CRTC approves Al-Jazeera for Canadian viewers

[Minstrel Boy]

CRTC approves Al-Jazeera for Canadian viewers

Canadians will soon be able to watch Al-Jazeera television after the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission conditionally approved it for distribution in Canada.

The Al-Jazeera application was filed by the Canadian Cable Television Association in spring 2003, and includes numerous other "ethnic services" from around the world. Each of the elements was decided independently.

The application to offer the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera through Canada's direct-to-home satellite networks was contested by various Jewish groups, which said the network disseminates "anti-Semitic hate speech."

Al-Jazeera is often referred to as the "CNN of the Arab world" and is often the first to broadcast messages and videotaped statements from militants in Iraq and belonging to al Qaeda.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1089894102595_32/?hub=CTVNewsAt11

Here's the CRTC ruling:

The authorization to distribute Al Jazeera is subject to the broadcasting distribution undertaking (BDU) wishing to offer the service having a condition of licence governing its distribution. The Commission has decided that distributors must record Al Jazeera programming and keep the recordings for a specific length of time. This measure will enable the Commission and licensees of BDUs to verify and assess the context of the programming in the event of any future concerns about abusive comment on Al Jazeera’s programming. The Commission is also requiring that BDUs distributing Al Jazeera not distribute, as part of that service, any abusive comment. Finally, the Commission will allow BDUs to alter or delete the programming of Al Jazeera solely for the purpose of ensuring that no abusive comment is distributed. The Commission found that this condition is necessary to prevent, to the greatest extent possible, the distribution of abusive comment on the service pursuant to the Commission’s statutory responsibility to regulate and supervise all aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system with a view to implementing the broadcasting policy set out in the Act, while at the same time minimally impairing freedom of expression.
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/NEWS/RELEASES/2004/r040715.htm

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1089894102595_32/?hub=CTVNewsAt11

[treepig]

1. but the crtc is still keeping bill o'reilly out?

that's a shame.

lookout for his boycott, tho - we all know how that brought france to its knees.

[Spazito]

2. There is a delicious irony here...

Faux is unable to meet the same criteria to become an accredited news organization according to the CRTC's standards. I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth already, lol.

A side note: It looks like Rogers Cable won't carry Al-Jazeera because of the specifications they must adhere to if they carry it. They are saying it is too onerous.

[Minstrel Boy]

4. The conditions are likely to make virtually all cable providers shy away

from carrying it. Puts too much onus on them for the content.

[JohnyCanuck]

7. Have to monitor and cut out any anti-semitic remarks.

According to a report on the news today the cable channels said it would be unprofitable to have to hire staff to monitor the channel 7/24 to delete any potential anti-semitic comments as required by the CRTC.

Since many seem to equate any criticism of Israel with anti-semitism, the cable companies would probably be in a no win situation. The pro-Israel right wingers would be lodging complaints with the CRTC that their cable company let some comment on air that that was anti-semitic while the leftys and pro-Palestinians complain that freedom of speech was being abrogated by over sensitivity to Israeli/Zionists interests by the cable companies.

[CHIMO]

22. Shaw won't carry Al-Jazeera

Calgary - Shaw Communications says it won't be picking up a controversial television station called the CNN of the Arab world, because of strict limitations the CRTC has placed on the network
"We would have to have somebody 24 hours a day, seven days a week, who spoke Arabic, who understands the Canadian broadcasting standards, and then would be able to black out that particular piece of programming," Bissonette said of how difficult it would be to guard against abusive comment. "It's impractical.
As well, Shaw has been told by a number of customers that they would cancel their cable if the company carries Al-Jazeera.

http://edmonton.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=ed_aljazeera20040716

[Jim Sagle]

3. Canadian journalism hits bottom, digs.

[Spazito]

5. No, Canada allows for all sides....

and doesn't let ANY interest group dictate what should or should not be seen by Canadians. The CTRC is the governing body overseeing content instead of mega-corporations slanting the news to curry favour with the bush admin.

