“Gay People Censored! Will You Stand for It?”: Conflicts,Controversies,and Cancellations on Canadian Community Television in the 1970s

Abstract

This article revisits the early years of community television in Canada by focusing on two LGBTQ2+ programs from the 1970s: Out of the Closets (1977–1979) and Gay News and Views (1977–1978). Using archival research and oral history, this article argues that the regulatory framework governing Canadian community television was fundamentally flawed: by giving control of programming to cable companies, the latter acted as gatekeepers and impeded the important community legitimation process inscribed within the policies put in place by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission in 1971 and 1975. Both programs dealt with restrictions from the cable companies with which they worked, often in anticipation of and/or in response to viewer complaints. While this article shows that conflicts over community television must not be read in isolation from the larger conservative forces which impacted LGBTQ2+ people’s access to information, it also argues for more citizen control over community-based television.

Introduction

On November 11, 1977, gays and lesbians gathered at the 519 Church Street Community Centre in the heart of Toronto’s gay village for a “victory dance” where “good food” and “wonderful music” were to be enjoyed (“Victory Dance and Benefit for Gay TV” 1977). ¹ Organized by the Gay TV Collective, the event celebrated and fundraised for the return of Gay News and Views (GNV), a local LGBTQ2+ community television show, after its cancellation by one of the cable companies in charge of carrying the program. The reason for the cancellation: negative reactions from angry viewers (“Rogers Cancels Series of Shows for Homosexuals” 1977, 6). To the gay and lesbian community, this was a blatant act of censorship that contradicted the policies of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), which mandated that groups and individuals seeking to produce and broadcast relevant content for and about their community be allowed to do so on cable-provided community channels (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission [CRTC] 1971, 1975a). Unbeknownst to the revellers at the dance, however, the series would face more restrictions in the months to come, and its early cancellation was symptomatic of a larger problem related to the regulation of community television in Canada. As one Gay News and Views participant boldly proclaimed, community TV “was bound to fail because of the constraints” (Harvey Hamburg 2022, Interview with the author).

This article looks back at two little-known local LGBTQ2+ programs—Gay News and Views, shown on Toronto’s community channels from 1977 to 1978, and Out of the Closets, which was broadcast in Ottawa from 1977 to 1979—to examine the contradictions that lay at the heart of early community television regulations in the country. Despite widespread beliefs that community TV allowed anyone to broadcast—or narrowcast—content, both programs encountered content limitations imposed by cable providers due to anticipated or actual viewer complaints. They also faced technical obstacles related to the infrastructure of cable networks, making it more challenging for LGBTQ2+ groups to distribute their message. This article uses gay and lesbian programs from the 1970s as case studies to show there was a direct conflict between the objectives and framing of community television (also known as cable access) as “an important public service” (CRTC 1975b, 4), and the capitalistic logic of cable systems and their subscription model. As Canada’s federal broadcasting regulatory body, the CRTC, gave control of the production and distribution of community access programming to cable operators, cable companies sometimes acted as gatekeepers and thwarted the potential of community television to be a truly participatory medium.

While scholars have reflected on the potential and failures of community television in Canada (Ali 2017; Caron and Taylor 1985; Gillespie 1975; Goldberg 1990; Lithgow 2012; Pimlott 2001; Raboy 1990; Wirsig and Edwards 2018), few of these studies include analyses of the programs themselves, thus leaving out the most important part of this subset of television programming: the community. Moreover, discussions of broadcasting policies, including cable regulations, have tended to eschew discussions of the local and community aspects of television to focus on the development of Canada’s broadcasting in its larger historical, political, economic, and national context. Specifically, this literature has historically focused on how such policies have aimed to promote “Canadian identity” and, therefore, cultural sovereignty, in the face of U.S influence (Armstrong 2016; Charland 1986; Collins 1990; Raboy 1990; Salter and Odartey-Wellington 2008). Recent contributions to the literature on broadcasting policy and regulation have attempted to problematize the Canadian broadcasting system’s bid to represent the “range of ideas, values, and ways of life of the peoples living in this country” (Skinner 2025, 4). David Skinner, for example, analyzes the ways in which Canada’s institutional regulatory structure, in particular the relationship between the Canadian state and private capital, actually constrains “Canadian cultural expression” (2025, 4). Following Skinner, this article likewise aims to show that “the history of broadcast regulation in Canada is also one of subordination, where the interests of public service have systematically been placed behind those of private capital” (2025, 7). Yet, although Skinner notes that even community media has historically been subordinated to the interests of private capital “in terms of [its] access to advertising, funding, and modes of distribution” (p. 273), his focus chiefly remains Canada’s public broadcaster, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

