Allan Scott et al vs Toronto Star
Blair MacIsaac vs Pembroke Observer
Brian K. Jenkins vs Toronto Star
Campnbell Robertson and Bahija Reghai vs Globe and Mail
Carl H. Ladek vs Globe and Mail
Carol Wainio vs Ottawa Citizen
Chris Carlo vs Toronto Star
Terrence Sullivan vs Globe and Mail
Connie Kidd vs Hamilton Spectator
Doug Lewis vs Orillia Packet & Times
Evan Wood vs Globe and Mail
Evangelical Fellowship of Canada vs Toronto Star
Fred Holmes vs Ajax/Pickering News Advertiser
Gilles Fournier vs Ottawa Sun
Graham Haig vs Ottawa Citizen
Guy Giorno vs Toronto Star
Hajara Kutty and Mohamed Elmasry vs Toronto Star
Jacob Mendlovic vs Globe and Mail
Jacob Mendlovic vs Toronto Star
Janet Eta vs Toronto Sun
Joanne Byfield @ Carroll Rees vs Globe and Mail
Joe McParland vs Windsor Star
Keith Stringer vs Toronto Star
Ken Stone vs Hamilton Mountain News
Leonard Asper vs Globe and Mail
Louise Binder vs Globe and Mail
Marie Jacobs vs Hamilton Spectator
Mark Scott vs Toronto Sun
Michael Vranesh vs Ottawa Citizen
Michelle Berardinetti vs Globe and Mail
Mohamed Elmasry vs Toronto Star and Waterloo Region Record
Pat Canini vs Hamilton Spectator
Rachel Schug vs Niagara Falls Review
Rick Moffitt and John Syko vs Toronto Star
Robert L.. Burton and Anita Bromberg vs Globe and Mail
Stuart Macdonald vs Northumberland News
Suzanne Langlois Mooney vs Globe and Mail
Valerie Smith vs Toronto Star

Allan Scott et al vs Toronto Star

The Ontario Press Council has dismissed a flood of complaints about a column in the Toronto Star that twitted the Roman Catholic Church for what the writer suggested was the idea of selling St. Michael’s Cathedral in downtown Toronto so that it could be replaced by condominiums.

The Press Council received a total of 51 complaints after the column was published on Oct. 11, 2005, and an Internet website encouraged readers to write to the Star and the council. It selected Allan Scott of Toronto to represent the complainants at a hearing.

Scott said the column, by Joey Slinger, was based on erroneous information in suggesting the Pope might excommunicate Paul Martin. He described the language as unnecessarily hurtful, notably sentences that said: “It’s hard to say where Catholics will worship. But that’s their problem.” And: “They’d have to start selling their real estate. Failing that, we’d have to seize it and auction it off. It’s happened before. It was a fairly popular medieval screw-you gesture.” And Scott said the article targets the church for ridicule in citing its opposition to gay marriage and abortion.

The Star said humour is an essential element of the newspaper, that Slinger has a “wicked wit” and is a prime practitioner of the art, and that the column was overstating the case and obviously not to be taken seriously. Noting that the church had weighed in on how it would deal with politicians who support gay marriage, the newspaper said Slinger was attacking the church hierarchy, not ridiculing people of the Roman Catholic faith. And it said the reference to excommunication was not meant to be taken in its literal sense.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (March 16, 2006)

Allan Scott of Toronto was invited to represent 51 persons who complained about a Toronto Star column by Joey Slinger that took the Roman Catholic Church to task for possibly intending to replace St. Michael’s Cathedral with condominiums, and suggesting that if Paul Martin were to be excommunicated for his stand on gay marriage the church should lose its tax exempt status.

Scott said the column, published Oct. 11, 2005, was based on erroneous information, the language was insulting, sarcastic and unnecessarily hurtful and constituted an attack on all Catholics.

The Ontario Press Council sees the column as critical of the church hierarchy, not ordinary Catholics. It agrees that a reference to the Pope thinking about excommunicating Paul Martin is erroneous but believes the column is so satirical and loaded with hyperbole that it is not to be taken seriously.

In dismissing the complaint, the council says it is obvious some readers would be offended by the language but that does not make it unnecessarily hurtful – one of the tests for complaints about articles of opinion.

Blair MacIsaac vs Pembroke Observer

A complaint that editorials published in the Pembroke Observer in July 2003 constituted unfair and misleading criticism of the Pembroke Police Service has been upheld by the Ontario Press Council.The first editorial, headlined City police their own worst enemy, referred to two press releases from the city police -- one involving the discovery of drug paraphernalia and the other dealing with an assault on an officer. The release about the drugs arrived by fax three days after a sergeant told a radio station about the assault the day it happened, according to the editorial. It added that police offered a “lame excuse” for not naming the officer and attacker in the press release reporting the assault.Chief Blair MacIsaac maintained that all faxes are sent to the media at the same time and that the failure to receive them in this case may have resulted from problems with the Observer’s fax machine. He added that the Observer had been told that the name of the assailant was withheld because of possible mental health issues. A second editorial, published four days later, said the paper had by then been advised that the officer’s name and that of his assailant were withheld in line with the privacy regulations of the Mental Health Act.“Had that rationale been put forward when we asked for the reasons the names were withheld, our reaction might have been different,” the editorial said, adding that the discrepancy between release times for the drug bust notice remained. MacIsaac, describing the editorials as “unduly harsh,” wrote: “The paper has taken no responsibility for any problems on their end that interfered with the receipt of our fax and has refused, twice, to publicly acknowledge that they were provided with a very good reason why police would not release names in the assault police matter.” The Observer’s written response to the complaint said the reason the reference to mental health issues was not included in the July 22 editorial was that the deputy chief had told the newspaper the information was off the record.The newspaper wrote that in light of this information and what it had learned after the first editorial “we maintain that both the July 22 and July 26 editorials presented the facts regarding release of names in Pembroke Police press releases honestly and fairly.”

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (March 19, 2004)

Blair MacIsaac, Pembroke’s chief of police, complained that an editorial published in the Pembroke Observer July 22, 2003, was “adversarial, sensationalist and very misleading” and that a followup editorial published four days later failed to correct the misinformation. The first editorial, headlined City police their own worst enemy, said police provided “a lame excuse” for withholding names in the case of a police officer who was beaten up. It also said a fax about a drug bust showed up three days after it was given to other news organizations. MacIsaac said the newspaper had been told on July 21 that the reason names were withheld was that there might be mental health issues involved. And he added that fax machine problems at the newspaper appeared to have been the reason it did not receive the news release on time. The second editorial, declaring that the newspaper’s concerns were addressed in talks with the chief and the chair of the police services board, said it was helpful to find out there is a victim’s bill of rights. It repeated its criticism of the discrepancy between release times of the drug bust notice. The Ontario Press Council believes the first editorial was unfair in describing as “lame” the reasons given for withholding the names in the assault of the officer. It is surprised that editors had only recently learned of the existence of a victim’s bill of rights. And it suggests the second editorial should have admitted that the reason it received a news release three days late may have been a problem with its own fax machine. The complaint is upheld.

Brian K. Jenkins vs Toronto Star II

A complaint that a Toronto Star column about a bill to amend the Divorce Act was devoid of sources for the percentages it cited has been upheld by the Ontario Press Council.

The April 13 column by Michele Landsberg said the words in the bill “are so ill thought out that they will imperil abused women and their children, undermine the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights, make international kidnappings much easier and create a disastrous surge of new litigation.”

Brian K. Jenkins of Mississauga complained that not only had the column ignored a 1999 Press Council ruling that sources should be included for purported statements of fact, some of the statements themselves were erroneous.

He noted, for example, that there was no source for a statement that in Canada men who sue for child custody win slightly more than 50 per cent of the time, a figure contained in a 1998 column that Jenkins said was and still is false.

Jenkins was one of four people who complained about the April 13 column. Others were Jim Hueglin of Kingston, Eeva Sodhi of McDonald’s Corners, Jonathan Kauffman of Toronto and Peter Kornakovic of Mississauga. The Council decided to adjudicate one of the complaints.

Jenkins maintained it was misleading to write that 95 per cent of divorce cases settle themselves or with lawyers without going all the way to trial. “In fact,” he wrote, “judges in ‘motions court’ make the majority of custody and access decisions affecting divorces and children.”

He took issue with a statement that “more than 40 per cent of fathers who have joint custody do not bother to see their children at all or no more than once a month.” That figure, he said, is the proportion of non-custodial fathers, (not joint custodial) from both married and unmarried arrangements (not just divorces) who never get to see their children.

Noting that the column said 69 per cent of children live with their mothers, whether there is joint custody or not, he said Statistics Canada and Department of Justice figures indicate clearly over 85 per cent of children live with their mothers.

The Star sent Jenkins and other complainants figures from four studies in the United States that showed fathers gaining custody of children 40 to 70 per cent of the time. Jenkins responded that his prior complaint, and part of the current complaint, centred on Canadian data.

Rather than further discussing statistics at the Press Council hearing, the Star said what drove the whole article was Landsberg’s concern that women would have to have contact with abusive husbands after divorce; that as drafted the proposed changes to the Divorce Act wouldn’t help protect abused women because they would place the burden on women to argue why shared responsibility for children would be wrong.

Landsberg wrote in a July 27 column that every time she writes about divorce “the fathers’ rights vitilantes leap into action . . . demanding proof of every statistics and cooking up stats of their own.” The column named nine sources for its statements.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (November 5, 2003)

Brian K. Jenkins of Mississauga complained that a column published in the Toronto Star April 13 about the new federal Divorce Act contained factual errors and ignored a 1999 ruling of the Ontario Press Council that articles of opinion should include the source of statistical information. The column by Michele Landsberg, headlined “Divorce bill’s flaws inadvertently aid abusers,” accused Justice Minister Martin Cauchon of seeking to placate the most extreme of fathers’ rights agitators.

The Star responded that statistics were secondary to the point that proposed changes to the act would not help protect abused women because, as drafted, they would place the burden on women to argue why shared responsibility for children would be wrong.

In upholding the complaint, the Press Council reiterates its support of the free expression of opinion that purports to be based on statistics but believes that readers have the right to know where the statistics came from.

The complaint is upheld.

Campbell Robertson and Bahija Reghai vs Globe and Mail

Complaints that an editorial published in The Globe and Mail Feb. 15, 2006, incorrectly declared that a video showing Palestinian youths preparing for a suicide mission was displayed on “the Hamas website” have been dismissed with reservations by the Ontario Press Council.

The complaints were lodged by Campbell Robertson of Ottawa, a member of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, and Bahija Reghai of Ottawa, president of the Coalition of Arab Canadian Professionals and Community Associations.

Robertson said that when the editorial writer was asked to identify the source of the video, he said it was Palestinian Media Watch, an Israeli organization that Robertson said “is known for promoting one-sided, hateful views of Palestinians.”

Reghai said that when the newspaper was challenged, “it gave websites that may support Hamas but are not ‘the Hamas website’.”

The editorial said that optimists who take the view that the Hamas victory in the January 2006 Palestinian election will lead the militant Islamist movement to moderate its views “should take a look at a video presented on the Hamas website this week.”

The two complaints were lodged in April and July. An Aug. 15 letter from The Globe said the only question to be determined was whether the newspaper was justified in referring to the source of the video as the Hamas website.

It said there had been an official Hamas website two years ago that has been deactivated. It added that it had determined that the video was on palestine-info, the site of the Palestine Information Center, described by the Hamas-PA minister of education as the official Hamas site.

In dismissing the complaint, the Press Council said it recognized that it took some time for the newspaper to identify the site on which the video was shown.

Its reservations dealt with the fact that, in saying the video was on the Hamas website “this week” and “Hamas is airing it now,” there was no independent verification that it was, in fact, newly posted on the site.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (March 14, 2007)

Campbell Robertson of Ottawa, a member of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, and Bahija Reghai of Ottawa, president of the Coalition of Arab Canadian Professionals and Community Associations, complained about a Globe and Mail editorial published Feb. 15, 2006, which identified as the Hamas website the source of a video showing two Palestinian youths delivering statements before beginning a suicide mission.

Robertson said that when the writer was asked to identify the source of information about the site showing the video, he identified it as an Israeli organization, Palestinian Media Watch.

Reghai wrote that none of the websites cited by the newspaper are “the Hamas website.”

The Globe responded that, since the official Hamas site was deactivated in 2004, Hamas has been disseminating its information through the Palestine Information Center and it’s fair and reasonable to call it the Hamas site.

The Ontario Press Council is of the view that when the editorial was published The Globe and Mail did not have the information which it subsequently acquired to identify the site as the Hamas site.

It does believe that in saying the video was “presented on the Hamas website this week” and that “Hamas is airing it now,” the editorial left the impression that it had just been posted when, in fact, there was no indication how long it had been on the site.

But with this reservation, it dismisses the complaint.

Carl H. Ladek vs Globe and Mail

An editorial that appeared to suggest every person living in Germany during the Second World War was an active agent in Hitler’s genocide went too far, the Ontario Press Council said, in upholding a complaint against The Globe and Mail.

Carl H. Ladek of St. Catharines described the editorial as “erroneous and irresponsible” and said he felt “both individually and collectively defamed and injured.”

The editorial, published July 10, 2000, criticized the conclusions of a panel created by the Organization of African Unity to examine the causes of the Rwandan genocide. The panel blamed external forces such as the United Nations, the United States, France, Belgium, other African states and the Roman Catholic church for not halting the slaughter.

Taking issue with a suggestion by the panel that the case of Germany after the Second World War was a precedent for Rwanda, the editorial said:

“Germany is absolutely not a precedent; the Germans were, both individually and collectively, active agents in Hitler’s genocidal actions.”

Mr. Ladek said the editorial effectively characterized him as a war criminal although he was passively opposed to Hitler and his regime.

“Nobody asked me in 1938 whether I, until then an Austrian citizen, wanted to join the German Reich, nobody asked me in 1939 whether I wanted war to be waged and nobody asked me in 1942 whether I really wanted to serve in the German armed forces.

“Not only did I not participate in any genocidal actions or condone them, in fact, I knew nothing of death camps and gas chambers until the end of the war….”

The Globe and Mail said the editorial was arguing that the Germans and no other parties bore responsibility for their actions.

“The words ‘both individually and collectively’ are meant to underscore that what happened wasn’t a few random individuals going berserk or a government policy that nobody paid any attention to. The Nazi government said: ‘This is what we are going to do in the name of the German people and for the benefit of the German people. Then individual Germans implemented that strategy in a variety of ways.”

The newspaper added that complicity for what happened in Germany had to be shared by “those who actively did things and those who passively let them happen.”

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (July 11, 2001)

Carl H. Ladek of St. Catharines complained that an editorial published in The Globe and Mail July 10, 2000, was “erroneous and irresponsible” in declaring that “the Germans were, both individually and collectively, active agents in Hitler’s gfenlocidal actions.”

He said he opposed Adolf Hitler and his regime and was “deeply hurt by being painted an active participant in genocidal murder.”

The Globe and Mail said the editorial was not intended to label every single German as an active participant but was intended to show that Nazi Germany was a state unlike others in that it was designed to do horrific things. It added that when a modern industrial state goes to war, it is difficult to separate individuals from actions of government.

The Ontario Press Council recognizes that the editorial was primarily intended to show that the Germans alone bore responsibility for Nazi Germany’s actions in the Second World War. But the Council says that insofar as the words could be interpreted to mean that every individual German living under Hitler was an active agent of the Third Reich’s genocidal actions, it went too far. On this account, it upholds the complaint.

Noting that Mr. Ladek said he lodged his complaint after it became evident The Globe and Mail wasn’t going to publish his brief letter to the editor, the Press Council reminds newspapers that printing critical letters is sometimes an easy way to settle differences.

---

The Globe and Mail took issue with the suggestion it might have headed off the complaint by printing Mr. Ladek’s letter.

