THE FACTS
Dieu reçoit is a comedy show with a religious satirical theme, which is evident from the show’s title. Intended as a weekly program, it made its debut on Télévision Quatre Saisons (TQS) (Montreal) on February 16, 1999 and, as matters evolved, it ceased to be broadcast after April 23.
The show is set in "Heaven", as it might be popularly conceived, namely, atop white fluffy clouds and with the Pearly Gates at its entrance. The counterpoint to this classic setting is quickly evidenced, however, by scenes of a bouncer standing guard at the Pearly Gates, a busy receptionist taking messages for God, and the depiction of God himself as a scrawny-looking administrator with glasses and a mustache. The show follows a talk/variety format in which, among other things, God plays host to a weekly special guest, who is brought to Heaven following a humourously staged death which occurs at the beginning of the show. God entertains his guest by bringing back "on stage" famous deceased artists, by giving a tour of Heaven and by showing scenes of life on Earth, as it was, as it is now and as it would be if certain events were to happen, on his "oracle" viewing screen.
The show’s humour is deeply rooted in Quebec culture, history and politics, and, as the foregoing descriptions attest, it pokes constant fun at religion in general and the Catholic religion in particular. On February 16, Dieu reçoit included the following dialogue [a more complete transcription of that show is available in Appendix A]:
Ange: Ah, Dieu, votre fils Jésus, il est complètement soul.
Dieu: Encore!
Ange: C’est pas de sa faute. Chaque fois qu’il boit de l’eau, ça se change en vin.
Dieu: Mais il peut boire du lait.
Ange: Ça se change en Bailey’s.
The February 16 episode also included the following skit depicting Sunday morning mass as such a popular event that a doorman has to turn parishioners away, advising them to return the following Sunday, once the Church has reached its maximum capacity. In this skit, the priest enters with great fanfare, tossing what appear to be communion hosts into the crowd. The dialogue was as follows:
Une voix: Directement de la paroisse Saint-Narcisse de Fleurimont, c’est la messe du dimanche avec votre curé le Père Massicotte.
Père: Merci. Merci beaucoup. Y a-tu du monde dans la salle icitte à soir?
Tous: OUI !
Père: À vous tous, le Christ ouvre son coeur, lui qui est venu pour nous sauver. L’abbé Marsan aussi est venu, mais ce n’est pas pour nous sauver, c’est pour jouer de l’orgue! L’abbé Marsan. [Musique d’orgue]
Père: Chers paroissiens, chères paroissiennes, chers petits paroissiaux, ça vous est-tu déjà arrivé, vous autres, d’être bien, bien tentés de faire quelque chose qui allait à l’encontre de vos valeurs morales? C’est ce qui est arrivé à notre Seigneur Jésus. Un jour qu’il marchait dans le désert, par un soleil chaud et brûlant, le diable l’interpelle et lui dit: « Jésus, veux-tu de la 15?» Le Seigneur a résisté même s’il commençait à faire des cloches dans le visage. C’est d’ailleurs ce qu’on a appelé les fameuses cloches de Jérusalem. Le Seigneur a résisté car il avait la foi. [Chantant] Il est grand mystère de la foi. ... Amen. ... [buvant de la coupe] Santé, tout le monde.
Avoir foi en Jésus, c’est aussi avoir foi en la vie éternelle. Il est rassurant de penser que le Seigneur a dit: Heureux les simples d’esprit, car le royaume de Dieu vous appartient. Le Parlement aussi. C’est dans cet esprit d’ouverture et de générosité que le Seigneur a également dit: « Laissez venir à moi les petits enfants.» Parabole qui a été mal interprétée par certains de mes collègues. OK, elle est rough, elle est rough... Mais je l’ai bénie avant de la dire!
En guise de sermon, j’aimerais vous réciter l’évangile selon Saint Luc. [Musique solennelle] Mais non, quelque chose de plus funky, avec un peu de... tu sais, là? AH! [en chantant]
C’est en r’venant de Jérusalem
J’ai vu des Romains
2-3 égyptiens,
Des Nazaréens.
