the
facts
L'Avocat
et le diable is a daily open-line television show,
running from 9:00-10:00 am. The hosts, Richard Desmarais and Stéphane Gendron, generally discuss current news stories or issues
with their callers. The question of
the day on May 9, 2006 was [translation] "How far should we
go to accommodate ethnic requirements?'' The issue appeared to have arisen for the episode's
producer from two newspaper reports: the first was an article in Le Devoir which observed the significant
number of
[translation]
Desmarais: A question of a sensitive nature. This morning,
we're going to talk about what we call accommodations; the accommodations
made for eth-, and we are seeing more and more of this.
In this morning's edition of Le Devoir, we read that one out of every
two students in the Montréal school board, one out of every two students whose,
um, whose mother tongue is another language, whose mother tongue is not French.
That means that only 50 percent of the students in Montréal schools are
of true Francophone stock.
Gendron: Watch out, watch out. "True stock".
Desmarais: The true stock.
Gendron: True stock.
[...]
Desmarais: Well, how far do these accommodations have
to go?
Gendron: To zero, zero accommodation.
Desmarais: Well no, you have to -
Gendron: No, no, no, it's the laity law passed
in
Desmarais: Well, yes, but you're talking about smoking,
whereas we're talking about religious practices.
Gendron: Well, it's the same principle. It's the same thing. There's no place for smoking or practising one's
religion in the schools.
The dialogue then focussed on the experience of
the Muslim girls at the école Antoine-Brossard.
One of the hosts referred to the blocking of the windows as "unacceptable
favouritism". After some further bantering
between the co-hosts, they took their first call from Chantal.
Chantal: Well, I'm for
zero tolerance. There would be absolutely
no accommodating, um, -
Gendron: No.
Chantal: - this type of,
um, because otherwise, there is no end to it.
It was the kirpan; it was, um, specialised technical schools. Now it's swimming. What's next?
Gendron: No, no. We should do as they do in
Chantal: That's right. At home or in church -
Gendron: - on the bus.
Chantal: - or at the mosque, whatever, and um.
Gendron: No more.
Chantal: - whatever and
that's it.
Gendron: It's frightening
how much time we lose over religion.
[...]
Gendron: Watch out, watch
out. Who is at fault? Do we blame the three Muslim girls who made
the request and were in fact accommodated?
Do
we blame the, the prune we heard from the school board, the bearded prune?
Desmarais: Hey, hey, hey, hey.
Gendron: The prune. [Imitating the man in question] "You know, we
have certain requirements involving the obligation to accommodate".
Chantal: Well, that's just
it. Just tell them "no" directly, and
that's the end of it; that's all there is to it.
Gendron: Marie-Victorin
school board, shame on you, period. Rotten.
The next caller, Nathalie, was of a similar view:
Nathalie: Especially the mayor of Huntingdon. I wholeheartedly agree with him. Um, that's right. I would be for zero tolerance. Um, if we went to their country and we asked
for those types of limitations, I'm not so sure it would be accepted, eh?
Caller Rebecca had a different perspective on
the unfairness of favouring other religions.
Rebecca: Um, I find this
totally unaccept-, unacceptable.
Desmarais: Mmn hmn?
Rebecca: I believe they removed
the crosses in catholic schools.
Gendron: Mmn hmn.
Rebecca: And now they're
accepting things from another religion. It's unacceptable.
[...]
Gendron: Yes, but I am astounded
by the fact that there is still religion in schools in 2006. And the fact that we are obliged to accommodate.
And this is not for sexual reasons; it's for religious reasons. She
can't show her charms. What kind of
submissiveness is that? You know? What kind of portrayal is that of women?
Desmarais: Three, three out
of two thousand; three female students out of two thousand.
Gendron: Yup. It's not allowed. It means that these people refuse our way of
life, go swimming fully dressed. And
you accept that as a society and you communicate as a value that women do
not have the right to show themselves in a bathing suit.
I protest and not because it's a pleasant thing!
The end of
that call was followed by a sarcastic intervention by co-host Gendron regarding
one of his earlier remarks:
Gendron: In any event, I
want to apologise to, to the spokesman for the Marie-Victorin school board
in case he wants to initiate legal action.