This lack of critical interest in both the content of specific community programs and their unique contexts of production and distribution is puzzling. The creation of cable access channels, as explained later on in this article, was part of the country’s strategy for putting more Canadian content—“CanCon”—on the airwaves. As community TV practitioner Kim Goldberg claims, community television programming represents “a safe haven of purely Canadian cultural expression” (1990, 71). A close look at the history of cable access television reveals that broadcasting regulations meant to reinforce Canadian culture and develop Canadian content went beyond the national level and were deployed in complex ways at the local and community level.

At the same time, however, the archives of community programs are notoriously hard to track down; original recordings were often erased and reused to tape other shows. When community television recordings do exist, they tend to be fragmented and deteriorating. These issues related to television’s ephemerality are exacerbated in the Canadian context, where there is no official and accessible national archive of television. In that regard, Canada has been described as an “archival wasteland” (Byers and VanderBurgh 2010, 106). The lack of access to materials related to community television thus makes it difficult to write about the specificities of such programs.

This research relies on CRTC policy documents and reports, as well as rare—yet incomplete—archival materials held at LGBTQ2+ community archives: program episodes, newspaper articles, letters, and ephemera related to the two community TV programs under study. To supplement the gaps in the archives, I also draw from interviews with surviving gay and lesbian cable access participants: Harvey Hamburg, Heather Ramsay, Rose Stanton, and Robert Wallace. By paying close attention to community television’s historical context and policy framework, while examining specific programs and individual experiences of cable access, this article enriches our understandings of Canadian broadcasting regulations, and of significant, if short-lived, local television histories.

Accessing the Airwaves: Challenges and Opportunities

Gay News and Views and Out of the Closets were some of the first LGBTQ2+ television shows to take advantage of new community programming regulations in Canada. The latter emerged out of the remodeling of the Canadian broadcasting system following the implementation of the 1968 Broadcasting Act, which initiated “the modern era” of Canadian broadcasting policy (Armstrong 2016, 41). The Act established Canada’s broadcasting ecosystem as blend of public and private elements, each with different roles but shared objectives: to “safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada” and to “encourage the development of Canadian expression” by “providing a wide range of programming that reflects Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas, values, and artistic creativity” (Canada. Broadcasting Act 1991 [1968]). Additionally, the Act declared that the regulation and supervision of the broadcasting system were to be overseen by a single, independent public authority: the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. The CRTC was now responsible for implementing the country’s broadcasting policy, issuing broadcast licenses, and regulating cable television (Armstrong 2016, 42–4). Cable television, indeed, was becoming a growing contender in the Canadian broadcasting landscape. As Raboy (1990) explains, “As new means of communication emerged, it was necessary to integrate them into the national system” (p. 210). The CRTC’s task was to “facilitate a harmonious development of. . .cable television” within the framework of the Broadcasting Act, especially as “cable television [was] more advanced in Canada than in virtually other country in the world” (CRTC 1971, 2–4). The CRTC further noted: “At stake is more than a system of national communication, because broadcasting also has the vitally important task of identifying and strengthening cultural entities, regional entities, and community loyalties” (CRTC 1971, 8) (my emphasis).

The idea of using cable to provide a channel for community expression accompanied the original CRTC pronouncements on cable undertakings in 1969 and 1970 (Salter and Odartey-Wellington 2008, 282). In the words of the CRTC, “the concept of a special cable television channel devoted to community programming” is “almost as old as cable television itself” (CRTC 1975c, 2). The Commission’s guidelines and framework for community programming were further entrenched in a policy statement on cable television released in 1971. In it, the CRTC encouraged all cable television licensees to provide a community channel that would “enrich community life by fostering communication among individuals and community groups” (p. 17). This was to be done through “direct citizen participation in programme planning and production” (p. 18). This programming would be produced entirely by volunteers, with the help of cable operators who would provide “equipment, training, and transmission” (Goldberg 1990, 10). In 1975, the CRTC expanded its 1971 policy and issued formal regulations for cable television. The Commission further reiterated its commitment to the cable-provided community channel, which had to become “a primary social commitment of the cable television licensee” (CRTC 1975a, 10). Consequently, licensees were no longer merely encouraged to provide a community channel, but they were required to do so (CRTC 1975a, 11). Following the implementation of the CRTC’s cable television regulations, cable companies had to adapt their operations to become both distributors and broadcasters (CRTC 1975a, 5).

The CRTC’s decision to use cable networks to produce and distribute community programming was based on three main factors. First, there was considerable excitement on the part of the Commission about the prospect of using cable to “turn the passive viewer of television into an active participant” (CRTC 1975a, 17). To the CRTC, cable television would be providing “a unique social service” in Canada’s broadcasting ecology by developing innovative programs that were based on “access and freedom” (CRTC 1975a, 3; Gillespie 1975, 2). On a more political level, the CRTC worried about cable television’s overwhelming import of American programming (CRTC 1971, 7). As Salter and Odartey-Wellington (2008) explain, “The CRTC believed that the homogenizing impact of cable should be offset by measures that made cable into a very local undertaking” (p. 283). Thanks to the community channel, cable television would, by default, provide more Canadian content, thus safeguarding the objectives of the 1968 Broadcasting Act. Last but not least, since the CRTC gave cable companies a monopoly on selling distant television signals, they felt that, in exchange, the companies should “give back” by providing various services, including a community channel, as a condition of their license. And, in turn, community programming would increase the cable companies’ revenues by encouraging more households to subscribe to cable (Goldberg 1990, 14–5). As the 1971 policy read: “Local programming can form an important means of widening the choice of programmes which in turn attracts more subscribers and increases revenue” (p. 17).

The CRTC’s cable television regulations came at an important time for LGBTQ2+ Canadians. Following the decriminalization of homosexuality in Canada in 1969, the 1970s saw queer people experimenting with new ways of being in the world—when the closet had previously been the only option for most. Gay liberation activists across the country created services for the gay and lesbian community, while encouraging people to “come out” and harnessing emerging communications and information infrastructures to heighten gay people’s visibility and help individuals as they faced the challenge of “locating others” (Korinek 2018, 5). At the beginning of the gay liberation movement, print media proved vital in circulating information. In 1971, for example, a collective of Toronto-based volunteers launched the Body Politic, which quickly became one of the most important LGBTQ2+ print magazines of the time, circulating widely in Canada and beyond (Kinsman 2024 [1996], 291). As communication technologies continued to be made more accessible, gays and lesbians took to the airwaves to expand the range and radius of queer media. Television was a particularly desirable medium, which represented, as queer media scholar Lauren Herold notes, “a new frontier for media activism in the 1970s” (Herold 2021, 78).

Lesbians and gay men were increasingly refusing to be passive receptors of television images. Robert Wallace, the producer of Gay News and Views, remembers “keeping [his] eye out” for “any television program . . . that represented queer identities” (Robert Wallace 2022, Interview with the author). In Canada’s television landscape, however, depictions of homosexuality were ambivalent, at best, even if mainstream publications touted the 1970s as the decade during which “television ha[d] taken a delight in discovering the ‘gay’ community” (“Backstage” 1977, 29). For example, Canada’s national public broadcaster, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), faced harsh criticism from the community. Alternatively nicknamed the “Canadian Broadcasting Closet” and “Canada’s Biggest Closet,” the gay community deplored the broadcaster’s general lack of support for LGBTQ2+ lives (Montador 1979; Riordon 1977). As one Body Politic article explained: “The image of gay people has not been good at the [CBC]. . .It is a record of silence and offence not uncommon in North American media in general” (Riordon 1977, 19). The CBC also found itself at the heart of a bitter battle for the recognition of the rights of gay and lesbian organizations to advertise their services through the Corporation.

In November 1975, the Gay Alliance for Equality (GAE) in Halifax, Nova Scotia, contacted their local CBC radio station to air a Public Service Announcement about their counseling phone line (“CBC Bans Gay Announcements” 1976, 4–5). The CBC refused to air the ad; according to the Corporation’s Public Service Programs Policy Concerning Controversial and Opinion Broadcasting, it was not “permissible” for public service announcements “to contain controversial opinion or comment on economic, social, religious or political topics” (Civil Liberties Association, National Capital Region 1977, 1). A letter addressed to GAE further explained that it was “felt” by the CBC that homosexuality was a subject matter that was “still considered controversial” by CBC audiences (Civil Liberties Association, National Capital Region 1977, 1). The CBC was not alone in refusing to publicize information about LGBTQ2+ groups and services. In August 1977, Toronto-based radio station Q107 declined to broadcast a Body Politic advertisement, arguing that “public sensitivity to gay-oriented advertising would be negative and not in the best interest of either the advertiser or the radio station” (Bebout 1977, 5). This decision came only a month after the station had rescinded an agreement with the Body Politic to air a thirty-second ad for the publication, which led the magazine to file a complaint with the CRTC—who declared they had no power to influence Q107’s decision (Bebout 1977, 5; Mole 1977, 4). Although not strictly the purview of television, conflicts like these underline why gays and lesbians, who wanted to circulate accurate information and images of queer lives, placed a premium on producing their own media in the late 1970s.

Cable access, with its promises of community expression and control over a mass communication medium, seemed like an ideal channel to fulfill such aspirations. The community’s enthusiasm surrounding access to the television airwaves cannot be overstated. Robert Wallace, for example, felt compelled to participate in a community television program: “I wouldn’t have to monitor other people’s representation. I could be involved in the direct representation of ourselves, and it was a gift, really” (Robert Wallace 2022, Interview with the author). Heather Ramsay, who co-hosted Gay News and Views, echoed this sentiment: “I had an innate awareness that any kind of visual medium [was]. . .important. . .because people need to see themselves as they really are—not as somebody else sees them, someone who demonizes them” (Heather Ramsay 2022, Interview with the author). Many activists in the 1970s believed that being visible was a small step toward changing people’s perception of queer people and even changing the world.

Although cable access television promised to offer creative control over programming created for and by the community, the CRTC’s decision to devolve the responsibility of the community channel to cable licensees fell short of bringing about genuine, unfettered citizen access to television for LGBTQ2+ communities. If the CRTC expressed that the cable access channel should reflect “community needs and interests” (CRTC 1971, 17), the 1971 and 1975 documents also clearly stipulated that cable companies “retained control over and responsibility for the channel as a whole” (Salter and Odartey-Wellington 2008, 283–84). All cable undertakings were therefore “governed by the logic of the marketplace” (Raboy 1990, 242). Control over content was only part of the queer community’s longstanding battle for the airwaves; without ultimate control over the programs’ distribution, lesbians and gays were sometimes powerless in the face of the arbitrary rules of the cable operators and the structural limitations of cable itself. And, indeed, Out of the Closets and Gay News and Views encountered a variety of obstacles when trying to launch and, more importantly, sustain their programming.

Out of the Closets and Into Your Living Rooms

In June 1977, a groundbreaking half-hour lesbian and gay television program called Out of the Closets made its debut on cable. The show was the brainchild of the Gays of Ottawa (GO), a pioneering gay rights organization that had been active in the nation’s capital since 1972. From its inception, GO had consistently shown a keen interest in the media. In May 1972, for example, members of the organization formed a Media Committee to “inform gays and the community at large about homosexuality and gay liberation” (“Minutes of the Media Committee,” 1972). The committee also kept checks on how queer people were represented in the media, and its members wrote several letters to various broadcasters about their programming. On September 10, 1972, committee member Gaston Charpentier directly wrote the CRTC chairman, Pierre Juneau, to ask several questions regarding broadcast regulations. Such questions included, “Are there regulations controlling and/or preventing radio, television or community cable systems from broadcasting and/or telecasting educational programs dealing with homosexuality and/or gay liberation?” and “Are there restrictions as to the time of day and/or night that programs on homosexuality may be aired by the electronic media?” Anticipating that there might be restrictions on circulating gay and lesbian content, Charpentier encouraged Juneau to explain why such restrictions would be in place, were the CRTC to answer “yes” to the previous two questions: “If regulations do exist; why and when were they instituted?” and “What legal and moral rights does the CRTC feel it has to control information?” Finally, Charpentier asked Juneau to provide examples of programs about homosexuality that would have been restricted by potential CRTC regulations (Charpentier 1972). GO received an answer from the CRTC in a letter that was short and to the point: “There are no Broadcasting Regulations referring to homosexuality” (Demers 1972). A year later, two members of Gays of Ottawa were awarded an Opportunity for Youth Grant to make a series of four one-half-hour television programs called “Breaking the Ice.” The series dealt with “Sexuality, Discrimination, Oppression and Prejudice” from various angles, including but not limited to homosexuality (“Breaking the Ice” 1973, 8).

