It's 2018 and cbcExposed continues to hear from confidential sources inside the CBC about CBC management snooping on its employees, company waste, low employee morale, huge salaries and benefits for the President and other senior management, gender bias and other scandals and we will continue to expose their reports on our blog while we protect our sources. We take joy in knowing that the CBC-HQ visits us daily to spy on us and read our stories such as news bias, waste, the CBC Sunshine List, ongoing scandals including the epic Dr. Leenen case against The Fifth Estate (the largest libel legal case ever awarded against the media in Canadian history) where no one at CBC was fired and taxpayers paid the award and legal costs for this CBC Libel action. Writers and filmmakers take note-this is a Perfect story for an award winning Documentary!
cbcExposed continues to enjoy substantial visitors coming from Universities and Colleges across Canada who use us for research in debates, exams, etc.
We ask students to please join with us in this mission; you have the power to make a difference! And so can private broadcasters who we know are hurting from the dwindling Advertising revenue pool and the CBC taking money from that pool while also unfairly getting Tax subsidies money. It's time to stop being silent and start speaking up Bell Media-CTV, Shaw-Global, Rogers, etc.
Our cbcExposed Twitter followers and frequent visitors to cbcExposed continue to motivate us to expose CBC’s abuse and waste of tax money as well as exposing their ongoing left wing bully-like news bias. Polls meanwhile show that Canadians favour selling the wasteful government owned media giant and to put our tax money to better use for all Canadians. The Liberals privatized Petro Canada and Air Canada; it’s time for the Trudeau Liberals to privatize the CBC- certainly not give them more of our tax money-enough is enough!
The CBC network’s ratings continue to plummet while their costs and our tax- payer subsidies continue to go up! In 2018 what case can be made for the Government to be in the broadcasting business, competing unfairly with the private sector? The CBC receives advertising and cable/satellite fees-fees greater than CTV and Global but this is not enough for the greedy CBC who also receive more than a billion dollars of your tax money every year. That’s about $100,000,000 (yes, 100 MILLION) of our taxes every 30 days with no CBC accountability to taxpayers as they continue with their biased news service serving only the extreme socialists and anti-Semitics. Wake up Canada!
What does it take for real change at the CBC? YOU! Our blog now contains a link to the Politicians contact info for you to make your voice heard. Act now and contact your MP, the Cabinet and Prime Minister ... tell them to stop wasting your money, and ... sell the CBC.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
True patriot love in all our sons command
With glowing hearts we see thee rise
The true north strong and free
From far and wide oh Canada
We stand on guard for thee.
God keep (us safe) our land glorious and free
Oh Canada we stand on guard for thee
Oh Canada we stand on guard for thee.
Shock on CBC Yesterday Morning
This is not sent for discussion. If you agree, forward it.. If you don't, simply ignore it. By me posting it, you know how I feel.
I bet the response came as a big surprise to CBC to the question :
Do you believe that the word God should stay in Canadian culture?
CBC yesterday morning had a poll on this question. They had the highest number of responses that they have ever had for one of their polls, and the percentage was the same as this:
86% to keep the words “ God Keep our Land” in the National Anthem 14% against
That is a pretty 'commanding' public response.
I was asked to send this on if I agreed or delete if I didn't ..
Now it is your turn. It is said that 86% of Canadians believe the word “God” should stay, therefore, I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a mess about having the word “God” in the anthem!
Why is the country catering to this 14%?
If you agree, post it or forward using the tools below, if not, simply ignore.
At least comment!
Monday, April 18, 2011
Bell Globemedia welcomed today's announcement by the Competition Bureau rejecting a complaint by the CBC against a potential joint bid by Bell Globemedia and Rogers Media for broadcast rights of the 2010 and 2012 Olympic Games.
