The complainant thought it was wrong to refer to the result of the BDS resolution passed at the Green Party Convention as “supporting a movement boycotting Israel.”
By Esther Enkin, CBC Ombudsman
The complainant, Constantine Kritsonis, thought it was wrong to refer to the result of the BDS resolution passed at the Green Party Convention as “supporting a movement boycotting Israel.” It’s more selective he said – the resolution specifies sectors of the economy that benefit for the occupation of the territories. I found that this was not a meaningful distinction. Read why.
You expressed concern about a reference to a Green Party resolution. You said that it created the wrong impression. You were concerned about a sentence in a story on cbcnews.ca which dealt with the possibility that Green Party leader Elizabeth May might resign. The sentence that caused you concern was:
“Greens passed a controversial resolution supporting a movement boycotting Israel — Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS)”.
You stated that this created a false impression — readers would think that the Green Party had passed a resolution to boycott the “general Israeli economy”. You added that the actual resolution is more selective:
The Green Party DID support BDS of specific sectors benefiting from the illegal occupation.
You asked that there be a clarification, to make this distinction, based on the words of the Green party resolution passed by the party members.
The Managing Editor of @cbcnews, Steve Ladurantaye, responded to your concern.