GO was further interested in mobilizing television’s “visual appeal” to inform “the general public on the subjects of homosexuality and gay liberation” (“Dealing with the Media” 1972). In 1977, they approached their local cable licensee, Skyline Cable, with a proposal to produce a program (“GO on TV/GO En Ondes” 1977). While Skyline would help produce Out of the Closets, the program was also to be carried by Ottawa Cablevision. The programming departments of both companies were “enthusiastic” about the idea for the program, but management was “nervous about public reaction” and had to be “convinced” its value before committing to a monthly series (“Ottawa: Gay TV Starts on Cable” 1977, 8). Despite the CRTC’s assurance that no regulations existed that would impede the creation and circulation of gay and lesbian content on television, the program’s pilot was a trial run for the show; GO had to pre-tape and submit the episode for approval before it could air. In addition, the pilot needed to be well received by audiences for the series to proceed. Fortunately for GO, the viewers’ response to the pilot, which aired in June, was positive, and Out of the Closets was officially invited to produce a monthly show to start in the fall of 1977 (“Gay TV Starts on Cable” 1977, 8; “Go On TV/GO En Ondes” 1977). ² The program featured news items, information about community activities, and an arts and entertainment section. Ultimately, GO “hop[ed] that the series [would] become a major channel of communication between GO and the larger community” (“Ottawa: Gay TV Starts on Cable” 1977, 8). As Rose Stanton, who co-hosted the program, explains, “The goal was to have ourselves be seen as members of the community. As opposed to some, you know, fringe group that’s coming after your children” (Rose Stanton 2023, Interview with the author).

Despite greenlighting the show, however, Skyline Cable imposed content restrictions on the program for the remainder of the series due to fears of upsetting viewers (i.e., subscribers). At the time the show aired, the gay and lesbian community was facing growing backlash; U.S conservative activist Anita Bryant was campaigning against gay rights in Canada, federal and provincial governments consistently refused to include homosexuality as a protected category in human rights codes, and anti-gay demonstrations were organized after the murder and sexual assault of a young boy by several men in Toronto in July 1977 (Warner 2002). These events had a direct impact on gay and lesbian programming. For instance, when GO wished to change the title of the program so that they could have “the word ‘gay’ in the title,” the companies refused, “in view of what happened over the summer” (Mole 1977, 1). Cable managers also insisted that GO’s programming be directed at a “general audience,” and that there be no “propagandizing” and “no attempt to ‘recruit’ for gay organizations” (Mole 1977, 1). In addition, the guidelines imposed by the cable companies stipulated that at least one person “not identified with the gay community” had to be on each show to “add credibility” to the program (Mole 1977, 1). Out of the Closets participants had to navigate this set of restrictive guidelines—which only applied to its programming—without compromising their desire to use cable access television as, in the words of GO member Paul-François Sylvestre, “an instrument of education and liberation” (Sylvestre 1977, n.p.).

Gays of Ottawa also ran into problems linked to the structure of cable access television itself. In its efforts to appeal to both the English and French-speaking populations of Ottawa and its vicinity, GO was determined to air a French version of Out of the Closets. After all, the CRTC policy stipulated that community programming should “reflect where appropriate the bilingual nature of the communities they serve” (CRTC 1975, 14). In September 1977, Gays of Ottawa concluded arrangements with a third cable company, Laurentian Cablevision, to produce a version of their monthly show in French, Gais de l’Outaouais (Garmaise 1977a; “GO A La Television Communautaire de Hull” 1977, 5). In turn, Laurentian would also air the English version of the program produced by Skyline, and short versions of the French program would air on the two other stations (Garmaise 1977b). These programs would be broadcast to different areas of the city, as cable companies were awarded licenses by the CRTC to operate cable systems within specific geographic areas, known as “licensed areas” (Goldberg 1990, 11). In large urban areas, therefore, individual licensees often served areas that “cut across neighbourhoods, wards, and even whole municipalities” (CRTC 1975, 13). Harvey Hamburg, who participated in Gay News and Views, further explains: “At the time, a person could only subscribe to one particular cable. It was imposed. . .different geographic boundaries—which were not necessarily consistent with anything otherwise—determin[ed] what the contours of that particular cable system were” (Harvey Hamburg 2022, Interview with the author). Having to work with three different cable companies to air the show in two languages in various local areas proved difficult for GO, however.

