1. I have been advised that legally what occurred constitutes defamation of character and a breach of the Broadcast Standards Act.

2. I cannot get legal aid to pursue this matter through the courts.

3. When I contacted City T.V. they refused to allow me to view the tapes unless I had a court order to do so plus a fee of $45.00. They also advised me that the segment did refer to a "family member namely the speaker’s aunt." There was also reference to my disability and disabilities in general.

4. I will seek political action if this is not resolved to my satisfaction and the satisfaction of the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped.

The CBSC’s Ontario Regional Council considered the complaint under Clauses 2 and 6 of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ (CAB) Code of Ethics. The relevant portions of the texts of these clauses read as follows:

CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 2 (Human Rights)

Recognizing that every person has a right to full and equal recognition and to enjoy certain fundamental rights and freedoms, broadcasters shall endeavour to ensure, to the best of their ability, that their programming contains no abusive or discriminatory material or comment which is based on matters of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status or physical or mental handicap.

CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 6, Paragraph 3

It is recognized that the full, fair and proper presentation of news, opinion, comment and editorial is the prime and fundamental responsibility of the broadcast publisher.

The Regional Council members viewed a tape of the program in question and reviewed all of the correspondence. The Council considers that the program in question does not violate either of the above-noted provisions.

The Council will review the reasons for underscoring the importance of ensuring the broadest scope for that speech which is socio-political in nature, whether critical or laudatory of governmental, political, public, educational or other institutions which impact on the daily lives of the public. Before doing so, however, the Regional Council considers it wise to re-examine briefly its long-standing principles on the question of alleged violations by broadcasters of the human rights provision of its Code of Ethics. It is, after all, important for the CBSC to reiterate, from relevant decision to decision, since the complainants and broadcasters differ from case to case, that it is not any reference to "race, national or ethnic origin, religion, age, sex, [sexual orientation], marital status or physical or mental handicap" which will be sanctioned under the ‘human rights’ provision of the CAB Code of Ethics. It is rather only those references which are considered by the Council to be abusively discriminatory. The rationale underlying this principle was clearly reviewed most recently in CFUN-AM re The John and JJ Show (Immigration Policy) (CBSC Decision 97/98-0422, May 20, 1998):

It could not be every instance of discriminatory comment which would be found to be in breach of the "human rights" provision of the CAB Code of Ethics for, in a technical sense, every statement regarding an identifiable group is discriminatory. As this Council put the point in CFTO-TV re "Tom Clark’s Canada" (CBSC Decision 97/98-0009, February 26, 1998):

Early on, the Council recognized that Clause 2 of the CAB Code of Ethics requires a weighing of competing values. In CHTZ-FM re the Morning Show (CBSC Decision 92/93-0148, October 26, 1993) the Council noted that "it must balance the right of audiences to receive programming which is free of abusive or discriminatory material ... with the fundamental right of free speech in Canadian society." The application of this balancing act in various CBSC decisions evolved into an "abusiveness criteria"; i.e. the establishment of a "test" whereby a comment must not merely be discriminatory to constitute a breach of Clause 2, it must be abusively so.

The Council does not, in the circumstances of this case, consider that the comments made by the second speaker can be considered abusively discriminatory vis-à-vis persons with a physical handicap. In the first place, they are not reflective of persons with physical handicaps at all. The context of the Speakers Corner in question related to access to social programs and not to physical handicap. The critical comments of the second speaker were focussed on his belief that persons without legitimate qualifying ailments should not be able to access those public funds.

Moreover, in the CFUN decision referred to above, the B.C. Regional Council also commented on the extent of freedom of expression as it relates to socio-political commentary. Those comments which are most relevant to this case are as follows:

... The Council notes that, while freedom of expression has its limits in Canada, the freedom to criticize Government policies and practices is a core example of freedom of expression, in some senses the very root of that right in a democratic system. Unless, therefore, the exploiter of that right to challenge Government policies has overstepped another equally basic standard, such as, for example, the right of members of an identifiable group to be free from abuse, that right to challenge will be sustained. In this case, the Council finds that the exercise of their freedom of expression by the hosts, John and JJ, must outweigh any danger, as suggested by the complainant, that the references "cast suspicion on all immigrants."

In the circumstances, the Ontario Regional Council considers that the criticism by one of the "speakers" of "persons who just sit around and collect disability" was made, not about persons with physical disabilities but about the benefits of publicly-funded programs. The broadcaster had also taken the trouble to provide the public with two, not one, comments on that subject. The Council has no hesitation in concluding that the challenged comments should not be sanctioned pursuant to Clause 2 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

As to the question of identification of the complainant, the Council considers that, had the segment permitted an identified individual to be harshly criticized by an apparent member of her family, this might have offended certain privacy principles which underlie the principle of "full, fair and proper presentation of ... opinion [and] comment" provided in the third paragraph of Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics. The Council does not consider it necessary, however, to deal with this particular issue here as the segment complained of was purged of all identifying elements by the broadcaster prior to airing. To the extent that the complainant considered herself "identified" or targeted by her nephew’s comments, it would only, in effect, have occurred within the context of her family and friends and not in the broad context of the broadcaster’s audience.

In addition to assessing the relevance of the Codes to the complaint, the CBSC always assesses the responsiveness of the broadcaster to the substance of the complaint. In this case, the Council considers that the broadcaster’s response addressed fully and fairly all the issues raised by the complainant. Consequently, the broadcaster has not breached the Council’s standard of responsiveness. Nothing more is required.