Puis Jésus dans l’coin
Cloué sur la croix
Ça fait pas mal aux doigts
Et les 2 larrons
J’sais plus trop leur nom.
Marie-Madeleine
Elle avait en d’la peine.
La passion du Christ je vais la raconter.
Ça a pourtant bien commencé.
Deux gros barbus se joignent à Jésus.
Ils sentent la morue
Puis là ça se peut plus,
Ils sont prêts à croire
N’importe quelle histoire.
Du moment qu’ils mangent
Le reste ça s’arrange.
Envoie le vin fin
Fait multiplier les pains
Puis change l’eau en vin.
Ensemble ils sont partis prêcher.
C’est pas loin qu’la chicane a pogné,
Jésus il est hot;
Le monde il capote,
Les juifs sont jaloux
Les Romains itou.
[Retour à la prose] Sur le mont des oliviers, ce soir-là, le barbu prêchait à des milliers de personnes. C’est alors que Jésus s’est approché et lui a dit: «Jean-Marc, tasse-toi de là, c’est ma place!» Jésus prit le pain, rendit gr âce, le donna à ses disciples en disant: «Ceci est mon corps, livré pour vous, en 30 minutes c’est garanti!»
Jésus était sur la croix alors que Marie-Madeleine lui frottait les pieds. Jésus lui dit: "Marie-Madeleine, cesse de me frotter les pieds; tu es rendu à l’os!" "Seigneur, je ne te frotte pas les pieds, je shine le clou!"
[En chantant] Voilà, cette messe est terminée. Merci. Merci beaucoup.
The following (February 23) episode contained the following dialogue [a more complete transcript is provided in Appendix A]:
Une Voix: Avis à tous les Anges, voici Dieu.
[Applaudissements]
Dieu: Ça va bien, mes anges?
Anges [les spectateurs]: Oui.
Dieu: Moi, j’ai un petit peu de misère.
Anges [les spectateurs]: Ohhh.
Dieu: Ah oui, ah oui, ah oui. Je regarde les humains puis je les trouve arrièrés. Ah oui, ah oui, ah oui. À l’église catholique, tu as le Vatican qui se prononce contre l’homosexualité. Voyons donc ! C’est comme Patrick Roy parler contre les goalers. Le Pape, il s’est mis riche avec la Bible; j’ai jamais eu une maudit cenne de droits d’auteur là- dessus.
The Letters of Complaint
This is perhaps the first occasion on which the Council has received numerous letters of complaint prior to the first broadcast of a show. The Council assumes that many of those people were reacting to media reports about the show’s upcoming debut and were outraged by the reported premise of the show. The Council responded to these complaints with an explanation of the fact that its mandate requires the actual broadcast of a program before the CBSC can become involved. There is not, in fact, any body, governmental (such as the CRTC) or private (such as the CBSC) which has the mandate to intervene with respect to an anticipated broadcast. As the Ontario Regional Council stated, in its recent decision in CITY-TV re Fashion Television (Adult Film Stars Photo Shoot) (CBSC Decision 97/98-1261, June 17, 1999):
The CBSC’s mandate is one of responsiveness to public complaints and not censorship by way of anticipation of potential Code breaches. In the event of the expression of concern by one or more members of the public, the CBSC will become involved in the resolution of a complaint; however, it will always await such a complaint before becoming involved in a programming issue. In that sense, therefore, members of the public should be aware that all programming will escape the notice of the CBSC (or the CRTC, which operates on the same basis) unless and until it becomes the subject of a written complaint. Canadian society is, on balance, far better served that way.
The point is that Canadian broadcasting oversight procedures do not include censorship of programming prior to its broadcast. Broadcasters choose their programming in light of the standards they have agreed to abide by. It is only where there are concerns raised regarding something that has been broadcast that the Council will become involved. As stated in CILQ-FM re the Howard Stern Show (CBSC Decision 97/98-0487, 488, 504 and 535, February 20, 1998):
It is neither the role nor duty of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council to tell Canadians what they can or cannot see and hear on their radios and television sets. In the aftermath of the first Stern decision, those who have in various fora accused the Council of attempting to act as a censor, have missed the point of the Council's raison d'être.