First, it became hard to advertise the French and English programs to its viewers, since the stations all aired the show at different dates and time slots. Furthermore, tapes of the programs had to be transported back and forth between the different studio locations. On two occasions, the tapes were not delivered on time to Skyline and Ottawa Cablevision, resulting in a cancellation in one case and a program substitution in the other. In a heated letter to the Laurentian cable manager, David Garmaise of GO attributed these mistakes to the company’s lack of professionalism and blamed them for damaging GO’s credibility. To Garmaise, Laurentian had caused GO “considerable embarrassment,” since the organization had taken advertisements in the newspaper to promote the program: “Our centre was flooded with angry listeners when the show did not come on at the scheduled time. . .Many people in the gay community began to wonder why Gays of Ottawa was so incompetent” (Garmaise 1977b).

GO’s dealings with the various companies threatened the existence of Out of the Closets/Gais de l’Outaouais and thwarted the organization desire to offer a bilingual program. Eventually, GO ended their agreement with Laurentian, feeling that it was “more trouble than it was worth” and “endangering the success of the program on Ottawa and Skyline” (Garmaise 1977b). Although the CRTC required community channels to provide opportunities to “as many individuals and groups as possible who wish to participate and to present ideas” (CRTC 1975a, 18), the challenges that GO experienced testify to the fact that giving control of community television programming to cable companies limited what community groups could broadcast. Cable licensees had their own internal rules regarding content and feared losing subscribers if the latter were offended by their programming decisions. These challenges were not unique to Ottawa; while Out of the Closets never faced outward censorship or cancellation, its Toronto counterpart, Gay News and Views, would not be so lucky.

Regulation as Censorship: Gay News and (Offensive) Views

A thirteen-week television series, which began airing in September 1977 in Toronto, Gay News and Views was spearheaded by a group of lesbians and gay men known as the “Gay TV Collective” (GTC). The collective’s goal was simple and akin to Gays of Ottawa’s: to put “real” gay people on Canadian television screens. As producer Robert Wallace stated, the collective wanted to produce a show that “was positive, upfront, and gay, and entertaining, and newsworthy” (Robert Wallace 2022, Interview with the author). Yet, like Gays of Ottawa, the Gay TV Collective found it difficult to work within the parameters of the cable companies. The program was carried by three different cable television systems in the Toronto area: Maclean-Hunter Cable (which produced the show), Rogers Cable, and Metro Cable. The Gay TV collective, therefore, also experienced difficulties advertising the program and felt frustrated with the lack of programming centralization. As participant Harvey Hamburg claimed, “We would have loved for it to be scheduled at the same time. Because if you’re going to be trying to promote watching it, you’d have to ask people, as you’re passing out pamphlets outside of gay bars, where they lived” (Harvey Hamburg 2022, Interview with the author).

In addition to these frustrations related to the distribution of the program, participants bemoaned the lack of funds allocated to Gay News and Views. Robert Wallace, who had previous experience working for the CBC, felt that, compared to its national counterpart, funding for cable access “was a laugh” (Robert Wallace 2022, Interview with the author). Since advertising on community channels was forbidden in the 1970s, it was up to individual cable licensees to cover the costs of operating the community channel (Goldberg 1990, 17). In its 1975 statement, the CRTC remarked that there were “wide discrepancies” in terms of funding for the community channel between the different cable licensees. To ensure the “successful development” of community channels, the CRTC considered mandating that all cable licensees dedicate ten percent of their gross subscriber revenue to community programming (CRTC 1975a, 15). However, the Commission never implemented the ten percent rule. Instead, cable licensees were expected to allocate a “reasonable” percentage of their gross revenue for the ongoing operation of their channel (CRTC 1975a, 15–16). As a result, although Maclean-Hunter Cable provided the Gay TV Collective with equipment and a four-week training program to familiarize volunteers with television operations, participants still had to cover some of the costs of making the program out of pocket (Robert Wallace 2022, Interview with the author). This not only put the financial burden of producing the program onto the community but also constrained the collective’s ability to produce quality programming. The collective, furthermore, had to cover the legal fees incurred during their battle against cable providers attempting to censor their program (Riordon 1977/1978, 18).

