Peter Menzies

If the CBC was truly an independent commercial broadcaster, I wouldn’t really care if it, as some believe, displayed a strong anti-pipeline bias.

I wouldn’t watch, read or listen but freedom of the press means any operator can be whatever it wants to be, even if core journalism principles involving fairness, accuracy, balance and an objective presentation of the news go out the window on a regular basis. Even if it means consistently failing to mention the enormous economic benefits a pipeline could bring to a country facing economic peril. Media are, in other words, free to neglect to mention polls showing widespread public support for pipelines, be really bad at journalism and, as news organizations, drive themselves into financial oblivion and subject themselves to lawsuits. That’s Freedom of the Press.

But the moment you start taking other people’s money to subsidize your (mis)adventures, you are no longer free and will, inevitably, suffer consequences when you realize that freedom comes attached to responsibility. As Bob Dylan famously wrote, it “may be the Devil or it may be the Lord, but you’re gonna have to serve somebody.”

This is what, in my experience, sticks in the craw of most of the Mother Corp’s critics, particularly those in the West. While they don’t seem to mind their local radio stations too much, turning on national TV, as I did last week, only to find Paul Wells (independent), Shannon Proudfoot (Globe and Mail) and Marty Patriquin (The Logic) discussing pipelines with Power and Politics host David Cochrane just doesn’t connect. But those who feel alienated by this sort of experience still have to pay for the privilege of feeling excluded and there never seem to be any consequences for those doing the exclusion. As political scientist and Stephen Harper’s chief of staff Ian Brodie pointed out, “There are lots of people who can provide an informed and grounded interview on tanker traffic. CBC can find these people if they want to.”

But they regularly don’t and, rather than suffering market consequences, they just got an additional $150 million a year in taxpayer funding.

Which brings us to the Toronto Star and its cartoonist, Theo Moudakis, a freelancer, whose work (above) illustrates this newsletter. He is entirely within his rights to depict Prime Minister Mark Carney as a strong and wise adult male. He is equally free to express his opinion of Alberta Premier Danielle Smith as a weak, unsophisticated, infantile female.

I’d say it was risky for the Toronto Star to publish it, particularly when viewing it through a gender lens (we’re still doing that, right?). But it is 100 per cent free to do so. In happier times, those most likely to be offended by it – westerners and their womenfolk – would have never seen it. And the majority of those who did see it – people in downtown Toronto – would have enjoyed a quiet snicker at the expense of the western rubes.

But in modern times the cartoon can be spread for viewing across the country via social media so that journalists like The Free Press’s Rupa Subramanya, Brian Lilley of the Toronto Sun, Chris Selley of National Post and others were expressing alarm.

And, also in modern times, taxpayers in the West – the most likely to take offense from the cartoon – pay to subsidize the Toronto Star, which at last report was losing close to $1 million a week. And, as with the CBC, it’s one thing to feel excluded and mocked, quite another to be forced to pay for the privilege.

The bottom line message to subsidized media? You’re all the CBC now. Those who fund you with their taxes believe you owe them. Conduct yourselves accordingly.

Canadian media’s refusal to report on international developments concerning the use of puberty blockers for teens and children afflicted by gender dysphoria is reaching the point – and I have hesitated to use this word in the past – of full blown censorship. That’s right, a great many of the nation’s newsrooms appear to be intentionally refusing to keep the public fully informed on an issue of grave cultural and medical importance.

Some of you may know, but many of you won’t, that in the wake of the UK’s 2024 Cass Review – which Canadian media did their best to avoid reporting about – New Zealand recently joined the list of countries that have banned puberty blockers for minors.

That’s because while the Kiwi decision was widely reported in the international press, including left-leaning titles such as The Guardian, the sole Canadian coverage of the development that I could find was provided by CTV News, which picked up a Reuters story. Given the controversial nature of transgender policies in Canada, media have an obligation to keep the public up to date on these types of developments. Intentionally avoiding doing so, particularly while supported by taxpayer subsidies, is inexcusable.

Share

I’ve always thought that independent media would benefit from a platform upon which their work could be aggregated and presented to the public as a virtual “newsstand.” To be fair, some of them disagree with me, doubt that such a move would benefit them financially and prefer as much independence as possible. Which is fine.

Nevertheless I thought it worth passing along that independent news platforms in France have recently decided to give this a go. One, le Portail des médias indépendants, aggregates stories from 80 French outlets in an effort to diminish distribution dependence on US social media platforms. The most recent, La Press Libre, involves eight left-leaning publications that decided to create a platform offering access to all of their content for a single monthly fee.

I have no idea if this will work, but it’s encouraging to see attempts to innovate. Good luck to them.

CPAC isn’t exactly a ratings leader but it has been, in my book, the least biased source of broadcast news in the country for some time. It’s primary role, however, is to provide live feeds of Question Period, committee meetings and hearings such as those conducted by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). Because it is funded through cable companies that continue to experience declines in revenue, it is running out of money. Last summer it informed the CRTC, which has been putting off practically every broadcasting decision it can while it tries to implement the Online Streaming Act, that unless its wholesale fee increases from 13 cents to 16 cents next year, it won’t be able to meet its obligations.

