Kenyon Wallace, National Post · Tuesday, Dec. 21, 2010
A Senator’s request that Canadian Heritage revoke $1.5-million in government funding to Maclean’s magazine for publishing a contentious article last month about Asian-Canadians and universities raises freedom of speech concerns, says the country’s civil liberties watchdog.
Last week, Senator Vivienne Poy wrote to Heritage Minister James Moore asking that his ministry deem the article in question — which suggested some students avoid certain universities because they are “too Asian” — as “offensive material,” thereby disqualifying the magazine from receiving federal subsidies.
“[Maclean’s] has offended large portions of the Canadian population through its divisive journalism, which is increasingly unprofessional,” Ms. Poy wrote in her Dec. 16 letter, a copy of which was obtained by the National Post.
“As such, given Maclean’s propensity for speculation, editorializing, and courting controversy merely for the sake of publicity, it should no longer be deemed worthy of public funding by Canadian Heritage.”
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association said it is concerned with Ms. Poy’s letter and the impact it could have on the funding of the magazine if indeed Canadian Heritagewere to characterize the article as “offensive.”
“I think legislators have the right to say that they take issue with something or are offended by something,” said Cara Zwibel, director of the fundamental freedoms program at the association. “But there is a concern when there is a question of what would effectively shut down or censor a publication.”
The Canada Periodical Fund (CPF) provides millions of dollars annually to more than 1,000 magazines and non-daily newspapers across the country to help them “overcome market disadvantages and continue to provide Canadian readers with the content they choose to read.”
Under the CPF’s funding criteria, any publication that contains “offensive content in the opinion of Canadian Heritage” is ineligible. Canadian Heritage defines “offensive content” as “material that is denigrating to an identifiable group.”
A spokeswoman for Mr. Moore said the minister could not yet comment on Ms. Poy’s letter as it had yet to arrive at his office.
In a statement on Monday, Maclean’s said it disagrees “with the Senator’s characterization of our journalism.”
According to the CPF’s list of recipients, Maclean’s is receiving $1.5-million in 2010-11. Under the CPF’s predecessor, the Publication Assistance Program, the magazine was awarded more than $3-million in 2009-10.
Geneviève Myre, a spokeswoman for Canadian Heritage, said her department reviews every complaint received from the public about any of the titles it funds to determine whether eligibility requirements have been breached.
“Should the issue raised in [Ms. Poy’s] letter be sufficiently serious to affect Maclean’s eligibility, then it will be taken into account,” she said. “This eligibility rule is balanced against the government’s commitment to support a free and independent press.”
The Nov. 10 article, which appeared in Maclean’s annual university rankings issue, angered some readers by questioning whether certain students, namely white ones, were eschewing particular universities, such as the University of Toronto, because of perceptions that they are “too Asian.”
Written by Stephanie Findlay and Nicholas Köhler, the story was met with widespread condemnation from Asian Canadian communities, student organizations and unions, among others, and demands for an unqualified apology.
The magazine says on its website that it did not mean to cause offence and points out that the phrase “Too Asian?” was a question and a quotation from a report mentioned in the article.
Ms. Poy’s letter is the latest instance of politicians weighing in on the controversy. She joined the city councils of Victoria, Vancouver and Toronto, which have all passed motions resolving to demand apologies from Maclean’s.
But Brad Lee, creator of a Facebook page that has become a rallying point for those protesting the Maclean’s article, says the controversy has nothing to do with freedom of the press.
“As Canadians, we all support freedom of the press, along with freedom of expression, as central to our democracy. In fact, media does have the right to offend,” said Mr. Lee, a fourth-generation Chinese Canadian. “However, as Canadians, when we are offended by anyone, including Maclean’s, we have the right to talk back and to exercise the same basic rights.”
Canadian Heritage is currently reviewing funding applications for 2011-12.