babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » CRTC Crackdown on Quebec City's CHOI Shock-Jock Radio

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: CRTC Crackdown on Quebec City's CHOI Shock-Jock Radio
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 15 July 2004 06:14 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Are Jack Layton and the New Democrats going to support the CRTC's decision to crackdown on a "jock-oriented" radio station in Quebec City?

From the coverage in the Globe, it would appear not. On the contrary, Layton's press secretary is leaning in the same direction as Stephen Harper (whatever a profit making private broadcaster wants to do to make money is A-OK) and with the Bloc Quebecois (whatever a Quebec broadcaster wants to do is A-OK, unless they start promoting federalism).


Radio crackdown opens deep divide

By RICHARD BLACKWELL, TU THANH HA, SIMON TUCK
With a report from Patrick Brethour
Thursday, July 15, 2004 - Page A1

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPPrint/LAC/20040715/CRTC15/TPNat ional/

The federal broadcast regulator's decision to cancel the licence of Quebec City radio station CHOI-FM unleashed a heated debate yesterday, as politicians, journalists and broadcasters weighed in on the ruling's impact on free expression.

Critics including Conservative Leader Stephen Harper slammed the decision, which would take the French-language station off the air, as heavy-handed. Others applauded it as a hopeful sign the regulator is ready to get tough on abusive talk on the airwaves.

CHOI lost its licence because of a pattern of offensive comments by its morning-show hosts and because it did not clean up its act after several warnings

...

In Ottawa, Mr. Harper issued a news release saying he is concerned about the CRTC decision.

The release points to the freedom-of-speech provisions in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and says that Mr. Harper's concern echoes that of groups such as the Quebec Press Council, the Quebec Federation of Professional Journalists and the Action Démocratique du Québec

Christiane Gagnon, heritage critic for the Bloc Québécois, said there is enough blame for both sides.

The CRTC's punishment is very severe, the Quebec City MP said, though the radio station left the commission little choice; closing the station will hurt a young business and cause job losses.

Karl Belanger, press secretary for NDP Leader Jack Layton, said many Quebec City residents wonder whether an unelected body such as the CRTC should have the power to close a radio station.There's heavy pressure on the CRTC to find a way to keep the station on the air, Ms. Gagnon said. "The people who are the addicts of CHOI-FM are very upset."


Once again the NDP faces a big choice. Either support free expression, including commercially profitable free expression, or support a decision to come down hard in favour of speech limits that foster respect for gender and cultural diversity.

[ 15 July 2004: Message edited by: Erik Pool ]


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
globetrotter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5406

posted 15 July 2004 07:31 PM      Profile for globetrotter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why not get a new morning show instead of closing the whole station?

I`m in Quebec City right now and the situation is very divided amongst the people I`ve been talking to. Apparently the show contained regular race-related attacks by the hosts.


From: canada | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 15 July 2004 08:17 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Karl Belanger, press secretary for NDP Leader Jack Layton, said many Quebec City residents wonder whether an unelected body such as the CRTC should have the power to close a radio station.

Well, should it be an elected body? Should the Cabinet, say, be empowered to close stations that disagree with government policy?


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 15 July 2004 08:48 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Jeff, no of course the CRTC must not be allowed to close the airwaves due to disagreements on government policy, or politics in general. But this was a matter of hate speech, of fascists who made their money demeaning women and ethnic minorities claiming to be a "young, new business" that was being persecuted. Screw them.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 15 July 2004 08:55 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
Jeff, no of course the CRTC must not be allowed to close the airwaves due to disagreements on government policy, or politics in general. But this was a matter of hate speech, of fascists who made their money demeaning women and ethnic minorities claiming to be a "young, new business" that was being persecuted. Screw them.


Lagatta, can I take it then that you feel certain that this station "crossed the line" in terms of hate speech by making comments about the sizes of the breasts of a woman who does the weather news on a Quebec City TV station? That is the example that was reported in the Globe and Mail.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 July 2004 08:57 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My personal opinion of that one example Erik Pool just gave: juvenile and stupid, of course, but not worthy of shutting down.

But I don't know what the other comments were.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 15 July 2004 08:59 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Under Canadian law, the airwaves belong to the public and stations get licences to use those airwaves under certain conditions.

In this case, the airwaves have reverted to their rightful owner - the public.

Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh are pussycats compared to these people. I don't have that big a problem with the decision. The station has been reprimanded and reprimanded and given opportunity after opportunity to respect the licensing conditions and failed to do so because they were making too much money.

I have tried to see the freedom of speech angle here but I can't find it.


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 15 July 2004 09:04 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Michelle, the tit joke was a very mild example. Much more serious were the comments about foreign students "sons of cannibals and despots", a psychatric patient they wanted to "pull the plug on", and, I believe, racist comments about Aboriginal people. It was a constant barrage of hatred, not a few stupid macho jokes.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 15 July 2004 09:09 PM      Profile for bittersweet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
CRTC

"The Commission considered that offensive comments made by the hosts over the station’s airwaves tended or were likely to expose individuals or groups of individuals to hatred or contempt on the basis of mental disability, race, ethnic origin, religion, colour or sex. The Commission also considered, among other things, that the station’s hosts were relentless in their use of the public airwaves to insult and ridicule people."

...

"In today’s decision, the Commission found that on numerous occasions, Genex had failed to comply with the Radio Regulations 1986 (the Regulations) as well as CHOI-FM’s Code of Ethics, adherence to which is required by one of its conditions of licence. The Commission noted that Genex’s programming did not meet the objectives of the broadcasting policy for Canada set out in the Broadcasting Act (the Act)…

The Commission noted that the spoken word content, that was the subject of the complaints received, did not reflect isolated incidents, but appeared to be part of a pattern of behaviour by the licensee that continued and even grew worse, over the course of two consecutive licence terms despite clear, unequivocal warnings from the Commission, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC - the broadcasting industry’s self-regulating body) and even, on occasion, its own advisory committee.

The Commission has reviewed the various measures it could adopt to ensure that broadcasting licensees meet their obligations where it finds that they are in repeated non-compliance. Those measures range from a short-term licence renewal, to the issuance of a mandatory order, to the suspension, revocation or non-renewal of the licence. The latter measures are rarely used, and in the Commission’s view, should generally be confined to cases where it is satisfied that none of the other available measures would be effective.


From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 15 July 2004 10:07 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm oppressed: I don't have a radio station. My right to freedom of expression is being trampled. A radio station for every Canadian I say, or death for all!

Yeah, I don't think the CRTC is obliged in any way to suffer racist broadcasting. Operating a radio station is a privilege, not a right. It would be different if the government went round shutting down stations because they were critical of the government. But that is not the case here.


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 16 July 2004 05:07 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rasmus raven:
I'm oppressed: I don't have a radio station. My right to freedom of expression is being trampled. A radio station for every Canadian I say, or death for all!

Yeah, I don't think the CRTC is obliged in any way to suffer racist broadcasting. Operating a radio station is a privilege, not a right. It would be different if the government went round shutting down stations because they were critical of the government. But that is not the case here.



Rasmus, as a Liberal, I am pleased to see that you have faith in the CRTC to use its powers as they were intended, and not to accomplish any ulterior motives.

The CRTC decision quoted above essentially makes the case that CHOI was engaging in violations of the hate literature sections of the criminal code. Isn't it more efficient to have a regulatory body like the CRTC hand down these decisions than to go through a long criminal process, and then, only once the station has been found guilty of criminal violations of the right to free expression, then revoke their licence.

Your observation that a broadcasting licence is a privilege not a right, comparable to a driver's licence, is quite accurate. That privilege can be revoked for engaging in hate that doesn't meet the criminal standard.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 16 July 2004 08:28 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here are three excerpts from the CRTC's decision which lay out the major offences committed by CHOI.


http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2004/db2004-271.pdf

Complaint from Mr. François-Pierre Gauvin, 8 May 2003

49. Commenting on a news story about the mistreatment of a patient in a psychiatric
hospital, host Fillion stated the following on CHOI-FM on 8 May 2003: “[translation]
Why don’t they just pull the plug on him? He doesn’t deserve to live. The guy’s a
freaking burden on society.” A few minutes later, a worker from the treatment centre
called the host and said that the wing in which the serious cases, like the one being
discussed, was referred to by staff as “the zoo.” After that call, Mr. Filion added,
“[translation] What I think they should do in the zoo is fill up the rooms, and then there’d
be a switch, and once every four months, they press the button and just a little bit of gas
comes out, and then you go in and pick it all up and put it in bags.”