The CBSC has been assigned the responsibility to assess, on the basis of complaints by the public, whether its member radio and television stations have in fact adhered to the standards and practices which the broadcasters themselves have adopted as acceptable codes of conduct. Whether or not CBSC decisions, either in favour of, or against its broadcast members, are unpopular with the industry or the general public is not at issue.
Consequently, in accordance with the system, Dieu reçoit was broadcast as scheduled and, predictably, complaints began to pour in to the CRTC and CBSC from various church groups and religious organizations as well as private citizens. The Council opened a total of 500 files with respect to Dieu reçoit, many of which contained petitions. In all, over 14,000 persons, either individually or collectively, registered their opposition to the show, more than had ever complained to the CBSC about any single program.
In accordance with CBSC procedure, each complaint was forwarded to the broadcaster for response. Due, however, to the great quantity of complaints received by the Council in a short period of time, each of the steps in the "dialogue phase" (which includes the response from the CRTC and the CBSC to complainants, the remittance of the complaints to the broadcaster and the broadcaster’s response to each complaint) cumulatively took far more time than would normally be the case. In fact, the flood of complaints was such that TQS was still responding to complaints about the show at the "dialogue phase" after they had removed the program from the air. As a result, at least in part, only 10 files, representing 118 complainants, contained Ruling Requests that their complaint be adjudicated by the CBSC's Quebec Regional Council.
While pertinent excerpts from some of these letters of complaint can be found in Appendix B, the Council notes that the overwhelming majority of the complainants expressed concern over the blasphemous content of the program. In the words of one complainant, as an example:
[Translation] From the first to the last minute of this program, the religion of a segment of Quebec’s population is systematically held up to ridicule. Not only does this constitute a lack of respect towards a segment of the population characterised by their religion (an attitude which approximates anti-Semitism and other ideologies which have been rejected by civilised society) but it also, and especially, constitutes a discriminatory attitude and a violation of the fundamental right, guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to practice the religion of our choice without being discriminated against on this basis.
Another important theme of the complaints revolved around the argument that "[translation] had this program targeted Muslims, Mohammedans or Jews there would have been a serious public outcry."
In addition to the above-noted concerns regarding the substance of the show, some complainants also complained about the early hour at which the show was broadcast, thereby making it accessible to children, to be an aggravating factor.
The Broadcaster’s Response
Prior to its decision to remove the show from its programing schedule, TQS’s Vice-President, Communications, responded to each complaint with following:
[Translation] First of all, permit me to note that we have considered various legal opinions and precedent setting decisions on similar issues. Based on this information, we believe that Dieu reçoit respects the regulations as well as the Code of Ethics of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters.
Notwithstanding, in response to the various concerns which have been brought to our attention, we have decided to make certain changes. We will ensure that the next six episodes do not include any content that may unduly disparage the beliefs of certain people. Moreover, the time slot for the last six episodes will be changed to Fridays at 10:30 p.m. from its original time slot of 7 p.m. on Tuesdays. Finally, from now on, an advisory will be broadcast at the beginning of every episode in order to warn viewers that while the content of the show is intended to be humourous, some may find the show’s content offensive.
It was not the intention of either TQS or the producers of the show to attack anyone’s beliefs or convictions. We endorse the principles underlying the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and we hope that the rescheduling and greater vigilance regarding the show’s content will achieve the delicate balance between the competing values and freedoms enshrined therein.
Once the decision was made to remove the show from the programming schedule, the broadcaster began to respond to complainants with the following short letter:
The CBSC has forwarded your letter expressing concern regarding the program Dieu reçoit broadcast on TQS.
Please note that the program is no longer broadcast as of last April 23rd.
We thank you for making your concerns known to us.
THE DECISION
The CBSC’s Quebec Regional Council considered the complaint under the human rights provision of the Code of Ethics of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB). This provision reads 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.
