March 14, 2025 – for immediate release

The National NewsMedia Council (NNC) has upheld one portion of a complaint and dismissed another about the accuracy of statements made in an October 4, 2024 opinion column published by the Toronto Sun.

The opinion article, “Terror supporters show their true colours in Toronto” argued that protestors attending demonstrations in Toronto, as well as other Canadian cities, have declared their support for terrorism.

Anthony Issa, a media analyst with the advocacy group Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, filed a complaint stating that the opinion column defames the pro-Palestinian movement in Canada and uses harmful rhetoric. In his submission, the complainant argues the column falsely labels all pro-Palestinian protesters as “Nazis”. The complainant also disputes the column’s claim that all pro-Palestinian protests in Toronto were “anti-Israel” and “pro-Hamas”.

The complainant also raised concern with the accuracy of the statement, “Now that Israel is responding after thousands of missile attacks, including one that killed 12 Druze children and injured many more, this mob is chanting for Lebanon to be left alone.”

The news organization disagreed with the complainant’s claim that the column suggested all supporters of Palestine were supportive of terrorism. They stated, furthermore, that the columnist based their opinion on what they saw, and heard, when covering recent protests. The news organization said: “when [protestors] are chanting slogans calling for the elimination of Israel, when they target people simply for being Jews, it is more than appropriate for a columnist like Brian Lilley to form an opinion likening that particular group of individuals in the crowd to Nazis.”

In response to the concern raised about the accuracy of the statement about the deaths of children as a result of a missile attack, the news organization stated that it understood Hezbollah denied that children were the target of any missile attack but that the group took responsibility for attacking military targets in the area.

The complainant was unsatisfied with the news organization’s response and submitted a lengthy response that underscored “ethical, factual, and rhetorical” problems contained in the column and the news organization’s response. In this secondary submission, the complainant reiterated their concerns about the column’s generalization of all protestors supporting terrorism. The complainant also argued that invoking the term “Nazis” characterizes the protest movement in “sweeping, defamatory terms”.

In considering the materials submitted, Council agreed it was beyond its mandated scope to determine whether statements made in the column were defamatory. As a dispute resolution body and not a formal court of law, the NNC is not mandated to decide on legal matters. For this reason, the NNC is unable to rule directly on this portion of the complaint.

That said, the NNC considered the use of language when reporting on sensitive and/or politically-charged topics and whether the language used in the column contravened journalistic standards and practices.

In previous decisions the NNC has stated that news organizations should take care to avoid using unnecessary or inflammatory language when presenting opinions on complex or sensitive subject matter. This includes overly broad generalizations, unsubstantiated claims, or potentially harmful allegations about individuals or members of an identifiable group.

In this case, Council noted that the complainant’s submission did not contest the accuracy of the reporting of various politically-charged statements uttered by some individuals participating in the protest.

In its review of the column, Council acknowledged the argument put forward was informed by evidence gathered during the time the columnists attended a public protest. Council also acknowledged that hearing the statements, which were shared in the column, were concerning and, generally, could lead some readers to form an opinion such as the one posited in the piece published by the news organization.

At the same time, Council deliberated on the use of the word “Nazi” in two instances in the column. Council considered the weight of invoking this term in popular discourse. For example, some thinkers have argued that the term “Nazi” should only be reserved for those responsible for the Holocaust. Others have warned against making casual comparisons, particularly without a well-considered awareness of history.

Council focused its discussion on two questions. First, while readers may not necessarily agree with the column’s interpretation of the specific facts presented (namely, the chants or comments made by protesters), were the sentiments expressed fair or not in light of what was overheard? Second, did the column make a clear distinction in labelling the views of those uttering the comments versus all of those who were participating in the protest?

In considering these questions, Council examined each of the references individually. In the first reference, it was determined that an ordinary reading of the column suggests it was expressing a highly-provocative and critical view about a specific segment of individuals who uttered the polarizing and contentious chants. In examining the second reference, Council considered potential ambiguity, and inaccuracy, of the column’s statements surrounding how the “group” participating in the marches hold “the same views” as Nazis.

The NNC recognizes the role that opinion writing plays in critiquing and commenting on news coverage, and strongly supports the opinion writer’s ability to criticize the coverage of protests as well as specific incidents of hate and vitriol. In their deliberation, Council members emphasized the need to protect the wide-latitude afforded to opinion writers to present a range of views and use the language they find appropriate to make their arguments, regardless of the extent to which readers may object to those opinions.

At the same time, the NNC has previously warned against conflation or extrapolation of facts that may result in readers misunderstanding “the primary nature of the event.” For this reason, Council focused on the accuracy, rather than the appropriateness, of the language used and the extent to which the use of the term is supported by the information cited in the column.

In its review, Council acknowledged the column draws upon the individual events witnessed by the columnist and extrapolates them to a broader context, for example, by stating “these marches”.

While Council recognized that not all readers might conclude that “group” means everyone in the group, on balance Council determined, in this case, suggesting that the “group” of protesters hold “the same views” as Nazis is overly broad and is not supported by clear evidence. For this reason, Council upheld this portion of the complaint for inaccurate language use.

Lastly, Council considered the complainant’s concerns about the column’s reference to the death of Druze children in the Golan Heights. Widespread media reporting has indicated that Israel blamed the attacks on Hezbollah, while Hezbollah denied responsibility.

Again, the NNC has long-held the view that opinion writers have the prerogative to select sources deemed credible and that are relevant to the argument being presented. As the column is appropriately labeled as ‘opinion’, Council agreed the statement referring to Hezbollah’s involvement in the deaths of children in the Golan Heights fell within the wide-latitude afforded to opinion pieces. For this reason, Council dismissed this portion of the complaint.