[nose pin]

11. It does?

Did you read the article on CTV linked above? Here's the last section:

----------------------

RAI rejected

In all, the CRTC approved nine new non-Canadian, third-language networks -- including ones featuring Spanish, German and Romanian programming. Six were denied.

Among the applications rejected by the CRTC Thursday was Italy's RAI International -- despite the support of more than 100,000 Canadians who signed petitions.

But the application faced opposition from Toronto-based Telelatino, which already broadcasts about 50 hours per week of programming from RAI.

"What it tells us it's okay for BBC to broadcast because that apparently doesn't compete with CBC, but we can't have RAI International because it would compete with Telelatino, so we just don't understand," one Italian told Montreal's CFCF News.

------------------------

And how come I can't get Howard Stern?

[D-Notice]

12. Isn't RAI owned by the Italian PM?

If so, do you think that they won't allow it as it won't be an independent TV station?

[Spazito]

13. Here is CRTC's site...

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/NEWS/RELEASES/2004/r040715.htm



The Commission’s approach to authorizing the distribution of non-Canadian services in Canada aims to strike a balance among the objectives of the Act. For example, the Act states that the Canadian broadcasting system should, through its programming, serve the needs and interests and reflect the circumstances of Canadians, including the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society.

The Commission’s policy precludes the addition of non-Canadian services to the lists if the Commission determines them to be either partially or totally competitive with Canadian specialty or pay television services. This serves to ensure that the Canadian licensed services are in a position to fulfil their commitments and obligations regarding the airing of Canadian programming, a responsibility that their non-Canadian competitors do not have. Canadian services make an important contribution to fulfilling the objectives in the Act, for example by airing Canadian programs that enrich Canadian culture and encourage the development of Canadian expression.

When it deals with requests to add non-Canadian services to the lists, the Commission takes a case-by-case approach in assessing competitiveness. Many factors are taken into account. Such factors include the nature and genre of programming, the target audience, the language or languages in which the programming is broadcast, the source of programming and any relevant competitive concerns raised by parties during the proceeding. The Commission weighs these factors as they relate to the relevant Canadian services and the sponsored non-Canadian service in order to determine the amount of overlap between the services, and thus the extent to which they might compete with each other.

With regard to RAI:

With its request to add RAI International, Rogers, RAI’s sponsor, filed an undertaking from RAI that the service would not hold, obtain, nor exercise preferential or exclusive rights in relation to the distribution of programming in Canada. However, based on other statements made by RAI and its sponsor on the record of this proceeding, the Commission was not persuaded that RAI would not exercise preferential or exclusive rights to at least some of its programming.

(If you have questions on this, the CRTC has asked for comments as they are doing a review, feel free to write.)

Call for comments
The Commission also released today a call for comments on various questions in order to review its approach to authorizing non-Canadian third-language services for distribution on a digital basis.

Regarding Howard Stern, it is the stations themselves that canceled his show, as is their right.

[iverglas]

14. try reading that again

RAI International was not denied a licence because somebody didn't want RAI's "side" to be heard. The licence was denied because the CRTC, the licensing body, is bound by its statutory obligations under the Broadcasting Act; I'm gonna reproduce the declaration of principles at the end of my post, because it's long.

Allowing RAI to be broadcast in Canada would not have added significantly to the content already available, and would have jeopardized an element of the Canadian cultural industry, by competing for the same viewers and advertising dollars in a very limited market.

The market for English-language entertainment and news programming is sufficiently large, and demand is apparently sufficiently elastic, that allowing a new entrant like BBC Canada (entertainment) or BBC International (news) into the market has not jeopardized the CBC *or* any other English-language broadcaster. This simply is not true of a niche market like Italian-language programming.

Al-Jazeera is not really competing with any domestic broadcaster. I'm not disturbed by the conditions imposed on the licence, because while I am quite committed to diversity and multiculturalism, I'm not convinced that permitting the broadcasting of programming that is simply not accessible, because of the language it is in, to anyone but a very small minority of the population is wise, and some safeguards are appropriate, particularly where the programming is known to convey a point of view. I'd say the same about programming originating in any foreign country and in a language that made it broadly inaccessible.

