THE FACTS
On August 16, 2021 at 5:38 pm, CKCO-DT (CTV Kitchener) aired a report during its CTV News at Five newscast anchored by Shannon Bradbury and Alexandra Pinto. The report was about red paint being splashed on a statue of Queen Victoria in a local park. During the report, footage of the statue with red paint on it was shown, while the anchors verbally provided the following details:
Pinto: Well, after being doused in red paint for a second time this summer, the Queen Victoria statue in Victoria Park is being cleaned up today. Red paint could be seen splashed across the bottom half of the statue yesterday morning. Police say they believe it happened overnight and are continuing to investigate the incident.
Bradbury: The first time this vandalism happened was back on Canada Day. This was when many Canadians were reckoning with the country’s colonial past following the discovery of hundreds of unmarked graves at former residential camps. The words “All Children’s Lives Matter” were also written on the side of the vandalized statue on Sunday.
The CBSC received a complaint about the report on August 25. A viewer complained that the anchor “referenced residential schools as residential ‘camps’” and did not correct herself. The viewer indicated that she had written to the station requesting an apology to residential school survivors as well as awareness training for station staff, but had not received any response. In addition, she wrote, “At a time of reconciliation awareness I expect better than the perpetuation of misleading and false tropes. This is not the high standard of broadcasting I expect.”
CTV Kitchener replied to the complainant on October 4 and acknowledged that “in both the script and the broadcast, residential schools were wrongly referred to as residential camps.” CTV acknowledged that it had failed to meet the high expectations of its audience and apologized to anyone impacted by the error, including the complainant. CTV stated that it had followed up with relevant staff members to ensure the error did not recur. It also stated that it had no record of any correspondence that the viewer might have sent directly to the station.
The complainant replied directly to the broadcaster and the CBSC on October 5. The complainant expressed distress at learning that both the scriptwriter and the anchor used the word “camps”. She suggested that this underlined the necessity for staff training on inclusive Indigeneity in light of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the discovery of unmarked graves at residential school sites that had occurred over summer 2021. She acknowledged CTV’s apology, but sought an on-air correction because CTV “widely disseminated a falsehood that has real-life consequences, especially for those who continue to believe that residential schools weren’t so bad and were comparable to summer camps. They were not. It is harmful and disingenuous to make that suggestion.” The complainant then filed an official CBSC Ruling Request on October 7.
CTV Kitchener provided its final comments on December 14. It noted that it had extensively covered local Indigenous issues in other newscasts. With respect to the broadcast in question, the News Director wrote, “In speaking with the producer and host of the show who wrote the voiceover, it was determined that her use of the word ‘camp’ rather than ‘school’ was an error, certainly, but I feel confident it was one made with no ill intent.” (The full text of all correspondence can be found in the Appendix.)
THE DECISION
The English-Language Panel examined the complaint under the following provisions of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ (CAB) Code of Ethics and the Radio Television Digital News Association of Canada’s (RTDNA) Code of Journalistic Ethics:
CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 5 – News
1) It shall be the responsibility of broadcasters to ensure that news shall be represented with accuracy and without bias. Broadcasters shall satisfy themselves that the arrangements made for obtaining news ensure this result. They shall also ensure that news broadcasts are not editorial.
2) News shall not be selected for the purpose of furthering or hindering either side of any controversial public issue, nor shall it be formulated on the basis of the beliefs, opinions or desires of management, the editor or others engaged in its preparation or delivery. The fundamental purpose of news dissemination in a democracy is to enable people to know what is happening, and to understand events so that they may form their own conclusions.
RTDNA Code of Journalistic Ethics, Article 1.0 – Accuracy
We are committed to journalism in the public interest that is accurate and reliable. Journalists will strive to verify facts and put them in context.
[...]
1.3 Errors and inaccuracy that affect the understanding of a news story will be unambiguously and promptly corrected.
RTDNA Code of Journalistic Ethics, Article 2.0 – Fairness
We are committed to impartial, unbiased journalism that serves the public interest through the free and open exchange of ideas, and respects the diversity of society.
2.1 Journalists should be fair and balanced, and avoid allowing their personal biases to influence their reporting. News events and public issues may be analyzed and put into context, but commentary, opinion or editorializing must be kept distinct from regular news coverage.
RTDNA Code of Journalistic Ethics, Article 5.0 – Respect
Our conduct will be respectful, always taking into account editorial relevance and the public interest.
