Vancouver Parks’ Harry Potter freak out and how the media covers ‘controversial’ events

That miniscule segment of the population has certainly established itself as a force, steamrolling those who would stand in the way of its social engineering objectives for years. It has, however, failed to silence Rowling, whose view was recently affirmed by the U.K.’s Supreme Court. The end result of its opposition to the Harry Potter event was that the Vancouver Parks board was forced to apologize and then, with a touch of Bolshevik flair, “disavow” Rowling. She, in return, unloaded X-posts noting that she was unaware of ever having been “avowed” by the board in the first place but would somehow summon the courage to carry on, rejecting the allegation of her opponents that her views are transphobic. Still, chillingly, the parks board vowed that this will “never happen again.” Missing in media coverage were the voices of those who find repulsive the idea that Vancouverites should be denied the right to choose for themselves what events they find morally acceptable. Nor were comments solicited from parents, grandparents, or others who are looking forward to enjoying what by all accounts is a pleasant experience. Turning this “controversy” into a discussion solely between the embattled board and the “Qmunity” entirely dismissed the views of what was once known as the “community” which the board is expected to serve. The end result is that, going forward, the population at large will not have a voice regarding what events may be hosted in Vancouver’s parks. Instead, any group with an objection to views freely expressed by any of the stakeholders in an event staged in Vancouver has been, for all intents and purposes, granted a veto. If journalism’s role, as is alleged by so many within its ranks, is to “defend democracy,” the impact of decisions such as this one should surely be a matter worthy of being drawn into the debate. But there is no evidence I can find that such an avenue of inquiry was even considered, let alone pursued. Nor does anyone appear to have checked or reported on the public’s response. I did, though, and at the time of writing the production’s first four days were closing in on sold out. Not only is the show going on, but a lot of Vancouver families appear to not give a flying fig about whether or not Rowling’s views are transphobic or entirely reasonable. Journalists in this country need to decide, at some point, whether they intend to include the views of the broader public in their reporting. Should they choose not to, as they have done so far in this case, the gulf between the news consuming public and legacy, subsidized media will only continue to grow. Because journalism should at least be as much about the defence of personal freedom as it is the suppression of it.