OA_show('Leaderboard - Xx90');
Choose your edition:

Search form


UPDATE: Charles McVety violates broadcast code

Latest News Roundup

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

OA_show('Text Ad - #1');
OA_show('Text Ad - #2');


I know this probably won't
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.
Hi een: I think that
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.
@een: Xtra is more sex
@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?"
Wow! this is still freedom of
Wow! this is still freedom of speech and expression and Xtra is not saying this is censorship?
@een, first I didnt think ur
@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 ;)
I would encourage everyone to
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.
I urge you to not just drop a
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!
We purposely book our travel
We purposely book our travel to wherever we feel like. Designating gay-friendly or just for gays is not for us.
I wish the guidelines and
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.
Jake: You're either a troll,
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.


Sign in or Register to post comments