“First, we don’t have crystal balls. We don’t know how many of our correspondents will be so upset by rejection that they feel compelled to get the Council involved.

“Second, we have probably the best letters page in the country and competition to get a letter in is fierce. We are not out to stifle debate or snub other points ofr view but the reality is that we can print only 15 per cent of the letters we received. And, in this case, we did publish other letters objecting to the editorial.”

Carol Wainio vs Ottawa Citizen

A complaint that two columns by David Warren published in the Ottawa Citizen Dec. 13 and 17, 2006, contain “inaccurate information and hateful commentary” has been dismissed by the Ontario Press Council.

Carol Wainio of Ottawa took particular exception to a paragraph in the first column that said the strategy in the Iraqi city of Fallujah “should have been to make it into a parking lot and build a Wal-Mart at one end.”

“There would have been great loss of life, but the message to our enemies and their supporters everywhere would have been, ‘We will not be toyed with.’ Civilians whose sympathies are with the enemy cannot be won over, and have not been, by the ‘candy to children’ approach. They must be taught that sheltering the enemy – even involuntarily – means sharing the enemy’s fate.”

She also took issue with a paragraph that said the enemy is “the same in the Sunni Triangle as over Manhattan in September 2001.”

She added that the second column did not mention that there were no links between the 9/11 attacks and Iraq and that George Bush now acknowledges that no such link exists.

“The attempt to directly identify anyone living in a given geographical area of Iraq with the 9/11 terrorists by stating they are ‘the same,’ and to advocate their destruction in order to ‘teach them a lesson’ can only be construed as a kind of hate speech.”

Leonard Stern, the Citizen’s editorial page editor, said Wainio is mistaken. “The insurgents in the Sunni Triangle are indeed the ‘same’ enemy as the 9/11 hijackers – in that they are religious extremists who commit terrorism in the name of militant Islam.”

He added that Warren’s observations on the conflict in Iraq, and on Islamic extremism, are well within the mainstream of popular commentary on this subject.

Stern said Warren “may be calling for a certain degree of ruthlessness but a ruthlessness no different from that which the West has brought to other conflicts including the Second World War.”

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (November 29, 2007)

Carol Wainio of Ottawa complained about two columns by David Warren published in the Ottawa Citizen on Dec. 13 and 17, 2006.

She said the first column, which suggested that the Iraqi city of Fallujah should have been made into a parking lot with a Wal-Mart at one end, used “excessively hurtful language.” And she said the second column erred in suggesting the enemy in the Sunni Triangle is the same as the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

The Citizen described the reference to Fallujah as a metaphor, insisting that insurgents in the Sunni Triangle are the same enemy as the 9/11 hijackers. It said the column may have been calling for a degree of ruthlessness no different that that which the West has brought to other conflicts including the Second World War.

The Ontario Press Council believes the language was intemperate and hurtful and could be construed as advocating the destruction of innocent lives. But it believes the columns fall within its policy on opinion, which says it believes it is appropriate for columnists to exercise wide latitude in expressing their opinions, no matter how controversial or unpopular the opinions may be.

The Press Council, in a majority vote, elected to dismiss the complaint.

Chris Carlo vs Toronto Star

A newspaper should make an extra effort to reach agreement on a published response from a person who has been criticized in an editorial, the Ontario Press Council said in upholding a complaint against The Toronto Star.

Chris Sarlo, an associate professor of economics at Nipissing University in North Bay, complained that the editorial, published July 26, 2001, “went beyond mere disagreement and launched into a highly emotional ridicule of my work.”

The editorial, entitled “Degrees of deprivation,” said, “In his writings on poverty for the right-wing Fraser Institute, the Nipissing University professor puts the poor on a plane not all that much higher than the one on which most Canadians would put their pets.”

Sarlo described the editorial as “inflammatory (almost defamatory), misleading and totally unfair.”

The writer is apparently unaware that the debate about absolute vs. relative measures is going on everywhere else in the world. . . .”

The Star said a letter to the editor, written four days after the editorial appeared, was not published because of a slip-up: “Our letters editor was off the day Professor Sarlo’s letter arrived, and the person filling in failed to make the connection between the author of the letter and the individual cited in the editorial.”

Sarlo later submitted an article defending his work and criticizing The Star. The concluding paragraph of the article said:

“For a newspaper that prides itself on being fair, open and balanced, their words and deeds point in the opposite direction, at least with respect to the poverty definition matter.”

The Star declined to publish the article, saying there was a staleness issue because it arrived four months after the editorial was published, and adding that as a matter of policy, it does not run rebuttals on the op-ed page.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (March 21, 2002)

Chris Sarlo, an associate professor of economics at Nipissing University in North Bay, complained that an editorial in The Toronto Star published July 26, 2001, ridiculed his definition of poverty and that the newspaper did not publish his letter responding to the attack.

The Star said failure to publish his letter was the result of a slip-up and insisted it wasn’t attempting to suppress Sarlo’s point of view. It later declined to publish a column written by Sarlo because The Star, as a matter of policy, does not print rebuttal articles.

The Ontario Press Council says it understands that the decision to ditch Sarlo’s letter resulted in part from the fact that it did not refer explicitly to the editorial. But since he had been personally criticized, the Council suggests the newspaper should have made a greater effort to reach an accommodation with Sarlo on an acceptable response to the editorial.

The complaint is upheld.

COLUMN ERRED

Newspaper columnists have considerable freedom to indulge in controversy but they should be held to account for factual errors, the Press Council said in upholding a complaint against The Globe and Mail. The Council said a column published March 4 contained an error that was just important enough to justify either a correction or publication of a letter to the editor pointing out the slip.

Terrence Sullivan of Toronto, president of the Institute for Work & Health, took issue with the first paragraph of the column, which said:

“Canada is among a few countries (provocatively including Cuba and North Korea) that denies its citizens the right to buy basic medical care outside the government monopoly system.”

Describing the statement as “provocative, simplistic and factually wrong,” Prof. Sullivan wrote that “every province allows physicians to opt out of the provincial health insurance plan and in every province citizens enjoy the legal option of purchasing care from opted out physicians.”

He added that every province except Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Ontario allows physicians who opt out to bill patients directly at fees that may be higher than those specified in the public plan.

“I do not believe The Globe and Mail should be disseminating inflammatory misinformation of this kind in the course of a national debate on health care issues and I believe they should be obliged to correct errors of fact.”

The newspaper replied that the description of the state of medical care fell within the bounds of editorial licence within which columnists operate.

“He was not describing the theoretical state of available private care across Canada but the practical state of private medical options. For all intents and purposes, few Canadians know or are able to avail themselves of the right to private care that, technically, may exist.

“Your letter described the technical state of private medical legality as if it were the reality of medical practice. To publish it would have been more misleading than any technical licence (the columnist) took with the subject.”

During the oral hearing on the complaint, The Globe and Mail did, however, concede that the opening paragraph of the column may have crossed a technical line.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (October 27, 2000)

Terrence Sullivan of Toronto, president of the Institute for Work & Health, complained that The Globe and Mail had not published his letter drawing attention to what he described as a factual error in a March 4 column about medicare.

He took issue with a paragraph that said “Canada is among a few countries (provocatively including Cuba and North Korea) that denies its citizens the right to buy basic medical care outside the government monopoly system.” In fact, Prof. Sullivan wrote, “every province allows physicians to opt out of the provincial health insurance plan and in every province citizens enjoy the legal option of purchasing care from opted out physicians.”

The newspaper replied that the columnist “was not describing the theoretical state of available private care across Canada but the practical state of private medical options” and that publishing it would have been more misleading than “any technical licence” the author took with the subject. It added that it receives 150 to 200 letters each day and can publish only 12 to 15; also that the letter, at about 450 words, was much longer than those it usually publishes.

The Ontario Press Council notes The Globe and Mail conceded the column technically crossed the line and that if the complaint had involved a news story, it would have deserved a response. The Council adds that while columnists are given wide latitude, they should be held to standards of factual accuracy.

In upholding the complaint, it suggests newspapers should be prepared to publish a correction or an abbreviated version of letters taking issue with questions of fact even if editors don’t see the alleged inaccuracy as of great significance.

Connie Kidd vs Hamilton Spectator

TORONTO – The Ontario Press Council dismissed a complaint against the Hamilton Spectator over an editorial that a reader described as a “racist rant.”

The complaint by Connie Kidd of Hamilton focused on a June 2009 editorial that criticized police for not dealing more firmly with protests by minority groups for fear of being accused of racism.

Kidd said that by using only examples of ethnic minorities such as Tamil Canadians and Aboriginals, the paper itself was showing systemic racism.

The Spectator said its point was that while protest is a public right, it is not absolute. It said the editorial was not meant to attack ethnic minorities.

While the Press Council felt the editorial could have been more sensitive, its decision to dismiss the complaint relied on Council policy that extends to newspapers wide latitude in expressing opinions.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (March 1, 2010)

Connie Kidd of Hamilton complained that the Hamilton Spectator permitted publication of “a racist rant” in an editorial written by a member of its editorial board that said police presence at protest rallies seems to be there to clear the way for protesters. The editorial included mention of Tamil-Canadians demonstrating in Toronto, Natives halting road traffic in a range of Ontario centres, including Caledonia and Brantford, and Mohawk protesters blocking a bridge in Deseronto.

The Spectator maintained that the primary thrust of the editorial was that, while the right to public protest is a critical element of democracy, it is not absolute and that the editorial was not about ethnic or cultural minorities. To which Kidd responded that the editorial mentioned only Native and Tamil-Canadian protestors.

The Press Council says it sees the commentary as insensitive but that it falls under Council policy, which extends to newspapers wide latitude in expressing their opinions in editorials “no matter how controversial or unpopular the opinions may be.”

The complaint is dismissed.

Doug Lewis vs Orillia Packet & Times

An editorial in The Orillia Packet & Times that criticized the Mnjikaning First Nation band council because it restricts admission of the media to its meetings overstepped the bounds of rational debate, the Ontario Press Council says in upholding a complaint against the newspaper.

Doug Lewis of Orillia, a lawyer and former federal solicitor general, focused his complaint on a sentence that read: “The band council restricts the media because it sees the media as a ‘white,’ non-native institution. Everything it does is filtered through that racist lens.”

“…that comment is unworthy of The Packet & Times, an institution which purports to reason for freedom of the media,” Lewis wrote. “That kind of language is from another era when the media was not as tolerant.”

The editorial, published May 7 under the headline Public meetings should be just that, reserve or not, said:

“For years now, most ‘public’ meetings held at Mnjikaning First Nation have been a sham. The ‘public’ meeting held Saturday to discuss a 10-year plan for the band is no exception. It’s an excellent example of abuse of power and disregard for transparent government. . . .If you are not a band member or an aboriginal, you are not welcome.”

The newspaper published a letter from Lewis in which he said he was “absolutely appalled and disappointed at the language used in Tuesday’s editorial.”

An editor’s note appended to the letter said there is a long history of the media and public being barred from “public” meetings and added that the Packet & Times “stands firmly by the editorial.”

Lewis said that what the editor refers to as “public” meetings are routinely described by the Mnjikaning band as “community” meetings and that it is customary to restrict admission.

He quoted from the Indian Band Council Procedure Regulations which say meetings “shall be open to members of the band” and added that “there is no legal requirement anywhere, that I know of or that the editor has referred to, that requires the board to admit non-members of Mnjikaning or the media.”

Noting that the Casino Rama gambling casino has had an important impact on the local economy, the newspaper said decisions of the band council not only affect aboriginals, they are important to the whole Orillia region. “It stands to reason that the standards for transparent government, full democracy and media scrutiny have changed. But the exclusionary policies of the band have not changed.”

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (October 31, 2002)

Doug Lewis of Orillia complained about an editorial published in The Orillia Packet & Times May 7 that said the Mnjikaning First Nation band council restricts admission of the media to its meetings because “it sees the media as a ‘white,’ non-native institution” and “everything it does is filtered through that racist lens.”

The editorial said that for years most of what it considered to be “public” meetings held at Mnjikaning First Nation have been a sham and that a meeting held to discuss a 10-year plan for the band was no exception.

Describing the accusation of racism as unworthy, Lewis said excluding the media is a matter of custom and that there is no legal requirement that requires the band to admit non-members or the media.

The newspaper responded that “It is incontestable that the policy of excluding the mainstream media and non-native public is inherently based on race.”

As a matter of policy, the Ontario Press Council extends to newspapers the freedom to exercise wide latitude in expressing controversial and unpopular opinions. It sees as a legitimate subject for editorial treatment the question of whether band meetings should be open. But it believes the charge that band council actions result from institutional anti-white racism oversteps the bounds of rational debate and it upholds the complaint on grounds that, in the Press Council’s opinion, the editorial is unnecessarily hurtful.

Evan Wood vs Globe and Mail

The Ontario Press Council dismissed a complaint against The Globe and Mail by Evan Wood of Vancouver involving a column published July 15, 2008, under the headline "We still await the scientific proof of harm reduction’s success."

The column by Margaret Wente, which dealt with Insite, Vancouver’s supervised drug injection facility, said Wood and his associate, Thomas Kerr, often act more like advocates than impartial researchers; that they denounce anyone who questions that the value of Insite might still be a subject for legitimate study, and that they refuse to share data with other researchers.

Wood, the co-principal investigator of the Urban Health Research Initiative at the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, was critical of the reference to him and Kerr as “Mr.” Noting that he is both an MD and a PhD and that Kerr also has his doctorate, he complained that the column did not acknowledge their credentials and left the impression that amateurs were responsible for Insite’s scientific evaluation.

He said the suggestion that he and Kerr refuse to share data resulted from the comment of a researcher who sent his request to a defunct email address, a fact that was included in a subsequent correction published in the newspaper.

The correction also noted that the opening paragraphs of the column referred to the year 2002 before the facility opened when Wood and Kerr had not yet attained PhDs.

Ten days after the column appeared, the newspaper published what it described as a “spirited letter” from Wood in which he made clear that the methodology of the evaluation of the injection facility was externally peer reviewed and published.

The Press Council, after studying all the correspondence, reached the conclusion that The Globe had made a reasonable effort in this case to redress the complaint.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (May 22, 2009)

Evan Wood complained that a column published in The Globe and Mail on July 15, 2008, under the headline "We still await the scientific proof of harm reduction’s success" unfairly attacked his role and that of Thomas Kerr in evaluating Insite, Vancouver’s supervised drug injection site.

He maintained that the column, by Margaret Wente, contained misleading quotations and conveyed the impression that he and Kerr were untrained amateurs.

He objected to the column’s reference to them as “young” and as “Mr. Wood and Mr. Kerr,” also that a statement that they had no background in addiction medicine or public policy was an inaccurate characterization of their credentials.

The newspaper responded that the column referred to their credentials as of 2002 when they had not yet attained their PhDs.

The Press Council identified 13 areas of contention in the complaint.

It noted that The Globe published a letter to the editor on July 25, 2008, that said Wente wrongly implied that they were unwilling to share data derived from Insite’s evaluation. And it published a correction on Sept. 12, 2008, which conceded the column erred in saying they refuse to share data with others who want to analyse it.

Taking issue with what the complainants said was Wente’s suggestion that amateur Boy Scouts conducted the research, the letter said “more than 30 people have co-authored this body of work, including university-based researchers from the U.S., U.K. and Australia,” and that “the methodology of the evaluation was externally peer reviewed and published.”

The Council disagreed that a reference in the article to their call for further research on supervised injection implied that it questioned the value of research that has been completed. And it accepted The Globe’s statement that referring to the researchers as “young” and “Mr.” was not demeaning.

It noted that the correction made clear it was Kerr, rather than Wood, who said of injection facilities, “I’m all for it. Get one open.”

The Council suggested that a number of statements in the column, such as one that said published studies reported “remarkably positive results for Insite,” and another that the researchers and their associated “often act more like advocates” were matters of opinion.

