Blazing Cat Fur has been doing a fair job covering the kerfuffle over the Questionable Content Complaint raised against Catholic Insight magazine. Her latest has a few scans of letters from Heritage Canada informing CI that it has been put on a watch list for questionable content, and that issues of it will have to be submitted to the Department of Canadian Heritage for vetting. If CI fails to comply, it may lose its PAP (Publication Assistance Program) subsidy, a sum of money handed out to Canadian magazines to help pay their mail-out costs.
However, BCF has a severe case of the SoCon Conspiracy Theories. You know: Heritage Canada is picking on Christian publications while letting the gays and the Islamists off the hook. Let me quickly deflate a few of her issues:
...in the case of Father de Valk and Catholic Insight I believe a double standard may be at play, that not all animals are equal in the eyes of Heritage Canada, but more on that later. Based on what I have learned to date Heritage Canada has placed Father de Valk on their "watch list" for the same material by and large, that was used as evidence in the recently dismissed Canadian Human Rights Commission complaint raised against him. Father de Valk is in effect both guilty and innocent depending on which Kangaroo is in charge.
It is absolutely true that material which was not considered adequate evidence for convicting de Valk of the HRC complaint levelled against him is now being used as material in his QC complaint.
And that's just because the bar for having your PAP subsidy taken away really is just "being offensive", where this is defined as follows:
[The Magazine]...contain(s) material considered to be hate propaganda, sexual exploitation, excessive or gratuitous violence, denigration of an identifiable group or an any other way offensive.
Note the last phrase especially: "[in]...any other way offensive". Since the HRC ruling in the de Valk case basically stated that CI was offensive, but not offensive enough to meet the commission's standard for hate speech, then the decision is pretty good grounds for arguing that CI is in some way offensive. And of course that the mere fact that a HRC complaint was levelled against CI is in itself evidence that at least some people found its content to be in some way offensive.
Tough shit Father de Valk! Bye Bye free stamps!
In the same way, I have worked material into my QC complaint against Maclean's magazine from the various HRC complaints (that failed) against it. The argument will be: though not offensive enough to trigger an HRC sanction, the material is definitely offensive and therefore Kenneth Whyte ought to pay for his own stamps.
Secondly, BCF tries to draw a comparison between CI and Inside Out Toronto, a gay and lesbian film festival also sponsored by Heritage Canada. Well, yes, but Inside Out is not a publication and therefore not receiving a PAP subsidy. Catholic Insight is being judged specifically on its fitness to receive a PAP subsidy and not some other variety of Heritage Canada funding. This is just a silly attempt on BCF's part to muddy the waters.