Summary of Recommendations
Report of the House of Commons Standing Committee
on Communication and Culture, June 1993
Republished with permission
Someone has to say,"Enough" – because this is disaster, we are destroying ourselves. Successive societies have destroyed themselves by the failure of their leadership to say, "I know in many respects that's what you'd like to see, but you know what? It's bad for us, we're damaging ourselves. We are untying the fabric of our society."
– David Puttnam,
former president of
Columbia Pictures
The historian Arnold Toynbee has pointed out that 19 out of 21 civilization have died from within, not by conquests from without. He tells us that there were no bands playing or flags waving when these civilizations decayed. It happened slowly in the quiet and the dark when no one was aware of what was happening.
A democratic society carries no inborn guarantee that it will survive on its own merits. We have seen many such societies perish even in our time. A free society cannot be taken for granted. Truth and freedom must be guarded as precious treasures. The foundation to support the civil liberties we enjoy today is dependent upon the vigilance exercised by those who can recognize and who will protect and oppose invasion of their liberties by governments, national, provincial, or municipal.
– The Honourable Emmett M. Hall,
former justice of the
Supreme Court of Canada
During an interview with Bill Moyers on PBS, the American public television network, David Puttnam described how the Roman circuses evolved over several hundred years from places of mild entertainment to places where hundreds of thousands of people died. According to Puttnam, the Roman circuses became "more and more bloody, more and more grotesque" as a result of the public's demand for "more and more" violence.
The words of David Puttnam and Arnold Toynbee remind us that societies can disintegrate from within if the values that these societies cherish are allowed to decay by a slow, subtle attrition. Justice Hall reminds us that a society needs to be vigilant in opposing such an invasion of its democratic values.
The Committee believes that the problems of television violence, and the larger issue of societal violence, could lead to the fraying of the fabric of our modern civilization unless a comprehensive strategy is developed to arrest such insidious progress. The signatures of more than 1.3 million Canadians on Virginie Lariviere's petition in favour of legislation against television violence, and the reaction of the House of Commons and the Minister of Communications to this petition, lead us to believe that the past complacent attitude of this country's population, institutions and government towards television violence is changing. As our review of previous Canadian efforts to address television violence demonstrates, and as an earlier reference from the House of Commons arising from a motion by Larry Schneider, M.P., calling for a full review of the media's portrayal of violence also indicates, the current public concern over this issue is not a new phenomenon. What is needed is for government, the federal regulator and broadcasters to act.
The values that a society holds are constantly changing. This is not surprising given that our values are shaped by events occurring around us. Today, with instantaneous communications between cities, countries and continents, our values are shaped by a greater variety of factors than was the case in the not so distant past. With such means of communications, events taking place in other continents have the potential to shape our own values.
In this information age, television has quickly acquired a central place in our homes, both as a source of information and as a means of entertainment. Television offers the potential to shape our values, our beliefs, our knowledge and our attitudes. The power that television has to effect potential societal changes has received increased attention from researchers and governments over the last three decades. To a great extent, this attention has focused on the effects of television violence on the attitudes and behaviour of the television audience, particularly on the effect television violence may have on children.
Hundreds of studies have shown that there is a positive correlation between television violence and aggressive and antisocial behaviour in individuals, although it is impossible to predict the precise effects on individuals at any given time and place. People who advocate government intervention argue that the scientific evidence is sufficiently sound to warrant the imposition of limits on the freedom of expression of broadcasters. Some even argue that the burden of proof should be shifted to the broadcasters, namely, that the broadcasters should be required to prove that their programming is harmful to the viewers. After all, under section 3(1)(h) of the Broadcasting Act, broadcasters "have a responsibility for the programs they broadcast." According to this thesis, government has a duty to protect the mental and physical health of Canadians given its role as guardian of societal values. In accordance with this principle, government must demand, through the regulatory body (the CRTC), and at the request of the latter, that broadcasters prove that television programming is a safe consumer product.
Parents have the moral responsibility to transmit their values, and those of the society around them, to their children. The Committee is aware that, notwithstanding the fact that parents must exercise a certain control over the audiovisual materials entering the home, they must not and cannot be solely held responsible for controlling television violence. In fact, the question of parental control raises a host of issues of a practical and enforcement nature, as well as socio-psychological ones.
Government, as responsible social guardian, has the responsibility to protect societal values. This responsibility is exercised frequently by our governments through existing legislation such as the Criminal Code. The Committee is also aware that the role of the legislator cannot be to control everything but that its duty is, first and foremost, to protect societal values. Faced with constantly changing values, governments have the difficult task of accurately assessing the pulse of the population on any given issue and, with the help of expert advice, public input and parliamentary scrutiny, adopting policies, programs and legislation which will best respond to the many conflicting factors involved.
In asking their government to legislate against television violence, the Canadians who have signed Virginie Lariviere's petition have exercised their democratic right of freedom of expression. However, by legislating against television violence, the government would be curtailing the freedom of expression of others, including broadcasters, advertisers, artists and television viewers. The challenge that our society faces is to recognize that television violence may be destroying the values which keep us together as a civilization, and to find a way to control it without violating our fundamental democratic right to freedom of expression. Confronted with these realities, the Committee has come to the conclusion that broadcasters must do more than simply broadcasting.
We believe that the overall approach we are recommending, as suggested by many of our experts and witnesses, will meet that challenge. The people of this country must be given the means to make their own well-informed choices. This approach carries with it the notion that individuals should have at their disposal the necessary information and the technical means to make appropriate television viewing choices, for themselves and for their children. A socially responsible and accountable broadcasting industry, cooperative federal and provincial governments, and the grass roots efforts of concerned citizens and groups will make this possible.
Helping individuals make well-informed television viewing choices will be one important step toward dealing with the larger problem of societal violence. It will also enhance our values and strengthen the ties that bind our social fabric.
View full report (PDF)
