Institute for Canadian Values ad controversy

In late 2011, the National Post, one of Toronto’s major daily newspapers, ran a controversial advertisement paid for by the Institute for Canadian Values (ICV). The ad first appeared on Saturday September 24, 2011 and started to build controversy which reached a pinnacle on September 29, 2011. It was supported by the Canada Christian College, which houses ICV, and its President, Evangelical minister Charles McVety.[1]

The advertisement spoke out against the teaching of certain sexual education topics in the Ontario school curriculum and discriminated against transsexual, transgender, and intersex persons. The National Post ran an apology for the ad on September 30, 2011 but revised it later on that same day when it alluded to sexuality as a choice,[1] bringing further controversy onto itself. Two days after the Post’s apology, the Toronto Sun, another major newspaper, published an abridged version of the ad.[2]

Though the Sun has since ceased running the ad, its refusal to apologize has courted further controversy. This series of events has sparked debates about serious issues concerning freedom of speech and freedom of religion, including the way these are negotiated within the public sphere. These events have also led to discussions about the role of newspapers within a society, especially regarding their duties to the public and the liberties they can reasonably take with their content and agendas.

The National Post

Initial advertisement

The National Post, owned by Postmedia Network Inc., is a major newspaper in Canada and one of the core four papers serving the city of Toronto and therefore reaches a relatively broad audience. It is known to align itself with the views of the Conservative Party of Canada [3] and is considered one of the most conservative Canadian mainstream media outlets.[4] It is perhaps for that reason that an advertisement speaking out against teaching children about certain aspects of sexuality in school was overlooked by them and allowed to run. The ad first appeared on Saturday, September 24, 2011 and continued to run until September 30, 2011 [1] and has been called anti-gay and transphobic. It was paid for by the Institute for Canadian Values, an organization branding itself as “a national think-tank dedicated to advancing knowledge of public policy issues from Judeo-Christian intellectual and moral perspectives”.[5]

The full-page advertisement depicts a sad-looking little girl captioned with the words “I’m a girl. Don’t teach me to question if I’m a boy, transsexual, transgendered, intersexed or two spirited” [sic].[6] It also quotes a few lines from the actual curriculum, seemingly out of context as it claims that these lessons are mandatory.[1] The ad opposes the proposed curriculum for sexual education in Ontario schools which includes teaching children between junior kindergarten and Grade 3 [7] about gay, lesbian, queer, bisexual, and transsexual orientations and especially targets transsexual and intersex people. The ICV claims that such teachings would be confusing to children and likely to have a corrupting influence, even calling on political figures like Dalton McGuinty, Tim Hudak, and Andrea Horwath to take action.[5] Hudak seems to have responded to the cause, as he has since defended similarly-themed flyers handed out by the Ontario conservative party.[8]

Retraction and apology

On September 30, 2011 the National Post retracted the ICV advertisement and issued an apology for it, stating that the ad will not run in the paper again.[7] The paper would not specify how the advertisement got past the censors but did say that procedures to qualify ads were not followed in this case. In the apology, the Post asserted its right to post such an ad, saying that it “believe[s] unpopular points of view should not be censored simply because some readers may find them disturbing, or even offensive”.[7] It also defended the contents of the ad itself, explaining that it was “attempting to make the case that the Ontario curriculum was teaching very young children about issues that, at that age, should be the domain of parents”.[7] The National Post does, however, agree that the advertisement “exceeded the bounds of civil discourse… in its tone and manipulative use of a picture of a young girl”.[7] The paper also admits that allowing the ad to be published was a mistake on its part and it will be donating the money received from ICV to an LGBTQ-associated organization that has not been named.[7] This apology has offended some conservative members of the public who agree with the ad’s content and see it as part of a pro-family movement and see the Post’s retraction as giving in to pressure from public outrage.[4]

Revision of apology

Very soon after the National Post issued the initial apology, it had to revise the wording after public backlash over the problematic message that it sent. The first version of the apology made allusion to ICV’s discrimination against “people who have made choices about their sexuality”,[1] further angering the LGTBQ community in Toronto. It is yet another example of a Christian group propagating the belief that sexual orientation is a choice, something which is considered very ignorant and offensive, and is never well-received by the LGBTQ community. The Post then replaced the offending phrase with objections to ICV’s “singling out groups of people with whose sexuality the group disagrees".[7]

Though both the ad and original wording of the apology are consistent with strict conservative values, the National Post’s retraction of the ad and re-wording of the apology seem to be attempts to balance their conservative agenda with a more tolerant public image. The paper is aware that the Institute for Canadian Values’ stance is unpopular and therefore wants to distance themselves without taking a liberal approach, hence their defence of the ad’s intent but not the method ICV chose to communicate their point of view. The Post makes it clear they feel like ICV did not meet “a standard of tone and respect that is consistent with furthering constructive dialogue about important public policy issues”.[7]

