This can no longer go unremarked upon or unchallenged.

The incidents of anti-immigrant, anti-female and anti-Chinese invective levelled against Olivia Chow during the mayoral campaign are simply outrageous.

They do not reflect well on a city that prides itself on its diversity and tolerance. But nor can we afford to ignore or fail to condemn such behaviour in the naïve hope it will go away.

The height came just two days before election day when The Toronto Sun ran a cartoon of Olivia Chow that was nothing short of appalling. It depicted her in a Mao suit, with slitty eyes holding up the coattails of her deceased husband Jack Layton.

In my view, it is both racist and sexist.

However, it seems such a depiction is just fine to the new emperor of Canadian journalism, Paul Godfrey, whose Postmedia company just announced the purchase of all 175 of Sun Media’s English-speaking newspapers.

Before dealing with the cartoon, it is important, however, to set the scene.

On the very day last March when Chow first announced her candidacy, the invective started. “I got a huge number of emails that were racist, sexist rants,” she recalls. And that flow continued online throughout her campaign.

Then on Sept. 23 at a mayoral debate at York Memorial High School, she was openly taunted from the floor. “She’s Chinese,” said one. “She’s not Canadian,” yelled another. “Go home. Go back to China,” said a third.

First, these hecklers were wrong. Chow is “proudly” Canadian and she hails from Hong Kong, not communist China.

This kind of unsavory taunt surfaced again Oct. 1 at another debate. And again, Chow was forced to reply. “I am a proud Torontonian . . . a proud Canadian.”

That a major candidate with a long, celebrated career in public office would even feel compelled to provide such a defence seems almost unthinkable in 2014.

The other two major candidates were eventually unequivocal in their condemnation of the hecklers’ message. “I want to make it very, very clear I don’t condone that,” said Doug Ford. “I’ve received that in my family . . . I don’t condone that whatsoever.”

For his part, John Tory said, “I just think any slur issued by anybody in this city of that kind is unacceptable . . . It is not the way we live here.”

At about the same time, Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam revealed she too had been taunted in an email for her gender and sexual orientation. Other instances of racial, religious or ethnic attack also surfaced.

Towards the end of the campaign, both on talk shows and letters-to-the-editor pages, concerns were raised by many about this distasteful facet of this long campaign.

Which brings us directly to the cartoon.

The image of Chow in a Mao suit, holding a coat labelled “Jack Layton” standing on a skateboard can surely only be interpreted to imply she is a Chinese commie woman who is attempting to ride to victory on the coattails of her beloved husband. Chow immediately labelled the cartoon both “sexist” and “racist.” Many online citizens agreed.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Now I am the first to argue that freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental freedoms we have. And editorial cartoons often stretch that freedom to its very limit, which is a good thing. We must have as free and open a discussion as possible.

But even cartoons are usually limited by three factors: potential libel, accuracy, and taste. To me, the Sun cartoon utterly failed the third test of good taste and only served to further inflame a very delicate situation.

But Paul Godfrey, longtime city politician and now Canada’s leading newspaper honcho, has decided to go public, supporting both the cartoon and cartoonist Andy Donato. “I do not believe he crossed the line of good taste on this cartoon.” Godfrey wrote online in response to a blogger.

Godfrey goes on, “People who enter all forms of public life may from time to time not like what a cartoonist produces . . . I have learned from personal experience to smile and move on.”

Really?

Should we now accept that a cartoon that makes fun of a candidate’s ethnic background and mocks her gender passes the test of “good taste”? Should we see such a cartoon as a legitimate expression of free speech? Is this the standard of journalism Godfrey sees as acceptable in his huge chain of newspapers? Is this kind of depiction now acceptable journalism in Toronto?

To somehow suggest Olivia Chow should simply “smile and move on” in the face of such a low-handed cartoon misses the point entirely.

One would have thought our society has moved beyond the point where prospective candidates should be subject to racial or sexist attacks. This is not what Toronto is about.

And civic leaders, opinion leaders — even newspaper proprietors — should be joining forces to say this kind of electoral discourse is unacceptable.

Toronto — and Olivia Chow — deserve better.

John Honderich is chair of the board of Torstar Corp.

Read more about: