Christian radio station forced to give time to other faiths

[Electric Monk]

So I gather you don't approve of government regulation over commercial use of public property?

[B. Max]

So I gather you don't approve of government regulation over commercial use of public property?

The government is regulating content, there is nothing public about that, nor is there anything public about generating frequencies. The government can assign frequencies to avoid confusion, but that's as far as it goes, and because we have a totally inept government they have managed to completely bungle the handling of the UHF two way radio frequencies to the point of endangering peoples lives. So infact they aren't even able to do what their job should be. The whole damn works of them should be fired.

Edited July 29, 2007 by B. Max

[maldon_road]

Banning free speech could create the catalyst for a more direct approach that could induce outright violence.

That's what happens when you ban anything. You drive it underground. In Canada "hate speech" is illegal but it takes place all time. In no time at all you could find thousands of examples on the internet. What does the government do then? Ban the WWW? Remember, "hate speech" laws precede the internet. When it comes to free speech the feds are like some latter day King Canute, ordering the tide to roll back.

Edited July 29, 2007 by maldon_road

[Electric Monk]

The content is being broadcast over public airwaves, thus it is under the jurisdiction of Canadian regulations. I agree that the government is quite capable of bungling things, (the gun registry), but in this case I don't think they are being unfair. They usually deliberate for quite a while on these CRTC decisions, and I think they try to take into account other stations in the market when they make the requirements. If there is only one foreign language radio station in the market, they will be required to serve more than just one segment of the local foreign language speaking population. The same goes for religious broadcasters.

[Electric Monk]

Banning free speech could create the catalyst for a more direct approach that could induce outright violence.

That's what happens when you ban anything. You drive it underground. In Canada "hate speech" is illegal but it takes place all time. In no time at all you could find thousands of examples on the internet. What does the government do then? Ban the WWW? Remember, "hate speech" laws precede the internet. When it comes to free speech the feds are like some latter day King Canute, ordering the tide to roll back.

They are not banning anything in this case, they are forcing the stations to include more points of view, and thus serve more of the Canadian public.

[maldon_road]

They are not banning anything in this case, they are forcing the stations to include more points of view, and thus serve more of the Canadian public.

If it had been a Muslim or Jewish station I wonder whether the CRTC would have put the same requirements. Today Christianity is like a big wounded beast that just doesn't seem to be able to fight to protect itself.

[Michael Bluth]

They are not banning anything in this case, they are forcing the stations to include more points of view, and thus serve more of the Canadian public.

Why would they force them to do that?

The station wants to appeal to a niche part of the market.

There are other outlets that serve other parts of the Canadian public. It seems like an excuse to discriminate against Christians.

[jefferiah]

The radio station in question started in the 90s I believe. At that time they had to apply for a license to broadcast from the CRTC. The intent I assume was to create a Christian radio station, since that is what they are. The CRTC approved. The people who backed this station and put money into it for the purposes of having a Christian radio station are being screwed. As for representing the Canadian public I am sure that the station itself is a small entity and does not have many viewers and the owners should have the right to broadcast shows they like. The fact that it is small and that only a certain small amount of the public tunes into Christian radio compliment each other in making the argument that it is representative of the people. The viewers who do not like it tune into other stations. Why should the CRTC have the right now to change the rules in the middle of the game? The people who worked hard to fund this station for the purposes of making a Christian radio station are now having the product they paid for forcibly changed? There is no law restricting a Muslim radio station.

As for trusting in the well-educated, well- researched individuals who make up the CRTC. That is a load of crap. I approve of education and research but neither are necessarily signs of intelligence. If they were then they would know how to represent Canadians with shows they would actually watch. I respect education, but if an educated person tells me 2 plus 2 is 5, I don't care what his credentials are. I am sure Lucien Bouchard had an education, but that won't sell me on the fact that he appointed an FLQ terrorist to a federal position. It is complete bs that people who put up money to establish a radio station (which was approved by the CRTC) should have their programming decided for them. For the Christian owners of the station Islamic content or Buddhist content would be blasphemous. They cannot ban such things from society, nor should they. We all have freedom of religion, but they should have the right to decide what programming they want on their station. For the owners of the station who paid to put out the message that Christ is divine, it would be ridiculous to force them to also say Christ is no more than a prophet, or that Buddha is the awakened one. If this station were a public entity like CBC then the CRTC could more appropriately decide to have multi-religious programming.

