WIITBY FREE PRESS, WEDNESDAY. JANUARY 30. 1985, PAGE 5 "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson THE ± CROW'S NEST by Michael Knell Government doesn't understand C.B.C.'s role One prominent Canadian journalist, whose talent and insight I have a great deal of respect for, has been saying some things about the state of the arts in Canada that I believe are worth listening to. This man happens to share space with me on the pages of this newspaper every week. Peter Trueman has been talking a lot lately about the role the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (you know, the C.B.C) is playing in our national af- fairs and speculating about its future. He wrote quite recently that if the C.B.C. has no other function, it helps to unify the nation by giving all Canadians a con- tinual glimpse and insight into the lives of other Canadians living in other parts of the country. Furthermore, more than any other organization, the C.B.C. is an outlet for the creative talent that lies in the shadow of Canadian society. Trueman has also pointed out that to those Canadians living in the far north and in isolated areas, the C.B.C. is virtually their only contact with the outside world. Like Trueman and many other members of the media, I don't think that the Mulronev government's decision to take $75 million a year out of the C.B.C. was either well thought out or correct. The right wing, free entreprise zealots who have applauded the move and fervently believe that the C.B.C. should operate in the same way as other national broadcasters (ie. C.T.V.) have lost sight of the fundamental purpose the C.B.C. was created for. Instead of using C.T.V. and American television conglomerates as a reference point, the B.B.C. should be used instead. Both the C.B.C. and the B.B.C. were created by the government to provide people with a continuing source of information. Both were set up so that ey were independant of the politicians and were specifically mandated to avoid participation in partisan politics. The C.B.C.'s job is to provide for all Canadians a window into their own com- munities and the world beyond. Aside from news and world affairs, the C.B.C. also has one other important function that the present government is overlooking. Far too often, the C.B.C. is the only national media 'that promotes and features the creative talents of Canadians. For example, you don't see all that much Canadian written and produced drama on C.T.V. Shows such as "Some Honorable Gentlemen" sim- ply don't get aired on Canada's major commercial network. (They're not viewed on Global either). The C.B.C., both television and radio, is the only thing that prevents a lot of creative Canadian minds from heading south to the United States. Trueman also pointed out that when the C.B.C. chopped the $75 million from its budget, the people who suffered most were the creative minds. Middle and high level management people certainly didn't get the boot. It was the impor- tant people; the writers, technicians, producers, actors and other who felt the axe. And that move is sort of like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. During the Trudeau years, multiculturalism came to the fore. Canada, the recently departed from office Pierre said, was a nation of diverse character and culture whose many peoples have made considerable contributions to its cultural mosaic. Portraying the diversity that the job of the C.B.C. Everyone who listened during their public and high school geography lessons is aware of just how large a country Canada is. The Regionalism that has plagued our history, even into these times, has constantly threatened to drive us apart while neglecting those things that brought us together. How can we in On- tario, expect, for example, people in British Columbia or Newfoundland to have any sympathy for our problems and concerns unless they are aware of them? And that, in my humble opinion, is where the C.B.C. comes in. By telling On- tarians of the plight of British Columbians and Newfoundlanders we can gain a better understanding of ourselves as Canadians. The C.B.C. also brings to Canadians their own cultural heritage and exposes us to the creativity of our own people. To my mind, the C.B.C. should be a combination of what it is now and what the now defunct 'C' Channel tried to be. There is a world of art, literature, music, science and theatre that can only be brought to Canadians by the C.B.C. Many of the politicians, businessmen and others who applauded the gover- nment's funding cut now say that it will force the C.B.C. to be more self- sufficient. It will have to become more commercialized because it would have to be more to the advertisers' liking than true to its historical mandate. What these people fail to realize that the C.B.C. is our answer to P.B.S., not to N.B.C., A.B.C. and C.B.S. Reducing funding to the C.B.C. may look great on the books and the financial statement of the government but the price is going to be paid by the Canadian public who will see one of their greatest natural resources fall on hard times that could have been avoided. It is the role of the C.B.C. that should have been foremost on the