Rogers Cable has courted the media spotlight in recent weeks, vigorously defending its efforts to beam nine state-run Chinese channels, uncensored, into Canada via its airwaves.
A proposal now sits in the lap of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), and it has faced fierce opposition from groups who say the stations will import communist propaganda.
David Purdy, Rogers VP and General Manager for television, says there is overwhelming support for the channels in the Chinese community -- evidenced by many supporting signatures -- and that everyone must be allowed a choice of what channels they want to watch.
However, one of the groups leading the signature collection campaign in support of the nine networks is the Chinese Professionals Association of Canada (CPAC). On page three of the August 5, 2005 edition of this group's newsletter is an article advocating an unprovoked nuclear attack on the United States.
"...hundreds of cities east of Xian and in America could be destroyed," the article says. "This can be seen as the nuclear ideal and goal of the Chinese people since China first developed nuclear technology. The nuclear force is the power of a state, and the power of a state cannot lack a goal."
Should views such as this also be funneled into Canada, in a foreign language we cannot monitor, free of censorship?
The reality is that the Chinese communist regime wields a great deal of influence in Canada's Chinese community, and support from the "community" cannot, on its own, be reason enough to accept these channels. The programming must be vetted against Canadian standards.
If David Purdy and Rogers are genuinely concerned about serving our burgeoning Chinese community, why don't they instead invest in Chinese programming -- domestic or imported -- that is befitting of a democratic country? Until then, Purdy's advocacy of "freedom of choice" is unconvincing. It appears Rogers is really advocating the "freedom to make money," despite the ethical implications.
Feeds