CBC’s 22 Minutes called out for fat-shaming Doug Ford
The CBC’s comedy show, This Hour Has 22 Minutes appears to have rubbed some social media users the wrong way, after posting a tweet which fat-shamed Ontario Premier Doug Ford.
On Tuesday, the Twitter account for the CBC comedy posted “Ontario Premier Doug Ford says he will not run for leader of the Conservative Party. But he will run for a hot dog dangling from a string.”
Within moments, a significant number of Twitter users, including prominent Conservatives, attacked the comments for shameless making fun of the Premier’s weight.
Former Saskatchewan Premier posted in response that the joke was lame and an unfunny gratuitous personal insult, while also pointing out the fact that 22 Minutes is funded through Canadian tax dollars.
The wife of former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper also commented that fat-shaming was not funny, while also describing the writer of the tweet as “pathetic.”
Some even described the program as “government-funded bullies,” for their willingness to attack the Premier for his body size.
Others like Melissa Lantsman though just called the program out for becoming a sad rendition of what it used to be.
CBC Kids News has published an article in favour of Canadian teens embarking on a hunger strike. The hunger strike was scheduled to start on Sunday; its purpose is to protest the now-cancelled Teck mine project in Alberta. The article details famous, historical hunger strikers, their achievements, and what happens to the body when it is denied food.
The fact that CBC decided to cover a hunger strike involving the participation of children is irresponsible to say the least. That this was promoted on their children’s news platform makes it even worse. Teens are already at higher risk than adults for eating disorders, which are typically about a person wanting to take control over their bodies when they feel they have no control over anything else. This hunger strike is in service to something teens absolutely have no control over, energy policy.
It’s absolutely unconscionable to advocate for children to starve themselves to get the government to change its energy policy. And it is absurd to expect the government to change its energy agenda based on this kind of advocacy. The teens are basically taking themselves hostage, holding their breath until they get their way.
Twitter users were quick to point out how irresponsible and dangerous this article is.
It’s been a few years now that people are so freaked out by climate change that they’re willing to sacrifice their children. But while pundits and armchair climate activists may advocate for the Greta Thunbergs of the world to give up their futures in service to environmental activism, parents are not so sure.
In fact, the article on CBC Kids News had to be amended to account for a parent’s concern. One of the students who intends to participate in the hunger strike was noted to have the support of his mom. However, after the article was published, his mother wrote to say that “she is extremely worried about her son going on a hunger strike and, ‘even more disappointed that young adults feel they need to engage in self harm to be heard by the media and government on this issue.’”
She’s right to be concerned. As a matter of fact, all Canadian parents should be concerned. CBC has crossed a line by promoting unhealthy behaviour directly to young people. They should be ashamed of themselves.
I saw an opinion piece posted a few days ago on The Post Millennial titled “Ontario teachers need to realize how great they have it” and it started to really bug me.
I am a secondary teacher in Ontario and am proudly walking the picket line to fight for my students. I am used to seeing all the misinformation posted online when it comes to our recent job action with the province and I have gotten pretty good at brushing it off. I was unable to with this particular opinion piece because of the amount of stereotyping and general misinformation that the author chose to write about. I want to provide some key context for what was said and what is actually happening in our schools.
First, I would like to point out that teaching is not a part-time job. I am at my school from 7:30 a.m. until at least 3:30 p.m. in the afternoon. I often work through my “lunch” break as I am spending time with students, in meetings, marking, or preparing lessons. I worked it out once and between the time that I am actually at school, preparing, marking at home, and supervising extra curricular activities, I work approximately 50 hours a week. I am only paid for the classes I teach.
While I am on the subject of pay, in order to reach the top end of the pay scale, you have to be 10-plus years in, a department head or some other administrative type role, have taken a number of of additional qualification courses at your own cost, and more often than not, have a master’s degree. Those that the author cite as making over $100,000 are principals, vice-principals and superintendents who do not fall into our union. I’m four years in and have yet to make more than $40,000.
This leads me to my next point regarding “vacation”. It’s true there are 11 weeks of the year where we are not in school, but they are not vacation days. We are unemployed during those times. We have our 10-month salary distributed over 12 months. The money that we receive during the summer is for hours we have already worked. Most of us spend our summers taking upgrading courses or seminars to improve our practice. We also spend time preparing for the next year. I spend at least two unpaid weeks in August in my school getting prepared for the year ahead.
When you look at what we are asking for in our negotiation in terms of pay, it is to keep up with the cost of inflation. Inflation is around 2-2.5 percent a year. That is all we are asking for. As one of my students said, “So you’re asking to make the same amount of money that you already do?”
Yes, we want to keep the salary that we have so we can keep up with the rising cost of everything around us.