"Of course, we are delighted that the Competition Bureau saw through CBC's baseless complaint," said Paul Sparkes, Senior Vice-President, Corporate and Public Affairs for Bell Globemedia. "But we're deeply disappointed that this complaint by the CBC was ever launched in the first place and it demonstrates how far the CBC will go to stifle competition at the taxpayers' expense."
|Ottawa, 31 August 2009|
Complaints about the broadcast by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of the program Bye Bye 2008
|In this decision, the Commission addresses complaints about the broadcast of the program Bye Bye 2008 by the French-language network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) on 31 December 2008 at 11:00 p.m. and rebroadcast on 1 January 2009 at 8:00 p.m. After reviewing the program in question, the Commission concludes that the broadcast of certain segments of this program violated section 5(1)(b) of the Television Broadcasting Regulations, 1987, which prohibits the broadcast of abusive comment, and failed to meet the high standard requirement set out in the Broadcasting Act. As broadcasters are responsible for the content they broadcast, the Commission expects the CBC should apologize to its viewers. In addition, the Commission expects the CBC to implement immediately mechanisms it will use to ensure that it satisfies its regulatory obligations and conditions of licence in the future, and to report on these mechanisms in its next licence renewal application.|
|The Commission received approximately 250 complaints as well as a petition containing some 2,000 signatories about the program Bye Bye 2008, which was broadcast by the French-language network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) on 31 December 2008 at 11:00 p.m. The CBC re-broadcast the program on 1 January 2009 at 8:00 p.m., that is, before the watershed hour of 9:00 p.m.|
|The CBC has broadcast a Bye Bye program most years since 1968; each Bye Bye program has generally been broadcast on New Year’s Eve and has included a count down to the new year. Bye Bye 2008 was a 90-minute satire-oriented variety television program. It addressed a number of news events of 2008 and included various comedy sketches and musical performances. Both broadcasts of the program contained identical content. Neither broadcast included viewer advisories.|
|The Commission received complaints1 about the following aspects of the program:|
|In February 2009, the CBC responded to complainants with a letter2 in which it noted "the public’s vehement reaction to the broadcast and the large volume of comments [CBC] received in its wake." The CBC submitted the following:|
Airing a humorous, satire oriented program open to many levels of interpretation is always risky business … The humour in the 2008 edition of the show was intended to condemn evils like racism, intolerance and violence through the use of irony. We acknowledge that some of the show’s twenty-odd skits and tributes to 2008 shocked or offended certain viewers. But those skits were intended simply to caricature – and in some cases even ridicule – a number of celebrities who were in the news that year.
Writing a Bye Bye means giving up the notion of pleasing everyone, so it is hardly surprising that some people enjoy the show more than others. However, it would be quite wrong to claim the show included racist content. We deny that very strongly. Every racist allusion in the show was there to highlight the inadequacies of the characters involved in the skit. We sincerely regret the fact that some words may have shocked viewers, but fully stand by the intent behind their use.
… I beg you to accept our most sincere apologies for any discomfort or inconvenience the broadcast may have caused. We maintain, however, that Bye Bye 2008 was not in breach of any applicable standards and policies governing violence and explicit sexuality on television.
Canadian Broadcast Standards Council’s report
|In light of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council’s (CBSC) considerable experience in addressing complaints about broadcast content, the Commission requested that the CBSC examine the above-mentioned complaints against the CBC and file a report on the matter with the Commission.3 The Commission stated that it would take the report into consideration in reaching its conclusions on the complaints.|
|In April 2009, the CBSC filed its report entitled, Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, Quebec Regional Panel, CBC re Bye Bye 2008, 17 March 2009(CBSC Decision 08/09-0620+), with the Commission. The report and its annexes are available on the Commission’s website.|
|In its report, the CBSC noted that the CBC, as a public broadcaster, is not a member of the CBSC. As a result and as requested by the Commission, the CBSC examined the complaints in light of the Broadcasting Act (the Act), the Television Broadcasting Regulations, 1987 (the Television Regulations) as well as the CBC’s conditions of licence, which require that it adhere to the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ (CAB) Equitable Portrayal Code and the CAB Violence Code. The CBSC also took into consideration the CAB’s Code of Ethics. As indicated in previous decisions, the Commission, in determining what constitutes programming of high standard within the meaning of the Act, considers, among other things, the standards in effect in the broadcasting community including the latter Code.4|