And it said it was Wood’s own inference that the column painted him as aggressive and manipulative.

The Press Council is on record as stating that corrections and publication of letters to the editor do not necessarily redress complaints. But in this case, it believes the newspaper made a reasonable effort to deal with Wood’s concerns.

The complaint is dismissed.

The adjudication text was approved at the Press Council meeting of May 22, 2009, and the narrative portion reflects what is in the text portion. As for Evan Wood’s letter to the editor, it is on the Globe website and will remain there.

Evangelical Fellowship of Canada vs Toronto Star

A complaint that a Toronto Star column unfairly attributed the promotion of violence and hatred to evangelical Christians has been upheld by the Ontario Press Council.

The column by Michele Landsberg, published June 2, 2001, dealt with the proclamation by the mayor of Regina of Heterosexual Family Pride Day, saying the motives were “to try to enshrine one Christian or ‘missionary’ brand of sexuality as the only official and legal style of union.”

“Seems these evangelicals feel all shook up unless the state enforces their form of belief,” it said, adding that it creates parents who teach their children to hate and taunt schoolmates who are children of lesbians or gay men; gives licence to the kind of thugs who would beat a Matthew Shepard to death because he was gay, and breeds the toxic intolerance that drives gay youths to a 30 per cent higher suicide rate than other teens.

Janet Epp Buckingham, general legal counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, said the fellowship’s concern was that the article “targets evangelical

Christians and tends to engender bias and hatred toward them.”

“While the reference to evangelicals occurs fairly late in the article, once the link is made to evangelicals, all the epithets used against anyone in the article seem to be linked to evangelicals. It appears to be a direct attack against evangelicals.”

The Star responded that the column was not meant to apply to a specific religious faith. “The term evangelical was not capitalized and refers in this column to individuals with ‘militant zeal for a cause,’” it wrote.

It suggested the article should be viewed in the context of earlier columns by Landsberg who, it said, “has long been a voice against extremist forces in several religions, including branches of the Christian, Muslim and Jewish faiths.”

The Star said the fellowship is always welcome to respond to or rebut any opinion column. But Buckingham replied that it chose not to write a letter because it would highlight the article.

Noting such references as “evangelical Christian heartland of the U.S.,” and “one Christian or ‘missionary’ brand of sexuality,” the Press Council accepted the contention that the column targeted evangelical Christians as represented by a federation that includes 32 denominational groups, 100 organizations and more than 1,000 individual congregations including the Salvation Army, Baptists and World Vision.

The Press Council, in an effort to define identifiable groups for the purposes of adjudicating complaints, has suggested they constitute people born to a group or part of a group not necessarily by choice and that such groups include religions. In rejecting the notion that the reference to “evangelicals” was intended to mean “zealots,” the Council said it recognizes evangelical Christians as an identifiable group and expressed the belief that the reference to them in the column was unnecessarily hurtful.

A complaint that a Toronto Star column unfairly attributed the promotion of violence and hatred to evangelical Christians has been upheld by the Ontario Press Council.

The column by Michelle Landsberg, published June 2, 2001, dealt with the proclamation by the mayor of Regina of Heterosexual Family Pride Day, saying the motives were “to try to enshrine one Christian or ‘missionary’ brand of sexuality as the only official and legal style of union.”

“Seems these evangelicals feel all shook up unless the state enforces their form of belief,” it said, adding that it creates parents who teach their children to hate and taunt schoolmates who are children of lesbians or gay men; gives licence to the kind of thugs who would beat a Matthew Shepard to death because he was gay, and breeds the toxic intolerance that drives gay youths to a 30 per cent higher suicide rate than other teens.

Janet Epp Buckingham, general legal counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, said the fellowship’s concern was that the article “targets evangelical

Christians and tends to engender bias and hatred toward them.”

“While the reference to evangelicals occurs fairly late in the article, once the link is made to evangelicals, all the epithets used against anyone in the article seem to be linked to evangelicals. It appears to be a direct attack against evangelicals.”

The Star responded that the column was not meant to apply to a specific religious faith. “The term evangelical was not capitalized and refers in this column to individuals with ‘militant zeal for a cause,’” it wrote.

It suggested the article should be viewed in the context of earlier columns by Landsberg who, it said, “has long been a voice against extremist forces in several religions, including branches of the Christian, Muslim and Jewish faiths.”

The Star said the fellowship is always welcome to respond to or rebut any opinion column. But Buckingham replied that it chose not to write a letter because it would highlight the article.

Noting such references as “evangelical Christian heartland of the U.S.,” and “one Christian or ‘missionary’ brand of sexuality,” the Press Council accepted the contention that the column targeted evangelical Christians as represented by a federation that includes 32

A complaint that a Toronto Star column unfairly attributed the promotion of violence and hatred to evangelical Christians has been upheld by the Ontario Press Council.

The column by Michelle Landsberg, published June 2, 2001, dealt with the proclamation by the mayor of Regina of Heterosexual Family Pride Day, saying the motives were “to try to enshrine one Christian or ‘missionary’ brand of sexuality as the only official and legal style of union.”

“Seems these evangelicals feel all shook up unless the state enforces their form of belief,” it said, adding that it creates parents who teach their children to hate and taunt schoolmates who are children of lesbians or gay men; gives licence to the kind of thugs who would beat a Matthew Shepard to death because he was gay, and breeds the toxic intolerance that drives gay youths to a 30 per cent higher suicide rate than other teens.

Janet Epp Buckingham, general legal counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, said the fellowship’s concern was that the article “targets evangelical

Christians and tends to engender bias and hatred toward them.”

“While the reference to evangelicals occurs fairly late in the article, once the link is made to evangelicals, all the epithets used against anyone in the article seem to be linked to evangelicals. It appears to be a direct attack against evangelicals.”

The Star responded that the column was not meant to apply to a specific religious faith. “The term evangelical was not capitalized and refers in this column to individuals with ‘militant zeal for a cause,’” it wrote.

It suggested the article should be viewed in the context of earlier columns by Landsberg who, it said, “has long been a voice against extremist forces in several religions, including branches of the Christian, Muslim and Jewish faiths.”

The Star said the fellowship is always welcome to respond to or rebut any opinion column. But Buckingham replied that it chose not to write a letter because it would highlight the article.

Noting such references as “evangelical Christian heartland of the U.S.,” and “one Christian or ‘missionary’ brand of sexuality,” the Press Council accepted the contention that the column targeted evangelical Christians as represented by a federation that includes 32 denominational groups, 100 organizations and more than 1,000 individual congregations including the Salvation Army, Baptists and Vision.

The Press Council, in an effort to define identifiable groups for the purposes of adjudicating complaints, has suggested they constitute people born to a group or part of a group not necessarily by choice and that such groups include religions. In rejecting the notion that the reference to “evangelicals” was intended to mean “zealots,” the Council said it recognizes evangelical Christians as an identifiable group and expressed the belief that the reference to them in the column was unnecessarily hurtful. denominational groups, 100 organizations and more than 1,000 individual congregations including the Salvation Army, Baptists and Vision.

The Press Council, in an effort to define identifiable groups for the purposes of adjudicating complaints, has suggested they constitute people born to a group or part of a group not necessarily by choice and that such groups include religions. In rejecting the notion that the reference to “evangelicals” was intended to mean “zealots,” the Council said it recognizes evangelical Christians as an identifiable group and expressed the belief that the reference to them in the column was unnecessarily hurtful.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (June 12, 2002)

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada complained that a Toronto Star column published June 2, 2001, targeted evangelical Christians and tended to engender bias and hatred toward them.

The column by Michele Landsberg dealt with the proclamation by the mayor of Regina of Heterosexual Family Pride Day and said its motive was to assert the supremacy of conservative family values and denigrate the claims of the gay rights movement.

The fellowship, represented by its general legal counsel, Janet Epp Buckingham of Ottawa, took particular issue with a paragraph that said:

“Seems these evangelicals feel all shook up unless the state enforces their form of belief. Their idea of social stability, however, is just what threatens us all. It creates the kind of parents who teach their children to hate and taunt their schoolmates who are children of lesbians or gay men. It gives licence to the kind of thugs who would beat a Matthew Shepard to death because he was gay. It breeds the toxic intolerance that drives gay youths to a 30 per cent higher suicide rate than other teens.”

The Ontario Press Council is on record as declaring it believes columnists deserve wide latitude in expressing their opinions, no matter how controversial or unpopular. But, despite the newspaper’s contention that the column was using the word “evangelicals” to mean “zealots” and was not intended as criticism of “any formal religious body,” the Council regards the term in the column’s context as an unnecessarily hurtful reference to an identifiable group and upholds the complaint.

Fred Holmes vs Ajax/Pickering News Advertiser

A complaint about a metaphorical reference to a “menopausal Eskimo” in a humour column in the Ajax/Pickering News Advertiser has been upheld by the Ontario Press Council.

Discussing his “drafty old Victorian home,” Neil Crone wrote that it doesn’t owe anybody anything, “But I have to tell you, she loses heat faster than a menopausal Eskimo.”

“I find this ‘joke’ to be racist, sexist and agist,” Fred Holmes of Pickering said in his letter of complaint. He added that he was sending the material to the Native Women’s Resource Centre in Toronto, the Speaker of the Nunavut legislature, his member of Parliament and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.

Noting that aboriginal people of the north prefer to be called Inuit, Holmes wrote that the word Eskimo come from the French rendering of Cree and Anishnabe words meaning “eater of raw meat” or from the French for “the excommunicated.”

The newspaper’s managing editor said he was disappointed that the Press Council chose to adjudicate this complaint “given that Mr. Holmes appears uninterested in making any attempt to settle the matter and has to date offered absolutely no information on what resource he is seeking (i.e. letter to the editor, apology, correction, changes to policy etc.) other than to demand the editor be fired.”

A statement prepared for the Council’s hearing said the newspaper’s policy on community standards recognizes that it must be conscious of what its readers will tolerate and what will be offensive. “We do not feel that Mr. Crone’s column crosses that line.” Although 160,000 copies of the newspaper were distributed, it added, it received only the single letter.

“Still, in response to his call, we quickly acted to review our policies on columns and the freedom we allow writers in expressing their views. We also reminded all members of staff about the importance of our continued vigilance in being fair and sensitive to all peoples, regardless of race and religion.”

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (June 9, 2004)

Fred Homes of Pickering complained that a sentence in a humour column published in the Ajax/Pickering News Advertiser on Feb. 4 was “racist, sexist and agist.”

Describing the Victorian home in which he lives, columnist Neil Crone wrote: “But I have to tell you she loses heat faster than a menopausal Eskimo.”

The newspaper defended the article, citing Ontario Press Council policy which says it is appropriate for columnists to exercise wide latitude in expressing their opinions. It said it was frustrated in its efforts to reach out to Holmes.

The Ontario Press Council encourages readers to first give newspapers an opportunity to redress a complaint and it regrets that Holmes did not accept an invitation to write a letter to the editor.

It nevertheless sees the sentence as distasteful, insensitive and offensive, In upholding the complaint the Press Council suggests that rather than waiting for a letter to the editor the News Advertiser should have published a brief note of apology.

Gilles Fournier vs Ottawa Sun

A columnist’s criticism of the federal government’s $12-million contribution to the Jeux de la Francophonie is acceptable opinion but inclusion of such words as “Francophony” to describe the games is insulting to the francophone community, the Ontario Press Council says in upholding a complaint against the Ottawa Sun.

The column by Earl McRae, published Sept. 24, 2000, was described as “disgusting and repugnant” by Gilles Fournier of Whitby. He said the columnist has a right to criticize the level of funding for the games, which are to be held in Ottawa this summer. But he maintained francophones were insulted by such references to the games as “Frankenweenie” and “Frankenstein” and to the competitors as “frankfurters,” also a sentence in which the author wrote, “Being that I can be as phony as any francophony, I’ve decided to enter the Games.”

Denying that the McRae is racist or anti-French, the Sun said he has a long history of mounting satirical challenges to authority. It added that it didn’t believe his intent was to deride the francophone community and that if the subject were the “Anglophone Games,” he would no doubt attack the issue with the same vigor. It added that it had recently published a three-page advance report on the games.

“The Ottawa Sun believes that the column was a fair-comment illustration of the writer’s contempt for certain aspects of the Francophone Games, their rules, contests and the controversy surrounding government funding. As is often the case, these are views not necessarily shared by newspaper management.”

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (March 23, 2001)

Gilles Fournier of Whitby complained that a column published in the Ottawa Sun Sept. 24, 2000, was “disgusting and repugnant” in ridiculing the Jeux de la Francophonie, international games scheduled to be held in Ottawa this summer.

Noting that columnist Earl McRae had used such terms as “Frankenweenie,” “Francophony” and “Frankenstein” in reference to the games, Fournier wrote that “the manner in which the author ridicules the components of this sporting and cultural event is far from being a fair, accurate honest, responsible and decent depiction of the ‘Jeux.’”

The Sun said it was regrettable that Fournier was offended by the column but insisted that it was “just an opinion piece and we do not dictate opinions to our columnists.”

The Ontario Press Council accepts that the column’s criticism of the federal government contribution of $12 million to the games falls within a long-held policy that extends to columnists “wide latitude” in expressing opinions “no matter how controversial or unpopular the opinions may be.”

But it sees the column as a crude attempt at satire which contained language that would be seen as offensive and insulting by fair-minded readers. In particular, it regards some of the words as insulting to the francophone community. And in upholding the complaint, it says it believes they stray beyond what constitutes acceptable discourse.

Graham Haig vs The Ottawa Citizen

The Ontario Press Council has, with one dissenting vote, dismissed a complaint that an Ottawa Citizen editorial was offensive in the way it argued that victims of “hate” crimes are no more special than other victims.

The editorial, published Dec. 1, 2001, criticized Justice Minister Anne McLellan because it said she seemed to be buying into the argument that the Criminal Code needed amending to better protect homosexuals from anti-gay hostility.

To make its point, the newspaper cited the Vancouver case of 41-year-old Aaron Webster who was beaten to death apparently because he was a homosexual. The editorial then engaged in what it described as thought experiments, asking whether it would be less of a crime if Webster was killed not by “gay bashers” but by other homosexuals, or that hate was not involved, or that he just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Graham Haig of Ottawa complained that the editorial was “extremely offensive because it used Aaron Webster as an object to be manipulated.”

“The editorial crossed the line by asking the reader to assume the murder of Aaron Webster again and again in false circumstances. . . .The thought experiments constituted a verbal assault on Aaron Webster. . . and seemed designed to desensitize readers to the facts of Aaron Webster’s murder.”

Haig said the effect of reading about the thought experiments was “brutal” in that they triggered post-traumatic stress disorder requiring extensive emergency medical attention.

The Citizen responded that it never intended to manipulate the facts of a murder to cause additional grief for readers; that its sole argument was that “there ought not to be a legal hierarchy based on an individual’s particular social characteristics.”

It maintained that hypothetical argument is a time-honoured method of examining an issue from a slightly different perspective “and we can see no reason not to have employed it in this case.”

“But did we employ it in bad taste? Was the language ‘unnecessarily hurtful,’ to use press council phrasing? Did our invoking of an imagined victim, or an imagined attacker, go beyond the bounds of what reasonable readers could tolerate.

-2-

“Given that the context was a discussion of how society should punish people for brutal murders, the answer is no.”

Referring to the effect on Haig, The Citizen said newspapers serve a wide audience and are limited in what they can do to alleviate the impact of commentary in such “extraordinary circumstances”

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (October 29, 2002)

Graham Haig of Ottawa complained about an editorial published in The Ottawa Citizen Dec. 1, 2001, which said hate-crime laws are “logically and morally flawed” in that they imply victims of “hate” crimes are more special than other victims.

He maintained the editorial was “extremely offensive” because it repeatedly used the name of a gay man murdered in Vancouver to make its point.