Edited July 29, 2007 by jefferiah

[Electric Monk]

If you read the article, you'll notice they are starting a new mostly talk format station, while the existing station is mostly music, hence the different requirements. What basis do you have to assume that the CRTC applies their regulations unfairly?

Again, they are using the publicly owned radio spectrum.

Edited July 29, 2007 by Electric Monk

[scribblet]

If you read the article, you'll notice they are starting a new mostly talk format station, while the existing station is mostly music, hence the different requirements. What basis do you have to assume that the CRTC applies their regulations unfairly?

The CBC

[Electric Monk]

How so?

[B. Max]

The CBC

I think most Canadians would like to see the CBC sold to private interests and the CRTC scrapped. That's how we begin to shrink the size of government.

[westscarborough]

It's not a bad way of forcing different religious groups to know each other.

But still, if someone owns a radio station, you can't change the rules after he's bought or built the thing.

I say neah, can't do it, grandfather a clause for new stations if you feel you have to...but don't take something that someone supposedly owns and make them change it. The crtc rules and regs take care of anybody gettin' all feelin' powerful and spreading the hate. So forcing people doesn't seem right.

Edited July 29, 2007 by westscarborough

[Electric Monk]

I think most Canadians would like to see the CBC sold to private interests and the CRTC scrapped. That's how we begin to shrink the size of government.

In an Ipsos-Reid 2004 Poll, 51% of Canadians voted to maintain current levels of funding for the CBC, 38% voted to increase funding, while 9% voted to decrease funding. Looks like the majority wanted the CBC publicly funded then, do you have reason to believe the numbers have changed significantly?

Another poll in the same year indicates Canadian opinion on the need for the CRTC is: 34% - Great deal of need, 48% - Some need, 9% - Not very much need, 7% - No need, 2% - Don't know/No opinion.

Link

(edited to add quote)

Edited July 29, 2007 by Electric Monk

[Electric Monk]

It's not a bad way of forcing different religious groups to know each other.

But still, if someone owns a radio station, you can't change the rules after he's bought or built the thing.

The CRTC didn't change the rules, there is a new station license being applied for, which follows a different format.

[jefferiah]

It's not a bad way of forcing different religious groups to know each other.

But still, if someone owns a radio station, you can't change the rules after he's bought or built the thing.

The CRTC didn't change the rules, there is a new station license being applied for, which follows a different format.

So basically if I put up money to start a Christian radio station you think it is right that the government should say I have to put programming for other religions on there?

Why can't the person putting up the cash put on the programs he wants? What about the rights to govern your own private property?

Basically this means that the Christian Radio station can no longer be a Christian Radio station. And henceforth if this policy is enacted across the board there can be no such thing in Canada. You think this is right?

Edited July 30, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

It's not a bad way of forcing different religious groups to know each other.

But still, if someone owns a radio station, you can't change the rules after he's bought or built the thing.

I say neah, can't do it, grandfather a clause for new stations if you feel you have to...but don't take something that someone supposedly owns and make them change it. The crtc rules and regs take care of anybody gettin' all feelin' powerful and spreading the hate. So forcing people doesn't seem right.

Why should religious groups be forced to know each other? People themselves should have the right to decide that which they want to know.

This is the problem with multiculturalism. It is more than simply multiculturalism it is forced multiculturalism. I have no problem with a Hindu neighbour as long as I don't have to indulge in his beliefs or even know about them. And I can be his friend without knowing his religion, or having the government force it on me. Multiculturalism should be a free venture----meaning if you want to put down a mat and meditate and burn incense you can. There is no need to mandate that other people do so, or that a Christian radio station should have to condone it or endorse it. To allow people the freedom to be multicultural means they can subscribe to whatever belief they want exclusively. Religions are all different. I do not believe in ecumenicalism because it basically does a fine editing job on some of the most important points of every faith and says "See they are the same!" By the same token if someone wishes to believe they are the same they have a right to do so as well, as long as they do not enforce it. But they can't seem to get beyond that idea. The parity movements are just as intolerant as the intolerance they claim to be fighting against.