|Based on the rationale set out in its report, the CBSC made the following findings:|
|In light of the above, the CBSC concluded that, in broadcasting Bye Bye 2008, the CBC violated certain regulations, breached certain of its conditions of licence, and failed to meet the high standard requirement set out in the Act.|
CBC’s response to the CBSC’s report
|The Commission allowed for comments on the conclusions of the CBSC’s report. The CBC, the Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations (CRARR) and one individual commented.|
|The CBC maintained that the program did not violate any regulatory obligations. The CBC submitted that, in finding breaches of the Television Regulations and the CAB’s Equitable Portrayal Code, the CBSC did not take into account the humorous and satirical context of the skits, that the CBSC applied the incorrect test in making its findings and that the CBSC did not take into account how the courts have interpreted the words hatred or contempt. The CBC acknowledged that it did not broadcast viewer advisories on 1 January 2009, although it should have done so.|
|The CRARR supported the CBSC’s finding that the portrayal of Black people violated the Television Regulations and breached certain conditions of licence. However, the CRARR disagreed with the CBSC’s finding that the use of the term "nègre" did not violate any applicable provisions. The CRARR was of the view that the use of that term in the context of Bye Bye 2008 amounted to a violation of the CAB’s Equitable Portrayal Code.|
Commission’s analysis and determinations
|In reaching the following conclusions, the Commission has taken into consideration the program as a whole, the various comedy sketches in question, the complaints, the CBSC’s report, and the comments filed by parties.|
|Overall, the Commission finds the approach, findings, and conclusions of the CBSC to be appropriate. Like the CBSC, and for similar reasons, the Commission determines the following:|
|With regard to the portrayal of Black people, the Commission notes that section 5(1)(b) of the Television Regulations prohibits the broadcast of any abusive comment or abusive pictorial representation that, when taken in context, tends to or is likely to expose an individual or a group or class of individuals to hatred or contempt on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or mental or physical disability. In previous decisions, the Commission has stated that the test to determine whether a violation of this section of the regulation has occurred is to be found in the language of the provision itself; i.e. a violation occurs when all three of the following criteria are met: (1) the comments and/or portrayals in question are abusive; (2) when taken in context, these are likely to expose an individual or group of individuals to hatred or contempt; (3) these are based on one of the enumerated grounds, such as colour or race.5|
|In examining Bye Bye 2008 with respect to the above, the Commission is of the following views:|
|The Commission notes that the abusive comment test set out in the Television Regulations is more stringent than the tests set out in clauses 2, 3, 4 and 7 of the CAB’s Equitable Portrayal Code. As such, a violation of the Television Regulations indicates that there is also a breach of these sections of the Equitable Portrayal Code, adherence to which has been imposed on the CBC as a condition of licence.|
|With respect to the use of the term "nègre," the Commission notes that Bye Bye 2008 contained the following statement: [Translation] "It would be good to have a "nègre" [U.S. President Obama] in the White House. It will be practical. Black on white. It will be easier to shoot him."|
|The Commission has, in a previous decision,6 determined that the use of the term "nègre" can, in certain instances and contexts, constitute a failure to meet the high standard requirement. The Commission notes the high volume of complaints it received on the use of that term in the context of Bye Bye 2008. In view of the historical significance of the term within Canada and Quebec, the Commission considers that it has a high emotional impact; consequently, community standards demand very prudent use of the term. The Commission considers that the CBC exercised insufficient prudence in allowing that term to be used in the context cited above. In this regard, the Commission reminds the CBC that the use of public airwaves confers a responsibility on licensees to broadcast programming that is acceptable at all times under existing community standards.|
|With respect to the depiction of violence in the comedy sketch about the Patrick Roy family, the Commission considers that the violence depicted was obviously simulated and comically exaggerated; the primary focus of the comedy sketch was violence in general, not violence against women; and, although the sketch contained a comedic, exaggerated depiction of a violent act against one female character, the perpetrators of the violence were not depicted as laudable characters. As a result, the sketch did not, in fact, sanction, promote, or glamorize violence against women. Furthermore, as the Commission has noted in previous decisions,7 it is only prepared to conclude that the limits to freedom of expression have been exceeded in cases of the most flagrant excess; where it is not obvious that regulatory requirements have been breached, the Commission will rule in favour of freedom of expression.|
