Today's ruling by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council that the Sun News Network breached the Canadian Association of Broadcasters Code of Ethics in a December 2011 broadcast of Ezra Levant's commentary program is a victory for civility in Canadian political discourse.
As a result of formal complaints filed by this blogger and 21 others, the four-member CBSC National Services Panel that investigated the on-air commentary issued a ruling today that requires Sun News Network to announce the decision once during prime time over the next three days and a second time within the next seven days during the same time period in which the edition of Levant's program, The Source, was broadcast.
In addition, Sun News Network must provide written confirmation of the broadcasts within 14 days to the 22 complainants and the CBSC.
The ruling noted that Levant had made the following statement on the air as part of his commentary about a report the Chiquita Brands food company had announced it would avoid using oil from Alberta's bitumen sands, "Hey you. Yeah you, [name of Chiquita executive]. Chinga tu madre." Referring to the commentary as "a tirade," the ruling notes Levant also said "in a distinctly aggressive tone" that the Chiquita executive was a liar.
The ruling says all six complainants who filed ruling requests "emphasized that the phrase 'chinga tu madre' can only be translated as 'fuck your mother' and all Spanish speakers consider it a very nasty insult."
The ruling requires Sun News Network to read the following statement twice on the air:
"The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has found that Sun News Network breached the Canadian Association of Broadcasters' Code of Ethics in its broadcast of The Source on December 22, 2011. The program contained a coarse insult directed at a specific named person. This violated Clause 6 of the Code."
As a person who was disgusted and disturbed by Levant's remarks, I must have been the first to complain to the CBSC after the broadcast, judging from the Toronto Star's coverage of the controversy caused by the Sun News Network commentary. That story, which seems to have received 111 comments, and perhaps my commentary, must have prompted some of the additional complaints.
The description and assessment of the facts outlined in the panel’s ruling is in my view fair, accurate and balanced.
The panel notes that Levant and other commentators have a right to express strong opinions with vigour and even aggression, but that personal insults and coarseness are not appropriate under the broadcasters' voluntary code.
"The Panel Adjudicators concluded that host Ezra Levant used personal and particularly coarse insults with respect to a Chiquita executive that he named several times on the air, thereby violating the provisions of Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics regarding full, fair and proper presentation," the ruling says.
"They also found the host's attempt to explain himself on January 17, 2012 only served to exacerbate the insult, particularly in light of the admission that he had used the term in a blatant attempt to attack the Chiquita executive."
The Panel noted that a letter sent by Sun News Network's legal counsel to complainants "seemingly was an attempt to obfuscate the facts and avoid addressing the complainants' concerns about the use of the specific phrase in the precise context of the December 22 broadcast."
One hopes this ruling will have the effect of reintroducing the tone of civility to Canadian broadcasting that has been in decline in recent months, in no small part, it is fair to conclude, because of the efforts of Sun News Network.
This post also appears on David Climenhaga's blog, Alberta Diary.
Simple denial is not an argument.
The facts are on my side: http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/internet/rural-canada-loses-as-politics-and-business-fail-to-get-broadband-down-the-last-mile/article1799640/?service=mobile
If you're referring to the public telephone system, I would highly suggest you carefully do some research. The modern day internet and IPTV networks are a mish-mash of privately funded and owned fibre optic networks.
Take the 151 Front Street carrier hotel in Toronto, where more than 100 privately owned data networks enter the building.
There are internet lines owned by Sprint, Verizon, Bell Canada, Rogers, Qwest, Level3, etc. that were 100% privately funded. The only thing they're using in many cases is underground right-of-ways, which they paid for the use of.
The fibre network buildouts that we are relying on today are the culimination of many, many private networks which are linked together, with very little government involvement. This applies to modern IPTV systems, which SHARE the same infrastructure.
Trying to claim the government owns all this stuff because they once provided Bell Canada and local cable companies with regional monopolies is nonsense. Especially since the end of the monopoly, all of the new infrastructure has been privately funded. Not publicly.
Even worse, you're trying to argue that because of that initial investment, the government has a right, in perpetuity, to regulate the content that uses those networks.
Nonsense.
BrockM - That is a ridiculous and specious argument. SunTV is subject to CRTC regulation whether it is "over the airwaves" or not, because the cable / fiber optic delivery systems it uses are regulated.
As they should be, since their build-outs were heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. So heavily so that, in my opinion, they are essentially a public service. They should have been defined as a public good with public ownership from day one, because such communications infrastructure is an non-negotiable requirement for a modern information-based society.
The fundamental problem with the argument that Sun News Network is using a public resource, and thus should be subject to regulation of its content is nonsense. While I have no time for Sun's jingoism and neoconservatism, I also recognize that it is not using a limited resource. It is a cable channel. It does not use the public airwaves.
There is no dearth of cable television bandwidth. In fact, modern digital cable networks have capacity for thousands of channels, and with newer IPTV technology, the channel bandwidth is effectively unlimited.
Therefore, any demand for regulation of cable television IS censorship. No matter which way you slice it. The argument that it is a limited public resource does not apply. Sun does not use any radio spectrum. Modern digital cable technology allows for unlimited television channels.
Thus, if you insist that Sun's content must be regulated because it is using a "public resource", you are either ignorant of the technological reality, or you are being intellectually dishonest to veil your true intention. Which is, to censor Sun News Network because of its views.
That said, licensure of cable television at all is a form of censorship. Especially given the fact that the communication channels for modern IPTV networks are unlimited.
Bell Fibe television is now a used IPTV network. And given this, there are ZERO limits on how many channels it can provide. If you try and say content must be regulated because it is a limited public resource, you are lying to an ideological end. Either for cultural protectionism or to silence views you disagree with -- which are both two sides of the same coin.
Chiquta is a human rights abusing company-we should not be on their side or defend them. Chiquitas workers' hours are from dusk to dawn and they are paid in food coupons only. Chiquita brought in the Columbian military against the workers when they went on strike, the military massacered a thousand workers, including women and children, and dumped their bodies into the ocean in an unsuccessful attempt to hide the deed. Bodies tend to float for a time before carried out into the deep ocean. Chiquita more than deserved the insult in my book.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA5twOKH6Z0
This in no way addresses the behaviour of Levant or Sun the propaganda engine. Serious fines and a period of removal from the airwaves are required, at minimum. We have reach a point where lines are being crossed that we believed were sacrosanct, and we avoided creating real penalties because we truly believed they would never be needed here.
As fascism rears its ugly head in Canada, we are unprepared. Abuses of democracy such as hate propaganda, contempt of Parliament, and blatant violations of the intent of our election laws require significant criminal penalties which do not exist as of yet. And those currently in power will never bring such penalties into effect, because they are the beneficiaries of these abuses - whether or not they have directly perpetuated them.
Keep hoping away. With guys like Charles Adler, Roy Green and Ezra Levant around, nothing is going to change, period.
"One hopes this ruling will have the effect of reintroducing the tone of civility to Canadian broadcasting that has been in decline in recent months"
I suppose it would be nice if it were to have that effect, but when I read the statement; "The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has found that Sun News Network breached the Canadian Association of Broadcasters' Code of Ethics in its broadcast of The Source on December 22, 2011", I can't help but think that it will be seen a badge of honour for the network and its viewers. It will only serve to reinforce their persecution complex at the hands of the "liberal media elite" - never mind the fact that it's a voluntary code of ethics which they've agreed to follow. You say they have to run statement twice on air? Hell, it wouldn't surprise me to see them running it on a regular basis as a network promo.