50. Asked about the complaint at the hearing, the licensee reiterated its written response and refused to admit that there was a problem with the remarks, arguing that they had to betaken in the context of a discussion that lasted 25 minutes and was a debate on social
issues. The licensee stated that it did not agree that the remarks violated the Regulations
and that they did not in any way expose disabled persons to hatred or contempt. The
licensee added that the remarks were made in jest and that a situation was being
caricatured in order to raise awareness.

51. At the end of the question period, when the panel took up the matter again, the licenseeconceded to the Chairperson of the Commission that the remarks were totally
unacceptable and in violation of the Regulations, but added that it had tried to frame
them in a context and circumstances that made them “not quite as bad.”

52. Having listened to the excerpt commenting on the news, which lasted approximately half an hour (7:00 to 7:35 a.m.) on 8 May 2003, the Commission notes that the remarks were made in the course of a debate on a controversial public issue, namely euthanasia and human dignity. The hosts were specifically discussing the boundaries of human dignity, euthanasia and the qualifications needed to work in a home for people with mental disabilities. The Commission considers that such issues need to be addressed in a way that allows different points of view to be presented to society.

53. However, while the debate may have focused on important public issues, the
Commission considers that the host’s remarks were abusive, degrading, disrespectful and
contemptuous of persons with mental disabilities. The Commission considers that, taken
in context, the remarks tended to or were likely to expose persons with mental
disabilities to hatred or contempt. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a context in which such
remarks could be justified.


Complaint from Ms. Sophie Chiasson, 28 May 2003
61. The complainant is a television host on the TVA television network and the two specialty services, MétéoMédia and Canal Vie. In her complaint, she alleged that numerous personal attacks were made against her during the licensee’s morning show on 10 September 2002 and 8 October 2002. After listening to the recordings containing the
remarks made by on-air personalities on 10 and 274 September and 8 October and
reading the stenographic notes, the Commission identified several remarks about the
complainant related to her physical attributes, and sexual attributes in particular. There
are multiple references to the size of her breasts; [translation] “her incredible set of
boobs” and suggested that “the size of the brain is not directly proportional to the size of
the bra” and that, “in her case, it might actually be inversely proportional.” The
participants even wondered about the texture of the complainant’s breasts and whether
anyone has asked the gropers about them, and whether they “[translation] defied
gravity.” The host said, “[translation] it’s all in the breasts” and that that pair of breasts
“did the job on Alexandre Daigle,” which is why the host said Daigle chose the
complainant over Sheryl Crow.

4 The logger tapes also included remarks made during the morning show on 27 September 2002.

62. The participants also referred to the complainant as “[translation] a consummate liar,”
“a cat in heat” and “a leech on Alexandre Daigle” and “an airhead; it’s all well and good
to have big boobs, a tiny waist and a tight ass, but it doesn’t mean a thing,” “there are
some seriously sick people at MétéoMédia;” “the girls that are attractive and look good,
are always idiots” and “an idiot could do the weather.” They also said that the
complainant “[translation] had been around” and that “ it happens behind the scenes” and
made a number of remarks which suggested that she used personal relationships and
even sex to land contracts as a television host.

63. In response, the licensee alleged that the remarks were an aside in a program on
“showbiz” that it always treated as comedy, and that since everything was done in a
humorous way that used imagery, the remarks were not personal attacks. According to
the licensee, critiquing the body and presentation of a weather channel host is permitted
in the context of a public debate because that is the way the person earns a living, before
the public.

64. The Commission is of the view that CHOI-FM deliberately ridiculed and insulted the
complainant by broadcasting numerous abusive remarks about her physical and sexual
attributes and claiming that they are the only reason she is popular and that she otherwise
has no talent or intelligence. The remarks were broadcast for several minutes on more
than one occasion. They were clearly intended to denigrate and demean the complainant
in the eyes of the public.

65. The Commission considers that the remarks made about Ms. Chiasson were abusive and tended to expose her, and women in general, to contempt on the basis of sex, in
contravention of section 3(b) of the Regulations. Further, the remarks do not meet the
objectives of the broadcasting policy for Canada set out in the Act. The remarks did not
meet the objective of high standard of programming required by section 3(1)(g) of the
Act
.
66. The Commission considers that such remarks do not safeguard, enrich or strengthen the social fabric of Canada, nor do they reflect the status and aspirations of women,
particularly in terms of equal rights, as required by section 3(1)(d)(iii) of the Act. The
Commission reiterates that equality between men and women is one of the values
referred to in section 15 of the Charter and is of the view that programming which
substantially undermines that value runs counter to the objectives of the broadcasting
policy for Canada and is not worthy of broadcast on the public airwaves.


