Canadian Newspaper Apologizes for Ad
October 3, 2011
THE NATIONAL POST of Canada apologized last week for running an advertisement objecting to sex education curriculum that teaches children in kindergarten through third grade about homosexuality. The ad (see it in full here) was funded by the Institute for Canadian Values, which claims that mandatory Ontario curriculum confuses children. The newspaper will not be running the ad again and will be giving proceeds already earned to a homosexual rights organization.
In their apology, the newspaper’s editors stated that they were not violating norms of free speech because the ad, which depicts a young girl under the words “Please don’t confuse me,” was so offensive and “manipulative” that it “exceeded the bounds of civil discourse.” The editors do not explain why, if it was so offensive, the ad ever ran at all. The apology states, in part:
The National Post believes strongly in the principles of free speech and open, unhindered debate. We believe unpopular points of view should not be censored simply because some readers may find them disturbing, or even offensive. Free speech does not apply only to views that will not offend anyone.
The ad in question was attempting to make the case that the Ontario curriculum was teaching very young children about issues that, at that age, should be the domain of parents. In addition, it made the case that even when parents or teachers may object to the material being taught, they did not have the right, in the case of parents, to remove their children from the class, or in the case of teachers, to decline to teach the material on the grounds that they objected to it.
In an open society, these positions are worthy of being part of a debate on this issue. They are also legitimate arguments to make in a paid advertisement in a media outlet.
Where the ad exceeded the bounds of civil discourse was in its tone and manipulative use of a picture of a young girl; in the suggestion that such teaching “corrupts” children, with everything that such a charge implies; and in its singling out of groups of people with whose sexuality the group disagrees.
The fact that we will not be publishing this ad again represents a recognition on our part that publishing it in the first place was a mistake. The National Post would like to apologize unreservedly to anyone who was offended by it. We will be taking steps to ensure that in future our procedures for vetting the content of advertising will be strictly adhered to.
The photograph is no more “manipulative” than any image used in advertising. It is not that the ad is manipulative, but that it is persuasive. And since it is not possible to object to anything taught in the name of homosexuality without “singling out” homosexuals, the newspaper is essentially stating that any criticism of public campaigns promoting homosexuality is unacceptable in civil discourse. What is this if not an argument for complete suppression of free speech on the issue?
