Charles McVety, champion of censorship, free speech martyr (huh?)

Shorter Charles McVety:  “WAAAHHHHHHH!”:

An evangelical minister says his television show’s content will now be “pre-screened and censored” after his remarks about homosexuals drew complaints that were investigated by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.  […]

The Word TV statement released Wednesday also criticized the CBSC’s “heavy hand of censorship” and the way it investigates complaints and makes decisions.

Comparing the CBSC practices to “the Salem witch trials” and to “Josef Stalin’s Show Trials,” Word TV said the organization did not give programs the opportunity to defend themselves.

Well, here we go.  As heartwarming as it is to see Mullah McVety’s deranged on-air diatribes earning him a long-overdue boot to whatever he’s got that passes for nads, it was inevitable that it would prompt his hideous metamorphosis into “St. Chuck”, free speech martyr Silenced by the Powers-That-Be and the Rainbow Jackboot of Persecution.

And suddenly the air thickens like frozen snot as it’s heavily permeated by the foul fragrance of BULLSHIT.  Airwick, stat!

To be clear, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council found McVety in violation of some of their rules.   Whether one agrees with the reach of regulatory agencies like the CBSC is another debate — they are what they are, and McVety isn’t so special that he shouldn’t have to play the game by the same rules as every other Canadian broadcaster.   If McVety considers what the CBSC does to be a kind of government or bureacratic overreach*, he should lobby to get it shut down so he can jabber away unhinged and unfettered. (*As Antonia notes in the comments, the CBSC is an independent, self-regulating non-governmental council made up of private broadcasters.  However, McVety’s language in complaining about them seems lifted straight from past complaints about agencies like HRCs, no doubt by design.)

But McVety doesn’t really object to overreach, as long as it’s his overreach.  And he certainly doesn’t oppose censorship, as long as he’s the censor.  For instance…

There’s “blockchildporn dot ca“, McVety’s ongoing campaign to have to the government force cable companies to block any website that hosts kiddy porn. While child porn is indeed odious, the criminal code already has it covered and law enforcement regularly ferrets out its users and purveyors.  Empowering government to dictate censorship to private cable companies seems like a convenient point of entry onto a slippery censorship slope — what else does McVety think the government should force cable companies to block?  I can well imagine.

Then there was the new porno channel (are we sensing a trend here?) that was up for licensing a couple of years ago — a run of the mill adult porn channel, no kids or squids.  But it was still more than the perpetually-aggrieved and sex-crazed McVety could tolerate, so he lobbied relentlessly against it, making feverish demands that the Harper government intervene to block its license.  (Why does Charles McVety hate the free market?)

And let’s not forget Bill C-10, a piece of backdoor censorship legislation that was proudly championed by McVety, who bragged about being responsible for it. Ostensibly C-10 was to eliminate government funding for films deemed “objectionable” (by the likes of Charles McVety?  That could mean just about anything including nature movies about gay penguins).   Whether one agrees with the concept of taxpayer funding of the arts is another debate:  Bill C-10 didn’t cut all arts funding, only specific “objectionable” projects, some with McVety-head-exploding titles like “Young People Fucking“.   (In a classic case of false advertising, YPF wasn’t actually about young people fucking at all.  But that didn’t stop McVety from chanting the title for months on end with obsessive-compulsive frequency, like some psychotic parrot — “Polly wanna Young People Fucking!  BRAAAAK!  Polly wanna Young People Fucking!  BRAAAAAAAAK! BRAAAAK!” — spittle and drool at no extra charge.)

You get the drift.  St. Chuck, Free Speech Martyr?   Live by the sword, die by the sword.

22 Responses to “Charles McVety, champion of censorship, free speech martyr (huh?)”


  1. 1 B York Thursday, December 16, 2010 at 5:14 pm

    Gee, another evangelical hypocrite. Who would have guessed 🙂

  2. 2 Antonia Thursday, December 16, 2010 at 9:06 pm

    For the record, the CBSC is not a regulatory agency per se but an industry self-regulatory body. In other words, its decisions are not rendered by government but by a council made up of other broadcasters

  3. 3 Bina Thursday, December 16, 2010 at 9:10 pm

    What? You mean it’s not the evul government censoring McBetty, but the (largely private) broadcast industry, regulating itself?

    PTMF!, says the Irony Meter.