5.1 We will endeavor to respect the dignity of everyone, especially when news involves children and the vulnerable.
The Panel Adjudicators read all of the correspondence and viewed a recording of the challenged broadcast. The Panel unanimously concludes that the use of the word “camp” instead of “school” constituted a material inaccuracy and therefore constituted a breach of Clause 5 of the CAB Code of Ethics and Article 1.0 of the RTDNA Code of Journalistic Ethics. CTV’s failure to promptly air a correction also constituted a breach of Article 1.3 of the RTDNA Code of Journalistic Ethics. The use of the inaccurate term was also disrespectful under Article 5.0 of the RTDNA Code of Journalistic Ethics. The Panel finds that there was no breach of Clause 5 of the CAB Code of Ethics or Article 2.0 of the RTDNA Code of Journalistic Ethics for unfairness or bias.
The questions posed to the Panel are presented below:
The CBSC has in several decisions considered the issue of whether a news report contains materially inaccurate information. The threshold on material inaccuracy was crossed in CITV-TV re “You Paid for It!” (Immigration) (CBSC Decision 95/96-0088, December 16, 1997), when the broadcaster failed to make the important distinction between immigrants and refugees in a report which, in terms of accuracy, required that differentiation be made. Accordingly, the Panel found that the broadcaster failed to inform the public in an accurate, comprehensive and balanced manner and stated that:
CITV’s failure goes further than merely lacking “tightness”. The report on the issue of government spending in the area of immigration confused money spent on immigrants, i.e. foreigners who are accepted into Canada in the hopes that they will spur economic growth for the country, with money spent on refugees, i.e. people who are accepted into Canada out of humanitarian compassion. The confusion of money spent with respect to both groups in the context of the statement that a treasury critic “doesn’t believe that many of the bills paid by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration are paying off” was grossly misleading and has the overall effect of portraying all newcomers to Canada [as] “free-loaders”.
[…]
What the Council finds problematic in this case is the fact that the report was craftily put together to suggest that the government’s immigration policy does not stand up to economic scrutiny by including facts concerning refugees but without making this clear in the report. The Council does not consider that the lack of distinction between immigration spending and spending with respect to refugees was inadvertent; rather, the Council is concerned that, in her attempt at investigative reporting, the reporter either deliberately skewed facts to give her story more shock value or had not done sufficient research on the subject to prepare such a report. While the M.P. may have deliberately skewed his answer for political reasons, the reporter either missed that contortion or was complicit in its effect.
In another decision finding material inaccuracy, namely CTV Television and CTV Newscast re news reports (ghettos and concentration camps in Poland) (CBSC Decision 04/05-0380 & -0672, December 15, 2004), the CBSC dealt with the characterization of World War II ghettos and concentration camps as “Polish”. The complainants were concerned that the adjective “Polish” left the impression that the ghettos and camps had been created by the Poles when in fact they had been created and run by the Nazis who occupied Poland at that time. The Panel cited the definitions of “Polish” and other national adjectives, and agreed that such words do have an “ethnographic or cultural connection” rather than just a geographical or topographical one, as initially stated by the broadcaster:
One can discern in all of those definitions the link between the use of the term and the inhabitants of the country, their characteristics and their attributes. Such adjectives are, in a national sense, very personal and local. However obvious the following example may be, the term “Polish” would not be applied to a tourist or temporary visitor to Poland, despite his or her geographical presence there, although it would be to a Pole travelling in another country. It would also be applied to a thing of actual Polish origin.
The Panel also noted that in books and other documents about World War II, authors have tended to refer to camps and ghettos “in Poland” and suggested that this would also be the correct phrase to use in broadcast news reports:
It concludes that the equivalent of the proper noun, or name, of a city is not the same as the national adjective “Polish”. […] They do not imply any involvement in the matters occurring in those locations. They are the appropriate designation for a camp or a ghetto. If an adjective is sought in such a Second World War context, it should of course be “Nazi”, “Nazi German” or “German” and, when using the phrase “in Poland”, it is preferable to differentiate traditional historical Poland from its wartime incarnation […] by the use of qualifiers such as “in occupied Poland” or “in Nazi-occupied Poland”.
In dealing with two news reports about safety issues on the Scarborough Bluffs, the CBSC, in CIII-TV (Global Ontario) re Global News reports (“Bluffs Danger”) (CBSC Decision 05/06-0500, May 18, 2006), found that the misidentification of a particular housing development constituted inaccurate material and therefore a breach:
Where, for example, the broadcaster asserted that the “property [is] owned by Newton Trelawney Management”, it appears that the report was in error. As the complainant explained, the property “is collectively owned by the unit owners of a condominium corporation, governed by a volunteer board of directors who serve the community in their spare time, without remuneration of any kind.” The Panel assumes that this factual assertion could easily have been verified before broadcast. If it could not have been, making the statement was at risk of being inaccurate […].
