The complaint came from a viewer who was angry about the standards of lead Happy Days character Richie Cunningham using "sexist" standards to lie about his encounter with a girl he was dating. There was also a reference to the word "Eskimo" which irritated the same viewer, who watched the episode on CHCH last August.

The Council essentially decided that it's almost impossible to apply modern standards to a show made in the early 1970s and that while it appears somewhat insensitive today, it didn't violate any rules. From Broadcast Dialogue:

"The panel found no breaches of any of the broadcast codes, but acknowledged the difficulty in applying modern standards to retro programming. While agreeing the portrayal of women could be considered sexist, it found nothing that rose to the level of a code breach, particularly given the plot context, noting that “a chauvinistic character is acceptable within the context of some fictional programming, particularly if the character’s behaviour is depicted as negative.” 

"The panel also noted that the term “Eskimo” is outdated, but not abusive and the snowball joke related more to the temperature in Alaska than to the Indigenous group. It also wrote that the term “Eskimo” in Alaska remains in more common usage and is the legal terminology in some contexts."

I have to say, while I'm sensitive to changes in the world and word usage, I'm glad the CBSC ruled the way it did. It would be almost impossible to show anything from the 60s and 70s without these kinds of references. Which would almost completely obviate any old reruns ever being shown on current TV. This seems overly woke to me, an attempt to rewrite history, and while acknowledging the sentiments were dated, I think the ruling was the right one.

As the Board noted:

"The episode of Happy Days at issue was originally aired in 1974 which was 48 years ago. At that time, the program was considered comedic content for the entire family."

Times change but old TV shows cannot. I would hate to lose access to them simply because they could not have predicted a more progressive tilt in society. No one can predict the future and stuff that's on the tube now may one day be considered offensive by future generations. But just like back in 1974, we have no way of knowing that now. Which is why I think this complaint was way over the top.  

Further, CHCH usually carries a disclaimer about its old shows to prevent this kind of thing. I have no idea if they did on this particular show. But I'm betting they will from now on!

The decision letting CHCH off the hook did not sit well with the viewer, even though the station sent their regrets in a response. 

"Thank you for your response; however I do not accept your apology. You and your station still do not get it, as evidenced by the fact that you state in your apology that you may air this episode again! This isn't just about an inappropriate situation or offensive comment. The episode was normalizing the sexual assault and abuse of young girls, minor children, by their teachers and portraying it as an acceptable behavior!

"Children seeing this will think and feel that sexual advances from adults, particularly from teachers, is okay. Many will not report abuse because you are telling them that it's okay. Being a retro show does not absolve your responsibility, or permit you to say that it was a sign of the times so it's ok. Are we back in the boys will be boys era? Or the old boys network? Or maybe the blame the victim scenario? What the director intended is of absolutely no consequence here. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.

"As a teacher myself, I feel that it is my duty to bring this to the attention of teachers federations, boards of education, and the media."

This seems a lot like someone looking for a reason for outrage. Do you agree with the ruling? You can decide for yourself by reading the story.   

Read the CBSC decision