I called him a "prune" and I want to apologise to prunes.
After reading a few e-mails supporting the zero
tolerance position, the co-hosts returned to the callers. Caller André, living in
Gendron: Yes, but watch
out, watch out. Last night I saw something
very serious on Radio-Canada. They
broadcast an excerpt from the Qur'an, a sura, I'm not too sure of the term,
and the man has the right to hit his wife! It's criminal! It's a criminal religious code!
André: Mr. Gendron, Mr. Gendron, Mr. Gendron.
Gendron: Yes.
André: When I lived in
Desmarais: They aren't all
like that.
André: As far as that
goes -
Gendron: Well, an upstanding
society would forbid the Qur'an. That
gets banned. Hey, beating women.
André: Well, as far as that goes, they all told me it's a few zealots,
and we need to eliminate them in our Charter of Rights, you understand?
Gendron: Well, you have
to eliminate the text.
André: That's right, because there are limits to interpretation.
There are interpretations in the Bible.
Hey, do we live with the Bible every day?
Gendron: No.
Desmarais: No.
Gendron: We eliminate it
from our lives and we're better off for it.
André: I'm telling you that regardless of whether it's English
Canada or
Caller Zaïde focussed on the beating of women
discussion, which she stated was not present in the Qur'an.
Zaïde: And, if you read the Qur'an, there is no law legitimising
the beating of women.
Gendron: But why did Jean-Michel
Leprince -?
Zaïde: Excuse me, excuse me, I haven't finished. It's like in all religions. Some use religion inappropriately and interpret
it incorrectly.
Gendron: Ah!
Zaïde: It's their prerogative, but when you read the facts and
you look at the facts, that is not written in the Qur'an at all.
Gendron: Wait a minute,
Jean-Michel Leprince showed the excerpt yesterday on RDI during the program
Le Point. An unfaithful wife deserves to be beaten.
The man can beat his wife. That wasn't a fabrication.
Zaïde: No, no.
Gendron: Isn't it true? Isn't it true?
Desmarais: Well, what is written, then?
Gendron: Well, that tears it.
Desmarais: Wait a minute.
What is written, then?
Zaïde: I couldn't say -
Gendron: So, you haven't
read it! Well, I did, last night for
Pete's sake!
Zaïde: [???] not written what you say, but [??] talk about it
[??] as you say -
Gendron: Well yes, but a
religion that authorises the beating of women is a blankety blank religion.
She then returned to the question of the day,
saying,
Zaïde: So, I just want to give my, my position on reasonable accommodation.
Desmarais: Yes, but you didn't
read it. I asked you, um, but how far
should we go in accommodating this?
Zaïde: Okay, what I can say is that I am in favour, um, of reasonable
accommodation, because reasonable accommodation, as, as I'm telling you, I
want to define what that is on television. It is the obligation to suspend a rule adopted
by a majority in order to meet the needs of, of certain individuals -
Tony was the next caller but the co-hosts took
the time to comment on the dialogue with Zaïde.
Gendron: No, you know? No, it's pretty grim because she argued with
us. Imagine, the Qur'an advocates beating
women. It's criminal. It's a religion that incites crime.
Desmarais: Well, yes. You ask her what it says and well, she doesn't
know.
Gendron: She hasn't even
read it.
Desmarais: She makes the effort
to call and tell us we're wrong, that it doesn't exist, but she couldn't tell
us what, what is written.
Gendron: As if what the
lady reported on Radio-Canada yesterday was false. For heaven's sake, the text was up on the screen;
it wasn't invented.
When Rose called, she identified herself as a
Haitian and a practising Christian, who prayed every day.
Rose: I practise my religion.
Look, if something doesn't suit me, I'll stay in my own country; same
thing if there is something at school. After
all, it's not my country. People need
to understand. We are in Québec here.
There are values. I understand that
people don't want to abandon their religion.
That's all well and good.
Gendron: Mmn hmn. Religion is a personal thing.
Rose: But, I pray. You
know, I pray every day. I go to church. But I don't need to flaunt it everywhere.
