Censorship in Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The tone or style of this article or section may not be appropriate for Wikipedia.
Specific concerns may be found on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions.(December 2007)

This article does not cite any references or sources. (January 2007)
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

Censorship
Part of the series on

By Country
Algeria Australia Belarus Bhutan Burma Canada China Cuba East Germany France Germany India Indonesia Iran Ireland Israel Japan	Malaysia Pakistan Portugal Russia Samoa Saudi Arabia Singapore South Asia North Korea Soviet Union Sweden Taiwan Thailand Tunisia Turkey United Kingdom United States
See also: Freedom of speech by country
By media
Advertisements Anime Books Films	Re-edited films Internet Music Video games
By channel
BBC	MTV
By method
Book burning Bleep censor Broadcast delay Content-control software Expurgation Pixelization Postal censorship Prior restraint Self-censorship Whitewashing Gag order
By context
Corporate censorship Under fascist regimes Political censorship In religion This box: view • talk • edit

In Canada the principles of community standards and public interests are the primary adjudicants of what may be published or broadcast by the media. In most respects, Canadian law takes a relatively liberal interpretation of community standards, although sometimes the existence of competing interpretations results in controversy. Recently, censorship issues in Canada have had an increasing impact on those promoting social conservative views.^{[citation needed]}

1 Broadcasting
2 Print
3 Internet censorship
4 The Canadian Human Rights Commission Controversy
5 See also
6 Notes

[edit] Broadcasting

The main body monitoring and regulating broadcast content in Canada is the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, the self-governing association of radio and television broadcasters. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), while popularly believed to be the primary enforcer of broadcast standards, in fact intervenes only in the most serious and controversial cases.

For matters involving sex, nudity, and coarse language, Canadian radio and television standards are more lenient than those in the United States. Canadian standards regarding violence are similar, but not identical, to those in the United States. Many Canadian broadcast stations broadcast sexually explicit or violent programming under certain circumstances, albeit with viewer discretion advisories and at appropriate times on the schedule. CTV, for example, has aired controversial series such as The Sopranos, Nip/Tuck and The Osbournes in prime time without editing, and some Canadian television broadcasters, such as Citytv (Baby Blue Movies) and TQS (Bleu Nuit), have aired softcore pornography after midnight Eastern time. (Canadian subscribers to satellite and cable services located west of Ontario are therefore able to view this pornography as early as 9:00 p.m.)

The Code of Ethics of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters^[1] defines the "late viewing period" as the hours from 9:00 PM through 6:00 AM. Outside this period (i.e. from 6:00 AM through 9:00 PM), the Code of Ethics prohibits programming containing sexually explicit material or coarse or offensive language.

The Canadian Association of Broadcasters also has a "Voluntary Code Regarding Violence in Television Programming".^[2]

In enforcing these two Codes, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (a non-governmental industry organization) permits nudity to be broadcast during the day as long as it is considered non-sexual. For example, the CBSC permitted a 4:00 PM broadcast of the movie Wildcats containing male frontal nudity in a locker-room scene and female nudity in a bathtub.^[3] The CBSC even permitted the Demi Moore film Strip Tease to be shown at 8:00 PM, with scenes of bare female breasts during strip-tease performances.^[4]

The CBSC has summarized its policy on sexual activity as follows:

Before the Watershed (9:00 pm – 6:00 am), the CBSC considers that it is inappropriate to show sexual activity that is intended for adult eyes and minds. There is, in the pre-Watershed period, a run of 15 hours (a strong majority of the broadcast day and about 90% of our customary waking hours), during which broadcasters offer their audiences a safe haven, namely, a period in which their television viewing can be free of adult-oriented material, whether sexual or otherwise. There may still, in that time frame, be programming that some parents will not wish their families to see (all adults should make the effort to weigh the appropriateness of all kinds of programming for themselves and their children) but it will not be due to its exclusively adult orientation. And even in the pre-Watershed period, broadcasters advise their audiences of the nature of what is to come.^[5]

The CBSC considers that the word "fuck" and its derivatives cannot be broadcast in the period from 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM. After 9:00 PM the word can be broadcast if there are suitable viewer advisories.^[6] Canadian radio hosts are generally not permitted to use swear words on the air. Even the satellite radio network CBC Radio 3, for example, normally refers to the band Holy Fuck on air as "Holy F". Conversely, however, many radio stations do not bleep or edit songs which contain swear words in their lyrics, although such songs are normally restricted to airplay late in the evening.

