UPDATE: Charles McVety violates broadcast code - Latest News Roundup
Saturday, December 11, 2010

UPDATE: Charles McVety violates broadcast code

UPDATE DEC 12: Audio clips fixed.

UPDATE DEC 11:The channel that broadcasts Charles McVety's weekly program Word TV has pulled the show until it is assured the program will comply with Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) regulations.

Crossroads Television Ontario (CTS) explained the decision in a statement sent to Xtra by its chief shared services officer, Lara Dewar:

As a regulated broadcaster we have a responsibility to comply with the Canadian Association of Broadcaster’s Code of Ethics and Equitable Portrayal Code. CTS is a member in good standing of the CBSC, the group that evaluates complaints related to these regulations. It is our policy in these circumstances not to air the program until we have assurance from the program that content will be compliant.   

Meanwhile McVety has taken to his program's website to express his anger with the industry watchdog's decision:

On Wednesday, December 8th the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council launched a viscous [sic] attack against free speech and Word TV, knocking the program from CTS until further notice. Word TV is deemed to be "malevolent, insidious and conspiratorial" for using the term "sex parade" and opposing the proposed Ontario Sex Ed curriculum.

McVety's statement misrepresents the CBSC decision as a censure of his comments about Pride and the Ontario sex ed curriculum. The decision by the panel is quite explicit about what led to its decision and very clearly explains that McVety's general opposition to both were "acceptable." The CBSC release reads:

With respect to the comments about homosexuality, the Panel explained that the program was entitled to air objections to that practice generally, to government funding of gay pride parades and to changes made to an Ontario school curriculum that would include discussion of homosexuality. 

The release makes quite clear that McVety's censure resulted solely from his suggestion "that homosexuals prey on children." In fact, the panel's release cites a specific clause, the "Human Rights, Religious Programming and Negative Portrayal Clause."

But it's not only McVety who reports the decision inaccurately.

Readers of both the National Post and CTV reports on the ruling could easily be left assuming the decision resulted merely from McVety's opposition to Pride and the Ontario sex ed curriculum – as neither source mentions his suggestion that gays could use both as recruiting tools for young children. The National Post report reads:

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, a self-regulated industry watchdog, said that Rev McVety disparaged gays in episodes that ran between July 2009 and February 2010 when commenting on Toronto's massive gay pride parade and a revised Ontario sex curriculum for grade schools.

While it's true the council said McVety disparaged gays, those comments alone didn't result in the censure. The CTV report also distorts the decision, omitting any reference to McVety's suggestion that all gays prey on children (UPDATE: For a report that doesn't mislead readers, check out this Yahoo News item). 

McVety has not returned Xtra's calls for comment, but he did speak to Newstalk 1010's Jim Richards. On the show, Richards explains to McVety that his censure resulted from suggestions that gay pride is a "pedophile's dream," not from simple opposition to it, but McVety, the president of the Canada Christian College, denies it.



   

However, not 20 seconds later, McVety contradicts himself and ends up repeating the very claim that resulted in his censure by the council: 



 

Listen to the rest of the interview here.

 ______________________________________________

On Dec 8, a Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) panel concluded that anti-gay comments made on a program hosted by evangelical Charles McVety violated the broadcast industry's professional broadcast code.

The CBSC panel decision found that comments that aired "objections to that practice [of homosexuality] generally," as well as those relating to government funding of Pride and the Ontario school curriculum were acceptable (Gay Pride, explained the panel, is not "everyone’s cup of tea"), but "when, however, the program suggested that homosexuals prey on children," it violated the code.

From the decision:

“McVety may not like homosexuality. That is his entitlement, but to leave the totally unsubstantiated impression that gay and lesbian adults have a predilection toward young, underage people is insidious and unacceptable. In all, the Panel finds the McVety mis-characterizations as excessive, inappropriate, disparaging, and abusive [...].”

The comments were made on an evangelical Christian program, Word TV, broadcast on CTS (Crossroads Television Ontario). CTS also airs Michael Coren's talk show.

The decision cites a number of transcripts from the show, including this hostile rant against the need for a new Ontario sex education curriculum:

Why? Because unfortunately they have an insatiable appetite for sex, especially with young people. And there’re not enough of them, so they want to proselytize your children and mine, our grandchildren and turn them into homosexuals. And they’ve seized our Ministry of Education and now they’re implementing this! Back when we led the campaign to defend marriage in, oh, in 2005, we warned that once they legalized same-sex marriage, then that will be the legal groundwork for them to change our curriculum and to start teaching this to our children. Well, here it is, my friends. Something that we said five years ago is now alive and well in the province of Ontario.

 

Last April, days before Premier McGuinty pulled the new Ontario sex education curriculum, the Canadian mainsteam media gave a significant amount of coverage and attention to McVety's opposition to the new program.

