CHNL re NL Newsday with Brett Mineer

English-Language Panel
CBSC Decision 20.2324-0203+
2024 CBSC 1
March 7, 2024
S. Courtemanche (Chair), K. Dubé, K. Hesketh, A. Koschany, C. Sisam, T. Tatto, J. Tiessen

THE FACTS

NL Newsday with Brett Mineer is a talk show on CHNL (Kamloops, British Columbia) which airs weekdays from 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm. Hosted by Brett Mineer, the host and guests discuss current events. During one segment on October 27, 2023, the guest was Umme Mansoory, a representative from the Ayesha Mosque in Kamloops.

In the early morning of October 7, 2023, Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups had conducted an armed assault on Israel. On the same day, Israel declared it was at war with Hamas. Since that date, the events surrounding this conflict have been documented by media worldwide.

Mineer introduced the segment, explaining that Mansoory was appearing on the show to talk about the impact of the events in Gaza on the Kamloops Muslim community as many members of that community had family in Gaza.

Mineer noted that news out of the Middle East was “terrible these days” and that they had talked to Israelis, but he wanted someone with connections to the other side of the conflict to have an opportunity to speak too. Mineer began by asking Mansoory how members of the mosque had been navigating the situation and supporting each other. Mansoory replied that a few members of the Kamloops Muslim community were originally from Palestine and had travel documents from Egypt or Syria “because their families were ethnically cleansed from their ancestral lands and were forced to live in refugee camps in neighbouring countries.” She also confirmed that there were members of the community who had lost family and friends in the conflict.

Mineer then referred to the conflict as a “war in Gaza” and suggested that in the last fifteen years there had been a number of conflicts in the region, but that the current fighting appeared to be “all-out, full-on”, with Israel wanting to “finish off Hamas for good” and civilians were being implicated. He suggested that Hamas’s attacks on October 7 were what had precipitated Israel’s campaign, he acknowledged that there were “a lot [of] inflamed feelings” and he asked Mansoory how the mosque community was navigating the situation. She replied, with the conversation then unfolding as follows:

Mansoory: Um, well Brett, with all due respect, I’m just going to make a little correction here. I think we need to stop calling this a war. It’s not a war. One side is a global nuclear superpower that receives billions of dollars of military aid from the United States in addition to their own twenty-six point six billion dollar budget for military spending. And the other side is nothing more than a refugee camp that was already living under a brutal military siege. Um, and, you know, I’m, I’m really tired of the narrative that Israel is going after Hamas because, um, Palestinians were killed long before Hamas was formed. Um, and they would still be getting killed even if Hamas never existed. Take a look at the occupied West Bank where Hamas doesn’t exist, yet hundreds to thousands of Palestinians are killed every single year. Um, in terms of supporting our community, we’re doing the best that we can. Um, you know, we have been trying to use our collective voice to advocate for change at the governmental level. We are meeting with elected officials and writing to them almost daily, from local politicians to Ottawa and reminding them of the context and history of the illegal occupation of Palestine. We’re reminding elected officials that ethnic cleansing of Indigenous people, genocide and apartheid are not in line with Canadian values, especially –

Mineer: Do you, do you really believe, though, that, that what we’re talking about here is genocide?

Mansoory: Absolutely. There is no question, there’s no denial of that –

Mineer: Do you not think, though, that if, if Israel’s goal was genocide that they would not have been able to do that, like, many times over by now?

Mansoory: Have you not seen, have you not heard elected officials and military generals of Israel calling Palestinians animals, calling for their complete wipe-out? Israeli settlers chanting on the streets saying “Gaza is a cemetery”? This is genocide –

Mineer: Well, Israeli, Israeli, Israeli settlers are not much different than Hamas. I mean, they are, they are religious extremists who are agitators in the region who have caused a lot of problems. I offer no defence of the government of Bibi Netanyahu. Um, you know, he’s, he’s, he’s put the nation at risk, destabilized the region, all of the rest of it. But I, but, but I, I guess I’m just wondering, like, I mean, Hamas, in terms of, like, the support, um, you know, we’re told that –

Mansoory: Okay –

Mineer: – that, that Hamas is not, uh, is not Palestine, but they, like, just as Bibi Netanyahu’s government is a barrier to peace, is not Hamas a barrier to peace?

Mansoory: Um, well, I’m going to first correct you and say that the United Nations does not recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization. In fact, only a few nations do, including the United States of America. But the USA hasn’t been the best judge of who is and isn’t a terrorist because they also considered Nelson Mandela a terrorist until 2008, which is five years before he died. And I’m sure not you nor your listeners would consider Nelson Mandela, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, to be a terrorist. So what I’m going to do, is I’m going to let history decide that for us. Because we might find in ten, twenty, fifty years from now that maybe, just maybe they weren’t the bad guys. And that we’ve been lied to. Which wouldn’t be the first time.

[…]

Mineer: I, I, so, so, so when they, when, when they s-, when Hamas fighters are taking glee in cutting heads off with, with –

Mansoory: Do you have evidence of that, Brett? If you’re going to make a point –

Mineer: Yes. Video. It was on video!

Mansoory: There is no video evidence!

Mineer: It’s on video!

Mansoory: [??] evidence. [??] –

Mineer: It’s on video! The world saw it!

Mansoory: No world has saw it [sic]! The White House [emailed?] and said they did not [the phone call with Mansoory ends].

Mineer: We’re done here. We’re done here. I’m not going to sit here and listen as somebody makes excuses for a group of people that did an incursion into another country, whatever the history of the issue, okay? Whatever the history of the issue, to pretend. I have personally seen the video of them beheading a Thai-Israeli with a garden hoe while he was still alive. And you’re going to defend that?! Not on my show. Not on my show. I have sympathy for Palestinian civilians that are caught in this. But there is no moral equivalence. Hamas is a terrorist organization. And fifteen to twenty years from now when we look back at this, we may have problems with Israel’s conduct of the war, but I guarantee you, fifteen to twenty years from now, nobody is going to be lauding Hamas as heroes.

(A full transcript of the segment is available in Appendix A.)

The CBSC received 157 complaints about this broadcast. Of those, 41 were eligible to go through the CBSC process and, of those 41, seventeen complainants filed Ruling Requests.

A number of issues were raised in the complaints. First, complainants who seemed to have background information about the broadcast alleged that Mansoory and the Kamloops mosque administration had been assured prior to air that the conversation would not become political and would focus only on how the Kamloops Muslim community was supporting its members at a local level. Complainants accused Mineer of leading the conversation into a political debate contrary to CHNL’s assurances.

Second, complainants were concerned that Mineer had mistreated Mansoory by not allowing her adequate time to state her points, by misrepresenting her position, by cutting her off during the conversation and eventually ending the call. They felt he insinuated that she supported terrorism, which could put her safety and reputation at risk. Some also felt that the broadcast incited discrimination against the entire Muslim community because it gave the impression that all Muslims supported terrorism.

Complainants also felt that Mineer treated the topic generally in an unfair, biased and unprofessional manner. Complainants asserted that Mineer tried to “impose his own views”. Some also accused Mineer of “inaccurate reporting”, “spreading lies” and “false claims” without any evidence.

A small number of complainants were also concerned that no trigger warnings preceded the mention of the beheading video. Some also pointed out other related comments Mineer had posted on social media.

CHNL responded to all complainants with the same letter on November 20. CHNL agreed “that the conclusion of the interview was unfortunate, with Mr. Mineer cutting Ms. Mansoory off and ending the interview prematurely.” The station argued that it was the guest who initially engaged in provocative political language by referring to Palestinians as being “ethnically cleansed” from their ancestral lands, leading to a political debate about the historical treatment of Palestinian people. The broadcaster argued that Mineer tried to remain neutral, asking another question about navigating inflamed feelings, but that Mansoory “double[d] down on her politically-charged rhetoric” by disagreeing with Mineer’s characterization of the situation as a “war”. CHNL also questioned her assertion that “hundreds of thousands” of Palestinian people are killed every year by Israel in the West Bank, since, according to CHNL, “the BBC reports that number is closer to 100”.

CHNL also pointed out that Mineer clearly stated that “he is not supportive of the Israeli government nor religious extremists within the Jewish community” and that Mineer attempted to be balanced when he suggested that both sides could be barriers to peace. The broadcaster noted that the Canadian government considers Hamas a terrorist organization and that Mansoory’s attempts to draw a moral equivalency with Nelson Mandela were ill-conceived, causing the conversation to become more heated.

CHNL argued that, after the conversation concluded, Mineer attempted to explain his frustration and continued to refuse to absolve the Israeli government. The station concluded its letter by acknowledging that “there is a tremendous amount of anger and passion around this issue” and that both the Muslim and Jewish communities were experiencing discrimination as a result. It suggested that the interview did not violate any codes and that its host was not “racist, bigoted or intolerant”, did not spread false information, did not defame his guest and did not play “gotcha” journalism as alleged by the complainants. It also pointed out that Mineer had allowed Mansoory time to state her opinions, despite his disagreement with some of those opinions. CHNL felt it would have been irresponsible for Mineer to amplify Hamas, an organization the Canadian government has identified as a terrorist organization for over 20 years, and he therefore acted responsibly by cutting off the conversation when he did.

As noted above, 17 complainants filed Ruling Requests. They disagreed with the broadcaster’s arguments. One complainant provided detailed responses to each of CHNL’s points, primarily suggesting that it was Mineer who led the conversation into political debate and defending Mansoory’s position and terminology, in some cases with source references. That complainant also noted that Mansoory in fact had said “hundreds to thousands”, not “hundreds of thousands” of Palestinians are killed each year; the broadcaster quoted her erroneously. This complainant also explained that Mansoory had asked Mineer for evidence of the beheading video he referenced and clarified that it appeared Mansoory and Mineer had been talking about two different videos. This and the other complainants generally disagreed that Mineer had handled the broadcast appropriately.

The CBSC offers broadcasters a final opportunity to provide additional information when a complaint is presented to a panel for adjudication. In this case, the broadcaster took that opportunity and wrote an additional reply to the CBSC on January 16, 2024. The station reiterated that it understood “the volatile emotions around the conflict in Gaza” and indicated that it took no pleasure in refuting Mansoory’s statements. It did feel, however, that the host had reported the “facts as best we know them” and provided “editorial content that [was] fair and balanced”. It pointed out that Mineer had made strong negative comments about Hamas (a known terrorist organization) and the Israeli government, but these were not related to race, religion or nationality.

With respect to the treatment of the guest, CHNL wrote that the conversation had only veered away from the original topic due to the guest’s politically-charged comments; the host had only cut off the conversation when he felt the comments made by the guest were “dangerously inaccurate.” CHNL also pointed out that Mineer did not insult or sully the reputation of his guest; he simply ended the interview abruptly, which might have been perceived by Mansoory as an insult.

CHNL reasserted that Mineer presented a balanced commentary, expressing “empathy for innocent Palestinians caught in this crisis” and “disgust with both Israeli and Palestinian factions who are causing the crisis.”

With respect to the conversation about the video, CHNL maintained that Mineer “did speak in hyperbole” when he said the whole world had seen the beheading video. According to CHNL, “He did not intend to literally imply that the entire world had seen the videos, but used the phrase ‘whole world’ to state just how widely distributed and viewed the videos were.” The station indicated that it questioned the accuracy of Mansoory’s statements regarding the number of Palestinians killed in the West Bank each year, the moral equivalency between Hamas and Nelson Mandela, and Hamas’s status as a terrorist organization. It was those comments that made Mineer feel the need to end the interview abruptly.

(The full text of all correspondence can be found in Appendix B.)

THE DECISION

The CBSC’s English-Language Panel examined the complaints under the following provisions of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ (CAB) Code of Ethics and Equitable Portrayal Code:

CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 2 – Human Rights

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

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

It is recognized that the full, fair and proper presentation of news, opinion, comment and editorial is the prime and fundamental responsibility of each broadcaster. This principle shall apply to all radio and television programming, whether it relates to news, public affairs, magazine, talk, call-in, interview or other broadcasting formats in which news, opinion, comment or editorial may be expressed by broadcaster employees, their invited guests or callers.

CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 7 – Controversial Public Issues

Recognizing in a democracy the necessity of presenting all sides of a public issue, it shall be the responsibility of broadcasters to treat fairly all subjects of a controversial nature. Time shall be allotted with due regard to all the other elements of balanced program schedules, and the degree of public interest in the questions presented. Recognizing that healthy controversy is essential to the maintenance of democratic institutions, broadcasters will endeavour to encourage the presentation of news and opinion on any controversy which contains an element of the public interest.

CAB Equitable Portrayal Code, Clause 2 – Human Rights

Recognizing that every person has the right to the full enjoyment of certain fundamental rights and freedoms, broadcasters shall ensure that their programming contains no abusive or unduly discriminatory material or comment which is based on matters of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status or physical or mental disability.

The Panel Adjudicators read all of the correspondence and listened to a recording of the challenged broadcast. The Panel concludes that there is no breach of any of the aforementioned code provisions.

The questions submitted to the Panel about the broadcast on CHNL were as follows:

Comments not considered abusive and unduly discriminatory

The CBSC has considered the issue of “abusive or unduly discriminatory” comments in numerous previous decisions. The precedents have established that, in order to constitute “abusive or unduly discriminatory” content under Clause 2 of either the CAB Code of Ethics or CAB Equitable Portrayal Code, the comments must make explicit negative generalizations about all members of an identifiable group. Moreover, expressing an opinion about a political topic that involves race, ethnicity, religion, etc. does not necessarily amount to abusive or unduly discriminatory content. It is also acceptable to express support for one side or another in the context of a conflictual issue.

In CFRA-AM re the Mark Sutcliffe and Lowell Green Shows (CBSC Decision 96/97-0083+, May 8, 1997), the Panel dealt with episodes of two open-line programs. On the broadcasts in question, the hosts addressed an incident whereby a Black man was shot and killed by police in his Ottawa apartment. The hosts and callers discussed issues relating to tensions between the police and the Black community and police brutality. There were callers who espoused opinions on both sides of this issue. Some callers expressed the view that the Black community should not be alleging racism without having more information about the incident. Lowell Green also stated that Blacks “are involved in a disproportionate number of crimes” but that the “great majority of Blacks are law-abiding, taxpaying, hardworking citizens” who need to “work especially hard to make sure that some of these known criminals don’t come in here from Jamaica, or wherever they’re coming.” A listener complained that the hosts made baseless claims and unsubstantiated accusations about the Black community causing a scene at the site of the shooting and brought up stereotypes about Blacks and crime. The complainant accused the hosts of fomenting hatred and slandering the Black community. The Panel found no breach of the Human Rights clause:

Mark Sutcliffe’s references were frequently to a community, to be sure, but they were not accusatory. They were, if anything, sympathetic. Moreover, the Council is at pains to understand why there should not have been references to, and concerns for, the black community. Whether the police were right or wrong (and they were, in the end, cleared of any wrongdoing in this case), there were appearances which would have given any thoughtful person sufficient concern about the situation to wish that it be dealt with. And, while all Canadians would have been diminished by any such violent act which might have been racist in nature, it can hardly be doubted that an inquiry after the concerns of the potentially affected community was appropriate.

That morning, the host knew that he was stepping into a delicate and complex area. Racial and ethnic matters tend to be of that nature. Moreover, Ottawa had been exposed to a few apparent conflicts between the law enforcement authorities and members of the black community in the previous couple of years. This shooting at least appeared to be of a sufficiently similar character that the host felt it reasonable to consider the matter in that context.

The Council believes that Mark Sutcliffe was absolutely entitled to do so. Moreover, by approaching the subject on that basis, he was raising issues which ought to have been considered in the overall Ottawa community. They were important to everyone, black and white, police and civilian alike.

[...]

It is the view of the Council that Mark Sutcliffe broached a thorny issue with great skill, that he encouraged the free-flowing expression of views on a matter of public concern, that he kept remarkable balance in the discussion, despite some unpleasant interventions, and that he delivered an electronic document of value to the audience. In the view of the Council, there was no pervasive view that the black community was aggressively monolithic at all. Mark Sutcliffe did identify several individuals with whom he had spoken off air but never left the suggestion that they or any other individual was speaking on behalf of the entire community. [...]

The complainant has alleged that Lowell Green “made every effort to slander and malign the black community. He was, in fact, FOMENTING HATRED against said community.” The Council members do not agree. It is undoubted that Green took the position that the “business of screaming racism every time a black person gets involved with the law does no one any good, least of all the black community.” Interestingly, Green does not lay responsibility for that position at the feet of the black community; to him the responsible people are the “loony left” or, as he is wont to characterize these individuals, the “granola-crunchers”. He encouraged wide-ranging participation in the call-in portion of the show, from callers of different ethnic and racial backgrounds. The Lowell Green Show is, without doubt, an opinion program, and the host is, as much as anyone, a person with strong opinions. The Council also considers that the presentation of a set of diversified opinions is the role of good talk radio and the Lowell Green Show on this occasion accomplished that very purpose. It is also an essential characteristic of such shows that they contain no abusively discriminatory material. This, too, was the case here.

While it is true that the host observed that “blacks are involved in a disproportionate number of crimes in this country”, he immediately balanced the statement with the statement that “we also know that the great majority of blacks are law-abiding, taxpaying, hardworking citizens like everybody else.” Far from fomenting hatred, Lowell Green was trying to say that everyone in our country has a problem which flows from certain perceptions regarding the black community and that the greatest responsibility to ensure that these are corrected lies with the affected community. He was, it seems to the Council, sympathetic not antipathetic to the black community.

The use of the word “Wackos” to describe the Southern Baptists who had voted at their recent convention to boycott Disney for its relationship with the television series Ellen on the grounds that the star of the show, both in real life and her on-air persona, was gay was considered in CJXY-FM re The Scott and Lori Show (CBSC Decision 96/97-0239, February 20, 1998). The Panel found that a religious organization was not entitled to be shielded from critical comment by reason of its acknowledged status as a religious organization since it had chosen to intervene in the area of political commentary. The Panel did not find the broadcaster’s comment to be “anti-Christian”:

The decision in this matter ultimately turns on the Council’s understanding of the use by co-host Lori of the term “Wackos”. It is only if the epithet were directed at the Southern Baptists by reason of their religion that the Council could find that the broadcaster was in breach of the Code. If the epithet were, on the other hand, directed at the admittedly religious group by reason of something other than their religion (race, national or ethnic origin, colour, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status or physical or mental handicap not being relevant to this matter), then the conclusion would likely be different. In the view of the Council, the epithet was not directed at the religious group by reason of anything other than the group’s stated boycott of Disney by reason of their association with the television series Ellen. That stance by the Baptists was, in the Regional Council’s view, an economic action regarding a political issue. There is, of course, no doubt whatsoever regarding the entitlement of the Southern Baptists to hold and to express its views on controversial matters of a political or publicly controversial nature. The point is only that, if they choose to do so, they render themselves fair game on the public playing field of political controversy. They cannot expect that they have the right to publicly express controversial political opinions and to be sheltered by reason of the fact that they are a religious group from the resulting fallout from the ideological seeds which they have sown.

A discussion on a native land claims issue generated a complaint on the basis that the comments were discriminatory against First Nations peoples in CFUN-AM re The Pia Shandel Show (Native Land Claims) (CBSC Decision 98/99-0147, October 14, 1999). The Panel found no code violation and underscored the fundamentally political nature of the land claim discussion, noting that:

[t]he CBSC always begins its assessment of complaints with the bedrock principle of freedom of expression as a foundation. As will be noted below, other Canadian societal values may occasionally require protection in the face of this basic right; however, in the Council’s constant review of challenged circumstances, this principle is never more inviolate than when the type of expression targeted by the complaint is of a political nature.

Two talk shows had both the hosts and callers to the shows commenting on the role of First Nations Chiefs in a demonstration at the Manitoba Legislature, as well as on other general issues relating to the First Nations in CJOB re the Adler on Line and Afternoons with Larry Updike Talk Shows (CBSC Decision 99/00-0092, May 5, 2000). In a detailed letter of complaint, the Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs alleged that certain statements made by the hosts and the callers promoted hatred. The Panel found no code breach, stating that, generally, the allegations made by the complainant were “exaggerated, isolated and overstated in the complaint.” Moreover, the Panel observed that “those who choose to govern the reserves are not, on account of their racial or national origin, thereby removed from the critical optics of the media”:

Those who occupy positions of power on the reserves may legitimately be described, on account of the decisions which they make, as “boneheads” or “intellectually moribund” by opinion-holders in the media. As Charles Adler was quoted as saying in the News and Program Director’s letter, “I have never said the ordinary native is intellectually moribund.” Had he taken that position, the attitude of this Council would likely have been different. In the circumstances of these criticisms, the Council can only consider them fair political commentary, which is unrelated to anyone by reason of his membership in any of the identifiable minorities entitled to protection under Clause 2 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

Three episodes of the Howard Stern Show were examined in CILQ-FM re the Howard Stern Show (CBSC Decision 99/00-0717 & -0739, June 28, 2001). In one episode Howard Stern made comments about immigration, stating that Haitians should “stay in their own country” and that “you’ve got to build a friggin’ wall around Los Angeles to keep the Mexicans out.” The Panel determined that these comments were “political and not racist” given that Stern clearly stated “I am against all immigration into this country.” The Panel recognized that Stern’s position may be unpopular or unpalatable, but acknowledged his right to express his political opinion:

It is nothing more or less than a political perspective regarding both the issue of immigration and, it appears, the question of assimilation. He has made no comment whatsoever suggesting that American citizens of other national or ethnic groups be stripped of their citizenship and returned to their countries of origin. He does not wish new immigrants. It is a defensible view in terms of the freedom of expression. The Panel finds no breach in this part of the broadcast.

A documentary about the 2002 student uprising at Concordia University which prevented then-former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from delivering a planned speech was considered in CIII-TV (Global Television) re Confrontation at Concordia (CBSC Decision 02/03-1340+, April 26, 2004). The CBSC received complaints that the documentary was inaccurate, biased and promoted prejudice against Palestinians. The Panel did not find that the documentary was “objective, dispassionate and even-handed” but it considered that there was no reason to expect that it ought to have been. It was, the Panel explained, a “point-of-view documentary”, with the consequence that “a viewer can expect from such a genre of film great latitude in the expression of the filmmaker’s viewpoint and opinions, and even in the tone and style of presentation of that perspective.” On the Human Rights issue, the Panel stated:

The Panel considers it essential to draw a distinction between comments that may be political and those that may offend the human rights provision of the CAB Code of Ethics. Recognizing that the distinction becomes more difficult when race, ethnicity or religious background appears to be intertwined with the political issues but this does not alter the necessity of drawing such differences clearly. Political and historical observations are legitimate fodder for the expression of disagreement. Parties may take strongly opposing positions on such issues. There is far less latitude when the expression of such opposition is based on racial, ethnic or religious characteristics.