Similarly, the music video station MuchMusic has banned or declined to play many notable rock and pop videos with content that was deemed disturbing or inappropriate. In the early 1990s, however, the station began to engage the issue of censorship by airing a special series, Too Much 4 Much, which would play the banned videos and then follow up with audience and panel discussions about the issues raised by the clips.

Though Canadians do file complaints with the Broadcast Standards Council over sexuality, language and violence on television programs, it is topics concerning discrimination such as racial and sexual stereotyping in broadcast content which often receives nation-wide coverage. For example, the council received very few complaints about the violence or harsh language in The Sopranos, as it was aired on CTV during the watershed period and had several "viewer discretion advised" warnings. They did however, receive a significant number of complaints about the potential stereotyping of Italians as being connected to the mafia.

Similarly, after the 2004 Super Bowl, the council received more complaints about an allegedly sexist beer commercial than it did about the controversial halftime show incident involving the uncovering of Janet Jackson's breast. And in one of the most famous recent complaints to the Broadcast Standards Council, the Looney Tunes cartoon Bewitched Bunny featured as part of The Bugs Bunny & Tweety Show was criticized—not for its violence, but for a sexist comment made by Bugs Bunny ("Aw, sure, I know! But aren't they all witches inside?").

One of the most notable broadcast censorship issues in recent years has been the broadcast of Howard Stern's radio show in Canada. The show was first broadcast on CILQ in Toronto and CHOM in Montreal in 1997, and complaints were filed with the Broadcast Standards Council—again, these related primarily to the alleged broadcast of ethnic and gender stereotypes. Both stations were forced by the Broadcast Standards Council to monitor the show for offensive content through the use of broadcast delays, and both had cancelled Stern's show by 2001. When Stern subsequently moved to Sirius Satellite Radio in 2005, many Canadians erroneously believed that the CRTC had banned Stern's broadcast on Sirius Canada. In fact, the CRTC made no such ruling—Sirius Canada voluntarily chose not to risk provoking an issue with the broadcast regulator. However, on February 1, 2006, Sirius Canada announced that Stern's show would in fact be made available in Canada as of February 6, 2006.

In another recent controversy, the CRTC revoked the broadcast license of CHOI-FM, a radio station in Quebec City which had been the subject of 27 listener complaints to the Broadcast Standards Council and the CRTC. The decision was appealed, unsuccessfully. The station currently on the air with CHOI-FM's frequency and callsign is under new ownership and a new license, with significant amounts of the original content removed.

A distinguishing feature of Canadian censorship from that of the United States is that superior courts possess a considerable degree of latitude over the mass media, especially when the content in question relates to an ongoing case or inquiry. In Dagenais v. CBC, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned an injunction by the Ontario Court of Appeal that forbade the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation from broadcasting a documentary loosely based on an ongoing priestly sexual abuse trial. Nonetheless, the fact that the injunction and many others similar to it point to a court system that invokes a greater degree of protection for the subjects of its trials. However, the controversy over whether bans like the one in Dagenais v. CBC represent undue trampling on freedom of expression is a hotly debated topic.

[edit] Print

One of the most famous ongoing censorship controversies in Canada has been the dispute between Canada Customs and LGBT retail bookstores such as Little Sister's in Vancouver and Glad Day in Toronto. Through the 1980s and into the 1990s, Canada Customs frequently stopped material being shipped to the two stores on the grounds of "obscenity"—although in many cases the very same material was not considered obscene when being shipped to a mainstream bookseller such as Coles or Chapters. Both stores frequently had to resort to the legal system to challenge the confiscation of their property.

In 2000, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Canada Customs did not have the authority to make its own judgments about the permissibility of material being shipped to the stores but was permitted to confiscate only material that had specifically been ruled by the courts to constitute an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada.

Canadians can be disciplined by their employers for writing letters to newspapers. Christine St-Pierre, a Radio-Canada television reporter, was suspended in September 2006 for writing a letter in support of Canadian troops in Afghanistan. Similarly, school teachers and counsellors have limited freedom of expression and religion regarding certain topics (about homosexuality for example) both on and off the job which can result in disciplinary action by their employer (See related articles, Chris Kempling and Status of religious freedom in Canada).