A Panel of the CBSC considered the issue of material inaccuracy in the context of a breaking news report about an elevator accident that occurred in a Toronto office building in CFMJ-AM re an AM640 News report about an elevator accident (CBSC Decision 08/09-2014, April 1, 2010). An elevator maintenance worker had died while on the job. A couple of the reports stated that “the technician may have been a scab” and “could have been a scab worker” because members of the union for the building maintenance workers had been locked out of the building in a labour dispute. The complainant noted that the reports were inaccurate as the deceased man was an employee of a company working on contract at the building and was not part of the unionized group. Even though the elevator worker was not mentioned by name in the reports, the complainant suggested that it was “callous” and insensitive to the man’s family to call him a scab. The broadcaster explained that this was a breaking news story with updates occurring quickly and that its reliable source had informed it that maintenance workers at the building were locked out and that, for this reason, the reports used the words “may” and “could have”. The majority of the Panel did not consider that these were sufficient justifications for the erroneous use of the term “scab”:
There are two aspects to the description: first, the nature of the term itself; and, second, the necessity or even relevance of the term in the telling of the story. […]
As to the term itself, the Oxford English Dictionary makes it clear that the term is pejorative when used in a labour context. […] This does not, of course, mean that the term “scab” cannot be used to describe a strike-breaker; however, its very negative connotations mean that any broadcaster must be particularly careful before casting such aspersions.
In the matter at hand, the majority considers that such care was not taken. The individual, regrettably deceased, was identified as a scab although the evidence of that appears, on the basis of the broadcaster’s own letter, to have been tenuous. […]
The majority puts no stock in the broadcaster’s use of the word “may” in their incorrect conclusion that the deceased “may have been a scab”. Such a sentence would likely have been determined by many, if not most, listeners to have been as close as imaginable to an identification of the deceased as a scab. […] And what the majority finds particularly reprehensible in that usage is that the identification of the deceased in that way was utterly irrelevant to the news item.
In its examination of whether the use of the word “camps” instead of “schools” in the context of the news report under review did constitute a breach, the Panel first considered the history and breadth of use of the term and, more importantly, its use within Canadian media. The Canadian Encyclopedia explains that:
Residential schools were government-sponsored religious schools that were established to assimilate Indigenous children into Euro-Canadian culture. Although the first residential facilities were established in New France, the term usually refers to schools established after 1880. Residential schools were created by Christian churches and the Canadian government as an attempt to both educate and convert Indigenous youth and to assimilate them into Canadian society.
This means that the term “residential schools” has been widely used since the latter part of the 19th century. Therefore, there is a clear and unambiguous history for the use of this term. In addition, the many issues surrounding “residential schools” gained wide and prominent exposure in the media with the establishment in 2008 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada which was set up as part of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.
Given that the term “residential schools” has always been widely used, the Panel considered whether this inaccuracy was material. The use of imprecise language in media is very common. In fact it is not limited to the media. Imprecise language reflects the many exaggerations used in language these days. These imprecise terms are pulled from “popular cultural buzzwords” and they are applied to another thing for which there is no moral or factual equivalent.
However, the Panel believes that, given the many historical wrongdoings related to residential schools, it was imperative that the proper term be used, especially when one considers the historic misinformation widely disseminated in relation to residential schools in Canada. While the use of precise language is always important, it becomes far more salient in the context where Canadians are trying as a population to face and deal with the historical injustices against Indigenous communities. Canadian media have a role to play in correcting the historic record on residential schools and, in this context, need to pay particular attention to the facts and the language used to describe them.
In fact, precision in language is what separates journalists from everyone else who is free to express their opinion on a multitude of platforms. Precision in language ensures that the news item is historically and factually correct. Adopting the practice of using terms that are inaccurate but which may be culturally popular means that the news report could well be inaccurate. The credibility and authority of Canadian broadcast media should be driven by the use of precise language. To do otherwise could cause viewers to call into question the credibility and authority of broadcast news media. Canadian viewers need to be able to rely on Canadian broadcast news outlets using the proper terminology as foreign broadcast outlets cannot be relied upon to do so especially when it relates to issues surrounding Canada’s history.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the use of the word “camps” in this news report constituted a material inaccuracy in violation of Clause 5 of the CAB Code of Ethics and Article 1.0 of the RTDNA Code of Journalistic Ethics.