Gendron: Well, that's just
it. You go to church for those things.
Rose: Yes.
Gendron: You make it a personal
thing.
Rose: I pray at home.
Gendron: That's right.
Rose: I saw in the paper that the university, I attend the
[...]
Rose: Why are they the centre of the
universe? Look here, we're not going
to implant Islam around the world. I'm sorry, that's the idea. Look, this is Québec; if you're not happy, go
back where you came from.
That call was followed by one from Cécile, who
also identified herself as a Haitian. Referring
to Zaïde's call, she asserted:
Cécile: In her race, in her race, not all
Arab women wear the hijab, so she should start by accusing them.
And I want to tell them that Arabs want to sexualise everything.
They are pigs; they are swine -
Desmarais: Shu, shu -
Cécile: They, their policy is to sexualise
so they can condemn everything.
Gendron: Yes, but listen, there are French Canadians
who are also pretty focused on sex.
Cécile: Well yes, but they should, they should
espouse the, um, Arab religion, I'm telling you.
And I want to tell that woman that the West gives her far more respect
than the people in her country. I mean, my father is Haitian and so is my mother. And I'm telling you, we are in Québec; we respect
Québec law. If you don't like it, well
can we Haitians ask for voodoo churches, in the schools, I don't know.
Desmarais: Hey, hey, hey.
Cécile: We never have problems with -
Gendron: No, but if you follow that logic -
Desmarais: That's where it starts.
Cécile: I'll tell you something.
We never have problems with the Irish, the Italians, the Asians -
Desmarais: The Chinese.
Cécile: The Chinese, the Italians.
Desmarais: The Buddhists.
Cécile: Well, it's true, those people respect
themselves. It's always the same damn
individuals. In
Then, after reading some e-mails, co-host Gendron
provided a clarification regarding the Qur'an provision referred to earlier.
Gendron: The passage quoted yesterday from sura
four point thirty-eight. So, to contradict
Zaïde who was quite steamed up a while ago. So, for those women who are not, those women
who are not virtuous and obedient, um, the sura says "As to those on whose
part you fear disobedience, admonish them and leave them alone in the sleeping-places,
and beat them". Imagine such a backward,
clueless, mental provision.
Desmarais: Fear disobedience.
Gendron: Yes, and you shall relegate them to
separate beds and you shall beat them. Geez,
that's harsh. So, if I beat you, it
is because I love you, it is because that is the word of Mohammed. Sura 4.38, you shall beat them. And then, the idiots tell us "Well, it's my
religion; it's written down in the book".
Who wrote the book? Bunch of
ignorami. It's men, old broken down macho men who wanted
to subjugate you 2,000 years ago, 1,000 years ago. "But, it's written in the book; I had to do
that, make her wear a scarf, it's written in the book."
The final caller was Julie and her concluding
remarks and those of the co-hosts were as follows:
Julie: What is good for one is good for
the other. If it's good for a school,
it should be good for the others.
Desmarais: That's right.
Julie: If it isn't good for a school,
well then let them get rid of it and stop nauseating us with this.
Desmarais: Um, but I can tell you this. Together they are capable of making many, many
demands from all sides.
Gendron: Yes, but it's because, remember, if
Muslim women come here and Fatima Houda-Pépin is a very good example of a
liberated woman.
Desmarais: Yes.
Gendron: When you come here, well for us a woman
is a man's equal. If you don't like
it, well go back home. That's all. You'll be arrested and jailed because if your
religion advocates beating your wife, I will seize the Qur'an, I will seize
your religion, I will close the mosques and that's the end of it. Thank you and goodnight.
In all, the CBSC received 24 complaints about
the program. Of these, only four individuals
filed Ruling Requests following the broadcaster's responses. The first complainant, who identified himself
as an Arab, sent a complaint to the CRTC, which forwarded it to the CBSC in
due course. He wrote in part (the full
correspondence from the four individuals and the broadcaster's responses can
be found in Appendix B, available in French only):
[translation]
The
complaint concerns one or more offensive and discriminatory comments with
respect to the Muslim religion and my Arab origins made by hosts Richard Desmarais
and Stéphane Gendron during the program L'Avocat et le diable, broadcast on May 9 from 9 to 10 a.m.
