Elias Hazineh vs Toronto Star
Napoli-Bosveld vs Hamilton Spectator
John Hayden vs Cobourg Daily Star
Robert Swift vs Sarnia Observer
Sheldon Ehrenworth vs Toronto Star
Tekawennake vs Turtle Island News

Elias Hazineh vs Toronto Star

Newspapers have the right to decide when to terminate a letters-to-the-editor debate, the Ontario Press Council says in dismissing a complaint against the Toronto Star.

Elias Hazineh of Mississauga, president of Palestine House, complained that the Star chose not to publish his letter which, in effect, supported a Star editorial and took issue with a letter that criticized the editorial.

The editorial, published March 14, said that in the interests of promoting peace in the Middle East, Canada should contribute a substantial sum to Palestinian relief.

A day later the Star published a letter from Jason Shron of Toronto that said sending aid to the Palestinians is like “throwing money into the heart of a black hole.”

The letter said the editorial ignored a significant question: “What has happened to the billions of dollars the Palestinian Authority has already received in aid from Western nations?”

Hazineh described the letter’s allegations as “worn out and debunked” and said hundreds of millions of foreign money went to pay for destruction by Israel of Palestinian infrastructure.

The Star noted that Hazineh was, in effect, supporting the editorial, but that it did not address the allegations made in Shron’s letter, also that it contained unsubstantiated allegations of its own and didn’t advance the debate.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (November 2, 2005)

Elias Hazineh of Mississauga, president of Palestine House, complained that the Toronto Star refused to publish a letter to the editor in which he criticized another letter that took issue with an editorial advocating more aid to the Palestinians.

The editorial, published March 14, suggested that increased foreign aid could help Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in the race with extremists for the hearts and minds of the people who live in the occupied areas.

A day later the Star published a letter from Jason Shron of Toronto that said sending aid to the Palestinians was like “throwing money into the heart of a black hole.”

Hazineh described the letter’s allegations as “worn out and debunked” and said hundreds of millions of foreign money went to pay for destruction of Palestinian infrastructure by Israel.

The Star said it did not want to turn the paper into a forum where letter writers simply attack each other. It also maintained that Hazineh did not directly address the allegations made in Shron’s letter.

In dismissing the complaint, the Ontario Press Council said it accepted the Star’s position that two sides of the debate had been explored and there was no need to print another letter that tangentially supported the editorial.

Fred Napoli and Ken Bosveld vsThe Hamilton Spectator

– A letter to the editor pointing out errors in news stories should somehow be brought to the attention of reporters involved in the coverage, the Ontario Press Council says in upholding, with reservations, a complaint against The Hamilton Spectator.

At the same time, the Press Council says a complainant who spots an error should immediately contact the newspaper to ask for a correction or clarification rather than waiting a week or more to write a letter.

Fred Napoli of Greensville and Ken Bosveld of Waterdown complained that a Spectator article published April 19 was wrong in saying a group they headed was seeking to overturn amalgamation of the town of Flamborough with the city of Hamilton.

They said their one purpose was to seek a review of whether the transition board was in violation of the Municipal Act when it discussed vital public matters during a private meeting in February 2000.

The April 19 article, under the headline Last gasp for Flamborough, said: “A citizens’ group formed to seek a legal review to remove Flamborough from the amalgamated city of Hamilton has thrown in the towel and will be giving money it received from the town to community organizations.”

Articles published in October 2000, just before Flamborough became part of Hamilton, mentioned that Napoli and Bosveld were spearheading “a group fighting amalgamation” but did not include comment from them.

Their letter to the editor published Nov. 10 – more than two weeks later – said “there are no plans to initiate a judicial review to overturn or prevent imposition of a Hamilton ‘supercity.’ Neither is it about protesting amalgamation.”

In their letter of complaint to the Press Council, Napoli and Bosveld said “the Spectator has portrayed us as a small group of disgruntled citizens making one last ditch effort to overturn municipal amalgamation. We believe this misunderstanding on the part of the newspaper could have been avoided had The Spectator either attended the meetings they were reporting on, or spoken directly to the appropriate people.”

They said The Spectator should have known that Mark Coakley, a Dundas lawyer, quoted in October 2000 stories was not a spokesman for the group. To which the newspaper replied that its reporter talked to Coakley because it seemed right that a lawyer be interviewed about a judicial review. But, it added, if it had got a call Coakley was not entitled to speak on behalf of the group “we would have run a correction or clarification.”

Admitting there can be a problem connecting a letter to the editor to subsequent stories, The Spectator said it would look at ways of tying them together so that reporters will see both the letter and the original articles when doing research for a new story.