People talk about Christian proselytizing but the fact is this radio station does not mandate that people listen to Christian music. I don't listen to Christian music. CHRI is notforcing me to. The church can proselytize but it can't force anyone to listen.

Why shouldn't people who want to start a Christian radio station with the idea of pure Christian programming be allowed to do just that? If no one likes it, they can tune out. If they want other viewpoints they can go elsewhere.

Edited July 29, 2007 by jefferiah

[B. Max]

Another poll in the same year indicates Canadian opinion on the need for the CRTC is: 34% - Great deal of need, 48% - Some need, 9% - Not very much need, 7% - No need, 2% - Don't know/No opinion.

Link

(edited to add quote)

I wouldn't trust those polls. From what I hear about CBC ratings it would be hard to believe that all but a few would want the CBC and I suspect the majority of those are in the east.

[Electric Monk]

They are not banning anything in this case, they are forcing the stations to include more points of view, and thus serve more of the Canadian public.

Why would they force them to do that?

The station wants to appeal to a niche part of the market.

There are other outlets that serve other parts of the Canadian public. It seems like an excuse to discriminate against Christians.

Sorry Michael, missed your post. I think the rationale behind the restrictions is that they are a niche station, but using part of the limited publicly-owned radio spectrum. The "price" they pay for that access is to provide some other viewpoints, possibly as long as they are not already available elsewhere in the market. I know they take into account objections by competitors when they make these decisions, and try to ensure that all stations in a market are treated equitably.

[jefferiah]

I wouldn't trust those polls. From what I hear about CBC ratings it would be hard to believe that all but a few would want the CBC and I suspect the majority of those are in the east.

That may be true, but you have it from this easterner that I think the CBC is ridiculous as well.

[B. Max]

That may be true, but you have it from this easterner that I think the CBC is ridiculous as well.

Oh we know that there are right thinking people in the east.

Edited July 30, 2007 by B. Max

[jefferiah]

In fact I remember when the CRTC decided that there were certain mandatory cable stations Canadians must subscribe to, that alot of my fellow maritimers thought it was pretty ridiculous.

I wonder why multicultarilists feel there is a need to weed out anything American?

Why do they get to decide what Canadian culture is when Canadians themselves would decide differently?

And how can you preserve Canadian culture with socialist tactics that go against the intent of the nations founders?

[Electric Monk]

It's not a bad way of forcing different religious groups to know each other.

But still, if someone owns a radio station, you can't change the rules after he's bought or built the thing.

The CRTC didn't change the rules, there is a new station license being applied for, which follows a different format.

So basically if I put up money to start a Christian radio station you think it is right that the government should say I have to put programming for other religions on there?

Why can't the person putting up the cash put on the programs he wants? What about the rights to govern your own private property?

Basically this means that the Christian Radio station can no longer be a Christian Radio station. And henceforth if this policy is enacted across the board there can be no such thing in Canada. You think this is right?

I don't think it is 100% right for the government to regulate in this manner, and believe me I see your points, but I think that when you take into account the fact that the radio spectrum is owned by the Canadian public allowances have to be made for the wide range of people within the public. Given that it is a public resource, and fairly limited in capacity, with an extremely high barrier to entry, I think they are doing an acceptable job of regulation.

Do you think a completely free-market solution would result in a wider representation of Canadian opinion?

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.

American content is emphatically NOT weeded out entirely by the CRTC, they do require that a minimum percentage of Canadian content is aired on each station, with the most stringent requirements placed on the CBC, that it should air predominantly Canadian Content.

If we went to an entirely free-market system I believe we would quickly see most Canadian content disappear and be replaced by cheaper ready-made American productions. How would you feel about that?

The religious music station was only required 30 minutes a day of other religions....hardly onerous persecution.

[Michael Bluth]

Why do they get to decide what Canadian culture is when Canadians themselves would decide differently?

And how can you preserve Canadian culture with socialist tactics that go against the intent of the nations founders?

Because they don't care about the wishes of Canadians or the intent of anybody but themselves.

There only goal is to push their vision of what Canadian culture should be. If you disagree with them you are a: nazi, George W. Bush clone, racist or all of the above. The rights guaranteed under the Charter are only important when pushing their agenda.

[uOttawaMan]

meh