  4. 4 Bleatmop Thursday, December 16, 2010 at 11:06 pm

    JJ – I’m surprised you didn’t know that Christians are persecuted all the time in this country. Everything from being made fun of for believing Jesus rode around on a dinosaur to this newest and latest development. The evil muslim atheist Stalinist government organization, directed by the Illuminati nonetheless, is out to destroy our christian nation. Stopping McVety from speaking the truth about teh gay is only the first step. Next, they’ll want to teach our children evolution and allow women to vote. 😮

  5. 5 Bene D Thursday, December 16, 2010 at 11:16 pm

    CTS and ichannel are voluntary members of their industry group. McVety isn’t blubbering about CTS now is he? And CTS didn’t waste any time putting him back – I know they said they were in the red for 2009 and their 2010 season, so I can see them desperate for his money for that time slot – but that was the shortest yank I’ve seen.

    How odd is this: in his tirade called Broadcast Ethics or Kangaroo Court: The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council Blacklist
    http://word.ca/Graphics/R4CharlesMcVetyResponse_draft20101213.pdf, he refers to himself in the 3rd person.
    It’s almost psychotic.

    It’s disturbing to see comments at CTV though – the majority of commenters buy into his free speech stuff without awareness of what the CBSC is, what was ruled, and how it was ruled…

    Example: from McVety

    In the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council’s mockery of justice, its accused was
    o told nothing about the proceeding, shown none of the evidence, told nothing of the accusation, was allowed no defence, and is permitted no appeal;
    o found guilty of saying things he never said;

    Technically the complaint is against the host broadcaster, who has to answer to the complainant. CTS agree to that when they signed up.
    McVety can’t complain about being found ‘guilty’ of saying things he never said because audio or video tapes of shows in dispute have to be singled out by the complainant, held by the broadcaster and reviewed by the CBSC.

    If McVety doesn’t like Canadian private broadcasters standards of ethics, then why doesn’t he buy time on a station which is not a member?

    His 10 questions are really something. Read ’em and sigh JJ.

  6. 6 JJ Friday, December 17, 2010 at 4:25 am

    Antonia – Thanks for the clarification! Have edited to reflect it.

  7. 7 JJ Friday, December 17, 2010 at 4:30 am

    Bene D

    If McVety doesn’t like Canadian private broadcasters standards of ethics, then why doesn’t he buy time on a station which is not a member?

    Maybe he couldn’t find anyone who could generate the kind of reach he wants for his show among non-members? The CBSC seems to be a pretty mainstream organization, even Sun TV is a member.

  8. 8 JJ Friday, December 17, 2010 at 4:30 am

    B York – They are nothing if not predictable 😐

  9. 9 JJ Friday, December 17, 2010 at 4:32 am

    Bina – Things are pretty bad when you’re getting spanked by your fellow broadcasters 😆

  10. 10 JJ Friday, December 17, 2010 at 4:34 am

    Bleatmop

    I’m surprised you didn’t know that Christians are persecuted all the time in this country.

    Another day, another new thing learned by me. What next?? 😯

  11. 11 southern quebec Friday, December 17, 2010 at 9:54 am

    Bleatmop and the Pope agree on something! Christians most persecuted people on the planet!

    http://mystateline.com/fulltext-news/?nxd_id=215946

  12. 12 Reality.Bites Friday, December 17, 2010 at 10:08 am

    While it is run by broadcasters, it exists so that the CRTC doesn’t have to deal with these issues. Virtually all private broadcasters are members, including those that are cable and satellite only.

    McVery’s only option would be to peddle his show to an American broadcaster.

    Speaking of Sun TV being a member, sometimes complaints and the results are amusing.

    On October 8, 2006 at 3:30 pm, Sun TV (CKXT-TV, Toronto) broadcast an infomercial for Canadates, apparently a telephone sex line.

    The images on-screen consisted of women in bikinis/lingerie and high heels, either individually or in groups, lying on a bed in provocative poses and making alluring facial expressions. There were also scenes of the women talking on telephones, having a pillow fight, as well as other scenes of the women dancing while wearing revealing dresses. Occasionally the women addressed the camera.

    On the day of the broadcast, a complainant sent the following complaint to the CRTC, which forwarded it to the CBSC in due course (the full text of the complaint and all other correspondence can be found in the Appendix):
    CKXT, Sun TV, Channel 52 on the antenna, in Toronto, Ontario at 1530h showed a half-hour infomercial for a “phone sex” telephone line. The women portrayed in the commercial were acting in a manner that was not suitable for airing on TV for this time of the day, especially on a Sunday! The images were, in my opinion, pornographic. I took personal offence to seeing this on a holiday weekend. I would expect that there are regulations for time-of-day airings of this type of content.

    On October 30, the General Manager, Programming, responded to the complainant in the following terms:
    I would like to apologize on behalf of the station for the unfortunate incident in which we aired an infomercial intended for late night telecast during the afternoon. Although the content was approved for telecast anytime, we self-regulate where these air on our station, and never schedule these type of infomercials prior to 1:00 am. This one was scheduled incorrectly in our system, and the infomercial that was supposed to air that afternoon was scooters for seniors.

