Christian radio station forced to give time to other faiths

cybercoma · July 30, 2007

The CRTC is ridiculous. I totally disagree with this "balance" crap. Besides, if they really wanted to show balance, they should force the station to air Atheist programming.

B. Max · July 30, 2007

The CRTC is ridiculous. I totally disagree with this "balance" crap. Besides, if they really wanted to show balance, they should force the station to air Atheist programming.

I thought that's what CPAC or what ever they call it was for.

jefferiah · July 30, 2007

I think part of our conflict comes from other ideologies, you may believe that a "pure" Christian radio station is of the greatest benefit to Canadians, while I believe that more good is done by offering a wider range of views.

I never said Canadians had to benefit from this station. Radio stations are not or should not be ward of the state. What does this have to do with Canadians in general. It is a small Christian music station in Ottawa serving a small market. There is a wide range of views. There is a wide range of radio stations. This radio station does not have to represent all Canadians it only has to represent their market niche. I don't even pick up this station.

No a half hour is not much....but it is still a vital change. If the CRTC can tell a Christian station they must play Muslim music for half an hour (which would be blasphemous for them to endorse), what will they do tomorrow. One inch today in this direction is another inch tomorrow. The rights of some small radio station in Ottawa are the same as the rights of all individuals and businesses across the nation---Christian, Jew, Muslim, Sikh, black, white, green or purple. The CRTC has even discussed getting into the protection of their version of "Canadian culture" (for all Canadians) on the world wide web.

In the interests of protecting the diversity and the integrity of any culture, I would not trust the CRTC. The other religious groups or cultural groups may feel they have a friend today in the socialist CRTC, when they are done being used as an example of an oppressed group to defeat the rights of the private citizens (in the name of fairness to all Canadians) the same socialists will turn on them.

jefferiah · July 30, 2007

I am not a Nietzsche fan myself, but every once in a while he wrote something that hit the nail on the head:

I would like to quote a little bit from Thus Spake Zarathustra:

11. The New Idol

SOMEWHERE there are still peoples and herds, but not with us, my brethren: here there are states.

A state? What is that? Well! open now your ears unto me, for now will I say unto you my word concerning the death of peoples.

A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people."

It is a lie! Creators were they who created peoples, and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life.

Destroyers, are they who lay snares for many, and call it the state: they hang a sword and a hundred cravings over them.

Where there is still a people, there the state is not understood, but hated as the evil eye, and as sin against laws and customs.

This sign I give unto you: every people speaketh its language of good and evil: this its neighbor understandeth not. Its language hath it devised for itself in laws and customs.

But the state lieth in all languages of good and evil; and whatever it saith it lieth; and whatever it hath it hath stolen.

False is everything in it; with stolen teeth it biteth, the biting one. False are even its bowels.

Confusion of language of good and evil; this sign I give unto you as the sign of the state. Verily, the will to death, indicateth this sign! Verily, it beckoneth unto the preachers of death!

Edited July 30, 2007 by jefferiah

Electric Monk · July 30, 2007

I see, this is where we differ, I think that those who are using public resources should use them in such a way as to benefit the majority of the public. Morally I cannot say otherwise.

scribblet · July 30, 2007

Do they actually receive taxpayer funding, if so then I suppose they should give time to other faiths, if no funding, then absolutely not. Having said that, only if other stations and other faiths should have to do the same.

jefferiah · July 30, 2007

I see, this is where we differ, I think that those who are using public resources should use them in such a way as to benefit the majority of the public. Morally I cannot say otherwise.

So by this logic a person who opens a vegetarian restaurant should serve meat as well on behalf of the majority?????

And yet you support the CBC whose customers (the taxpayer) do not have the choice and they certainly don't serve the majority. The majority is watching CSI and House not Little Mosque or The Hour.

Edited July 30, 2007 by jefferiah

M.Dancer · July 30, 2007

"When is a Christian radio station not a Christian radio station? For the hour or so a day that it must air the views of other faiths to satisfy the CRTC's "balance" policy."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I have heard of everything.

CRTC is now dictating conditions to religious broadcasting, relating to their 'balance policy'.

I thought freedom of religion is a fundamental freedom, according to Sec. 2(a) of our Charter.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...00-f09799f51005

If they have a problem with the public airways they can always go digital.

jefferiah · July 30, 2007

Since when do the airways belong to the CRTC?

Maybe they should charge us a breathing tax.

M.Dancer · July 30, 2007

Since when do the airways belong to the CRTC?
Maybe they should charge us a breathing tax.

For the last 50 plus years. There are a finite number of spots on the dial. Each one is in demand. The CRTC manages the demand. Just try to imagine what would happen if all the spots were open......

jefferiah · July 30, 2007

There were a finite number of kolomikta kiwi vines at the garden centre. When I went to buy mine there was one left. I would have liked to have had four. And I suppose after I bought the last one there are people who would have liked to have bought at least one. Nothing happened.

Maybe I should grow kiwis for all Canadians off my one Kolomikta vine.

