Let’s talk about it, on the contrary | The Press

Journalists handle a raw material that can be both harmless and nuclear: words.

The recent decision of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) precisely concerns one of the most delicate words in the directory, a word which was used four times on August 17, 2020 between 5:34 p.m. and 5:40 p.m. on Radio-Canada. At this time, the broadcast 15-18 commented on a controversy over the title of the work of the felquiste Pierre Vallières, white niggers of america.

For several years, and even more since the emergence of the Black Lives Matter movement, the context in which the “word that begins with an N” is evoked has been the subject of debate. These have enabled Quebec society to understand how these semantic questions do not only concern English speakers.

Hearing the “word that starts with an N” is painful for many, many people. It’s a racial slur uttered for centuries to belittle, dehumanize black people. This is a loaded word, which should not be used lightly just because it is in the dictionary.

But it is a word that exists, which has a place in Quebec history. In 1968, Pierre Vallières published a book in which he compared the fate of French-Canadian workers, whom he described as exploited workers in the service of wealthy capitalists, to that of the African-American population, who fought (and still fights) for the respect of its civic rights after centuries of segregation and slavery. To describe the situation of his compatriots, Vallières used this provocative expression which gave the title to his work.

We can talk about this work in the media and explain Vallières’ (very debatable) choice to use these words. In this context, pronouncing the original title of Vallières’ book without erasing the controversial term is unavoidable. “The weight of the word allows us to understand the error of Vallières”, moreover precisely recalled the rapper and historian Webster in 2020.

And we can certainly disagree with comments made in the public space. We can criticize, denounce, complain. And journalists don’t live in a bubble. They listen and adapt. A few years ago, the anti-feminist attack of December 6, 1989 was simply described as a “tragedy”. A “marital drama” hid a feminicide. The members of the multiple Aboriginal nations were referred to pell-mell as “Indians”. The vocabulary was adapted, clarified and enriched over the course of the discussions on these issues.

But precisely, the sanction of the CRTC risks stifling what allows us collectively to evolve on these sensitive issues.

According to the CRTC, Radio-Canada must publicly apologize to the complainant. Although he acknowledges that the comments broadcast are not discriminatory, he believes that the Crown corporation should have broadcast a clear warning to the audience at the beginning of the program segment. This sets a dangerous precedent for freedom of expression and journalism.

Journalists and the media are not asking for a safe-conduct allowing them to say everything, write everything. In addition to the CRTC, their work is framed by the courts, by the charters of rights and freedoms, by the Quebec Press Council, by ombudsmen, by ethical guides.

And above all, journalists feed on social debates. The use of the “word that begins with an N” in the media space must be discussed. CRTC Vice-President Caroline J. Simard, who disagrees with the majority opinion, would have dismissed the complaint against Radio-Canada. In her exhaustive and calm dissent, she proposes to hold consultations to determine the appropriate guidelines. Important questions are unresolved. When does “trauma warning” become necessary? Does the “word that begins with an N” carry the same charge in English and in French? Should it be banned completely, in all circumstances?

Even taken in good faith, this is a bad decision by the CRTC. This is why Radio-Canada absolutely must appeal it, hoping that the federal courts will overturn it.