In 2008 Mark Steyn was on The Agenda with Steve Paikin, to speak about his book “America Alone” and the claims of his Islamophobia. Also on the show were three law students from Osgoode Law who came on the show to argue against the claims made about Islam in Steyn’s book and an excerpt published in Maclean’s magazine. The law students argue that Maclean’s should, either by their own will or by force, publish another article on the subject but with a counter opinion to Steyn’s. In this particular situation the government should intervene with this subject of free speech, because Steyn gives a very one sided argument that promotes hate and even harm towards Muslim people. John Stuart Mill’s model would also support this government intervention.
…show more content…
A little background on Freedom of Speech in Canada that can relate to the Maclean’s and Mark Steyn comes from The Canadian Charter of right and freedoms it states, “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication” (Constitution Act, 1982). This piece of information is important to keep in mind while arguing as to why the government should get involved with the issue of Maclean’s magazine refusing to publish a counter article, but why they ultimately were unable to do anything about it. Maclean’s has the right to the Charter just as much as anyone however they are infringing on a whole demographic of people; that being the Muslim community; and their right to free speech and freedom of the press.
In John Stuart Mills Essay On Liberty he states that the only time the government should get involved in people’s opinions is when the opinion of a person harms other people (Mill, 2002). The way Steyn chooses to describe the “take-over” of the growing Muslim …show more content…
The main points of this debate revolved around the excerpt published by Steyn and whether or not what he said and Maclean’s magazine should be publishing a counter article to this one and why. Mark Steyn’s stance on the issue was that he is being penalized in a country that stands on the grounds of free speech, but if the Human Rights Tribunal were to get involved it would be censorship. While the three law student’s points stand on the fact that the article and 22 other articles published in Maclean’s are promoting and towards the Muslim community in Canada. They also argue that the way Steyn chooses to group all Muslims together is harmful to the way people in Canada will now choose to form an opinion about them (The Agenda, 2008). What the outcome of bringing Maclean’s to the tribunal was to get Maclean’s to publish a counter article, not to retract anything or ask for an apology just simply to have a different voice heard. The reason why Maclean’s in particular is the focus of their attention on the subject is because they have a readership of 2 million readers and is a National Magazine (The Agenda, 2008). Though it would be just as easy for them to post online or in another news outlet now that the issue has become main stream, it is important for Maclean’s to be held responsible for producing a biased opinion
A little background on Freedom of Speech in Canada that can relate to the Maclean’s and Mark Steyn comes from The Canadian Charter of right and freedoms it states, “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication” (Constitution Act, 1982). This piece of information is important to keep in mind while arguing as to why the government should get involved with the issue of Maclean’s magazine refusing to publish a counter article, but why they ultimately were unable to do anything about it. Maclean’s has the right to the Charter just as much as anyone however they are infringing on a whole demographic of people; that being the Muslim community; and their right to free speech and freedom of the press.
In John Stuart Mills Essay On Liberty he states that the only time the government should get involved in people’s opinions is when the opinion of a person harms other people (Mill, 2002). The way Steyn chooses to describe the “take-over” of the growing Muslim …show more content…
The main points of this debate revolved around the excerpt published by Steyn and whether or not what he said and Maclean’s magazine should be publishing a counter article to this one and why. Mark Steyn’s stance on the issue was that he is being penalized in a country that stands on the grounds of free speech, but if the Human Rights Tribunal were to get involved it would be censorship. While the three law student’s points stand on the fact that the article and 22 other articles published in Maclean’s are promoting and towards the Muslim community in Canada. They also argue that the way Steyn chooses to group all Muslims together is harmful to the way people in Canada will now choose to form an opinion about them (The Agenda, 2008). What the outcome of bringing Maclean’s to the tribunal was to get Maclean’s to publish a counter article, not to retract anything or ask for an apology just simply to have a different voice heard. The reason why Maclean’s in particular is the focus of their attention on the subject is because they have a readership of 2 million readers and is a National Magazine (The Agenda, 2008). Though it would be just as easy for them to post online or in another news outlet now that the issue has become main stream, it is important for Maclean’s to be held responsible for producing a biased opinion