|The Commission recognizes the important role that the CBSC plays for its members in addressing complaints about programming content. The Commission notes that both it and the CBSC reached the same general conclusions: in broadcasting Bye Bye 2008, the CBC violated the abusive comment provision of the Television Regulations, breached the CAB’s Equitable Portrayal Code, adherence to which is a condition of its licence, and failed to meet the high standard requirement as set out in the Act. With this in mind, the Commission endorses the CBSC’s conclusions in this matter.|
|The Commission notes that any apologies or expressions of regret by the CBC for the broadcast of Bye Bye 2008 were qualified by accompanying denials of any violations or breaches of regulatory requirements. The Commission considers that the public is owed a full and unqualified apology for the broadcast of abusive comment and material not complying with the Equitable Portrayal Code on Bye Bye 2008 as well as for the broadcast of adult material in this program before the watershed hour and without viewer advisories, which failed to meet the high standard requirement set out in the Act. The Commission expects the CBC to issue such an apology in a timely manner.|
|The Commission reminds the CBC that, as set out section 3(1)(h) of the Act, it is broadcasting licensees who bear responsibility for the programming they air. This is the case whether or not the licensee endorses the opinions, views and positions of the individuals expressing them, and whether or not the programming is produced by a third party, as was the case in this instance. Thus, it is the management of the licensee that must ensure that sufficient controls are in place to ensure compliance with the Act, the applicable regulations, and conditions of licence. The script for a program such as Bye Bye, although aired live, is written long before going to air, and in that context, management of the licensee must ensure that what will be broadcast will comply with all applicable regulatory requirements.|
|The Commission notes that it has recently reminded the CBC of its requirement to meet its regulatory obligations, in particular with respect to the Canadian broadcasting policy objective set out in the Act that programming should be of high standard.8 As a result, the Commission expects CBC management to implement immediately specific mechanisms to ensure adherence with its regulatory obligations and conditions of licence. These mechanisms must ensure that all content aired is carefully reviewed prior to broadcast to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements and conditions of licence. The Commission expects the CBC to report on such mechanisms in its next licence renewal application.|
|This decision is to be appended to the licence. It is available in alternative format upon request, and may also be examined in PDF format or in HTML at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca.|
|Ottawa, 23 October 2007|
|Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Across Canada|
Complaint regarding the broadcast of the program "Fric show" by the French-language network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation prior to the watershed hour
|In this decision, the Commission addresses a complaint regarding the broadcast at 7:30 p.m. by the French-language network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) of a program containing sexually explicit material intended for an adult audience. The Commission finds that by airing the program "Fric show" on 26 April 2007 before 9 p.m., the CBC did not meet the Canadian broadcasting policy objective set out in the Broadcasting Act that programming should be of high standard.|
| 1. ||On 26 April 2007, the Commission received a complaint regarding the broadcast by the French-language network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) of the program "Fric show." Given that the complaint is very concise, the Commission has decided to reproduce it here in full:|
[Translation] Pornographic content on this program at a time when most children, even very young children, were not in bed. We already have to turn the television off at 8 p.m. to avoid stumbling upon an American movie showing everyone killing each other... A little respect for children would be appreciated. Thank you!
| 2. ||The program "Fric show" is produced by the CBC and hosted by Marc Labrèche. This is not a public affairs or news program but rather a program that mixes fiction, information, verified facts and sketches, all presented in a humorous, sarcastic, caustic and entertaining tone. It addresses overconsumption in various areas of everyday life (waste management, mass tourism, death, infants, weight-loss diets, etc.). Each week, during the program, the characters use humour and irony to debate a social phenomena.|
| 3. ||The 26 April 2007 program focused on the pornography industry. The topic of the program is described on the CBC Web1 site as follows:|
[Translation] The porn industry: They say that money and sex make the world go round... One thing is certain: sex sells... a lot! It's everywhere - in the street, on film, in videos, on the Internet. And porn stars are even starting to show up in the media. We're seeing a move away from so-called "traditional" industries toward the porn industry. Is the world becoming oversexed?