[…]

[T]he Panel considers that the broadcast in the matter at hand is not objective, dispassionate and even-handed in the conclusions it draws on the reasons for the confrontation at Concordia. That being said, the Panel does not find that there is any aspect of the commentary that is racist or, more precisely, constitutes an abusive or unduly discriminatory comment. There is no breach of the provisions of Clause 2 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

Comments considered abusive and unduly discriminatory

The substance of two episodes of the John Michael Show was considered in CKTB-AM re the John Michael Show (Middle East Commentary) (CBSC Decision 01/02-0651, June 7, 2002). In the first episode, the topic was the conflict in the Middle East between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The host stated that the problems could not be resolved by peaceful negotiations and that military combat was necessary. He also stated that he happened to favour the Israeli side. In the course of the dialogue, Michael repeatedly suggested that the Israelis kill all Palestinians with such phrases as “Sharon, go to town with the biggest tanks, the biggest guns, the biggest of everything you got and blow the Palestinians, Yasser Arafat included, to kingdom come”. He was also somewhat sarcastic and abrupt with certain callers who had angrily disagreed with him. The following day, Michael commented on the reactions his program had inspired and claimed he had not said “let’s see if you can annihilate people”. The Panel found a code breach for inciting violence in the first broadcast and made the following comments:

There is a fine but essential line to be drawn between comments which are unduly discriminatory and those which simply constitute political commentary or the discussion of controversial public issues. The former are in violation of the private broadcasters’ codified standards. The latter are not. Moreover, it is of the essence of statements that are political that the point of view expressed need not be popular. While democracy is a numbers game in the election of lawmakers, it is not that in the marketplace of ideas. The freedom of expression which flows from the nature of a stable and mature democracy protects the enunciation of minority, even unpopular, ideas.

[...]

The Panel supports the right of the host to take either side in the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He has chosen the Israeli side. He might have chosen the Palestinian side. That is his right to do. He is also justified in assessing the conflict as one in which negotiation is doomed to failure as a solution, however discouraging that position may be to persons of optimistic spirit, and that the only solution to the conflict will be a military one. The Panel also considers that Michael is entitled to express the perspective that “might is right”, that, in other words, the last side standing will be the victor and entitled to see itself as that. While this may be a particularly amoral way to view international politics, the host is entitled to espouse and express the position. It should be noted that the Panel finds that most of the host’s commentary during the course of the March 6 show falls into this category, namely, partisan, aggressive but “this side of the line” discussion. Nor should it be forgotten that many of the callers on this show were extremely critical of the host’s position and their hostile and negative reactions were broadcast for the audience to hear, thus enabling them to focus their minds on this controversial public issue. As to the show of March 7, the Panel finds the host’s commentary considerably toned down and inoffensive. The result was that there was far less passion engendered on the part of the callers as well.

When, however, on three occasions during the March 6 show, he recommends that the Israelis engage in indiscriminate killing, it is the view of the Panel that he has gone too far.

Michael also repeatedly suggested that the Israelis kill all Palestinians and that all Palestinians hate all Jewish people. An example of such a statement was “[the Palestinians] are making sure their children hate, they only mix with other people who hate, and they don’t hate for any other reason except they’re Jewish.” The Panel considered that

John Michael’s blanket condemnation of all Palestinians as hating persons of the Jewish faith and wishing to drive Israel out of existence is excessive. That some Palestinians hold such views is undoubtedly true. This does not, however, justify the host in his absolutist perspective.

[...]

There can be no denying that there are Palestinians living in Israel, Canada, the United States and other nations, as well as in Gaza and the West Bank who believe in the right of Israel to exist and of Jewish families to be as secure in their lives as they, the Palestinian families, would wish to be in their own. Consequently, to tar all Palestinians with a brush of hatred constitutes, in the view of the Ontario Panel, an unduly discriminatory comment based on their national or ethnic origin.

Shock jock Howard Stern raised controversy when he claimed that “Polacks hate Jews. It’s their natural enemy just like dogs hate cats.”. A listener complained that these were “disparaging remarks about Poles which can lead to racial animosity toward the Polish community in Canada.” In CILQ-FM re The Howard Stern Show (Poland) (CBSC Decision 97/98-1186, February 3, 1999), the CBSC Panel agreed. It found that Stern’s generalized and repeated comment that “Poles hate Jews” breached the human rights provision of the CAB Code of Ethics:

In the view of the Council, this accusation of an entire people that they hate any other national group, contrary to generally accepted principles, is likely to bring opprobrium on the “haters” rather than the “hated”. It is in this sense abusively discriminatory vis-à-vis persons of Polish nationality and in breach of Article 2 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

In a religious program examined in CITS-TV re Sid Roth’s It’s Supernatural (CBSC Decision 10/11-0106, April 5, 2011), the host had a guest to share his interpretation of various issues, including the Book of Revelation. The guest talked about the Treaty of Hudaibiya, which was a ten-year peace treaty that the Muslim Prophet Mohammed had entered into with a tribe called the Quraish. According to the guest, Mohammed broke the treaty once his band of followers became strong enough to quash the power of the Quraish. Both the host and guest then claimed that this is the example that present-day Muslims are taught to follow: “make a treaty when you’re weak, but, when you’re strong, break it!” and suggested that this was what Yasser Arafat had done in relations between the Palestinians and Israelis. The guest also stated that Islamic tradition teaches Muslims to fight against the Jews until there are no Jews left. He said that funding for Islamic centres in North America would lead to Muslims taking over America. The Panel concluded that much of the commentary was simply Biblical and historical interpretation and opinion on the part of the host and guest and so did not violate the codes, but that the reference to Muslims being taught to kill Jews did result in a code violation:

The Panel recognizes that the complainant has characterized the challenged episode as “a vicious attack on a huge portion of the world's population, namely, Islam” and that he has concluded that the “apparent goal of this man's message is to incite people to share his distorted view of Muslim people.” Such sweeping generalizations are, however, insufficient to enable the Panel to find a breach of the Human Rights Clauses. In order to reach such a conclusion, the Panel must find concrete examples of abusive or unduly discriminatory content. The Panel also needs such concrete examples to enable it to conclude that any religious broadcast has conveyed an attack on another religion.

[...]

[One] specific assertion of the challenged episode was the guest’s statement that “Muslims believe it is their divine call to eliminate the Jewish people.” While that statement is, strictly speaking, an opinion, it is a pointed, barbed accusation that all Muslims consider that it is a divine or sacred responsibility to kill every Jew, even when there are no more than a “few Jews left hiding behind a tree or a rock.” Even if that were a solid, uncontradicted principle established by one or another of the learned texts that are cornerstones of the Islamic religion, the Panel considers that such an accusation directed in such general terms against, in effect, all Muslims is an abusive or unduly discriminatory comment that violates the proscription against such comments in the Human Rights Clauses of the CAB Code of Ethics and the Equitable Portrayal Code.

In another talk show examined in CHIN re Zelda Young Show (CBSC Decision 18/19-1172, July 31, 2019) the host had as her guest an American political author and commentator Diana West. The two women discussed American politics and expressed support for President Donald Trump and voiced their concerns about socialist ideas taking hold in the US. At one point, West stated, “We’re in this very broken state. But this is what happens when you get an Islamic demographic. You do see an upsurge in anti-Semitism and, and, you know, it is something that is inculcated in the religion of Islam, just as it is anti-Christian. So, this is just what you see as a consequence of Islamic immigration [...]. [...] A democratic country cannot remain true to free speech, freedom of religion and so on when it imports an Islamic demographic that will vote. And what we’ve seen in certain areas of real colonization. For example, the Somali colonization of Minnesota. [...] I mean, this is what happens when immigration is not calibrated to include people who are with you before they get here and don’t want to transform you to something you are not.” A listener complained that these comments were discriminatory. The Panel pointed out that most of the discussions constituted acceptable political commentary, but agreed that the program had crossed the line when it painted all Muslims with the same brush. The majority of the Panel found breaches of Clause 2 of the CAB Code of Ethics and Clauses 2 and 4 of the CAB Equitable Portrayal Code:

[T]hese comments [cited above] do not constitute fair political commentary as it is clear that they apply without exception to all Muslims. In fact, West asserted that the religion of Islam actually inculcates anti-Semitism and is anti-Christian. The view expressed was unequivocal in that it stated without exception that the religion of Islam instills anti-Semitism and is anti-Christian through persistent instruction since this is the very definition of the term “inculcate”.

Such statements are not only abusive and unduly discriminatory, they also constitute an unduly negative stereotype of Muslims. Moreover, they are factually incorrect.

The Panel concurs with the long expressed view that the applicable codes do allow the expression of political views on any subject including immigration, socialization, assimilation, and globalization. The majority of the Panel considers however, that where an accusation is against an entire group of people without exception, as in the case of this program, then such a statement will not be acceptable. [...]

The majority of the Panel also notes that the host Zelda Young did not temper the discussion in any way. She never attempted to mitigate the opinions expressed and in fact, she wholeheartedly agreed with all of West’s commentary and seemed to encourage the expression of unduly discriminatory views without exception.

Panel’s findings on question 1

The Panel notes that the original purpose of this segment was to give an opportunity for the representative of the Kamloops mosque (Ms. Mansoory) to address the impact on the local community of the events in Gaza and how they were coping and what the mosque was doing to assist them. The Panel considers that these subjects were certainly topical and would have been of public interest. Moreover, it seems that the discussion was not meant to veer into a political debate.

The Panel notes that the host did introduce the segment in a manner to elicit information on how the Kamloops Muslim community was coping and it was in fact the guest who, in her response to the first question, raised the political context of the events in Gaza when she stated that “we have about eight to ten members of our community who are originally from Palestine. Um, many of them carry Egyptian or [inaudible] or Syrian travel documents because their families were ethnically cleansed from their ancestral lands and were forced to live in refugee camps in neighbouring countries.”

As the CBSC precedents have established, a host or guest is certainly entitled to express their political beliefs especially on an issue as controversial as the events in Israel and Gaza. Once the guest offered her political take on the events in Gaza it would be expected that the host would respond and offer his own political views. The CBSC has no means or jurisdiction to ascertain what was agreed to before the interview aired; regardless, both parties were allowed to express their political viewpoints even if the original parameters of the interview were not adhered to. As explained below, a live discussion will often veer from its original purpose and, as long as the discussion conforms with the broadcast codes, this is perfectly acceptable as a host can control the ebb and flow of a discussion.

CBSC precedents have established that the assessment of complaints raising issues with a political debate is always done in light of the “bedrock principle of freedom of expression as a foundation” and “this principle is never more inviolate than when the type of expression targeted by the complaint is of a political nature.” Certainly, these political opinions do not need to be popular, as a mature democracy protects freedom of expression and the voicing of controversial, even unpopular ideas.

The Panel also recognizes the right of both the host and the guest to make comments either for or against the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In addition, they were justified in providing their assessments on how either party is conducting themselves even if such comments are negative and critical.

However, as detailed in CBSC precedents, “it [is] essential to draw a distinction between comments that may be political and those that may offend the human rights provision of the CAB Code of Ethics. Recognizing that the distinction becomes more difficult when race, ethnicity or religious background appears to be intertwined with the political issues but this does not alter the necessity of drawing such differences clearly. Political and historical observations are legitimate fodder for the expression of disagreement. Parties may take strongly opposing positions on such issues. There is far less latitude when the expression of such opposition is based on racial, ethnic or religious characteristics.” In addition, the Panel was mindful of the fact that a segment does not necessarily have to be objective, dispassionate and even-handed in the conclusions it draws and that such content will be acceptable as long as it does not constitute abusive or unduly discriminatory comment.

The Panel also notes the host’s efforts to redirect the discussion as to how the local community is “stick handling” this given that Israel initiated a full-on conflict which he described as a “war in Gaza”. Such a description constitutes a fair characterization of the events in Gaza especially given the fact that the Israeli government formally declared war against Hamas on October 7, 2023. It is also fair political comment for the guest to dispute the use of the word “war” and to express her views on the situation in the West Bank. The Panel also notes that the guest did address how they were supporting her community, including their attempts to use their “collective voice to advocate for change at the governmental level”; however, her response included her political views on the historical occupation of Palestine and how this constitutes ethnic cleansing or genocide.

In the view of the Panel, both parties veered from the original intent of the discussion. As explained earlier, this was acceptable as long as the segment adhered to the requirements of the applicable broadcast codes. Both parties were equally passionate in expressing their political views even though these comments were not always even-handed and often extremely critical. The host did acknowledge fault with both Israel and Hamas with comments such as “Israeli settlers are not much different than Hamas” and recognition that he was not offering “any defence of the government of Bibi Netanyahu”. He also expressed his opinion that both the Israeli government and Hamas were barriers to peace. The guest was also free to express her thought that describing Hamas as a terrorist organization could be compared to labelling Nelson Mandela as a terrorist until 2008.

The entire discussion was volatile and contained much of what can be considered hyperbole. The Panel considers that for much of the discussion both the host and guest were talking at cross-purposes and this segment was an example of when a host and guest stop listening to one another. This often leads to miscommunication between parties. This was especially the case when, at the end, the issue of a video was raised by the host and described as “Hamas fighters are taking glee in cutting heads off […]. It’s on video. The world saw it.” The guest was able to challenge the host’s statements in this regard and even question whether a video even existed. In fact, the subject video had been released in a limited manner only the previous day to the broadcast1 and, therefore, it could hardly have been expected that all the world would have had a chance to view it. The host’s comments on the video could be considered an overstatement but the guest was allowed to challenge the premise and provide her own views on the subject.

Notwithstanding the disjointed nature of this discussion, at no time did either the host or the guest express comments that could be considered abusive or unduly discriminatory against any group on the basis of religion or national or ethnic origin. Some of the host’s comments may have offended the guest and the complainants, and some of the comments of the guest may have offended the host and possibly other listeners, but the Panel considers that they can all be considered fair political comment and did not breach Clause 2 of the CAB Code of Ethics or Clause 2 of the CAB Equitable Portrayal Code.

The impact of leading the conversation away from the original topic and cutting the segment abruptly

The complainants took issue with the host’s management of the program. Apparently, both the broadcaster and the guest originally agreed that the discussion would not be political in nature. The CBSC is not an evidence-gathering body, so even if the parties agreed on the nature of the conversation, the Panel can make no comment on what was discussed prior to broadcast. Regardless, the CBSC has said that hosts are entitled to take a conversation in any direction they like, even if it strays from the original topic. There is also no code breach for heated discussions between hosts and guests or callers, or if they do not stay on a particular topic. In addition, hosts are entitled to manage the flow of a discussion or segment including the moment at which to end an interview.

In TVA re Mongrain (CBSC Decision 93/94-0100+, December 6, 1995), a CBSC Panel dealt with an episode of a television talk show. The host interviewed two representatives from a new religious movement known as the Raëlians, which some classify as a cult. The host was sarcastic and aggressive in his interview style, but the CBSC considered this acceptable under the code, particularly since the guests were afforded ample opportunity to respond:

It is, for example, clear to the Regional Council members that Mongrain made a number of contentious statements ([translations] “travellers from afar can lie with impunity”, “the bigger the lie, the more likely people are to believe it”) and posed several provocative questions to Raël and Chabot ([translations] “In any case, you ate with Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Allah and so on. That’s pretty heavy, isn’t it?”, “Conferences 25 bucks a head, to go and hear about the wonders of cosmic ejaculation”).

At the same time, however, and in stark contrast to [a broadcast that was the subject of another CBSC decision], Mongrain afforded his guests ample opportunity to respond to his contentions and present their points of view during the 24-minute segment. Indeed, the Regional Council members note that the guests were in a position to refute certain of the host’s statements and did provide some clarification, as for example regarding the discussion of the costs of membership in the movement, or the complaint filed by Chabot with the Human Rights Commission. Thus, unlike the [other] complaint, where debate was limited, indeed curtailed, Mongrain’s provocative statements encouraged debate and enabled clarification of the position of the Raëliens. As a result, the Regional Council concludes that there was no breach of clause 6 [...] of the CAB Code of Ethics.

In an open-line talk show examined in CFRA-AM re The Lowell Green Show (“New World Order”) (CBSC Decision 95/96-0012, April 30, 1996), the host made comments about a political activist named Glen Kealey who believed there was an international conspiracy to create a “New World Order”. The host suggested that there was a potential connection between Kealey and an Indigenous stand-off at Gustafsen Lake, BC and alleged that there had then been a concerted attempt to interrupt the host’s phone lines and wondered if Kealey and his group were responsible. The next day, after receiving a fax from Kealey, the host got Kealey on the line to discuss the matter. Kealey denied being involved in jamming the host’s phone lines, but he did admit to having spoken to the Gustafsen Lake protesters and to believing that there is a movement to create a New World Order. The host told Kealey that this “sounds awfully kooky to me”. The host was explicit in his view that this conspiracy theory is silly, but had extensive discussions with callers who stated their belief in the idea. The complaint came from Mr. Kealey, who felt he had been disparaged and ridiculed on air. With respect to the actual comments made about Mr. Kealey and his “New World Order” conspiracy theory, the Panel found no breach of Clause 6 for the following reasons:

In this case, the Council finds that Lowell Green provided ample opportunity to the complainant and other listeners to express their points of view and did not arbitrarily cut them off or otherwise treat them with disrespect. The Council notes that the host heeded the complainant’s faxed request to be given an opportunity to rebut Green’s on-air statements by calling him (an unusual step for Green, according to the broadcaster) that same day. While the complainant may not have been able to say all that he wanted to say, the Council finds that he was given fair opportunity to rebut Green’s statements. [...]

While the Council notes that Green did threaten to cut off Kealey if he didn’t stick to the topic, it does not find that this was intended to limit the expression of views to only those in accordance with his own. Rather, the Council considers that Mr. Kealey was attempting to digress from the topic which Green sought to discuss and Green, as host of the program, was entitled to redirect the discussion or end the call. The complainant alleged that Mr. Green has referred to his power as host of his show as being “God on this program”. While the Council considers that this may be more than a slight overstatement, there is no denying a host’s entitlement and responsibility to control the discussion on his or her show.

The CBSC considered a complaint in CHOG-AM re Connections (CBSC Decision 96/97-0040, May 8, 1997) alleging that the host did not cut off a caller soon enough, compared to previous complaints which had been that it is “a host’s responsibility to enable, not restrict, access”. The host of Connections in this case allowed a caller to complain of governments cutbacks to the point of letting him say “Tories don’t have children, they have piglets” before ultimately ending the call. The Panel found no breach:

While the Council considers that, for the most part, the comments of caller “Don” constituted political rhetoric, it acknowledges that the host must have the latitude to determine when a caller has gone too far. Even though such political expression holds a very high status in terms of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression, the Council believes that the host acted appropriately in dealing with this part of Don’s comments both in letting “Don” continue as long as he did (the complainant’s criticism) and in cutting him off when he judged the moment apt.

The host of a morning show conducted a telephone interview with the Vice-President of the Quebec Association of Friends of Cuba about festivities the Association was holding in Quebec in celebration of Cuban National Day in CJMF-FM re an interview on Bouchard en parle (CBSC Decision 04/05-1852, February 3, 2006). The host strayed from that topic to challenge his guest on aspects of Cuba’s political system. A heated debate ensued, with the guest making some negative personal comments about host Sylvain Bouchard. Bouchard responded by calling his guest a “chien sale” [approximate English translation: “dirty bastard”] and variations thereof. While the Panel did find the nasty personal insult problematic, it concluded that Bouchard was fully entitled to shift the focus of the interview and to broadcast his criticisms of Cuba’s political system:

On the issue of the choice of direction of the interview, the Panel agrees with the position of the broadcaster. The choice of subject to discuss was that of the host, not the interviewee. [...] The Panel can see no reason to interfere with Sylvain Bouchard’s choice of subject matter to pursue in his interview with Michael Walsh. Moreover, Mr. Walsh and others who seek media coverage for an event must always understand that it is not they who control the topic that may flow from the issuance of a press release. If the seeker is lucky, the media will see the subject the way he or she does. If less lucky, the event announcer will receive air time but only on an aspect of the event. It is then that the on-air jockeying for substantive position begins. The point, though, is that the broadcaster was entitled to make that choice. The only recourse for the interviewee was to choose to disembark. Mr. Walsh did, perhaps later than he might have wished, but, on this part of the issue, it was his only option.

The host of a public affairs program interviewed Canadian interpretive dancer Margie Gillis and challenged Gillis on public funding for the arts in Sun News Network re Canada Live (Margie Gillis interview) (CBSC Decision 10/11-1803+, December 15, 2011). The host provided dollar amounts of money Gillis and her dance foundation had received over the years and asked Gillis why her work required such funding. The host was forceful in her position against taxpayer funding of the arts and, at times, the two women talked over each other and the host admitted that Gillis’s art was not her “cup of tea”. Gillis argued that art had “value for the soul” and explained and defended her work over the course of the 21-minute-long interview. The CBSC received a record number of 6,676 complaints about the broadcast. Complainants argued that the host had unjustly attacked Gillis and some suggested that the dollar figures presented were questionable. The CBSC found no breach of either Clause 6 or 7 of the CAB Code of Ethics. With respect to Clause 6, the Panel said:

The National Specialty Services Panel has no information as to whether or not Gillis had been advised beforehand that Erickson intended to challenge her on the funding she had received for her dance foundation. Although Gillis appeared somewhat unprepared to discuss precise numbers, she was nevertheless able to respond to Erickson’s questions more generally by presenting her views on the social value of her form of dance and the arts […]. The Panel concludes that these issues relate more to issues of courtesy and politeness and do not constitute Code breaches. Indeed, in many previous decisions, the CBSC has found that the Codes allow for hosts to be biased and aggressive in their presentation of views and questioning of interviewees. It is only when hosts have directed nasty personal insults at individuals that the CBSC has found violations of Clause 6. While Erickson was forceful, she did not make any nasty comments about Gillis personally. In fact, she made positive comments about Gillis’ accomplishments and expressed her appreciation for Gillis’ participation in the interview.

Another political talk show was at issue in V re Face à face (student protest) (CBSC Decision 11/12-1495+, April 25, 2012). In Spring 2012, post-secondary students in Quebec held protests to express their discontent with the provincial government’s decision to raise tuition fees. The protest was the principal topic on one episode of a public affairs program. The hosts of the program interviewed a spokesperson from a student association. The CBSC received nearly 1000 complaints. The complainants alleged that the hosts had been disrespectful towards the student because they continually interrupted him and had made disparaging comments about the student movement. The Panel found no violations of either Clause 6 or 7 of the CAB Code of Ethics:

[The Panel members] ascertained that the hosts had a great deal of difficulty interviewing [the student] [...] because he would interrupt them before they could fully form their questions.

One of the complainants said the interview was [translation] “very impartial [sic], disrespectful and carried out for the purpose of ridiculing the guest.” The other complainant noted that the student was constantly interrupted and did not have the opportunity to adequately defend himself. He also maintained that the co-host acted in bad faith because she repeated the word [translation] “pitiful” on three occasions in reference to the fact that she considered the students’ strike movement a failure and that this comment plus [translation] “the combative attitude displayed by [the male host] […] are deplorable and do not belong on a major television network.” […]

[...] In the past, the CBSC has determined that “[i]t is only when hosts have directed nasty personal insults at individuals that [it] has found violations of Clause 6.” In this case, the Panel did not find any instance of personal insults or nastiness toward [the student] at any time during the interview.

