Description:
The advertisement contained a bolded heading along the top that read, “gender ideology in schools often leads to chemical & surgical mutilation”.
Underneath the heading were four bullet points highlighting further information about transgendered children, including, their use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, high dose estrogen and testosterone, and the ailments these uses may cause; such as, infertility, brittle bones, cardiovascular disease, blood clots, and various cancers, etc. The ad referred to a couple of published studies that found almost two–thirds of these children end up using puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, and that hundreds of Canadian girls 17+ underwent double mastectomies in the past five years.
The ad ended with a call-to-action stating, “together, let’s stop this child abuse!” with a URL to the advertiser’s website.
Complaint:
The complainant alleged the advertisement was spreading hateful and misleading information that was harmful to trans youth in the province.
Response:
In its response to Council, the advertiser suggested the complaint was simply a subjective disagreement with their viewpoint. The advertiser submitted that the ad presents factual statements based on authoritative, peer-reviewed scientific studies regarding the effects of social transitioning of minors and chemical or surgical interventions. Furthermore, that the concerns raised in the advertisement reflect documented findings and ongoing discussions within the medical and scientific community, as well as many governments.
The advertiser also provided Council with a lengthy list that included links to various sources, studies and news-publications as evidence to substantiate the claims used in the ad.
Decision:
Council appreciated the advertiser’s response, and considered the complaint together with the advertiser’s submission.
Council unanimously held there was a violation of Clause 1(a), 1(e) and 8.
In coming to that conclusion, Council found that the substantiation provided was insufficient to support the specific claims being made in the advertising. It started with the bolded heading, which Council was of the view was not supported by the succeeding bullet points which they felt did not appear to even be connected with the heading. These claims, Council added, have not been substantiated with relevant and reputable scientific sources and the information outlined in the ad takes a large leap from the support provided.
In fact, one link provided was to a 2022 news publication that was speaking of the issue/study, but the study itself was not provided. In another, the link provided was no longer available. In a third instance, the linked-source was behind a paywall and therefore inaccessible to Council. In other cases, Council found the support provided did not substantiate the claim either because it was insufficient, did not apply altogether, or was an opinion-piece and not substantiation. One Council member noted that it appeared the support was a collaboration of cherry-picked papers.
Council held the advertisement contained inaccurate, deceptive or otherwise misleading claims that were not supported by competent and reliable evidence, and that distorted the true meaning made by professionals or scientific authorities implying they have a scientific basis that they do not truly possess.
Infraction:
Clause 1(a), Clause 1(e), Clause 8