During
this program, Mr. Stéphane Gendron insulted the Muslim religion, saying it
is "a blankety blank religion." Rather than displaying the professionalism
and integrity of their profession, the hosts would not let a Muslim lady from Montréal express
her opinion and made fun of her. On
the other hand, they were only too happy to converse with the woman who called
Arabs "pigs". Mr.
Desmarais asked her mockingly to lower her voice so she would not be heard
by Arabs. Should they not have hung
up? The two hosts even had the temerity
to add that the Arabs must get on planes and leave.
The
comments made by the hosts of this program incite hatred, disdain and discrimination
against Arabs and Muslims. They have
no respect for either democratic values or the general wellbeing of Arab and
Muslim citizens.
The
other three letters were sufficiently similar to this complaint that their
text need not be repeated here; they can, however, be found in Appendix B.
The
broadcaster's Vice-President, Communications, responded to each of the complainants
in the following terms on July 6.
[translation]
We sincerely regret that you
were offended by the comments made by Messrs. Gendron and Desmarais and we
apologise. However, we believe it is
important to establish the context in which they made their comments during
this program. In fact, the hosts were
commenting on recent events, in particular a news story that caused a lot
of ink to flow and generated a great many comments, i.e. the decision made
by a school to allow three Muslim girls to take their swimming exam apart
from the other students after having eliminated all visual access to the pool.
This situation sharply emphasised
the differences among various religions, certain particular effects caused
by the strict application of these religions in schools and the great difficulty
in respecting the obligation to accommodate as set out by the Supreme Court.
It should be noted that this story
also followed behind the issue of wearing a kirpan in school.
Given this context, it is false to
claim that religion was the target as such, as the issue was rather an undeniable
fact of current events that could be legitimately commented upon by the hosts
of this program.
That being said, we submit to you that
these comments were made for the sole purpose of pointing out the difficulties
inherent in the strict application of a religion within a different framework,
and that even though some may consider these comments discriminatory they
were not abusive and could be justified in a context where school authorities
sought to deal with certain features of this religion with total objectivity.
The Canadian Standards Council [sic] has even recognized that in a society
as progressive as ours it is acceptable to underscore certain religious tenets
with humor without constituting disdain or undue or abusive discrimination.
The
complainants declared their dissatisfaction in identical letters, which read
in principal part:
[translation]
I
received a letter from TQS in which [the Vice-President] wrote that she regrets
the incident. Her reply consisted of
nothing more than a pat formula containing quotes out of context that do not
in any way address my concerns as to the patently hateful comments disseminated
on TQS. I am not alone in having been
offended, as a mockery has been made of the law. If in fact the Vice-President is apologizing, I would
very much have liked to believe the sincerity of her "words", but unfortunately
the rest of her two-page letter demonstrates that she did not take the time
to read the complaint. Several points completely escaped her.
The Vice-President did not
take into account the fact that the subject of the letter was hardly one that
"caused a lot of ink to flow and generated a great
many comments". Although such accommodations
have been set out by the Supreme Court,
it was the general substance of the comments made by the two hosts that were
cause for indignation. When the hosts
of a supposedly professional and credible program claim that the Muslim religion
is a "blankety blank" religion, encourage the audience members who call in
to insult Arabs and call them "pigs", and mockingly propose that the Arabs
"leave by plane", the situation is serious!
It was precisely these comments that we deem offensive. It is this context that reveals a lack of respect
for our cultural communities and this manner of inciting racial hatred that
are completely unacceptable.
[.] Freedom of speech and
multiculturalism enrich society. On
the other hand, these are abusively discriminatory comments that cannot be
accepted or justified for any reason. [.]
The insults contained in the program L'Avocat et le diable pave the way for
small minds to infect society with a mentality that will not withstand an
intellectual debate based on reality and objectivity.
