In all honesty, I'm with Mader on the HRC vs. Macleans issue. This process is absurd.
But anyway, something about the underlying premise of the complaint bugs me.
A central issue for the complainants is that they did not get an opportunity to rebut Steyn's piece as published in Macleans.
As AC commented, L-o-n-g discussion about subsequent backing and forthing between Maclean’s and the students, wherein they offered to withdraw their complaints if Maclean’s yielded to their demands. This strikes me as supremely beside the point. If the article was as damaging as alleged, if it was sufficient by itself to expose Muslims to hatred, that would remain the case regardless of whether Maclean’s published a rebuttal. Or if counter-arguments were sufficient to mitigate the damage, well, that’s really Maclean’s point, isn’t it? The students’ “offer,” it seems to me, is revealing: if all they want is a right of reply, then all they’re saying is that they disagree with it. Which takes it out of the realm of the courts, kangaroo or otherwise.
I ask, did they even try to reply? How many submissions did they make? Did they try other publications other than Macleans, or are they saying that only Macleans has a national audience?
If you are going to rebut an argument, go ahead and do it. If you cannot get anyone to publish your articles in defense of Islam you may then have a case for discrimination. But if you didn't even try (and no, trying to control the editing of a magazine does not count as trying) then you're just a whiner. Which renders part of the complainants final argument moot Talking about the power of the media to shape opinion. Ordinary citizen has only letters to the editor “if they’re lucky.”
They didn't even try to prove that. At this point, its only an opinion, and there's no verifiable evidence in support of this argument.