The CRTC, as it is doing with just about everything these days and often at great cost to those it regulates, decided to boot that decision down the road. Expect more job losses in media as a result.

It’s not often that a foreign nation feels compelled to publicly correct a media outlet for misrepresenting its representative, but that’s exactly what the U.S. Embassy did following a Toronto Star report claiming “Future of trade talks depends on Canada’s purchase of American fighter jets, U.S. ambassador says.”

The U.S. Embassy in Ottawa posted a Correction Notice, complete with video, noting that:

“It has been reported that, during an exchange …. U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra said “the future of Canada-U.S. trade talks depends on how Canada’s review of its decision to buy U.S.-made F-35 fight jets turns out.” As video of the interaction clearly shows, Ambassador Hoekstra did not make this statement.

No, he didn’t, but fear not, faithful readers, it’s time, according to Justin Ling, to:

Ling, renowned for his reporting that “violent extremist groups were deeply involved” in the Freedom Convoy of 2022, has joined the Star as a full-time columnist where he will write twice a week about “big tech oligopolies.” Should be something.

Don’t forget to check out this week’s Full Press podcast in which yours truly, Harrison Lowman and Tara Henley wonder, among other things. what the CBC’s Fifth Estate was thinking with its take on safe supply.

Donate

The Rewrite is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe to The Rewrite

(Peter Menzies is a commentator and consultant on media, Macdonald-Laurier Institute Senior Fellow, a past publisher of the Calgary Herald, a former vice chair of the CRTC and a National Newspaper Award winner.)

 From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Canada’s Catholic bishops have condemned the proposed amendments to Bill C-9 warning that quoting the Bible in good faith could become punishable by up to two years in prison.

The Canadian Catholic bishops have condemned proposed restrictions on quoting religious texts, which would potentially criminalize sharing Bible passages.

In a December 4 letter to Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) advocated against proposed amendments to Bill C-9, the “Combating Hate Act,” to allow Canadians to be punished for quoting Scripture.

“[T]he proposed elimination of the ‘good faith’ religious-text defence raises significant concerns,” the letter, signed by CCCB President Bishop Pierre Goudreault, explained. “This narrowly framed exemption has served for many years as an essential safeguard to ensure that Canadians are not criminally prosecuted for their sincere, truth-seeking expression of beliefs made without animus and grounded in long-standing religious traditions.”

Goudreault pointed out that “the removal of this provision risks creating uncertainty for faith communities, clergy, educators, and others who may fear that the expression of traditional moral or doctrinal teachings could be misinterpreted as hate speech and could subject the speaker to proceedings that threaten imprisonment of up to two years.”

“As legal experts have noted, the public’s understanding of hate-speech and its legal implications are often far broader than what the Criminal Code actually captures,” the letter continued. “Eliminating a clear statutory safeguard will likely therefore have a chilling effect on religious expression, even if prosecutions remain unlikely in practice.”

In conclusion, Goudreault recommended that Liberals either scrap the proposed amendment or issue a statement clarifying that “good-faith religious expression, teaching, and preaching will not be subject to criminal prosecution under the hate-propaganda provisions.”

He further suggested that the Liberals “commit to broad consultation with religious leaders, legal experts, and civil liberties organizations before any amendments are made to Bill C-9 that would affect religious freedom.”

“We believe it is possible to achieve the shared objective of promoting a society free from genuine hatred while also upholding the constitutional rights of millions of Canadians who draw moral and spiritual guidance from their faith traditions,” the letter continued.

As LifeSiteNews reported earlier this week, inside government sources revealed that Liberals agreed to remove religious exemptions from Canada’s hate speech laws, as part of a deal with the Bloc Québécois to keep Liberals in power.

Bill C-9, as reported by LifeSiteNews, has been blasted by constitutional experts as empowering police and the government to go after those it deems to have violated a person’s “feelings” in a “hateful” way.

Now, the Bloc amendment seeks to further restrict free speech. The amendment would remove the “religious exemption” defense, which has historically protected individuals from conviction for willful promotion of hatred if the statements were made “in good faith” and based on a “religious subject” or a “sincerely held” interpretation of religious texts such as passages from the Bible, Quran, or Torah.

As a result, quoting the Bible, Quran, or Torah to condemn abortion, homosexuality, or LGBT propaganda could be considered criminal activity.

Shortly after the proposed amendment was shared on social media, Conservatives launched a petition, calling “on the Liberal government to protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government overreach into matters of faith.”

Already, in October, Liberal MP Marc Miller said that certain passages of the Bible are “hateful” because of what it says about homosexuality and those who recite the passages should be jailed.

“Clearly there are situations in these texts where these statements are hateful,” Miller said. “They should not be used to invoke or be a defense, and there should perhaps be discretion for prosecutors to press charges.”

His comments were immediately blasted by Conservative politicians throughout Canada, with Alberta provincial Conservative MLA and Minister of Municipal Affairs Dan Williams saying, “I find it abhorrent when MPs sitting in Ottawa – or anyone in positions of power – use their voice to attack faith.”