That said, I'll be pressuring Rogers to make Al-Jazeera available to me, and I don't think I'll be the only one. When we went digital, our preliminary inquiries at a Rogers video store counter started with whether Al-Jazeera was on the menu, and the clerk response suggested we weren't the first to ask.



http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/b-9.01/sec3.html

3. (1) It is hereby declared as the broadcasting policy for Canada that

(a) the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians;

(b) the Canadian broadcasting system, operating primarily in the English and French languages and comprising public, private and community elements, makes use of radio frequencies that are public property and provides, through its programming, a public service essential to the maintenance and enhancement of national identity and cultural sovereignty;

(c) English and French language broadcasting, while sharing common aspects, operate under different conditions and may have different requirements;

(d) the Canadian broadcasting system should

(i) serve to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada,

(ii) encourage the development of Canadian expression by providing a wide range of programming that reflects Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity, by displaying Canadian talent in entertainment programming and by offering information and analysis concerning Canada and other countries from a Canadian point of view,

(iii) through its programming and the employment opportunities arising out of its operations, serve the needs and interests, and reflect the circumstances and aspirations, of Canadian men, women and children, including equal rights, the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society and the special place of aboriginal peoples within that society, and

(iv) be readily adaptable to scientific and technological change;

(e) each element of the Canadian broadcasting system shall contribute in an appropriate manner to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming;

(f) each broadcasting undertaking shall make maximum use, and in no case less than predominant use, of Canadian creative and other resources in the creation and presentation of programming, unless the nature of the service provided by the undertaking, such as specialized content or format or the use of languages other than French and English, renders that use impracticable, in which case the undertaking shall make the greatest practicable use of those resources;

(g) the programming originated by broadcasting undertakings should be of high standard;

(h) all persons who are licensed to carry on broadcasting undertakings have a responsibility for the programs they broadcast;

(i) the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should

(i) be varied and comprehensive, providing a balance of information, enlightenment and entertainment for men, women and children of all ages, interests and tastes,

(ii) be drawn from local, regional, national and international sources,

(iii) include educational and community programs,

(iv) provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern, and

(v) include a significant contribution from the Canadian independent production sector;

(j) educational programming, particularly where provided through the facilities of an independent educational authority, is an integral part of the Canadian broadcasting system;

(k) a range of broadcasting services in English and in French shall be extended to all Canadians as resources become available;

(l) the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains;

(m) the programming provided by the Corporation should

(i) be predominantly and distinctively Canadian,

(ii) reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions,

(iii) actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression,

(iv) be in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities,

(v) strive to be of equivalent quality in English and in French,

(vi) contribute to shared national consciousness and identity,

(vii) be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose, and

(viii) reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada;

(n) where any conflict arises between the objectives of the Corporation set out in paragraphs (l) and (m) and the interests of any other broadcasting undertaking of the Canadian broadcasting system, it shall be resolved in the public interest, and where the public interest would be equally served by resolving the conflict in favour of either, it shall be resolved in favour of the objectives set out in paragraphs (l) and (m);

(o) programming that reflects the aboriginal cultures of Canada should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system as resources become available for the purpose;

(p) programming accessible by disabled persons should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system as resources become available for the purpose;

(q) without limiting any obligation of a broadcasting undertaking to provide the programming contemplated by paragraph (i), alternative television programming services in English and in French should be provided where necessary to ensure that the full range of programming contemplated by that paragraph is made available through the Canadian broadcasting system;

(r) the programming provided by alternative television programming services should

(i) be innovative and be complementary to the programming provided for mass audiences,

(ii) cater to tastes and interests not adequately provided for by the programming provided for mass audiences, and include programming devoted to culture and the arts,

(iii) reflect Canada's regions and multicultural nature,

(iv) as far as possible, be acquired rather than produced by those services, and

(v) be made available throughout Canada by the most cost-efficient means;

(s) private networks and programming undertakings should, to an extent consistent with the financial and other resources available to them,

(i) contribute significantly to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming, and

(ii) be responsive to the evolving demands of the public; and

(t) distribution undertakings

(i) should give priority to the carriage of Canadian programming services and, in particular, to the carriage of local Canadian stations,

(ii) should provide efficient delivery of programming at affordable rates, using the most effective technologies available at reasonable cost,

(iii) should, where programming services are supplied to them by broadcasting undertakings pursuant to contractual arrangements, provide reasonable terms for the carriage, packaging and retailing of those programming services, and

(iv) may, where the Commission considers it appropriate, originate programming, including local programming, on such terms as are conducive to the achievement of the objectives of the broadcasting policy set out in this subsection, and in particular provide access for underserved linguistic and cultural minority communities.