Mulroney government's mind, not the impact it has on the federal treasury. SOLWAY A "local" conversation One of my fantasies used to be: to own a saloon. Not, mind you, a "quaint" English pub somewhere in Somerest, or a palm-fringed beach bar in Mon- tserrat. A good saloon is full of good conversation, not unlike the "local." People come, not for the great Canadian pastime called "going out drinking," but for conversation, argument and the general fellowship of words. Nuala FitzGerald (who understands how the "local" works) and I have discussed at length the possibility of putting bar stools and a rail around the bar at the Marigold. I say: "And l'Il play cocktail piano." "Only if I can wear a slinky dress with a slit and sing Edith Piaf songs in a husky voice," replies Nuala. It's a stand-off. Besides, we have our hands full just filling theatre seats. Who needs a saloon? I do. For one. The other night we entertained a large group of lawyers and their spouses. A couple stayed afterwards to toss back a few at the bar. I tended, standing behind the bar like something out of a sleazy novel. The conversation was rich, and fluid, the kind of good conversation that makes kee- ping a bar open really worthwhile. It was all about the accused and tneir rights and whether or not the law (or the courts) should forbid news media fron publishing the names of accused, who (if you believe in democracy are innocent until proved guilty by due process. I'm afraid too many lawyers would like to muzzle the press. I'm also afraid that too many journalists, print and elec- tronic are in such a hurry to put out "news" that they can be indiscreet, inconsiderate, and downright destructive. What they call "freedom of the press" may just be a response to an insatiable public appetite for gossip, scandal and sen- sationalism. We agreed on so..e things. We disagreed on others. I happen to think the right to know is impor- tant, and if the public convicts people who stand in- nocent before the courts, then we have to try to change people. The lawyer said it was impossible to have a fair trial under the glare of pre-publicity about the accused. What we agreed on was that some very shameful episodes have marred our justice system. The shame is not as much with the judiciary as they are with the police, the executive branch, and to some extent with the media who love a juicy story. In this region there was a terrible situation where a man was accused of corrupting the morals of a juvenile. It was alleged that he had some kind of "knowledge" of her and that she was procured to satisfy his unnatural tastes. The charges made news. Unfortunatley the dismissal did not. The lawyer and I (already into a third Scotch) agreed that as far as the public in and around Whitby was converned, the man was guilty. He'll never recover from it. The biggest bad one is the recent tragedy in St. Catherines. Here we agreed there was two issues. One of them was that the newspapers in Welland and Niagara Falls (but not the St. Catherines Stan- dard) violated an undertaking and published the names of those who allegedly were "caught" per- forming or soliciting for some sexual acts in a public washroom. Is there anyone reading this who does not know that immediately after that publication a St. Catherines husband and father burned himself to death? Worse still is the police behavior. Homosexuality is not against the law. Obtaining or giving sexual favours in a public place is. Of course it is. But I suspect that police zeal reflects, not the need to prosecute wrongdoers or to respond to complaints as much as it underlines their basic hostility to homosexuals, in fact, a basic hostility to anyone who does not live up to their own, usually conser- vative, often prehistoric idea of social acceptability. I think their prejudice gets in the way. If the law was being broken the police could have gone into the washrooms and broken it up, warning people and sending them quietly home, as they might many other kinds of social offenders. But this mounting of a campaign complete with electronic surveillance suggests malice beyond ordinary law enforcement. It is a reminder of a massive raid held by the former-police chief of Los Angeles who terrorizes and arrested packs of homosexuals back in the 1970's in one colossal raid, or the Metro police campaign against the bathhouses. (Which inciden- tally resulted in many ruined reputations and a very, very few convictions.) When the day comes that the public set up infra- red surveillance in bars to "apprehend" some guy who is sitting in a dark corner making out with a lady; or when they stake out the back row of a movie house; or when they start video taping the "Johns" as they cruise the streets for hookers, then I will accept that their St. Catherines bust was ap- propriate. I am certain there are policeman reading this right now who would say the same thing. Most policeman I know do know that people are people and that they would rather discourage anti-social behaviour than lie in wait stake out to make an arrest. Like dieases. police work should constitute prevention as much or more than cure. St. Catherines was a cure. But the patient died.