Panel’s findings on question 2

The Panel considers that this interview was both chaotic and unfocused. Although there may have been an original focus to the segment, it immediately changed into a political debate on what was a very topical and contentious issue where viewpoints were very polarized. As explained previously, the applicable codes do not require that a segment or interview be limited to one subject even if that was agreed to prior to broadcast. Both a host and guest can interrupt the flow of the discussion, they can take a combative approach and even perhaps be partial or disrespectful of a person or idea. To be a breach, the host would have to have been personally nasty or made personal insults towards his guest. This was not the case. The host certainly was very passionate in the way he challenged the views expressed by this guest, but she was given an opportunity to respond and express her political views in an equally passionate manner.

On the issue of the manner the interview ended, there is no doubt that it was done abruptly and in an inelegant way. Even the broadcaster, in its comments of January 17, 2024, recognized that “the abrupt ending of the interview could be, and likely was, perceived by Ms. Mansoory as an insult.” The Panel understands why the complainants considered that this appeared unfair to Mansoory but this does not mean there was a breach. The fact is that, in an opinion-based program such as the Brett Mineer show, the host has the latitude to determine both the topic for discussion and when a discussion has gone too far and to cut off the microphone. The perception within this community of this abrupt ending may very well affect the broadcaster’s reputation and any trust given by this portion of listeners; however, the host was entitled to control the flow and time given in this segment.

Although the Panel considers that the ending of this interview could have been better handled, it does not believe that the host’s management of the segment was contrary to Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

Treatment of guests during a program or segment

The complainants allege that the host “defamed” or “slandered” his guest. Defamation and slander are legal matters for the courts and, therefore, outside the CBSC’s jurisdiction. However, the CBSC can deal with complaints about hosts insulting guests or callers, or sullying the reputations of guests or callers. The CBSC deals with such complaints under Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

The CBSC has determined that hosts are allowed to challenge guests in an aggressive manner, and that sometimes debates about controversial issues can become quite heated. It is also relevant that a guest has been given ample opportunity to respond to any challenging remarks. The CBSC has only found breaches when a host has resorted to gratuitous personal insults directed at guests or callers, which have often involved using coarse language.

Precedents where treatment of a guest was a breach

In CJRC-AM re an interview by Daniel Séguin on L’Outaouais ce matin (CBSC Decision 03/04-2082 & 04/05-0023, April 4, 2005), the CBSC Panel dealt with a complaint about the use of the French expression “envoyer chier” [approximate English translation “fuck off”] during an interview on a morning radio program. The host of the program, Daniel Séguin, conducted an interview with Patrice Demers who was the president of Genex Communications, the company that owned a Quebec City radio station called CHOI-FM. Earlier in the year, the CRTC had denied CHOI-FM’s licence renewal on the grounds that the station broadcast offensive, abusive or discriminatory content directed at identifiable groups or individuals. Demers appeared on the program to discuss that issue. During the course of the interview, Séguin heatedly told Demers that he agreed with the CRTC’s decision and that he had been looking forward to telling Demers to “envoyer chier” as CHOI-FM’s on-air personalities had done to others. The Panel found Séguin’s aggressive use of the phrase on two occasions to be in breach of both Clause 6 and Clause 9 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

The Panel also considers that the bulk of the dialogue between Daniel Séguin and Patrice Demers was substantive and a valid interchange of perspectives on the issues one would have expected to encounter on a CHOI-FM-related discussion. It touched on freedom of expression, the nature and purpose of the CRTC, the Broadcasting Act, the responsibilities of broadcasters, the purpose of the large demonstration on Parliament Hill, the number and nature of the CHOI-FM petitioners and supporters, the anticipated results of their presence in Ottawa, and other related matters. The tone of the dialogue escalated, apparently because Daniel Séguin had lain in wait for the opportunity to confront his quarry in his (the interviewer’s) den. A few (admittedly expected) denials or disagreements on the part of Patrice Demers were all that Séguin required to pounce. As the dialogue quoted indicates, the host did so in pointed terms, relying in part on his disagreement of the style that he had seen on the part of Quebec City radio station, its readiness, he asserted, to use harsh language, even with respect to those not present to defend themselves, even if it had the effect of ruining careers. Until this point, the Quebec Regional Panel believes that the host was within his rights. [...]

Although his attack was harsh, Séguin’s target was both present and a practitioner of the art of giving little or no quarter. In the match-up, it is clear that Daniel Séguin was faring well and had the upper hand. It is particularly for this reason that the Quebec Panel does not understand why the host descended from the relatively high road to the level of a personal attack using the expressions “[translation] I was really looking forward to [...] telling you literally to fuck off” and “[translation] And it’s my turn to tell you to fuck off Mr. Demers, and I do so with pleasure this morning.” In the entire dialogue, it is here and only here that the Quebec Panel takes issue with the broadcast of that morning. The Panel considers that the use of the two foregoing expressions was overkill and, in terms of the broadcaster’s ethical obligations, unduly coarse and offensive, on the one hand, and improper, on the other. The Panel recognizes fully that Daniel Séguin wished to give Patrice Demers some of his station’s own medicine but this Panel did not find similar language acceptable in CHOI-FM re Le monde parallèle de Jeff Fillion (CBSC Decision 02/03-0115, July 17, 2003) and it does not find it acceptable in the present case. It considers the use of the coarse and offensive language cited in this paragraph in breach of Clause 9 of the CAB Code of Ethics. It also considers that the use of such aggressive language to insult his invited guest was improper and in breach of Clause 6 of the Code.

The broadcast dealt with by the Panel in CHMP-FM re a segment on Le Journal du midi (CBSC Decision 07/08-0553, April 7, 2008) involved an interview between host Gilles Proulx and the Assistant General Director of the Montreal Fire Safety Department. The Assistant General Director appeared on the program to discuss a union dispute between the City of Montreal and the firefighters. In an act of protest, the firefighters had allegedly sabotaged some fire stations so that their superiors would be prevented from entering the buildings. The host indicated that he did not support the firefighters’ actions because taxpayers would then have to foot the bill for the damage. He also argued that other professions were equally as dangerous. In that context, the host said [translations] “If we compare them, they will say: ‘We are brave after all; we take risks.’ Hey, fuck you!” When the Director questioned “Mr. Proulx, you aren’t saying ‘fuck you’ to me, are you?”, Proulx responded “No, no. I’m saying ‘fuck you’ to them.” The CBSC received a complaint from a listener who was himself a Montreal firefighter and was offended by the comments. The Panel indicated that the host was fully entitled to express his opposition to the firefighters’ position in the labour dispute, but that he had gone too far by targeting his insults at the firefighters on a personal basis:

The Panel draws a clear distinction between comments relating to policy matters, even those touching on individuals or groups and those that are directed at the individuals or groups on a personally insulting basis. Thus, the Panel accepts the rough, possibly crude substantiation of the host’s position that “unionism must be revamped.” They constitute a position he is entitled to take, even if he has gone over the top in his observations about the members of the firefighters union.

[...]

The issue is not whether the host was right or wrong. He had an opinion on the way union members operate in the labour-management conflict, in which conflict, as he observes, the public regularly pay the price. The Panel supports his right to express those views, but they do not consider it a right without limitation.

[...]

In the matter at hand, the Quebec Panel also finds that the flippant use of the personally-directed English-language F-word epithet vis-à-vis the union members was excessive and improper, in terms of the standard established in Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

Precedents where treatment of a guest was not a breach

A listener complained about two episodes of an open-line program in CJMS-AM re comments on two episodes of Le p’tit monde à Frenchie (CBSC Decision 04/05-0939, October 24, 2005). In the first episode, the complainant had telephoned the program, using a pseudonym, and had voiced a critical opinion about the hosts. The hosts responded by making equally critical comments about the caller. The listener complained that program hosts had insulted him. The Panel did not find that the hosts’ comments about the caller to the effect that he “déconner” [“was a pain in the neck”] were in breach of Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

A complaint about an open-line talk show that involved a teachers’ strike which was occurring at the time in British Columbia was considered in CKNW-AM re an episode of Adler on Line (CBSC Decision 05/06-0539, May 9, 2006). The teachers had refused to return to work even after they had been ordered to do so by government back-to-work legislation. The host strongly expressed his opinion that the teachers’ action was illegal and morally reprehensible. He took calls from listeners, some of whom were more sympathetic to the teachers’ position or who were teachers themselves; however, he raised his voice with some of those callers, interrupting them. He also called two of them “stupid” and told another to “get a life”. A listener complained that the host had “verbally abused” these callers just because they expressed an opinion different from his. The Panel found the host’s remarks and behaviour to be close to the line, but did not go over it:

In the matter at hand, Charles Adler expressed a point of view on the B.C. teachers’ strike that could be characterized, [...], as unequivocal and aggressive. Fair enough. The host is also undeniably clever. His stated belief in the rule of law and clear disdain for strikers disregarding the Legislative Assembly’s back-to-work legislation were forcefully put. The Panel is, however, at a loss to understand why he descended to the level of personal insult, using words like “stupid” to characterize Brent and Braeden. [...] Adler could have characterized ideas as stupid but people? No need. Not right. It was, in the Panel’s view, unnecessary to pander to the bleachers. It is fine to disagree with the callers and to argue with them but to be rude and insulting to them to that extent was unnecessary. The deft gave way to the blunt. On balance, the Panel concludes that the broadcast came close to the edge but did not, on this occasion, go over it. While the Panel does not find that those insults constituted a breach of Clause 6 of the Code, it does regret that they were used.

Panel’s finding on question 3

As noted earlier, the discussion was chaotic on what was a very contentious and polarizing issue. Both parties expressed their views very passionately, and often with hyperbole. However, to sully the reputation of a guest in a manner that will breach the code, the host would have to have directed personal insults against his guest. This was not the case. Rather, the views expressed by the guest were forcefully attacked by the host, but this constitutes fair comment, and is allowed under Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics. It is also consistent with the concept of freedom of expression which is a fundamental right protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Fairness and balance and what will breach the code

The complainants alleged that Brett Mineer’s on-air comportment was generally biased, unfair and unbalanced. They asserted that he tried to “impose his own views” and that he did not give Umme Mansoory adequate opportunity to clarify her stance or defend herself.

As explained above, it is expected that an opinion-based talk show such as this one will contain expressions of opinions and bias. There is no requirement that precisely equal time be provided to all sides of a debate under Clauses 6 or 7 of the CAB Code of Ethics. As long as a variety of views are presented and a guest is given some opportunity to express their opinion, the broadcast is acceptable under the code.

In CTV re an episode of the Shirley Show (CBSC Decision 93/94-0261, August 18, 1995), the Panel referred to paragraph 3(1)(i) of the Broadcasting Act, which is often referred to by communications specialists as the “balance requirement”, and to the CRTC’s interpretation of this “requirement” in Public Notice CRTC 1988-213, Policy regarding Open-Line Programming (December 23, 1988) in its interpretation of the requirements of Clause 7 of the Code. The Panel stated:

As the CRTC’s guidelines also provide, the CBSC takes the position that, while time allotted to the various sides of the issue is an important consideration in assessing a broadcaster’s compliance with Clause 7, it is not alone determinative.

In this case, the Ontario Regional Council does not consider that it is necessary to respond to the viewer’s complaint by going outside of the program of March 30 to determine whether there is balance in the network’s programming on the subject of doctor-assisted suicide. The Council is satisfied that the presentation of views on doctor-assisted suicide on the Shirley Show in question constituted a balanced treatment of this controversial public issue. The Council notes that the guests who were invited to appear on the Show represented both sides of the issue and, in so doing, provided many different perspectives on the topic. While it is undeniable that some guests were more vocal than others, the Council is also satisfied that all guests were given an opportunity to speak.

The CBSC does not believe that it is generally practical or even possible to give every guest in such an environment the opportunity to express fully his or her point of view on the subject treated. If any such show’s producers are doing their job, they will be gathering in their studio individuals who have an expertise and perspective on a subject which would, in an ideal (but unrealistic) world (from a broadcasting point of view), entitle each of them to occupy a considerable quantity of time in exposition of their knowledge. That goal can rarely be met in a non-print media environment and even print publishers have their own spatial constraints. And so, it must almost be a given that persons choosing to be guests on such shows must be satisfied that they will not have the opportunity to say everything they wish to say. Their failure to meet their personal goals in this respect will not, in the absence of some other evidence of breach, constitute a breach of the Controversial Issues provision of the CAB Code of Ethics.

A complaint concerning the fairness and balance of a discussion entitled “Women who falsely accuse men of rape” was considered in CHOG-AM re the Shelley Klinck Show (CBSC Decision 95/96-0063, April 30, 1996). The Panel considered it appropriate to combine the effects of Clauses 6 and 7 of the Code of Ethics for this assessment of this complaint:

Although the Council recognizes that Clause 6 […] and Clause 7 of the Code of Ethics offer different nuances, it considers that their combined effect is to require balanced programming when dealing with controversial issues. Accordingly, rather than considering each provision individually, the Council is of the view that it may deal with the “balance requirement” as a whole.

Generally, the format of open-line programs has the potential of offering an opportunity for balance; however, the Council recognizes the important role of the host (and the producer) in ensuring balance. They wield considerable power in terms both of the choice of callers who get to air and the ability of the on-air host to cut off callers at will. The Council finds that, in this case, Ms. Klinck made a valiant effort to achieve balance in the treatment of the controversial issue chosen as a topic for the show. […]

In this case, the Council is of the view that the host encouraged a balanced presentation and discussion of the issue of false accusations of sexual assault. The public had been given the opportunity to call in and comment, and the host herself tried to balance the viewpoint of her guest. As a result, the Council finds that the program did not violate clauses 6 and 7 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

Multiple episodes of a public affairs discussion program on which the host had discussed the Indigenous protest movement known as Idle No More were considered in Sun News Network re The Source (Idle No More) (CBSC Decision 12/13-0985, October 23, 2013). The complainant alleged that Sun News’s coverage of the issue had been biased overall and that, in the particular episodes she identified, Levant had selectively chosen to show non-Indigenous protestors in order to make his point that many of the protestors were not even Indigenous and were simply “professional disrupters” out to “create a ruckus”. The Panel concluded that hosts of opinion programs are fully entitled to state their views on political issues even if those viewpoints are controversial. Sun News Network did not breach Clause 7 in this case.

Panel’s findings on question 4

The CBSC precedents on the issue of fairness and balance do not require that equal time or an opportunity to present fully a point of view on the subject being treated be given. The broadcaster does have a responsibility to provide balanced programming especially on a controversial issue. However, this balance can be achieved throughout the programming schedule.

That being said, in this broadcast, both sides of the conflict were presented. The broadcaster noted in its response dated January 17, 2024 that Mr. Mineer “did make strong negative comments about Hamas as an organization, and also made strong negative comments about the Israeli government as an organization.” It was also noted that the host “expressed great empathy for innocent Palestinians caught in this crisis, and expressed great disgust with both Israeli and Palestinian factions who are causing the crisis.” Moreover, Mansoory was given time to express her viewpoint, even if she was not afforded the opportunity to clarify her points as much as she might have liked.

The Panel concurs that although the discussion was heated, the host did take issue with both sides in these events and, therefore, encouraged a fair and balanced presentation of the issues. The fact that the host took issue with some of the political comments made by the guest does not mean that the segment was unfair or unbalanced. As an opinion-based program, controversial views can be expressed and challenged and, therefore, the Panel concludes that the broadcaster did not breach Clauses 6 or 7 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

Accuracy

Some complainants accused Brett Mineer of “inaccurate reporting”, “spreading lies”, and “false claims” without any evidence. A couple of complainants made specific mention of an alleged video showing Hamas members beheading a Thai-Israeli with a garden hoe, which they said the host likely did not see himself. In the broadcast itself, the host said “It’s on video! The world saw it!” and the guest asked him for evidence of that fact.

In its initial response to the complainants, CHNL cited Mansoory as saying “hundreds of thousands” of Palestinian people are killed every year in the West Bank, but the broadcaster noted that “the BBC reports that number is closer to 100”. One of the complainants believed the broadcaster’s letter misquoted the guest and that she in fact said “hundreds to thousands”.

As a talk show, NL Newsday is not subject to the same threshold of accuracy as an actual news report would be. The CBSC grants considerable latitude in the expression of opinions. That said, that expression must be based on accurate facts. Complaints about accuracy in talk shows are examined under Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics rather than the News provision of that code or the Radio Television Digital News Association’s Code of Journalistic Ethics. The CBSC has found breaches where talk show hosts made clearly false statements in the presentation of their ideas.

In contrast, where the misstatements were not very material to the overall discussion or open to interpretation, the CBSC found no breach to the CAB Code of Ethics.

Comments in talk shows that breached accuracy requirement

In CKTB-AM re The John Michael Show (CBSC Decision 92/93-0170, February 15, 1994), the Panel considered the complex question of the responsibilities of broadcasters airing open line programs. In this case, the host’s topic related to questions of bilingualism and French-Canadians. He made statements such as “all our government buildings are in Quebec, our civil service is in Quebec, uh, this country’s headquarters is in Quebec”, that all Cabinet sessions are conducted in French and that all Canadian ambassadors are French. The Panel found that the host’s “comments were riddled with a multiplicity of factual inaccuracies, many of which were of the most elementary nature.” The Panel found the station in breach of Clause 6 of the Code of Ethics:

The CBSC is conscious of the importance of free debate and the entitlement of a host to express politically contentious points of view on air. That liberty does not, however, extend to the expression of gross and multiple misstatements of fact which are calculated to distort the perspective of the listener. [...] The CBSC does, however, not believe that the public debate in Canada is furthered in any way by the broadcast of such accumulated misinformation as was emitted by Mr. Michael on June 1. [...] It is the view of the Council that accumulated misinformation, and collective unresearched and inaccurate statements constitute a breach of high standard under the Broadcasting Act and a breach of the responsibility of the broadcaster to ensure the “full, fair and proper presentation of news, opinion, comment and editorial” as required by Clause 6 [...] of the CAB Code of Ethics.

The CBSC dealt with a complaint about an editorial segment in CILQ-FM re John Derringer’s “Tool of the Day” (CBSC Decision 02/03-1465, February 10, 2004). Each day, radio commentator John Derringer selected a figure in the news who had done something with which Derringer disagreed to be his “tool of the day”. Derringer performed an editorial piece commenting on the individual’s actions. In the broadcast in question, Derringer targeted a judge who had issued what Derringer felt was too light a sentence for a child pornography crime. Derringer stated that “we don’t have laws similar to those in Britain and the United States where, to the best of my knowledge, what this guy did would be an automatic ten-year sentence”. The Panel acknowledged that the host was legitimately permitted to express his point of view on this legal topic but found a breach of Clause 6 for Derringer’s inaccurate exaggeration of the penalties found in other countries:

As a general principle, this Panel underscores the common generic perspective of CBSC Panels that electronic editorializing, like that in the print media, has the potential of being of great benefit and importance to broadcasters and audiences alike. At its best, when properly presented, it can be stimulating, thought-provoking, reaction-generating (pro or con) and helpful to the generation of opinion in the general populace.

The Panel, however, accords great importance to the adverb “properly” for it is not just any expression of opinion that carries virtue in its words and ideas. The expression of opinion should be deft and measured. It should stimulate by the responsibility of its presentation. It need not rabble-rouse to be effective. [...]

Moreover, it appears to the Panel that he did not do any research before making the assertion that

it’s that we don’t have laws similar to those in Britain and the United States where, to the best of my knowledge, what this guy did would be an automatic ten-year sentence in the States or in England.

By simply using the phrase “to the best of my knowledge”, he cannot duck responsibility for the bold assertion that “what this guy did would be an automatic ten-year sentence in the States or in England.” […] Now, the Ontario Regional Panel has no more sympathy for the criminal offender than the judge or Derringer had but the broadcaster’s approach was not reasoned; it was unduly exaggerated. Before flailing his verbal arms, he owed it to his listeners to have presented his underlying legal facts with greater accuracy.

An episode of a right-wing talk show was examined in CHRB-AM (AM 1140) re an episode of Freedom Radio Network (CBSC Decision 05/06-1959, January 9, 2007). The two hosts discussed a complaint that had been brought against them and their sponsor organization, Concerned Christians Canada, at the Canadian Human Rights Commission; that complaint had alleged abusive remarks on the basis of sexual orientation. The complaint to the CBSC came from the individual who had filed the Human Rights Commission complaint. He was concerned that the hosts had uttered abusive comments against homosexuals, insulted him on air and made inaccurate statements about the Human Rights Commission case. For example, the hosts alleged that they had been accused of a “hate crime” and that the courts had given them the right to publish information about the case. The Panel found those inaccuracies in violation of Clause 6:

Among other things, they distorted the nature of the acts of the complainant in a serious way. They said that they had been accused of a “hate crime”. By that, a reasonably informed individual would have understood one of the two crimes under the Hate Propaganda sections of the Criminal Code, likely, that entitled “Public Incitement of Hatred”. The reality is that complaints were made to the Alberta Human Rights Commission and to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Neither complaint, if pursued to its logical conclusion, would be characterized as a crime.

[...]

In the matter at hand, not only was there no assertion of a crime by the complainant, but there was also misinformation provided by the co-hosts regarding the substance of what they had “won” and where. Leaving aside the ill-informed references to the legitimately constituted federal and provincial Human Rights Commissions, the co-hosts said that they “fought and won in court the right to actually post the information about the ongoing Commission and then the hearings on the website and the courts, the courts, the real courts […] not the kangaroo courts.” They did not. Unless there is some other decision to which none of the parties had referred in this dossier, the only decision in question was that rendered by the Human Rights Panels of Alberta and issued by the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, not a court at all in the sense that the co-hosts had been distinguishing commissions or tribunals from courts.

[...]

It was not, however, a court, as represented by the co-hosts. Nor was the application related to a hate crime, as intimated. Nor did the application give the respondent any entitlement to post material other than that of the human rights complainant, as also intimated.

The CBSC dealt with 14 episodes of a religious program in CITS-TV re Word.ca and Word TV (CBSC Decision 08/09-2142 & 09/10-0383+, June 22, 2010). Word TV was a religious program (which, sometime between July 19 and October 25, 2009, changed its name from Word.ca) hosted by evangelical Christian leader Charles McVety. The program featured McVety talking about recent news events with considerable focus on legislation being proposed by the Canadian and Ontario governments. The host sometimes had a guest on to discuss the issues with him. The CBSC received numerous complaints from a single complainant who expressed concerns about the program’s treatment of a number of different issues, including homosexuality, Islam, euthanasia and Haiti. The host made a number of statements to support his views, such as that the Ontario and Alberta Human Rights Tribunals have a “100% conviction rate”, that government Bill C-250 made it “a crime to speak against homosexuality”, and that a proposed revision to the Ontario school curriculum would teach children “how to be” homosexuals. While the Panel found that McVety was fully entitled to state his opinions on these various subjects, he made some abusive comments about homosexuals that contravened the Human Rights Clause and he violated Clause 6 for presenting factual errors:

In dealing with both the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) and the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC), host McVety has either carelessly or purposefully misled his audience when he referred (in both cases) to the “one hundred per cent conviction rate” of both regulatory bodies. The Panel assumes that the host was, on that basis, attempting to impugn any decision emanating from those tribunals as unfair, biased, distorted and unworthy of the public’s trust. Leaving aside the host’s mistaken (and judgment-laden) use of the words “convict” and “conviction” in this context, whatever his motivation, his allegation of an undisputed, unmarred “conviction” record is incorrect and misleading to Word TV’s viewers.

