Ottawa, May 10, 2000 – The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) today released its decision concerning Canadian broadcasts of the Dr. Laura Schlessinger Show. The joint decision of the Atlantic and Ontario Regional Councils related to the host’s remarks about gays and lesbians in various episodes aired on CJCH in Halifax and CFYI in Toronto. The Councils decided that her consistent characterization (on the episodes reviewed) of the sexual behaviour of gays and lesbians as “abnormal”, “aberrant”, “deviant”, “disordered”, “dysfunctional”, “an error” or the like constituted abusively discriminatory of those persons on the basis of their sexual orientation. As a result, Schlessinger’s comments were determined to be in violation of the human rights provision of the CAB Code of Ethics. In addition, the Councils found her generalized statements that paedophilia has to do with being gay and is more prevalent among members of the gay communicty than the heterosexual community, are also abusively discriminatory of those persons on the basis of their sexual orientation and are consequently in violation of the human rights provision of the CAB Code of Ethics. The Councils also concluded that both types of statements constituted an unfair or improper expression of opinion or comment pursuant to Clause 6 of that same Code.
The Councils also ruled that, in a number of other areas complained of, notably the issues relating to the gay agenda, gay culture, fatherless homes and the issues surrounding the murder of Matthew Shepard, Schlessinger’s comments could not reasonably be interpreted on these various episodes as being in violation of either Clause 2 or 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics. Details relating to each of the foregoing issues as well as paedophilia are provided in the Annex to this release.
Applicable Standards
As it had in the Howard Stern decisions, the CBSC considered the consequences of the fact that the program “originates in a jurisdiction subject to one constitutional legal regime and is re-broadcast in another jurisdiction with a constitutional legal regime which is not identical.” In such circumstances, the Councils pointed out that it is the standards established by Canada’s private broadcasters, not those of the originating country, which apply.
The CBSC has also previously stated its position that, in Canada, we respect freedom of speech but do not worship it. It will be one of the societal values to be weighed against others. It is significant but not absolute; material, to be sure, but not free of that compromise essential to ensure a balanced and free democracy for all who dwell there. It would be no consolation for those in pain that the inflictors induced that agony in the presumed legitimate exercise of their freedom. It follows that the CBSC focusses on a balance of values in its decisions and that the Council considers that it is essential that Canadian standards continue to be applied to programs aired by Canadian broadcast licensees, whatever the country of origin of the programs which they broadcast.
To the extent, if any, that Canada’s rules differ from those in the United States, it is, of course, the Canadian principles which must apply to any program broadcast here, whatever its origins.
Whether or not Americans are so protected in their country is a non-issue for the CBSC. Gays and lesbians are so protected in this country. Whether it is or is not the case in the United States, gays and lesbians constitute a group benefiting from overwhelming judicial and legislative acknowledgment of gay and lesbian rights, not to mention popular support, under the human rights provisions in this country.
The Host’s Credentials
As a threshold issue, the Councils expressed their concern about the combined effect of the host’s use of such quasi-medical terms as “aberrant”, “deviant”, “disordered” and dysfunctional”, and her characterization of herself as Dr. Schlessinger “when the degree which she has earned has no relevance to the opinions which she expresses.” The Councils did not find a breach on this account and acknowledged that
Schlessinger may have a technical entitlement to so describe herself. Nonetheless, it is the Councils’ view that it is the societal cachet of the term “Dr.” which Laura Schlessinger chooses to exploit with a view to adding weight to the positions she espouses. She may, by virtue of other training, be qualified to speak to the issues which she regularly addresses; however, it is an exaggerated, if not manipulative or misleading, choice which she makes to underscore the “Dr.” association on a constant basis.
Sexual Deviancy
The Councils considered that Schlessinger’s statements on gay and lesbian practices as examples of sexual deviancy were “presented on a cumulative foundation, built by the host, of critical and discriminatory (although not abusively discriminatory) comment made about gays and lesbians in virtually every program listened to in the context of this decision.” Consequently, the Councils concluded,
In the case of this aspect of the nature of gays and lesbians, it is not merely the words used, but their cumulative effect and the admittedly pejorative perspective of the host regarding the sexual practices which she describes which are at issue. As a result, with respect to this issue, it is the view of the Councils that what the host may innocently describe as “opinion” in fact and in law amounts to abusively discriminatory comment based on the sexual orientation of the identifiable group about which those statements were made.
The Councils considered it material that her views were more than a quarter of a century out of date in the opinion of the professional psychiatric and psychological associations. They specifically noted that
the host consistently and vehemently asserted, on numerous occasions in the episodes complained of, that the sexual behaviour of gays and lesbians is either abnormal, aberrant, deviant, disordered, a biological error or dysfunctional, despite the fact that the professional associations responsible for such issues do not consider that homosexuality is even sufficiently abnormal to be characterized as pathological or diagnostically relevant.
In the view of the Councils, the host’s terminology was “clearly pejorative.” They added that she was “unhesitatingly critical, negative and unambiguous and her words are as critical and unrelenting as she can make them. In the end, she is utterly rigid about a fundamental issue which goes to the nature, the essence of gays and lesbians.” Moreover, they concluded, her argument that she “can ‘surgically’ separate the individual persons from their inherent characteristics so as to entitle her to make comments about the sexuality which have no effect on the person is fatuous and unsustainable.”