On the matter of whether this material inaccuracy should have been promptly corrected in accordance with Article 1.3 of the RTDNA Code of Journalistic Ethics, the Panel finds that the failure to promptly correct this material inaccuracy constituted a breach of the code. Moreover, had the correction been made promptly, it is possible that the Panel could have a made a finding that there was no breach as the CBSC did in CFRA-AM re the Mark Sutcliffe and Lowell Green Shows (CBSC Decisions 96/97-0083+, May 7, 1997), where the Panel stated:
Of the principal issues raised by the complaint, the first relates to the identification of Mr. Nicholls as “Jamaican”. This occurred to a much less significant extent than has been suggested in the letter of complaint. The characterization of Mr. Nicholls as “Jamaican” did not last for more than 30 minutes of the first of the three programs being reviewed here. It appears to have been an honest error and one which, in any event, was corrected by Mr. Sutcliffe himself as quickly as the information became available to him. It does not constitute a breach of either the CAB or the RTDNA Codes of Ethics.
The Panel considers that given the nature of the news report, it should have been immediately noticed that this material inaccuracy ought to be promptly corrected. This is especially the case given that the use of precise language is critical when dealing with this long-standing historical issue and where many Canadians are trying to ensure that this difficult matter be dealt with accurately and correctly. The Panel considers that this material inaccuracy should have raised a high degree of concern requiring a prompt correction on air.
In determining whether the use of the word “camps” demonstrated bias or unfairness contrary to Clause 5 of the CAB Code of Ethics and Article 2.0 of the RTDNA Code of Journalistic Ethics, the Panel considered whether it was possible to determine the intent of the anchor or scriptwriter in the use of the term “camps”. Based on what was broadcast, the Panel does not believe one can ascertain the intent of the anchor or scriptwriter. In fact, what impression is left with the use of the term “camps” is highly subjective.
One could, as the complainant did, consider that the use of the term camps “widely disseminated a falsehood that has real-life consequences, especially for those who continue to believe that residential schools weren’t so bad and were comparable to summer camps”. However, it is possible that other audience members considered the term “camps” in terms of “concentration camps” which has an extremely dark and horrific meaning. Given that one cannot ascertain the intent behind the use of the term “residential camps” one way or the other, the Panel does not consider that it has the evidentiary basis to make a finding of bias or unfairness. Accordingly, it does not find that the use of the term “camps” was contrary to Clause 5 of the CAB Code of Ethics or Article 2.0 of the RTDNA Code of Journalistic Ethics.
The final question considered by the Panel was whether the use of the word “camps” demonstrated a lack of respect contrary to Article 5.0 of the RTDNA Code of Journalistic Ethics. In Canada, Indigenous peoples and their cultures have historically been invisible and misinterpreted. Starting in May 2021, the matter of residential schools and the many unmarked graves found around several former residential school sites became a top Canadian news story widely disseminated across all media. This news item also received worldwide media attention.
This unfolding news story evolved over many months and shocked and saddened Canadians as it became evident that there was a very high rate of death among these students with the bodies often being withheld from their families and home communities. This led to a reckoning within Canadian society and when one uses a materially incorrect term in the context of a top news story to refer to this issue it perpetuates the historical misinformation and inaccuracies relating to residential schools.
Article 5.0 of the RTDNA Code of Journalistic Ethics requires that the conduct of broadcasters be respectful and Article 5.1 specifies, “We will endeavour to respect the dignity of everyone, especially when news involves children and the vulnerable”. The story of residential schools and the unmarked graves involves not only children but also vulnerable Indigenous populations.
The RTDNA Code of Journalistic Ethics was amended in 2016 and the Panel considers that the use of the term “residential camps” in this news report, especially in light of the significant and widely disseminated national news story regarding the unmarked graves found around residential schools, demonstrates a level of slovenliness in the preparation of this news item. Coupled with the fact that the station did not recognize the seriousness of the inaccuracy and promptly correct the material inaccuracy, the Panel considers that the broadcaster demonstrated a lack of the necessary respect that is required under the code. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the use of the word “camps” demonstrated a lack of respect contrary to Article 5.0 of the RTDNA Code of Journalistic Ethics.