The Panel then noted the number of complaints upheld and dismissed by each of those Tribunals over the past few years, both of which were “far from the 100% McVety had posited, and constitutes a serious distortion of the facts.” The Panel also commented on the host’s presentation of Bill C-250 and the Ontario curriculum revisions:

The single most egregious and misleading assertion by host McVety was his November 8 assertion that, in his words, “it is now a crime to speak against homosexuality. Yes, I said a crime. Bill C-250 went through our Parliamentary system and made it a crime for anyone to speak against sexual orientation.” That is wrong. All Bill C-250 did was to add to the list of protected categories of identifiable groups in Sec. 318(4) (namely, “any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin”) and, by reference, Sec. 319(1) and 319(2) of the Criminal Code, the words “or sexual orientation”. In other words, the substance of the Criminal Code provisions dealing with the advocating of genocide and the public incitement of hatred remained unchanged. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that Bill C-250 only renders the genocide and hate provisions consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, which, nearly ten years before, had read “sexual orientation” into Sec. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in its decision Egan v. Canada [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513 [...].

[...]

It is the view of the Panel that the host’s statement that “it is now a crime to speak against homosexuality” is factually incorrect and misleading to the audience. It is a gross distortion of the serious reason for the creation of a protection in the criminal law in order to give effect to the Parliamentary goal of prohibiting the incitement of hatred against identifiable groups. Any broadcaster may disagree with the adoption of such a criminal remedy by the Government, but, once adopted, no broadcaster ought to distort its meaning or effect. It would be correct to assert that “it is now a crime to incite hatred against homosexuals” (in the circumscribed conditions of the Section); it is not correct to assert that “it is now a crime to speak against homosexuality.”

The host is, as noted above, entirely free to disagree with the proposed Government curriculum changes favouring openness and diversity. That would be fair enough, but apparently not far enough to suit him. He has characterized the school issue in the following way on the January 17 program: “All of these sexual practices to be taught to our children in our schools. When we send little Johnny and little Jane to school, [it’s] not to learn to be homosexuals and lesbians.” He then attributes the curriculum modification proposals to “an activist group”, whose members “have an insatiable appetite for sex, especially with young people.” There is not a shred of evidence offered in support of this clearly excessive characterization of the Government’s motivation and the alleged criminal practices of the proposers of the curriculum changes. On the January 24 episode, he again refers to “this activist, homosexual activist agenda.”

[...]

In sum, the Panel finds that the characterization of the revised curriculum as one designed to teach homosexuality is utterly wrong. The proposed curricular revisions are intended to teach tolerance. McVety is entitled to disagree that such teaching of tolerance should be tolerated but his twisting of the purpose of the revisions is wrong-headed, unfair and improper.

An episode of a talk show in which the hosts discussed social assistance was considered in CHOI-FM re Dupont le midi (community organizations) (CBSC Decision 08/09-1506, September 23, 2010). One of the hosts made comments such as [translations] “single working mothers earning a gross salary of five hundred dollars per week, that’s less than a thousand on welfare. And if you’re a single mother and you’re working, I feel like telling you that you are a jerk.” He also cited figures when he said “it’s a thousand bucks in welfare because the base, welfare is almost six hundred bucks. With two kids, she gets a thousand. Family allowance is between six and eight hundred. Oh look, we’re at sixteen hundred per month. The father pays a minimum of five hundred. I’m at two thousand one hundred bucks, she would have to earn four thousand two hundred!” The complaint came from an organization called the Front commun des personnes assistées sociales du Québec (FCPASQ) which complained that the host had provided inaccurate figures and had belittled people who receive social assistance. The Panel found that the host was entitled to broadcast his opinions on social assistance, but that he had violated Clause 6 because he had presented inaccurate information as a basis for those opinions:

[T]he Quebec Panel finds that numerous factual assertions made by the co-hosts of Dupont le midi were incorrect or misleading and made in furtherance of the proposition that working single mothers were less well-off than those on social welfare. These assertions related, among other things, to the alleged quantum of benefits accruing to persons on social welfare vis-à-vis working single mothers, their right to access social welfare while not availing themselves of judicial recourse for alimentary allowances to which they might be entitled, and so on. Moreover, the allegations regarding the disparity of revenue between the two groups were repeated at different dollar levels. To emphasize the inappropriateness of the approach of the welfare recipients, on the one hand, and the foolishness of the serious approach of the working single mother, who was described as a [translation] “jerk”, the distorted figures were also accompanied by exaggerated assertions regarding the nature of the social assistance recipients’ “frivolous” expenditures.

In the end, the Panel is troubled by the allegedly factual observations since they were made frequently and from an apparently authoritative perspective. They represented a barrage of seemingly trustworthy information. It is on the basis of such assertions that Mr. Dupont and his colleagues built their structure of opinions. While they are entitled to hold and broadcast their own derogatory and disparaging opinions regarding social welfare and aid recipients, they owe it to their audience that the basis for their argument be based on sound, rather than misleading, information. Even the broadcaster acknowledged that point: [translation] “[We] agree with you that the information provided can lead to confusion, even if that was not the intention of the hosts.” It is not, of course, the intention of the hosts that matters, but rather what they convey to their audience. The Panel concludes that the broadcaster was in breach of Clause 6 for broadcasting opinion that, because of the false and misleading underpinnings, was neither full, fair nor proper.

A segment on a public affairs discussion program had host Ezra Levant and his guest commentator, Kathryn Marshall, talking about public funding for the arts and specifically a housing program in Edmonton called Arts Habitat which provides housing and studio space to artists. The broadcast was examined in Sun News Network re The Source (Edmonton Artists’ Housing) (CBSC Decision 10/11-2102 & -2124, March 28, 2012). Arts Habitat receives money from the Alberta provincial and Edmonton municipal governments. The host and guest objected to government funding for these types of programmes. The host repeatedly referred to the housing as “free”. Marshall primarily used the word “subsidized”, but on one occasion even she used the word “free”. The CBSC received complaints, pointing out that the housing is not “free”; artists pay rent to live there. The complainants also expressed concerns about other misrepresentations of the housing complexes and the lack of balance on the subject. The Panel found that the inaccurate characterization of the housing as “free” violated Clause 6, but the broadcast did not violate Clause 7 because “both guest and host were entitled to question the relevancy of taxpayer-subsidized programs for artists [but the station] violated Clause 6 [...] because the opinion broadcast was based on an erroneous premise.”

The talk show host André Arthur, and his colleague, Alexandre Leblond, discussed a situation involving the Anglican Church of Quebec which was examined in CHOI-FM re Arthur le midi (CBSC Decision 15/16-0869, November 2, 2016). The Church housed a donkey and a goat and, according to Arthur, the animals appeared to be mistreated. He had sent Leblond on location to investigate what was happening. Leblond reported back that the animals were mistreated, being forced to stay outside all winter with no heated shelter and fed styrofoam cups or non-nutritious food by passersby. He also stated that a second donkey had died at the church in 2015. Arthur discussed this topic on two episodes of his program, complaining that the Humane Society should investigate. A representative from the Church complained about the broadcasts, alleging that the information was inaccurate. The complainant explained that the animals did receive nutritious, appropriate food and had access to a stable. The complainant also pointed out that the Humane Society did not have jurisdiction over the animals; rather, in this case, they were the responsibility of the ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation du Québec (MAPAQ), whose inspection reports confirmed that the animals were well-treated and copies of which the complainant provided to both the broadcaster and the CBSC. The Church considered that the false information broadcast by CHOI-FM tarnished its reputation. After the first broadcast, a Church representative had visited the station in person to clarify the facts, so it was all the more upset by the second broadcast. The CBSC concluded that CHOI-FM was in breach for airing inaccurate information:

They emphasize in particular certain comments by journalist Leblond that asserted that [translation] “there was another donkey before, [...] but they tell me the donkey lost its life in March 2015 due to natural causes, old age”. In fact, the MAPAQ inspection report of November 2014 makes mention of only one donkey and one goat. It seems that journalist Leblond confused the donkeys brought by the Recollect Order in 1632, which had been mentioned by the person with whom he spoke, with the situation at the time of his visit.

That was not the only inaccuracy made by Leblond. He claimed, among other things, that the donkey and the goat are outside in all weather and that they only have access to an enclosure in the evening [translation] “which is nothing more than a couple of two-by-fours and studs”. If Leblond had made them aware that he was a journalist, the church representative would have shown him the stable to which the animals have access all the time and which they can enter by way of a Tempo-type covering that protects the door from snow and ice, but which Leblond erroneously described as their only shelter.

André Arthur relied on all of these assertions to chastise the Anglican Church and to attack the SPA.

The Panel Adjudicators can only conclude that the information provided by journalist Leblond were, at best, incomplete if not clearly inaccurate. They thus violated Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

An episode of a talk show in which a panel of political commentators talked about former United States president Donald Trump was examined in CFRA re The Vassy Kapelos Show (CBSC Decision 20.2223-0957, September 6, 2023). On the day of the broadcast, Trump was appearing in court after being indicted on issues related to campaign financing. The commentators talked about whether the indictment and some of Trump’s other past actions would affect his future political prospects. During the conversation, one panellist stated “There were police officers killed on January 6th.” This reference was to January 6, 2021 when a group of Trump supporters rioted at the US Capitol Building in Washington, DC to protest the outcome of the 2020 US presidential election. Trump had lost the election to Joe Biden, but alleged that this was due to election interference. The riot caused considerable chaos and destruction at the Capitol and some people felt that Trump’s public statements prior to the event had encouraged the behaviour of the rioters, such that Trump should be charged with incitement. A listener complained that the statement was “patently false” because no police officers died on January 6. CFRA explained that one officer had died the following day and, although the medical examiner eventually ruled that his January 7 death was “natural” due to two strokes, some people, including the Capitol police chief, attributed the officer’s death to what he had endured the day before when confronting the rioters. The listener also noted that when Kapelos announced she was going to do a “fact check” at the end of the program, the listener had expected Kapelos to clarifiy the incorrect information, but she did not. The majority of the Panel agreed with the complainant that it was inaccurate to state that police officers had been killed on January 6, 2021. Two adjudicators dissented on this point:

The majority of the Panel considers that Mr. Mulcair’s statement regarding the death of officers on January 6, 2021 was inaccurate. This statement was not only incorrect, it was made almost two years after the DC Chief Medical Examiner confirmed that the manner of the Officer Sicknick’s death was “natural” and specifically attributable to two strokes at the base of the brain stem caused by an artery clot.

The unequivocal fact is no police officers died on January 6, 2021, and Officer Sicknick, according to the DC Chief Medical Examiner died on January 7, 2021 of “natural” causes although there is an ongoing debate as to whether the altercations on January 6 contributed to the cause of this officer’s death. This officer’s death was widely covered by news outlets and it has triggered an ongoing debate in the news media regarding the cause of his death. Officer Sicknick’s death was a verifiable fact. This means that it was incorrect to claim that officers died on January 6, 2021 on Capitol Hill. The public is entitled to expect that hosts and commentators will convey accurate information. This was not the case as it relates to the death of officers on that fateful day.

Mr. Mulcair’s commentary, which was opinion-based, was otherwise acceptable under the applicable broadcast codes. The CBSC has stated that hosts and commentators are free to express their viewpoint and that editorializing when properly presented “can be stimulating, thought-provoking, reaction-generating (pro or con) and helpful to the generation of opinion in the general populace.” However, these opinions and comments need to be based on accurate facts.

Accordingly, the majority of the Panel finds that the comment regarding the death of officers on January 6, 2021 at the DC Capitol Building constitutes an inaccuracy contrary to Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

Dissenting opinion of S. Simpson and R. Waksman

[...]

Although it is correct to state that technically no officer died on January 6, 2021 and certainly Republican rhetoric hinges on this fact, the Democrats have given their interpretation to the DC Chief Medical Examiner’s report which opens the door to the January 6 events being a contributing factor to Sicknick’s death. In such a circumstance, one could say that both views are either correct or incorrect but in our view no definitive conclusion can be factually made.

We agree with the majority of the Panel that commentators and hosts are entitled to give their interpretation of the facts of an issue. This is especially true when there are conflicting interpretations of the facts. Although there was only one officer’s death at issue (not “officers”, as stated by Mr. Mulcair) the fact is that it remains unclear and certainly unverifiable as to whether the events of January 6 contributed to Officer Sicknick’s death on January 7.

Accordingly, we are of the view that the comment regarding the death of officers on January 6, 2021 at the DC Capitol Building did not constitute an inaccuracy contrary to Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Etics.

Comments in talk shows that did not breach accuracy requirement

A complaint regarding a call-in program was examined in CJCB-AM re TalkBack (CBSC Decision 96/97-0065, February 14, 1997). A woman had phoned the program to raise her concerns about her experience with the Children’s Aid Society. She explained that she had invited her regional councillor to accompany her to a meeting with a CAS social worker to discuss the case of her special needs child. She took issue with the social worker who refused to discuss the case with the councillor present. The program host told her that the law does not allow a social worker to discuss cases with an outsider even if the parent has given permission. A listener complained that this information was inaccurate since the law does allow such a situation if permission is granted in writing. The Panel found no breach of Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics:

[T]he Council has no hesitation in finding that the host was absolutely fair and proper, if not also sympathetic, in his approach to the caller, whose personal problems with her special needs child were certainly complex. Moreover, in arriving at this decision, the Council is not required to express its own opinion on the niceties of the legal point which faced the host. The issue is not, after all, whether he was absolutely correct regarding his representation on the requirement of a formal authorization to disclose in a pure legal sense or not. It is not his responsibility to be a lawyer and he did not represent himself as such, although he was firm on his understanding of the Nova Scotia law. Furthermore, there is always the possibility that two lawyers might themselves have differing opinions on the very issue.

The host’s duty was to be fair and responsible in expressing his opinion. If inaccuracy there was, and the Atlantic Regional Council does not hereby express any opinion on this issue, it was an error within the ambit of fairness and reasonableness.

An interview on a public affairs program with Canadian interpretive dancer Margie Gillis was examined in Sun News Network re Canada Live (Margie Gillis interview) (CBSC Decision 10/11-1803+, December 15, 2011). The host challenged Gillis on public funding for the arts. The host provided dollar amounts of money Gillis and her dance foundation had received over the years and asked Gillis why her work required such funding. The host was forceful in her position against taxpayer funding of the arts and, at times, the two women talked over each other. The CBSC received a record number of 6,676 complaints about the broadcast, primarily as a result of a campaign orchestrated on Facebook. Complainants argued that the host had unjustly attacked Gillis and some suggested that the dollar figures presented were questionable. With respect to Clause 6, the Panel said:

While program hosts are fully entitled to present their opinions on various topics, any factual information used to support those opinions must be accurate. The Panel notes that the Canada Council for the Arts website allows users to search for the names of grant recipients, including year, amount and purpose. According to that website, the list of figures and information that Canada Live presented on screen were accurate. The Panel has some concerns about the accuracy of including the Walter Carsen prize in the list of taxpayer-funded grants because it is in fact an endowment fund established by Mr. Carsen and simply administered by the Canada Council for the Arts. Despite its concern, the Panel considers that that misrepresentation was minor and did not impact the overall debate that occurred between Erickson and Gillis on Canada Live. There is no violation of Clause 6 in that respect.

Panel’s findings on question 5

As noted earlier, the discussion between the host and guest on NL Newsday was very passionate, even heated, and both parties made a variety of statements that could be considered hyperbole.

With regards to the video footage brought up by the host at the end of the interview, information available in this regard stated that video footage of various elements of the violence in Gaza was compiled into a 43-minute video around the time of the interview. The video was a compilation of Hamas cellphone, GoPro and dashcam video, as well as Israeli cellphone, dashcam, home security, CCTV and traffic camera footage. The Israeli government arranged private screenings of the material for government officials and foreign journalists. There was a total ban on video and audio recording at the screening due to an agreement between the Israel Defense Forces and the victims’ families. Nevertheless, there were reports that a substantial part of the footage circulated on social media.2

According to a CBC report, the film contained many scenes of violence and bodies. Some of the scenes were described in the article. With respect to the beheading mentioned by the host, the article described it as follows:

The film also shows an attempt to decapitate a severely-wounded man with a hoe. The man, who has a gunshot wound in his torso, appears to be one of a number of Thai agricultural workers who were employed in some of the agricultural settlements near the Gaza border.

An Associated Press article also described the video3. That article also stated that the Israeli military showed the film to foreign correspondents. The article stated that “It showed gunmen shooting the dead bodies of civilians in cars, militants in the process of beheading a body with a hoe, burnt corpses thrown in a dumpster.” The article also described additional atrocities.

On October 26, 2023, during an emergency meeting on the Israel-Hamas war at the United Nations General Assembly, Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations (Gilad Erdan) played video footage of an alleged Hamas fighter trying to decapitate a Thai worker with a garden hoe during the October 7 incursion into Israel.4

As mentioned earlier, over the several months immediately following the October 7 attack, there was wide reporting of the conflict and injuries sustained both by Israelis and Palestinians.

The release of the video segment raised by the host was effected the day before the program at issue. The CBSC is not a fact-finding tribunal so it cannot verify whether the host actually saw the video. However, the reporting on this seems to substantiate the claim that there was disturbing video available on social media involving what was reportedly an attempted or actual beheading of a body. When the host stated that the “whole world” saw it, this was another example of hyperbole. Even the broadcaster admitted in their second response that the host “did not intend to literally imply that the entire world had seen the videos, but used the phrase ‘whole world’ to state just how widely distributed and viewed the videos were.” The Panel considers that the host was giving his interpretation of the accessibility of the video and that, although it may seem somewhat excessive, this statement is subject to interpretation and does not constitute an inaccuracy or a significant misstatement of fact.

In its responses to the complainants, the broadcaster alleged that the guest asserted that “Israel kills ‘hundreds of thousands’ of Palestinian people every year in the West Bank.” CHNL also took issue with other statements made by the guest such as drawing a moral equivalency between Hamas and Nelson Mandela and the assertion that Hamas is not a terrorist organization. The broadcaster believed that these assertions were inaccurate and misleading since “the BBC reports that number is closer to 100”. The broadcaster explained that this contributed to the early ending of the interview.

The CBSC reviewed the broadcast copy provided by CHNL. With regards to the number of Palestinians killed each year in the West Bank, the guest stated, “Take a look at the occupied West Bank where Hamas doesn’t exist, yet hundreds to thousands of Palestinians are killed every single year.” The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has a webpage where it provides data on casualties. Filtering for just the West Bank, the number of Palestinian fatalities each year from 2008 to 2022 ranged from 9 people to 154, with an average of 54. The number spiked in 2023 with 509. The number of Palestinians injured in the same region over the same time period is much higher, with a low of 944 in 2009 and a high of 16 808 in 2021. The website explains how “fatalities” and “injuries” are defined and compiled.5

A BBC article from 2022 reported that “At least 100 Palestinians have been killed in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem this year amid a massive increase in Israeli military raids, according to figures compiled by the BBC ” and that this was the highest death toll to date in many years.6

Other sources consulted reveal that it is difficult to ascertain exact numbers of deaths due to the nature of the conflict and the variety of sources.

Given that it is very difficult to establish with absolute certainty the number of Palestinians killed each year in the West Bank, the CBSC considers that the statement made by the guest, just like the statement made by the host with respect to the availability of the video under dispute, is subject to interpretation and does not constitute an inaccuracy or a significant misstatement of fact. The other comments made by the guest and objected to by CHNL constitute opinions that are acceptable and allowed under the codes even if the host took offence to them or he believed she had a particular narrative she wanted to get across. Similarly, the manner in which the host reacted to statements by the guest does not constitute “gotcha journalism” as alleged in some of the complaints. The host may not have expected the rapidity and the emotions expressed in the political comments made by the guest, and this may well have been the reason why the focus of the interview was lost; however, it was acceptable for the host to express his strong opinions both for and against the parties in this conflict and these opinions, even though they may have offended the complainants, are protected under freedom of expression.

Accordingly, the Panel does not consider that the segment in question contains inaccuracies by either the host or guest that are contrary to Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

Other matters raised by complainants

Other Code provisions

Many complainants cited journalistic principles and suggested that the broadcast violated the News clause (Clause 5) of the CAB Code of Ethics and various provisions of the Radio Television Digital News Association of Canada’s (RTDNA) Code of Journalistic Ethics. Given that NL Newsday is a talk show rather than a newscast, it is not subject to these specific code provisions. While a talk show cannot contain clearly inaccurate statements, it does not have to meet the same threshold for accuracy as an actual news report. Complaints about inaccuracies in talk shows are examined under Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics and the CBSC’s findings in that regard in this case are described above.

Trigger Warnings

Some of the complainants complained that Mineer did not provide any trigger warnings prior to mentioning the video of the beheading. In the television context, Article 6.3 of the CAB Violence Code requires broadcasters to provide advance warning before showing scenes of or reporting on extraordinary violence in news or public affairs programming. There is no similar provision for radio broadcasts, although the CBSC has extended some provisions of the CAB Violence Code for television to radio when applicable. Regardless, the mere mention of a video showing a beheading does not reach the level of “extraordinary” violence that would require a warning.

Comments on Mineer’s social media accounts

Finally, some of the complainants noted that Mineer made additional comments on this topic on his social media account on the X platform (formerly Twitter). One complainant even provided screenshots of Mineer’s X account.

The CBSC’s jurisdiction is currently limited to what was broadcast on traditional radio. Comments made by hosts off air or on other platforms that provide content are not subject to the codes administered by the CBSC and thus do not form part of its assessment of any complaint.

Broadcaster Responsiveness

In all CBSC decisions, the Panels assess the broadcaster’s response to the complainant. The broadcaster need not agree with the complainant’s position, but it must respond in a courteous, thoughtful and thorough manner. In this case, CHNL provided a lengthy and fulsome reply to all complainants, outlining its view of the broadcast. The broadcaster fulfilled its obligations of responsiveness and nothing further is required on this occasion.

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

1 Jacob Magid and TOI Staff, “Erdan shows attempted beheading in uphill bid to block UNGA resolution ignoring Hamas”, The Time of Israel, 27 October 2023, https://www.timesofisrael.com/erdan-shows-attempted-beheading-in-uphill-bid-to-block-unga-resolution-ignoring-hamas/, accessed 9 February 2024.

2 Evan Dyer, “Israeli officials show unseen video from October 7 attack”, CBC News, 2 November 2023, https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/israel-hamas-gaza-palestinian-1.7016989, accessed 9 February 2024.

3 Julia Frankel, “Israeli video compilation shows the savagery and ease of Hamas’ attack”, Associated Press, 17 October 2023, https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-attack-military-war-a8f63b07641212f0de61861844e5e71e, accessed 9 February 2024.

4 Magid.

5 United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, “Data on Casualties” https://www.ochaopt.org/data/casualties, accessed 9 February 2024.

6 Tom Bateman, “Palestinian deaths toll in West Bank hits 100 this year”, BBC, 1 October 2022, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-63073541, accessed 9 February 2024.