| 4. ||In its first season (fall 2006-winter 2007), "Fric show" aired Thursday evenings from 7:30 to 8 p.m. and was rebroadcast on the same day at the same time from 12 July 2007 to 30 August 2007.|
| 5. ||The CBC replied to the complainant on 16 May 2007, describing the concept and goal of "Fric show" and focusing on the 26 April show:|
[Translation] The program to which you refer dealt with pornography, an industry that has grown significantly since the 1980s, particularly on the Internet, and that now appears in advertising and the arts and is becoming omnipresent. The 26 April edition of "Fric show"tackled this phenomenon of overconsumption, with supporting images, videos and sketches caricaturing the issue and showing interviews with sexologists, sociologists, performers and producers who were asked to comment on it.
| 6. ||However, the CBC acknowledged that the content broadcast "[translation] may not have been suitable for young children" and submitted that:|
[Translation] For that reason, a viewer advisory was simultaneously displayed and read by an off-camera announcer to alert viewers, at the start of the program and after the two commercial breaks: Warning - this program deals with pornography and contains scenes of nudity. Viewer discretion is advised.
| 7. ||The licensee further submitted that it has the greatest respect for viewers of all ages and is aware of the susceptibility of children.|
| 8. ||Section 3(1)(g) of the Broadcasting Act (the Act) stipulates that "the programming originated by broadcasting undertakings should be of high standard."|
| 9. ||In determining what constitutes programming of high standard within the meaning of the Act, the Commission considers, among other things, the standards in effect in the broadcasting community.|
| 10. ||The Commission is of the view that industry codes, such as the Canadian Association of Broadcasters' (CAB) Code of Ethics (the Code), are generally effective benchmarks for determining current ethical standards used in broadcasting, including the high quality standard.|
| 11. ||In determining whether the licensee has complied with section 3(1)(g) of the Act, specifically the high standard objective for programming, the Commission examined the content of the program "Fric show" against clauses 10 and 11 of the Code.|
| 12. ||Clause 10 of the Code stipulates that programming that contains sexually explicit material or coarse or offensive language intended for adult audiences shall not be telecast before the late viewing period, defined as 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. This provision mirrors the "watershed hour" provision.|
| 13. ||Clause 11 of the Code stipulates that to assist consumers in making their viewing choices, when programming includes mature subject matter or scenes with nudity, sexually explicit material, coarse or offensive language, or other material that may offend viewers, broadcasters shall provide a viewer advisory. These advisories are required for programming containing this type of content that is broadcast in late viewing hours and programming broadcast outside of late viewing hours which contains material not suitable for children.|
| 14. ||The Commission notes that the CBC is not subject to a condition of licence requiring it to comply with the Code. The Code is administered by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) for private broadcasters who are members of the CBSC. As a public broadcaster, the CBC is not a member of the CBSC. Nevertheless, given its status as a public broadcaster and the objectives of the Act, the CBC is required to adhere to the same broadcast standards as the industry as a whole. Canadian viewers are entitled to expect that the public broadcaster, like private broadcasters, will adhere to current social accountability standards designed to protect the youngest viewers.|
Commission's analysis and determination
| 15. ||The Commission has viewed the program and notes that scenes of nudity appear frequently throughout the half-hour broadcast: front and back views of nude women, explicit sexual relations, covers of pornographic magazines, scenes from the Internet of nudity and explicit sexuality (e.g., fellatio), and the actual filming of a pornographic movie (explicit sexual relations, scenes of female clitoral masturbation, cunnilingus, etc.). In these last scenes, although the vaginas and rectums of the actors are blacked out, the sexual activity is nonetheless explicit.|
| 16. ||The 26 April 2007 broadcast of "Fric show" contains scenes of nudity and sexually explicit scenes. The Commission therefore finds that the content of the program is intended for adult viewers.|
| 17. ||In its reply to the complainant, the CBC explained that it was precisely because the program content may not have been suitable for young children that viewer advisories were broadcast at the start of the program and after the two commercial breaks. The Commission confirms that an advisory was indeed broadcast three times.|
| 18. ||However, broadcasting advisories does not relieve the broadcaster of the responsibility to air programming content intended for adults after 9 p.m. These requirements are cumulative: current industry standards require that viewer advisories be aired with telecasts after 9 p.m. The Commission recently ruled on this issue in Complaints regarding the broadcast by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of Sex Traffic and Old School prior to the watershed hour, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2006-668, 11 December 2006:|
While the CBC's use of advisories was an important tool to inform prospective viewers of the potential risks associated with viewing the program in question, the Commission is of the view that the use of advisories does not excuse the potential harm of broadcasting material, which is clearly intended for adult audiences, prior to the watershed hour.
