The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) demands a public apology from Radio-Canada for having “lack of respect and sensitivity” by broadcasting a column in which the title of the book by Pierre Vallières, white niggers of america (which was the subject), was quoted.
Posted at 7:00 a.m.
Radio-Canada must reject this injunction for several reasons, the first being the intrusion of a regulatory body into the editorial policy of the public broadcaster. By invoking Article 3 of the Broadcasting Act which essentially says that the content presented by the SRC must be “of high quality”, the Commission is completely misinterpreting its power to intervene and literally flouting the editorial independence of the broadcaster.
It should be recalled that the content of the column that was the subject of a complaint had, in 2020, been deemed “non-discriminatory” by the Radio-Canada ombudsman, which the CRTC itself recognizes. In his decision, the ombudsman considered that the column complied with the Radio-Canada journalistic standards and practices (among the most demanding, if not the most demanding in the country, in terms of fairness and rigour).
In substance, the mention of the title on the air constitutes a factual statement which, moreover, has historical value.
We cannot ignore the fact that the CRTC, by its decision, denies the history of Quebec and, in this particular case, an episode where French-speaking thinkers from Canada and black Americans came together in the name of a discrimination that we would say today “systemic” and that they considered shared.
The CRTC itself demonstrated the impossible linguistic contortion it would like to impose on Radio-Canada by obliterating a word from a title while quoting it itself fifteen times in its decision in which it criticizes the columnist and the host for having said it four times on the airwaves…
In its decision, the CRTC writes that “licensed licensees are responsible for broadcasting programs that comply at all times with the standards established by the company”. Does this mean that freedom of expression only exists for comments and content that comply with social norms?
That Radio-Canada would therefore have the obligation to broadcast content that is in line with the majority and dominant opinion? In our view, this is an indefensible position, contrary to the very idea of freedom of expression.
Radio-Canada must therefore not apologize and, while respecting its own standards, must defend its freedom of editorial judgment, in particular by appealing this decision. The legal bases of such an appeal to the Federal Court are moreover very well explained in one of the dissenting opinions of the CRTC’s decision, signed by its vice-president, broadcasting, Caroline J. Simard. This very aptly recalls the opinion of the Supreme Court to the effect that there is no “right not to be offended” in Canada.
This decision must be appealed.
* Co-signatories: Paule Beaugrand-Champagne, former president of the Quebec Press Council; Claudine Blais, former editor-in-chief at Radio-Canada; Luc Chartrand, former journalist and correspondent for Radio-Canada; Pierre Craig, ex-journalist and host of Radio-Canada; Bernard Derome, ex-journalist and host of Newscast from Radio-Canada; Renaud Gilbert, ex-ombudsman of Radio-Canada; Geneviève Guay, former director of radio information for Radio-Canada; Jean-François Lépine, former journalist and host of Radio-Canada; Julie Miville-Dechêne, independent senator and former Radio-Canada ombudsman; Anne Panasuk, former Radio-Canada journalist; Claude Saint-Laurent, former director general of information (television) at Radio-Canada; Alain Saulnier, former director general of information at Radio-Canada; Pierre Tourangeau, ex-ombudsman of Radio-Canada