That cushy pension and benefits you mention, I pay for it. I put about as much into my pension each pay as I do to income tax. So yes, some of us can afford to retire early, but that is because we have paid into it. As for benefits, I pay into those as well. I am not ETFO so I cannot comment on what the author listed there but I will tell you that if you are not full-time, the benefits cost outweigh what you are given. In my four years, I have only had a full benefit package for one semester (5 months).
I also want to mention that the reason I voted in favour of strike action was not about pay. Class size matters. Those that say, “Well I had 35-plus students in class when I was in high school so what does it matter?” were not living during a time of full integration. This means that I have students with a variety of learning needs in my classes that would not have been in a mainstream class 20 years ago. The higher the student to teacher ratio is, the less time I have to support each of my students. Mandatory e-learning won’t work for every student.
How can you expect a 13 year-old with dyslexia to be responsible for a full course online with no direct supervision? You can’t. Yes some students will thrive in that situation but it will hurt more than it will help. There is also the issue of where these students are expected to take these mandatory online course. What if they don’t have access at home? What if they simply cannot learn in that environment, are there exceptions for students who simply can’t do it? These questions have not been answered by the government nearly a year after they announced this proposed change. All we are asking for is more data to ensure that this plan is actually in the best interest of students.
In the final point of the article the author mentioned a pattern of teachers going on strike. That is not true. The last time there was a full withdrawal of services (a walk out/ strike) by any and all of the four unions was in 1997. Since then contracts have been able to be negotiated with only limited withdrawal of service. I work with teachers who are 21 years in and this is the only time it has escalated to this level.
The government and the minister of education have been negotiating in bad faith since the beginning of this process, which got underway last May. They have failed to show up to the table to even talk about meaningful issues that will have lasting impacts on generations of students to come. In three days of negations, the government was present for less than an hour. We have been open and transparent about where we stand from the beginning. Readers can take a look for themselves to learn more about these issues.
We are still dealing with the ramifications of some of the implications from the 1997 strike. What we want is to ensure that what this government wants to implement will not cause lasting damage to one of the top rated education systems.
So next time the author of that article drives by a picket line maybe instead of shouting at us to “quit complaining” and we “have part-time jobs”, engage us in a conversation about what this is actually about and what the conditions are in our classroom that have led us here. There are real issues at play here that the government has yet to address. We are looking out for generations of students.
CBC has filed a claim with the Department of Industry to trademark the word “Oh” and “Radio-Canada Oh-dio” with the department’s intellectual property office.
Conservative Party leadership candidate Erin O’Toole recently called for the privatization of the publicly funded TV service.
CBC’s potential new “Oh” marketing campaign is reminiscent of the network’s earlier attempts to boost sales with previous trademarks such as“Fall for CBC” in 2014, “Canada’s Own” in 2011, and “Trusted, Connected, Canadian” in 2001.
In 2013 the public broadcaster sued a Montréal cable station for $50,000 over the trademark “Ici” (“here”) which they used for their French-language service according to Blacklock’s Reporter.
“Our public broadcaster is stuck in the past,” said O’Toole in a campaign video on February 14. “An O’Toole government will modernize and reform the CBC,” said O’Toole. “We will end funding for CBC digital and we will cut the CBC English TV budget by fifty percent. Our plan will phase out TV advertising with a goal to fully privatize CBC English TV by the end of our first mandate.”
The CBC receives $1.2 billion grant per year from the government, however, their English-language television ad revenues fell 37 percent last year.
O’Toole said he would keep CBC French-language services and the Crown broadcaster’s national radio network as it is.
In 2017 a Conservative bill to privatize the CBC as an entire corporation was brought forth but was defeated.
Former Conservative MP Brad Trost was a sponsor of the bill, “The Mulroney administration philosophically should have done it, just as the previous Harper administration philosophically should have been prepared to privatize the CBC,” said Trost, in an interview at the time. “Someone needed to take the first steps to get things going.”
“The late former finance minister Jim Flaherty actually broached this subject a few times in the past,” said Trost. “He spoke to me about how it was one of his wishes to privatize the CBC. Jim and I discussed it.”
Bill C-308 An Act To Provide For The Incorporation Of The CBC would have reorganized the network under the Canada Business Corporations Act with plans to have a final sale within the following three years. The bill was shot down in the Commons by a vote of 260 to 6.
According to Global News, Premier Doug Ford’s house is currently being investigated by Toronto police’s hazardous materials team for a suspicious package. The package was reportedly opened by Ford’s wife, Karla.
There was reportedly white powder in the package that authorities have not yet been able to identify.
A spokesperson for the Toronto police informed Global News that officers received a call to show up at a house in Etobicoke on Tettenhall road where the Premier’s house is situated.