The sexual practices of gays and lesbians are as much a part of their being as the colour of one’s skin or the gender, religion, age or ethnicity of an individual. To use such brutal language as she does about such an essential characteristic flies in the face of Canadian provisions relating to human rights.
In the circumstances, the Councils had no hesitattion in concluding that “the host’s unremittingly heavy-handed and unambiguously negative characterisation of those sexual practices is abusively discriminatory and in breach of the Code.”
The Councils also expressed their concern that, “while she does not herself advocate any of the homophobic hostility or, worse, brutality, which can be found in criminal corners of society,” the cumulative effect of Schlessinger’s positions on gay and lesbian issues “from her powerfully influential platform behind a very popular microphone, ... may well fertilize the ground for other less well-balanced elements, by her cumulative position, to take such aggressive steps.” The Councils concluded:
With the power emanating from that microphone goes the responsibility for the consequences of the utterances. It is for such reasons, among others, that the respect of Canadian broadcast standards assumes such great societal importance.
Canada’s private broadcasters have themselves created industry standards in the form of Codes on ethics, gender portrayal and television violence by which they expect the members of their profession will abide. In 1990, they also created the CBSC, which is the self-regulatory body with the responsibility of administering those professional broadcast Codes, as well as the Code dealing with journalistic practices first created by the Radio Television News Directors Association of Canada (RTNDA) in 1970. More than 430 radio and television stations and specialty services from across Canada are members of the Council.
– 30 –
All CBSC decisions, Codes, links to members’ and other web sites, and related information are available on the World Wide Web at www.cbsc.ca. For more information, please contact the National Chair of the CBSC, Ron Cohen, at (###) ###-####.
Appendix to CBSC Press Release re Dr. Laura Schlessinger Show
The Issues
Although other issues were also raised in the complaints, the Councils considered that the primary matters related to the host’s discussion of the gay agenda, the gay culture, fatherless homes, paedophilia, the murder of Matthew Shepard and her generalized allegations of sexual deviancy, aberration and dysfunction. With respect to these issues, the decisions pointed out that
the Councils’ responsibility is not to adjudicate between the two sides of the various issues treated in these broadcasts or even to sort out the preponderance of the political, scientific or medical argument. That is the responsibility of the two sides themselves in the public marketplace of ideas. In the Canadian democracy, it is the responsibility of broadcasters to ensure that their programming, on an overall basis, presents such balance that all significant sides to an issue may be heard. It is not their responsibility, or even entitlement, to cut one side or the other off. As long as no Code is breached in that process, the intellectual jousting is to be encouraged.
The Gay Agenda
As to Schlessinger’s treatment of the so-called gay agenda, the Councils considered that Schlessinger’s comments were quite balanced. Her comments were to the effect that “They have web sites everywhere. They’re mobilized. They’re unified. They’re strong. They’re well funded.” The Councils concluded that “These do not seem ... to be disparaging observations.”
They constitute a recognition that the associations are strong, positive and effective. In this case, the Councils have the sense that it is she who, in espousing her perspective, may be having to swim upstream. In any event, there is no way that she has made a generalized negative observation regarding the gay agenda. Grudging recognition perhaps of their effectiveness but nothing like the attribution of insidiousness and malevolence which the Prairie Regional Council believed was evident in CKRD-AM re Focus on the Family (CBSC Decision 96/97-0155, December 16, 1997).
There was nothing in the opinion expressed on this subject on this occasion which the Councils considered to be abusively discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation.
Gay Culture
Here, too, the Councils considered that the host’s comments about gay culture were not abusively discriminatory based on sexual orientation. She said:
So what’s the gay culture? Is that where we get into the promiscuity and the paedophilia? Or are these just regulation human beings, who somehow have an error in their sexual orientation but otherwise are seriously regulation human beings? I’m confused. First I’m told for 20 years that it’s only about sex. Now I’m told it’s a whole culture. So what’s in the culture? What is it? If it’s just about sex, then the culture must only be about sex. Otherwise you’re American culture.
The Councils concluded that, while Schlessinger’s views might be “out-of-step with the times, they do not contravene any Code provision.” They stated that
Even if this perspective is also anachronistic, Schlessinger is as entitled to express that perspective as those who, for example, have views which do not reflect a 21st century perspective on the role of women or any other societal issues.
Fatherless Homes
It was clear to the Councils that Schlessinger’s views on the issue of children in fatherless homes had no more relation to homosexual than heterosexual parental environments and that “no argument of discrimination, much less abusive discrimination, can be sustained.”
Paedophilia
The Councils agreed with Schlessinger’s entitlement to make the argument that some groups may take professional literature on the subject “and use it to promote their perspective regarding sexual relationships between adults and children” but they considered that her arguments that “paedophilia is more common among members of the gay community than the heterosexual community” and “that paedophilia has to do with being gay” are abusively discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation.
The Issue Surrounding Matthew Shepard’s Death
The Councils considered that it was not reasonable for the complainants to fault Schlessinger on the point relating to the murder of Matthew Shepard. They stated: “She is absolutely unequivocal that murder is the worst of all crimes and that there are no circumstances in which she or any conservative Christians would support it as a solution.” They added:
She argues quite fairly, it would appear, that the fact that she holds some views which do not accord with those of the gay and lesbian population does not mean that she can reasonably be viewed as homicidal. She states, and the Council agrees, that it is totally unjustified for people to assert that, because of the position which she takes on gay and lesbian issues, that she “want[s] gay people killed in the street.”