THE DECISION
The Quebec Regional Panel examined the complaint
under the following provisions of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters'
(CAB) Code of Ethics:
CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 2 (Human Rights)
Recognizing
that every person has the right to full and equal recognition and to enjoy
certain fundamental rights and freedoms, broadcasters shall ensure that their
programming contains no abusive or unduly discriminatory material or comment
which is based on matters of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion,
age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status or physical or mental disability.
CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 6 (Full, Fair and Proper Presentation)
It is recognized that the full,
fair and proper presentation of news, opinion, comment and editorial is the
prime and fundamental responsibility of each broadcaster. This principle shall apply to all radio and
television programming, whether it relates to news, public affairs, magazine,
talk, call-in, interview or other broadcasting formats in which news, opinion,
comment or editorial may be expressed by broadcaster employees, their invited
guests or callers.
The Quebec Regional Panel Adjudicators reviewed
a tape of the call-in show and read all of the correspondence. The Panel concludes that the episode was not
in breach of the aforementioned Code provisions.
Human
Rights
It has long been the position of the CBSC Panels that it is not simply
any reference to an identifiable group that will be understood to constitute
a breach of the Human Rights clause of the CAB Code of Ethics; it is
only those comments that are abusive or unduly discriminatory that will be
found in violation. It should also
be noted that the discussion of political matters or issues of current affairs
will generally be understood as falling within the sphere of acceptable comment,
although there is no doubt that even such customarily valuable discussion
can be carried over the invisible boundary line of tolerability. It is the responsibility of the Panel to review
the challenged broadcast material to see whether it is tinged with such negative
critical content as to be found in breach.
In the matter under review, the trigger for the morning discussion was
a specific event that had garnered public attention in
The point is that the
discussion of such matters is in and of itself entirely consistent with the
entitlement, if not responsibility, of any broadcaster to discuss controversial
issues. Nor is it a breach of any codified
standard for the co-hosts or callers to take the position that schools and
other public institutions ought not to cater to the demands of other religions
or traditions. The issue is rather,
in so doing, have the co-hosts or callers gone too far? Have they overstepped the bounds of legitimate
comment? The Quebec Panel considers
that they have not. The focus was on
the issues, not on the identifiable group espousing them. One issue, the initial issue, was the dress
restrictions. That was dealt with strictly
on the issue of concessions to be made or refused (most callers did, it is
true, espouse the zero tolerance approach, but that was their right to do).
Another was the lawsuit instituted by Muslim students at the Montreal
Polytechnique seeking a room for prayer. This,
too, provoked a reaction of unreasonableness by the one caller raising that
point. Here, too, she was entitled not to support the
request by certain students. Finally, in this regard, there was the comment
about the small-mindedness of a religion that would support the beating of
a spouse for infidelity. Although this
point arose from the discussion of a Qur'anic sura that appeared to be worded
so as to support such harsh treatment of a spouse, the reaction was framed
in terms related to any religion that would favour such actions.
In other words, there
was not, in the view of the Panel, any abusive or unduly discriminatory comment
with respect to the discussion of any of the foregoing issues. It is, however, undeniable that one caller uttered
the ugly statement, [translation] "They are pigs; they are swine'', but there was a
quick negative reaction to it by the co-host Desmarais,
who said "Shu, shu." (The Panel disagrees
with the first complainant that this was done in the context of keeping the
comment quiet so that persons who might be offended could not hear it; it
seems to the Panel that the purpose was to suggest that the caller should
not be making such remarks at all.) And when the caller followed up with a supplementary
comment regarding their sexual proclivities, co-host Gendron quickly countered
by saying [translation] "Yes, but listen, there are French Canadians who are
also pretty focused on sex.'' There was, in other
words, counterpoint to the comments. Nipped
in the bud, they were permitted no life or existence by the co-hosts.
They did not, in the circumstances of their utterance, amount to abusive
or unduly discriminatory comment.
In this episode of
L'Avocat et le diable, the Quebec Regional Panel finds no breach of
Clause 2 of the CAB Code of Ethics.
