December 22, 2008

Radio Canada Ombudsman caves to calls for censorship

On October 23, 2008 Radio Canada’s “Les Grands Reportages” aired Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land. This is an excellent documentary which exposes the disconnect between what is taking place on the ground in Palestine and the American media's reporting of these events. It can be viewed on google videos.

A systematic pressure campaign was organized against Radio-Canada for airing this documentary and resulted in an investigation by the Ombudsman. In her report, it is clear that the Ombudsman has adopted all the pro-occupation arguments of the complainants. She comes to the conclusion that the documentary should never have been aired. Read Radio-Canada Ombudsman's report.

Whether you watch Radio Canada or CBC we urge you to write to the Radio Canada Ombudsman, the CBC Ombudsman and the president of Radio-Canada to protest this decision.   You will find below a list of talking points that you can use in your letter.   Even a short letter will be helpful.  Although this is a decision by the Radio Canada Ombudsman, it will likely result in the documentary not being aired to English audiences in effect resulting in censorship of this documentary in English Canada.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Julie Miville-Dechêne
Ombudsman, Services français
Société Radio-Canada
ombudsma@radio-canada.ca
514 597-4757

English Ombudsman
Vince Carlin
CBC Ombudsman
P.O. Box 500, Station A
Toronto, Ontario M5W 1E6
Tel.: 416/205-2978
E-mail: ombudsman@cbc.ca

Mr. Hubert T. Lacroix, President and CEO, CBC
CBC/Radio-Canada
P.O. Box 6000
Montreal QC H3C 3A8
ht.lacroix@cbc.ca

Talking points:

• 1) The ombudsman’s report states that it is no longer accurate to speak of Gaza as if it were occupied but the documentary did not seek to explain what is happening on the ground at this very moment but rather to expose the disconnect between the media reports and the facts on the ground at the time that they were happening. If there was a documentary about Nazi propaganda during WWII, would we say that the documentary should not be aired because the war is over?

In any case, the occupation of Gaza has only ended officially, not in reality. Although Israeli settlers were removed in 2005, Israel still engages in military incursions into Gaza and keeps this small territory under .complete military siege, preventing even the UN from providing the most basic humanitarian supplies in sufficient quantities for 1.5 million Gazans Here is a quote from John Duggard, the UN special rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories.

"The question whether Gaza remains an occupied territory is now of academic interest only. In the course of the cynically named "Operation Summer Rains" that commenced on 25 June, the IDF has not only asserted its control in Gaza by means of heavy shelling, but has also done so by means of a military presence." --UN special rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories, John Dugard.

• 2) The report mentions complaints that came from other countries as a result of the Honest Reporting appeal. Honest Reporting is an organized special interest group that attempts to quash all media criticism of Israel. It is anything but honest.

• 3) The Ombudsman’s report picks up the arguments of Honest Reporting and states numerous times that "militant and pro-Palestinian groups were involved in researching the film". All groups referred to in the film are non-violent. In the first 5 minutes of the film there are clips of interviews from 4 Jewish peace activists, Gila Svirsky of Coalition for a Just Peace, Rabbi Michael Lerner, American Jewish academic Alisa Solomon and a former soldier in the Israeli military.

• 4) Whether the documentary is considered one sided by some does not matter. Its entire purpose was to add balance to the discussion which is usually biased for the other side. CBC/Radio Canada have always maintained that "balance" does not have to be given in the same production but can be achieved by the airing of a variety of documentaries, commentaries etc at different times. The corporate affairs director's original response to all who wrote was completely adequate and not further action was necessary. The response stated that: (page 3 of the report):

In effect, it presented a highly personalized point of view on the conflict. We recognize that this point of view was clearly pro-Palestinian. We wish to ensure you that we have recently acquired other documentaries offering different insights into the situation in Israel and Gaza, and we intend to broadcast them in the coming months. (…) ”

Why is Radio Canada departing from the realistic and just policies of the past?

• 5) The argument that the documentary is out of date and should not have been aired is completely bogus. Are we then to believe that all books and films more than a few years old should never be read or shown again. Even if one agrees that the introduction to the film should have stated the date and put it in context it most certainly does not follow that because this was not done, the film should not have been aired.

• 6) The Ombudsman’s report enumerates a large number of events that have happened since the making of this documentary:

"Yasser Arafat died; Palestinians in Gaza elected the radical group Hamas; Israelis erected a fence around the West Bank; suicide bombing attempts ended in Israel; the Israeli army offensive against Hezbollah left 1,200 dead in Lebanon. The presentation of the film creates the impression that the documentary is recent. The senior director in charge of documentary content at Radio-Canada admits that the piece was not situated in time. In his opinion, it should have been made clear that Israeli settlers and the army had departed the Gaza Strip, and the documentary could have been introduced with the question: “Has the situation changed in the intervening years?"

Although many events have occurred since the film was made, the life of Palestinians has gotten worse. Home demolitions, land confiscation, checkpoints, curfews etc. continue. Although settlers have been removed from Gaza, the strip is under tight lockdown and the Israeli army continues to make destructive excursions into the area on a regular basis.”

• 7) The ombudsman's report has completely accepted the Zionist interpretation of UN 242. The report states:

“Repeatedly, the documentary mentions the “illegal” occupation of Palestinian territories by Israel. The legal reality is more complex: Jewish settlement and the construction of a security fence in the West Bank are without a doubt illegal. But the experts do not agree on the “illegal” nature of all Israeli military presence in the West Bank because of the ambiguity in the English version of United Nations Resolution 242 (1967). Withdrawal must be made “from territories.” Is the Israeli withdrawal from the totality of territories mandatory or not under Resolution 242? The interpretation of this provision has never been clarified by the courts.”

UN Resolution 242 was passed in November 1967, after Israel occupied Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Sinai and the Golan Heights. It calls for the “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" The Israeli position has been that they are not required to withdraw from all the territories because the word "the" is missing in the wording of UN Resolution 242. However, the intent of UN 242 is clear in that it refers to “territories occupied in the recent conflict”. Furthermore, it must be interpreted in the context of the United Nations Charter which clearly affirms "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". The UN has passed numerous resolutions since 1967 re-affirming that this principle applies to Israel.

Your Comments

canpalnet-ottawa.org