You could say that Mark Steyn is the brightest Canadian conservative to offer widely syndicated commentary on US politics; of course, he is also the only one. Steyn, who thinks it'd be a good idea for Israel to just go ahead and invade Syria, has explicitly advocated that the US adopt an imperial system (yes, using that word), and has argued that illegal immigrants live idyllic lives on account of not having to pay taxes (the biggest problem with this being the fact that, by and large, they do). As Campus Progress and other sources have tirelessly documented, Steyn's views on most subjects range from racist to ludicrous to just plain stupid. After reading his work, some might be tempted to take his advice, institute a new American empire, and then by imperial decree require him and all other Canadian writers, collateral damage or not, to put down their pens and pick up hockey sticks, that the emperor might be entertained and that we may never again have to read such drivel.

These facts aside, the only stupider idea than the US becoming a true empire and demanding that all Canadians entertain us with their native sport is the idea that Steyn be in any way punished for his views. And, unfortunately, it seems that this is the exact intent of the Canadian Islamic Congress, which is bringing suit against Maclean's magazine for publishing one of Steyn's pieces:

The Canadian Islamic Congress—Canada's largest non-profit Islamic body—has launched two human rights complaints against Maclean's and its editor-in-chief, Kenneth Whyte. The complaints' subject is "The Future Belongs to Islam," an excerpt from Mark Steyn's book "America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It," which appeared in the magazine's Oct. 23, 2006, issue.

Complaints were submitted to Human Rights Commissions in B.C. and Ontario on the grounds that "the article subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt," according to a CIC press release. In the release, the CIC labels Steyn's article as "flagrantly Islamophobic."

Maclean's denies that the article is Islamophobic, a denial that seems a bit hollow if you look at the actual article, which reads like a textbook definition of bedwetting-grade fear of Islam.  This is completely beside the point, however, because the issue here is basic freedom of speech.

Steyn is entirely correct in reminding us of the obligation of a modern democracy, whether or not it has laws equivalent to the First Amendment, to protect speech. It is -- or should be -- Steyn's right to rearticulate his standard Islamophobic narrative using whatever wording he wants, so long as he falls short of intentional incitement to violence while doing so. (The CIC does not convincingly argue that Steyn caused any real-world damage other than hurt feelings.)

Beyond the free speech issue, the CIC is serving itself poorly by going to the courts instead of issuing an intelligent response to a stupid question.  Why not aggressively point out the non-monolithic nature of Islam, as one of Steyn's colleagues recently did (also see Jill at Feministe's response to Ayaan Hirsi Ali's similar arguments)?

Bringing suit on behalf all Muslims, on the other hand, fosters two damaging ideas: the notion, again, that Islam is monolithic, and the idea that people like Steyn are poor, oppressed truth-tellers.  Demolishing Steyn's arguments would be a trivial task, but the CIC has instead gone the route of making him a martyr.

The latter point is perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of this whole case. Steyn, ever dull and unimaginative, is no Salman Rushdie. So why go make him one?