Further declaration

(2) It is further declared that the Canadian broadcasting system constitutes a single system and that the objectives of the broadcasting policy set out in subsection (1) can best be achieved by providing for the regulation and supervision of the Canadian broadcasting system by a single independent public authority.

I'm quite sure that some will see all this as some horrific interference with freedom of speech ... while some will drool for such attention to the public interest, as they do over our healthcare system.
;)

[HEyHEY]

15. Because he was causing shit with Quebec

It's unstable enough

[Frederic Bastiat]

20. The RAI ruling makes no sense at all

Just more technocratic BS

[iverglas]

21. I give up

It made complete sense to me. I read what was posted here, understood every word and phrase and sentence, and came away with a very clear understanding of the rationale for the decision.

Did you want to identify the bits that eluded you, or what it is about the rationale that you find to make no sense? Maybe someone can help you.

[Frederic Bastiat]

25. What rationale?

That Telelatino can't come up with any original productions and have to rely so heavily on RAI programming and bureaucratic manoeuvering? If that is the case they shouldn't be in business at all.

Yet another case of government proping up a business at the expense of market choice. Nothing new here - just look at Air Canada.

[iverglas]

27. oooooh look

If that is the case they shouldn't be in business at all.

An opinion!

I wonder whether it is consistent with what the laws of Canada say.

Mmm (I examine the law in question, having reproduced it in this very thread ...) ... no! It isn't! So who cares?!


Yet another case of government proping up a business at the expense of market choice.

Or y'could say: yet another case of government following the wishes of the public by ensuring that Canadian cultural industries are given an opportunity to thrive, so that 10 years down the line we don't find ourselves with nothing left on our airwaves but Fox News and Leave it to Beaver reruns, and nothing on our bookstore shelves but bios of dead presidents. Oh, and maybe a little Italian programming thrown in to keep the fractious minorities happy, as long as it doesn't cut into the big guys' profits.

I mean, USAmerican cultural and economic imperialism and world-wide hegemony is a good thing, right? Once we all have One Big Culture, served up (at a fair price, of course), by our benevolent corporate masters from the south, live will be beautiful.

There are some who might say: if you dislike the way things are done here so much, and are so sublimely uninterested in the fate of the culture of this country and domestic control of the economy of this country and the sovereignty of this country in general ... well, you can imagine what comes next.

[Frederic Bastiat]

31. LOL

Or y'could say: yet another case of government following the wishes of the public by ensuring that Canadian cultural industries are given an opportunity to thrive, so that 10 years down the line we don't find ourselves with nothing left on our airwaves but Fox News and Leave it to Beaver reruns, and nothing on our bookstore shelves but bios of dead presidents.

Umm have you seen Canadian TV show ratings outside of Quebec??? They are mediocre compared to American TV shows. Reason? Most Canadian shows are subsidised by the Federal government which means artists/producers etc have to go through the bureacratic song and dance before they get financing and the end product is proof, limp shows rubberstamped by some technocrats in Ottawa.

Yawn.

Canadians tuned out. Big time.

I call that market choice.

But since the government has the final say on what happens to our tax dollars we will keep seeing mediocre TV productions such as Train 48 and Blue Murder.

There are some who might say: if you dislike the way things are done here so much, and are so sublimely uninterested in the fate of the culture of this country and domestic control of the economy of this country and the sovereignty of this country in general ... well, you can imagine what comes next.


Quit whining. The fate of Quebec's culture is hardly in doubt, just look at the booming local movie industry that is the envy of the rest of Canada.

