On: Fake Apologies and Backhanded Homophobia at the National Post.
So a few days ago, the National Post ran an ad that … well … see for yourself.
(Props to OpenFile for keeping on this story.)
Okay, so there are people out there that think homosexuality is a communicable disease and that Transfolk just have daddy issues. Those people are awful, but they exist.
It’s lamentable that they were given a national platform. But, perhaps on the up side, it reminds people that bigots do exist and this is exactly the reason why places like Ontario Christian schools need Gay-Straight Alliances.
So a lot of vitriol was (perhaps rightfully) focused on the National Post for running their ad. In their defense, they admitted that the ad should have never been run. It fell through the cracks. I’m rather fond of the National Post (sometimes) and regardless of how you feel about their editorial direction, they often raise the level of discourse above, say, the Toronto Star.
So I opened up their apology about the whole debacle. This is maybe the most offensive part of the whole affair,
The apology starts off on the right track. We made a mistake, blah blah blah, we want to include all discourse, blah blah blah.
But the last couple of paragraphs really get my goat (do people still say that?)
Emphasis and expletives all my own.
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 ads exceeded the bounds of civil discourse was in their tone and manipulative use of a picture of a young girl; [FUCK.] in the suggestion that such teaching “corrupts” children, with everything that such a charge implies; and in their singling out of a specific group of people who have made choices about their sexuality with which 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 Post will also be donating the proceeds from the advertisement to an organization that promotes the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people.
Maybe some lauded the fact that there was an apology at all. Perhaps some didn’t read the message itself, but the message is loud and clear
We’re sorry we let them use a picture of a child.
The Post effectively endorsed - and repeated - their inane rhetoric that implies the Ontario school system is indoctrinating children to be gay. It effectively endorses the idea that parents should have the right to shield their children from diversity and understanding. The editors have endorsed the idea that learning about equality is tantamount to “confusing” children.
But heavens, they used a picture of a little girl.
We all know the National Post had to apologize for this outrage, but make no mistake - those who wrote this apology do not feel sorry. They feel bad that there was outcry. They worry about their bottom line.
Fuck you, National Post.