Given this decision by the CBSC, it seems worth asking again: Why does mainstream media cover Charles McVety?


Bookmark and Share


Comments

Thursday, December 9, 2010 9:39 PM

Glad to hear it! Is he going to penalized in any or just get a notice that he violated the code? I'm sure he'll use this decision as more "evidence" of how hard done by "good" Christians are these days, being attacked for their vies of gays and lesbians and whatnot. McVety and his ilk are a disgrace to their religion and to Canada.

Rich ca


Thursday, December 9, 2010 10:31 PM

...and he's back again, too, this time spreading FUD against trans and Bill C389.

Natalie Murray ca


Thursday, December 9, 2010 10:07 PM

Excellent start! Now let's see him get slapped with the same for his 'bathroom panic'-mongering on C-389. I mean, the man's gone on record implying that trans people are all sex offenders, which is just as offensive and false as this 'the gays are all pedophiles' schtick.

Nico ca


Friday, December 10, 2010 7:58 AM

McVety will wear this decision like a badge of honour. It gives him purpose and more media coverage, which gets him more supporters.

Until these decisions have teeth, they will be used as propaganda magnifiers. Grounds to personally sue his ass off the planet solutions preferred.

Jase ca


Friday, December 10, 2010 9:24 AM

"Because unfortunately they have an insatiable appetite for sex..."

Speaking as a straight male do any of the posters here not see the irony of the "concern" over the above statement juxtaposed with the ads on the same page?
Two for a gay porn DVD site and one for "gay" travel destinations using a kinda funny double entendre?
The priape.com ads show young, fit males (yeah, I know, who wants to watch fat, old people banging...straight OR gay?) and then there are "gay" destinations. Don't gays want to holiday like straights? Apparently not because everything seems to require the central theme of sex.
Why?
I'm not trolling here I genuinely would like to know. Don't gays just want to go to the Mayan Riviera or Punta Cana and enjoy the sun and surf in the middle of winter like us straight people?
Because it doesn't seem that way.

een ca


Friday, December 10, 2010 11:48 AM

@een - really it's none of your business. personally I couldn't care less what straight people think about the gay community. WE ARE NOT HEAR TO APPEASE YOU. The Gay community has had to sacrifice it's culture in order to attain equal rights and marriage acceptance by straights and that pisses me off.

J Roman ca


Friday, December 10, 2010 2:52 PM

@een Apparently Roman makes it clear that is a no... and illustrates perfectly why you cannot have a calm, reasonable discussion with The Gay Community.

skye us


Friday, December 10, 2010 4:07 PM

@een- well, if you look like a troll and quack like a troll...

On the slight chance you're not, though, here's a brief lesson in advertising for you. Sex sells, and the people who make the ads are aware of this fact. Sex is used to sell things to gay people and straight people and bisexual people and pansexual people.

Oh, and while you're here, perhaps you could shed some light on something for me. One thing I don't get about straight people is the percentage of child molesters who self-identify as straight. Why can't you people have normal sex like the rest of us and leave the kids alone?

Nico ca


Saturday, December 11, 2010 3:19 AM

Hello everyone,

Thanks for the civil responses.

Looking at my post I think it seems a touch..."trolly."

Sorry about that. Wasn't my intention.

@Roman? In regards to what two consenting adults do? Agreed. None of my business.
@Skye? Not sure why you felt I couldn't have a "calm, reasonable discussion." But, I'll make more of an effort to engage conversation and not be..well, a jerk, if that's how I appeared. Sorry about that.
@Nico? Agreed. Sex sells. If I understand correctly Xtra is fairly mainstream. However, when I go to "straight" news sites (for lack of a better term) be they liberal, conservative or somewhere in between I don't see any advertising for online DVD porn of any persuasion nor travel destinations with somewhat amusing, double entendres...well, not often.
Anyway.
I didn't mean to look or quack like a troll.
I realize we're not going to agree on a number of issues and so be it.
I do wish everyone a very Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukkah, great time over the next couple of weeks and also a happy new year.
All the best.
een

een ca


Saturday, December 11, 2010 10:40 AM

@jroman "Personally I couldn't care less what straight people think about the gay community."

It kinda looks like you do care what straights think since this is a story about censorship.

Brock ca


Saturday, December 11, 2010 10:53 AM

It shows that we DO have rights and they can be protected by the courts depsite the provincial and federal conservative parties animosity towards our community. It also shows the bankruptcy and desparation of the fundamentalist "taliban" christian movement when they attempt to attract(?) new members to their cults/gangs by using fear instead of the spirit of Christ's message, His Love. God's Love for us.

