NOTICE TO LISTENERS: THIS EPISODE DISCUSSES A RACIAL SLUR (BUT WE DON'T USE IT)

We also note both commenters are racially white and do not pretend to be able to speak to systemic racism, except in general terms and that this episode is not intended, even indirectly, as a collateral attack on the decision's holding. Rather, the CRTC's way of approaching the issue legally and procedurally is what is discussed.  Since the recording, the CBC has claimed to appeal the decision, but is also agreeing to follow the CRTC's expectations (to issue an apology), which is interesting given the discussion on the episode (see below).

Returning guest Monica Auer of Canada’s Forum for Research and Policy in Communications (FRPC) discusses the procedural and legal oddities of the CRTC's N-word decision such as why this decision was not dealt with as part of the CBC's licence renewal proceeding, which ran in parallel, and whether the decision can be appealed or petitioned to Cabinet. We also review the more traditional ways to enforce inappropriate language in broadcasts, previous CRTC rulings on broadcast content and similar situations in the past, as well as the unexpectedly difficult efforts to get the CBC's 'Tandem' service discussed in the CBC's licence hearing, a consideration that the complaint at issue in this episode did not get. We then have a discussion of how the decision is structured avoids finding the CBC in breach of its licence or the Radio Regulations and the requirements to alert Parliament or to face a fine. Finally, we close with the concept of freedom of expression as filtered through the Broadcasting Act and the limits on that expression when speech is broadcast, under the Act's s. 3(1)(g) "high standard" requirement. We close with a discussion of whether Bill C-11 can be amended to avoid this type of awkward approach by the CRTC in the future.

Make a donation to PIAC, right now, through Canada Helps: https://www.piac.ca/become-a-donor/