;)

[CHIMO]

28. Propping Up

How is the government propping up AC?

[Frederic Bastiat]

30. Link

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/030329-7.htm

Air Canada's troubles began shortly after the federal government privatized the nationally owned airline, then instituted a semblance of airline deregulation. Along with the central bank's loose money policy that fuelled the high-tech (malinvestment) boom, the airline "deregulation" provided a facade of economic security that enabled Air Canada to maintain its stock values by purchasing (malinvesting in) Canadian Airlines International, an airline which sunk economically as a result of the "deregulation."

An unhampered free-market regime in commercial air transportation would have provided sufficient market discipline to have prevented Air Canada's malinvestment in Canadian Airlines, whose business plans were thwarted by economic regulations that were still in effect. Air Canada's malinvestment will not and cannot be liquidated as long as the federal transport department stands ready to bail them out and continue this deregulatory farce, a charade that is being administered for the purpose of ensuring the existence of a national airline.

[CHIMO]

35. Gather That

Your interpretation of government propping up is regulation.
Quickly read the article but am not further ahead.
If my interpretation is correct, then I have to agree with you, they are regulating.

[thebigidea]

6. have you seen "Control Room" yet?

If you haven't, I guess you could always insult it anyway... after all, it humanizes them.

[lefty_mcduff]

9. Hmmm. Al-Jazeera SUUUUUCCCKKKKS too, huh?

Not sure how 'allowing' cable providers the *option* to carry a heavily monitored and subsequently censored Al-Jazeera is *any* indication of the state of journalism in Canada.

But it does make one wonder why so many people are *afraid* of seeing another perspective.

On the otherhand, Al-Jazeera will probablly never hit the airwaves due to the policing and censoring restrictions that come with the privledge. No cable provider wants to have to decide what is *appropriate* or not. And that's due to *liability* issues rather than any particular political leaning.

[HEyHEY]

19. I'll tell ya

As a Canadian Journalist. The state of the craft in the nation, while in danger, is still okay. I know MANY journalists that will be very happy with this decision.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SidDithers]

24. Reporters without Borders - World Press Freedom Rankings

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=8247

Interesting stuff.

Sid

[iverglas]

33. How the rankings were compiled

Canada is #10, behind Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Trinidad and Tobago, Belgium, Germany and Sweden.

Keep in mind that journalists in each country, who did the rankings, will have their own axes to grind, and may not share the axes of journalists in other countries. Germany has stricter hate speech laws than many other countries, for instance, but its journalists do not seem to object to them the way journalists in other countries might.

Canada has been suffering under a concentration and convergence process in the media, as very politicized interests build and acquire media empires and integrate print and broadcast ownership, and Canadian journalists have decried the loss of journalistic freedom that they have felt as a result. I don't know whether this factor would come under the "pressure groups" consideration.

Reporters Without Borders says that its questionaire used 53 criteria, but I'm not seeing what they were, other than a general description:

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=8248

To compile this ranking, Reporters Without Borders designed a questionnaire with 53 criteria for assessing the state of press freedom in each country. It includes every kind of violation directly affecting journalists (such as murders, imprisonment, physical attacks and threats) and news media (censorship, confiscation of issues, searches and harassment). It registers the degree of impunity enjoyed by those responsible for these press freedom violations. It takes account of the legal and judicial situation affecting the news media (such as the penalties for press offences, the existence of a state monopoly in certain areas and the existence of a regulatory body) and the behaviour of the authorities towards the state-owned news media and international press. It also takes account of the main obstacles to the free flow of information on the Internet. Reporters Without Borders has taken account not only of abuses attributable to the state, but also those by armed militia, clandestine organisations or pressure groups that can pose a real threat to press freedom.

If the organization is really including "the existence of a regulatory body" as one of the indicators of lack of freedom, then the rest of us need to remember that there may be other factors -- including the right of peoples to autonomy and sovereignty and to their culture, and the possible beneficial effects of regulation in increasing access to a range of information and opinion -- that might justify such regulation, even though it is a limitation on freedom. Lots of things are limitations on freedoms, but not bad things nonetheless.