[edit] Internet censorship

Internet content is not specifically regulated in Canada, however local laws do apply to websites hosted in Canada as well as to residents who host sites on servers in other jurisdictions. A well-known example is the case of Ernst Zundel, who was investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission for promoting ethnic hatred via his website.

In November 2006, Canadian Internet service providers Bell, Bell Aliant, MTS Allstream, Rogers, Shaw, SaskTel, Telus, and Videotron announced "Project Cleanfeed Canada"; the voluntary blocking of access to hundreds of alleged child pornography sites. The list of blocked sites is compiled from reports by Internet users and investigated by the independent organization "cybertip.ca". Although this was a voluntary step with no involvement from the authorities, the Canadian government did express its approval.^[7]

[edit] The Canadian Human Rights Commission Controversy

The Canadian Human Rights Commission [1] (CHRC) is charged with enforcing the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) which forbids “hate messages”. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has its national office in Ottawa, Ontario, with regional offices in Alberta, Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Quebec, and Toronto, Ontario.

In Canada under the CHRA it is illegal for any citizen to make a statement which “is likely to expose a person or persons to ‘hatred or contempt’ by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”[2]

Although the CHRA is a federal law which forbids ‘hate messages’ only on the telephone or the internet, provinces such as British Columbia and Alberta have extended this prohibition to all publications.[3] [4]

The CHRA prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.

White supremacists James Scott Richardson and Alex Kulbashian, who ran a racist website called "Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team," are currently challenging the constitutionality of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.^[8] Neo-Nazis such as Marc Lemire and Paul Fromm have also criticised the constitutionality of the CHRC. The CHRC has been instrumental in prosecuting anti-Semitism and racism.

The Alberta Human Rights Commission launched an investigation into a complaint against former Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant, and the CHRC has launched investigations into complaints against Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine for publishing material deemed offensive by Muslims.

Mr. Levant’s magazine re-published twelve cartoons which had sparked violence by Muslim extremists when originally published as an experiment in free expression by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005.[5] Mr. Levant videotaped his interrogation by the CHRC, and vocally defended his right to publish anything he chooses while living in a free country, claiming a "right to offend".[6]

Mr. Steyn published an article in Macleans entitled The Future Belongs To Islam on October 20, 2006.[7]. Mr. Steyn has since authored several articles in defence of his right to free expression[8]

Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said that the anti-hate provisions of the criminal code are "dubious," given that it is not possible to define limits on what constitutes hatred or contempt. But he said that at least the Criminal Code demands that willful promotion of hatred has to be proven—something absent under the human-rights provisions. "There is no requirement for an intent to foment hatred and no defence for truth or reasonable belief," he said. Mr. Borovoy said he is still in favour of human-rights commissions when it comes to counteracting discrimination in employment and public housing, but feels they have gone too far in gagging the free expression of opinion.[9]

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, prior to becoming Prime Minister, stated "Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society … It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff."[10]

PEN Canada, an organization which assists writers who are persecuted for peaceful expression, has called on "the federal and provincial governments to change human rights commission legislation to ensure commissions can no longer be used to attempt to restrict freedom of expression in Canada." [11]

According to Mary Agnes Welch, president of the Canadian Association of Journalists, "[h]uman rights commissions were never intended to act as a form of thought police, but now they're being used to chill freedom of expression on matters that are well beyond accepted Criminal Code restrictions on free speech." [12]

The concise answer to whether the Canadian Human Rights Commission values free speech was given by Dean Steacy, the primary internet "anti-hate" Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator who, when asked by a lawyer for a website owner under investigation, stated: "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value." [13] Mr. Steacy's viewpoint seems uninformed by the wording of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which specifically enumerates freedom of speech as a Canadian right.

Keith Martin, a Liberal from British Columbia, introduced a motion that called for the deletion of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, arguing that it is in violation of Section Two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms[14], which guarantees each citizen’s freedom of expression. Mr. Martin said that hate crimes, slander and libel would still be outlawed under the Criminal Code, while his motion would stop human-rights tribunals imposing restrictions on freedom of speech using taxpayers' money. "We have laws against hate crimes, but nobody has a right not to be offended," he said. "[This provision] is being used in a way that the authors of the Act never envisioned." [15]