Al Jezzera

[JGallagher]

Do you belive that the CRTC should allow the Aljezera network to broad cast in Canada?

[offguard96]

We let FOX and CNN broadcast here...and they're just as bad.

[wb256]

Exactly, we can have their distorted view of Islam, the middle east, and well, basically everything...but we can't have Al Jazzera's allegedly distorted view of Judaism, the USA, etc.

(I say allegedly because I have yet to see the station, and also because even if I did watch it my Arabic is a little rusty).

[N. McKay]

Do you belive that the CRTC should allow the Aljezera network to broad cast in Canada?

My question would be "how many people in Canada are actually able to give an informed opinion on this?", since it's not currently broadcast here and rather few people will have seen anything of it.

[jgoguen]

even if I did watch it my Arabic is a little rusty
Yea, so's mine. But a search for al-jazeera turns up this site (http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage) (http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage) with all their stuff in English. Seems to me just glancing through it to be about the same as CNN.com over in this half of the world. So I say sure, why not? After all, if we're going to allow CNN to broadcast their biased views of the East, why not allow Al-Jazeera to broadcast their biased views of the West?

[jhunter]

I don't have a problem with having that channel added to the mix, however, I do have a problem with them picking up that channel when they also dropped RIA in the same move. There are a lot more Italians then there are Arabs in Canada.

[Dick]

There are a lot more Italians then there are Arabs in Canada.
Definatly not here in Halifax. There is a huge arab population here.

[The Blue Tory]

The CRTC as a whole is a useless organization...

They are unconstitutional... They are infringing on the right to free speech...

The CRTC is infringing on my right to choice...

I like the Spike network, I want to keep it, no matter what those bureaucratic fools up there think. I am a CANADIAN, as a Canadian living in a FREE country, I should be able to have freedom of choice. If a woman is able to have the freedom to choose whether or not to have an abortion, and if homosexuals have the freedom to choose to marry, then I should have the freedom to watch what I want.

Its just bureaucrats who have been in there too long... someone ought to censor their dimwitted thought process...

Anyway back to Al Jazeera...

With them showing all these terrorist threats and kidnapping victims... It makes me wonder, how exactly is Al Jazeera getting these tapes? If they are getting them by people dropping them off... then how come the law enforcement authorities, arrest the people that drop them off...

[jhunter]

They are unconstitutional... They are infringing on the right to free speech...

You're thinking of the US Constitution, First Amendment. The Constitution Acts define the nation rather then indiviual rights and freedoms. You might be thinking of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In that it says:

"2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
...
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
..."

However, section 1 says "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

So, as Canadians, we have freedom of expression, but only to a demonstrably justified level. For example, we can say what we want, but if what we say constitutes a hate crime, we don't have the right to say it.

The same applies to freedom of the press. We have the right to any news we want, within the reasonable limits given to us by our government. It just so happens that the CRTC sets those reasonable limits in regards to television and radio.

[The Blue Tory]

You're thinking of the US Constitution, First Amendment. The Constitution Acts define the nation rather then indiviual rights and freedoms. You might be thinking of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In that it says:

"2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
...
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
..."

However, section 1 says "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

So, as Canadians, we have freedom of expression, but only to a demonstrably justified level. For example, we can say what we want, but if what we say constitutes a hate crime, we don't have the right to say it.

The same applies to freedom of the press. We have the right to any news we want, within the reasonable limits given to us by our government. It just so happens that the CRTC sets those reasonable limits in regards to television and radio.
If someone doesn't want to view it, who says they have too, all they have to do is not order the channel or just simply not watch it.

Why should a couple people deprive others from watching something...

Freedom of choice...

[big_castor]

If someone doesn't want to view it, who says they have too, all they have to do is not order the channel or just simply not watch it. Why should a couple people deprive others from watching something... Freedom of choice...
TV, radio and newspapers are for profit enterprises. A cable service provider may choose not to carry or not to carry channel based on commercial considerations.

Even if you get the CRTC to license the Pig Wrestling Channel, if it's not profitable for your cable company to provide the channel (because the only to subscriber would be only you and you cousin), you're not going to get that channel.

Don't blame only the CRTC, blame capitalism… (or get an illegal satellite dish…)

[N. McKay]

You're thinking of the US Constitution, First Amendment. The Constitution Acts define the nation rather then indiviual rights and freedoms. You might be thinking of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Constitution.


However, section 1 says "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

So, as Canadians, we have freedom of expression, but only to a demonstrably justified level. For example, we can say what we want, but if what we say constitutes a hate crime, we don't have the right to say it.


It's the limits that have to be demonstrably justifiable, not the rights themselves. For example, it's demonstrably justifiable to forbid people from falsely yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre -- their right to free speech is overridden by the serious public safety issue of people being trampled in the ensuing stampede for the doors. Barring such a reasonable limit, speech is free in Canada. (The same goes for other constitutionally-guaranteed rights -- e.g. medical necessity has been taken precedence over freedom of religion in the case of a couple who objected to their child receiving a necessary blood transfusion on religious grounds -- that limit on the parents' freedom of religion was found to be demonstrably justified.)

[jhunter]

I wasn't suggesting that each right has to be justified. Actually, I agree with your interpretation. A reasonable "limit" is a good way to define it.

[The Blue Tory]

either way... do you not think that something is screwed up when, the US spends all their time searching caves in Afganistan looking for Osama, when they could find him a lot easier if they just capture the guy who transports the tapes from Osama to Al Jazeera...

same goes for the beheading hijackers

[offguard96]

they just capture the guy who transports the tapes from Osama to Al Jazeera...

It's probably better that they don't. If they catch the guy who carries the tapes, they probably still wouldn't be any closer to Osama because I don't think Osama would be stupid enough to send someone directly, or leave a return address, for that matter. Besides, the tapes are the only link the US has to Osama right now. He gives them their only leads, and they need those badly.