Special situation of the United States and Israel

The ranking distinguishes behaviour at home and abroad in the cases of the United States and Israel. They are ranked in 31st and 44th positions respectively as regards respect for freedom of expression on their own territory, but they fall to the 135th and 146th positions as regards behaviour beyond their borders.

The Israeli army's repeated abuses against journalists in the occupied territories and the US army's responsibility in the death of several reporters during the war in Iraq constitute unacceptable behaviour by two nations that never stop stressing their commitment to freedom of expression.

Canada was 10th, the US was 31st at home, 135th in its behaviour outside its borders.

[Darranar]

26. Ah, the horrors of freedom of the press. n/t

[Forkboy]

34. They criticize Israel=hitting bottom to some

[SoCalDem]

8. I could get AJ if I wanted to pay for it.. Dish Betwork offers it..n/t

.

[arikara]

10. They've in effect censored it in Canada

because of their conditions no one will carry it anyhow. And they think they've made themselves look good. I'm quite disgusted by the whole thing.

[HEyHEY]

17. Hey, anything deemed "anti-semetic"

I don't know how "Anti-semetic" AJ is, but if it's seriously so, I don't want it broadcasted in my country. Hate is a useless program.

[iverglas]

18. well, at least the process is transparent

And at least the Canadian decision only affects Canada.

http://www.cpj.org/news/2001/US04oct01na.html, just for instance:

New York, October 4, 2001 — The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) is deeply concerned by reports that U.S. officials pressured Qatar in an attempt to influence the news coverage of the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera satellite channel.

Following a meeting yesterday in Washington, D.C., with U.S. secretary of state Colin Powell, Qatari ruler Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani acknowledged that U.S. officials had asked him to use his influence to rein in Al-Jazeera's news coverage.

As for the licence conditions, it strikes me that Rogers and any other distributor that declines to carry it will found a convenient peg on which to hang a potentially costly business decision, i.e. avoid bad press and boycotts from elements of the public that object to Al-Jazeera being made available, and will be at least secretly perfectly happy.

[daleo]

29. Israel allows Al Jazeera to be broadcast uncensored in Israel

If it's good enough for Israel, it ought to be good enough for us. If any content is considered egregious enough, complaints can be made then. If it goes too far over the line, consistently, the license could be pulled. This decision by the CRTC (and I am not usually much of a critic of the CRTC) seems to be tailor made to prohibit the broadcast of Al Jazeera without actually coming out and doing so explicitly. Indeed, if this reasoning is valid for Al Jazeera, it ought to be valid for all the other networks too.

[iverglas]

32. so does Canada ...

The conditions placed on the licence really are NOT censorship.

It's arguable that, in practice, they may lead to Al-Jazeera not being aired in Canada. But hey ... that will be a business decision by the companies authorized to distribute it. I'm being mainly facetious, in case anyone isn't sure. But there really is a distinction between censorship and scrutiny.

... if this reasoning is valid for Al Jazeera, it ought to be valid for all the other networks too.

The reasoning in the case of Al-Jazeera is obviously twofold:

- there is very little opportunity for broad public scrutiny of its programming as it airs, because very few members of the public speak Arabic. If Al-Jazeera were being broadcast in English, there would be no justification for the recording condition;

- there is prima facie evidence of programming on Al-Jazeera in the past that arguably offends the provisions of the Broadcasting Act, and therefore there is justification for imposing conditions that make scrutiny possible.

I actually agree with you when it comes to some other things, like programming on Vision TV. Some of the fundie religious shit I've seen on there (and probably more so on paid religious programming on networks like CanWest Global), in English, strikes me as hardly compatible with Canadian values of equality and diversity and tolerance. But then, if I think I have grounds for complaint, I can make one.

The problem is more with Vision's multilingual religious programming; I, and most Canadians, have no way of knowing what's being said. But in the case of Vision and any other multilingual broadcaster in Canada, the broadcaster is Canadian and thus arguably more likely to consider and adhere to Canadian standards, being part of this society and being amenable to more severe sanction (the loss of its only audience) if it violates those standards and therefore more likely to be deterred by the threat of licence revocation.