Press Council Hears LifeCanada’s Complaint Against Globe & Mail
By Carroll Rees

The Ontario Press Council adjudicated LifeCanada’s complaint against the Globe and Mail on May 25, 2006 concerning the April 2, 2005 opinion column written by Heather Mallick in which she misrepresented LifeCanada.  This column resulted in the Bank of Montreal’s decision to terminate the MasterCard affinity program with LifeCanada.  The Press Council dismissed the complaint with one reservation.  
           
The Ontario Press Council’s press release states that there should have been a correction of the statement that LifeCanada refers to unborn babies as “Jewels for Jesus.”  Mallick had written “I cannot think of anything more cruel than to tell a woman with cancer that it was her fault because she didn’t keep the little ‘Jewel for Jesus,’ (as LifeCanada calls them) she was left with after being raped.”  We were particularly outraged at this reference since we do not, nor have we ever referred to unborn children as “Jewels for Jesus.”  This was a deliberate attempt by Ms. Mallick to make us appear overly pious and unsophisticated.
           
We are surprised that the Ontario Press Council focussed on this particular error and ignored the many other inaccuracies in the column.   Ms. Mallick portrayed LifeCanada as telling raped women who aborted that they caused their own breast cancer.  This is a total fabrication.  No one, and certainly not LifeCanada on its website or in any of its communications, has ever suggested that all breast cancer is a result of abortion.  An "increased risk factor" means only that one increases one's risk of developing the disease.  There are over two dozen studies in peer-reviewed journals that document an increased risk.              
           
Ms. Mallick dismissed two experts on the abortion-breast cancer link because they were connected to the U.S-based Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, an organization she called "anti-abortion." Instead, her "cancer expert"' was Henry Morgentaler who runs five private, for-profit abortion clinics.  Would Ms. Mallick also consult tobacco companies on the effects of smoking on health? 
           
Ms. Mallick included the name of a business she found listed in the resource directory on our website and said it was a member of LifeCanada.  It was not described on our site as a member.  The following week she ran a "correction" in a subsequent column but instead of admitting that she made the mistake, implied that we had used the company's name inappropriately.
           
Mallick made the unsubstantiated claim that “Canadians are overwhelmingly pro-choice.”  This is simply not true.  LifeCanada has commissioned polls over the past three years from reputable pollsters (Leger and Environics) on public opinion on abortion.  They show strong support for some legal restrictions on abortion and overwhelming support for eliminating tax-funded abortions.  Furthermore, Gallup Canada has consistently found over the past thirty years that most Canadians do not agree that abortions should be legal in all circumstances. 
           
Finally, she suggested in the column that the Bank of Montreal's association with LifeCanada violated the bank's statement of principles which says that the bank does not "knowingly lend for purposes that support the suppression of basic individual freedoms."  To suggest that an educational pro-life group suppresses basic freedoms is offensive and damaging.  Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes the "right to life".  Protecting and defending that right is why we exist.  Furthermore, the Bank of Montreal does not "lend" us money through its affinity program. 
           
It is not surprising that Heather Mallick’s article contained many factual errors since she knew nothing about our organization and made no effort to find anything out.  She did not contact anyone from LifeCanada when writing her column.  Any information about LifeCanada was gleaned from our website and used out of context or deliberately misconstrued to make us look ultra-religious and unprofessional. 
           
The Globe ignored the factual errors in the Mallick column, the damage done to LifeCanada, and the lack of any balance either through a news story quoting both sides or insisting that Ms. Mallick interview someone from LifeCanada in the original column.  The Globe refused to print most letters to the editor received in support of LifeCanada and a column submitted by LifeCanada’s president, Joanne Byfield.  A letter to the editor from our president was finally printed one week later after much negotiation with the newspaper.
           
The press release issued by the Press Council states, “The Ontario Press Council recognizes that the column employs provocative language.  But it sees the author’s views as falling within the council’s policy on opinion, which says it believes it is appropriate for columnists to exercise wide latitude in expressing their opinions, “no matter how controversial or unpopular the opinions may be.””  LifeCanada’s complaint was not that Ms. Mallick had expressed controversial or unpopular opinions but that her column was based on factual errors. 
           
We are disappointed with the decision by the Ontario Press Council.  There is no question that our reputation and our financial situation have been damaged by this biased and factually incorrect column.  LifeCanada sought a formal apology from the Globe and Mail and recognition of their failure to act fairly and justly.  We had also requested that the Globe & Mail print a profile of LifeCanada and the work we have done for the past five years.  It is unfortunate that no further effort will be made to correct this injustice.

Carroll Rees is the Executive Director of LifeCanada.