Two dissenting positions included with final decision
OTTAWA – The CRTC is forcing national public broadcaster Société Radio-Canada (SRC) to make a public written apology to a complainant who asked the Commission to reconsider the findings of the SRC’s French services ombudsman regarding the use of the “N-word” in French on the program Le 15-18.
A decision on the matter, issued today, specifies the SRC is also required to report to the Commission by Sept. 27 “on internal measures and programming best practices that it will put in place to ensure that it better addresses similar issues in the future.”
As the segment referred to in the decision is still available online, the SRC will further have to “indicate how it intends to mitigate the impact of the “N-word” in this segment of the program by no later than 29 July 2022.”
Two dissenting opinions were included with the decision.
At issue is an August 2020 segment titled Actualité avec Simon Jodoin: Certaines idées deviennet-elles taboues? (News with Simon Jodoin: Do certain ideas become taboo?), which aired during the radio program Le 15-18 on ICI Radio-Canada Première.
During the segment commentator Jodoin and the show’s host Annie Desrochers discussed a petition for the dismissal of a Concordia University professor who quoted the title of a book containing the “N-word” in French during a class.
“The commentator shared his opinion on the acceptability of naming the title of the book and, more specifically, the consequences stemming from the controversy surrounding its mention, claiming that it obscures the content of the work and the author’s thoughts,” the CRTC decision explains.
The “N-word” was used four times (once in English, three times in French) during the segment, which was six minutes and 27 seconds long.
“… the SRC did not implement all the necessary measures to mitigate the impact of the “N-word” on its audience, particularly in the current social context and given its national public broadcaster status” – CRTC majority decision
An individual filed a complaint about the segment with the Commission and the SRC French services ombudsman on Aug. 28, 2020, which was forwarded to the program’s first head of content.
“In his complaint, the complainant condemned, among other things, the fact that the program’s commentator had mentioned the full title of the book and, consequently, the “N-word,” on a number of occasions on air, without providing any warning or explanation of the baggage associated with that word,” the CRTC’s decision says. “He added that a person historically affected by the term should have been invited to the discussion to talk about the impact of the use of the word.”
The program’s first head of content responded to the complaint by saying “the term was used strictly to quote a work,” and indicating “she did not consider the use of the term abusive or inconsiderate,” according to the decision.
The complainant then turned to the SRC’s French services ombudsman, who “agreed that the “N-word” is an inaccurate and dehumanizing slur and that it should not be used on the airwaves to describe a Black person,” the decision explains. The ombudsman, however, also indicated “he does not consider that the SRC should ban the use of the term in all contexts, but rather that it should be used appropriately and responsibly, such as in cases where the requirement for clarity justifies its use.”
The ombudsman ultimately concluded the segment was not in contravention of the SRC’s journalistic standards and practices.
In November 2020, the Commission received a request for it to reconsider the ombudsman’s findings.
In its decision today, the CRTC indicated it “is dissatisfied with the way the subject matter was treated in this segment.” The Commission concluded the content of the segment “goes against the Canadian broadcasting policy objectives and values,” and considered “the SRC did not implement all the necessary measures to mitigate the impact of the “N-word” on its audience, particularly in the current social context and given its national public broadcaster status.”
“The Decision will have unintended consequences leading to journalistic chill, silencing discussion and encouraging censorship” – Joanne T. Levy, CRTC commissioner
A dissenting opinion by Caroline J. Simard, CRTC vice-chair of broadcasting argues the majority decision is based on the premise that the French word used in the title of the book has evolved in a way where it deserves the same treatment as the “N-word” in English in Canada.
“Without evidence on the record or consultation with Canadians, including a critical mass of representatives of the Black French-speaking community who have publicly advocated for a respectful treatment of language and cultural specificities for the “mot ‘n’” in French, especially when used in the title of a book, the majority decision has taken a step I cannot take,” the dissenting opinion reads.
“The majority agreed that the “mot ‘n’” was not used in a discriminatory manner in this broadcast. Yet in my view, the majority decision ignored the applicable law and fell back on public policy objectives to uphold the complaint,” Simard wrote.
“Without legal foundation, the majority also imposed restrictive measures on Radio-Canada. In this case, neither the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Canadian Charter) nor the applicable broadcasting provisions protect the complainant’s right to not be offended. In my view, the applicable law supported dismissing the Complaint.”
A separate dissenting opinion, written by Joanne T. Levy, CRTC commissioner, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, also argues the majority decision ignores the Canadian Charter, specifically the right to freedom of the press.
Levy also argues the provision in the Broadcasting Act calling for programming to be of high quality “is a subjective test that defies transparency, fairness and predictability,” and that changing social context is not a sufficient reason “for ignoring context, tone and previous CRTC decisions.”
She goes so far as to assert “The Decision will have unintended consequences leading to journalistic chill, silencing discussion and encouraging censorship.”
For the complete decision and dissenting opinions, please click here.
