You Just Made That Up!
My incredibly short career as a guest on The Michael Coren Show
BY Scott Piatkowski
Illustration by Rob Elliott/Swizzle
Appearing on The Michael Coren Show is not something I ever expected to do. After all, while Coren is surprisingly progressive on economic issues, the British-born writer and broadcaster is best known for diatribes against abortion and same-sex marriage. And his nightly talk show is broadcast on Crossroads Television, home of 100 Huntley Street and other conservative Christian programming.
Consequently, I was astonished last November when I first heard from Dorie Cowling, Coren’s associate producer. Given that Coren had derisively written of rabble.ca (which Cowling identified as the place where she had seen my writing) as “the usual safe and smug columns and opinions from the lugubrious left,” the fact that his associate producer read the site at all was almost as surprising as the fact that she wanted one of its regular columnists on the show. Was this a sign that Coren might actually be interested in genuine discussion with those who don’t share his socially conservative outlook?
Leading up to my inaugural appearance on December 5, I did worry that I was walking into the lion’s den (it didn’t help that Coren had just been fired by Toronto radio station CFRB for remarks against gays and, less predictably, fat people). Going in, I reasoned that it didn’t make any sense to downplay differences of opinion with Coren, since my ability to express and defend my opinions was what had earned me the invitation. Moreover, how else could I assess his openness to alternative viewpoints if I self-censored?
I think it’s fair to say that my first appearance went well. At the table with me were Toronto Star cutup Linwood Barclay, a regular on the show, and Conservative activist Manu Raj. We talked about the federal election campaign, including Buzz Hargrove’s then-recent embrace of Paul Martin, the Montreal Massacre (which, given the timing, I had suggested as a potential topic), and three or four other issues.
Barclay was affable and welcoming both on and off camera. Raj seemed to think there were points being awarded for each use of the word “Islamofascist,” but otherwise he was a pretty standard issue right-winger. And, while it was clear that I had major philosophical differences with the host, the discussion between us was generally respectful in tone. I came away with the impression that, for all his bluster, Coren wanted a genuine debate on his program.
Coren did display an unfortunate habit of saving some of his most provocative statements for moments when his guests wouldn’t have a chance to reply (such as just before the show cut to commercial). For example, at one point he stated—as if it were a self-evident truth—that “the greatest violence against women is through abortions … but that’s another issue.”
Later on that day, Cowling contacted me again by email, commending me on my performance and inviting me back. We eventually settled on January 16 for my second appearance.
This time, Barclay and I were joined by David Menzies of the National Post (another regular). Topics of discussion included more election talk and the merits of legalizing polygamy. Minor sparks flew when we dealt with an effort by some Muslims in Oakland to intimidate stores into not selling alcohol. When Coren complained that a religious minority was trying to impose its values on society, I pointed out that he was “usually in favour of that sort of thing.”
But, the most contentious discussion by far arose when I referred to same-sex marriage as “a human rights issue.” Since the details of that discussion were subsequently disputed by Coren, I’ll provide a transcript (from the videotape provided to me):
Michael Coren: How is [same-sex marriage] a human right? Scott Piatkowski: Marriage is a fundamental human right under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…
Coren: No, it’s not. That’s not true. You just made that up.
Piatkowski: No, I have not.
Coren: You will show me next time you are on the show where the UN Charter of Rights says marriage is a fundamental right…
Piatkowski: I will…
Coren: That’s contrived. No one has said that in the history of democratic thought…
Piatkowski: Well I’m really breaking ground here…
After the taping had ended, I told Coren that he needn’t wait until the next time I was on the show for proof. Apparently still believing that I was wrong, he agreed to read the evidence on the next day’s show if I emailed it to him before then.
It took me 10 seconds to find Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which reads:
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
As I pointed out in my email to Coren, the right to marriage “includes the ability for each person to marry the spouse of their choice, with the only restrictions being that they be ‘of full age’; and that the other person wants to marry them as well (‘free and full consent’).” I added that “to deny the right of two people to freely marry each other—just because someone may not approve of their choice—is clearly discriminatory. You and others are free to keep opposing same-sex marriage, but you should admit that you are advocating continued discrimination that is contrary not only to Canadian law, but international law. And you should give up pretending (as you did today) that it’s not a human rights issue.”
It’s worth noting that, even after sending this email (through Cowling), I was invited, and agreed, to appear again on February 20. I was even asked to recommend other potential guests. The next day, having heard no response from Coren about my email, I followed-up.
When I finally heard back from him, it became obvious that he had chosen obfuscation over contrition. Presumably unaware that I had a tape, he tried to distort my words. “You claimed that ‘the right to marry anyone you please’ is a human right. Not so. The charter below was written some time ago, is well known, and does not define homosexual marriage as a right at all. More than this, I challenged you that if marriage to anyone you please is a human right, would this include children of five years old. In other words, the context of your claim was not the right to marry but the right of ‘anyone’ to marry.”
I considered the fact that Coren was just childishly trying to cover for the ignorance he had demonstrated during the taping, but concluded that he was being intellectually dishonest in his rebuttal. The guarantee in the UDHR explicitly applies only to consenting adults, and I had never argued that “anyone” could get married. I had argued that the right to marry necessarily includes the right to choose your spouse. Interestingly, while Coren was tossing around accusations, he had earlier written mockingly of his intention to insist on the right to marry himself.
I countered with a transcript, and reminded him that he had promised to share the proof of my assertion with viewers if I provided it. While it could conceivably wait until February 20, I suggested he should do what he had promised. But doing so would require him to give ground on his own opposition to same-sex marriage.
At this point, Coren’s obfuscation merged with anger. “Please, I really don’t have the time. This is my last word on the subject and there will be no more emails…. The right to marry is different from the right of ‘anyone and everyone’ to marry. It’s not rocket science.” I held my ground. I challenged him to have “the integrity and the decency to apologize when you falsely and publicly accuse someone of making stuff up.”
Within days, I heard from Cowling, cancelling my February 20 appearance. I asked if she had another date in mind, or had my career as a guest on the Michael Coren show been cut tragically short? Producer David Wilson later confirmed that no future appearances were anticipated.
At the very least, my brief tenure as a guest on The Michael Coren Show confirmed that the limits to debate with this particular icon of the religious right are very restrictive indeed. In fact, with a few exceptions, the chair once filled by “the left” is now occupied by people such as Mercedes Stephenson, a military expert, and Rosalind Robertson, a former spokesperson for the Harris government. The best way to control the debate is to control who gets to be involved. And, in my case, the best way to ensure that the host isn’t proven wrong “the next time” someone is on the show (the precise challenge posed by Coren) is to ensure that there is no next time.
