From this vast distance it is not easy to follow the procedural manoeuvres of the majestic and variegated Canadian ‘Human Rights’ industry in its pursuit of Mark Steyn.

But Mark and Maclean’s magazine looks to have won one handy free speech victory, with the Canadian Human Rights Commission dropping its case against them:

The Steyn article discusses changing global demographics and other factors that the author describes as contributing to an eventual ascendancy of Muslims in the ‘developed world’, a prospect that the author fears for various reasons described in the article. The writing is polemical, colourful and emphatic, and was obviously calculated to excite discussion and even offend certain readers, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

Overall, however, the views expressed in the Steyn article, when considered as a whole and in context, are not of an extreme nature as defined by the Supreme Court in the Taylor decision. Considering the purpose and scope of section 13 (1), and taking into account that an interpretation of s. 13 (1) must be consistent with the minimal impairment of free speech, there is no reasonable basis in the evidence to warrant the appointment of a Tribunal.

Maclean’s of course incurred significant costs in defending themselves against these idiotic pseudo-charges.

A verdict/decision is still awaited from the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.

Much more on the whole saga here.