Broadcaster Responsiveness
In all CBSC decisions, the Panels assess the broadcaster’s response to the complainant. The broadcaster need not agree with the complainant’s position, but it must respond in a courteous, thoughtful and thorough manner. In this case, CTV Kitchener apologized for the error, but did not offer any explanation for the mistake other than that there was no ill intent, nor did it make any effort to promptly provide an on-air correction. The CBSC can make no comment with respect to CTV’s receipt and lack of response to the email that the complainant sent directly to the station prior to filing her complaint with the CBSC. While CTV could have demonstrated greater openness and sensitivity on this issue, the broadcaster did ultimately fulfill its obligations of responsiveness by replying to the complainant and, subject to the announcement of this decision, nothing further is required on this occasion.
DECISION ANNOUNCEMENT
CKCO-DT (CTV Kitchener) is required to: 1) announce the decision, in the following terms in audio and video format, once during prime time within three days following the release of this decision and once more within seven days following the release of this decision during the time period in which CTV News at Five was broadcast, but not on the same day as the first mandated announcement; 2) within the fourteen days following the broadcasts of the announcements, to provide written confirmation of the airing of the statement to the complainant who filed the Ruling Request; and 3) at that time, to provide the CBSC with a copy of that written confirmation and with air check copies of the broadcasts of the two announcements which must be made by CTV Kitchener.
The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has found that CTV Kitchener breached the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ Code of Ethics and the Radio Television Digital News Association of Canada’s Code of Journalistic Ethics in a news report of August 16, 2021. During CTV News at Five, CTV broadcast a report about paint splashed on the Queen Victoria statue in Victoria Park. CTV incorrectly referred to residential schools as camps. This error breached the code clauses on accuracy and respect. Failure to promptly air a correction also breached the RTDNA Code.
This decision is a public document upon its release by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.
APPENDIX
The Complaint
The CBSC received the following complaint via its webform on August 25, 2021:
Name of Television or Radio Station: CTV Kitchener
Program Name: News at 5:00
Date of Program: 16/08/2021
Time of Program: 5:00PM
Specific Concern:
Shannon Bradbury, one of the two co-hosts, referenced residential schools as residential 'camps'. She did not correct herself. I wrote to the station requesting an apology to survivors and suggesting awareness training (after all, the Mohawk Institute is less than 25 klics away). I have not had a response of any kind. At a time of reconciliation awareness I expect better than the perpetuation of misleading and false tropes. This is not the high standard of broadcasting I expect.
Broadcaster Response
CTV Kitchener replied on October 4, 2021:
Your complaint to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) has been forwarded to our attention.
In your correspondence to the CBSC, you expressed concern about the 5:00 pm broadcast CTV Kitchener aired on Monday, August 16, 2021. Specifically, you indicated that one of the co-hosts of the newscast said “residential camps” rather than “residential schools” and did not correct the error.
We have watched the broadcast in question, and checked that against what was written in the script for this story. In both the script and the broadcast, residential schools were wrongly referred to as residential camps.
We strive each day to meet the high expectations of our audience, and to adhere to all industry guidelines and codes. Unfortunately, in this case we failed. For that, we sincerely apologize to you, and to anyone else who may have been negatively impacted by this error.
We have followed up with the staff members involved in this particular story to ensure this will not happen again.
You also indicated in your correspondence that you had written in to the station requesting an apology at the time, and did not receive a response. It does not appear that we received your correspondence; I can assure you that if we had, I would have personally responded and apologized for our error.
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.
Additional Correspondence
The complainant replied to the broadcaster on October 5:
Thank you for your email of Oct 4th in reply to the concerns I raised in my original email of Aug 16 to CTV Kitchener and in my subsequent complaint to the CBSC on August 25th, 2021.
I am attaching a copy of my original email addressed to news@kitchener.ctv.ca as you indicate you did not receive the original complaint. The email was sent to the address from your website; if you are not receiving correspondence through that venue, you might want to review your internal procedures. I escalated to the CBSC on August 25 because I received NOTHING from CKCO to acknowledge the complaint.
I am distressed to learn that both the script writer and the broadcaster used "camps". Thank you for confirming that was the case. I believe, however, that this underlines the necessity for staff training on inclusive indigeneity (First Nations, Inuit and Métis), especially in light of the TRC, the horrific findings from residential schools this summer and the desire of most Canadians to learn more. I made this suggestion in my original complaint – it was not addressed in your apology to me. Do you not think it a good idea?
I do acknowledge your apology to me. However, there was no mention of an on-air correction or apology in your letter. I do not believe that is acceptable. CTV KITCHENER is a public broadcaster who aired misinformation – widely disseminated a falsehood that has real-life consequences, especially for those who continue to believe that residential schools weren't so bad and were comparable to summer camps. They were not. It is harmful and disingenuous to make that suggestion. You know better, so should your employees who are your public face.