Wendy ca


Saturday, December 11, 2010 11:04 AM

I am surprised by the reaction to this article. In their neverending support of QuAIA, Xtra, The 519, and other members of the gay Leftist elite have argued for totally unrestricted freedom of expression. If QuAIA gets to express their hate against Israel at Pride, then McVety gets to express his hate against gays on TV. You can't have it both ways folks.

Jake ca


Saturday, December 11, 2010 7:10 PM

I have a newfound lack of respect for the CTV and the National Post, thanks to my own experience of their journalistic integrity this past week.

Some of you might have heard my interview about transitioning in the Canadian Forces on the CBC Radio One show, Day Six, with Brent Bambury, aired December 4th. They were asking me questions about the whole Don't Ask Don't Tell thing going on in the US. Well, what I didn't know is that the military, early last week, released a set of guidelines concerning how military transitions should be handled.

Not only was this set of guidelines tagged as 'policy', it was also portrayed as being only about uniforms, instead of things like medical and legal requirements, the stuff that really matters. After all, to the mainstream media, transsexual people are really all just drag queens and crossdressers obsessed with clothing and makeup, right?

To make this worse, they bring me into the picture, but instead of coming to talk to me about my experiences, they simply ganked some of the Day Six interview verbatim. They even brought on board the horrible Scott Taylor, from Esprit de Corps, who pronounced that this release of new dress regulations was incredibly bad timing in the face of some other directives about veterans that has also recently been released, just as if the trans guidelines were there exclusively to take away from that important issue.

So here they are again, distorting the facts. The McVety thing is not about what they have said or done about the Ontario sex-ed curriculum. It's entirely to do with their equating LGBT with child abusers and pedophiles. And yet the CTV and the National Post completely ignore that?

I think the CTV should have its broadcast license reviewed as well.

Natalie Murray ca


Saturday, December 11, 2010 11:51 PM

Jake: You're either a troll, an idiot, or perhaps not capable of understanding nuance. Since you bring up QuAIA, I'm guessing troll. Ok, I'll bite.

The problem here is that you think what QuAIA is saying is hateful somehow means that fat-fuck McVety can say whatever he likes about the LGBT community.

One: what QuAIA espouses is not illegal. It's deeply unpleasant to some, but that's just what our laws are meant to grant people the freedom to do. If it were illegal, members of QuAIA would rightly be charged and convicted for it. That you don't like it is completely fucking irrelevant. You'll note that none of the main organized detractors of QuAIA (conservative rightwing, pro-Israeli organizations, several of which have strong ties to hatemonger McVety) are lobbying to have these people arrested. That should indicate something to you.

Two: what McVety says on the public airwaves is regulated by an broadcasting industry group that has devised and maintains a certain level of standards (the Code of Ethics and Equitable Portrayal Code) to which all broadcasters must adhere to. The rules are pretty clear about what is unacceptable. After complaints from the public, his comments were reviewed, and found to contravene these standards (and not just over the gay stuff, but that's what people like to fixate on.. perverts).

Note that McVety wasn't arrested. He can spew whatever hate he likes on his blog, on the street, to anyone who cares to listen. What he said likely doesn't rise to the level necessary to be charged under the Criminal Code. He did however violate the well-known regulations broadcasters must follow. The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council is not the organization that pulled the show: CTS did.

While you can lobby that the restrictions are somehow unjust, but sorry, thems the rules to the game today.

Further, comparing speech in the context of a broadcast television show (with it's well known and well defined restrictions) and speech made in public is not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Finally, while this situation may chafe your chaps, the regulation that forbids McVety from fomenting hate and spreading lies (e.g. "homosexuals prey on children") also means that other broadcasters cannot spread comparable lies (e.g. "every single Catholic priest rapes babies on Tuesdays," "religionX adherents violate the corpses of religionY's adherents"). Believe it or not, the same set of rules apply to everyone - it's just blowhards like McVety and his ilk who think he's somehow special enough to violate them at will.

Dan ca


Sunday, December 12, 2010 2:09 AM

I wish the guidelines and protections here in Canada existed in the US several years ago after a TV preacher targeted me and my partner at the time with blatant lies and misleading "preaching." I would have had recourses for the emotional trama he inflicted on me.

Mason ca


Sunday, December 12, 2010 11:56 AM

We purposely book our travel to wherever we feel like. Designating gay-friendly or just for gays is not for us.

Marc ca


Sunday, December 12, 2010 12:02 PM

I urge you to not just drop a post here but drop an email to CBSC thanking them for them upholding the regulations that prevent people from spouting blatant lies such as this. I agree, everyone should be allowed their views but once it crosses the line to outright lies to justify the view the person should be called on it.