APPENDIX A

NL Newsday with Brett Mineer is a talk show on CHNL (Kamloops, BC). The host, guests and callers discuss current events. It airs weekdays from 3:00 to 6:00 pm. On October 27, 2023, during one segment, Mineer had as his guest Umme Mansoory, the Director of the Kamloops Islamic Association. They had the following exchange:

Mineer: All right, when we come back, we’re going to be dipping our toes into local connections to the Israel Hamas conflict. Israel mounting their ground invasion. It looks like the beginning of the ground invasion, uh, in sort of the true sense of the word is starting right now as we speak. We’re going to be speaking momentarily here with Umme Mansoory of the Ayesha Mosque here in Kamloops to talk about how they are supporting members of their community who, you know, have family, uh, back in Gaza and who are worried and who are increasingly losing touch with them. That’s coming up right after the break.

[commercial break]

Mineer: All right, welcome back. Well, uh, the news out of the Middle East, uh, it’s terrible these days. There’s no other way, no other way to put it. And, uh, now, uh, tonight, I’m looking at CNN live image right now from Gaza and it is dark there. Minus, uh, the explosions as Israel is expanding their ground operations now in what is believed to be their first, uh, sort of sizeable push, the beginning of their, uh, ground invasion. Obviously it’s got a lot of people very concerned. We’ve talked to, you know, we’ve heard the voices of, uh, Israelis in recent weeks since October 7th, uh, but, you know, here in Kamloops as well, um, there is also folks with, uh, connections to the Palestinian side of the conflict. I’m joined by Umme Mansoory of the Ayesha Mosque here in Kamloops. Umme, thanks so much for, uh, coming on today.

Mansoory: Thanks for inviting me.

Mineer: Okay, I mean, I guess, you know, there are several members of, of the mosque who I ima-, who are I’m told are obviously, you know, their attention and their concern is for, uh, loved ones in, uh, in, in, in, uh, in Gaza right now. And I guess I’m just sort of wondering, you know, how it’s been at the mosque the last couple of weeks, how you’re sort of, uh, navigating this and supporting, and I guess supporting your members.

Mansoory: Uh, yes, so we have about eight to ten members of our community who are originally from Palestine. Um, many of them carry Egyptian or [?] or Syrian travel documents because their families were ethnically cleansed from their ancestral lands and were forced to live in refugee camps in neighbouring countries. Um, we do know of a couple of family members and international students in our community who are from Gaza. Um, I know that with everything that’s going on with that, um, expansion of the ground invasion, um, the lack of electricity, um, no cell reception for anybody, there is a lot of fear in our community, especially for people who have family there right now or who have lost family in the last couple of weeks as well.

Mineer: Yeah, there, there are members that have lost family, eh?

Mansoory: Yes. There are members who have lost family. There are members who have lost friends. There are members who have lost grandparents even, um.

Mineer: Mm hm. So, I mean, what, what do you do? I mean, it’s not, in terms of war in Gaza, I mean, we’ve, we’ve been to that place, you know, a few times in last, uh, you know, fifteen, fifteen years. But nothing like this. I mean, this is, uh, this is like all-out, full-on, uh, you know, Israel wants to finish off, you know, Hamas for good. And, uh, unfortunately there are a lot of civilians there, you know? I mean, how do you, how do you sort of stickhandle this in, in a community, you know, like Kamloops, especially after, you know, sort of the event that has precipitated, uh, you know, Israel going on this campaign was the October 7th attacks by Hamas, right? So obviously there’s a lot, you know, inflamed feelings about, about that. How do you sort of navigate this?

Mansoory: Um, well Brett, with all due respect, I’m just going to make a little correction here. I think we need to stop calling this a war. It’s not a war. One side is a global nuclear superpower that receives billions of dollars of military aid from the United States in addition to their own twenty-six point six billion dollar budget for military spending. And the other side is nothing more than a refugee camp that was already living under a brutal military siege. Um, and, you know, I’m, I’m really tired of the narrative that Israel is going after Hamas because, um, Palestinians were killed long before Hamas was formed. Um, and they would still be getting killed even if Hamas never existed. Take a look at the occupied West Bank where Hamas doesn’t exist, yet hundreds to thousands of Palestinians are killed every single year. Um, in terms of supporting our community, we’re doing the best that we can. Um, you know, we have been trying to use our collective voice to advocate for change at the governmental level. We are meeting with elected officials and writing to them almost daily, from local politicians to Ottawa and reminding them of the context and history of the illegal occupation of Palestine. We’re reminding elected officials that ethnic cleansing of Indigenous people, genocide and apartheid are not in line with Canadian values, especially –

Mineer: Do you, do you really believe, though, that, that what we’re talking about here is genocide?

Mansoory: Absolutely. There is no question, there’s no denial of that –

Mineer: Do you not think, though, that if, if Israel’s goal was genocide that they would not have been able to do that, like, many times over by now?

Mansoory: Have you not seen, have you not heard elected officials and military generals of Israel calling Palestinians animals, calling for their complete wipe-out? Israeli settlers chanting on the streets saying “Gaza is a cemetery”? This is genocide –

Mineer: Well, Israeli, Israeli, Israeli settlers are not much different than Hamas. I mean, they are, they are religious extremists who are agitators in the region who have caused a lot of problems. I offer no defence of the government of Bibi Netanyahu. Um, you know, he’s, he’s, he’s put the nation at risk, destabilized the region, all of the rest of it. But I, but, but I, I guess I’m just wondering, like, I mean, Hamas, in terms of, like, the support, um, you know, we’re told that –

Mansoory: Okay –

Mineer: – that, that Hamas is not, uh, is not Palestine, but they, like, just as Bibi Netanyahu’s government is a barrier to peace, is not Hamas a barrier to peace?

Mansoory: Um, well, I’m going to first correct you and say that the United Nations does not recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization. In fact, only a few nations do, including the United States of America. But the USA hasn’t been the best judge of who is and isn’t a terrorist because they also considered Nelson Mandela a terrorist until 2008, which is five years before he died. And I’m sure not you nor your listeners would consider Nelson Mandela, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, to be a terrorist. So what I’m going to do, is I’m going to let history decide that for us. Because we might find in ten, twenty, fifty years from now that maybe, just maybe they weren’t the bad guys. And that we’ve been lied to. Which wouldn’t be the first time.

Mineer: I, I –

Mansoory: I will also say is that with any –

Mineer: I, I, so, so, so when they, when, when they s-, when Hamas fighters are taking glee in cutting heads off with, with –

Mansoory: Do you have evidence of that, Brett? If you’re going to make a point –

Mineer: Yes. Video. It was on video!

Mansoory: There is no video evidence!

Mineer: It’s on video!

Mansoory: [??] evidence. [??] –

Mineer: It’s on video! The world saw it!

Mansoory: No world has saw it [sic]! The White House [emailed?] and said they did not [call ends].

Mineer: We’re done here. We’re done here. I’m not going to sit here and listen as somebody makes excuses for a group of people that did an incursion into another country, whatever the history of the issue, okay? Whatever the history of the issue, to pretend. I have personally seen the video of them beheading a Thai-Israeli with a garden hoe while he was still alive. And you’re going to defend that?! Not on my show. Not on my show. I have sympathy for Palestinian civilians that are caught in this. But there is no moral equivalence. Hamas is a terrorist organization. And fifteen to twenty years from now when we look back at this, we may have problems with Israel’s conduct of the war, but I guarantee you, fifteen to twenty years from now, nobody is going to be lauding Hamas as heroes.

APPENDIX B

The Complaints

The CBSC received 157 complaints about this broadcast. Of those, 41 complaints were code-relevant and specific and therefore could go through the CBSC process. Of those, 17 complainants filed Ruling Requests. Their complaints are reproduced below.

File 20.2324-0203

This complaint was submitted via webform on November 2, 2023:

Television or Radio Station: Radio NL

Program Name: 610 Radio NL

Date of Program: 27/10/2023

Time of Program: 3:30PM

Specific Concern:

The host cut off the guest when his narrative and claims were challenged. He was asked for evidence. He cut the guest off and slandered her by insinuating she is "supporting terrorism" putting her safety and reputation at risk.

File 20.2324-0204

This complaint was submitted via webform on November 2:

Television or Radio Station: Radio NL

Program Name: Topic of Palestine

Date of Program: 02/11/2023

Time of Program: 3:30PM

Specific Concern:

The Kamloops Muslim community expects you to address the trust-deficit that has been created by your radio show host, Mr. Brett Mineer.

Mr. Mineer’s ill-action, unprofessional conduct, and slander during a live on-air show not only placed a member of our community, Umme Mansoory’s, safety and security at risk, but also Mr. Mineer’s action contributes to overall Islamophobic rhetoric in Canada. Mr. Mineer’s conduct has thus made each member of the local Muslim community a potential target of hate.

Background:

A member of the Kamloops Islamic Association, Umme Mansoory, was invited to a show on your radio station, hosted by Mr. Brett Mineer on the afternoon of October 27, 2023.

The host had given his assurances to the Ayesha Mosque administration that the topic would categorically be on how the Palestinians living in Kamloops are coping with atrocities in Palestine and what the Mosque and Muslim community is doing to assist them. The Mosque administration was assured that there would be no political debate.

However, it seems, a few minutes into the talk Mr. Mineer deviated away from his stated commitment and employed an awful tactic of “gotcha journalism,” by throwing a curve ball at his guest by veering into the political aspect of the conflict by introducing Hamas.

Despite being blindsided by your host, Ms. Mansoory kept her composure and focused on facts. However, it seemed as if Mr. Mineer was determined to ambush her and hoping to catch Ms. Mansoory say something incriminating.

When Mr. Mineer’s awful “gotcha journalism” tactics failed and he was challenged on his skewed narrative and asked to provide evidence for his claims, he cut Ms. Mansoory off air and ventured into “yellow journalism”. Mr. Mineer drew his own conclusions by insinuating Ms. Mansoory supports or defends the harming of innocent civilians.

This is far from the truth and Ms. Mansoory was never provided the opportunity to clarify her stance.

As Muslims, we condemn any and all acts [of] aggression against civilians. Hence, your host by extension has insinuated that all Muslims support terrorism. This kind of “yellow journalism” is what fans the flames of Islamophobia in society and is the type of rhetoric that led to a 6-year old Muslim boy in Chicago being stabbed to death earlier this month.

In a small community like Kamloops this is extremely dangerous, especially for small Muslim minority communities. Mr. Mineer’s unprofessional on-air conduct has not only placed Ms. Mansoory’s safety and security at risk, but also every member of the Kamloops Muslim community.

Mr. Mineer’s ill-action during a live on-air broadcast has resulted in a trust-deficit between your station and the Kamloops Muslim community.

Therefore, we expect your radio station to do the right thing by:

Mr. Mineer personally offering an on-air apology to Ms. Mansoory as well as the Muslim community of Kamloops; and

Provide a written apology to Ms. Mansoory for her records.

We, the community members, expect your radio station to do the right thing as soon as possible. We will not tolerate bigotry.

File 20.2324-0207

This complaint was submitted via webform on November 3:

Television or Radio Station: RadioNL - Kamloops News

Program Name: Brett Mineer

Date of Program: 27/10/2023

Time of Program: 3:30AM [sic, PM]

Specific Concern:

Brett Mineer was bigoted to a Muslim woman and defamed and put her at risk! by calling her a terrorist supporter by asking her what Palestinians are facing in the Gaza genocide in the Israeli Palestine conflict. He was Very unprofessional by putting her on a later time than scheduled, and cutting her off early for a 2 minute conversation because of his biased, inaccurate reporting, and bigoted views that promote islamophobia. Brett Mineer should face consequences of leave and at the least an apology to Umme the Muslim woman he defamed, Muslims worldwide, and especially the local Islamic community, as well as Palestinians.

File 20.2324-0208

This complaint was submitted via webform on November 3:

Television or Radio Station: Radio NL

Program Name: wasn't going to be political

Date of Program: 27/10/2023

Time of Program: 3:30PM

Specific Concern:

Host had invited the Association to do an interview on the false pretense that it "wasn't going to be political" and they "wanted to know how Palestinians and Muslims in Kamloops are being supported". The host went on a bigoted tangent. When his narrative and claims were challenged and he was asked for evidence, he cut our member off the program and slandered her by insinuating she is "supporting terrorism", therefore putting her safety and reputation at risk.

File 20.2324-0209

This complaint was submitted via webform on November 3:

Television or Radio Station: Radio NL

Program Name: Brett Mineer’s

Date of Program: 27/10/2023

Time of Program: 3:30PM

Specific Concern:

On Friday October 27 at approx. 3:45pm Mr. Brett Mineer from Radio NL did an interview with Umme Mansoori [sic] on the topic of Palestine. The host mentioned at the beginning that it will be about how Palestinians and Muslims in Kamloops are being supported. As you can see, however, the host went on a bigoted tangent. When his narrative and claims were challenged and he was asked for evidence, he cut Umme off the program and slandered her by insinuating she is "supporting terrorism".

Mr. Mineer’s ill-action, unprofessional conduct, and slander during a live on-air show not only placed a member of our community, Umme Mansoory’s, safety and security at risk, but also Mr. Mineer’s action contributes to overall Islamophobic rhetoric in Canada. Mr. Mineer’s conduct has thus made each member of the local Muslim community a potential target of hate.

File 20.2324-0210

This complaint was submitted via webform on November 3:

Television or Radio Station: Radio NL

Program Name: NL Newsday with Brett Mineer

Date of Program: 27/10/2023

Time of Program: 3:30PM

Specific Concern:

The Kamloops Muslim community expects you to address the trust-deficit that has been created by your radio show host, Mr. Brett Mineer.

Mr. Mineer’s ill-action, unprofessional conduct, and slander during a live on-air show not only placed a member of our community, Umme Mansoory’s, safety and security at risk, but also Mr. Mineer’s action contributes to overall Islamophobic rhetoric in Canada. Mr. Mineer’s conduct has thus made each member of the local Muslim community a potential target of hate.

Background:

A member of the Kamloops Islamic Association, Umme Mansoory, was invited to a show on your radio station, hosted by Mr. Brett Mineer on the afternoon of October 27, 2023.

The host had given his assurances to the Ayesha Mosque administration that the topic would categorically be on how the Palestinians living in Kamloops are coping with atrocities in Palestine and what the Mosque and Muslim community is doing to assist them. The Mosque administration was assured that there would be no political debate.

However, it seems a few minutes into the talk Mr. Mineer deviated away from his stated commitment and employed an awful tactic of “gotcha journalism,” by throwing a curve ball at his guest by veering into the political aspect of the conflict by introducing Hamas.

Despite being blindsided by your host, Ms. Mansoory kept her composure and focused on facts. However, it seemed as if Mr. Mineer was determined to ambush her and hoping to catch Ms. Mansoory say something incriminating.

When Mr. Mineer’s awful “gotcha journalism” tactics failed and he was challenged on his skewed narrative and asked to provide evidence for his claims, he cut Ms. Mansoory off air and ventured into “yellow journalism”. Mr. Mineer drew his own conclusions by insinuating Ms. Mansoory supports or defends the harming of innocent civilians.

This is far from the truth and Ms. Mansoory was never provided the opportunity to clarify her stance.

As Muslims, we condemn any and all acts [of] aggression against civilians. Hence, your host by extension has insinuated that all Muslims support terrorism. This kind of “yellow journalism” is what fans the flames of Islamophobia in society and is the type of rhetoric that led to a 6-year old Muslim boy in Chicago being stabbed to death earlier this month.

In a small community like Kamloops this is extremely dangerous, especially for small Muslim minority communities. Mr. Mineer’s unprofessional on-air conduct has not only placed Ms. Mansoory’s safety and security at risk, but also every member of the Kamloops Muslim community.

Mr. Mineer’s ill-action during a live on-air broadcast has resulted in a trust-deficit between your station and the Kamloops Muslim community.

Therefore, we expect your radio station to do the right thing by:

1) Mr. Mineer personally offering an on-air apology to Ms. Mansoory as well as the Muslim community of Kamloops; and

2) Provide a written apology to Ms. Mansoory for her records.

We, the community members, expect your radio station to do the right thing as soon as possible. We will not tolerate bigotry.

This complainant made a second submission on November 5:

Specific Concerns section: Interview violates Clauses 5.2, 6 and 7 of the Code of Ethics.

1. Brett Mineer gave false and misleading assurances to Ayesha Mosque Administration, pre interview, that discussion will be "non-political.” He had assured mosque administration that it will be about how Palestinians in Kamloops are coping with war in Gaza, Palestine, and how are they being supported during these difficult times.

2. During interview, and within few minutes, Mr. Mineer deviated from his previous assurances given to the mosque administration and started attempting to impose his own views. Mr. Mineer’s on-air conduct could be summarized as “Gothca Journalism” – Blindsiding Ms. Mansoory.

3. When Ms. Mansoory challenged him to provide evidence of his egregious, outlandish, blatantly false, and utterly misleading accusations and claims, Mr. Mineer cuts Ms. Mansoory off-air rather than substantiating his egregious claims regarding beheading with primary source evidence.

4. Mr. Mineer then asserted on-air that he has seen videos of Israelis being beheaded, which I believe is utterly false, and blatantly misleading.

5. Mr. Mineer double[d]-down and started making false allegations against Ms. Mansoory that she was making excuses for a terrorist organization, without giving her an opportunity to clarify or defend herself on-air.

6. Mr. Mineer’s unprofessional, irresponsible, and irreprehensible [sic] (Yellow-Journalism) conduct on-air during his show about a guest, whom he had cut-off air earlier, and by extension small minority Muslim community in a small-town Kamloops, BC could be concluded as inciting and stoking Islamophobia.

7. Mr. Mineer’s Yellow Journalism style, in a small town like Kamloops has exposed Ms. Mansoory to potential harm, putting Ms. Mansoory’s safety, security and reputation at risk.

8. In fact, Mr. Mineer’s unprofessional on-air live conduct of inciting and stoking Islamophobia has made the tiny Muslim community of Kamloops further vulnerable to acts of racism and Islamophobia.

File 20.2324-0214

This complaint was submitted via webform on November 3:

Television or Radio Station: Stingray Radio Inc

Program Name: NL Newsday with Brett Mineer

Date of Program: 27/10/2023

Time of Program: 4:00PM

Specific Concern:

Mr. Mineeer silences Ms. Mansoory by cutting her off air and goes on to allege that Ms. Mansoory “makes excuses for a group of people who did an incursion into another country […] and pretend” and “defend[s] that” without an opportunity for Ms. Mansoory to provide clarification or defend herself. Moreover, the Host emailed the Association to further this allegation to say Ms. Mansoory “denies the atrocities committed on October 7th”.

We affirm, that in the interview:

● Ms. Mansoory never made “excuses for a group of people who did an incursion into another country […] and pretend”;

● Ms. Mansoory never denied “the atrocities committed on October 7th”;

● Ms. Mansoory challenged Mr. Mineer's narrative to engage in a debate on a polarizing topic;

● Ms. Mansoory asked the host to provide evidence of his claims; and

● Ms. Mansoory should not have been asked to condemn something that she has not seen evidence of herself.

We condemn Mr. Mineer for falsely suggesting that Ms. Mansoory is a supporter of terrorism on live radio in a community where she is well known, and at a time when Islamophobia is on the rise and Muslims are facing increasing hate crimes across Canada.

This represents irresponsible journalism and it was harmful to her and the local Muslim community.

Furthermore, Mr. Mineer gave false assurances that interview would be non-political and solely to do with how Palestinian community in Kamloops is being supported; however, [he] deviates from this and starts to impose his own views.

In violation of Clauses 5.2 and 7 of Code of Ethics.

Recording available upon request.

File 20.2324-0221

This complaint was submitted via webform on November 4:

Television or Radio Station: Stingray Radio Inc

Program Name: NL Newsday with Brett Mineer

Date of Program: 27/10/2023

Time of Program: 3:30AM

Specific Concern:

Umme was not given a fair opportunity to speak and share her informed and evidence-backed perspective. She was abruptly cut off air by Brett Mineer, and he proceeded to paint her (and subsequently the community she represents) as sympathizers of an "incursion". Umme never made those claims. This behaviour is unprofessional and it is this kind of journalist malpractice that incites Islamophobia in the community.

This violates Clauses 5.2 and 7 of the code of ethics.

File 20.2324-0293

This complaint was submitted via webform on November 6:

Television or Radio Station: Stingray

Program Name: 610 NL

Date of Program: 27/10/2023

Time of Program: 3:30AM

Specific Concern:

Host cut off guest, silenced her debate and failed to provide balanced view on a controversial topic. Furthermore the host alleged the guest of being a supporter of [an] incursion [sic]. We are in a small community and the guest belongs to a visible minority group causing her safety concerns.

File 20.2324-0305

This complaint was submitted via webform on November 7:

Television or Radio Station: Stingray radio station

Program Name: NL Newsday with Brett Mineer

Date of Program: 27/10/2023

Time of Program: 3:30PM

Specific Concern:

The host violates section 5.2, 6, 7 of the code of ethics while he slanders Umme Mansoory. This behaviour is disputable, hateful and shows how little the host knows and respects his guests. I’m asking for immediate action to be taken against this person and an official apology issued. This is sad and distasteful in this day and age. Do better!

File 20.2324-0315

This complaint was submitted via webform on November 8:

Television or Radio Station: Stingray Radio Inc

Program Name: NL Newsday with Brett Mineer

Date of Program: 27/10/2023

Time of Program: 4:00PM

Specific Concern:

Accuracy, the host is spreading lies about Palestinian conflict that has been deemed lies by all respected media.

Fairness and integrity, the host lacks fairness and had no integrity by supporting Israel and shutting other voices. If you don't want to hear others' perspective don't make a show, just talk your opinion. And if you felt your argument is weak don't shut the line on others.

This host and his management are promoting a narrative that encourages Islamophobia by spreading lies and willing to have both sides to present their ideas and the public to judge.

File 20.2324-0326

This complaint was submitted via webform on November 8:

Television or Radio Station: Stingray Radio Inc

Program Name: NL Newsday with Brett Mineer

Date of Program: 27/10/2023

Time of Program: 4:00PM

Specific Concern:

The interview of Ms. Umme Mansoori [sic] wasn't fully shared. Stating that some is supporting a terrorist group based on what someone has faced or shared perspective is very unethical and disrespectful. This statements put entire Muslim community into an uncomfortable situation [sic].

File 20.2324-0331

This complaint was submitted via webform on November 8:

Television or Radio Station: Stingray Radio Inc.

Program Name: NL Newsday with Brett Mineer

Date of Program: 27/10/2023

Time of Program: 3:30AM [sic, PM]

Specific Concern:

Brett Mineer invited Umme Mansoory to the program to speak of how Palestinians in Kamloops are being supported. However, it seems that he had an alternative motive. They had previously agreed that the conversation would not be political. Brett did not honour this agreement when he brought up politics. While Umme was taken aback, she made sure to dispute the false claims he was making. Brett did not agree with what she was saying and hung up on her and kicked her off the program. Brett Mineer has violated Clauses 2, 5, 6, and 7 of the Canadian Association of Broadcaster's Code of Ethics. I urge CBSC to hold Brett Mineer accountable for his violations.

