The Police State Creep
Methinks the man would've been much better advised 1) bothering to spend his 1000 words substantiating the claim that the cited piece was "insulting and wrong-headed"--particularly the latter as the former is not only subjective, it is irrelevant; and 2) explaining what the hell "incendiary sarcasm" is, or could ever hope to be (outside of the confines of the Academy of Lagado).
From the start, the tribunal should have agreed that Steyn's Oct. 26, 2006 piece was insulting and wrong-headed. It might even have said it's regrettable that Maclean's gave space to this kind of incendiary sarcasm.
With friends like Mr. Mulgrew, who needs brainless invertebrates?