The haggling over a piece of Maclean's real estate

I feel like I'm in a bazaar in a land where haggling over price involves all sorts of feints and bluffs and posturing. The seller starts off with a ludicrously high price that only tourists from countries with fixed prices would pay, their being ignorant of the real prices of various goods and services. The savvy buyer, however, begins with a ludicrously low price and the haggling back and forth begins until somewhere around the real value, the item is sold. For people with no experience haggling, the prospect is scary and unpleasant. For those who are used to it, it can be an envigorating game and part of the social glue that holds some societies together.

Let's say the commodity in question is a piece of real estate in Maclean's Magazine, say five or six pages of space to rebut Mark Steyn's allegedly Islamophobic articles and control over the cover art. The currency in this bizarre, I mean bazaar, is the value of freedom of the press in a free and democratic society.

Here's the offer "to buy" made by the Muslim law students in freedom currency:

They offered Maclean's a choice, that according to the magazine's editors went like this:

" They demanded the right to respond with an article of equivalent length, by a writer of their choosing and with a cover of their own design. The editors of this magazine would have no opportunity to edit the article except for spelling and punctuation. According to their terms, they would be free to write anything they wanted, however inaccurate or unreasonable or offensive or libelous or criminal or otherwise unsuited for our publication.

They also wanted a substantial sum of money donated to a charity of their choice. If we refused any of their terms, they said they planned to bring a human rights complaint against us. They said they were also contemplating a criminal action against us.

We told them that we couldn't possibly meet their demands. No publication could. It would violate an editor's responsibilities to his publication, his readers, and his profession. We told them we would rather go out of business than to give over complete control of space in the magazine to anyone on such terms. We stand by that decision. Faced with their ultimatum, we asked if there was anything else we could do to satisfy them. They said "no" and smiled.

Since that meeting, the students have been communicating an inaccurate version of what transpired. For example, it's not true, as they claim, that we said we would rather go out of business than allow them right of response; we said we'd rather go out of business than allow them to respond entirely on their terms. They claim now that they would have settled for a reasonable right of response; we asked if they were firm in their position, and they said "yes." We were prepared to give them an opportunity to have their say, but they gave us no opening for reasonable conciliation. Several weeks later, we learned they had complained to federal human rights authorities, and to similar commissions in British Columbia and Ontario.

One of the Muslim law students disputes this version of events. In effect, she calls the editors liars, a word to describe those who engage in "complete fabrications".

"The assertion that the editors were prepared to consider a reasonable
counter-view article to Mark Steyn's Islamophobic polemic is a complete
fabrication," said Muneeza Sheikh, one of the students present at the meeting.
"They categorically refused to publish any response whatsoever, stating that
they preferred bankruptcy."
The Canadian Islamic Congress's lawyer puts it this way:

"Not once did Maclean's reciprocate our desire to discuss a response that would resolve
the matter," said legal counsel Faisal Joseph. 


Okay....let's recap.  According to the editors the law students demanded:

1) a writer of their choosing

2)  a cover of their own design.

3)  If we refused any of their terms, they said they planned
to bring a human rights complaint against us. They said they were also
contemplating a criminal action against us.
4) money to a charity of their choice


The law students claim all they wanted was a reasonable right of response.
Well, one fact is true beyond any semblance of reasonable doubt and that is
the worst, most egregious aspect, the threat in #3.  And, given complaints in three
jurisdiction, the threats of human rights complaints were followed up.

Now the law students have moved away from points 1-4 to a-d:

a)a mutually acceptable response to the
Steyn article from an agreed upon author

b) nothing about the cover mentioned

c)  nothing about donations to charity of their choice

d) they will withdraw our complaints if they get agreed upon author rebuttal


While these events have a haggling element to them, why do I feel like I am witnessing
a slow-mo mugging? 

The weapon in question is the human rights complaints.

The muggers offer to lower the weapon if they get what they want, though perhaps
with a little water in their whine.

Of course, who can blame the law students (or the Canadian Islamic Congress for
that matter)  for behaving this way.  They are only
following the example of other groups who have successfully used the system to
trample the rights of others in the name of human rights.
Why shouldn't they use this illiberal system, too? 

I hope they come to realize that this system is dangerous to everyone, including
Muslims and their religious freedom and freedom of speech, which I defend.