I ask this question because it was a complaint against Macleans, and the ensuing controversy, that led the Canadian Human Rights Commission to invite Professor Richard Moon to prepare a report on the regulation of hate speech in Canada. And because many of those who are now cheering his recommendation to abolish section 13 of the Human Rights Act are overlooking another key recommendation in the alternative he proposes:
"All major print publications should belong to a provincial or regional press council that has the authority to receive a complaint that the publication has depicted an identifiable group in an unfair or discriminatory manner and, if it decides that the complaint is well-founded, to order the publication to print its decision. A decision by the council that its code of conduct has been breached results not in censorship but in 'more speech' - the publication of a statement that the newspaper breached the code and, more particularly in this context, that it published material that unfairly represented the members of an identifiable group.
If the major publications in the country are not all willing to join a press council, then the establishment of a national press council with statutory authority and compulsory membership should once again be given serious consideration."
In the wake of Prof. Moon's report, newspapers across Canada are urging the Conservative government to abolish section 13 immediately. Would it not be fair to ask whether Macleans, which is not a member of a press council, will now sign up? And should the same question not be asked of the industry in general, especially those newspapers who've been applauding Prof. Moon's report and are not now members of any press council?