Unpublished Op-Ed submitted to the Toronto Star

“Swear words, sexually charged and blasphemous words: Unless they are in direct quotations, they should rarely be used. In publishing obscenities, we use short dashes following the first letter, except in rare cases, determined by senior editors, where spelling out the word in full is considered central to understanding the context of the news.”

I was aghast to read the Journalistic Standards of Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. which under the category TASTE directs journalists and editors to be very careful with “swear words, sexually charged and blasphemous words” that should only be used rarely and after consultation with senior editors. These words are termed “obscenities.” They only publish the first letter followed by dashes. When I emailed the Public Editor to make her aware of these medieval standards and terms she indicated that they had been recently reviewed by their staff advisors and were considered to still be acceptable. These types of polls often attract conservative parents in the same way that Doug Ford did with his position on the sex-ed curriculum. Newspapers have the discretion to develop their own standards and are monitored by the toothless National Media Council on a complaints basis. There are problems with this entire structure and how it governs what we read in the newspaper. If religion is exempt from criticism a major political force has been given a free pass in the world while those who disagree have been silenced. It is a thinly disguised protection from their abuses for religions of all kinds that is unwarranted. I was equally aghast to realize upon further research that Scotland and Ireland have blasphemy laws and another dozen or so countries in the EU along with the Islamic countries who adhere to Sharia Law. “The Troubles” still haunt Ireland despite the ceasefire, a deeply divided country along Catholic and Protestant lines. While countries like Canada are protecting a woman accused of blasphemy in Pakistan, TorStar has a provision for blasphemy guiding its journalists. Blasphemy is a historic mythical provision that is out of date. We cannot be lecturing Saudi Arabia while governing our newspapers by a similar standard. This is unacceptable in Canada. Such a position is never right and gives licence to Islamic countries to pursue Sharia Law and all its patriarchal barbarity with impunity while indicating that western countries support its intention. No newspaper in Canada should have blasphemy guidelines in its Journalistic Standards.

First, the term “swear word” is a culturally loaded religious demonization of certain words in the English language and imposes a major stereotypical value judgment on their meaning in western societies derived from neocolonial, white, male, Judeo-Christian religious beliefs. These values marked certain words as “swear” words centuries ago and they have stuck with society to the present day through the active support of Christian churches. This is ironic because the most vilified word “fuck” has survived, grown, persisted and thrived despite this religious purge and is perhaps the most commonly used and expressive word in the English language today. It has spread around the world from its Germanic origins and become ubiquitous. It is used by everyone from all generations, genders. cultures, geopolitical stripes and religions.  How can a word that is so commonly used by all social strata be banned from print and polite conversation? Banning it from print is an unreasonable action and leads to a continuation of the perpetuation of it as an obscenity. It’s use has expanded far beyond its original meaning of “fornication under carnal knowledge” (a common but incorrect derivation) to  a universally expressive acronym of disgust, joy, assertion and query – not a swear word (although it can be). Even Wikipedia has a definition of it. Numerous digital and television media have dropped bleeping out fuck from broadcasts. It is ludicrous and infantilizing for print newspapers alone to assume the moral high ground that publishing the word “fuck” will somehow harm readers or offend them when in today’s journalism any form of evil deeds are reported with a brief disclaimer. It is in fact, journalism itself that has encourage the liberation of language when the media moral code was abandoned several decades ago. Who is being protected? Men, women and children all have multiple access points where the word “fuck” is not censored in print. Newspapers are clinging to an outdated moral standard that they have no right to impose any longer on its diverse reading public. Newspapers should report the news reflecting whatever language was used. It is time newspapers stopped being the moral police for Christian or any other religions. Over the centuries words work their way into the English vernacular. Censuring them implies that there is something evil or wrong about using casual words like this. It is another much more commonly used word for intercourse and a host of other things.

Censuring it is also a rich, elitist throwback to pre-colonial industrialist times when it was offensive to the aristocracy and reflected a common upbringing. Fuck is not the Queen’s English. Language has been used to separate people for eons. Perhaps we should start printing the word profit with the first letter and dashes. It is just as offensive.

Secondly, selecting a single word for exclusion is also a slippery slope. If newspapers ban this acronym do they also ban its replacements such as “intercourse,” “friggin,” “banging,” “shagging” and other forms of supposedly offensive replacement words? The list is endless. Just because a word is a casual reference to something doesn’t mean its bad, nor does the fact that religions disclaim it – its just another form of the English language that is constantly changing. Fuck does not need to be used gratuitously but where it is the language of a story it should be printed as should all obscenities. Fuck has outlasted the majority of words in history and has flourished exponentially. It is the most commonly used word in the world every day by all socio-economic classes and is no different than “snafu” and “fubar” in their anacronym use.

“Sexually suggestive” and “blasphemous” words are even more problematic. Newspapers and the church have shared in the portrayal of sex as evil, wanton and debauched throughout history. Religion has suppressed honest and open sexuality from its inception and oppressed and attacked anyone found to be in violation of these laws. Women were viewed either as madonnas or whores. Anything related to sex (and women) were characterized with derision while bigoted clergy, newspaper owners and every other male in our patriarchal society over the centuries eagerly participated in the pleasures of the flesh – particularly those of the cloth. There is still a raging debate about abortion driven by males. The high-minded morality is out of place. Need we remember Jimmy Swaggert’s tear-soaked confession that he had sinned with a prostitute. We all need to develop more sensible and realistic attitudes towards sex and censoring selective words from newspapers would be a small start. Countries like Holland and Denmark to name only a few who take a more relaxed approach to this language and religion have not been morally damaged. The word “blasphemous” is an ancient term meant to shield the churches, mosques and synagogues from criticism relating to the violence that their faith engenders. It protects religion from criticism by terrorizing individuals. The secretive world of the Christian religions as we all know was a viper’s pit of sexual repression and abuse of children and nuns, wealth pilfering and moral degradation throughout the centuries. They can hardly be dictating language to anyone. Anything questioning the fundamental tenets of religion and belief were termed blasphemous. Saudi Arabia still beheads people for blasphemy and a woman recently had to be spirited out of Pakistan after being absolved of blasphemy for taking the name of the prophet Mohammad in vain. No religion that encourages its believers to be so intolerant as to go outside and kill their non-believing neighbour is tolerable. Both Christians and Islam have engaged in such patriarchal behaviour and in the case of Islam still do in aggressive and barbaric ways. Both are patriarchal faiths based on the teachings of two men who live centuries ago and when the tools of writing and recording events was saturated with ignorance and mysticism. It is difficult to know what these men were other than charismatic prophets – of which there were multitudes. The Bible and the Quran are a compendium of stories and guidelines written down my male clerics after the fact to suit their needs for domination and subordination. The majority of both histories are about men and for men. Men are exempt from all of the restrictions placed on women.

These patriarchal religious traditions support abhorrent behaviour in the name of their faiths. While we save one person from another countries’ regressive abuses our own newspapers abide by journalistic standards that are out of date. This term is alarming in modern world newspapers that claim to be objective, unbiased and fair. It is time to update these guidelines.

I believe that there should be revisions made to the press guidelines to bring them into line with 21st century perspectives and society.