The Toronto Sun

Despite the highly publicized debate and public backlash following the National Post’s decision to run ICV’s advertisement, Sun Media decided to run a slightly modified version of the ad on page 27 of the Toronto Sun’s October 2, 2011 edition despite awareness of the controversy that it had already caused.[9] The ad is smaller and minimally different but still contains, as BlogTO points out, “the features… that the Post characterized as unacceptable in its apology”,[10] meaning that its message is the same. Furthermore, the Sun has refused to apologize for running the advertisement though its publisher, Mike Power, did say that the Sun has chosen not to run the ad again.[9] There are also reports that the Sun has referred to the decision to put the ad through a “principled defence of Charles McVety’s [and therefore ICV’s] freedom of speech”.[11]Though the Sun’s actions are not illegal and its stance is in accord with the Post’s belief in the principles of free speech,[7] the paper’s decision comes across as a deliberately provocative act. As of October 14, 2011 the ad was also on regular rotation on SunTV, another outlet of Sun Media.[11]

Backlash, controversy, and debate

The LGBTQ community in Canada has long faced opposition and outward hatred from other communities, especially religious groups. Christian groups have been particularly vocal about their faith-based disapproval of what they perceive as lifestyle choices on the part of LGBTQ people.[5] The late September and early October 2011 events concerning the National Post and the Toronto Sun are an example of the problematic dialogues which take place between these groups and can undermine one or both groups’ constitutional freedoms. The LGBTQ community feels strongly that ICV’s ad is an offensive and deliberate attack towards transsexual and transgender people.[1] Part of the backlash has been an open letter signed by many prominent LGBTQ associations in Canada such as the Lesbian Gay Bi Trans Youth Line, Rainbow Health Ontario, Ontario Aids Network, and Fife House.[1] Combined, all of these events have sparked serious discussions, analyses, and debates about constitutional Canadian rights.

Freedom of speech in Canada

The main issue that has arisen from this early fall controversy is the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Canada’s constitution. Many have questioned, given these events, the extent to which Freedom of Speech should allow one group or individual to make controversial remarks to another. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees Canadians the fundamental freedoms of “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication”,[12] covering both private and public expression. These delineations are very broad and therefore leave a lot of room for some to abuse this law. It is evident from public response and the Post’s decision to retract and apologize for running the ICV’s advertisement that they feel the contents of the ad is a form of hate speech.[11] Canada’s definition of freedom of speech and expression being so broad, it is difficult to find legal justification for censoring ICV and McVety’s comments. They do not make any threats and none of the text is outwardly homophobic, though it is intolerant. However, the advertisement did not earn such heated responses simply because the opinions it expresses are unpopular; ICV is actively discriminating against LGBTQ – and especially transgender and transsexual – people and using a nationally distributed media platform. It is also part of a larger and more vicious attack which has been proceeding against this demographic. The ad seems to have encouraged both members of the public and Ontario PC’s to speak out in support of it and against the proposed Ontario school curriculum the ad targets, specifically with a misleading flyer.[8] The flyer leads readers to believe that the new curriculum proposes activities like “cross-dressing for six-year-olds and… a kissing booth” [13] when the page cited in the flyer actually refers to a list of well-known gay persons and the kissing booth is a distortion of “an idea to give chocolates to students who complete a ‘school climate’ survey”.[13]

Though these individuals and groups are guaranteed the freedom of speech and expression, the statements made in these flyers about the curriculum are lies, as are the statements in ICV’s Post and Sun advertisement, that distort the purpose of the Ontario and Toronto District School Board’s sexual education curriculum. As The Varsity points out, the lessons contained in the curriculum seem to be about creating a safe environment for all children and are “clearly aimed at preventing bullying. [They] are not designed to convince a young girl to consider becoming a boy, or vice-versa”.[14] There has been no formal ruling or consent on whether censoring the ICV would violate their freedom of speech and expression or whether it would be justified in order to protect the rights of LGBTQ people against being discriminated. It is evident, however, that the breadth of the definitions of freedoms outlined in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms has the potential to harm certain groups of people as such vague guidelines lead to the problematic actions and discourses demonstrated by the parties and events described above.

