"The regulation prohibiting abusive comment that tends or is likely to expose a person or a group to hatred or contempt is necessary not only to avoid harm to the persons targeted, but also to ensure that Canadian values are respected for all Canadians. The broadcast of remarks that could expose individuals or groups to hatred or contempt can attract individuals to its cause and in the process create serious discord between various groups in Canadian society to the detriment of all of Canadian society. This harm undermines the cultural, political and social fabric of Canada which the Canadian broadcasting system is expressly meant to safeguard, enrich and strengthen. It also undermines the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society, which the programming of the Canadian broadcasting system should reflect. Protection from the harms of abusive comment is for the benefit of all Canadians."
by:
Source:
Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2004-271, Ottawa, July 13, 2004, par. 35
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2004/db2004-271.pdf
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
Debatable applications are likely to occur, but debate is always inevitable. They are apparently aiming to err on the side of caution and respect.
 -- David L. Rosenthal     
  •  
    Third world here we come get ready for us.
     -- Robert, Sarasota     
  •  
     -- Anonymous, Reston, VA US      
    I HATE this quote! Hmmm, is this an abusive comment? I don't find it abusive to say being gay is immoral, though this regulation may say otherwise. Prohibiting abusive comment is certainly censorship. And who is to decide what is abusive? If I get to decide, great! But if you decide...
     -- Joe, Rochester, MI     
  •  
    Absolutely Joe. Lets not forget our history, and it was not that long ago. This ruling is about calling homosexuality immoral--period--which it is. Seems like Orwell wrote of controlling the language as a way of controlling the culture (FYI: Reston--read 1984). It takes a real twist in thinking to convence one's self that it is "natural"--whether a participant or supporter. It is what it is and what it always has been and always will be--a sin against God and nature.
     -- Rip Van Winkle, USA     
  •  
    The quote is a clearly atrticulated quote, and therefore revealing in quite an overt way of the insidiousness of the control of free speech in the name of repressing social discord. Coming from Canada? Sounds like the dictum in China that uses the desire for a "Harmonious Society" as the bedrock upon which the homogeneity of social behavior is legally encoded. Inciting outrage and more hatred with the expression of undesireable -isms is one way of getting out in the open opinions that will untimately die a death of their own when exposed to the light of day and discourse. No one likes to hear that there are people who hate Jews, Muslims or Christians, or homosexuals or heterosexuals, but passing laws that repress this free expression of opinions will only allow those prejudices to fester and grow to degrees not possible when you throw them into the arena of public debate. Hatred bred in isolation is far more dangerous than the possible fall out from expressingy one's narrow idiocy in public.
     -- EGL, LA     
  •  
    Sadly, I agree with the CRTC. It is a crown corporation established for a particular purpose. Essentially they can do what they want even though our taxes pay for it (that's a whole other issue!). However, to force the same standards on private broadcasters should be a call to arms.
     -- Ken, Canadian in Texas     
  •  
    There never has existed complete freedom to express anything at all. There are just laws that prohibit certain types of expression, or which limit them. How would you like to wake up to find a cross burning on your lawn? Or a group of extremists picketing your home because they don't like your religion? Or how would you like to be subjected to slander on a daily basis? Or how about having your boss try to convince you to go to bed with him or her five times a week? Or how about a waiter or waitress that has to listen to racial slurs from the cusomers? Or how about someone who intentionally harasses you whenever possible? There are certainly reasonable limitations on freedom of expression.
     -- David L. Rosenthal     
  •  
    Obviously Candian values are not American and vice versa. The Canadians I have known have been for the most part good, well-meaning people, but they are certainly not of the same stock as Americans. Painting with the broad brush, we just see the world differently. As an American, I think that some individuals and groups deserve to be hated because they are contemptuous, and I will not be shy in pointing that out even for the harmony of society.
     -- Ken, Allyn, WA     
  •  
    This is a publisher's/broadcaster's choice. But when imposed upon the press by the 'crown,' it is censorship. If we are kept from awful truths too long, the truth becomes an 'evil' to avoid -- and in the end, truth usually prevails whether it is popular or not.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  •  
    Political correctness is ruining this country. Anything that anyone says is bound to offend someone sometime. If I say I like hamburgers it would probably offend a vegan, but so what. We have too many "professional victims" in the U.S. who want the government to protect them from everything that might be offensive. Nanny state, here we come.
     -- jim kilpatrick, austin,tx     
  •  
     -- Julz, Lancaster      
     
    Rate this quote!
    How many stars?
    0
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5

     
    What do YOU think?
    Your name:
    Your town:
        CLICK JUST ONCE!

    More Quotations
    Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
    RSS Subscribe
    Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

    © 1998-2017 Liberty-Tree.ca