I truly believe that as a public broadcaster you owe a public apology on air to your audience for the misleading lie perpetuated by the language used.
I repeat my original request for training and for a public apology. Thank you.
The complainant also sent an email to the CBSC on October 5:
Good afternoon
I had a reply from CTV Kitchener yesterday, October 4th, to the above complaint. I do not feel the complaint has been adequately addressed and have replied to CTV KITCHENER saying so. You were copied by them in writing to me and I replied to all with my response. If you do not receive my reply would you please let me know and I will forward it to you. Thank you for your assistance.
The complainant then filed a Ruling Request on October 7 and reiterated the comments she had made directly to the broadcaster:
Thank you for your email of Oct 4th in reply to the concerns I raised in my original email of Aug 16 to CTV Kitchener and in my subsequent complaint to the CBSC on August 25th, 2021.
I am attaching a copy of my original email addressed to news@kitchener.ctv.ca as you indicate you did not receive the original complaint. The email was sent to the address from your website; if you are not receiving correspondence through that venue, you might want to review your internal procedures. I escalated to the CBSC on August 25 because I received NOTHING from CKCO to acknowledge the complaint.
I am distressed to learn from you that both the script writer and the broadcaster used “camps”. Thank you for confirming that was the case. I believe, however, that this underlines the necessity for staff training on inclusive indigeneity (First Nations, Inuit and Métis), especially in light of the TRC, the horrific findings from residential schools this summer and the desire of most Canadians to learn more. I made this suggestion in my original complaint – it was not addressed in your apology to me. Do you not think it a good idea?
I do acknowledge your apology to me. However, there was no mention of an on-air correction or apology in your letter. I do not believe that is acceptable. CTV KITCHENER is a public broadcaster who aired misinformation – widely disseminated a falsehood that has real-life consequences, especially for those who continue to believe that residential schools weren't so bad and were comparable to summer camps. They were not. It is harmful and disingenuous to make that suggestion. You know better, so should your employees who are your public face. I truly believe that as a public broadcaster you owe a public apology on air to your audience for the misleading lie perpetuated by the language used.
I repeat my original request for training and for a public apology. Thank you.
Once it was notified that this file was going to adjudication, CTV provided an additional letter to the CBSC on December 14:
A viewer complaint was made about a voiceover that aired in our 5:00 newscast on August 16, 2021, which was written by the producer and host of the program, and read on-air by the co-host.
The full text of the VO is as follows:
(**ALEX CAM 1**)
AFTER BEING DOUSED IN RED PAINT FOR THE SECOND TIME THIS SUMMER … THE QUEEN VICTORIA STATUE IN VICTORIA PARK IS BEING CLEANED UP TODAY.
(**ALEX VO**)
RED PAINT COULD BE SEEN SPLASHED ACROSS THE BOTTOM HALF OF THE STATUE … YESTERDAY MORNING.
POLICE SAY THEY BELIEVED IT HAPPENED OVERNIGHT … AND ARE CONTINUING TO INVESTIGATE THE INCIDENT.
(**SHAN VO**)
THE FIRST TIME THIS VANDALISM HAPPENED … WAS BACK ON CANADA DAY.
THIS WAS WHEN MANY CANADIANS WERE RECKONING WITH THE COUNTRY’S COLONIAL PAST … FOLLOWING THE DISCOVERY OF HUNDREDS OF UNMARKED GRAVES … AT FORMER RESIDENTIAL CAMPS.
THE WORDS “ALL CHILDRENS’ [sic] LIVES MATTER” WERE ALSO WRITTEN ON THE SIDE OF THE VANDALIZED STATUE … ON SUNDAY.
This story is about the Queen Victoria statue in Victoria Park requiring cleaning after it was vandalized for a second time, in what appeared to be a show of support for Indigenous groups and a statement against colonialism.
Kitchener Waterloo Land Back Camp, led by Indigenous organizers, was set up in Victoria Park on National Indigenous Peoples Day (June 21, 2020), and remained there until October of that year.
CTV Kitchener reported extensively on Land Back Camp throughout the time it was located in Victoria Park, as well as after it relocated to Waterloo Park, and then to Laurel Creek Conservation Area where it remains today.
In speaking with the producer and host of the show who wrote the voiceover, it was determined that her use of the word “camp” rather than “school” was an error, certainly, but I feel confident it was one made with no ill intent.