[R-G] Human rights panel hears claim Maclean's article denigrated Muslims

[Anthony Fenton]

Human rights panel hears claim Maclean's article denigrated Muslims
  http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=2ea3c37b-aeda-406a-9541-571e84e78f52
Gerry Bellett
Canwest News Service

Monday, June 02, 2008

A human rights hearing began Monday with the Canadian Islamic Congress  
claiming an in Maclean's magazine article subjected Muslims to hatred  
and contempt.
CREDIT: Nick Brancaccio/Windsor Star
A human rights hearing began Monday with the Canadian Islamic Congress  
claiming an in Maclean's magazine article subjected Muslims to hatred  
and contempt.

VANCOUVER - A four-day human rights hearing began in an overcrowded  
Vancouver courtroom Monday with the Canadian Islamic Congress claiming  
a Maclean's magazine article subjected Muslims to hatred and contempt.

The complaint against the article, titled Why the Future Belongs to  
Islam and published Oct. 23, 2006, was made to the B.C. Human Rights  
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.

Maclean's is published in Ontario but the Ontario Human Rights  
Commission declined to hear the complaint.

It alleges the magazine discriminated against Muslims on religious and  
racial grounds contrary to section 7 (1) of the B.C. Human Rights Code.

The article by author Mark Steyn was based on excerpts from his book  
America Alone.

Faisal Joseph, representing Habib, accused the national media of  
consistently denigrating Muslims and said the article alleged Muslims  
were poised to take over Western society and impose their laws by  
virtue of their numbers.

He said the context of the article was that Muslims were violent  
people, and cast suspicions on them as potential terrorists and  
extremists who were a threat to Western values such as democracy and  
human rights.

Joseph said Muslims were discriminated against in Western society and  
made to feel they don't belong. The fact a person is Muslim doesn't  
mean he wants to take over the world, he said.

Roger McConchie, representing the magazine, said the tribunal's  
hearings constituted an "unjustifiable infringement of freedom of the  
press" as guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

McConchie said Maclean's doesn't accept that the tribunal is entitled  
to monitor editorial decisions and what should and shouldn't be  
published. Maclean's will not be calling any witnesses, he added.

The hearing was held in a tiny courtroom in Vancouver Provincial  
Court, which was small to hold all the journalists and members of the  
public wanting to attend.

McConchie objected to Joseph calling Ontario law student Khurrum Awan  
- a human-rights activist in the Muslim community - to testify about  
how he felt after reading the article. McConchie said the B.C.  
tribunal should not be concerned with any emotional response from  
someone who lived in Ontario, as there was a potential for damages to  
be awarded.

He said the tribunal should concern itself only with harm that  
occurred in B.C.

"You can't have complainants coming in from Newfoundland, Montreal or  
Yellowknife and seeking compensation for harm caused by an alleged  
violation of Section 7," said McConchie.

Joseph said Awan wasn't seeking compensation and the tribunal ruled he  
could give evidence.

Awan said the overall theme of the article was that Islam was poised  
for a possible bloody takeover of Western society, and that no  
distinction was made between the different elements within the Muslim  
community.

He said the article states that the high birth rate of Islamic  
populations in Europe makes them the new owners "already in place -  
tenants with a right-to-buy agreement."

Meanwhile, the Canadian Association of Journalists has been awarded  
intervenor status at the hearing. The CAJ said it wants to defend the  
freedoms of the press and of expression and the interests of  
journalists.

In a news release, the organization said it takes the view the  
tribunal does not have the constitutional right to hear the complaint,  
but since the case was going forward, its position is that human  
rights complaints under Section 7 must consider the intent of the  
writer when assessing published material.

The hearing continues.
© Vancouver Sun 2008