Freedom of religion and its role

Another pertinent issue raised by the aforementioned events is the freedom of religion allowed in Canada and the extent to which it protects such offensive statements. The Institute for Canadian Values has clearly defined itself as an organization with a Judeo-Christian set of values and a corresponding agenda.[5] Their discrimination against the LGBTQ community is based on the religious beliefs outlined by their faith’s doctrine. Does religion justify discrimination? This ties in strongly into the question of religion’s role and place within the public sphere. Philosopher Jurgen Habermas sees freedom of religion as “the appropriate political answer to the challenges of religious pluralism”.[15] He also says, however, that “it is not enough to rely on the mere benevolence of a secularized authority that now tolerates minorities heretofore discriminated against”;[15] freedom of religion has allowed diverse religious groups to practice and vocalize their beliefs without fear of discrimination, yet ICV seems to be taking advantage of that protection in order to discriminate against another group and interfere in political issues. Habermas emphasizes the importance of the separation between church and state and the importance of need for political institutions to “formulate and justify laws, court rulings, decrees and measures only in language which is equally accessible to all citizens”.[15] Though the ICV did not include overt religious language in their ad, their religious motivations are transparent in the target they have chosen and the mission statement on their website as are their attempts to influence politicians and political decisions,[5] something which conflicts with the role that religion should have in a fair and equal public discourse. Though ICV as an organization and its individual members have freedom of religion, as well as freedom of speech and expression, their use of it, while still legal, openly discriminates against other people in a way which borderlines on basic human rights violation.

Role of newspapers

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion have been at the center of debates concerning the events of the scandal described in this article but it must be kept in mind that the forums for the scandal and subsequent discussion have been newspapers. The actions of the National Post and the Toronto Sun beg the question: what role do we, as a society, expect newspapers to fulfill, and how well are they fulfilling it? Newspapers are first and foremost sources of information; they must be aware of the events that are occurring in our immediate surroundings as well as in the rest of the world and filter that information in order to relay the most relevant information to the public. They have great power in their prerogative to choose what to relay and what to withhold; they can capture specific audiences with what they select to publish. Newspapers have evolved from merely being sources of information or even entertainment to being a reflection of their readers. The National Post, for example, has taken a conservative position;[3] in a vicious cycle, conservative readers know that they can expect the Post’s point of view to match their own and the Post will continue to take a conservative stance to keep up with their readers’ expectations. The ad sponsored by ICV was technically in keeping with their position – strictly in terms of its political stance – and is well within the Post’s freedom of expression rights. Their retraction seems therefore to be driven by something more than tolerance; the Post recognizes that their role as a newspaper, in addition to reporting news and catering to their audience’s political views, is to provide a platform for safe discussion and the advertisement violated that safety. We live in a time in which newspapers have shifted to the online world; the internet is part of the public sphere and has the power to foster discussion on any number of topics. The role of a newspaper on its website is therefore to encourage balanced and informed discussion and to let readers form their own opinions without overwhelming bias from third-party sources.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 National Post apologizes for running transphobic ad xtra.ca. September 29, 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-28.
  2. ↑ Despite National Post apology, Toronto Sun runs transphobic ICV ad. Toronto.openfile.ca. October 03, 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-28.
  3. 1 2 "World Newspapers and Magazines: Canada". Worldpress.org. 2007. Retrieved 2011-11-28
  4. 1 2 National Post apologizes for pro-family ad, donates proceeds to gay activist group. lifesitenews.com. September 30, 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-28.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 Institute for Canadian Values. canadianvalues.ca. 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-28.
  6. ↑ National Post takes heat for running transphobic ad. blogto.com. September 29, 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-28.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 An apology from the National Post. nationalpost.com. October 01, 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-28.
  8. 1 2 Something brewing beneath transphobic ads in Ontario. rabble.ca. October 05, 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-28.
  9. 1 2 Toronto Sun will not apologize for transphobic ad. extra.ca. October 03, 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-28.
  10. ↑ Subject of an apology from the National Post, transphobic ad makes its way to the Sun. blogto.com. October 03, 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-28.
  11. 1 2 3 Hate Speech on Trial in Canada. dentedbluemercedes.wordpress.com. October 14, 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-28.
  12. ↑ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. laws.justice.gc.ca. March 29, 1982. Retrieved 2011-11-28.
  13. 1 2 Hudak defends Ontario campaign flyer described as homophobic. theglobeandmail.com. October 03, 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-28.
  14. ↑ Transphobia in Toronto. Blatant transphobia appears in full-page ads in the National Post and Toronto Sun. thevarsity.ca. October 14, 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-28.
  15. 1 2 3 Habermas, Jurgen. "Religion in the Public Sphere." European Journal of Philosophy 14.1 (2006): 1-25. Print. Pg 5
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 5/7/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.