File 20.2324-0343

This complaint was submitted via webform on November 8:

Television or Radio Station: NL Newsday

Program Name: NL Newsday and Brett Miller

Date of Program: 27/10/2023

Time of Program: 3:30PM

Specific Concern:

Brett Mineer makes false claims on live radio he cannot substantiate. He then accuses his guest of supporting an "incursion into another country" which is a false allegation as Ms. Mansoory never made that claim. Also, it's not an incursion into another country, it is their own country they are trying to decolonize.

Baseless claims like this demonize our faith and the Muslim community with blatant lies and propaganda – inciting and stoking Islamophobia – which can be extremely dangerous for our community members, with an increased risk to their safety, and security, especially in smaller towns, and cities like Kamloops, BC.

File 20.2324-0354

This complaint was submitted via webform on November 8:

Television or Radio Station: Stingray Radio Inc

Program Name: NL Newsday with Brett Mineer

Date of Program: 27/10/2023

Time of Program: 4:00PM

Specific Concern:

I listened to your broadcast on Oct 27, 2023 on Radio NL 610AM with Brett Mineer to talk about Palestinians in Kamloops. The Host, Mr. Mineer, made references to Hamas beheadings and when the guest asked him to provide evidence of this claim, he hung up on her on live radio. He then proceeded to rant about insinuating that she supported terrorism. He stated that she supported an incursion into another country, without taking into account that Palestinians are reclaiming their own land, not invading another country. He did not provide her with an opportunity to provide clarification.

• Mr. Mineer violates Sections 5.2, 6, and 7 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

• Mr. Mineer violates Sections 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 of the RTDNA Code of Ethics.

• Mr. Mineer makes false claims that have not been substantiated by him.

• Mr. Mineer does not act with sensitivity and respect when describing violent and graphic descriptions.

• Mr. Mineer censors and interferes with the broadcast.

• Mr. Mineer does not serve the public interest through the free and open exchange of ideas.

• Mr. Mineer does not recognize the full, fair and proper presentation of the news.

• Mr. Mineer hinders a side of a controversial public issue and by not presenting all sides of said issue.

• Mr. Mineer reinforces harmful rhetoric which incite[s] Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate.

File 20.2324-0355

This complaint was submitted via webform on November 8:

Television or Radio Station: Stingray Radio Inc

Program Name: NL Newsday with Brett Mineer

Date of Program: 27/10/2023

Time of Program: 3:30PM

Specific Concern:

Mr. Mineer does not act with sensitivity and respect when describing violent and graphic descriptions.

• Mr. Mineer censors and interferes with the broadcast.

• Mr. Mineer does not serve the public interest through the free and open exchange of ideas.

• Mr. Mineer does not recognize the full, fair and proper presentation of the news.

• Mr. Mineer hinders a side of a controversial public issue and by not presenting all sides of said issue.

• Mr. Mineer reinforces harmful rhetoric which incite[s] Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate.

Because this complaint contained identical wording to others, the CBSC initially told this complainant that it could only accept complaints from individuals who heard the program themselves. The complainant wrote back on November 13 to confirm that he had:

I have heard the program live on the radio. Please proceed with investigating my complaint as per the mandate of CBSC.

File 20.2324-0373

This complaint was submitted via webform on November 9:

Television or Radio Station: Stingray Radio Inc.

Program Name: NL Newsday with Brett Mineer

Date of Program: 27/10/2023

Time of Program: 3:30PM

Specific Concern:

Brett Mineer invited Umme Mansoory to the program to discuss the support for Palestinians in Kamloops, with the understanding that the conversation would remain apolitical. However, Brett disregarded this agreement and introduced political topics. Despite Umme’s surprise, she actively refuted the false claims presented. Brett disagreed with her perspective and abruptly ended the call, removing her from the program. It is evident that Brett's actions violate multiple sections of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ Code of Ethics, including Clauses 2, 5, 6, and 7, as well as Sections 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 of the Radio Television Digital News Association Code of Ethics. In the interest of maintaining journalistic integrity, I strongly urge the CBSC to hold Brett Mineer accountable for these egregious violations.

Broadcaster Response

CHNL responded to all complainants with the same letter on November 20:

Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns regarding Radio NL’s “NL Newsday” program on October 27, 2023 with host Brett Mineer, and specifically the interview with Ms. Umme Mansoory. As [a] member of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, we take our responsibility as broadcasters and journalists very seriously and we welcome the opportunity to address your concerns directly.

We can agree that the conclusion of the interview was unfortunate, with Mr. Mineer cutting Ms. Mansoory off and ending the interview prematurely. This regretful [sic] outcome was not what the parties involved anticipated.

THE ACCUSATIONS

In order to address the numerous complaints filed with the CBSC in one email, the various accusations against Mr. Mineer and Stingray Radio are summarized below:

The transcript and audio demonstrate that absolutely none of the above is accurate. In this reply, I will be referring to the transcript extensively.

THE INTERVIEW

Mr. Mineer has maintained a strong and valued relationship with the Muslim community in Kamloops and has been fortunate to interview prominent members of the community numerous times in the past, including Ms. Mansoory. On this occasion, the purpose of the interview was not to engage in political debate, but rather to touch on the impact of the events in Gaza on the local community. Both parties were aware of this going into the interview.

Mr. Mineer’s first question is non-political and essentially asks Ms. Mansoory how the community has been supporting each other through a difficult time:

Mineer: Okay I mean uh... I guess you know there are several members of of the mosque who I mean, who are I'm told are obviously you know their attention and their concern is for uh... loved ones in uh... in in uh... in Gaza right now and and I guess uh... just sort of wondering you know how it's been at the mosque the last couple of weeks how you're sort of uh... navigating this and supporting and I guess supporting your members.

Ms. Mansoory, despite understanding clearly that the interview was not intended to be political, immediately engages in provocative political language by referring to Palestinian people being “ethnically cleansed from their ancestral lands and forced to live in refugee camps”.

Mansoory: Uh... yet so we have about eight to ten members of our community who are originally from Palestine uh... many of them carry Egyptian or (inaudible) or Syrian travel documents because their families were ethnically cleansed from their ancestral lands and forced to live in refugee camps in neighboring countries and we do know of a couple of family members and international students in our community who are from Gaza uh... I know that with everything that's going on with that uh... expansion of the ground invasion uh... the lack of electricity uh... no cell reception for anybody there's a lot of fear in our community especially for people who have family there right now or who have lost family of the last couple of weeks as well.

Without debating the accuracy of “ethnic cleansing” and the deeply troubling situation faced by Palestinian people, it is undebatable that “ethnic cleansing” is politically charged wording. By invoking this phrase, Ms. Mansoory, in her first answer to a non-political question, attempts to lure Mr. Mineer into a political debate about the historical treatment of Palestinian people. Mr. Mineer, knowing the conversation is intended to remain apolitical, does not engage in debate and instead carries on with another question. Remaining as neutral as possible, Mr. Mineer asks Ms. Mansoory a follow-up about navigating inflamed feelings in the community during a time of war. His question acknowledges that Israel appears to be determined to “finish off” Hamas and that innocent civilians are caught in the crossfire.

Mineer: So I mean what do you do? I mean it's not, it's in terms of war in Gaza… I mean we've we've been to that place you know a few times in the last uh... you know fifteen fifteen years but nothing like this I mean this is uh... that this is like all out full-on uh... you know Israel wants to finish off uh... you know Hamas for good and uh... unfortunately there are a lot of civilians there, you know. I mean how do you how do you sort of stick handle this and in a community you know like Kamloops especially after you know sort of the event that is precipitated uh... you know Israel going on this campaign was the October 7th attacks by Hamas right so obviously there's a lot of uh... you know inflamed feelings about about that how do you sort of navigate this?

At this point, Ms. Mansoory doubles down on her politically-charged rhetoric. She insists on “correcting” Mr. Mineer’s assertion that this is a “war”. She refers to Gaza as “nothing more than a refugee camp”, contradicting extensive evidence that, while very much a refugee camp, Gaza is also home to between 30,000 and 40,000 heavily armed militants conducting operations from an extensive network of tunnels. Ms. Mansoory also asserts that Israel kills “hundreds of thousands” of Palestinian people every year in the West Bank, when the BBC reports that number is closer to 100. Once again, she further incites political debate through words like “genocide” and “apartheid”. While those words may or may not be an accurate portrayal of Gaza, they take the interview into very political territory.

Mansoory: uh... well right with all due respect I’m just going to make a little correction here and I think we need to stop calling this a war. It's not a war. One side is a global nuclear superpower that received billions of dollars of the uh... military aid from the United States in addition to their own 23.6 billion dollar budget for military spending, and the other side is nothing more than a refugee camp that was already living under brutal military siege uh... and you know I’m I’m really tired of this narrative that is really going after how much because uh... Palestinians were killed long before Hamas was formed uh... and they would still be getting killed even if Hamas never existed. Take a look at the occupied West Bank where Hamas doesn’t exist, yet hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are killed every single year. In terms of supporting our community we're doing the best that we can uh... you know we have been trying to use our collective voice advocate for change at the governmental level. We're meeting with elected officials and writing to them almost daily from local politicians to Ottawa on reminding them of the context of history of the illegal occupation of Palestine. We're reminding elected officials that ethnic cleansing of indigenous people, genocide, and apartheid are not in line with the Canadian values.

Mr. Mineer then challenges Ms. Mansoory on this being “genocide” by suggesting that if that was indeed Israel’s end game, given their military strength they could have accomplished it quite quickly.

Mineer: Do you really do you really believe though that that that what we're talking about here is genocide?

Mansoory: Absolutely. There's no question there's no denial of that.

Mineer: Do you not think though that if it if Israel’s goal was genocide that they would not have been able to do that uh... like many times over by now?

Mansoory: Have you not heard elected officials and military generals of Israel calling Palestinians animals? Calling for their complete wipe out? Israeli settlers chanting on the streets saying Gaza is a cemetery? That's genocide.

In the ensuing exchange, Mr. Mineer clearly reminds Ms. Mansoory that he is not supportive of the Israeli government nor religious extremists within the Jewish community. He attempts to diffuse the political argument by establishing that both the current Israeli government and Hamas could be barriers to peace.

Mineer: Well Israeli Israeli settlers are not much different than Hamas. I mean they are they are religious extremists who are agitators in the region who have caused a lot of problems. I offer no defense of the government of Bibi Netanyahu uh... there you know he's he's he's he's put the nation at risk destabilize the region all of the rest of it but but but I guess I’m just wondering like uh... I mean Hamas in terms of like this support uh... you know which we’re told that that that that Hamas is not uh... is is not Palestine, but they are like, just as Bibi Netanyahu's government is a barrier to piece is not Hamas a barrier to peace?

In her answer, Ms. Mansoory suggests that Hamas is not a terrorist organization, despite the reality that the Canadian government recognizes them as such. She then attempts to draw a moral equivalency between Hamas and Nelson Mandela and suggests that in the future we may look back on this and realize that Hamas are not the “bad guys”.

Mansoory: Well, uh... I’m gonna first correct you and say that the United Nations do not recognize Hamas of the terrorist organization. In fact only a few nations do including the United States of America, but the USA has not been the best judge of who is and isn’t a terrorist because they also considered Nelson Mandela a terrorist until 2008 which was five years before he died and I’m sure, not you nor your listeners, would consider Nelson Mandela, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, to be a terrorist. So what I’m going to do, is I’m going to let history decide that for us, because we might find in 10, 25, 50 years from now that maybe, just maybe, they weren’t the bad guys and that we’ve been lied to, which wouldn’t be the first time. I will also say, is that with any (inaudible).

This is where the interview descends into raised voices and frequent interruptions as Mr. Mineer takes offence to Ms. Mansoory’s comments that appear to defend Hamas and deny the well-documented evidence of Hamas beheadings during the October 7, 2023 incursion.

Mineer: So so so so when they when when they when they when Hamas fighters are taking glee in cutting heads off with with with with (interrupted)

Mansoory: Do you have evidence of that Brett?

Mineer: Yes, video it was on video. (interrupted)

Mansoory: No no no (interrupted)

Mineer: It's on video (interrupted)

Mansoory: There is no video evidence! (interrupted)

Mineer: It's on video. The world saw it! (interrupted)

Mansoory: No world has saw it. The White House even said they did not (line disconnects)

After the conclusion of the interview, a clearly frustrated Mr. Mineer explains to his audience why he ended the interview prematurely. Even in this explanation, he refuses to absolve the Israeli government.

Mineer: We're done here. We're done here. I’m not going to sit here and listen as somebody makes excuses for a group of people that did an incursion into another country, whatever the history of the issue okay, whatever the history of the issue. I have personally seen the video of them beheading a Thai-Israeli with a garden hoe while he was still alive, and you're going to defend that? Not on my show. Not on my show. I have sympathy for Palestinian civilians that are caught in this but there is no moral equivalence. Hamas is a terrorist organization and 15 to 20 years from now when we look back at this we may have problems with Israel’s conduct of the war, but I guarantee you fifteen to twenty years from now nobody is going to be lauding Hamas as heroes.

SUMMARY

We recognize that there is a tremendous amount of anger and passion around this issue. There should be no tolerance for the killing of innocent people by any government, organization, or individual. We acknowledge that both the Muslim and Jewish communities in Canada are presently facing extreme cases of Islamophobia and anti-Semitism that contradict Canada’s traditional values of respect, kindness, and tolerance.

We maintain that the influx of complaints about this broadcast is a direct result of the very real anger and fear faced by the Muslim community, both in Canada and abroad. Innocent people are being killed, and people are very rightly passionate. However, focusing that passion on this interview is unfair. Despite ending in an unfortunate manner, this interview violated none of the clauses of the CBSC or RTDNA Codes of Ethics. It did not incite or inflame Islamophobia. Mr. Mineer was not racist, bigoted, or intolerant. He did not lie or spread false information. He did not slander or defame Ms. Mansoory. He did not play “gotcha” journalism, pry into personal beliefs, or overstep boundaries. None of the accusations made against Mr. Mineer and Stingray Radio are justified.

Ms. Mansoory was invited to ensure that Canadians are made aware of the local impact of an international story, and to make sure that voices representing all sides of an issue are heard. Over the course of nearly eight minutes, Ms. Mansoory made many statements representing the Palestinian side of this issue and expressing her personal opinions, and Mr. Mineer made no effort to refute or challenge those statements, even when those statements became politically-charged or factually-questionable. Only when Ms. Mansoory voiced support for a known terrorist organization did Mr. Mineer push back. And when Ms. Mansoory attempted to deny the video existence of Hamas atrocities, videos that Hamas themselves proudly shared, Mr. Mineer finally felt the need to abruptly end the interview.

Even after ending the interview, Mr. Mineer refrains from defaming or belittling Ms. Mansoory or doing anything to inflame anti-Islamic feelings. He expresses clear sympathy for Palestinian civilians innocently caught in a horrific war zone. Mr. Mineer simply states that he cannot give airtime to someone who is denying the existence of video of the October 7 incursion and who is defending a known and identified terrorist organization. Stingray Radio supports this position.

Mr. Mineer has had a long standing positive relationship with the Muslim community in Kamloops. Accusations that this ally has somehow inflamed hatred against them are simply unfair. Mr. Mineer behaved exactly as a responsible journalist should. He gave voice to both sides of an important issue, he allowed opinions, even some he may have disagreed with, to be heard. However, it would be irresponsible for him to knowingly allow the spread of disinformation and to amplify Hamas, an organization the Canadian government has identified as a terrorist organization for over 20 years.

We very much regret how this interview played out and how it ended. None of the parties involved wanted that outcome. However, we are proud of the way Mr. Mineer conducted himself in a difficult situations, and we support his decision to end the interview to prevent this from escalating further.

Stingray Radio and Radio NL intend to remain an ally to all cultures, religions, genders, sexualities, opinions, political views, and – most importantly – to the truth.

Due to the highly emotional nature of this issue, we will not engage in further debate on this complaint. Instead, we recommend that the CBSC, as an unbiased third party with expertise in ethical broadcasting, review and adjudicate this content to evaluate whether it violates their Code of Ethics. We can assure you that we will abide by any decision that the CBSC, in its ultimate wisdom, issues.

Additional Correspondence

File 20.2324-0203

The complainant filed a Ruling Request on December 2, 2023:

The Broadcaster does not address the concerns of my complaint. Stingray deflects from the harm done by their broadcast and evades concerns of fairness. I am not satisfied with the response from the Broadcaster and request that the CBSC review the broadcast impartially, as it relates to the various Codes of Ethics.

Mr. Mineer and Stingray violated Clauses 2, 5, 6 and 7 of the CAB Code of Ethics and 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, and 5.0 of the RTDNA Code of Ethics.

File 20.2324-0204

The complainant filed a Ruling Request on December 1:

The Broadcaster does not address the concerns of my complaint. Stingray deflects from the harm done by their broadcast and evades concerns of fairness. I am not satisfied with the response from the Broadcaster and request that the CBSC review the broadcast impartially, as it relates to the various Codes of Ethics.

Mr. Mineer and Stingray violated Clauses 2, 5, 6 and 7 of the CAB Code of Ethics and 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, and 5.0 of the RTDNA Code of Ethics.

[Another complainant] (CBSC ref. 20.2324-0214) has submitted a request for ruling, along with a detailed response to [the CBSC’s Manager of Administration & Operations] by email, of the Broadcaster's comments and an explanation of why we believe this broadcast violated codes of ethics.

I am submitting a request for ruling so that I am notified of the ruling and contacted by the Broadcaster if they are required to announce the decision of the ruling on air. Thank you.

File 20.2324-0207

The complainant submitted a Ruling Request on December 2:

Broadcaster does not address any points Mrs. Mansoory brings up and Stingray Radio deflects all harm it has caused. Both Stingray Radio and Brett Mineer violated clauses 2, 5, 6, and 7 of the CAB Code of Ethics and 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, and 5.0 of RTDNA Code of Ethics.

[Another complainant] and [the CBSC’s Manager of Administration & Operations] have gone into detail about how these clauses were violated and the broadcaster’s comments via email.

I am submitting this request for ruling so that I am notified of the outcome and if the broadcaster has to announce the decision.

Thank you sincerely.

File 20.2324-0208

The complainant submitted a Ruling Request on December 2:

The Broadcaster does not address the concerns of my complaint.

Stingray deflects from the harm done by their broadcast and evades concerns of fairness. I am not satisfied with the response from the Broadcaster and request that the CBSC review the broadcast impartially, as it relates to the various Codes of Ethics.

Mr. Mineer and Stingray violated Clauses 2, 5, 6 and 7 of the CAB Code of Ethics and 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, and 5.0 of the RTDNA Code of Ethics.

[Another complainant] (CBSC ref. 20.2324-0214) has submitted a request for ruling, along with a detailed response to [the CBSC’s Manager of Administration & Operations] by email, of the Broadcaster's comments and an explanation of why we believe this broadcast violated codes of ethics.

I am submitting a request for ruling so that I am notified of the ruling and contacted by the Broadcaster if they are required to announce the decision of the ruling on air. Thank you.

File 20.2324-0209

The complainant submitted a Ruling Request on December 2:

The Broadcaster does not address the concerns of my complaint. Stingray deflects from the harm done by their broadcast and evades concerns of fairness.

I am not satisfied with the response from the Broadcaster and request that the CBSC review the broadcast impartially, as it relates to the various Codes of Ethics. Mr. Mineer and Stingray violated Clauses 2, 5, 6 and 7 of the CAB Code of Ethics and 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, and 5.0 of the RTDNA Code of Ethics.

[Another complainant] (CBSC ref. 20.2324-0214) has submitted a request for ruling, along with a detailed response to [the CBSC’s Manager of Administration & Operations] by email, of the Broadcaster's comments and an explanation of why we believe this broadcast violated codes of ethics.

I am submitting a request for ruling so that I am notified of the ruling and contacted by the Broadcaster if they are required to announce the decision of the ruling on air.

File 20.2324-2010

The complainant submitted a Ruling Request on December 1:

The Broadcaster does not address the concerns of my complaint. Stingray deflects from the harm done by their broadcast and evades concerns of fairness.

I am not satisfied with the response from the Broadcaster and request that the CBSC review the broadcast impartially, as it relates to the various Codes of Ethics. Mr. Mineer and Stingray violated Clauses 2, 5, 6 and 7 of the CAB Code of Ethics and 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, and 5.0 of the RTDNA Code of Ethics.

[Another complainant] (CBSC ref. 20.2324-0214) has submitted a request for ruling, along with a detailed response to [the CBSC’s Manager of Administration & Operations] by email, of the Broadcaster's comments and an explanation of why we believe this broadcast violated codes of ethics.

I am submitting a request for ruling so that I am notified of the ruling and contacted by the Broadcaster if they are required to announce the decision of the ruling on air.

Thank you.

File 20.2324-0214

The complainant submitted a Ruling Request on December 1:

The Broadcaster does not address the concerns of my complaint and the complaints of numerous others. Stingray deflects from the harm done by their broadcast and evades concerns of fairness. We are not satisfied with the response from the Broadcaster and request that the CBSC review the broadcast impartially, as it relates to the various Codes of Ethics.

Mr. Mineer and Stingray violated Clauses 2, 5, 6 and 7 of the CAB Code of Ethics and 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, and 5.0 of the RTDNA Code of Ethics.

In an email dated November 30, 2023 to [the CBSC’s Manager of Administration & Operations], I have enclosed a detailed rebuttal to Stingray's response to complaints, a breakdown of Stingray's violations of the CAB and RTDNA Codes of Ethics, and a copy of the recording we have.

It is imperative that the CBSC review the broadcast in its entirety, including Mr. Mineer's commentary after abruptly ending the interview. It is also crucial that the CBSC review discrepancies in Stingray's transcript and the broadcast recording.

You will note that many complainants will be filing their own requests for ruling. This is because all of the complainants wish to be followed up with regarding the decision of the CBSC. I am submitting detailed comments on everyone's behalf.

Thank you.

The complainant submitted the following letter to supplement his Ruling Request. He linked some words and phrases to online articles that support his argument. The CBSC has underlined those words and phrases here, but has not reproduced the actual links.

Ruling Request

I write to submit a request for ruling (the “Request”) and in response to Stingray Radio and CHNL’s (“Stingray”) comments in response to complaints to the CBSC.

The first part of the Request is a point-by-point rebuttal of Stingray’s response, which addresses the issue of why Stingray’s response is unsatisfactory to the complainant(s) and general Muslim community. As you are aware, the Muslim community has been subject to rampant Islamophobia, which has greatly increased. The current situation complained about, Ms. Umme Mansoory’s appearance on Mr. Brett Mineer’s show, is tinged with Islamophobia and is emblematic of the lack of voice given to Muslims in the media, as well as their negative portrayal by the media.

The second part of the Request is a breakdown of how Stingray’s and Mr. Mineer’s actions have violated the Codes.

Part 1: Rebuttal to Stingray’s Response and Mr. Mineer’s interview

Stingray’s response is outlined in black, and rebuttal commentary is outlined in red.

Mr. Mineer has maintained a strong and valued relationship with the Muslim community in Kamloops and has been fortunate to interview prominent members of the community numerous times in the past, including Ms. Mansoory. This is gaslighting a community that has legitimate concerns. Instead of taking accountability for harm done, the Broadcaster chooses to minimize how the community felt about this broadcast. On this occasion, the purpose of the interview was not to engage in political debate, but rather to touch on the impact of the events in Gaza on the local community. Both parties were aware of this going into the interview.