The Gay TV Collective’s televisual endeavors were thwarted by the arbitrary rules put in place by the cable companies regarding the program’s content. Two days after Gay News and Views’ premiere on September 20, 1977, the president of Toronto’s Rogers Cable TV, Robert C. Short, decided to stop airing the program on the grounds that they had received viewer complaints (Mole 1977, 1). Short additionally claimed the Rogers Cable was merely a carrier for Gay News and Views, and that Rogers was in the process of producing their own show in partnership with another gay rights group; the channel, therefore, would no longer be providing “balanced programming” if it were to air two gay-themed TV shows (Mole 1977, 1). Short’s comments regarding “balance” referenced the CRTC’s rule that stipulated that licensees needed to provide “reasonable, balanced opportunity. . .for the expression of different views on matters of public concerns” (CRTC 1975c, 6). As such, the channel was not to be a “forum only for select special interest groups” (Tourigny 1983, 10). Rogers’ narrow interpretation of the regulations, however, reveals a bias against LGBTQ2+ programming: although Gay News and Views and the new show produced by Rogers had different goals and themes, the company made no effort to differentiate between them, since they were both produced by gay groups.

Following the program’s cancellation on Rogers Cable, the Gay TV collective took action to get the decision reversed: they sent letters to the CRTC claiming that Rogers’ decision violated the 1971 and 1975 policies, and pressured Rogers directly by threatening court action. Flyers denouncing Rogers’ position as censorship were circulated in gay bars. Depicting a television set with the word “censored” across the screen, one flyer read: “Will you stand for it? Government regulations require cable companies to provide access for minorities to public television. Short’s ‘personal feelings’ violate our community’s right to be heard” (“Gay People Censored” 1977). The GTC emerged partially victorious when Rogers decided to reverse its decision. Yet, the fact that one of the carriers had expressed concerns about the show had ripple effects on Gay News and Views.

On the one hand, Rogers’ actions eroded the trust that the community placed in the community cable system. As an article documenting the cancellation explained, “The people putting out gay TV programs. . .don’t know. . .whether hours of effort might suddenly come to nothing if one of the cable companies makes another about-face” (Mole 1977, 1). On the other hand, Rogers’ actions prompted Maclean-Hunter Cable to establish a code, independent from CRTC rules, to determine what kind of content Gay News and Views could broadcast. Like the restrictions imposed on Out of the Closets in Ottawa, these rules only applied to LGBTQ2+ programming on Maclean’s community channel. While Gay News and Views was not mandated to have straight people appear on the show for “credibility,” Maclean-Hunter declared that the program had to show “common sense” and be in “good taste” (Mole 1977, 1). Material that could be deemed “controversial” or “unusual” had to be pre-screened, and the program was rescheduled from 6PM to 10PM (“‘Gay News’ re-scheduled after TV viewers complain” 1977, 6; Hardy 1978, 7). Program participants followed the new rules to the best of their ability, until Gay News and Views host Heather Ramsay made the following announcement at the beginning of their June 1978 broadcast: “Maclean-Hunter Cable Television. . .has dropped Gay News and Views from its viewing schedule. . .the series was considered offensive by Maclean-Hunter, after they received complaints from a number of viewers and various religious groups who threatened legal action unless Maclean-Hunter discontinued the series” (Gay News and Views 1978).

In a letter to GTC, John K. Haynes, Maclean-Hunter’s Program Director, explained that the decision to cancel the show was initially prompted, as pointed out in Ramsay’s announcement, by complaints about some of the show’s content. The letter stated: “After evaluating the material in question, it was determined that in fact, it [did] contravene our community standard of decency” (Haynes 1978). The “material in question” referred to a slide of two men kissing at a dance, and an ad for an STI clinic, which depicted a photograph of Queen Victoria with the caption, “Even Queens Can Get the Clap!” (Hardy 1978, 7). Thinking about the content aired on the show, Heather Ramsay recalls: “I don’t remember stuff that could have been considered to be really blue. I think just the fact that you had a minority group showing power . . ., maybe for some people that was really scary” (Heather Ramsay 2022, Interview with the author).

