“Are certain ideas becoming taboo? This is the question asked by columnist Simon Jodoin on the show 15-18, hosted by Annie Desrochers, on Radio-Canada radio. It is clear that, for the CRTC, the answer is unfortunately yes.
Posted at 5:00 a.m.
In Simon Jodoin’s column, broadcast in August 2020, it was about a professor from Concordia University who had had the misfortune to quote the title of Pierre Vallières’ book in class. White Negroes of America. Outraged, students had signed a petition to withdraw his course.
Simon Jodoin’s thesis: by erasing offensive words, we risk erasing the ideas and the discussions themselves. Pierre Vallières may have overstated the French-Canadian working class with the descendants of African-American slaves. It is discussed. Anyway, it would be debatable, if we didn’t stop at the hated title of his rant.
In 6 minutes 27 seconds, Simon Jodoin and Annie Desrochers uttered the taboo word four times, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) carefully calculated.
At no time did they slip. The tone was professional. The subject, relevant. Only they said the word. Four times.
For that, Radio-Canada will have to present a public apology, decided the CRTC, Wednesday, in a decision where the word in question appears in full… 15 times!
Incoherent, you say? You haven’t read anything yet.
The CRTC “is not a censorship board; it does not regulate good taste, and it has no mandate to dictate to a broadcaster what it can air or prohibit a program before it airs”.
Who wrote these words full of common sense? Yes, the CRTC itself, in a decision handed down in 2007.
Two years later, the CRTC specifies that it “intends to conclude that the limit to freedom of expression has been crossed only in cases of flagrant excess. Where it is not clear that there is a breach of regulatory requirements, the Board will rule in favor of freedom of expression”.
And now the CRTC is doing the opposite. He decides in favor of the plaintiff, despite all logic.
The majority erred on the legal issues central to the assessment of the complaint.
Caroline J. Simard, Vice-President, Broadcasting, CRTC, in a scathing minority opinion
“In this case,” writes Caroline J. Simard, “neither the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms nor the provisions applicable to broadcasting protect the plaintiff’s right not to be offended. »
Radio-Canada has no choice: it must contest this absurd decision. In the name of freedom of expression, of course, but also of journalistic integrity and the editorial independence of the public broadcaster.
In its decision, the CRTC mentions that the Crown corporation has “the responsibility to broadcast programs that comply at all times with the standards established by the corporation”. This madness will not stop with the “word starting with an N”. If Radio-Canada bends its back, the entire alphabet may be lost.
“The majority decision ignores freedom of the press and, in my view, will stifle it,” Councilwoman Joanne T. Levy warns in a second minority opinion, just as critical as the first.
As society evolves, how will this decision suppress expression? What other words and ideas will be considered problematic?
Advisor Joanne T. Levy, wondering about the drift to come
How many journalists will no longer dare to tackle potentially explosive subjects? How many will censor themselves to avoid problems?
We think back to Simon Jodoin’s thesis: if we want to erase the words, we risk erasing the discussions. At Radio-Canada, this is precisely what is likely to happen.
Arguing, of course, does not mean shouting an offensive, insulting and dehumanizing word from the rooftops. There is little courage to repeat it ad nauseam on social networks or to brandish it as the (doubtful) banner of freedom of expression.
This is not to deny that this word hurts. And yet, each time this damned debate resurfaces, it seems that it is stronger than us: everyone takes the bit between their teeth. And no one thinks of taking off their blinders.
If only we could have a frank, peaceful discussion. Let’s listen to each other a bit, for a change.
We would end up admitting that, yes, the expression “white nigger”, deliberately shocking, can… shock certain members of the black community. Even if Pierre Vallières knew misery. Even if he claimed to be an ally of the Black Panthers.
In his column, Simon Jodoin argued that it was not a simple comparison, but an “addition of forces”. The idea of the ex-Felquiste was to create “a common revolutionary project with all oppressed peoples” in order to destroy the founding imperialism of America.
By writing his book, in detention in New York, Vallières therefore sought to unite French Canadians, Blacks, Indigenous peoples, Mexicans…
You could say it failed. Fifty years later, this book (and its title) continues to divide us.