Jay Currie offers initial analysis of the ruling:
It is an intentionally narrow ruling based on a factual determination and not on a matter of law. As such it virtually eliminates the capacity of the complainants to appeal. But it is not helpful in setting the height of the bar; rather it tells the next complainants what evidence they need to bring.
Joseph Brean offers a 3 pager in the National Post with added Islamist commentary!
“Apparently it is now acceptable for some columnists and media in this country to cloak freedom to hate in the mantle of freedom of speech,” Faisel Joseph in a statement.
In the same article Julian Porter states:
Julian Porter, lawyer for Rogers Publishing, which owns Maclean’s, said this case illustrated how human rights commissions are neither trained nor equipped to rule on journalistic disputes, which require the delicate balancing of constitutional rights.
“It means that when you’re making an editorial decision, you have to look over your shoulder at this grey, fuzzy monster of the human rights commission,” he said. “Suddenly, we’re in a position where an immense group can, in effect, bring a libel action without the libel defences [of truth or fair comment].”
Mark Steyn sends a message to our fraidy cat Politico’s:
“I’ve grown tired of the number of Canadian members of Parliament who’ve said to me over the last best part of a year now, ‘Oh, well of course I fully support you, I’m fully behind you, but I’d just be grateful if you didn’t mention my name in public,'” Mr. Steyn said.