacceptable precedent.

We believe that a sincere attempt to settle this matter would have involved a direct and timely approach to Maclean’s rather than a press conference and public ultimatum eighteen months after the publication of Mr. Steyn’s piece. But rather than approaching this magazine for the purposes of conciliation, Mr. Joseph and his clients publicly impugned our journalists at a press conference, tactics sharply at odds with their stated goal of reaching an amicable resolution.

While we have no interest in negotiating with the CIC for the withdrawal of its complaints, we remain committed to fostering free and open discussion of important public issues. Maclean’s would be pleased to host a public debate at a neutral venue between Mr. Steyn and Mohamed Elmasry, head of the CIC and the complainant in both the B.C. and federal investigations. The debate would cover issues raised by Mr. Steyn’s original article as well as the CIC’s decision to resort to human rights commissions. We are sure that such an event would be interesting and informative, and we would publish a transcript of the debate either in the magazine or on our website.

Of course, Mohamed Elmasry is never going to accept the challenge to a debate, lest he again be exposed for what he is: a hateful, anti-Jewish bigot and apologist for terror. Still, it’s a pleasant pipe dream to imagine Mark Steyn tearing in to the man the right-of-centre blogosphere has come to know as “Elmo.”

This is a good, principled stance that Maclean’s has taken: they refuse to be intimidated by the human rights apparatus in Canada, and refuse to recognize the authority of the abrogation of basic human rights that the HRCs in Canada truly are. Likewise, they’re calling the bluff of Elmo, his sock puppets, and his flashy lawyer. It’s a “come and get us” attitude that I think Colonel Maclean, especially, would be very proud of.

Certainly, I’m a little bit prouder to be Canadian for having read it.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!