In a series of recent decisions, the Quebec Press Council rejected two complaints against The duty, but retained a third. Columnist Emilie Nicolas has been blamed for writing “inaccurate information” in one of her columns on “police violence and impunity”.
In her text “Breaking the taboo, rethinking the police” published on June 4, 2020, Emilie Nicolas called into question the independent role of the Bureau of Independent Investigations (BEI). “During the first three years of the BEI’s existence, 126 people suffered serious enough injuries at the hands of the Quebec police for an investigation process to be triggered, including 71 people who died”, wrote the columnist, based on a CBC article.
This way of presenting the figures is “inaccurate”, according to the plaintiff Maxime Drapeau, who also deplores “a lack of rigor of reasoning” from Ms. Nicolas and “the lack of corrective action” on the part of the To have to. BEI reports in support, he maintains that “the police have little or no impact on the vast majority of deaths or injuries to those involved.” They were injured or died even before the officers arrived.
The media tribunal ruled in favor of the complainant on the issue of “inaccuracy”. He considers that even if Emilie Nicolas takes the time to explain the role of the BEI, the use of the expression “in the hands of the police” suggests – wrongly – that the police are responsible for the injuries and deaths. The CBC article made good mention of deaths or injuries that occurred during “police operations” and not “at the hands of” the police, notes the Press Council (CDP).
The CDP concludes that “the columnist could have verified this information at source by consulting the BEI’s investigation reports in order to avoid producing information which is not faithful to reality”. He further judges that The duty should have corrected this inaccuracy which had been pointed out by the complainant. After having read the CDP’s decision, The duty made the correction in the digital version of the column on Thursday.
The CDP on the other hand rejected by majority the complaint of “lack of rigor of reasoning”, judging that the columnist did not make amalgam or fallacious conclusion. “Contrary to what the complainant maintains, the columnist does not question the principle of the presumption of innocence of the police officers because of their employment. Emilie Nicolas defends her opinion on the independence of the BEI. “
Complaints dismissed
In addition, the Press Council rejected two other complaints involving The duty. The first was aimed at the column “Se rat kay manje kay”, signed by Christian Rioux on July 23, 2020. The complainant, the organization Debout pour la dignité, criticized several inaccuracies, a lack of rigor of reasoning and discrimination in this matter. text. The chronicler discussed his perspective on the history of Haiti, its independence and the identity of its people.
The CDP dismissed the entire complaint, judging that the arguments put forward were more of a difference of opinion. “In the context of opinion journalism and freedom of expression, the columnist could present his point of view on his vision of Haitian identity and on its construction. […] even if it is understandable that the complainant and others do not agree, ”says the decision.
In the second case, the complaint was aimed directly at The duty for having published on June 23, 2020 the opinion letter from a reader entitled “What is the cabal hiding against JK Rowling?” “. Its author, Nassira Belloula, returned to the controversy generated by the words of the author of the Harry Potter saga who mocked the use of the expression “people who have periods” and positioned themselves on “the concept of sex biological “. In her letter, Ms. Belloula sided with JK Rowling.
Again, the CDP dismissed the complaint entirely. A majority of the organization believed that the terms used, such as “men transformed into women” or “real women”, are not discriminatory and do not incite hatred towards trans people, as argued by the complainant, Vincent. Bourassa-Bédard.
“This is an interpretation of what a woman is, although she may have offended some. [Or] shocking or offending the public does not constitute an ethical breach ”, we can read in the decision. The Council adds “that it is not because a subject is sensitive and that it can offend people that the news media should refrain from presenting divergent points of view. “