“The editorial crossed the line by asking the reader to assume the murder of Aaron Webster again and again in false circumstances,” he wrote.

The Citizen defended its use of a rhetorical device – the “hypothetical” or “what if?” scenario -- to argue its point and denied that it was attempting to desensitize readers to the brutal slaying.

Noting that Haig said reading the article triggered post-traumatic stress disorder, the newspaper said that “unfortunately newspapers are limited in what they can do to alleviate the impact of our commentary in such extraordinary circumstances.”

The Ontario Press Council recognizes that some readers may suffer pain from reading a scenario in which details of the death of an individual identified by name are varied to make the point that one murder is no worse than another.

At the same time, the Council draws attention to its long-held belief that, as a matter of freedom of expression, it is appropriate for newspapers to exercise wide latitude in taking controversial and often unpopular editorial positions. It voted to dismiss the complaint although one Council member dissented, maintaining that the editorial was unnecessarily hurtful.

Guy Giorno vs Toronto Star

Definitions of the word “underlings” are at the root of a complaint against the Toronto Star by Guy Giorno, former chief of staff in the office of Ontario Premier Mike Harris—a complaint upheld by the Ontario Press Council on the narrow ground that it took a full year for a considered response to emerge.

A column by Jim Coyle published Oct. 3, 2003, just after the Conservatives were defeated in the provincial election, discussed what it described as “the cabal of backroom cynics formerly known as the Whiz Kids.”

“One of them was known as ‘Rasputin’ to his underlings,” Coyle wrote--a sentence that did not name the individual but which Giorno said referred to him.

“The sentence is not accurate,” he wrote in his letter of complaint. “It is not accurate because when I worked for the Premier of Ontario my subordinates (‘underlings’ as Mr. Coyle puts it) did not call me this.….Instead, the term originated in Frank magazine. Later, the term may (according to the newspaper) have been used by MPPs.”

Describing the column as a “reflection on character,” Giorno said he took pride in the work atmosphere of the premier’s office.

“I am understandably concerned that a columnist would print a statement that (1) is false and (2) revives an insult not published for more than five years.”

At a Press Council hearing, Coyle cited 15 dictionary definitions in support of his contention that the word “underlings” has a much more general meaning than that cited by Giorno.

“According to a wide range of references, the word ‘underling’ means a general inferiority of rank and status. It is not a synonym for staff, employees or direct reports.”

He added that MPPs (as members of the legislature are known in Ontario) “were (and arguably remain) inferior in power and influence to those in positions such as Mr. Giorno during the former Conservative government and could fairly be called underlings to him.”

“Therefore, the statement that one among the circle of backroom advisers to the premier in the former government was known as Rasputin to his underlings stands as wholly accurate, legitimate and defensible.”

Referring to a year-long exchange of e-mail correspondence, Giorno said that if Coyle really believed the Rasputin reference meant MPPs, the Star should have said so after receiving his letter of complaint. He added that if he had received an explanation at the outset he would not have complained to the Press Council. But he said he remained skeptical of the explanation, which he maintained was made up at the last minute.

“You only dig up 15 dictionary meanings when you want to obscure the real meaning.”

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (November 5, 2004)

Guy Giorno, former chief of staff in the office of Premier Mike Harris, complained that a column published in the Toronto Star Oct. 3, 2003, was wrong in saying he was known as Rasputin to his “underlings.”

He defined the term “underlings” as “subordinates” and conceded that the word had been used to describe him but insisted it was not used by employees who worked under him.

The Star columnist challenged the suggestion that “underlings” could only be defined as staff, subordinates or employees. He argued that Giorno had been referred to as Rasputin by members of the legislature, that the word “underling” is a general term denoting inferiority in rank and status, that MPPs in the Conservative government were inferior in power and influence to those in positions such as Giorno’s, and it therefore followed that MPPs could be considered underlings to Giorno.

The Ontario Press Council notes that what Giorno described as “a last-minute, made up, invented” explanation was offered for the first time at a hearing more than a year after Giorno complained.

Without passing judgment on the validity of the explanation, the Council believes it should have been presented, preferably in a subsequent column, soon after the complaint was received. And on that account, it upholds the complaint.

Hajara Kutty and Mohamed Elmasry vs Toronto Star

Complaints that a column in the Toronto Star used unnecessarily hurtful language in describing the Arab world as a society where “wickedness is bred in the bone” have been upheld by the Ontario Press Council.

The column by Rosie DiManno, published March 24, followed the assassination in Gaza of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in an Israeli missile strike.

Complaints by Hajara Kutty of Toronto and Mohamed Elmasry of Waterloo focused on a paragraph that said:

“The Arab world is in acute lamentation over Yassin’s extermination, which says a lot about what passes for leadership in societies infused with choler, where wickedness is bred in the bone, and where the very idea of Israel as a sovereign state, with the right to exist, is anathema. Yassin was an arch-terrorist by any definition of the term, a viper in a wheelchair, and if his murder is now inducing shrill promises of revenge from radical groups that actually have little use for each other, sharing only an irreversible enmity for Israel, then it only underscores how depraved some societies have become, how far they have slithered away from even the most basic respect for human life.”

In declaring the column was racist and willfully promoted hatred against Arabs, Kutty said it went beyond the Press Council’s belief that columnists should have wide latitude in expressing their opinions, no matter how controversial.

Elmasry said the columnist chose language “that is hateful, inflammatory and unworthy of a respected large circulation daily newspaper. . . .”

The Star said that if the Press Council were to “break with tradition and uphold this complaint it will send a chill through newspapers—and columnists in particular—

whenever they tackle controversial topics in future.”

The newspaper cited the comments of its former words columnist who said the expression “bred in the bone” had gone from negative to positive and back to negative again. It noted that the Shorter Oxford Dictionary definition refers to the crucial factor of a person’s heredity of breeding but that Webster’s Dictionary says it’s a commentary on the “deep-rooted honesty” of feelings or beliefs.

Elmasry described as offensive the use of the word “extermination” in reference to the killing of Yassin.

“The idea that ‘wickedness is bred in the bone’ is in itself racist – but to compound that with the suggestion that human beings are not illegally assassinated or murdered, but deservedly ‘exterminated’ like vermin, is outrageous.”

The Press Council, as a matter of policy, does say it believes it is appropriate for columnists to express controversial or unpopular opinions. But it also says it is prepared to consider complaints involving opinion where the complainants contend the opinions are couched in unnecessarily hurtful language. And it regards Arab society as an “identifiable group” for the purpose of adjudicating complaints.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (June 11, 2004)

Hajara Kutty of Toronto and Mohamed Elmasry of Waterloo complained that a column published in the Toronto Star March 24 employed hateful and inflammatory language in references to Arab society.

The column by Rosie DiManno was written after the assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in an Israeli missile strike. The complaints focused on a paragraph that said the Arab world was in “acute lamentation over Yassin’s extermination, which says a lot about what passes for leadership in societies infused with choler where wickedness is bred in the bone. . . .”

The Ontario Press Council, in a policy statement drawn up in 1986, said it believes it is appropriate for columnists and others to exercise wide latitude in expressing their opinions, “no matter how controversial or unpopular the opinions may be.”

The statement added that the Press Council would continue to consider complaints involving opinion if complainants contended that the language was unnecessarily hurtful.

The Press Council recognizes that the opinions are strongly held by the writer. But it considers such words as “bred in the bone” to be denigration of a whole society and that some of the language crosses the line between acceptable and unacceptable comment and is unnecessarily hurtful.

The complaint is upheld

Jacob Mendlovic vs Globe and Mail

It’s not unreasonable for a newspaper to decline to publish a letter to the editor sent 10 days after publication of a column containing a contentious paragraph, the Ontario Press Council says in dismissing a complaint against The Globe and Mail.

Jacob Mendlovic of Toronto wrote to the newspaper to take issue with a column by Rick Salutin published June 13, 2003.

“For what it’s worth,” the article said, “the chant reported from Gaza this week was, ‘No to Abu Mazen’s peace,’ not ‘Death to the Jews.’ (Though in Jerusalem, ‘Death to Arabs’ was chanted.)”

Mendlovic explained that the reason his letter was sent 10 days later was that he researched stories in such newspapers as Montreal La Presse, Le Monde and The Guardian before writing that only a small group of extreme right-wing militant Israelis shouted “Death to Arabs” while thousands of Palestinians chanted “Bombardment for bombardment and blood for blood.”

He said Salutin has a history of denouncing Israel in his columns, “portraying the Palestinians as followers of Gandhi and Israelis as bloodthirsty savages.”

The Globe and Mail said it receives about 200 letters a day and can publish perhaps 16, also that it believes it is important to publish letters while readers are likely to remember what a story or column was about.

Mendlovic’s letter contained some intemperate language, the newspaper said, adding that it had published two letters about the column, one supporting it and one criticizing it, although neither cited quotations turned up in Mendlovic’s research.

The Globe added that the columnist relied for information about the chants on a Reuters News Agency story published on June 12 about a suicide bombing in Jerusalem that killed 16, plus the suicide bomber. “‘Death to the Arabs,’ a crowd shouted as two rows of white body bags waited to be loaded into ambulances,” the article said.

It added that after an Israeli helicopter fired three missiles that killed Tito Massaoud, a senior Hamas commander, his deputy and five passersby, hundreds of Gazans rushed into the streets shouting “No for Abu Mazen’s peace, yes for resistance,” referring to the nom de guerre of Palestinian prime minister Mahmoud Abbas.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (June 10, 2004)

Jacob Mendlovic of Toronto complained in a letter to the editor that a column by Rick Salutin, published in The Globe and Mail June 13, 2003, erred in quoting chants shouted by Palestinians and Israelis after a suicide bombing in Jerusalem that killed 17 and an Israeli strike against a Hamas terrorist that killed seven people.

“For what it’s worth,” Salutin wrote, “the chant reported from Gaza this week was, ‘No to Abu Mazen’s peace,’ not ‘Death to the Jews.’ (Though in Jerusalem, ‘Death to Arabs’ was chanted.)”

Mendlovic said the column should have explained that the “Death to Arabs” chant came from what other newspapers said was a group of some 100 extremists and did not represent the attitude of the majority of Israelis. He added that The Guardian reported that thousands of demonstrators in Gaza marched through the streets chanting “Bombardment for bombardment and blood for blood.”

The Globe and Mail, explaining why it didn’t publish Mendlovic’s letter, said it was sent 10 days after the column and there had been two letters published, one criticizing the column and the other taking issue with the first letter. Mendlovic responded that the letters did not cover the issues he raised.

The Ontario Press Council recognizes a newspaper’s right to turn down a letter to the editor sent 10 days after publication of the article to which it refers. It notes that the “Death to Arabs” quotation, picked up from a Reuters News Agency story published the previous day, lacked context but it doesn’t believe this was sufficient grounds for upholding the complaint.

Jacob Mendlovic vs Toronto Star

The Ontario Press Council has dismissed, with one reservation, a complaint that a widely-spaced series of three feature articles from Jerusalem and the West Bank published in the Toronto Star in 2003 constituted “deceitful journalism.” The reservation was that because the articles presented just one viewpoint on the Israeli-Palestinian situation, it probably deserved a published response. The complaint was made by Jacob Mendlovic of Toronto who said the articles, written by the Star’s former religion editor, Michael McAteer, and published between January and April, were intended to glorify the Palestinians in their suffering and to generate hostility to Israel. “I have never seen the religion page turned into a political platform on such a scale,” Mendlovic wrote. “Masquerading as articles on opponents of Israel allegedly upholding such noble values as non-violence, peace and love, their hidden agenda is to vilify Israel. Even in the opinion columns on the religion page, the Star is careful that contributors should stick to ethical and religious beliefs. “I challenge the Star’s religion editor to show me when her newspaper has ever published on its religion page, in such a short span, three articles, of any size, vilifying a Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist country.” The Star said Mendlovic’s letter, the only one criticizing the articles, went astray and a replacement was obtained but included words that verged on libel such as accusing one organization of being anti-Semitic and Jew baiters. The first story, published Jan. 18, was largely about a Toronto-born priest who has spent two years in the Israeli-occupied city of Hebron. An April 12 story from the Old City of Jerusalem was about Palm Sunday pilgrims. And a May 10 story, also from Jerusalem, was about a Canadian woman working with peace activists. "All three pieces discussed faith-based topics that are suitable for the religion pages of a mass-circulation daily with a diverse readership,” the Star said. Responding to Mendlovic’s request for space to write a rebuttal article for the opinion page, the Star said it had learned through long experience that the opinion page is not an ideal forum for rebuttal; that by the time it can be published, most readers have forgotten what the original piece (or in this case, three pieces) said.”

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (March 20, 2004)

Jacob Mendlovic of Toronto complained that three feature articles published on the religion page of the Toronto Star between January and May 2003 constituted “deceitful journalism” in that they were used to glorify the Palestinians in their suffering and to generate hostility to Israel. “By publishing the three-part series about Israel on its religion page rather than its political pages,” he wrote, “the country is seen as more brutal not only because of its alleged atrocities but also because their alleged perpetrators, the Israeli settlers and soldiers, stand in sharp contrast to the supposed do-gooders of the Christian and Muslim faiths.” The Star replied that a fair reading of the three features would demonstrate to most readers that the newspaper in no way followed what was called a “hidden” and “insidious” agenda” to “promote ill will against a country of Jews and run by Jews.” Mendlovic proposed that he be given an opportunity to write an article commenting on the three features but the Star refused and suggested a 300-word letter to the editor. The Ontario Press Council believes a letter to the editor dated May 15 included language that would require significant editing before it could be published. It understands that the Star declined to publish it because it saw the letter as potentially libellous. The Council also recognizes that the three articles represented only one viewpoint on the Israeli-Palestinian situation. It regrets that the newspaper did not see its way to provide a forum for Mendlovic to present his criticism of the articles in reasoned form in a letter to the editor. But with this reservation, it dismisses the complaint.

Janet Eta vs Toronto Sun

A grieving mother’s complaint that an article in the Toronto Sun about her son’s May 2003 death from a drug overdose was biased and inaccurate has been dismissed by the Ontario Press Council.

Janet Eta said she believes foul play was involved in her son’s death and that she agreed to be interviewed because she expected that publication of a story would bring her more details of the police investigation. She had apparently been denied access to the police report because of privacy laws since the girlfriend at whose home the son died claimed to be his common-law-wife. The woman has since died.

The decision to write a story came after Eta placed an in memoriam announcement in a Toronto newspaper.

Eta said the reporter told her she would talk to the police and get back to her before publishing the article. “But she didn’t. Instead she took what the police told her as the only side of the story.”

Eta was also critical of the headline Mother can’t bear son’s overdose, saying it showed no concern for a grief-stricken mother.

The reporter said that, to the best of her recollection, she did not promise to get back to Eta before the article was published. “Instead, as a courtesy and because I felt so bad for her, I told her that I would see what I could find out from the police and would pass only what I learned. I did, in fact, try and do just that.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (March 15, 2006)

Janet Eta of Toronto complained that an article published in the Toronto Sun May 20, 2005, about the death of her son from a drug overdose was biased, inaccurate and opinionated.

She said she is convinced her son’s death involved foul play and agreed to be interviewed in the hope that an article would bring her more information about the circumstances but that police refused to release the investigation report. And she maintained that the reporter told her she would talk to the police and get back to her before the article was published but didn’t.

The reporter said she did not promise to get back to Eta before the article was published but, as a courtesy, told her that she would pass along what she could find out from the police. And when Eta was not available, she passed the information to her son. But she added that had she reached Eta again she would not have changed her column.

The Ontario Press Council recognizes that Eta is disappointed that the story did not lead to confirmation of her belief that foul play was involved in her son’s death.The Council believes that on the whole the article was sympathetic. And in dismissing the complaint, it says it cannot find inaccuracy or misinformation in the column, which was clearly based on information provided by the authorities.

