CBSC: Jump to Content

CANADIAN BROADCAST STANDARDS COUNCIL PRAIRIE REGIONAL PANEL CJAY-FM re Forbes and Friends (Parody song re Chinese restaurant & Thai sex trade workers) (CBSC Decision 03/04-0259) Decided April 16, 2004 D. Ish (Chair), V. Cownden, D. Dobbie, V. Dubois, J. Fong and R. Gallagher

THE FACTS

The November 5 and 6, 2003 episodes of the morning show Forbes and Friends, on CJAY-FM (Calgary), parodied then current news reports.  The November 7 episode revisited the news story of the previous day without parody this time. 

On the first broadcast in question, the hosts' brief comments on the report that dog and coyote remains were found in a freezer in an Edmonton Chinese restaurant were followed by a parody song that implied that cat meat might be a menu item instead of the chicken, beef, or pork listed there.  This parody song was dealt with by this Panel in CJKR-FM re Announcer Comments (CBSC Decision 99/00-0130, May 5, 2000) (the lyrics of that song, as well as all relevant transcriptions of the November 5, 6 and 7 shows are reproduced in Appendix A to this decision). 

On the broadcast that aired the next day, the hosts presented a news story of a police raid on Calgary massage parlours believed to have been operating as common bawdy houses.  The police were attempting to close a trafficking pipeline for Thai sex trade workers.  Charges laid included conspiracy to procure a person to enter Canada to work in a bawdy house, living on the avails of prostitution, keeping a common bawdy house and participation in illegal drug-related activities. The program host, Gerry Forbes, introduced a parody skit by saying that he actually had "a tape from inside the doors" of the massage parlours targeted by the police raid, referred to as "rub 'n' tugs" by the hosts.  The skit went as follows (as indicated above, a more complete transcript is available in Appendix A):   

     

 The morning show crew again dealt with the prostitution ring story the following day on November 7.  The discussion went in part as follows (a more complete transcript is available in Appendix A):

On November 6, a listener who had complained previously to the CBSC about ethnic slurs and whose complaints were the subject of a previous decision involving the same broadcaster [see CJAY-FM Forbes and Friends (Chinese Language "Translations") (CBSC Decision 02/03-1646, April 16, 2004)] sent the CBSC the following message that read in part (see Appendix B to this decision for the full text of this and all other correspondence):

I have another complaint I must make regarding some of the comments made by CJAY 92.1 FM, a radio station in Calgary, Alberta.  [.]

 

The reason I am filing this complaint is that the Forbes and Friends morning crew has once again found it appropriate to continue their array of ethnic skits designed to mock and ridicule Asians in general.  It seems that the morning crew has taken advantage of current events and used that as an excuse to continue their campaign of mockery and ridicule against Asians. 

The following day, the complainant sent another e-mail adding the broadcast date of November 7^th and providing more details concerning his complaint:  The most pertinent parts read as follows:  

My concern is that Mr. Forbes and his coworkers have taken advantage of recent events in Edmonton and Calgary to continue a series of comments and radio skits designed to humiliate and ridicule Asian Canadians. [.]

On November 5th Mr. Forbes and the rest of the morning crew found it amusing that a Chinese Restaurant in Edmonton had the gutted carcasses of dogs or coyotes in its freezer. As a dog owner and Chinese Canadian I am very sorry and even embarrassed that this happened. Mr. Forbes and the rest of the morning crew responded to this situation by playing an interesting radio skit where they suggest all Chinese people eat dogs and cats. 

On November 6^th, Mr. Forbes found it amusing that several Thai sex slaves were arrested in Calgary. The song "Singapore Whore" was played prior to a radio dialogue where an Asian prostitute offers to let a man make love to her in her "ahsk" (ass). The rest of the Morning crew then made rude comments of their own. My question to the morning crew: Do you believe the existence of Asian sex slaves to be amusing? Are Asian women whores to you? 

Today on November 7th at 7:15 a.m. Mr. Forbes, who found the topic of sex slaves to be very funny yesterday called the incident involving Thai sex slaves to be "sad". This is an absolutely a pathetic attempt to redeem himself for the stupidity he gleefully exhibited yesterday. 