It emphasized, however, that Bosveld or Napoli should have picked up the phone and asked for a correction or clarification of October 2000 stories rather than writing a letter.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (October 30, 2002)

Fred Napoli of Greensville and Ken Bosveld of Waterdown complained that The Hamilton Spectator erred in an article which said a citizens’ group they headed was seeking to reverse the amalgamation of the town of Flamborough with the city of Hamilton.

The story, published April 19, 2002, under the headline Last gasp for Flamborough, said “A citizens’ group formed to seek a legal review to remove Flamborough from the amalgamated city of Hamilton has thrown in the towel….”

They said The Spectator had overlooked a letter from the two complainants published Nov. 10, 2000, which said: “Contrary to reports in The Spectator, there are no plans to initiate a judicial review to overturn or prevent imposition of a Hamilton supercity.”

The Spectator, declining to publish a letter that said it had erred in its coverage, replied that it could not see anything inaccurate in the April 19 article.

The Ontario Press Council says it believes the April 19 story erred in saying the citizens’ group was seeking to reverse amalgamation. It suggests Spectator reporters should have been made aware of the letter published in November 2000 that pointed out the error. And it further suggests that at some point Spectator reporters should have interviewed Napoli or Bosveld instead of merely repeating that they were leaders of the group.

At the same time, the Press Council believes Napoli and Bosveld should have immediately contacted the newspaper to point out errors in stories published Oct. 23 and 25, 2000, along with an editorial and cartoon on Oct. 26, rather than waiting to have their letter published more than two weeks later. But with this reservation, it upholds the complaint.

John Hayden vs Cobourg Daily Star

Newspapers haved a right and responsibility to publish controversial statements by public figures even if they are likely to offend some readers, the Ontario Press Council said in dismissing a complaint against the Cobourg Daily Star.

John Hayden of Port Hope criticized the newspaper for publishing a letter to the editor from Gordon Gilchrist of Baltimore, a school board trustee and former Conservative MP, which concluded with these words: "Call your MP and tell him to turn off the immigration tap before it's too late."

"Most immigrants do not bring even a modest understanding of Canadian history or values," he wrote. "Many bring their old-country feuds and hatreds, to be paraded and re-fought on Canadian soil. How could such people be expected to understand and offer a staunch Canadian loyalty to the future of this 'Western' country with its Western values when we don't even ask, or require them to do so?" Hayden wrote that the letter is "excessive and derogaqtory and oversteps the bounds of rational debate." He added that it contains unnecessarily hurtful language and he maintained that the harm wasn't mitigated by the subsequent publication of more than two dozen letters mostly critical of Gilchrist.

Editorial Director Mandy Martin responded that although Hayden and others "may disagree with the conclusions Mr. Gilchrist has drawn from his facts, the facts are not in dispute."

A column written by Eileen Argyris said: "We absolutely believe Mr. Gilchrist has a right to his views, whether we agree with them or not. Our newspaper would not have published his original letter if it had looked like a platform to incite hatred or retribution against any identifiable group, and it did not."

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (March 12, 2009)

John Hayden of Port Hope complained that a letter to the editor published in the Cobourg Daily Star Feb. 13, 2008, under the headline "Turn off the immigration tap before it’s too late" is “excessive and derogatory and oversteps the bounds of rational debate.”

The letter, written by Gordon Gilchrist of Baltimore, a school board trustee and former Conservative MP, said “the failure of imposed multiculturalism superimposed on the divisiveness of bilingualism may ultimately prove the downfall of this magnificent country.”

Hayden said the letter contained unnecessarily hurtful language used to describe identifiable groups – principally immigrants, including Muslims, Jamaicans, Lebanese and Sri Lankan Tamils.

“The language employed in the lengthy letter (over 950 words) includes the following derogatory descriptions: ‘enemies,’ ‘aberrations,’ ‘quasi-Canadians,’ 'gun-toting,’ ‘uninformed,’ ‘misfitting, ‘sometimes violent,’ ‘Trojan Horse’ ‘anathema,’ ‘extremists’ and ‘ghetto-like enclaves.’”

Responding to Hayden’s complaint, Mandy Martin, editorial director of Northumberland Publishers, said the examples of strife in Gilchrist’s letter “are based on widely reported incidents. . .but it is a matter of public record that they happened.”

“Although you, and others, may disagree with the conclusions Mr. Gilchrist has drawn from his facts, the facts are not in dispute. Mr. Gilchrist is not advocating mistreatment of anyone. For that reason, we saw no reason to exclude Mr. Gilchrist’s letter from publication.”