Joanne Byfield @ Carroll Rees vs Globe and Mail

A complaint that a column published in The Globe and Mail misrepresented LifeCanada and resulted in serious loss of income has been dismissed with one reservation by the Ontario Press Council.

Joanne Byfield, president of the pro-life organization, and executive director Carroll Rees described the column, published April 2, 2005, as one-sided and malicious and said it resulted in the Bank of Montreal’s decision to terminate an affinity MasterCard agreement with LifeCanada.

“The affinity card program is a fundraising initiative which supports a broad range of organizations,” they wrote, adding that it was in no way an endorsement of LifeCanada’s mandate but strictly a business agreement.

Columnist Heather Mallick wrote that she cut up her Bank of Montreal Mosaik MasterCard to demonstrate her anger at the arrangement.

Referring to a video sold on the LifeCanada website that offers advice to “women who are at increased risk of breast cancer after an abortion, ” Mallick wrote

that the Canadian Cancer Society and Dr. Henry Morgentaler told her there is no medical evidence for such a link.

LifeCanada took particular exception to a sentence that said, “I cannot think of anything more cruel than to tell a woman with cancer that it was her fault because she didn’t keep the little ‘Jewel for Jesus,’ (as LifeCanada calls them) she was left with after being raped.”

Denying that it refers to babies conceived as a result of rape as “Jewels for Jesus,” the LifeCanada letter of complaint said the only place the name of this organization appears on its website is in a directory listing “all the organizations and resources which promote life across Canada.”

The Press Council said it believes there should have been a correction of the statement that LifeCanada refers to such an infant as a “Jewel for Jesus.”

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (June 7, 2006)

Joanne Byfield and Carroll Rees, officers of LifeCanada, complained that a column by Heather Mallick published in The Globe and Mail April 2, 2005, misrepresented their organization and resulted in a serious loss of income.

They said the column, a defence of abortion rights, resulted in the Bank of Montreal cancelling an affinity MasterCard issued to LifeCanada members and other pro-life individuals.

The Ontario Press Council recognizes that the column employs provocative language. But it sees the author’s views as falling within the council’s policy on opinion, which says it believes it is appropriate for columnists to exercise wide latitude in expressing their opinions, “no matter how controversial or unpopular the opinions may be.”

One ground on which the Press Council may uphold a complaint against a column is that it is unnecessarily hurtful. Although the language and tone of the column may sometimes test limits, the council doesn’t believe it passes the threshold in this instance.

The council says the newspaper acted fairly in publishing on April 9 a six-paragraph letter from Byfield, the president of LifeCanada, taking issue with the column.

It dismisses the complaint with one reservation. It believes a correction was warranted for a sentence that read: “I cannot think of anything more cruel than to tell a woman with cancer that it was her fault because she didn’t keep the little ‘Jewel for Jesus’ (as LifeCanada calls them) she was left with after being raped.”

“Ms. Mallick has seriously misrepresented LifeCanada by implying that we refer to babies who are conceived as a result of rape as ‘Jewels for Jesus,’” Byfield and Rees wrote in their letter of complaint. “This is in no way true. The only place this phrase appears in our website is in a directory listing all the organizations and resources which promote life across Canada.”

Joe McParland vs Windsor Star

A complaint that a column in the Windsor Star unfairly condemned a municipal election candidate by innuendo has been upheld by the Ontario Press Council.

The column by Gord Henderson, published Sept. 7, 2002, two days before a

byelection, referred to Joe McParland in two sentences that read:

“As for McParland, I don’t understand why his campaign literature didn’t mention that he’s a former priest and that his background as a property manager in the 1980s included helping manage JP’s, a controversial Riverside Drive gay strip club. After all, strip clubs have been a big issue in Ward 2.”

McParland, who was defeated in the byelection, said he found the words “harmful in the extreme and devastating to me as both an individual and a candidate.” He said he decided in 1984 to voluntarily leave the Roman Catholic priesthood after four years of active ministry in which he experienced doubts about his vocation and an emerging awareness of his gay sexual orientation.

Noting that the words “former priest,” “controversial” and “gay strip club” all appear in one sentence, McParland said the innuendo is reprehensible; that readers inferred from those comments that “I am dishonest, deceptive, a child molester, a pedophile, etc.”

The Star said readers deserve to know the background of anyone running for office and that while candidates decide what is to go into their campaign literature, the newspaper’s job is to deal with issues that it sees as important.

The columnist said the priesthood is still a respected profession in Windsor and he thought it would be beneficial to be identified with it. He disagreed with McParland’s contention that strip clubs were never an issue in the campaign. And he said he couldn’t believe readers would assume a person is a pedophile from reading the reference to his former calling as a priest and management of a gay strip club.

The Star’s editor said he viewed the reference as “harmless” and added that he couldn’t imagine how anyone might jump to the conclusion that the column was “slyly impugning your character.”

Noting criticism of the fact that the column appeared on the last publishing day before the election, the Star said it’s common practice to wait until late in a campaign before writing an overview of an election.

In dealing with McParland’s complaint, the Press Council gave consideration to its long-held policy of extending to columnists wide latitude in expressing controversial or unpopular opinions. But it decided that in this case that policy was overridden by the preamble to its constitution which says, in part, that through the Press Council readers can call Ontario newspapers to account for unfair conduct such as “condemning people by innuendo.”

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (March 19, 2003)

Joe McParland, a candidate in a municipal byelection in Windsor in 2002, complained that two sentences in a Sept. 7 column in The Windsor Star led readers to infer that he was “dishonest, deceptive, a child molester, a pedophile etc.”

The sentences, part of an article published two days before the election, read: “As for McParland, I don’t understand why his campaign literature didn’t mention that he’s a former priest and that his background as a property manager in the 1980s included helping manage JP’s, a controversial Riverside Drive gay strip club. After all, strip clubs have been a big issue in Ward 2.”

McParland said he voluntarily left the Roman Catholic priesthood in 1984 in good standing and for no other reason than “an emerging awareness” of his gay sexual orientation. He described as “reprehensible” the fact that the words “former priest,” “controversial,” and “gaystrip club” all appeared in the same sentence.

The Star responded that the columnist was merely expressing surprise at “key omissions” from McParland’s campaign literature, that reference to his years as a priest would have been viewed as positive by many voters in a largely Catholic city and that strip clubs are a contentious issue in Windsor.

Given the sexual abuse scandals that have rocked the Roman Catholic Church, the Ontario Press Council sees the reference to McParland’s departure from the priesthood juxtaposed with his business involvement with a gay strip club as unfairly condemning him by innuendo and upholds the complaint.

Keith Stringer vs Toronto Star

A complaint that a Toronto Star column contained grossly inaccurate, dishonest and factually incorrect material has been rejected with one reservation by the Ontario Press Council.

Keith Stringer of Boston took issue with columnist Michele Landsberg’s interpretation of remarks by Sunera Thobani, an assistant professor at the University of British Columbia, at an Ottawa conference on the criminal justice system and women.

Thobani was quoted as saying “…the people, the American nation that (President George W.) Bush is invoking, is a people which is bloodthirsty, vengeful and calling for blood. They don’t care whose blood it is, they want blood.”.”

“Thobani most emphatically did not call the American people bloodthirsty and vengeful,’” Landsberg wrote in the column, published Oct. 13, 2001. “In fact, she vigorously rejected that depiction which, she pointed out, was ‘invoked by Bush.’”

Stringer said he was stunned when he read Landsberg’s claims “because her claims are factually incorrect.”

“The fact that Thobani called the American people ‘bloodthirsty’ and ‘vengeful’ is just that: a FACT,” he wrote. “The Star is not entitled to publish fiction as ‘fact.’ The Star is not entitled to a set of imaginary ‘facts’ that are different from the facts recorded in the published record. And The Star is not entitled to publish, falsified, revisionist history in hopes of casting a speaker in a favorable light.”

The Star, disputing the contention that Thobani called “all” Americans bloodthisty, said it’s important to examine the entire quote:

“Events of the last two weeks also show that the American people that Bush is trying to invoke, whoever they are these American people, just like we contest notions of who the Canadian people are, we have to recognize that there are other voices in the United States, contesting that.

“But the people, the American nation that Bush is invoking, is a people which is bloodthirsty, vengeful, and calling for blood.”

“In short,” The Star said, “Thobani did not say all Americans are bloodthirsty. Far from it. She told her audience that ‘other voices’ in the U.S. are making themselves heard in peace demonstrations.”

Thobani herself sent a letter to The Star in which she described the column as accurate and fair and denied that she called “all” Americans bloodthirsty.

Stringer was unable to attend the Press Council hearing but outlined his complaint in a letter faxed on March 4 in which he said a key subject of his complaint was what percentage of Americans had Thobani implied were bloodthirsty.

“Does Thobani deny having implied that a substantial portion of Americans are ‘bloodthirsty’?” he asked. “No, she does not deny having implied this.

“So does Thobani clarify things for us by spelling exactly what percentage of Americans she has implied are ‘bloodthirsty’ (in that they were, as she put it, those who President Bush was ‘invoking’)? No. she provides us with no estimate at all of how many Americans deserve—by her mechanism of analysis—to be called ’bloodthirsty’.”

Stringer said he sent a letter to the editor by e-mail “in hopes of correcting the record” but it was not published.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (March 25, 2002)

Keith Stringer of Boston complained that a Toronto Star column published Oct. 13, 2001, contained grossly inaccurate, dishonest and factually incorrect material.

The column, by Michele Landsberg, dealt with the reaction to comments by Sunera Thobani, an assistant professor at the University of British Columbia, at an Ottawa conference on the criminal justice system and women.

Thobani was quoted as saying: “. . . the people, the American nation that (President George W.) Bush is invoking, is a people which is bloodthirsty, vengeful and calling for blood.”

“Thobani most emphatically did not call the American people ‘bloodthirsty and vengeful,’” Landsberg wrote. “In fact, she vigorously rejected that depiction, which, she pointed out, was ‘invoked by Bush.’”

And Thobani herself wrote a letter to The Star in which she said she “certainly did not call all Americans ‘bloodthirsty.’”

Stringer wrote that he was stunned when he read Landsberg’s claims “because her claims are factually incorrect.”

“The fact that Thobani called the American people ‘bloodthirsty’ and ‘vengeful’ is just that: a FACT.”

The Ontario Press Council regards the issue as one of interpretation rather than accuracy and accepts as plausible, if open to argument, the Star’s contention that Thobani was saying the American spirit embraces a range of expression and that Bush was appealing to the darker side of that spirit.

Noting that Landsberg’s column used strong language to criticize politicians and other writers who attacked Thobani, describing them as “a pack of cowards,” the Press Council believes The Star should have been prepared to publish Stringer’s Oct. 15 letter to the editor which used equally strong language.

But with this reservation, it rejects the complaint.

Ken Stone vs Hamilton Mountain News

A column that suggested the Taliban was rooting for a New Democratic Party victory in the 2008 federal election was an exercise in hyperbole that would be seen by readers as the author’s fanciful opinion, the Ontario Press Council says in dismissing a complaint against the Hamilton Mountain News.

The column, published Oct. 10, 2008, under the headline Taliban rooting for a Layton victory, was based on a Canadian Press article from Afghanistan. It said that while a Taliban spokesman didn’t know which party was most likely to withdraw Canadian troops, such a platform would be “good for that party and for their nation and the Canadian people.”

Ken Stone of Hamilton complained that the column was simply inaccurate since there was no mention of Layton or the NDP in the Canadian Press article.

Mark Cripps said that, as a columnist, he felt justified in concluding that the Taliban was rooting for the NDP since it was the only party that favoured immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (October 15, 2009)

Ken Stone of Hamilton complained that a column published in the Hamilton Mountain News under the headline Taliban rooting for a Layton victory was factually wrong.

The column, published Oct. 10, 2008, was based on a Canadian Press article that said while a Taliban spokesman did not know which party was most likely to withdraw Canadian troops from Afghanistan, such a platform would be “good for that party and for their nation and for the Canadian people.”

Maintaining that the issue was one of inaccuracy, Stone said there was not a single mention of Layton or the NDP in the Canadian Press article and that the column was “falsely trying to connect the NDP to the Taliban.”

Mark Cripps said that as the columnist he felt he had the right to reach the conclusion that the Taliban was rooting for an NDP victory even though it was not familiar with Canadian politics.

He added that the column apparently didn’t harm the NDP since all three of its candidates in the area were re-elected with substantial majorities.

“There was only one party – the NDP – running in the October 14 election that said they would immediately withdraw Canadian troops. As a columnist, I simply made the connection as a matter of opinion.”

A sentence in the column seemed to support this connection in saying: To be fair, Layton did call his Taliban endorsement “reprehensible.” In fact, a CBC news story quoted Layton as saying a Taliban threat to step up its attacks on Canadians, not the Taliban endorsement, was “reprehensible.”

Cripps added that Stone had turned down an invitation to write a letter to the editor, to which Stone replied that he didn’t want to legitimize the column. A letter from Stone’s son was published later.

Both parties agreed that it was a leap to connect the Taliban comments to the NDP. Stone feels the leap was too great and verged on stating opinion as fact. The Hamilton Mountain News felt it was a reasonable conclusion, given the hyperbolic nature of the column, and would not be seen by a reader as anything other than opinion.

The Press Council sees it as a matter of interpretation, which, in its view, constitutes opinion. And the Council, as a matter of policy, says it is appropriate for columnists to exercise wide latitude in expressing their opinions.

The complaint is dismissed.

Leonard Asper vs Globe and Mail

The Ontario Press Council has dismissed, with one reservation, a complaint that The Globe and Mail failed to follow standard journalistic practice by seeking confirmation of a rumour that CanWest Global Communications was planning to shake up the Global TV network and bring in a new president replacing Richard C. Camilleri, probably with an American.

The item, published Aug. 5, 2004, in a Report on Business gossip column entitled Feed the Goat, prompted a letter from CanWest CEO Leonard Asper declaring that “the cavalier manner in which you printed an untrue rumour about termination of one of our company’s top executives was highly inappropriate.”

The Globe’s comment editor said he consulted with the columnist and was satisfied the item was accurate. He noted that 60 days later CanWest issued a press release announcing an American as the new head of TV and radio and that the new heads of several other departments were also Americans. Camilleri, chief operating officer on the operations side of CanWest Global Communications Corp., became president of the Canadian arm.

Geoffrey Elliot, vice-president for corporate affairs, who represented Asper at the hearing of the complaint, said speculation about CanWest is acceptable but the fact is the item suggested Camilleri was probably going to be replaced by an American “and he was not;” he was replaced by Peter Viner, a Canadian, on May 31 this year, 10 months after the rumour was published.

Recognizing that the column relies on rumour and speculation, the Press Council said it isn’t prepared to fault the newspaper for not seeking confirmation and refusing to retract the item. It also understands why the Globe declined to publish part of a letter that urged it “to be more careful about publication of material that is not only untrue but also potentially damaging to the individual who was the target of the spurious rumour and to the company.” It does, however, believe the Globe should have accepted Asper’s suggestion that it publish a trimmed down version of the letter simply saying he was writing to dispel the rumour.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (June 21, 2005)

Leonard Asper, president and CEO of CanWest Global Communications, complained that a Feed the Goat column published in The Globe and Mail Aug. 5, 2004, was wrong in suggesting that CanWest was planning to shake up the Global TV network and bring in a new president replacing Richard C. Camilleri, probably with an American.

A day later Asper wrote a letter to the editor urging the newspaper “to be more careful about publication of material that is not only untrue but also potentially damaging to the individual who was the target of the spurious rumour and to the company.”

When the Globe declined to publish the letter, it was suggested the newspaper print only the first paragraph in which Asper said “I am writing to dispel that rumour and to confirm that such is absolutely not the case.”