As for the ads on this page, one I refreshed thru several times and never saw an add for porn, as for the travel, take a look at straight travel ads, me all over some hot young thing in a bikini, same difference. I also notice ad's for face-book, and real estate. Whats funny, I went to a similar gossipy type blog more on the straight side shall we say, it had, drug (2), bankruptcy (4) at the top, debt consolidation, interesting difference. And as for why don't we want to travel like the straight people do, we would love to if we could go and lie on the beach and not have hate mongers like this guy harass us, so instead we take our money where it is welcome!

morgan us


Sunday, December 12, 2010 3:14 PM

I would encourage everyone to email CTV and the National Post asking them to correct their stories on this issue. If they don;t change it then many people will be left with the wrong impression about McVety's violation of the broadcaster's code.

Rich ca


Sunday, December 12, 2010 4:35 PM

@een, first I didnt think ur comment was "trolly"..second I get asked by my str8 friends all the time why gays have to have their own olympics etc. The truth of the matter I think is that gays in general have been bashed so much in mainstream societies that they still feel the need to have a safe haven to do activities as they wish i.e. ur example of vacay destinations. It's changing slowly so u'll probably see that such distinction will disappear in the future (dk when exactly lol)..n for rest of ppl who commented on een needs calm down a little he wasn't attacking on the gay community but just a gen. question that str8 ppl might have, n if gays in general wants to be understood/accepted this dialogue needs to remain open instead of becoming defensive/attacking. Nwys, I'm sure I'll get bashed now for writing the way I did grammer/wording/lols but that's just my thought. Keep it positive guys ;)

jay ca


Sunday, December 12, 2010 11:03 PM

Wow! this is still freedom of speech and expression and Xtra is not saying this is censorship?

James ca


Sunday, December 12, 2010 11:38 PM

@een: Xtra is more sex-centric than some other gay newssites like advocate.com for example. But there is sex-centric straight stuff everywhere I look.
Go to maxim.com (a site geared toward straight men) and everything from travel to Xmas gifts is being sold with girls in bikinis in sensual poses. Just out of curiosity, I just googled images for the word "vacation," the first image of people that comes up is a straight couple beside a tiki bar in which the man's hand is groping the woman's breast.
Do we gay people book vacations in the Mayan Riviera? Yes, we do. But we have to consider issues before we go that you wouldn't have to think so much about. My husband and I went to Mexico City for a straight couple's wedding and weren't sure how safe we were until we realized that we were in the gay district and we didn't have to pretend to be cruising for women. We wouldn't even consider booking a trip to Jamaica, for example, where gay people are routinely brutalized. My parents went on a safari in East Africa. They didn't have to wonder if they would be arrested on charges out of the dark ages if they mentioned to anyone that they are a couple.
I will always pick a mainly-gay or at least gay-friendly cruise or hotel or destination when there is a choice.
You would never have to wonder whether it is "safe" for you to clasp the hand of your beloved across the table or whether someone would attack her because she said to you in the gift shop, "Honey, can you grab some suntan lotion?"

GV ca


Monday, December 13, 2010 5:15 PM

Hi een: I think that heterosexuality is so ever-present that you don't notice it and see it as such. Take many popular music videos. It's usually the women who are hyper-sexualized, while the men are fully clothed. This is done for the pleasure of straight men. The latest one with Rihanna and Drake is a great example. Why is Rihanna wearing micro-mini shorts and a low-cut top, looking like a hooker, while Drake is showing a only bit of hand in comfy sweats. Look at advertising, and magazines. Why do they assume I want to attract a woman wearing very little clothing when I buy their bodywash and read their fitness magazines for men? I'm a gay man and would just be happy with smelling good and getting some work-out tips. Although there are a couple smaller fitness magazine titles which market specifically to gay men. Come to think of it when I am at the gym, why do heterosexual couples make out in front of me? Can't they keep their hands off each other? Are they obsessed with their sexuality? There are many much more subtle examples of how we see heterosexuality and heterosexism displayed every single day.

CJ ca


Thursday, December 16, 2010 10:16 PM

I know this probably won't get seen but the Post also ran an editorial about this that repeated all the same mistakes and clearly suggested that McVety was sanctioned for criticizing naked men in the Pride march. When myself and several others pointed out in the comments section that this had nothing to do with why McVety was sanctioned the editorial disappeared from the Post website after 2 days and can no longer be found. However the original story that also got it wrong is still to be found online, however no comments are allowed for that one so no one can publicly challenge the Post's version of events which paint McVety as the victim of an out of control system.

Rich ca



Comments are closed

Powered by BlogEngine.NET 1.4.0.0

The Roundup

Xtra.ca's Roundup
blog is your source
for news and
analysis that has
queer people
talking.

The Roundup is
written by Xtra's
staff reporters:

Andrea Houston
andrea.houston@xtra.ca

Natasha Barsotti
natasha.barsotti@xtra.ca

 


Log in
Feed Subscribe