  13. 13 Bleatmop Friday, December 17, 2010 at 3:23 pm

    Apparently great minds think alike! I always knew Emperor Palpitine the Pope was a smart guy! Too bad only one of us is joking though.

  14. 14 The Mad Hatter Saturday, December 18, 2010 at 7:58 am

    Fascinating. I heard about the dust up, but I ignored it at the time. Guess I should look more closely at it.

  15. 15 fhg1893 Monday, December 20, 2010 at 5:00 pm

    Isn’t St. Chuck there supposedly all tight with the CPC? I remember something to that effect, and I must confess, it’s guys like him that make me shake my head about the political right. Why is it that what might otherwise be a group of sane, and reasonable people have to be polluted by the batshit crazies? I know I’ve said as much of the left of late, but we’re talking about St. Chuck at the moment.

    What’s most baffling about Chuckle-fuck isn’t the statements that he made or the reaction of the CBSC, it’s actually HIS REACTION to the CBSC decision! In fact, the CBSC actually held that about 90% of the objectionable comments were not actionable. In other words; Chuck might be an asshole, but he has the right to free expression and most of what he said falls under that category. What the CBSC objected to were the blatant lies about homosexuals, and homosexuality, and that’s only because Chuck crossed the line into full blow hysterical batshit territory; Chuck accused homosexuals of having “an insatiable appetite for sex, especially with young people.” With crazy like that, St. Chuck doesn’t need a decision from the CBSC, he needs a psychological evaluation. But really, all that the CBSC decided was that their decision be read on the air a few times. That’s pretty much it!

    Chuck’s reaction?
    He demands the right to a defense, though he was not charged with any crime. He claims that he was “found guilty of saying things he never said.” Do I even need to explain WHY this is crazy? He wasn’t found guilty of anything (well, other than being an asshole, but everybody already knew that,) they have transcripts, and a video-tape of him saying those things he denies saying. He also says the blacklisted him, when in fact, they did no such thing. All they did was mandate that the broadcaster read their decision a few times on the air. This is a slap on the wrist, and he’s acting like it’s a witch hunt.

    Wow. I’m not as old or experienced as some folks, so what kind of chemical causes that level of batshit exactly? I wanna know who’s supplying McVety – I bet they have the best weed in the world.

  16. 16 Cornelius T. Zen Tuesday, December 21, 2010 at 8:58 am

    Good morrow, all!
    fhg1893: Weed doesn’t make you paranoid – unless your major concern is finding the nearest 711 STAT! On the other hand, crack or crystal will do just nicely. Maybe the Chuckmeister is on both. Wouldn’t surprise me much.
    McVety on BC Bud: *long, lingering toke* They said what? Man, I’m gonna sue…I’m gonna…gonna…what? Who said what? Call my lawyer! I gotta lawyer, right? Hey, is that camera on? Far out…
    Dominos on speed dial – CTZen

  17. 17 fhg1893 Tuesday, December 21, 2010 at 8:40 pm

    CTZen – With Meth and Crack, you’re usually still sort of… sane. From what I understand anyway. It makes you paranoid and everything, but not quite batshit. My understanding was that meth users can still function in society, at least at first…

    McVety here? Looks like this might be angel dust.

  18. 18 JJ Tuesday, December 21, 2010 at 10:12 pm

    SQ – Oh yes, sooooo oppressed…

  19. 19 JJ Tuesday, December 21, 2010 at 10:48 pm

    RB – Great story. My favourite part:

    “I took personal offence to seeing this on a holiday weekend.”

    WTF? Why are phone sex commercials offensive on a Holiday Weekend but not on a regular weekend? 😆

  20. 20 JJ Tuesday, December 21, 2010 at 10:55 pm

    fhg

    Why is it that what might otherwise be a group of sane, and reasonable people have to be polluted by the batshit crazies?

    Simple: He exists so people like me have something that drags them back to their blog for some point-and-laugh.

    Sadly, I don’t think Chuck is on drugs. If he is, they are bad ones. (The infamous Brown Acid?)

  21. 21 Reality.Bites Wednesday, December 22, 2010 at 9:43 am

    I hate to differ with you JJ, but my favourite part was “scooters for seniors” when it would have sufficed to say it was supposed to be another informercial.

    Besides which, the holiday in question was Thanksgiving. I’m sure the actors in the commercial seemed suitably grateful.

  22. 22 Rev.Paperboy Monday, December 27, 2010 at 1:41 pm

    McVety compared the CBSC to the Salem witch trials? Seriously? Hasn’t he been leading the efforts to bring back the Salem witch trials?


Wait. What?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Mac Security Portal
Rose's Place
Blogging Change

Incoming!

  • 630,503
[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

Archives