And, indeed, in addition to making vague claims about obscenity, Haynes bemoaned the show’s “air of militancy and what seems to be a general contempt for the establishment,” and judged the “snide remarks. . .regarding government officials, officers of the law, and some public figures” to be “in poor taste”—a comment no doubt directed at the collective’s circulation of the image of the Queen of England to promote STI testing (Haynes 1978). Finally, Haynes deemed that the program was ultimately “disrespectful to the heterosexual community” and did not facilitate a better understanding of gay issues. His position, he noted, had “nothing to do with anti-gay sentiments,” especially since Maclean-Hunter was the cable company that “encouraged and facilitated the. . .series” (Haynes 1978, 7). At the time, Maclean-Hunter was no longer the producer of the show, as the production operations had been handed to Metro Cable. Although Haynes claimed that the Maclean-Hunter cancellation would likely prompt Metro to take a “hard look” at the show’s content to consider similar actions, Metro Cable did not find the content objectionable and continued airing the series (Hardy 1978, 7). Gay News and Views concluded after the thirteen-week period mandated by the CRTC for community programming (“Gay News and Views” 1977, 10).

Conclusion

The Gay TV Collective’s conflicts with Rogers Cable and Maclean-Hunter Cable, combined with the restrictions faced by Gays of Ottawa, confirm that, although gay and lesbian groups were emboldened by community television’s potential to be a platform to communicate about their political, social, and cultural projects, the emancipatory possibilities of community TV in Canada were clearly limited. The subjective rules of and autonomy given to local cable providers superseded the CRTC’s overall regulations and severely restricted the lesbian and gay community’s ability to air content on the Canadian cable airwaves in the 1970s. In an early report on cable access, the CRTC itself remarked that there were discrepancies between cable systems regarding how they approached community participation depending on “the general programming policy of the cable system.” The CRTC noted: “Some systems have an ‘open-door’ policy permitting access to everybody . . . Other systems impose restrictions on certain types of political . . . groups in an attempt to provide what they feel is a more balanced service” (CRTC 1972, 17). Yet, the CRTC did not see a contradiction between the restrictions applied on programming based on these operators’ feelings and the provisions for cable access inscribed within the 1971 and 1975 cable television regulations.

The over-scrutiny of LGBTQ2+ programs continued into the 1980s and beyond: in 1991, Rogers Cable cancelled Toronto Living With AIDS, a community series dedicated to the HIV/AIDS crisis, on the basis that it was “offensive” and “in bad taste” (Conrad 2024, 10). Even when LGBTQ2+ shows were not cancelled, many of them were closely monitored by cable companies. Disclaimers often preceded queer community programs, stressing their potential for controversy. In the words of Gay News and Views participant Harvey Hamburg, the story of Canadian cable access programming is often the story of “failed attempts at gaining the support of the. . .television business by community groups” (Harvey Hamburg 2022, Interview with the author).

If there is a lesson to be learned from the history of local queer community programming, it is that private companies’ vested interests will often (if not always) prevent the free circulation of and access to information about underrepresented communities (Salter and Odartey-Wellington 2008, 271). As Robert Wallace further explains, cable operators “could afford” to drop lesbian and gay community shows because they “didn’t have a big viewership. . .Maclean-Hunter and Rogers weren’t going to lose a lot of support. They were probably going to gain support from the people who didn’t want to see it” (Robert Wallace 2022, Interview with the author). In that sense, this article is an encouragement to think beyond existing broadcasting frameworks to produce and distribute content relevant to one’s community.

Community TV advocate groups, like the Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations (CACTUS), have long advocated for a remodeling of community channel regulations, whereby the CRTC would mandate that such channels be run entirely by communities, instead of being in the hands of a few cable operators who consider themselves to be benefactors (Edwards 2010; Goldberg 1990; Wirsig and Edwards 2018). Although we now live in an era in which we have “access to countless media sources providing community reflection and forum community discussion,” as the CRTC noted in 2016 (CRTC 2016), local, community-based programming still matters in our media ecology. If community TV is to continue existing, the lessons from the past constitute a blueprint for creating fairer use of the airwaves, ensuring that community interests are safeguarded, and broadening the notion of what “Canadian content” looks like.