| 19. ||The Commission further notes in the same decision that:|
Clause 10 (Scheduling) of the CAB's Code of Ethics specifies that programming containing sexually explicit material or coarse or offensive language intended for adult audiences must not be broadcast before the late viewing period, defined as 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. This clause mirrors the watershed provision originally established in the Violence Code to ensure that programs containing scenes of violence intended for adult audiences are not broadcast at times when young children are most likely to be watching television. While the CBC is not bound to adhere to the Code of Ethics by condition oflicence, the Commission is of the view that, for the purposes of assessing high standard as set out in the Act, the watershed provision reflects a broad community standard for broadcast ethics that is equally applicable to Canada's private and public broadcasters.
| 20. ||In the Commission's view, this analysis also applies to the assessment of the complaint against the CBC concerning the 26 April 2007 broadcast of "Fric show."|
| 21. ||The Commission therefore finds that in broadcasting "Fric show" on 26 April 2007 prior to the watershed hour, the CBC did not meet the high standard policy objective set out in section 3(1)(g) of the Act.|
| 22. ||The Commission expects the CBC to ensure that the scheduling of programs containing sexually explicit material or other mature subject matter intended for adult audiences is consistent with the broadcast industry standard requiring that such material be broadcast after 9 p.m. The Commission will review the CBC's compliance with this obligation at the next licence renewal.|
|This decision is to be appended to the licence. It is available in alternative format upon request and may also be examined in PDF format or in HTML at the following Internet site: www.crtc.gc.ca|
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Mr. Kirk LaPointe
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)
P.O. Box 500, Station A
Toronto, Ontario M5W 1E6
Re: The Fifth Estate’s “Behind the Wall” Report
Dear Mr. LaPointe:
As a Canadian citizen, a taxpayer and as the National President for UCCO-SACC-CSN (the Union of Canadian Correctionai Officers — Syndicat des agents correctionnels du Canadas — CSN), I feel compelled to submit a formal complaint regarding a number of serious issues that I have with the aforementioned program.
lndeed, ever since CBC Television broadcast The Fifth Estate documentary “Behind the WaIl” on November 12, 2010, I have found myseif unable to shake the feeling that I am being mocked, not merely in my role with the
correctionai officers’ union, but as an ordinary citizen who has a right to accurate, fair and unbiased information
from his public broadcaster. It seems to me that the CBC should hold itself to a very high standard when it cornes to informing the population of Canada on critically important societal issues such as mental health in our federal correctional facilities.
Read the full 6 page report by clicking here.
By: Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris
The CBC television programme, “The Fifth Estate”, describes its raison d’ être as follows:
“to challenge assumptions and question conventional wisdom, and most importantly to give voice to
victims of injustice who deserve to be heard but have been silenced.”
But what if The Fifth Estate itself is the perpetrator of the injustice? What if it is their own network that has
ignored and mistreated those who disagree with “conventional wisdom” on an issue of national importance? Will
the programme then “challenge assumptions” on which fashionable views are based? Or will they simply parrot
political correctness, carefully ignoring, or denigrating the opinions of those who spend their lives studying the
Full 12 page pdf located here.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
April 06, 2009
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Marketwire - April 6, 2009) - Adbusters Media Foundation, the publisher of Adbusters magazine (www.adbusters.org), has won an important appeal in its case against the CBC and Global Television Network. Adbusters initiated a landmark legal action against the media companies for refusing to sell airtime to Adbusters for its social marketing television campaigns.