The Ontario Press Council recognizes that the remarks were offensive to many readers but agrees with the newspaper’s position that when public figures say controversial things, newspapers have a responsibility to report them so that readers will know where they stand.

The Council suggests that newspaper acted responsibly in subsequently publishing more than two dozen letters, many highly critical of Gilchrist, a few defending his right to freedom of expression, resulting in a lively and productive debate.

The complaint is dismissed.

LETTERS POLICY IN DISPUTE

A newspaper should tell its readers when it begins enforcing a policy of refusing to publish letters from a writer who refuses to allow them to be edited, the Press Council said. With this reservation, the Council dismissed a complaint against The Sarnia Observer by Robert Swift of Bright’s Grove.

Mr. Swift wrote that up to April 1999 The Observer published 16 of his letters even though a note was appended saying, in one way or another, that if the paper intended to print an edited version “you don’t have my permission to print it.” After that it stopped publishing them.

When he complained to the Press Council in January 2000, the newspaper replied that it reserved the right to edit letters “based on length and potential legal issues” and that his stated restriction on editing meant they did not qualify for publication. From time to time The Observer publishes on its letters page a policy statement that says “The editor reserves the right to edit letters for brevity, clarity and grammar.”

“Why were the letter to the editor rules not applied to my 16 letters sent to The Observer before April 1999 and suddenly applied to all my letters after that date?” Mr. Swift asked, saying he had never received a sensible answer.

Mr. Swift, who was campaign co-ordinator for the Liberal candidate in the last provincial election, questioned whether “politics” and “personal biases” prompted the decision to stop publishing his letters.

In answer to a question from a member of the panel hearing the complaint, publisher Daryl Smith said the newspaper had supported the Progressive Conservative candidate in the last two provincial elections but denied that politics entered into its decision to stop publishing Mr. Swift’s letters.

“What I believe to be the only error on our part was to not cut off his letters at an earlier date. In fact, we should not have accepted his first letter with the editing restriction on it.”

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (July 10, 2000)

Robert Swift of Bright’s Grove complained that the Sarnia Observer

stopped publishing his letters to the editor in April 1999, citing his admonition that they

not be printed if they were edited, even though it had previously published his letters despite that restriction. Noting that he was working for the Liberal candidate in the provincial election, he raised the question of whether the decision to cut him off was prompted by political reasons.

The newspaper denied that politics was involved and said its only mistake was not making clear at the outset that it would not accept letters from writers who refused to permit them to be edited.

A policy statement on letters to the editor, adopted by the Ontario Press Council in 1985, states that it recognizes a newspaper’s “unfettered right” to decide what to publish, what not to publish, and how to edit what it does publish. It therefore concedes The Observer’s right to refuse to print letters from readers who insist they not be edited.

However, the Press Council suggests letter writers deserve to be informed of a decision to begin enforcing a rule that has been ignored. And it sees The Observer’s actions as inconsistent in this case. But with this reservation, it dismisses the complaint.

Sheldon Ehrenworth vs Toronto Star

The Ontario Press Council recognizes that newspapers have the right to edit letters to the editor as long as the edited version accurately reflects the writer’s message.It has upheld a complaint against the Toronto Star by Sheldon Ehrenworth of Niagara on the Lake who said a letter published July 17, 2004, was edited to the point where it misconstrued his message. Ehrenworth, founder of the Public Policy Forum, said his letter was intended to take issue with a column that criticized Prime Minister Paul Martin and Treasury Board President Reg Alcock for the way the public service was being reorganized.“You will note from my original that I questioned the one-sidedness of Graham Fraser’s article of July 13th. I also took issue with his criticism of the Prime Minister and President of the Treasury Board. The edited version, which was published, shows none of this. In fact, I appear to be criticizing the Prime Minister’s office which was not my intent in any way.” The Star said most letters as published run between 50 and 150 words, that his ran to 300, and it believed the core argument was left intact. In an e-mailed response to his complaint, the newspaper said: “Because letters must be short and concise, it’s important for writers to make their points clearly. You seem to have sent a mixed message in your letter: the Prime Minister’s staff could do a better job of communicating the government’s goals to the public service, but also that he and the Treasury Board President should be commended for trying to make the public service relevant again.” Ehrenworth admitted his letter was longer than most published in the Star but said he was hoping it would be the letter of the day. And at least he hoped the last paragraph would have survived the editing process. That paragraph read: “In Graham Fraser’s view, the Prime Minister and Treasury Board President are villains who have upset the established order in the federal bureaucracy. But he has nothing to say about reversing the decline in a vital national institution, the public service of Canada.Instead of criticizing, he should commend their efforts to pry the public service out of 20 years of inertia and make it a constructive and relevant force once more in Canada’s affairs.”