Mr. Mineer’s first question is non-political and essentially asks Ms. Mansoory how the community has been supporting each other through a difficult time:

Mineer: Okay I mean uh... I guess you know there are several members of of the mosque who I mean, who are I'm told are obviously you know their attention and their concern is for uh... loved ones in uh... in in uh... in Gaza right now and and I guess uh... just sort of wondering you know how it's been at the mosque the last couple of weeks how you're sort of uh... navigating this and supporting and I guess supporting your members.

Ms. Mansoory, despite understanding clearly that the interview was not intended to be political, immediately engages in provocative political language by referring to Palestinian people being “ethnically cleansed from their ancestral lands and forced to live in refugee camps”.

Acknowledging that ethnic cleansing is occurring is not a political statement. It is a fact and the reality of the Palestinian lived-experience in Kamloops. One cannot talk about Palestinians in Kamloops without acknowledging that they have been ethnically cleansed.

This is documented by several human rights organizations, including Amnesty International.

For argument’s sake, if Mr. Mineer felt that Ms. Mansoory’s response was political, it is his job to ensure the conversation stays on track in accordance with his goals for the interview. However, as you will see throughout the broadcast, Mr. Mineer goes out of his way to ask politically provocative questions.

Mansoory: Uh... yet so we have about eight to ten members of our community who are originally from Palestine uh... many of them carry Egyptian or (inaudible) or Syrian travel documents because their families were ethnically cleansed from their ancestral lands and forced to live in refugee camps in neighboring countries and we do know of a couple of family members and international students in our community who are from Gaza uh... I know that with everything that's going on with that uh... expansion of the ground invasion uh... the lack of electricity uh... no cell reception for anybody there's a lot of fear in our community especially for people who have family there right now or who have lost family of the last couple of weeks as well.

Without debating the accuracy of “ethnic cleansing” and the deeply troubling situation faced by Palestinian people, it is undebatable that “ethnic cleansing” is politically charged wording. By invoking this phrase, Ms. Mansoory, in her first answer to a non-political question, attempts to lure Mr. Mineer into a political debate about the historical treatment of Palestinian people. Mr. Mineer, knowing the conversation is intended to remain apolitical, does not engage in debate and instead carries on with another question. Remaining as neutral as possible, Mr. Mineer asks Ms. Mansoory a follow-up about navigating inflamed feelings in the community during a time of war. His question acknowledges that Israel appears to be determined to “finish off” Hamas and that innocent civilians are caught in the crossfire.

Mineer: So I mean what do you do? I mean it's not, it's in terms of war in Gaza… I mean we've we've been to that place you know a few times in the last uh... you know fifteen fifteen years but nothing like this I mean this is uh... that this is like all out full-on uh... you know Israel wants to finish off uh... you know Hamas for good and uh... unfortunately there are a lot of civilians there, you know. I mean how do you how do you sort of stick handle this and in a community you know like Kamloops especially after you know sort of the event that is precipitated uh... you know Israel going on this campaign was the October 7th attacks by Hamas right so obviously there's a lot of uh... you know inflamed feelings about about that how do you sort of navigate this?

At this point, Ms. Mansoory doubles down on her politically-charged rhetoric. She insists on “correcting” Mr. Mineer’s assertion that this is a “war”. She refers to Gaza as “nothing more than a refugee camp”, contradicting extensive evidence that, while very much a refugee camp, Gaza is also home to between 30,000 and 40,000 heavily armed militants conducting operations from an extensive network of tunnels. Ms. Mansoory also asserts that Israel kills “hundreds of thousands” of Palestinian people every year in the West Bank, when the BBC reports that number is closer to 100. Once again, she further incites political debate through words like “genocide” and “apartheid”. While those words may or may not be an accurate portrayal of Gaza, they take the interview into very political territory.

Gaza is a refugee camp of 2.2 million people living under an illegal military blockade by Israel. Stingray states that Gaza is home to up to 40,000 armed militants. That constitutes only 2% of the population of Gaza. The population of Gaza is roughly 50% children under the age of 16. The tunnels that Stingray is referring to were first created in 1980, before the formation of Hamas, to smuggle goods such as women’s underwear and food because of the illegal blockade by the Israeli government and their control of imports.

Note: Mr. Mineer is the first to mention the word “Hamas”, ultimately changing the direction of this conversation.

Note: Ms. Mansoory actually says “hundreds to thousands”, not “hundreds of thousands” as Stingray writes in the transcript. This is not the only incident where Stingray deliberately changes Ms. Mansoory’s words in their transcript to serve their narrative.

According to the UN OCHA, in 2023 alone (prior to Oct 7) 237 Palestinians had been killed in Occupied Palestine.

Mansoory: uh... well right with all due respect I’m just going to make a little correction here and I think we need to stop calling this a war. It's not a war. One side is a global nuclear superpower that received billions of dollars of the uh... military aid from the United States in addition to their own 23.6 billion dollar budget for military spending, and the other side is nothing more than a refugee camp that was already living under brutal military siege uh... and you know I’m I’m really tired of this narrative that is really going after how much because uh... Palestinians were killed long before Hamas was formed uh... and they would still be getting killed even if Hamas never existed. Take a look at the occupied West Bank where Hamas doesn’t exist, yet hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are killed every single year. In terms of supporting our community we're doing the best that we can uh... you know we have been trying to use our collective voice advocate for change at the governmental level. We're meeting with elected officials and writing to them almost daily from local politicians to Ottawa on reminding them of the context of history of the illegal occupation of Palestine. We're reminding elected officials that ethnic cleansing of indigenous people, genocide, and apartheid are not in line with the Canadian values.

Note: Ms. Mansoory tries to steer the conversation back to what the local Kamloops community is doing in an effort to de-escalate the conversation and bring it back to an apolitical conversation. Mr. Mineer’s following question further brings the conversation into a political debate.

Mr. Mineer then challenges Ms. Mansoory on this being “genocide” by suggesting that if that was indeed Israel’s end game, given their military strength they could have accomplished it quite quickly.

The definition of genocide is the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group. No one can refute that a large number of Palestinian Arabs have been killed and the objective to exterminate them has been demonstrated by statements of various Israeli officials.

Just because Israel hasn’t killed every Gazan yet, doesn’t mean their actions cannot be called a “genocide”. Genocides don’t happen overnight. They happen over years and decades.

Euro Med Human Rights Monitor addressed the United Nations highlighting how the combination of mass murder and genocidal intent from Israel’s president, prime minister, cabinet ministers, members of Knesset, military commanders, and soldiers meet the threshold of the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention’s definition of genocide.

Mineer: Do you really do you really believe though that that that what we're talking about here is genocide?

Mansoory: Absolutely. There's no question there's no denial of that.

Mineer: Do you not think though that if it if Israel’s goal was genocide that they would not have been able to do that uh... like many times over by now?

Mansoory: Have you not heard elected officials and military generals of Israel calling Palestinians animals? Calling for their complete wipe out? Israeli settlers chanting on the streets saying Gaza is a cemetery? That's genocide.

In the ensuing exchange, Mr. Mineer clearly reminds Ms. Mansoory that he is not supportive of the Israeli government nor religious extremists within the Jewish community. He attempts to diffuse the political argument by establishing that both the current Israeli government and Hamas could be barriers to peace.

Mineer: Well Israeli Israeli settlers are not much different than Hamas. I mean they are they are religious extremists who are agitators in the region who have caused a lot of problems. I offer no defense of the government of Bibi Netanyahu uh... there you know he's he's he's he's put the nation at risk destabilize the region all of the rest of it but but but I guess I’m just wondering like uh... I mean Hamas in terms of like this support uh... you know which we’re told that that that that Hamas is not uh... is is not Palestine, but they are like, just as Bibi Netanyahu's government is a barrier to piece is not Hamas a barrier to peace?

In her answer, Ms. Mansoory suggests that Hamas is not a terrorist organization, despite the reality that the Canadian government recognizes them as such. She then attempts to draw a moral equivalency between Hamas and Nelson Mandela and suggests that in the future we may look back on this and realize that Hamas are not the “bad guys”.

It is important to note that Ms. Mansoory does not suggest that Hamas is not a terrorist group. She simply points out that the United Nations does not categorize them as such and that the United States of America’s designation of terror groups is flawed in the sense that it is often arbitrary, racist, inconsistent and not backed by evidence.

To illustrate this further:

Canada recognized Nelson Mandela and his Party as a terrorist group until 2013.

The United States of America recognized Nelson Mandela as a terrorist until 2008.

Ms. Mansoory’s comment isn't to draw “moral equivalency” but rather to point out the hypocrisy of these labels and how they have been used in the past on individuals/groups who have later been absolved of these accusations.

People only remember Nelson Mandela as a peacekeeper but forget that Nelson Mandela was a revolutionary who served 27 years in prison because, at the time, he was deemed a terrorist. Fast forward to the future, we now know how politicians labeled him as such to preserve their own colonial and imperialist interests.

Mansoory: Well, uh... I’m gonna first correct you and say that the United Nations do not recognize Hamas of the terrorist organization. In fact only a few nations do including the United States of America, but the USA has not been the best judge of who is and isn’t a terrorist because they also considered Nelson Mandela a terrorist until 2008 which was five years before he died and I’m sure, not you nor your listeners, would consider Nelson Mandela, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, to be a terrorist. So what I’m going to do, is I’m going to let history decide that for us, because we might find in 10, 25, 50 years from now that maybe, just maybe, they weren’t the bad guys and that we’ve been lied to, which wouldn’t be the first time. I will also say, is that with any (inaudible).

The United Nations does not recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization. In fact, the UN considers Hamas a legitimate political movement.

In December 2018, the United Nations rejected a US backed resolution condemning Hamas as a terrorist organization.

Ms. Mansoory does not state that Hamas are “good guys”, rather she provides the audience with the perspective that we should not judge until it has been proven. The international community cannot agree on this, with many nation states legitimizing and recognizing Hamas as a political group, and not a terrorist group. Claims about Hamas's actions (beheadings, rape, targeting civilians, using Palestinians as 'human shields') have largely been unproven or debunked.

This is where the interview descends into raised voices and frequent interruptions as Mr. Mineer takes offence to Ms. Mansoory’s comments that appear to defend Hamas and deny the well-documented evidence of Hamas beheadings during the October 7, 2023 incursion.

Note how Stingray says Ms. Mansoory’s comments “appear to defend Hamas and deny well-documented evidence of Hamas beheadings during October 7, 2023 incursion”. Ms. Mansoory never outright defends any actions nor does she deny anything. Assuming what Ms. Mansoory intended to mean without asking for clarification is biased journalism. Ms. Mansoory provides listeners with food for thought and an alternative perspective – one Mr. Mineer personally disagrees with. Instead of having a healthy debate on this topic, Mr. Mineer begins losing his temper.

Mineer: So so so so when they when when they when they when Hamas fighters are taking glee in cutting heads off with with with with (interrupted)

Mansoory: Do you have evidence of that Brett?

Mineer: Yes, video it was on video. (interrupted)

Mansoory: No no no (interrupted)

Mineer: It's on video (interrupted)

Mansoory: There is no video evidence! (interrupted)

Mineer: It's on video. The world saw it! (interrupted)

Mansoory: No world has saw it. The White House even said they did not (line disconnects)

Ms. Mansoory repeatedly asks Mr. Mineer for evidence of his claim. In another attempt to misconstrue Ms. Mansoory words, Stingray conveniently eliminates much of what Ms. Mansoory said and changes her words in the transcript. Ms. Mansoory explicitly says “if you’re going to make a claim like that on live radio”, yet that is missing from the transcript. Ms. Mansoory never says “no no no”, yet Stingray has added this to the transcript. Ms. Mansoory instead says “no you don’t” and “present me video evidence” which are nowhere on the transcript. Tampering with the transcript is not being transparent nor cooperative with the CBSC investigation, as Stingray assured complainants they would be (See Appendix A [to this letter]).

This is a deliberate attempt to conceal Ms. Mansoory’s insistence on presenting evidence of harmful claims, while Stingray continues to accuse Ms. Mansoory of defending violence. Asking for evidence of violence is not the same as defending violence.

While Stingray may assert that Hamas beheadings are “well-documented”, the reality is they are not. CNN and the White House have retracted statements about 40 beheaded babies because they did not have evidence of such and this claim had been debunked by the Israeli government themselves. Until this moment, Ms. Mansoory believes Mr. Mineer is referencing the debunked claim about 40 beheaded babies. It isn’t until after Mr. Mineer abruptly ends the interview that he elaborates he is speaking about another incident.

The specific incident Mr. Mineer refers to is the alleged beheading of a Thai worker by Hamas fighters. This is in reference to Israeli Ambassador, Gilan Erdan, showing the United Nations General Assembly on October 26, 2023 a video of a Thai worker sustaining deep cuts on his neck. On October 27, 2023 WION, an India-based news agency, listed two bold disclaimers on their article reporting on Erdan's address, stating "WION cannot independently verify the authenticity of all statements, photos, and videos." On October 27, 2023 the Times of Israel referred to this incident as an "attempted beheading", yet Mr. Mineer claims he personally saw it. This is factually incorrect and misleading to his audience.

Note: No trigger warning was given when depicting violence.

After the conclusion of the interview, a clearly frustrated Mr. Mineer explains to his audience why he ended the interview prematurely. Even in this explanation, he refuses to absolve the Israeli government.

Mineer: We're done here. We're done here. I’m not going to sit here and listen as somebody makes excuses for a group of people that did an incursion into another country, whatever the history of the issue okay, whatever the history of the issue. I have personally seen the video of them beheading a Thai-Israeli with a garden hoe while he was still alive, and you're going to defend that? Not on my show. Not on my show. I have sympathy for Palestinian civilians that are caught in this but there is no moral equivalence. Hamas is a terrorist organization and 15 to 20 years from now when we look back at this we may have problems with Israel’s conduct of the war, but I guarantee you fifteen to twenty years from now nobody is going to be lauding Hamas as heroes.

This is where the broadcast becomes problematic and is the main grievance of listeners. Not only does Mr. Mineer cut off Ms. Mansoory mid-speech, but he proceeds to rant about the interview and sensationalize depictions of violence without an opportunity for Ms. Mansoory to clarify her position or defend herself against accusations.

Ms. Mansoory never “defends” beheadings as Mr. Mineer very explicitly accuses Ms. Mansoory of. Ms. Mansoory repeatedly asks Mr. Mineer for evidence of his claims. Mr. Mineer was not able to point his audience to his primary-source evidence on air, aside from “I have personally seen it”, nor has he substantiated his claims after. The reality is, Mr. Mineer cannot substantiate it because independent verification or evidence of this claim does not exist. This is harmful journalism.

It is also important to note Mr. Mineer’s word choice calling the Oct 7, 2023 attacks as an “incursion into another country” is not correct in accordance with International Law. Palestinian resistance fighters did not invade Israel. In accordance with International Law, Palestinians have a legal right to armed resistance against occupation. Palestinians are resisting their illegal occupiers, not invading another country.

Mr. Mineer paints Ms. Mansoory as a supporter and defender of violent acts without an opportunity for Ms. Mansoory to clarify. As a known member of the Kamloops community, and a visible Muslim in a hijab, this puts her safety at risk when Islamophobia is at an all-time high. On November 4, 2023, the National Council of Canadian Muslims reported that acts of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate have increased by 1,300%. The Toronto Police reported on November 23, 2023 that they have seen a 1,600% increase in Islamophobia-related hate crimes.

This kind of media reporting only fans the flames of Islamophobia in society. By accusing Ms. Mansoory of supporting violence, Mr. Mineer reinforces negative stereotypes and subsequently puts all members of the Kamloops Muslim community that Ms. Mansoory was representing, as a Director of the Kamloops Islamic Association, in danger.

Whether or not Mr. Mineer intentionally does this; the initial emails from listeners sent to Stingray called for an apology. Even if one unintentionally contributes to harmful rhetoric that can put a vulnerable population at risk, it is the responsibility of that person/organization to acknowledge the harm and apologize. Had Stingray recognized this and apologized, the community would have been satisfied. But it was Stingray’s insistence that they stand by their broadcast (See Appendix A [to this letter]) that upset the community and led them to take further action.

Note: Again, no sensitivity or trigger warning was given when depicting graphic violence.

SUMMARY

We recognize that there is a tremendous amount of anger and passion around this issue. There should be no tolerance for the killing of innocent people by any government, organization, or individual. We acknowledge that both the Muslim and Jewish communities in Canada are presently facing extreme cases of Islamophobia and anti-Semitism that contradict Canada’s traditional values of respect, kindness, and tolerance.

We maintain that the influx of complaints about this broadcast is a direct result of the very real anger and fear faced by the Muslim community, both in Canada and abroad. Innocent people are being killed, and people are very rightly passionate. However, focusing that passion on this interview is unfair. Despite ending in an unfortunate manner, this interview violated none of the clauses of the CBSC or RTDNA Codes of Ethics. It did not incite or inflame Islamophobia. Mr. Mineer was not racist, bigoted, or intolerant. He did not lie or spread false information. He did not slander or defame Ms. Mansoory. He did not play “gotcha” journalism, pry into personal beliefs, or overstep boundaries. None of the accusations made against Mr. Mineer and Stingray Radio are justified.

Under Canadian law, defamation requires three elements: (1) the impugned words are defamatory; (2) the words refer to the plaintiff; and (3) the words were published. A statement is defamatory if it would tend to lower the reputation of the person to whom it refers in the eyes of a reasonable person (Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61, and Level One Construction Ltd. v. Burnham, 2019 BCCA 407). Mr. Mineer’s words, implying that Ms. Mansoory is defending violence, incursions into another country, and beheadings, are defamatory. They refer to Ms. Mansoory and were published. They undoubtedly would lower her reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person. Mr. Mineer defamed Ms. Mansoory.

It is also important to note that “inciting Islamophobia'' cannot always be quantifiable. It is the cumulative of harmful rhetoric in society, which Mr. Mineer contributes to, as evidenced by Mr. Mineer’s personal X page (see Appendix B [to this letter]).

Ms. Mansoory was invited to ensure that Canadians are made aware of the local impact of an international story, and to make sure that voices representing all sides of an issue are heard. Over the course of nearly eight minutes, Ms. Mansoory made many statements representing the Palestinian side of this issue and expressing her personal opinions, and Mr. Mineer made no effort to refute or challenge those statements, even when those statements became politically-charged or factually-questionable. Only when Ms. Mansoory voiced support for a known terrorist organization did Mr. Mineer push back. And when Ms. Mansoory attempted to deny the video existence of Hamas atrocities, videos that Hamas themselves proudly shared, Mr. Mineer finally felt the need to abruptly end the interview.

Ms. Mansoory did not state personal opinions, nor did she express support for a “known terrorist group”. Everything that Ms. Mansoory states is evidence-backed. Stringray claims that Hamas proudly shared these videos, yet Stingray cannot substantiate this. The video that Mr. Mineer references was not shared by Hamas, but rather an Israeli UN official, and the authenticity of those videos have been questioned.

Even after ending the interview, Mr. Mineer refrains from defaming or belittling Ms. Mansoory or doing anything to inflame anti-Islamic feelings. He expresses clear sympathy for Palestinian civilians innocently caught in a horrific war zone. Mr. Mineer simply states that he cannot give airtime to someone who is denying the existence of video of the October 7 incursion and who is defending a known and identified terrorist organization. Stingray Radio supports this position.

Again, stating that Ms. Mansoory makes excuses for an incursion into another country and defends violent beheadings is a clear act of defamation. Ms. Mansoory never once said either of those in her interview.

Mr. Mineer has had a long standing positive relationship with the Muslim community in Kamloops. Accusations that this ally has somehow inflamed hatred against them are simply unfair.

This claim can be disputed by Muslims and their allies residing in Kamloops. Mr. Mineer is not seen as an ally to Muslims as his comments on several occasions have raised concerns in the broader Kamloops community.

Mr. Mineer behaved exactly as a responsible journalist should. He gave voice to both sides of an important issue, he allowed opinions, even some he may have disagreed with, to be heard. However, it would be irresponsible for him to knowingly allow the spread of disinformation and to amplify Hamas, an organization the Canadian government has identified as a terrorist organization for over 20 years.

We very much regret how this interview played out and how it ended. None of the parties involved wanted that outcome. However, we are proud of the way Mr. Mineer conducted himself in a difficult situation, and we support his decision to end the interview to prevent this from escalating further.

Mr. Mineer defamed Ms. Mansoory on live radio and did not allow her the opportunity to defend herself or clarify her position. Mr. Mineer did not behave as a responsible journalist should.

Stingray Radio and Radio NL intend to remain an ally to all cultures, religions, genders, sexualities, opinions, political views, and – most importantly – to the truth. Due to the highly emotional nature of this issue, we will not engage in further debate on this complaint. Instead, we recommend that the CBSC, as an unbiased third party with expertise in ethical broadcasting, review and adjudicate this content to evaluate whether it violates their Code of Ethics. We can assure you that we will abide by any decision that the CBSC, in its ultimate wisdom, issues.

Part 2: Violation of the CBSC Codes.

Violations of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ (CAB) – Code of Ethics (the “Code”)

Clause 2 – Human Rights

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

Ultimately, Mr. Mineer’s comments and actions violated Clause 2 of the Code by refusing to recognize Ms. Mansoory’s and the Muslim community’s right to express themselves and curtailing the same.

Expressly stating that a Muslim supports or “defends” beheadings and “makes excuses for a group of people that did an incursion into another country, whatever the history of the issue” is an unduly discriminatory comment based on religion.

At no point did Ms. Mansoory defend beheadings, only requesting evidence of alleged beheadings. Requesting evidence of beheadings is not “defending” beheadings or extreme violence, however, Mr. Mineer’s portrayal of Muslims is consistent with media narratives portraying Muslims as violent, and which have ultimately served to justify violence, ethnic cleansing, and Islamophobia.

Evidence of beheadings is also a relevant topic, as the United States’ White House has had to clarify the President’s assertions that there was evidence of the beheading of 40 babies in Israel. Thus, as Ms. Mansoory stated in the Interview, “if you’re going to make a claim like that on live radio…” then requesting evidence is a fair response — and is not equivalent to supporting or defending violence. Mr. Mineer’s comments and actions, specifically portraying Ms. Mansoory according to media stereotypes, were unduly discriminatory.

Moreover, Mr. Mineer states “there is no moral equivalence” when comparing the loss of Palestinian civilian life with the loss of Israeli civilian life, clearly stating that Palestinian life and Israeli life are not “equivalent”. This is an unduly discriminatory comment which is based on matters of race and national or ethnic origin.

Clause 5 – News

(2) News shall not be selected for the purpose of furthering or hindering either side of any controversial public issue, nor shall it be formulated on the basis of the beliefs, opinions or desires of management, the editor or others engaged in its preparation or delivery. The fundamental purpose of news dissemination in a democracy is to enable people to know what is happening, and to understand events so that they may form their own conclusions.

Mr. Mineer and Stingray violated Clause 5 of the Code.