In summary, it seems that CJAY 92.1 believes Asian people are dog eating freaks and that the Asian women are whores who deserve to be ridiculed and mocked. 

The broadcaster's Vice President and General Manager responded on November 26.  He said in part:  

I can assure you, Mr. Forbes and his coworkers have not "taken advantage of recent events in Edmonton and Calgary to continue a series of comments and radio skits designed to humiliate and ridicule Asian Canadians."  As stated in my earlier correspondence, I would like to reiterate that the programming in question is meant as comedy. CJAY 92 is a Rock radio station targeting and delivering [to] an audience of adults between 18 and 49 years of age. Due to the nature of our format and our audience, humour is found to be one of the main ingredients of the radio station. The use of dialect voices and skits is by no means "meant to mock or demean Chinese People or the Chinese language". This is subjective humour as is your interpretation. 

In closing I must absolutely disagree with your summary. Our offices and broadcast facilities are located in the Asian community and many of our friends, clients, listeners and neighbours are of Asian decent. CJAY 92 does not "believe that Asian people are dog eating freaks or that Asian women are whores who deserve to be ridiculed and mocked".

The complainant was not satisfied with the response and filed a ruling request on November 26, accompanied by further comments.  Among these he said: 

[.] Due to the brusqueness and asperity of this message, I have come to the conclusion that further correspondence with CJAY 92.1 regarding my complaint will be of little use. I am unsatisfied with the broadcaster's response and would request that the CBSC panel consider my complaint. 

 

THE DECISION 

The CBSC's Prairie Regional Panel considered the complaint under the Canadian Association of Broadcasters' (CAB) Code of Ethics.  The relevant provisions of this Code read as follows: 

CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 2 - Human Rights  

 CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 6 - Full, Fair and Proper Presentation 

CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 9 - Radio Broadcasting 

The Prairie Regional Panel Adjudicators reviewed all of the correspondence as well as a recording of the challenged broadcasts.  While the Panel does not find that the CJAY-FM broadcast in question was unduly discriminatory, it concludes that it did breach the Code provision relating to the use of unduly sexually explicit material. 

Discriminatory Humour 

The Panel notes that the parody song "The Cat's in the Kettle" broadcast on November 5 has been considered by this Panel in an earlier decision, namely, CJKR-FM re Announcer Comments (CBSC Decision 99/00-0130, May 5, 2000).  On that occasion, the host had marked the alleged "anniversary" of a Chinese ban on family pets by playing this same parody song.  This Panel did not agree with that complainant's view that the broadcast was unduly discriminatory towards Chinese people.  In the Panel's view, the commentary was directed  

in small part on the Chinese Government and in larger part on Chinese restaurants.  The Council does not view these as a commentary on the Chinese people at all.  Fundamentally, the combination plays on the idea that, when you order a dish in a Chinese restaurant, you may get cat rather than chicken, beef, fish or pork.

 

The foregoing "humourous" suggestion may be outrageous or in bad taste. If the latter, it is, as the Council has often said, simply a choice for the listener with the on/off switch.  If the former, though, the Council notes that there is no protection granted under the human rights provision of the Code for a profession or an occupation and being a Chinese restaurateur, or any other type of business person of any other ethnic origin, will not entitle one to protection any more than being a policeman did in the case of CKLZ-FM re Announcer Comments (CBSC Decision 94/95-0113, December 18, 1996).   

The Panel took the proposition further, stating that, even if the comments could be reasonably seen to be discriminatory against Chinese people and not merely Chinese restaurateurs, they were neither abusive nor unduly discriminatory.  This case is no different.  If anything, the comment here is even more directly tied to Chinese restaurateurs (indeed, to a specific restaurant) than in the earlier case.   

