Osgoode Hall vs. Maclean’s Magazine Redux?

Unless you live under a rock you will be all too aware that Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine are being investigated by at least two Canadian Human Rights Commissions to face charges made by the Canadian Islamic Congress and four law students from Osgoode Hall.

I have wanted to write more about this for well over a week now, but every time the exact ‘bon mot’ or killer phrase comes to mind, I go over to Mark Steyn’s own thoughts on the case and find myself undone by the master of wordplay.  Either that or the very argument I wanted to make was already on the excellent Free Mark Steyn blog.  Instead therefore I pondered the potential motivation for the students to make the charge, not really believing that ‘being offended’ is quite enough. 

Understanding the CIC’s motivation is easy – really.   Just imagine yourself to be a stone-age thug and follow the appropriate steps in Canada’s welcoming quasi-legal systems to its natural conclusion and attempt to silence the infidels.

But why would four law students in one of Canada’s top schools want to support these complaints?  Are these future lawyers so thin-skinned that they were actually offended by Maclean’s published excerpts from ‘America Alone’?  If so then perhaps the law is not a good career choice for these delicate souls.  Perhaps scrap-booking supply salesmanperson would be a better fit?

Using the mystifying and (almost) magical power of Google, I found something that may explain some things.  Osgoode Hall and Maclean’s have a history.  A recent history in fact.  Also, a letter to Macleans is published on the Law is Cool blog by a Daniel Simard, coincidentally one of those complainants on the Human Rights complaints filed against Maclean’s and Steyn.  The author of the letter is a Michelle Simard.  Relative or coincidence…?

Here’s the short timeline:

September 17th 2007:  Maclean’s publishes its first ever rankings for Canada’s law schools.

September 28th 2007:  Law is Cool contributor Daniel Simard posts a copy of a letter written to Maclean’s by a Michelle Simard questioning the veracity of Osgoode Hall’s 3rd place, and the overall methodology of the Maclean’s study.

September 24th 2007: The Law Times interviews Michelle Simard for an article on the Maclean’s rankings.

There is some inconsistency with the timing – according to the Law is Cool post dated 9/28:

"The post below sparked interest to the editor of Law Times resulting in a substantial contribution to an article entitled New Law School Rankings ‘Incomplete’"

Yet the Law Times article was posted 9/24.  This may not be important, other than to illustrate one key point I wish to make:  That Osgoode Hall students reacted within days of the Maclean’s rankings publication, and immediately demonstrated the skill of rebuttal in a letter to the editor.

So, why did it take several months for Osgoode students to get offended over the Maclean’s/Steyn article?  Maclean’s published letters both supporting and condemning the original article for weeks after original publication… yet the deeply offended souls at Osgoode Hall took no action.  Why?

Is the alt-Simard ranking complaint piling on?  With the Human Rights Complaint already in the works at both the BC HRC and the Canadian HRC do Osgoode Hall students really need to add payback for a poorer than expected showing in Maclean’s law school rankings.  And why are Osgoode’s legion of offended led again by those named Simard?

I may be right, I may be wrong.  Certainly the coincidence that Maclean’s finds itself facing Osgoode Hall students named Simard in both cases is remarkable. 

Here ends my nod to conspiracy theory, now please do return to Mark’s page and chortle along as he dissects the hopelessly outmatched students with his wit and wisdom.