The newspaper again declined to publish that letter, saying it “stands behind the column as written.”

Geoffrey Elliot, vice-president, corporate affairs, for CanWest Global Communications, said Camilleri was still with the company for almost a year until he left in early June and that he was replaced by a Canadian, not an American.

The Ontario Press Council recognizes that the Feed the Goat column relies on speculation and gossip and it could be argued that it was backed up by a press release issued by CanWest on Oct. 4, 2004, announcing that an American was replacing Camilleri as head of Global TV and Radio.

It believes The Globe and Mail should have accepted Asper’s suggestion that it publish the first paragraph of his Aug. 6 letter. But with this reservation it dismisses the complaint.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Commenting on the ruling, Geoffrey Elliot wrote that “the Council appeared to be endorsing a double standard for journalism.”

“If one accepts Council’s logic . . . by simply labeling something, either implicitly or explicitly, as rumour or gossip, all journalistic due diligence would be deemed unnecessary.

“CanWest would not accept a lower standard of journalism for rumour mongering in our papers. Certainly that would be inconsistent with current editorial policy in which truth and accuracy are paramount in the reporting of news. Even with opinion columns, although we would anticipate a range of different views on any given issue, these should always be grounded on an accurate presentation of known facts. We are dismayed that the Council’s decision will be interpreted to the effect that the Council has deemed such a lower standard as being acceptable.”

Louise Binder vs Globe and Mail

The Ontario Press Council upheld some aspects of a complaint that two columns by Margaret Wente about HIV/AIDS in Canada published in The Globe and Mail Aug. 15 and 17, 2006, based questionable and unfair conclusions on a number of factual errors.

Louise Binder, chair of the Canadian Treatment Action Council, argued that the columns were wrong in saying HIV/AIDS is not under control; that HIV is no longer a death sentence; that HIV is being imported from sub-Saharan Africa; that millions are wasted on prevention and harm-reduction methods that are not evidence-based and probably don’t work, and that groups such as those represented at the 2006 AIDS conference “are not held accountable for the results they get (or don’t get) and the public money they spend.”

She said people from countries where HIV is endemic, including Africa and the Caribbean, make up only 2.2 per cent of the total Canadian population and 12.1 per cent of new infections.

She cited authority to show that both prevention and harm-reduction methods are evidence-based and have been scientifically proven to work if sustained over time. She said AIDS and other community organizations are strictly accountable, are audited for all funding received from all levels of government, and provide regular progress reports and a final report containing details of how the funds were spent and outcomes achieved, all of which is evaluated by the funding bodies.

The Globe and Mail said that, contrary to the suggestion that there has been a reduction in rates of infection, a study showed an increase of 28 per cent in the last five years.

In reference to the column’s statement that HIV is no longer a death sentence, the newspaper said life expectancy has been significantly lengthened because of advances in treatment.

Responding to Binder’s statement that 22 to 59 per cent of sub-Saharan and Caribbean immigrants with HIV acquire it in Canada, the newspaper said that means 41 to 78 per cent bring it from abroad.

As for statements in the two columns about wasted money, ineffective education efforts, the failure to denounce South African President Thabo Mbeki for his refusal to face the facts, the newspaper said these were matters of opinion.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (November 1, 2007)

Louise Binder of Toronto, chair of the Canadian Treatment Action Council, complained that two columns by Margaret Wente published in The Globe and Mail Aug. 15 and 17, 2006, “based questionable and unfair conclusions on a number of factual errors.”

She disputed a statement that “HIV is no longer a death sentence,” declaring that people with HIV have a shorter life expectancy; she took issue with a sentence that said rates of HIV infection are going up after 20 years of non-stop safe-sex education.

She took exception to a statement that AIDS is being imported from sub-Sahara Africa, and she defended harm-reduction programs as “extremely successful.”

In response to a sentence that said “these groups are not accountable for the results they get (or don’t get) and the public money they spend,” Binder said, “There is not a penny for which we don’t have to account.”

The Globe and Mail said disagreements over the two columns were mostly a matter of opinion; that there were three factual points made by the complainant with which it disagrees:

The newspaper said a study showed an increase of 28 per cent in rates of infection in the last five years; that people can live a lot longer with HIV because of advances in treatment; and that figures used by Binder showed that that 41 to 78 per cent of sub-Saharan and Caribbean immigrants with HIV bring it from abroad.

The Ontario Press Council accepts that the columns were predominantly opinion but, in upholding some aspects of the complaint, it says it believes they erred in stating that groups battling HIV/AIDS are not held accountable for the results they get and the public money they spend, and in declaring that “We waste millions on prevention and harm-reduction methods that are not evidence-based .”

The Council’s decision was reached on a majority vote.

Marie Jacobs vs Hamilton Spectator

A complaint that a column published in the Hamilton Spectator under the headline Same-sex marriage sanctifies hedonism is likely to increase prejudice and discrimination has been upheld by the Ontario Press Council.

This article was much more than sarcasm – it was thinly-veiled hate,” said the complainant, Marie Jacobs of Burlington, a retired high school principal. “To me, the hatred was palpable. The article went beyond gay-bashing and promoted homophobia.”

The March 5 column, written by a member of the Spectator’s community editorial board, said that Canada has become something of a laughing-stock among the “backward, unprogressive developing world,” that “somewhere in their caves, the Islamofascists would doubtless regard same-sex legislation in Canada as a heartening and contemptible sign of weakness in one of America’s allies,” that the principle is to “sanctify hedonism,” and that the Liberals should ask themselves whether "the barbarians might not have a point.”

Jacobs said the column stereotyped Muslims as terrorists, implied they are barbarians, denigrated the Third World as backward and unprogressive, and spoke of gay marriage as “contemptible and degenerate.”

The Spectator said it does not believe the column constitutes hate literature or that its opinions are so offensive as to warrant censorship “in a country where freedom of expression is protected by law.”

“The column is provocative, unflattering, even harsh. But every day there are provocative opinions stated in newspapers that irritate the sensibilities or opinions of many Canadians. . . .”

In further defence of the column the Spectator noted that the Press Council, as a matter of policy, has stated that it is appropriate for columnists to exercise wide latitude in expressing their opinions, no matter how controversial or unpopular the opinions may be.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (November 1, 2005)

Marie Jacobs of Burlington complained that a column published in the Hamilton Spectator March 5 under the headline Same-sex marriage sanctifies hedonism amounted to “thinly-veiled hate” that went beyond gay-bashing and promoted homophobia.

She said it stereotyped Muslims as terrorists, denigrated the Third World as backward and unprogressive and spoke of gay marriage as “contemptible and degenerate.”

The Spectator, which is on record as supporting same-sex marriage, conceded that the column was provocative, unflattering, even harsh, but denied that it constituted hate literature or that the opinions were so offensive as to warrant censorship in a country where freedom of expression is protected by law.

In the Ontario Press Council’s view, the author’s references to the alleged attitudes of Third World societies were unduly provocative. The Council refers in particular to the statement, sarcastic or otherwise, that the developing world is “backward and unprogressive,” and that also the developing world regards same-sex marriage as “contemptible and degenerate.”

In upholding the complaint, the Council said it finds that these allegations go beyond the limits of acceptable discourse.

Mark Scott vs Toronto Sun

A one-line item in a city council agenda should have been enough to tip experienced reporters to the fact that there was to be action on a contract with Toronto firefighters, the Ontario Press Council says in upholding a complaint against the Toronto Sun.

Scott Marks, president of the Toronto Professional Fire Fighters Association, complained that a column published Oct. 25, 2007, under the headline City Hall’s secret hose job was “false” in suggesting the collective agreement reached with the city four months earlier was secret.

“The truth is that our collective agreement was listed in the agenda for the June 20, 2007, meeting of City Council, an agenda that was available to the public and the media well in advance of the meeting,” Marks said.

“Our agreement was passed in open council at 8:02 p.m. on June 20, 2007, at a meeting the public and the media were welcome to attend and witness.”

Noting that the vote was taken without discussion after an in-camera session and that, unlike 2004, the city did not issue a press release announcing the decision, the Sun said it was not unfair for the columnist to use such words as “secret,” “hush-hush” and “quietly slipped under the radar” to describe the city’s actions.

“We emphasize again, as stated in our editorial Oct. 26, that the discussion and vote were ‘hidden in plain sight’ which is underscored by the fact it took digging by a reporter months later to shine a light on the deal.”

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (May 23, 2008)

Scott Marks, president of the Toronto Professional Fire Fighters Association, complained that a column published in the Toronto Sun on Oct. 25, 2007, under the headline City Hall’s secret hose job was “false” in describing as “City Hall’s best kept secret” a contract with the Fire Fighters approved at a City Council meeting in June.

He said the collective agreement appeared on the agenda for the June 20 meeting, was approved by a Council vote in open session and that notice of its passage appeared in the minutes subsequently made available to the media and public.

Noting that the contract was approved in one minute after a 45-minute in-camera session, the Sun said “This was hidden in plain sight.”

The Ontario Press Council recognizes that the agenda listing, “Memorandum of Agreement – Local 3888,” would mean nothing to a non-journalist but believes it should have been recognized by experienced media as a contract settlement with the firefighters.

In upholding the complaint, the Council says absence of further detail about the agenda item did not justify describing the agreement as a “secret hose job” and “City Hall’s best kept secret.”

Michael Vranesh vs Ottawa Citizen

A complaint that an Ottawa Citizen column “defamed and offended Russian culture and people everywhere” was upheld by the Press Council on the ground that, while admitting the column should never been published, the newspaper neglected to publish its own apology to readers for the distasteful language.

The Jan. 7 column by John Robson, published under the headline “Russia under Putin will suck, as always,” included such opinions as: ”Normal for Russia is filthy, corrupt, menacing and hollow. Nothing good has ever happened there, nor will it. Russia is a lump of dung wrapped in a cabbage leaf hidden in an outhouse.”

Michael Vranesh of Ottawa was not satisfied that The Citizen had gone far enough in responding to criticism of the column and its author.

“It is not sufficient to contend that ‘The Citizen has repudiated his position’ by a brief (and oblique) editorial and 25 published letters. Nor that ‘this particular column was a mistake’ and that The Citizen had ‘taken the action required,’” he wrote.

Mr. Vranesh agreed that it was “honorable” for John Robson to issue an apology in a subsequent column “for his offensive and hurtful article” but he wanted The Citizen to publish “a prominent and detailed apology to offended and hurt Canadians of Russian descent.” Also that the apology should clearly repudiate such words as “filthy,” “dung” and “swindler.”

Since The Citizen had conceded that the column should not have been published as written, the Press Council did not have to deal with that issue. But, in upholding the complaint, it said it believed the newspaper should have published its own apology..

Explaining how the column got into print, The Citizen said the editorial page editor, who would have normally edited the column, was absent and it “slid into the paper without ever being seen by a senior editor.” It added that, to avoid such a thing happening again, both the editorial page editor and publisher receive pre-publication copies of the editorial page. As well, the columnist is excused from writing a column on days when he sits in for the editorial page editor.

Addressing the question of what made the column unfit for publication, The Citizen said: “In our view, it was not so much his opinions as the crude and distasteful way in which he expressed them.”

“Mr. Robson’s column was over the line because of its extreme language, not because his opinions were unacceptable. His language violated The Citizen’s standards of good taste. Although we disagree with his view, had they been expressed in more civil language, we would not have censured them. We pay columnists to express opinions, after all, whether we happen to agree with them or not.”

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (July 12, 2000)

Michael Vranesh of Ottawa complained that a column published in the Ottawa Citizen Jan. 7 “defamed and offended Russian culture and people everywhere.” The column, by John Robson, deputy editorial page editor, described Russia as “filthy, corrupt, menacing and hollow,” “a lump of dung wrapped in a cabbage leaf hidden in an outhouse.” It added that “Nothing good has ever happened there, nor will it.”

In the face of a heavy volume of critical letters, 25 of which were printed, The Citizen published an editorial saying it disagrees with “philosophical thinking that brands an entire nation or group as having precisely the same, inescapable characteristics.” It also published a column by Mr. Robson in which he offered “a sincere and detailed apology.”

The Ontario Press Council notes that The Citizen has admitted the column should have never been published as written. It also accepts that the newspaper went some distance toward atoning for its actions. But it believes The Citizen should have published its own apology, and on this account it upholds the complaint.

Michelle Berardinetti vs Globe and Mail

A complaint that a column published in The Globe and Mail two days before the 2006 municipal election demeaned the reputation of Michelle Berardinetti has been upheld by the Ontario Press Council.

Berardinetti, a candidate in the Scarborough Southwest ward, said references to her in a column by John Barber “seriously affected” her chances of winning a seat on city council, especially since she lost by only 89 votes to Adrian Heaps, the candidate recommended by Barber.

Noting that the column said Barber had been a classmate of Heaps, Berardinetti said she believes they are still friends and the relationship may constitute a conflict of interest.

She said it was “blatantly sexist” to describe her as “a so-called ‘political adviser (read: pillow talker)” – a reference to the fact that she is the wife of Lorenzo Berardinetti, a member of the legislature.

Citing such definitions of the term “pillow talk” as “an intimate conversation between lovers, typically taking place in bed,” she said this reference tended to denigrate her career as a political adviser. The Globe responded that in this case it was clearly a reference to conversations between husband and wife.

In reference to a sentence that said “Scarborough deserves better than nepotism,” Berardinetti said “I was not being appointed to a job; I was running for election.”

Noting that the column said Heaps “has demonstrated real commitment to his community, Berardinetti said he doesn’t live in the ward. The Globe’s representative at the hearing replied that it’s not necessary to live in a community to demonstrate a commitment to it.

The newspaper defended the decision to place the correction at the end of Barber’s Dec. 21 column, saying it employed strong language that would leave no doubt the newspaper believes she had been “unfairly demeaned.”

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (March 15, 2007)

Michelle Berardinetti of Toronto, an unsuccessful candidate in the 2006 municipal election, complained that a reference to her in a column published two days before the vote made “serious, damaging” statements about her

The column, by John Barber, recommended that voters support Adrian Heaps in the Scarborough Southwest ward. It said he had “demonstrated real commitment to his community – unlike the other leading challenger for this open seat, Michelle Berardinetti, wife of local MPP Lorenzo Berardinetti and so-called ‘political adviser' (read: pillow talker).”

The column added that “Scarborough deserves better than nepotism.”

Berardinetti said Heaps does not live in the ward. She described as sexist the reference to her as a “pillow talker” and added that she has more than 10 years of political experience at all three levels of government.

On Dec. 21 Barber appended to his column a correction that said: “A column prior to last month’s election unfairly demeaned Scarborough candidate Michelle Berardinetti’s political qualifications. In fact, Ms. Berardinetti has more than 10 years experience working in government.”

The Ontario Press Council does not believe the item involved a conflict of interest since it made clear that Barber had been a classmate of Heaps.

It does, however, believe the reference to “nepotism” was unjustified in that Berardinetti was running for office, not seeking a job. It also believes the reference to her as a pillow talker was demeaning.

Recognizing that negative comment published two days before an election does not allow much time for a response and can affect the outcome, the Press Council upholds the complaint, suggesting more care should have been taken in preparing the item.

Mohamed Elmasry vs Toronto Star

A complaint that a column published in the Toronto Star “lacked accuracy, balance and fairness, to the point of openly conveying anti-Islam bias” has been dismissed by the Ontario Press Council.

The column by Richard Gwyn was published Feb. 24, 2006, under the headline ‘Clash of civilizations’ really a feud over Islam. It was also published in the Waterloo Region Record under the headline The heart of the conflict lies within Islam itself but the Record was not called upon to defend the column.

Mohamed Elmasry of Waterloo, national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, challenged Gwyn to cite the sources of such statements as, “The overwhelming majority of deaths now occurring in Iraq is a result of Muslims killed by other Muslims,” and the al-Askari shrine at Samarra in Iraq was destroyed by Muslims.

