Widening The Cultural Gap

<i>This latest one concerns the use of (perceived) foul language.</i><p> Well, isn't that the job of the CRTC? Foul language doesn't shock me anymore ethier, but does that give people the right to use it whenever they feel like it? What ever happened to simple manners?<p> I don't believe this is a culture gap. It's a change in the simple politeness of people in our country. Bill Cosby, a man for whom I have much respect, said it well last week. Kids are using words in everyday conversation that would have been looked upon as racial slurs only 20 years ago. Why? Are these expressions now somehow acceptable? Granted, I have no idea what "câlisse & crisse" translate to, but apparently people who do took offense at their use.<p> I've seen and heard things that would make Traci Lords blush (porn star). That doesn't mean I want to see them on the 6 O'Clock news. The CBC is famous for not editing profanity during late night movies, and the Life network is basically soft porn after 10 on Fridays. With a warning for content, and because the context of the programming is not pornography, I have no problem with it.<p> From what I hear on the news, the CRTC warned them a couple years ago to tone it down. And more complaints were filed, so the station was put on probation. And complaints continued. So their license has been pulled, and now they scream "Help Help! We're being repressed! They are taking away your right to free speech!". Balderdash.<p> They were warned, they continued to push the limits, and they crossed the line.<p> Just a little off topic, since Jesse disabled the swear censor, I haven't noticed anyone really abusing it. I think that says a lot for this community! We can have some real debates, and it doesn't turn into a whizzing contest!<p><p>---<br>"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain <br />
"The greatest price of not participating in politics is being governed by your inferiors." Plato

Also, the problem with excessive use of profanity is that it no longer has any impact when it is used, which is the whole point of using it in the first place.

This was posted in the cultural section of the site. I agree there's other important issues to discuss, but does it qualify any story as "whizzing". Lighten up!

Freedom of expression should reign supreme, but it's not like anyone should be allowed to yell 'fire' in a crowded movie theatre, the usual example. Another example, and this is extreme, is that radio stations in Rwanda were used to incite the violence that led to the genocide. The law should proceed with prosecution if media outlets incite people to commit unlawful acts for sure. Culturally speaking, how can a program be more ignorant than the Howard Stern Show? whew!

Whewww let's all take a deep breath. If you take the time to read the article, you'll notice citizens (not corporations or politians) are infuriated over this. As I mentionned, it was posted to demonstrate a cultural rift, not as a formal complaint to you Anglo Canadians.

What?!

So what is implied through these comments are that by the use of profanity, inappropriate insults and slurs against other members of our society that this is "acceptable" because Quebecers are 'used to it' by being more progressive than other Canadians - then you go on to mention because you were taught about rubbers in elementary school that makes you culturally superior or at least "distinct" because you swear more and learned about contraception at least 5 years before you knew what to do with that information??(frankly I don't even see those comments as relevant but whatever)You state this as something english canada hasn't done,even though you most likely can't even provide an informed comment on other's educational experiences in other regions of the country.

To somehow tie this into the continued use, after repeated warnings I might add, profanity and intolerance thinly veiled as satire which isn't appealing in ANY culture, nor was it to the local listeners of this station - in Quebec. The CRTC would have nailed these guys if they were in any region of the country. Give it a rest.

No Anonymous not superior, but by all means distinct.

Maybe I've naive however, I'd prefer to let the free market do its work. If the station broadcasts repulsed most of the people its advertisers seek to attract,things would tone down pretty quickly.

That being said, the CRTC has legislation to administer and may have no options in this matter. There's no cultural aspect to this. The CRTC is not entirely composed of uptight Anglos, as a visit to any govenment office in Ottawa can easily verify.

It seems the CRTC acted on the basis of complaints, so who made the complaints? It appears the station's primary 'enemies in high places' are located within Quebec, rather than the CRTC or other parts of Canada.

Obviously the station knew the potential outcome of not adhering to the legislation/policy, so why did it continue? It's possible to report/expose important issues without using language that would be offensive to some. Why push the issue, unless you desired the outcome?

Your comment is appropriate from a "by-the-book" perspective. Only we're not referring to a rogue or rebel station with little or no ratings. We're talking about the number one station and if the CRTC is a government body and government represents the people, at the very least it should of somehow consulted the population before pulling the plug. That 50 complaints shut down a station coveted by millions is quite disturbing don't you think?.

<i>That 50 complaints shut down a station coveted by millions is quite disturbing don't you think?.</i><p> It didn't take 50 complaints to shut them down. It took ~30 complaints to get the CRTC's attention, and they started listening themselves. Then they got a warning, and ignored it, and kept doing it, and the CRTC warned them again and there were more complaints . . .<p> It was all 'by the book', and there is a book for a reason. Just because everyone speeds and tailgates and they don't signal lane changes, does not make it legal nor safe. Lack of funding for proper enforcement is why such driving ocurrs.<p> It's not like the CRTC didn't warn them and give them a chance to change their ways. No one should be surprised by 'the book' being thrown at them.<p> <p>---<br>"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain <br />
"The greatest price of not participating in politics is being governed by your inferiors." Plato

I also think there is a place for everything and public airwaves are not the appropriate place for vulgar language. Listeners are not all over 18yrs and will be attracted to something they don't hear everyday, so the governing body should place restrictions to protect the innocent. I notice on television the same thing, the rather racy shows were on late at night, but now they are on at all times. It can be rather embarrassing to sit down with your family and be watching when something inappropriate comes on!

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

I understand where you're coming from however, government is a 'by the book' business, the book being whatever act, regulation etc. is applicable. I'm sure there are many people working at the CRTC who believe this is ridiculous however, if isn't their job to judge the law or bend/bypass it, just to administer it (I know this is how things should be, mot as they always are).

Whether a nation agency/department should be enforcing what are realistically community standards, and as such will differ depending on the community, e.g., metropolis, village, etc., is another question entirely.

If they haven't already done so, the people who are outraged by this decision should be putting pressure on their federal MPs for a review of the pertinent CRTC legislation, regulation, policy, etc..

Well I guess perhaps it's time for that archaic CRTC to start recognising regional or cultural differences because the people it is trying to protect from themselves are not pleased at all.

Oups sorry Claumny I didn't mean to mirror your thought, we were thinking the same thing at the same time