The Regional Council members viewed tapes of the programs in question and reviewed all of the correspondence. The Council did not find that the broadcasts in question violate the Code provision cited above.
The Content of the Program
The main concern regarding Dieu reçoit is that the show is blasphemous. For many complainants, the inevitable result of such a characterisation of the program is that a human rights violation must have occurred. There is, however, more to the issue than this and the Council does not share the view that a link necessarily exists between the existence of blasphemy and a violation of the human rights provision of the Code of Ethics. In Comedy Network re Bill Maher Special (CBSC Decision 97/98-0560, July 28, 1998), the CBSC’s first decision dealing with the issue of blasphemy head on, the Ontario Regional Council stated:
"Blasphemy" is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "Profane speaking of God or sacred things; impious irreverence." The adjective "profane" is itself defined as "Characterized by disregard or contempt of sacred things; irreverent, blasphemous; impious, irreligious, wicked." Finally, "irreverence" is defined as "disrespect to a person or things held sacred or worthy of honour."
It may be that the Church has a strict and conservative view or definition of the foregoing words but it is not such definitions which the CBSC considers applicable in defining broadcast standards. For that purpose, the Council begins, as always, with the principle that freedom of expression is the basis of broadcaster entitlements. Indeed, since the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is at the root of all Canadian speech. Article 2(b) of the Charter provides that "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication" are fundamental attributes of Canadian society.
... [T]he CBSC considers that blasphemy alone would not be sufficient to constitute a violation of the CAB Code of Ethics. It would need to be hateful, not merely irreverent, comment, abusively discriminatory, not merely impious or irreligious. At this point in the 20th century, the CBSC expects that comedians are entitled to question tradition and to tickle formal and possibly outdated values without finding themselves, for that reason alone, exceeding Canadian broadcast standards.
The Council did not consider that any of the jokes in the Bill Maher special "attain[ed] a level which could be characterized as disdainful, much less hateful." The Council noted that "There is undeniably a level of irreverence but it is light-hearted, not heavy-handed. It is flippant and casual but not disrespectful."
More recently in, CFNY-FM re Humble & Fred ("Danger Boy on a Cross") (CBSC Decision 97/98-0644, February 3, 1999), the Council found that the entire concept of a mock crucifixion in the days leading up to Easter "was irreverent and possibly even in bad taste" but did not breach the Code. The Council stated
Religion is not, after all, immune from farce, sarcasm or parody. The issue to determine is whether the barb has become a poison arrow, and whether, in other words, the humoristic device has stepped over the farcical threshold and into the bitter and nasty territory of abusively discriminatory comment. Disrespectful and even apparently harsh words may be on the safe side of that threshold despite the sensitivity of the listener of the same religious persuasion or even the listener who is sympathetically inclined. The Council considers that, broadly speaking, gibes and parodies which are directed ad religionem are likelier to pass the test than those which are ad personam on the basis of religion although, even in the latter case, they must amount to abusively discriminatory comment on that account to fail the test.
In this case, the Council finds that the humour in Dieu reçoit is undeniably irreverent, certainly impious and arguably, at times, in bad taste. It is casual and flippant with respect to certain traditional Catholic practices, even as to the undeified appearance and nature of God. It is not, however, in the Council’s view, at any time, bitter, nasty, disdainful or hateful about Catholicism and certainly never about individuals on the basis of their religion. Accordingly, the Council does not find that a breach of Clause 2 of the CAB Code of Ethics has occurred in this case.
Christianity vs. Other Faiths
In light of some of the comments made in the complaints, the Council considers it appropriate to note that, in coming to the above conclusion, the Council has not considered the mocking of certain attitudes, traditions or practices of the Christian faith, and Catholicism in particular, as any less serious than the mocking of any other faith or religion. In this regard, the Council notes the comments of the Ontario Regional Council in the CFNY-FM case referred to above:
In almost all cases which have come before the CBSC as the result of a public complaint, the religion in question has been a Christian religion, whether Protestant or Catholic. This may result from the case that Christianity in its broadest sense is the dominant religion in Canada, therefore, the religion best known to the population and the one which would be likeliest to be publicly parodied. Quite simply, the parodying of less representative religions may not reach the lowest familiarity level of a broad enough segment of the population to "work" with the target audience.