Turning then to the November 6 broadcast and the "Singapore Whore" skit, the Panel finds that its humour-driven basis is neither abusive nor unduly discriminatory (although it is considered inappropriate for broadcast on another count, as discussed below).  First, the Panel notes that the skit focuses on Singapore sex workers, who are not even of the same nationality as the women caught up in the human smuggling enterprise in Calgary.  At that, the Panel does not consider that the skit paints all Singaporean or Asian women, much less all Thai women, as whores.  The skit is only about those women who work in the sex trade.  There is nothing in the skit which broadens the scope of any discriminatory comment beyond the narrow confine of women sex trade workers. 

Second, the humour of the skit, which may well be in bad taste, is neither nasty nor bludgeoning to use the criteria long ago established by the Ontario Regional Panel in CHFI-FM re the Don Daynard Show (CBSC Decision 94/95-0145, March 26, 1996).  The Prairie Panel finds those comments, which it applied to its ruling on the present complainant's complaint in CJAY-FM re Forbes and Friends (Chinese Language "Translations") (CBSC Decision 02/03-1646, April 16, 2004),  applicable here.  In that decision, also rendered on this date, this Panel stated: 

In the present instance, the Panel concludes that the humour is neither deep nor cutting.  It depends principally on the relatively light-hearted technique frequently applied in cases of ethnically-oriented humour, namely, the use of accents.  While these are generally employed so as to leave the impression that the person or group that is the brunt of the "joke" is inferior, occasionally the issue is simply that the person or group is different.  The Panel believes that this is the case in the matter at hand.  The Panel considers that the Chinese community is not belittled, mocked or marginalized.  It is the object of humour, to be sure, but not on the grounds of any alleged or even implied inadequacy, weakness or failure.  In a somewhat similar circumstance, in CFYI-AM re Scruff Connors and John Derringer Morning Show (CBSC Decision C01/02-279, June 7, 2002), the Ontario Regional Panel added that the "use of an alien accent will require ancillary demeaning, degrading, harsh, nasty or negative commentary or association in order to be found in breach of the Code." 

Accordingly, the Panel finds no breach of the Human Rights provision with respect to the segments identified by the complainant.  The Panel does, however, find that the segments are problematic for another reason. 

Sexual Explicitness in Radio Broadcasting 

The comments of a sexual nature broadcast on November 6 and 7 must be considered in light of Clause 9 of the CAB Code of Ethics, which prohibits the broadcast of unduly sexually explicit content.  In addressing this subject, the Panel notes that, in another decision taken on this date, namely, CJAY-FM re Forbes and Friends (graphic discussion) (CBSC Decision 03/04-0157, April 16, 2004), it has considered the meaning of "explicit" as used in Clause 9.  It stated there that 

In the matter at hand, the Panel notes that the November 6 broadcast contained repetitive references to anal sex.  While a single reference might have been subtle or might have led to a double-entendre, the repetition of those references and the descriptors ("my round inviting ash", "my round supple ash", "my J-Lo ash") in "Singapore Whore" renders the potentially ambivalent term "ash" quite clear and explicit. 

In CJAY-FM re Forbes and Friends (joke songs and parody advertisement) (CBSC Decision 02/03-0674, December 15, 2003), in dealing with a song entitled "My Ex-boyfriend", this Panel discussed euphemisms for anal sex in the following way: 

There may come a point in metaphorical expression when the accumulation of individual metaphors, any one of which might be sufficiently subtle to be excusable, that the body of subtleties becomes unequivocally apparent.  That is the case with "My Ex-boyfriend", which, line-by-line, finds a different metaphorical treatment for sexual acts, principally of the anal variety.  Heard, or read, cumulatively, they are, without doubt, explicit.  They are, moreover, unduly explicit and, as such, in breach of Clause 9(b) of the CAB Code of Ethics.  

The Panel considers that, in this case, some of the morning crew's comments regarding occurrences in common bawdy houses were unduly sexually explicit.  Specifically, the Panel notes the repetition of a prostitute's invitation to have anal intercourse with her as well as the comment "Imagine who's been there before you.  Humm, isn't that lovely!" combined with the reply "Oh, boy. Lot of juice there!"  In the Panel's view, these comments constitute unduly sexually explicit content for morning radio and are in breach of Clause 9 of the CAB Code of Ethics. 