He took issue with the statement that the deaths of 360 pilgrims trampled to death in Mecca occurred after clerics declared it would be heresy to change the time of the “Stoning the Devil” ceremony.

He also suggested the column should have said its translations of Arabic came from the MEMRI Centre, an Israeli organization that he said is avoided by informed neutral writers because its translations “are selective and out of context, projecting a negative image of Arabs and Muslims.”

The Star said Gwyn was “not talking about Islam but talking about extremists who pervert Islam in the name of religion.”

Defending the columnist’s reliance on translations by MEMRI, it quoted Guardian journalist Brian Whitaker as saying “Nobody, as far as I know, disputes the general accuracy of MEMRI’s translations.”

Maintaining that it’s accurate to say the overwhelming majority of deaths in Iraq are Muslims killed by other Muslims, it said “The best available estimate of deaths since the destruction of the mosque at Samarra, either of Sunnis by Shia or Shia by Sunnis, is now more than 1,000.”

The Star conceded that perpetrators of the destruction of the mosque at Samarra have not been identified but added that “regardless of what faction is named, all are Muslim.”

It said the column erred in saying four (rather than three) of Muhammed’s descendants are buried at Samarra but that this has been corrected in the Star’s archive. And it explained that the word “iman” (rather than “imam”) which appeared in some editions was the result of a typographical error.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (May 24, 2007)

Mohamed Elmasry of Waterloo complained that a column published in the Toronto Star Feb. 24, 2006, “lacked accuracy, balance and fairness, to the point of openly conveying anti-Islam bias.”

The column by Richard Gwyn asked whether the so-called “clash of civilizations” is “not between the West and Islam but rather within Islam, between moderates and extremists. . . .”

Elmasry questioned the statement that “the overwhelming majority” of deaths in Iraq is a result of Muslims killed by other Muslims. He said the column jumped to a conclusion in saying that the destruction of the Al-Askari shrine at Samarra in Iraq was committed by Shia Muslims. And he asked what correlation there was between what happened at Samarra and the previous month’s stampede in Mecca where 360 pilgrims were killed.

The Star maintained that the columnist was not talking about Islam but about “extremists who pervert Islam in the name of religion.” Noting that the column asked whether the some aspect of contemporary Islam “is inherently accepting of violence,” the newspaper said this was a reasonable question in the context of violent demonstrations against publication of Danish cartoons about Muhammed.

The Ontario Press Council notes that aside from a typographical error and an inaccuracy in the number of Muhammed’s descendants buried at al-Askari (three rather than four), the column did not contain demonstrably inaccurate statements of significance.

It heard no evidence that translations from Arabic were inaccurate despite the fact they came from Israeli sources.

The Press Council recognizes that Muslims are sensitive to suggestions that the so-called “clash of civilizations” may not be between the West and Islam but rather between moderate and extremist Muslims. But it does not believe such statements are in conflict with the Press Council’s long-standing policy, which extends to columnists wide latitude in expressing controversial or unpopular opinions. Nor does it see the column as unnecessarily hurtful.The complaint is dismissed.

Pat Canini vs Hamilton Spectator

The Ontario Press Council has dismissed a complaint by Pat Canini of Hamilton that four columns about his moving company published in the Hamilton Spectator were unfair, biased and incorrect and subjected him to “egregious treatment.”

The ACTIONLINE articles, by consumer affairs columnist Al MacRury, published Dec. 4 and 13, 2007, and Jan. 17 and 22, 2008, were largely based on comments of customers of Canini’s firm, Pat and Mike Sunspaces.

The Dec. 4, 2007, column, headlined Moving firm takes clients to the cleaners,

related the experience of two women who were moving their 88-year-old mother to a retirement residence.

The Dec. 13, 2007, column reported that the newspaper had decided it would no longer publish the firm’s advertising.

The Jan. 17, 2008, column said the Ministry of Transportation was seeking to locate the firm’s vehicles and the Jan. 24, 2008 column was about “The people who make my job rewarding.”

Canini, in a letter to Torstar president Robert Pritchard, said MacRury “appears to use third party hearsay, anecdotal ranting and innuendo in place of factual evidence.”

Referring to the column Moving firm takes clients to the cleaners, he defended as reasonable the charge of $427.18 for moving the women’s mother. He noted that he had moved MacRrury in 1989 for $162 and insisted his charges have increased since then only at the rate of inflation.

Despite this, he said, “the editor allowed MacRury to paint me as a pariah in his column and influence the classified department into pulling my ad.”

Spectator Managing Editor Jim Poling responded that MacRury “practised reasonable, fair and balanced journalism.” He said he agreed with Business Editor Aviva Boxer’s assessment of the columns as “fair and accurate.”

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (October 24, 2008)

Pat Canini of Hamilton complained of what he described as “unfair, biased, incorrect and egregious treatment” he believes he and his moving firm received from the publication of four columns in the Hamilton Spectator.

The ACTIONLINE articles, by consumer affairs columnist Al MacRury, were published Dec. 4 and 13, 2007, and Jan. 17 and 22, 2008.

In dismissing the complaint, the Ontario Press Council notes that the columns were largely based on comments of Canini’s customers and that the columnist was able to support or substantiate the major facts. It adds that a minor error cited bv Canini did not undercut the soundness of the journalism.

Further, the columnist had made “dogged” attempts over five days prior to the publication of the Dec. 4, 2007, column to contact Canini for comment. The Spectator, in fact, held the column prior to publication to ensure it made contact with Canini who did not provide substantive comment on the complaints.

The Press Council notes that Canini, who contacted the president of Torstar with his concerns shortly after the column was published, had the option of also writing one or more reasoned letters to the editor to rebut his customers’ published comments

Rachel Schug vs Niagara Falls Review

The Ontario Press Council has upheld a complaint by Rachel Schug of Niagara Falls that the Niagara Falls Review failed to provide “full and fair coverage” of two trials in which her husband was acquitted of charges of sexually abusing students.

The case speaks to the obligation of all newspapers, large and small, to produce balanced court coverage even when their resources are thin, the Council said.

Dana Schug was acquitted at his first trial on Sept. 10, 2002, and also at his second trial on Jan. 25, 2007. He had pleaded not guilty to three counts of indecent assault arising from allegations by former students who claimed that he had molested them at two Niagara Falls schools in

1976-77, 1982-83 and 1985-86.

Mrs. Schug complained that the Review’s coverage of both trials overemphasized the evidence of the complainants while downplaying or ignoring evidence favourable to Mr. Schug.

“My family and I have been irreparably damaged by the allegations, the police investigation and the sustained adverse effect of the press, which never recognized that Mr. Schug was victimized rather than being the victimizer,” she wrote.

The Review responded that because criminal trials are becoming longer and more complex, “it would be inappropriate for the Ontario Press Council to hold newspapers to a standard of reporting that would oblige them to attend every day and follow every development over a period of years.”

The newspaper also cited the longstanding prohibition against recording devices in courtrooms and lack of timely court transcripts as reasons why higher standards of reporting “are not realistically achievable.”

The Review argued that its editors did not have the means to ensure that coverage was fair, since only its reporters, not its editors, attended the proceedings. It also said that lack of space prevented it from publishing a better account of a judge’s verdict.

The Press Council accepts that a small paper’s resources can be taxed by coverage of a lengthy criminal trial but holds that any newspaper that endeavours to report on a trial assumes the obligation to do so in a fair and balanced manner. This obligation becomes even more compelling in cases where the allegations have the potential to destroy a person’s reputation.

The Council says fair coverage does not mean a newspaper has to send a reporter to court every day, or that it must cover every twist and turn in the evidence. At a time of dwindling resources for all newspapers, this is usually impossible. Still, the paper can provide basic fairness and balance.

First, editors can fulfil their obligations by assigning coverage in a balanced way of a trial’s key days (such as opening statements from both Crown and defence, and closing statements from both sides). They can more closely oversee reporters’ accounts to ensure they are scrupulous about capturing the highlights of the judge’s verdict and reasons.

The council does not accept that the prohibition on recording devices can be an excuse for unbalanced reporting; reporters, guided by editors, should be able to take notes with sufficient competence to provide fairness.

In examining this complaint, the Press Council identified a pattern of omissions in the Review's coverage over the course of several years that left readers unaware of volumes of court evidence that reflected favourably on the accused's claims of innocence.

While no newspaper could have covered every nuance of proceedings over such a long period, the Council does not accept the Review’s defence that the logistical challenges it faced excused it from meeting a minimum standard of balanced coverage.

For example, the Council does not accept the Review’s defence that the paper had insufficient space to publish any portion of the judges’ final statements in favour of the credibility of the accused.

In reporting the second acquittal, the paper ran the following remarks:

“I am not stating I do not believe the complainants, “ Justice Peter Hambly said Thursday in Superior Court of Justice in Welland.

“And I make no finding that I believe the accused.”. . .

The complainants, he said, are upstanding members of the community, working in both the public and private sector. . . .

“Why would three men, all settled into their lives, all approaching middle age, come to court?” Judge Hambly asked when delivering his judgment. . . .

The judge said it was difficult to comprehend how a teacher could molest a student during class.

“One would expect some student at some point would have seen what happened and raised the alarm,” Judge Hambly said.

Yet, the judge’s remarks also contained the following:

"(Mr. Schug) has introduced substantial evidence of his reputation for honesty and integrity to show that he is a person who should be believed and that he is not the kind of person who would do the acts alleged. It is difficult for a person to give evidence of events that he says never took place.

"Schug answered the questions put to him both in examination-in-chief and in cross-examination fully and carefully. He was not evasive. Generally, I found him to be a credible witness."

The potential damage to the reputation of someone – particularly a teacher -- accused of the sexual abuse of children is difficult to overstate. In upholding the complaint, the Press Council stresses that anyone reporting to the community on criminal proceedings has an obligation to ensure its accounts are fair and balanced and, at a minimum, inform its audience of the court’s reasons for vindicating someone accused of heinous acts.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (November 3, 2008)

The above report incorporates the text of the adjudication.

Rick Moffitt and John Syko vs Toronto Star

Complaints that a Toronto Star column by Rosie DiManno was intentionally inflammatory and constituted hate-mongering have been dismissed by the Ontario Press Council on grounds that, while it offended most if not all teachers, it nevertheless qualified as opinion. And, as a matter of policy, the Council maintains that columnists have a right to exercise wide latitude in expressing their opinions, no matter how controversial or unpopular they may be.

DiManno wrote in her column, published Nov. 13, 2000, that she never had a teacher who made a difference in her life and that, having spent a dozen years in the Ontario public education system, “everything I know I taught myself.”

Rick Moffitt of Kitchener, communication officer of the Waterloo local of the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, wrote that that he believed the column and a follow-up article next day “were written to intentionally inspire hate for, and hate of, teachers and the teaching profession.”

He suggested a reference to the withdrawal of extracurricular activities erroneously implied that it was carried out under a province-wide work-to-rule campaign. The Star replied that it had received no complaints on this from the unions. And it drew attention to the column’s comment that application of the work-to-rule campaign varied from one school district to another.

John Syko, head of the business/information technology department at St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic Secondary School in Oakville, described the Nov. 13 column as “unnecessarily hurtful.”

He said DiManno probably had about 40 teachers from grades 1 to 12 and he believed it was impossible, and therefore “erroneous,” to suggest not one teacher made a difference and to state that all were “lazy, bored, stupid beyond belief, rigid, disliked children, hated teenagers and seemed to resent every moment spent in the classroom.”

“Frankly,” he told the panel hearing his complaint, “if she had said ‘some’ or even ‘most’ I would not be here today.”

And he wrote that if the column had contained such “hateful, vile words” about other groups such as Blacks and Jews, he was sure the Star would not have printed it.

The Star emphasized that DiManno is a “slashing columnist” who attacks just about everyone, and that the Nov. 13 column was “her view of her experience with her teachers.” It said that her second column sought to present a balanced view of reader reaction and that the Star gave critics ample space to take issue with her position, devoting a full page to letters mostly critical of the column.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (March 22, 2001)

Rick Moffitt of Kitchener and John Syko of Oakville complained that a Toronto Star column published Nov. 13, 2000, constituted an unfair attack on all Ontario teachers.

The column, by Rosie DiManno, was headlined “If only teachers would learn a thing or two.” It said she never had a teacher who made a difference in her life and that she spent a dozen years in the Ontario public education system and “everything I know I taught myself.”

Syko, head of business/information technology at St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic Secondary School in Oakville, maintained it was impossible, as DiManno wrote, that every one of her teachers was “lazy, bored, stupid beyond belief, rigid, disliked children, hated teenagers, and seemed to resent every moment spent in the classroom.”

Moffitt, communication officer for the Waterloo local of the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, described the column as hate-mongering and said it contained language that was unnecessarily hurtful.

The Star described DiManno as a “slashing columnist” who was relating her experience as she saw it and that she had a right to express personal opinions.

The Ontario Press Council, as a matter of policy, says it is appropriate for columnists to exercise wide latitude in expressing their opinions “no matter how controversial or unpopular the opinions may be.”

It recognizes the column lacks civility in both tone and content but notes that it represents the columnist’s view of her own experience. It does not see it as unnecessarily hurtful nor does it regard the column as objectionable in the same way as an attack on groups for their religion, race or ethnicity.

The complaint is dismissed.

Robert L. Burton and Anita Bromberg vs Globe and Mail

A poem that attacked Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon contains words and imagery used in age-old stereotyping but falls under the umbrella of journalism of opinion and a manifestation of freedom of the press, the Ontario Press Council says in dismissing a complaint against The Globe and Mail.

Robert L. Burton, a Toronto lawyer, complained that the poem by John Allemang, published Feb. 1, “demonizes and vilifies Sharon and Israelis (and Jews?).” And Anita Bromburg, human rights co-ordinator for B’nai Brith Canada, said a clarification published a week later did not answer concerns “regarding the vilification and potentially libelous portrayal of Sharon.”

The poem, printed four days after Sharon was re-elected, branded him a war criminal for not having prevented Christian Falangists from massacring Palestinians in the Shatila and Sabra refugee camps in Lebanon in 1982. He was minister of defence at the time but later gave up that portfolio.

At the Press Council hearing of the complaints, Burton presented a detailed critique of the poem, suggesting that the line “George Bush gave hate an endless lease” means he was saying Israelis act out of hatred; that the line “It’s said Sharon has changed his ways” really means he hasn’t changed at all and that he continues fighting in which babies are killed and girls are raped; and that “But now a bloody résumé” means Sharon and the Israelis continue to shed innocent blood.

“Allemang alleges that Sharon is a sociopathic crook who steals billions, who—casually and depravedly—goes about killing and raping, and that Israel uses Big Lie propaganda by saying ‘We want peace’ as an excuse for war.”

“On its face, the poem uses language that is so incendiary, vilifying, hateful and demonizing, that it crosses the line from opinion to hate literature.”

Bromberg described the poem as a “one-sided portrayal containing extensive mistruths and misinformation.” She said it lays full responsibility for the Sabra and Shatila massacres on Sharon, lacking any mention that the killings were carried out by the Lebanese Falangist militia “enraged by the Palestinian massacre of Christians as Damour and the assassination of their leader Bashir Gemayel.”

In the clarification published Feb. 8, The Globe and Mail said it regretted any implication that Sharon was found criminally responsible for the massacre. But it also noted that an investigation by an Israeli commission of inquiry found that “responsibility is to be imputed to the Minister of Defence for having disregarded the danger of acts of vengeance.”

Burton said the “direction and point of the poem in its entirety—in every verse—is that Mr. Sharon—and very arguably the Israeli people and Jews—are guilty of heinous crimes against humanity—killing babies and raping little girls now, today, just like 20 years ago.”