It does not in the end matter why this is the case since the principles established in the various CBSC decisions on the subject would be as applicable to any religious group. What matters ultimately relates to the clash of the right of freedom of speech and the right of broadcast audiences to be free from abusively discriminatory comment on the basis of religion, as well as other grounds enumerated in Clause 2 of the CAB Code of Ethics.
Any careful review of the jurisprudence of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council will immediately reveal that it has been as substantively protective of any religious, ethnic, linguistic, national or cultural group as any other or, when appropriate in the other direction, as willing to permit justifiable (that is, non-abusive) discriminatory comment regarding any religious, ethnic, linguistic, national or cultural group as any other. The CBSC’s issues are always treated at the underlying macro level and not at a micro level associated with any religious, ethnic, linguistic, national or cultural group.
Scheduling
The Council notes that numerous complainants were very concerned about the accessibility of this program to children. In CITY-TV re Ed the Sock (CBSC Decision 94/95-0100, August 23, 1995), the CBSC had its first opportunity to examine issues of principle relating to the watershed hour. The Ontario Regional Council there observed, among other things, that
In its literal sense, [the watershed], of course, denotes the line separating waters flowing into different rivers or river basins. Popularly, the term has been applied to threshold issues but the literal meaning of the word gives the best visual sense of programming falling on one side or the other of a defined line, in this case a time line. Programming seen as suitable for children and families falls on the early side of the line; programming targeted primarily for adults falls on the late side of the line. It should be noted that the definition of that time line varies from country to country, from 8:30 p.m. in New Zealand to 10:30 p.m. in France. (Great Britain, Finland, South Africa and Australia all share the Canadian choice of 9:00 p.m. as the watershed.)
In Canada, the watershed was developed as a principal component of the 1993 Violence Code, establishing the hour before which no violent programming intended for adult audiences would be shown. Despite the establishment of the watershed for that purpose, the Council has reason to believe that broadcasters regularly consider this hour as a rough threshold for other types of adult programming. ...
In CFMT-TV re an Episode of "The Simpsons" (CBSC Decision 94/95-0082, August 18, 1995), the Ontario Regional Council elaborated on the significance of the watershed hour and the tendency for broadcasters to apply it not only to programming containing violent material intended for adult audiences but also programming containing other kinds of material deemed by the broadcaster to be more suitable for mature viewers.
There has been a tendency, since the introduction of the 9:00 pm watershed hour for everyone to treat that moment as the Great Divide. The community has tended to consider that all post-watershed programming falls into the "adults only" category and that all pre-watershed programming falls into the "suitable for everyone, including young children" category. Neither generalization is wholly accurate.
... [M]aterial broadcast in the early evening falls within "the rich broadcasting fare" mentioned above and should be vetted by parents as to its suitability in their homes.
In this case, the Council notes that TQS changed the show’s time slot after the first two broadcasts in response to complaints it had received. Since then, the Council also notes that the show has been completely taken off the air. While the Council does not consider that the broadcaster erred in scheduling Dieu reçoit at its original early evening time slot, it does commend the broadcaster on its quick response to concerns raised about the scheduling of the controversial program.
As a final note in this connection, the CBSC has often observed that a broadcaster’s decision to accede to the requests of viewers (or listeners) is a mark of its responsiveness to its market, not an admission of the breach of any broadcast standards. Even in circumstances where, as here, a program is not found to have exceeded the broadcasters’ own common set of broadcast principles, its broadcaster may determine that its show would be better modified or even removed from the airwaves to accommodate the tastes of its audience. This neither adds to nor takes away from the Council’s role as the independent arbiter regarding questions of compliance (or non-compliance) with the Codes which it administers.
Broadcaster Responsiveness
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.
This decision is a public document upon its release by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council. It may be reported, announced or read by the station against which the complaint had originally been made; however, in the case of a favourable decision, the station is under no obligation to announce the result.