Old Statists and the Sea

While much attention, rightly, has been placed on the Mark Steyn-Maclean's case, a more sinister threat to our freedoms is emerging from the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission).  Older than the Human Rights Tribunals, the CRTC has been limiting and controlling speech in Canada for decades.  Compelling broadcasters to dedicate a certain percentage (typically 35%) of their airtime to content it deems Canadian, it has also extended its powers to control content.  As recently as 2004 the CRTC refused to renew the license of Quebec City area radio station CHOI FM for alleged hate speech.  This "license-chill" has done much to limit the vibrancy of Canadian talk-radio, particularly in comparison to its American counterpart.  Canadian broadcasters are reluctant to allow their on-air talent to discuss controversial issues for fear of complaints being brought either to the Commission or the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, complaints that might be brought up again during the license renewal process.  Corporate owners also fear retaliation from the CRTC, even if licenses are not revoked for current stations, licenses for new stations may be denied or more closely scrutinized.  Over the last ten years the Commission's ability to regulate has been steadily undermined by the Internet and growth of broadband access.  In a 1999 decision the CRTC had established a relatively laissez-faire policy toward the Internet, last Thursday it seems to have changed its mind.  Announcing two reviews of Internet technologies the Commission's Chairman, Konrad von Finckenstein, stated:

Our intention is not to regulate new media, but rather to gain a better understanding of this environment and, if necessary, to propose measures that would support the continued achievement of the Broadcasting Act's objectives.

This is a rather coy statement given the nature of modern media.  The Internet is quickly rendering the Broadcasting Act, and the CRTC, obsolete.  Short of regulating individual access to the Internet, in a style similar to that of the People's Republic of China, there is nothing the Commission can do to enforce its nationalistic content requirements or anti-free speech policies.  A regulatory scheme devised in the Trudeau-era is about to be overturned by the globalized nature of the modern world.  This doesn't mean that the CRTC isn't still a dangerous government agency, and a legitimate threat to our freedom of speech.  What the Human Rights Commissions are trying to impose on the printed word is what the CRTC has been doing, and continues to do, on our airwaves for nearly forty years. 

In its death throes the Commission may seek to maintain its power by imposing new regulations on access to the Internet.  Any attempt would be done subtlety, targeting the major carriers and requesting that certain individuals no longer be granted access.  The Internet itself is the perfect expression of a free society, its on ramps, however, are still bricks and mortar companies subject to state control.  The Steyn and Levant cases have received so much comment in the MSM in no small part due to the conservative Canadian blogsphere.  As with the Dan Rather case, sensing a competitor breathing down its neck the MSM reacted and covered the story.  Would this have happened if Ezra hadn't the foresight to video record his superb performance before the Alberta HRC investigator?  If there hadn't been a blogsphere to spread the story?  Both Ezra and the Steyn are well connected and articulate men, its likely MSM outlets like the National Post and Maclean's would have covered the story, but the Red Star?  This new and powerful process of holding our institutions accountable is under threat from the CRTC, as much as older forms of media are from the Human Rights Commissions.