The Globe and Mail defended the poem as fair comment in the context of conditions at the time. It said a degree of poetic licence should be extended to the author just as would be given to a provocative cartoon. Noting Burton’s criticism of the fact the newspaper did not cover Brian Mulroney’s address to a conference on anti-Semitism at the University of Toronto, it denied the suggestion that this might reflect animosity toward Jews. And it maintained that its editing of letters criticizing the poem was judicious.

It rejected the idea that an attack on Sharon is an attack on Jews. “Sharon equals Sharon,” said the editor of its focus section, declaring it is “way too extreme” to suggest that, by extension, this poem suggests that Jews generally and Israelis were responsible for the massacres.

As for the reference to Sharon as a crook, the newspaper said Israeli newspapers had carried stories accusing him of campaign corruption.

The editor said he was confident that not a single responsible person at the newspaper would tolerate publication of anti-Semitic material, And Burton said later he doesn’t think The Globe and Mail is anti-Semitic.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (June 10, 2003)

Robert L. Burton, a Toronto lawyer, joined by Anita Bromberg, human rights co-ordinator for B’nai Brith Canada, complained about a poem by John Allemang published in The Globe and Mail Feb. 1 under the headline “The Angel Ariel.”

Burton described the poem as “a hysterical vilification and demonization” of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Bromberg wrote that a clarification published Feb. 8 did not answer concerns “regarding the vilification and potentially libelous portrayal of Sharon.”

The poem, published shortly after Sharon’s re-election, referred to his role in the 1982 massacre in the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. It described his actions as a “war crime” and included these lines:

“It’s said Sharon has changed his ways:

He’s moderate, not like the days

When babies died and girls were raped. . . .”

Burton conceded that an Israeli inquiry found Sharon “responsible” as the commander of Israeli forces for the massacre committed by Lebanese Christian troops but emphasized they were not under Israeli command discipline. Discussing anti-Semitism, he suggested readers would see that “Sharon is the Jew in a representative sense.”

The Globe and Mail printed a clarification noting that an Israeli commission of inquiry had found Sharon, as defence minister, responsible for disregarding the danger that acts of vengeance would occur in the refugee camps. It added that it regretted any implication that Sharon had been found “criminally responsible.”

The newspaper disputed the charge that the poem tarred all Jews. It maintained that it would be “too extreme” to suggest that, by extension, the poem suggested Jews generally or Israelis were responsible for the massacre.

The Ontario Press Council understands that some readers would be sensitive to emotionally charged lines in the poem such as:

“. . . Tired voters who will overlook

Suggestions that Sharon’s a crook.

“A billion here, some bodies there,

In wartime that’s not hard to bear. . . .”

While the use of some words and imagery seems insensitive to the fact they have been used in age-old stereotyping, in this instance the Press Council agrees with the newspaper that the author was referring to allegations specific to one political figure. For example, the reference to Sharon as a “crook” arises from charges of electoral corruption aired in the press.

The Council draws attention to its policy on opinion which declares that it is appropriate for writers of commentary to exercise wide latitude in expressing their opinions “no matter how controversial or unpopular the opinions may be.”

And in dismissing the complaint, it agrees that the poem is an attack on one person, not a nation or a religion, and that it clearly represents the opinions of the author.

Stuart Macdonald vs Northumberland News

The lack of reliable figures on the number of Ontario teachers refusing to participate in extracurricular activities has prompted the Ontario Press Council to declare a draw in its adjudication of a complaint against the twice-weekly Northumberland News.

Stuart Macdonald of Baltimore, Ont., maintained that an Aug. 22, 2000, editorial in The News was wrong in saying the “majority” of Ontario teachers has declined to provide extracurricular help in the previous two years.

“It is the accuracy of that statement which I have continued to challenge throughout various correspondence via fax, letters and e-mails and which I continue to challenge today,” Macdonald said.

“I was fairly precise about this in the original fax. I wrote a paragraph indicating that all I had read elsewhere indicated that it was only a small minority of teachers in Ontario who were refusing to perform extracurricular activities. I asked for either a correction or, if it could be provided, the source of the claim which backed up or proved the statement in the editorial. I did suggest that if such a source were provided, I would be willing to provide an apology.”

The News, saying it stands by the statement, declared that conversations with Education Minister Janet Ecker “revealed the extracurricular standoff was a province-wide concern and not limited to Durham Region.”

It cited some figures for the two-year period, such as 50,000 boys and 25,000 girls prevented from taking part in sports activities, and a drop of 7,000 coaches (from 16,000 to 9,000) participating in secondary school federation sports. It added that information attributed to the Ontario Principals’ Council indicated as many as 70 per cent of secondary school teachers were not taking part in extracurricular activities after 1998.

Macdonald said the Press Council hearing was the first time he had heard from the newspaper about the statistics on after-school sport. He said he thought the editorial was using the situation in 2000 to justify references to the previous two years. In any case he didn’t think sports accounted for most extracurricular withdrawal. And he suggested there was no indication to what extent elementary school teachers were involved.

The newspaper said getting hard data was not easy since the department of education doesn’t provide figures. It said it invited Macdonald to let it publish his letter or to write a column commenting on the editorial. He replied that he didn’t think a letter was the right response to what he considered a factual inaccuracy, and the invitation to write a column came long after the original complaint.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (July 10, 2001)

Stuart Macdonald of Baltimore, Ont., complained that an editorial published in The Northumberland News Aug. 22, 2000, erred in saying the “majority” of Ontario teachers had failed to provide extracurricular help in the previous two years. He maintained that if the newspaper could not provide proof of the statement’s accuracy, it should publish a correction.

The News said it stood by the statement, citing various sources from which it obtained information long after the editorial appeared, including a report by the Ontario Principals’ Council that as many as 70 per cent of all secondary school teachers were not taking part in extracurricular activities.

The Ontario Press Council believes the newspaper was careless in not including in the editorial figures that supported its contention that a “majority” of teachers had withdrawn extracurricular services. It also notes that Macdonald was unable to turn up figures that would prove the statement was wrong. It suggests he should have reconsidered his refusal to permit the newspaper to publish his letter taking issue with the column’s premise or to accept the invitation to write a column. .

But with the uncertainties on both sides, the Council chooses neither to dismiss nor uphold the complaint, the eighth no-decision in 30 years and 472 adjudications.

Suzanne Langlois Mooney vs Globe and Mail

The Ontario Press Council has dismissed a complaint that a column published in The Globe and Mail under the headline “Why are Muslims involved in so many conflicts” confused religion with nationality.

Suzanne Langlois Mooney, a public relations and communications consultant in Skopje, Macedonia, wrote that she failed to understand how the column could do anything other than foster hatred, suspicion and anxiety among Canadians.

The column by William Johnson, published Oct. 11, 2001, said,

“A more specific proneness to violence is manifest in large Muslim populations – in their culture, not the religion. This was demonstrated persuasively by Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington in his 1966 book, The Clash of Civilizations. From his research and that of others, he shows that violent clashes in different parts of the world preponderantly involved Muslims.”

Mooney, who was unable to attend the Press Council hearing, wrote that it was debatable to her whether The Globe and Mail should have published the column at all.

“Assigning attributes to races or religions is always dicey. . . .Substitute

black/women/gay/aboriginal for Muslims; and inferior/unreliable/drunk/lazy for violent, and imagine how far you’d get.”

She questioned whether the newspaper should have promoted the column

and have drawn attention to it with a catchy headline. And she challenged the suggestion that the goal in publishing the article was to stimulate informed debate.

In response, the newspaper said:

“We know Johnson as a man of integrity and considerable intellect and, as such, we allow him great leeway in the free expression of his views.”

His comment concerning the frequency of violent conflict in Muslim societies was a conclusion drawn from previously published sources and constituted his opinion. In our opinion, it warrants neither an apology to the Muslim community nor does it foster hatred or suspicion as you suggest in your letter.”

The Globe and Mail produced a follow-up column headlined, “You had a right to be angry with me,” in which Johnson wrote that he had received a flood of 160 e-mails, most of them outraged.

Having said he stood by his assertions, he added that he does not say or believe individual Muslims are more prone to violence than anyone else in Canada, nor does he say Muslims have caused most of the Earth’s violence.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (March 26, 2002)

Suzanne Langlois Mooney, a public relations and communications consultant in Skopje, Macedonia, complained about a column by William Johnson published in The Globe and Mail Oct 11, 2001, under the headline “Why are Muslims involved in so many conflicts?”

“I fail to understand how this article can do anything other than foster hatred, suspicion and anxiety among Canadians,” she wrote, adding that the column confuses religion with nationality.

The newspaper said Johnson’s comment about the frequency of violent conflict in Muslim societies was a conclusion drawn from previously published sources and constituted his opinion.

Johnson himself said the column was about culture, not race. “I was not talking about Islam as a religion.”

In dismissing the complaint, the Ontario Press Council draws attention to a statement of policy arrived at many years ago which says the Council believes it is appropriate for columnists to exercise wide latitude in expressing their opinions, “no matter how controversial or unpopular the opinions may be.”

Valerie Smith vs Toronto Star

A complaint that The Toronto Star repeatedly publishes inaccurate information regarding research on the effects of media violence has been dismissed by the Ontario Press Council.

The complaint by Valerie Smith of Toronto, who describes herself as a community activist, focused on sentences in a TV article and two entertainment columns which said:

“…there’s no credible correlation between fictional violence and the real thing.” (Shows gloss over school shootings, by TV critic Antonia Zerbisias, May 20, 2001;)

“…nobody is quite sure about the effect TV violence has on children (Toppling TV taboos, by Jim Bawden, Starweek Magazine, Jan. 19, 2002;)

“Social scientists have long studied TV watching, but mostly in an attempt to determine whether violence on air causes violence in real life. (On the whole, it doesn’t seem to.)” (We’re mesmerized by the flickering tube, by Philip Marchand, Feb. 2, 2002.)

“Highly reputable medical, psychological and psychiatric organizations have issued unequivocal statements and published policy documents outlining the harmful influence of media violence, particularly on children and youth, yet Star columnists and reporters make statements such as these,” Smith wrote.

She said that of 3,500 research studies which have examined the association between media violence and violent behaviour, all but 18 have shown a positive relationship.

And she concluded by saying: “When a newspaper reports on an industry that has a profound and potentially harmful influence on the public in general and children in particular, it has a responsibility to do so accurately.”

-2-

The Star’s letter of reply said:

“We believe all three columnists have exercised their right to express opinions on a complex issue on which there is considerable disagreement. Columnists at The Star are given wide latitude to make statements that are controversial or even wildly unpopular.”

It added that readers are welcome to respond and noted that it stretched the usual 300-word limit in publishing her letter under a five-column headline, Link between TV and violent behaviour is irrefutable.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (June 11, 2002)

Valerie Smith of Toronto, a community activist, complained that The Toronto Star repeatedly publishes inaccurate information regarding research on the effects of media violence. She took specific exception to two columns and an article by a TV critic which cast doubt on the suggestion that there is a connection between fictional and real violence.

One column noted that social scientists have long studied TV watching mostly in an attempt to determine whether violence on air causes violence in real life and added, “On the whole, it doesn’t seem to.” Another said “Nobody is quite sure about the effect TV violence has on children.” And an article about the season finale of Law & Order said “…there’s no credible correlation between fictional violence and the real thing.”

The Ontario Press Council regards these statements as expressions of opinion and believes they fall within the bounds of a policy statement that says it is appropriate for columnists and others to exercise wide latitude in expressing their views.

In dismissing the complaint, the Council notes that The Star published a letter from Smith under a five-column headline, Link between TV and violent behaviour is irrefutable, that the newspaper has printed news stories with statements both supporting and disputing the notion that media violence leads to actual violence, and that the complaint focused on three brief statements of opinion within the context of wider discussions of TV violence.



Valerie Smith of Toronto, a community activist, complained that The Toronto Star repeatedly publishes inaccurate information regarding research on the effects of media violence. She took specific exception to two columns and an article by a TV critic which cast doubt on the suggestion that there is a connection between fictional and real violence.

One column noted that social scientists have long studied TV watching mostly in an attempt to determine whether violence on air causes violence in real life and added, “On the whole, it doesn’t seem to.” Another said “Nobody is quite sure about the effect TV violence has on children.” And an article about the season finale of Law & Order said “…there’s no credible correlation between fictional violence and the real thing.”

The Ontario Press Council regards these statements as expressions of opinion and believes they fall within the bounds of a policy statement that says it is appropriate for columnists and others to exercise wide latitude in expressing their views.

In dismissing the complaint, the Council notes that The Star published a letter from Smith under a five-column headline, Link between TV and violent behaviour is irrefutable, that the newspaper has printed news stories with statements both supporting and disputing the notion that media violence leads to actual violence, and that the complaint focused on three brief statements of opinion within the context of wider discussions of TV violence.

Valerie Smith of Toronto, a community activist, complained that The Toronto Star repeatedly publishes inaccurate information regarding research on the effects of media violence. She took specific exception to two columns and an article by a TV critic which cast doubt on the suggestion that there is a connection between fictional and real violence.

One column noted that social scientists have long studied TV watching mostly in an attempt to determine whether violence on air causes violence in real life and added, “On the whole, it doesn’t seem to.” Another said “Nobody is quite sure about the effect TV violence has on children.” And an article about the season finale of Law & Order said “…there’s no credible correlation between fictional violence and the real thing.”

The Ontario Press Council regards these statements as expressions of opinion and believes they fall within the bounds of a policy statement that says it is appropriate for columnists and others to exercise wide latitude in expressing their views.

In dismissing the complaint, the Council notes that The Star published a letter from Smith under a five-column headline, Link between TV and violent behaviour is irrefutable, that the newspaper has printed news stories with statements both supporting and disputing the notion that media violence leads to actual violence, and that the complaint focused on three brief statements of opinion within the context of wider discussions of TV violence.

Valerie Smith of Toronto, a community activist, complained that The Toronto Star repeatedly publishes inaccurate information regarding research on the effects of media violence. She took specific exception to two columns and an article by a TV critic which cast doubt on the suggestion that there is a connection between fictional and real violence.

One column noted that social scientists have long studied TV watching mostly in an attempt to determine whether violence on air causes violence in real life and added, “On the whole, it doesn’t seem to.” Another said “Nobody is quite sure about the effect TV violence has on children.” And an article about the season finale of Law & Order said “…there’s no credible correlation between fictional violence and the real thing.”

The Ontario Press Council regards these statements as expressions of opinion and believes they fall within the bounds of a policy statement that says it is appropriate for columnists and others to exercise wide latitude in expressing their views.

In dismissing the complaint, the Council notes that The Star published a letter from Smith under a five-column headline, Link between TV and violent behaviour is irrefutable, that the newspaper has printed news stories with statements both supporting and disputing the notion that media violence leads to actual violence, and that the complaint focused on three brief statements of opinion within the context of wider discussions of TV violence.

Valerie Smith of Toronto, a community activist, complained that The Toronto Star repeatedly publishes inaccurate information regarding research on the effects of media violence. She took specific exception to two columns and an article by a TV critic which cast doubt on the suggestion that there is a connection between fictional and real violence.

One column noted that social scientists have long studied TV watching mostly in an attempt to determine whether violence on air causes violence in real life and added, “On the whole, it doesn’t seem to.” Another said “Nobody is quite sure about the effect TV violence has on children.” And an article about the season finale of Law & Order said “…there’s no credible correlation between fictional violence and the real thing.”

The Ontario Press Council regards these statements as expressions of opinion and believes they fall within the bounds of a policy statement that says it is appropriate for columnists and others to exercise wide latitude in expressing their views.

In dismissing the complaint, the Council notes that The Star published a letter from Smith under a five-column headline, Link between TV and violent behaviour is irrefutable, that the newspaper has printed news stories with statements both supporting and disputing the notion that media violence leads to actual violence, and that the complaint focused on three brief statements of opinion within the context of wider discussions of TV violence.

TOP OF PAGE