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (March 15, 2005)

Sheldon Ehrenworth of Niagara on the Lake complained that the Toronto Star edited his letter to the editor to the point that it misconstrued his message. He said he took issue with criticism of the Prime Minister and President of the Treasury Board contained in a column published July 13, 2004, but his point did not survive editing of the letter and that, as published, it left the incorrect impression that he was criticizing the PM’s office.The Star maintained that the edited version of his letter left his core argument intact. It added that the original version contained a mixed message—on one hand saying the PM’s staff could be clearer in communicating goals to the federal bureaucracy, on the other praising efforts to pry it out of 20 years of inertia.The Ontario Press Council recognizes that newspapers have the right to edit letters to the editor as long as they do not omit or misconstrue their essential intent.In this case, it believes the editing was flawed in that it left the mistaken impression Ehrenworth was primarily criticizing the PM and Treasury Board President, having omitted his criticism of the column for failing to commend their efforts to “pry the public service out of 20 years of inertia.” The complaint is upheld.

The complaint is upheld.

Tekawennake vs Turtle Island News

A newspaper that is criticized in a letter to the editor published by a competitor has a convenient and inexpensive way of responding since it has access to its own pages for publication of its version of the facts. Another option is to write its own letter to the opposition paper.

The Press Council offered the opinion in adjudicating a complaint involving two weekly newspapers published on the Six Nations Reserve at Ohsweken near Brantford—The Turtle Island News and Tekawennake Six Nations and New Credit News, also known simply as Teka.

Shirley Smith, publisher of Teka, originally brought suit for libel against Lynda Powless, publisher of The Turtle Island News, and Maurice Switzer, author of the letter, which was published Aug. 14, 1996. Eventually lawyers for both sides proposed that the dispute be arbitrated by the Press Council. After a hearing in Toronto in March of this year attended by the two publishers, the Council dismissed Mrs. Smith’s complaint.

The letter from Mr. Switzer, a former daily newspaper publisher more recently involved with the Assembly of First Nations, was originally sent to The Toronto Star’s “Talking Point” feature but was not published there. A copy was provided to Lynda Powless of The Turtle Island News for her personal information. Her paper omitted the name of its competitor from the letter but Mrs. Smith noted that there are only two papers published on the reserve.

The letter said “the other paper” tended to overlook or downplay questionable actions by band councillors, was rewarded by receiving preferential treatment in placement of band advertising, and had a smaller circulation than the Turtle Island News but “whose lack of community support is offset by a $125,000 loan dispensed with the blessing of the band council.”

In her letter of complaint, Shirley Smith described the suggestion that there was collusion between Teka and the band council as unsubstantiated and “damaging to our reputation within the community as a fair and independent news source.” She said it was “utterly false and unfounded” to suggest an editorial policy favorable to the band council was the basis of a $125,000 loan.

At the Press Council hearing, she presented a letter from the Two Rivers Community Development Centre that outlined details of a 1995 loan for $62,100 which she said was for construction of a building. At an examination for discovery in May 1998 Mrs. Smith said there had been a mortgage loan for $150,000 but that the source of the money was not the band council, rather it was Two Rivers, a non-profit body funded by the federal government.

Mrs. Smith added that the circulation of the two newspapers was misrepresented and the statement that Teka lacks community support was untrue.

Lynda Powless said the inferences Mrs. Smith drew from the Switzer letter “are not the ones likely to be drawn by a reasonable and disinterested member of the Six Nations public,” that expressions of opinion were “fair comment honestly held by Switzer and me,” and that allegations of fact “are true in both substance and fact.”

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (March 22, 2000)

Shirley W. Smith, publisher of the weekly Tekawennake, complained that a letter to the editor published in the competing Turtle Island News in August 1996 contained two defamatory allegations. She objected to what she described as a suggestion that there was collusion between her paper and the Six Nations Band Council and that the Council had rewarded her with a $125,000 loan and placement of advertising because its editorial policy favored the Council.

Lynda Powless, publisher of the Turtle Island News, said Mrs. Smith had drawn unreasonable inferences from the letter. She added that she believed the statements contained in the letter were accurate.

Noting that the complaint had originally been an action for libel, the Ontario Press Council points out that newspapers, unlike ordinary readers, have a convenient forum for responding to criticism published elsewhere to which they object.

In dismissing the complaint, the Council says it believes Tekawennake would have been better served by publishing its criticism of the letter on its own pages and/or writing a letter to the editor of the Turtle Island News.

TOP OF PAGE