Edited July 30, 2007 by jefferiah

M.Dancer · July 30, 2007

There were a finite number of kolomikta kiwi vines at the garden centre. When I went to buy mine there was one left. I would have liked to have had four. And I suppose after I bought the last one there are people who would have liked to have bought at least one. Nothing happened.
Maybe I should grow kiwis for all Canadians off my one Kolomikta vine.

You went to the cash right? And you produced the required amount?

jefferiah · July 30, 2007

Yes I did, good point. But then again I still would not expect anyone who owns a Bricklyn to share with me.

Electric Monk · July 30, 2007

I see, this is where we differ, I think that those who are using public resources should use them in such a way as to benefit the majority of the public. Morally I cannot say otherwise.

So by this logic a person who opens a vegetarian restaurant should serve meat as well on behalf of the majority?????

And yet you support the CBC whose customers (the taxpayer) do not have the choice and they certainly don't serve the majority. The majority is watching CSI and House not Little Mosque or The Hour.

I'll say it again, the radio spectrum is publicly owned, if they want to use another method of distribution of their content, there may be fewer restrictions.

The majority of Canadians, at least in 2004 seemed to like having the CBC around.

JerrySeinfeld · July 30, 2007

Are there any other stations of other faiths, and does this apply to them?
Boy, imagine if an atheist radio station was forced to give time to different religions.

Or even more to the point - imagine if Muslim stations had to give time to christians!!! Heads would roll - ere - literally!

Renegade · July 30, 2007

I'll say it again, the radio spectrum is publicly owned, if they want to use another method of distribution of their content, there may be fewer restrictions.

The question is whether those restrictions are an unwarranted intrusion. If the CRTC decided that criticism of government policies over any airwaves should be banned, should that restriction also be permitted?

Edited July 30, 2007 by Renegade

B. Max · July 31, 2007

For the last 50 plus years. There are a finite number of spots on the dial. Each one is in demand. The CRTC manages the demand. Just try to imagine what would happen if all the spots were open......

I don't agree that they can be owned by anyone. The airways don't even exist unless they are generated and the CRTC doesn't generate any kind of signal. The people that own and have the equipment for generating signals would have more of a claim. Regardless, the government has no business telling them or anyone that they have to carry someone else's programming, and especially when it comes to religious programming that has nothing to do with this country.

mikedavid00 · July 31, 2007

I thought freedom of religion is a fundamental freedom, according to Sec. 2(a) of our Charter.

This is truly a crisis situation.

We need to reform immigartion, and rid ourselves of the Parlimentary system which promotes corruption.

We also need to liberalize the ownership of firearms for citizens.

Grenades, firearms, fully automatic rifles, long range motars, etc...

First Nations in camoflage with fully automatics and vests with face paint is what is needed here.

That's why I'll always give props to first nations.

I saw how Oka playd out. I saw how FLQ played out. Both had something in common and both got what they wanted.

When is our turn?

jefferiah · July 31, 2007

If you are serious Mike, then I am sorry, no support here. I prefer free speech and if they ban it I will continue to speak it.

mikedavid00 · July 31, 2007

If you are serious Mike, then I am sorry, no support here. I prefer free speech and if they ban it I will continue to speak it.

I"m not serious but if you think about it, it's the only way to get something done in Canada.

Anyone who has taken a violent approach as been succesful.

What you speak of is idioligy which does not solve problems.

jefferiah · July 31, 2007

When you build a house the right way it will stand longer.

mikedavid00 · July 31, 2007

When you build a house the right way it will stand longer.

Ok what you just said is ideoligy. Don't you see? This is the problem.

This is not ideoligy

jefferiah · July 31, 2007

Sorry Mike, no deal.

Be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

"Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one.

"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints...." Ephesians 6:10-18

I don't see grenades, mortars, or firearms mentioned in there.

Edited July 31, 2007 by jefferiah

Electric Monk · July 31, 2007

I'll say it again, the radio spectrum is publicly owned, if they want to use another method of distribution of their content, there may be fewer restrictions.

The question is whether those restrictions are an unwarranted intrusion. If the CRTC decided that criticism of government policies over any airwaves should be banned, should that restriction also be permitted?

I think that restriction should definitely not be permitted. The difference is that currently the CRTC allows licensing of a portion of the radio spectrum for a religious radio station, but adds the caveat that they also include some other religions for a small portion of their broadcast day. The mandate is inclusion, not exclusion, that's a very important distinction.

(edited for clarity)

Edited July 31, 2007 by Electric Monk

Renegade · July 31, 2007

I think that restriction should definitely not be permitted. The difference is that currently the CRTC allows licensing of a portion of the radio spectrum for a religious radio station, but adds the caveat that they also include some other religions for a small portion of their broadcast day. The mandate is inclusion, not exclusion, that's a very important distinction.
(edited for clarity)

Ok if they worded it so the mandate was inclusive, then would you be supportive (ie how about if they mandated pro-government content on the airwaves)?

Edited July 31, 2007 by Renegade