Judgement

The Wellington Times was thrust awkwardly into the culture wars last week, not from its reporting or commentary, but by way of an advertisement presented in its pages. Some have perceived the message of the notice as promoting hate toward an identifiable group. This newspaper believes that while the ad’s content is offensive and misguided, it does not constitute hate speech. As such, it saw no legal basis to reject the advertisement.

This decision upset many people. Some of them live in my home. There have been many angry and outraged comments directed at the newspaper. Businesses have declared they will discontinue advertising in The Times. Several dozen folks gathered in the park on Sunday to protest The Times’s decision. Such is their right. These are the freedoms that flow from the free expression of ideas and thoughts in a liberal democracy.

There are limits, of course. Legally, Canadian law makes it a crime to communicate “statements in a public place, [that] incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.” No reasonable reading of this statute, however, would infer that the advertisement transgressed this line.

So, we are left with the question of whether The Times was morally bound to reject the ad. Here there is more room for debate. A careful reading of the advertisement led this newspaper to conclude that it did not contravene the meaning or intent of Clause 14 of the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards. It was a judgement call. Some folks say it was the wrong call. Others say it was motivated by profit. To those folks, I can only point out that this newspaper, and this column in particular, offend folks every week. It has a demonstrably poor grasp of its self-interest as measured by profit in its willingness to offend and pursue community journalism.

I did not properly assess the harm that the advertisement would cause and missed an opportunity to raise a red flag. Smart folks have said I should have known better, that I should have been more sensitive. I accept this judgement.

But that does not make us transphobes— a slur hurled at the publisher in the schoolyard last week while dropping off his children. Nor does it warrant the firehose of venom and hate directed at this newspaper and its publisher last week on social media and elsewhere.

Sometimes we get it wrong. It is why this newspaper has always devoted ample space for rebuttal and reply. Indeed, The Times encourages dissenting views and opinions to anything expressed in its pages. The newsroom door has always been open, and contact information is readily available in every issue.

For some, however, this is an insufficient remedy. An apology from the publisher was rejected and scorned. The newspaper and its publisher must, instead, be publicly flogged. Banned. Shunned. Broken. To those folks I ask: How will cancelling The Times make this community better?

I admit some surprise and dismay at how some folks offended by the advertisement so casually dismissed the right to free expression as a relevant factor in this matter. How quickly pleas for greater sensitivity from this newspaper became so toxic, so filled with hate. So bipolarized.

“You’re with us or against us.”

The utter certainty by which so many online voices managed to reduce the publisher and this newspaper to a single decision was staggering.

I turned to a good friend last week for advice. She has been a wise, trusted and perceptive friend since we moved to this community 18 years ago. She has the unique talent (or wisdom) to reliably unearth something positive from the landscape, no matter how toxic or threatening.

She sees this moment as an opportunity. As a faithful reader, she knows the ideas and values contained in the ad do not reflect the ideas and values of this newspaper or its publisher. She understood instinctively that this moment presents an opening to talk about the challenges and obstacles faced by transgender folks in our community. She noted that such hurdles are more profound in rural communities. Of course, she is right.

The Times has a long and demonstrated history of telling the stories of those marginalized, overlooked and disadvantaged in our community. We will continue to do so.

We will get past this. As a newspaper. As a community.

rick@wellingtontimes.ca