Mr. Mineer stated:

I’m not going to sit here and listen as somebody makes excuses for a group of people that did an incursion into another country, whatever the history of the issue okay, whatever the history of the issue. I have personally seen the video of them beheading a Thai-Israeli with a garden hoe while he was still alive, and you're going to defend that? Not on my show. Not on my show. I have sympathy for Palestinian civilians that are caught in this but there is no moral equivalence. Hamas is a terrorist organization and 15 to 20 years from now when we look back at this we may have problems with Israel’s conduct of the war, but I guarantee you fifteen to twenty years from now nobody is going to be lauding Hamas as heroes.

Mr. Mineer minimizes the suffering of millions of Palestinians and instead furthers the Israeli government’s side of a controversial public issue by the erasure of context and history of Palestinian suffering and occupation. He has selected an obscure video of extreme and sensationalized violence perpetrated allegedly by Hamas and thereby hinders any opposition to the Israeli government’s actions. By stating that “there is no moral equivalence”, Mr. Mineer suggests that the loss of Palestinian lives and the loss of Israeli lives, both of which are without a doubt sacred, are not equal, as the death of Palestinians and the death of Israelis is not “equivalent”. These comments are directly formulated on the basis of Mr. Mineer’s opinions, which expressly violates Clause 5.

By interrupting Ms. Mansoory and ultimately silencing her by cutting her off air mid-sentence, Mr. Mineer prevents his audience from knowing what is happening and understanding events so that they may form their own conclusions. By cutting Ms. Mansoory off and proceeding to speak emotionally charged on the issue, Mr. Mineer ultimately has the last word leaving his audience with the perspective he wants them to have.

Clause 6 – Full, Fair and Proper Presentation

It is recognized that the full, fair and proper presentation of news, opinion, comment and editorial is the prime and fundamental responsibility of each broadcaster. This principle shall apply to all radio and television programming, whether it relates to news, public affairs, magazine, talk, call-in, interview or other broadcasting formats in which news, opinion, comment or editorial may be expressed by broadcaster employees, their invited guests or callers.

Mr. Mineer and Stingray violated Clause 6 of the Code.

By cutting Ms. Mansoory off on the air, Mr. Mineer does not recognize the full, fair and proper presentation of the news and comment, as Ms. Mansoory’s opinion and comment was prevented.

Mr. Mineer then furthered his own comment and opinion without any opposing viewpoint’s presentation. He then misrepresented that viewpoint, stating that Ms. Mansoory was “defending” the beheading of a Thai-Israeli worker and that she “makes excuses for a group of people that did an incursion into another country”. Misrepresenting an opposing viewpoint is not a full, fair, or proper presentation of Ms. Mansoory’s opinion, comment, or the news.

Clause 7 – Controversial Public Issues

Recognizing in a democracy the necessity of presenting all sides of a public issue, it shall be the responsibility of broadcasters to treat fairly all subjects of a controversial nature. Time shall be allotted with due regard to all the other elements of balanced program schedules, and the degree of public interest in the questions presented. Recognizing that healthy controversy is essential to the maintenance of democratic institutions, broadcasters will endeavour to encourage the presentation of news and opinion on any controversy which contains an element of the public interest.

Mr. Mineer and Stingray violated Clause 7 of the Code.

Mr. Mineer hinders a side of a controversial public issue by not presenting all sides of said issue. He failed to engage in a healthy debate on a controversial topic. Mr. Mineer loses control of his temper when Ms. Mansoory challenges his narrative and presses him for evidence. When Mr. Mineer cannot substantiate his claims, he silences her. He treated Ms. Mansoory unfairly and treated an opposing viewpoint unfairly.

Mr. Mineer did not encourage the presentation of news and Ms. Mansoory’s opinion on a controversy which undoubtedly contains an element of public interest.

Violation of the Radio Television Digital News Association of Canada’s Code of Journalistic Ethics (the “RTDNA Code”)

1.0 ACCURACY

We are committed to journalism in the public interest that is accurate and reliable. Journalists will strive to verify facts and put them in context.

1.1 We will attribute news sources on the record whenever possible. Sources will be kept confidential only when there is overriding public interest and when sources risk retribution or other serious harm.

1.2 Accuracy also requires us to update and correct news and information throughout the life cycle of a news story as we become aware of relevant and reliable information. 1.3 Errors and inaccuracy that affect the understanding of a news story will be unambiguously and promptly corrected.

1.4 The commitment to accuracy also applies to verifying third party or user-generated content.

In this broadcast, Mr. Mineer makes three inaccurate and misleading statements/comments:

(1) The beheading of a Thai worker while he was alive.

To the contrary, Times of Israel reports that it was an attempted beheading and WION asserts it cannot verify the authenticity of the evidence in which a Thai worker sustained deep cuts on his neck.

(2) A group of people made an incursion into another country.

Palestinians are indigenous to the land. They did not invade Israel. Israel is an illegal occupier and colonizer.

In accordance with international law, Palestinians have a legal right to armed struggle by all available means.

(3) References to the October 7 attacks.

While no one denies that Hamas did carry out an operation on October 7, Mr. Mineer’s references to Hamas attacks makes it seem like the Israeli casualties incurred were all by Hamas.

Israeli police investigation has found that many of the Israeli casualties incurred on Oct 7 were in fact carried out by Israeli Defense Forces on its own civilians and soldiers. Stingray has not updated their audience and corrected this.

Regardless of the panel’s opinion on the veracity of the above, it is undisputed that Mr. Mineer did not verify the source of his opinions when asked for sources and verification. Ms. Mansoory asked him to attribute news sources on the record pursuant to section 1.1, above, which Mr. Mineer failed to do. By repeatedly stating “whatever the history of the issue”, Mr. Mineer also did not place facts into context, expressly ignoring historical context, in further violation of this section of the RTDNA Code.

2.0 FAIRNESS

We are committed to impartial, unbiased journalism that serves the public interest through the free and open exchange of ideas, and respects the diversity of society.

2.1 Journalists should be fair and balanced, and avoid allowing their personal biases to influence their reporting. News events and public issues may be analyzed and put into context, but commentary, opinion or editorializing must be kept distinct from regular news coverage.

Mr. Mineer does not serve the public interest through the free and open exchange of ideas. Mr. Mineer allowed his personal bias to come through when he censored and interfered with the interview by cutting Ms. Mansoory off air after she asks him to substantiate his claim regarding "beheadings" with independently verified evidence. It is important to note that Israel has been caught several times lying about, manipulating, and fabricating evidence, hence Ms. Mansoory’s call to present verified evidence is legitimate.

After cutting Ms. Mansoory off, Mr. Mineer falsely alleges that Ms. Mansoory was making excuses for a group who makes an "incursion into another country" and “defends” violent beheadings without giving her an opportunity to clarify her position or defend herself. This puts her safety and reputation at risk. This was neither impartial, nor unbiased journalism, and in violation of s. 2.1 of the RTDNA Code.

2.4 Journalists should be responsive to questions of fairness posed by the public.

In the immediate hours and days that followed, listeners contacted Stingray to express their concerns about the fairness of this broadcast. They were all told the same thing, that Stingray stands by their broadcast (see Appendix A [to this letter]). It was then that the listeners and community began filing complaints to the CBSC.

In their response to complaints, Stingray was not responsive to questions of fairness. They upheld Mr. Mineer’s actions, stating that they were “proud of the way Mr. Mineer conducted himself in a difficult situation”.

Instead, Stingray further vilifies Ms. Mansoory, imputing malicious intent to her by accusing her of attempting to “lure Mr. Mineer into a political debate about the historical treatment of Palestinian people”, “doubling down on her politically charged rhetoric”, and accusing Ms. Mansoory of “voicing support for a known terrorist organization.”

Stingray’s response, outlined above in Part 1, further violates s. 2.4 of the RTDNA Code as they fail to address the concerns and questions regarding fairness that several complainants had, and instead vilify Ms. Mansoory further.

4.0 INTEGRITY

We will govern ourselves on and off the job in a manner that avoids conflict of interest, real or perceived. When conflicts are unavoidable, they should be disclosed.

4.4 We recognize that expressing personal opinions publicly or in social media can erode our ability to be perceived as fair and balanced in our news coverage. It affects our personal reputations and those of our news organizations.

Mr. Mineer’s personal opinions on the topic of Israel and Palestine (see Appendix B [to this letter]) and other political issues as evidenced by his social media posts, erodes his ability to be perceived as fair and balanced in his news coverage. This violates s. 4.4 of the RTDNA Code.

The inflammatory language used in Mr. Mineer’s social media posts, as outlined in Appendix B, evidences a real conflict of interest in violation of s. 4 of the RTDNA Code.

5.0 RESPECT

Our conduct will be respectful, always taking into account editorial relevance and the public interest.

5.1 We will endeavor to respect the dignity of everyone, especially when news involves children and the vulnerable.

Stingray and Mr. Mineer violated s. 5.1 of the RTDNA Code.

Muslim women, and specifically Muslim women wearing the hijab, are frequently targeted by Islamophobes and racists, often violently, as they are visibly Muslim.

As a known, hijab-wearing member of the Kamloops Muslim community, Ms. Mansoory is already vulnerable to acts of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate. By stating that she makes excuses for a group of people who do an incursion into another country and that she defends acts of violence, Mr. Mineer reinforces harmful rhetoric which incite Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate.

Ms. Mansoory had colleagues and many community members listening to this interview. Cutting her off air, falsely accusing her of defending violence, and silencing her voice does not respect her dignity, nor is it respectful conduct under s. 5 of the RTDNA Code.

5.2 We will act with sensitivity and restraint when reporting on potentially dangerous situations and when using violent or graphic images and descriptions.

Stingray and Mr. Mineer violated s. 5.2 of the RTDNA Code.

In an attempt to curtail any opposing viewpoints from Ms. Mansoory, Mr. Mineer uses violent and graphic descriptions as a tool against Ms. Mansoory allegedly defending Hamas, which she did not do, stating “when Hamas fighters are taking glee in cutting heads off with…” and “I have personally seen the video of them beheading a Thai-Israeli with a garden hoe while he was still alive”.

Mr. Mineer does not act with sensitivity and restraint when depicting violent and graphic descriptions such as violent “beheadings”. No trigger warning was given to the audience.

5.3 We will treat people with decency, courtesy and consideration and we will strive not to distort the character or importance of events by our presence.

Stingray and Mr. Mineer violated s. 5.3 of the RTDNA Code.

By cutting Ms. Mansoory off the air and not allowing her an opportunity to defend her position and making false accusations that she “makes excuses” for Hamas and defends the “beheading of a Thai-Israeli”, both of which are false and misleading, Mr. Mineer does not act with decency, courtesy, and consideration.

5.4 We will avoid sensationalism.

Stringray and Mr. Mineer violated s. 5.4 of the RTDNA Code.

Mr. Mineer sensationalizes violence by making explicit and graphic references to beheadings at the expense of accuracy. The alleged and unverified incident in question was reported by Israeli news outlets as an “attempted beheading”, not a completed one as Mr. Mineer claims he personally saw.

In an attempt to curtail any opposing viewpoints from Ms. Mansoory, Mr. Mineer sensationalizes violence allegedly caused by Hamas and uses violent and graphic descriptions as a tool against Ms. Mansoory, accusing her of allegedly defending Hamas, which she did not do, stating “when Hamas fighters are taking glee in cutting heads off with…” and “I have personally seen the video of them beheading a Thai-Israeli with a garden hoe while he was still alive”. Mr. Mineer’s excitement and anger is apparent which has the potential to evoke very strong and harmful feelings in others. It is this kind of irresponsible journalism that fuels Islamophobia and anti-Arab, anti-Muslim hate in Canada. This puts the Muslim and Arab community of Kamloops and Canada at an increased risk of harm.

Appendix A

[email between complainant & broadcaster]

Interview on Friday Oct 27th

Thank you for your email regarding the interview on Friday, October 27. We stand by this broadcast and it is our position that it was conducted in a fair and balanced way, despite the unfortunate conclusion.

We believe in being held accountable for our broadcasts, and we adhere to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council Code of Ethics. We take our journalistic responsibility very seriously. If you feel this interview was in violation of those codes, I encourage you to file a formal complaint with them. You can review the codes and obtain information about filing a complaint here: https://www.cbsc.ca/codes/cab-code-of-ethics/. You will find that we will be transparent and cooperative in any investigation that the CBSC deems necessary.

Appendix B to the above letter was screen captures of Brett Mineer’s X (formerly Twitter) account.

File 20.2324-0221

This complainant submitted a Ruling Request on November 30:

The Broadcaster does not address the concerns of my complaint. Stingray deflects from the harm done by their broadcast and evades concerns of fairness. I am not satisfied with the response from the Broadcaster and request that the CBSC review the broadcast impartially, as it relates to the various Codes of Ethics.

Mr. Mineer and Stingray violated Clauses 2, 5, 6 and 7 of the CAB Code of Ethics and 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, and 5.0 of the RTDNA Code of Ethics.

[Another complainant] (CBSC ref. 20.2324-0214) has submitted a request for ruling, along with a detailed response to [the CBSC’s Manager of Administration & Operations] by email, of the Broadcaster's comments and an explanation of why we believe this broadcast violated codes of ethics.

I am submitting a request for ruling so that I am notified of the ruling and contacted by the Broadcaster if they are required to announce the decision of the ruling on air. Thank you.

File 20.2324-0293

This complainant submitted a Ruling Request on December 2:

The Broadcaster does not address the concerns of my complaint. Stingray deflects from the harm done by their broadcast and evades concerns of fairness. I am not satisfied with the response from the Broadcaster and request that the CBSC review the broadcast impartially, as it relates to the various Codes of Ethics.

Mr. Mineer and Stingray violated Clauses 2, 5, 6 and 7 of the CAB Code of Ethics and 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, and 5.0 of the RTDNA Code of Ethics.

[Another complainant] (CBSC ref. 20.2324-0214) has submitted a request for ruling, along with a detailed response to [the CBSC’s Manager of Administration & Operations] by email, of the Broadcaster's comments and an explanation of why we believe this broadcast violated codes of ethics.

I am submitting a request for ruling so that I am notified of the ruling and contacted by the Broadcaster if they are required to announce the decision of the ruling on air. Thank you.

File 20.2324-0305

This complainant submitted a Ruling Request on December 4:

The Broadcaster does not address the concerns of my complaint. Stingray deflects from the harm done by their broadcast and evades concerns of fairness.

I am not satisfied with the response from the Broadcaster and request that the CBSC review the broadcast impartially, as it relates to the various Codes of Ethics. Mr. Mineer and Stingray violated Clauses 2, 5, 6 and 7 of the CAB Code of Ethics and 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, and 5.0 of the RTDNA Code of Ethics.

[Another complainant] (CBSC ref. 20.2324-0214) has submitted a request for ruling, along with a detailed response to [the CBSC’s Manager of Administration & Operations] by email, of the Broadcaster's comments and an explanation of why we believe this broadcast violated codes of ethics.

I am submitting a request for ruling so that I am notified of the ruling and contacted by the Broadcaster if they are required to announce the decision of the ruling on air.

Thank you.

File 20.2324-0315

This complainant submitted a Ruling Request on December 2:

The broadcaster response was not satisfactory. They didn't illustrate why they were adopting the Israeli narrative and suppressing other voices. If they have [a] hidden agenda, sponsors or other reasons they should come forward.

I would like to submit request for ruling and be notified with the ruling.

File 20.2324-0326

This complainant submitted a Ruling Request on December 4:

The Broadcaster does not address the concerns of my complaint. Stingray deflects from the harm done by their broadcast and evades concerns of fairness.

I am not satisfied with the response from the Broadcaster and request that the CBSC review the broadcast impartially, as it relates to the various Codes of Ethics. Mr. Mineer and Stingray violated Clauses 2, 5, 6 and 7 of the CAB Code of Ethics and 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, and 5.0 of the RTDNA Code of Ethics.

[Another complainant] (CBSC ref. 20.2324-0214) has submitted a request for ruling, along with a detailed response to [the CBSC’s Manager of Administration & Operations] by email, of the Broadcaster's comments and an explanation of why we believe this broadcast violated codes of ethics.

I am submitting a request for ruling so that I am notified of the ruling and contacted by the Broadcaster if they are required to announce the decision of the ruling on air.

Thank you.

File 20.2324-0331

This complainant submitted a Ruling Request on December 1:

The Broadcaster does not address the concerns of my complaint. Stingray deflects from the harm done by their broadcast and evades concerns of fairness.

I am not satisfied with the response from the Broadcaster and request that the CBSC review the broadcast impartially, as it relates to the various Codes of Ethics. Mr. Mineer and Stingray violated Clauses 2, 5, 6 and 7 of the CAB Code of Ethics and 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, and 5.0 of the RTDNA Code of Ethics.

[Another complainant] (CBSC ref. 20.2324-0214) has submitted a request for ruling, along with a detailed response to [the CBSC’s Manager of Administration & Operations] by email, of the Broadcaster's comments and an explanation of why we believe this broadcast violated codes of ethics.

I am submitting a request for ruling so that I am notified of the ruling and contacted by the Broadcaster if they are required to announce the decision of the ruling on air.

Thank you.

File 20.2324-0343

This complainant submitted a Ruling Request on December 2:

The Broadcaster does not address the concerns of my complaint. Stingray deflects from the harm done by their broadcast and evades concerns of fairness. I am not satisfied with the response from the Broadcaster and request that the CBSC review the broadcast impartially, as it relates to the various Codes of Ethics.

Mr. Mineer and Stingray violated Clauses 2, 5, 6 and 7 of the CAB Code of Ethics and 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, and 5.0 of the RTDNA Code of Ethics.

[Another complainant] (CBSC ref. 20.2324-0214) has submitted a request for ruling, along with a detailed response to [the CBSC’s Manager of Administration & Operations] by email, of the Broadcaster's comments and an explanation of why we believe this broadcast violated codes of ethics.

I am submitting a request for ruling so that I am notified of the ruling and contacted by the Broadcaster if they are required to announce the decision of the ruling on air. Thank you.

File 20.2324-0354

This complainant submitted a Ruling Request on December 2:

The Broadcaster does not address the concerns of my complaint. Stingray deflects from the harm done by their broadcast and evades concerns of fairness. I am not satisfied with the response from the Broadcaster and request that the CBSC review the broadcast impartially, as it relates to the various Codes of Ethics.

Mr. Mineer and Stingray violated Clauses 2, 5, 6 and 7 of the CAB Code of Ethics and 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, and 5.0 of the RTDNA Code of Ethics.

[Another complainant] (CBSC ref. 20.2324-0214) has submitted a request for ruling, along with a detailed response to [the CBSC’s Manager of Administration & Operations] by email, of the Broadcaster's comments and an explanation of why we believe this broadcast violated codes of ethics.

I am submitting a request for ruling so that I am notified of the ruling and contacted by the Broadcaster if they are required to announce the decision of the ruling on air. Thank you.

File 20.2324-0355

This complainant submitted a Ruling Request on November 30:

The Broadcaster does not address the concerns of my complaint. Stingray deflects from the harm done by their broadcast and evades concerns of fairness. I am not satisfied with the response from the Broadcaster and request that the CBSC review the broadcast impartially, as it relates to the various Codes of Ethics.

Mr. Mineer and Stingray violated Clauses 2, 5, 6 and 7 of the CAB Code of Ethics and 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, and 5.0 of the RTDNA Code of Ethics.

[Another complainant] (CBSC ref. 20.2324-0214) has submitted a request for ruling, along with a detailed response to [the CBSC’s Manager of Administration & Operations] by email, of the Broadcaster's comments and an explanation of why we believe this broadcast violated codes of ethics.

I am submitting a request for ruling so that I am notified of the ruling and contacted by the Broadcaster if they are required to announce the decision of the ruling on air. Thank you.

Once a file has been scheduled to be presented to an adjudication panel, the CBSC gives the station a final opportunity to provide any additional information relevant to the decision. CHNL did so on January 16:

We appreciate the CBSC’s attention to this matter. We feel strongly that an adjudication will help guide us as a responsible broadcaster navigating difficult territory.

We understand the volatile emotions around the conflict in Gaza. We strive to report the facts as best as we know them, and we strive to provide editorial content that is fair and balanced. That is extremely difficult to do in this situation with emotions running very high. There is also a great deal of misinformation on the internet and in social media, which further complicates dialogue and debate on this issue.

Unfortunately in the writing of this defense of our journalist, we are forced to refute Ms. Mansoory’s claims more aggressively than we would like. Knowing how much the Palestinian people are suffering, there is no pleasure taken in refuting her statements. It is not our desire to cause additional harm or further raise the temperature around this issue. However, there is an ethical need to defend Mr. Mineer and our collective integrity in the face of these very significant accusations.

I have provided some additional commentary below in red.

Did the segment contain any abusive or unduly discriminatory comments about Muslims or Palestinians under Clause 2 of the CAB Code of Ethics or Equitable Portrayal Code?

We do not believe so. Mr. Mineer did his very best to present fair and balanced commentary and made no abusive or discriminatory comments about Muslims or Palestinians. He did make strong negative comments about Hamas as an organization, and also made strong negative comments about the Israeli government as an organization. Neither statement was related to race, religion, or nationality. Hamas is a known terrorist organization and, as such, should be open to that criticism without drawing a relationship to the cause of innocent Palestinian people.

Did the host violate Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics for leading the conversation away from the original topic or cutting off the conversation when he did?

It is our opinion that Mr. Mineer did his very best to stay on the original topic, and the conversation only veered away from the topic due to the politically-charged comments made by the guest. It was always Mr. Mineer’s intention to discuss the local impact of the crisis, not the politics behind it. Perhaps in hindsight that is impossible. In any event, Mr. Mineer did not lead the conversation away from the original topic and only cut off the conversation when he felt the comments made by the guest were dangerously inaccurate.

Did the host insult or sully the reputation of his guest in a manner contrary to Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics?

Mr. Mineer did not insult or sully the reputation of his guest. He simply ended the interview abruptly when the comments of the guest became, in his opinion, dangerously detached from reality. No doubt that the abrupt ending of the interview could be, and likely was, perceived by Ms. Mansoory as an insult.

Was the segment unfair or unbalanced under Clauses 6 and 7 of the CAB Code of Ethics?

Absolutely not. Mr. Mineer presented a fair and balanced commentary towards both the Israeli and Palestinian sides of the crisis. He expressed great empathy for innocent Palestinians caught in this crisis, and expressed great disgust with both Israeli and Palestinian factions who are causing the crisis.

Did the segment contain any inaccuracies (uttered by either Brett Mineer or Umme Mansoory) contrary to Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics?

There were no inaccuracies uttered by Mr. Mineer. He did speak in hyperbole at one point, referencing Hamas videos with the phrase “the whole world has seen it”. He did not intend to literally imply that the entire world had seen the videos, but used the phrase “whole world” to state just how widely distributed and viewed the videos were. Ms. Mansoory, in our opinion, did make numerous inaccurate statements including:

- the number of Palestinians being killed each year in the West Bank

- the drawing of a moral equivalency between Hamas and Nelson Mandela

- the assertion that Hamas is not a terrorist organization, despite the fact that the government of Canada has labeled them as such for many years

It was for these repeated inaccurate and misleading statements that Mr. Mineer felt the need to end the interview abruptly.