In a unanimous decision (http://adbusters.org/files/pdf/adbusters_courtappeal_20090403.pdf) released on Friday, April 3, the BC Court of Appeal overturned a previous BC Supreme Court ruling. Adbusters can now take its case against the media conglomerates to the BC Supreme Court.
Since 1989 Adbusters has attempted to purchase airtime from major commercial broadcasters in order to air its socially-minded public service spots. Routinely denied by network executives in Canada and the US, Adbusters is often left with little to no explanation as to why these citizen-produced messages are being censored. The case against the CBC and Global Television Network Inc. was brought about because Adbusters believes that the Canadian Charter grants every Canadian the right to access the public airwaves; to walk into their local TV stations and purchase 30-seconds of airtime under the same rules and conditions as advertising agencies do.
At issue in this groundbreaking case is the right of Canadian citizens to have (as stipulated by the Canadian Broadcasting Act) "a reasonable opportunity ... to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern."
"This is a great day for Adbusters," says Kalle Lasn, editor and co-founder of the magazine. "After 20 years of legal struggle, the courts have finally given us permission to take on the media corporations and hold them up to public scrutiny."
For more information or to schedule an interview with Kalle Lasn or Adbusters' attorney, Mark Underhill, please see contact information below.
(1) To view a digital copy of the judgment, visit: http://adbusters.org/files/pdf/adbusters_courtappeal_20090403.pdf
(2) Canadian Media facts:
- Four corporations (CanWest, Quebecor, Torstar and Gesca) control almost three-quarters of the country's daily newspaper circulation: www.parl.gc.ca/37/3/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/tran-e/rep-e/rep04apr04-e.htm
(3) Facts about Media Democracy:
- More than 30,000 people have signed the Media Carta (www.mediacarta.org) to voice their concerns about the way information is distributed in our society.
- In the past few years a growing number of grassroots media activist groups have formed to express their dissatisfaction with the continued consolidation of Canada's media: www.democraticmedia.ca
December 1, 2010
MONTREAL – Quebec’s highest court has suspended Quebecor CEO Pierre Karl Peladeau's defamation case against a CBC French executive while Quebecor tries to have the presiding judge removed for alleged bias.
The appeals court expressed concerns Friday about comments made by Justice Claude Larouche and agreed to hear Quebecor’s motion to have Larouche dropped from the case.
The appeal will be heard on February 22. If the Court of Appeal rules in Quebecor’s favour, the defamation case will be thrown out and heard before another judge.
Peladeau, owner of QMI Agency, is suing CBC French vice-president Sylvain Lafrance for $700,000 for calling Peladeau a “punk” in a 2007 newspaper interview.
Lafrance made the comment after Quebecor’s cable subsidiary stopped paying into the Canadian Television Fund. Quebecor had objected to the fact that more than a third of the CTF’s funding went to the CBC, which already receives more than $1 billion a year from taxpayers.
Quebecor became concerned by several comments made by Justice Larouche in open court, including his admission that he had been reluctant to take on the case because of the workload involved.
Last month Larouche displayed two Quebec magazines in court that featured Peladeau on the cover. He suggested Peladeau had planted the feature stories to beef up his public image during the trial, despite the fact that both magazines are owned by rivals.
Peladeau decided to push for Larouche’s removal when the judge refused to suspend the case after the sister of Quebecor’s chief counsel died suddenly. Larouche said the woman’s death was not a sufficient reason to put off the case and that other Quebecor lawyers could take it over.
The appeals court judge said Friday that Larouche’s decision was “unreasonable.”
“One could raise questions about the motives given by the judge to refuse the postponement,” wrote Justice Michel Robert, who is chief justice of Quebec and also Larouche’s boss.
Justice Robert also took issue with Larouche’s public comments about the internal workings of the Superior Court.
“Is it appropriate for a judge to discuss the manner in which cases are assigned?”
CBC lawyers said that while Justice Larouche might have misspoken at times, his comments did not constitute bias.