Inappropriate Humour 

In CHMJ-AM re a segment on Loveline (CBSC Decision 02/03-0459, July 22, 2003), the B.C. Regional Panel determined that references to the Holocaust, while not discriminatory towards Jewish people, were inappropriate for use as a humorous device.  That case involved a discussion with a phone sex operator who was seeking a way to keep her clients on the line a bit longer.  The hosts suggested a "subliminal" messaging technique that would dampen the ardour of her callers.  She was instructed to insert such words as "cancer", "Vietnam" and "Holocaust" in her usual spiel.  When, however, she attempted to use the word Holocaust, it was clear that she had no idea either of what the hosts were asking her to do or, indeed, what the Holocaust was.  The hosts made fun of the hapless phone sex worker by further expounding on the Holocaust.  They stated things such as "Yeah, yeah, burn those Jews", "Gas'em in the shower" and "Send'em on a train to Krakow."  The Panel found no breach of the Human Rights Clause as the statements were clearly not intended to discriminate against people of the Jewish faith but the Panel did consider that the humour was sufficiently inappropriate as to constitute a Code breach.  It stated: 

The Panel draws a significant distinction between its conclusion in the previous section regarding the nature of the hosts' remarks about the Holocaust and their use of those references in their humorous dialogue.  The issue in the previous section was racism.  The Panel found none.  The issue here is the employment of the apocalyptic historical event as a humorous crutch.  The Panel readily understands the suggested dampening effect of such non-risible concepts as cancer, Vietnam (in reference, of course, to the 1960s war) and the Holocaust on Lorraine's yearning telephone clients.  It equally understands the intended humour in the ludicrous concept of the sexual purveyor "subliminally" mouthing such words in the midst of her erotic discourse.  It also understands the mockable inanity of the intellectually hapless Lorraine.  When, however, the hosts progressed to the level of "Yeah, yeah, burn those Jews.  Gas 'em in the shower, baby," and so on, even in aid of their sarcastic view of the ignorant "telephone actress", they exceeded any reasonable level of propriety.  The laughter of the hosts directed at the notion of the concentration camp trains and lethal "showers", which combined to exterminate six million Jewish persons, accentuated the inappropriateness. 

 

All in all, the Panel does not consider that the skit concerning Singapore sex workers crossed the line for inappropriate humour so as to constitute a breach of Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics.  That being said, the Panel urges broadcasters to exercise care and sensitivity in developing humour based on tragic events, no matter how topical the stories may be. 

Repetitive Nature of the Broadcaster's Breaches 

This is not the only time that CJAY-FM has been found in breach with respect to sexually explicit content.  See the decision taken on this date by this Panel in CJAY-FM re Forbes and Friends (graphic discussion) (CBSC Decision 03/04-0157, April 16, 2004) for the Panel's decision concerning the repetitive nature of these breaches.      

Broadcaster Responsiveness 

In all CBSC decisions, the Regional Panels assess the broadcaster's responsiveness to the complainant.  Although the broadcaster need not agree with the complainant, it is expected that its representatives charged with replying to complaints will address the complainant's concerns in a thorough and respectful manner.  In this case, the Panel finds that the broadcaster's response was, in this regard, entirely appropriate.  While it did not satisfy the complainant (which is always the case for complaints requiring adjudication), the Panel is satisfied that it addressed the specific points brought up by the complainant.  The Panel considers that CJAY-FM has met its CBSC membership obligations with respect to responsiveness. 

CONTENT OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE DECISION 

CJAY-FM is required to: 1) announce this decision, in the following terms, once during prime time within three days following the release of this decision and once more within seven days following the release of this decision during the time period in which the morning show Forbes and Friends is broadcast; 2) within fourteen days following the broadcast of the announcements, to provide written confirmation of the airing of the announcements to the complainant who filed the Ruling Request; and 3) at that time, to provide the CBSC with that written confirmation and with air check copies of the broadcasts of the two announcements which must be made by CJAY-FM. 

This decision is a public document upon its release by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.