Quoting the Qur'an
At one point in the program, during an exchange
with caller André, co-host Gendron referred to a Radio-Canada television program
of the evening before in which a reference had been made to a sura in the
Qur'an which, he reported, "the man has the right to hit his wife''. His reaction,
whether feigned or genuine, was one of horror:
[translation] "It's criminal! It's a criminal religious code.'' The discussion with the following caller, Zaïde, continued to focus on the Qur'anic
sura, which had only been discussed obliquely. No specific reference had yet been given to
either the text or the number of the sura in question. A part of that exchange indicated that, although
caller Zaïde categorically denied the presence of that provision in the Qur'an,
co-host Gendron strongly supported its existence on the basis of the assertion
by Jean-Michel Leprince
on Radio-Canada.
Zaïde: And, if you read the Qur'an, there is no law legitimising
the beating of women.
Gendron: But why did Jean-Michel
Leprince -?
Zaïde: Excuse me, excuse me, I haven't finished. It's like in all religions. Some use religion inappropriately and interpret
it incorrectly.
Gendron: Ah!
Zaïde: It's their prerogative, but when you read the facts and
you look at the facts, that is not written in the Qur'an at all.
Gendron: Wait a minute,
Jean-Michel Leprince showed the excerpt yesterday on RDI during the program
Le Point. An unfaithful wife deserves to be beaten.
The man can beat his wife. That wasn't a fabrication.
That level of reliance as to the accurate content of an important Qur'anic
provision, particularly one that is the subject of criticism, is risky.
In CFRA-AM re an episode
of the Lowell Green Show (the Qur'an)
(CBSC Decision 05/06-1380, May 18, 2006),
the Ontario Regional Panel was called upon to assess similar assertions by
an Ottawa radio call-in show host, who had misquoted a provision of
the Qur'an regarding the issue of apostasy. Although the radio host had himself misquoted
a letter-writer who had properly quoted the sura, the point was that the radio
host had gotten the text wrong, with regrettable consequences for the radio
audience and Islam. As the Ontario
Panel said,
The issue is [.] that
the "quotation" from the Qur'an is incorrect. [.] The
broadcaster had its own obligation to be certain, at material times, of the
accuracy of the material on which it was relying. Its failure to do so resulted in a construct
of an argument or position that appeared to be more defensible than
it was. The Qur'an has an authoritative
cachet, as it should, as the Bible does. Building
an argument on the apparent content of Islam's holy book puts callers and
listeners in a defensive, behind-the-8-ball position from the get-go.
The host either knew or ought to have known that his position would
appear stronger in such reliance. He or someone on the broadcaster's staff ought
to have verified such an important point before using that provision as the
foundation for almost the entire episode. Their failure to present the audience with accurate
information about the content of the Qur'an was misleading and unfair.
They loaded the dice without disclosing the fact that they had done
so, even if that choice was unintentional.
In the end, the broadcaster's constant reliance on misquoted text from
the Qur'an [.] rendered the presentation neither full, fair nor proper, and
consequently in breach of Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics.
As it happens, the sura referred to in the
challenged broadcast was not misrepresented.
It was, however, chancy to depend on someone else's representation
for such a consequential conclusion by the co-hosts. In the view of the Panel, they were lucky on
this occasion.
Later identified as sura 4:38 (numbered in
some locations as 4:34), translations do appear to refer to the sanction mentioned
by the co-hosts on the program. It
may be that leaving to listeners the idea that the entitlement to "beat" women
in the sense of the Canadian criminal law is a shallow and uncustomary interpretation
of those words. It does not, however,
in the circumstances of this broadcast, amount to an improper or unfair comment,
as envisaged in Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics.
Broadcaster Responsiveness
The CBSC considers, as a part of every
decision, whether the broadcaster has complied with its obligation to respond
appropriately to the complainant's concerns. That dialogue is not only a part of every broadcaster's
CBSC membership obligations, it also represents the public's sense of security
in the process of self-regulation. While broadcasters are always involved with the
reaction of their audiences to what they put on air, this dialogue with a
listener is the manifestation to the complainant of that involvement. In this case, the Panel considers that the response
by the Vice-President of Communications at TQS was thorough and appropriate.
This decision is a public document upon its
release by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.
It may be reported, announced or read by the station against which
the complaint had originally been made; however, in the case of a favourable
decision, the station is under no obligation to announce the result.