Complaints from Ms. Joncas/Ms. Brazeau dated 14 April 2003 and from Mr. Ricky Arsenault
dated 3 October 2003

84. The Commission also examined two other complaints that raised issues it considers arein contravention of CHOI-FM’s Code of Ethics. These complaints were filed by
Ms. Joncas/Ms. Brazeau and Mr. Ricky Arsenault.

85. Ms. Joncas and Ms. Brazeau appeared, with their faces hidden, in a televised report about an erotic golf tournament where they mentioned that CHOI-FM had sponsored the event. In their complaint, Ms. Joncas and Ms. Brazeau alleged, among other things, that the host, Mr. Fillion, had violated their privacy by asking CHOI-FM listeners on air for
personal information about them so that he could track them down, and by subsequently
announcing their names and e-mail addresses on air.

86. In response, the licensee alleged that having the host look for comments from witnesses and trying to communicate with the complainants are well-known journalistic practices. The licensee argued that the complainants’ right to privacy was respected and that the circumstances never justified hiding their face and identity from the public.

87. The Commission considers that this use of the public airwaves was abusive and
malicious and that the behaviour of host Fillion was in contravention of both section 3 of
the Code of Ethics on respecting the right to privacy and section 6 of the same code on
using the airwaves for personal ends.

88. The complaint from Mr. Ricky Arsenault related to a contest held on CHOI-FM asking listeners to denounce, on air, neighbours who did a poor job of maintaining their property and who were “disgusting.” The licensee then went to the residence of a family named by listeners and carried out a live remote broadcast without ever revealing to the
occupants the true nature of the contest and the fact that both the hosts and persons
calling the station were ridiculing their way of life on CHOI-FM.

89. At the hearing, the licensee mentioned that, when it realized that the contest was
becoming a denunciation, and that this could lead to abuses, it stopped the contest. The
licensee maintained, however, that the way that this family was treated did not constitute
an invasion of privacy, given that the employees were wearing vests that identified the
station prominently and that the employees had arrived in a large truck that also
identified the station.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
rosweed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4296

posted 21 July 2004 06:24 PM      Profile for rosweed   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Don't you people have anything better to do? Let the market decide. If the public stops listening, the hosts will lose their jobs. If they're successful, they're filling a need and they're generating paychecks.
From: Brooklyn NY | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 21 July 2004 06:54 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That would be a relevant argument for a newspaper, but bandwidth is public property. There is a physical limit to the number of radio stations that can function in a given area, so licencees have to demonstrate that their programming conforms to public policy.

No-one is saying that Jeff Filion isn't entitled to his opinions. They're saying that he isn't entitled to use public property to express them.


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 21 July 2004 06:55 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Let the market decide? Yeah, right. How's Limbaugh's hate-radio working for you, down there? Are you rounding up Muslims, yet?
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 21 July 2004 07:57 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oliver Cromwell:
That would be a relevant argument for a newspaper, but bandwidth is public property. There is a physical limit to the number of radio stations ...

No-one is saying that Jeff Filion isn't entitled to his opinions. They're saying that he isn't entitled to use public property to express them.


Of the three instances cited above, which did you think was the most egregious violation? I thought it was the comments about Sophie Chiasson in sections 61 to 66.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 28 July 2004 02:39 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In the last few days, both Quebec Premier Jean Charest and Federal NDP Leader Jack Layton have both said that the CRTC has gone too far:

http://montreal.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=qc_charest20040727

Does this mean that, in the case of Layton, he is trying to close the NDP's gender gap by appealing to youngish males who are, or like to think they are "jocks"?


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
t_link
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6427

posted 28 July 2004 02:42 PM      Profile for t_link     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Let the market decide? Yeah, right. How's Limbaugh's hate-radio working for you, down there? Are you rounding up Muslims, yet?

So people should not be free to listen to what they want?

From: That Place | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 28 July 2004 03:29 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
That would be a relevant argument for a newspaper, but bandwidth is public property.

Then shouldn't this same public be the ones to decide whether this DJ crossed a social line? And isn't that another way of simply letting the market decide?

Or is the CRTC stepping in to tell Canadians what they should want to listen to?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 28 July 2004 03:50 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But it's not a market - the CRTC had given CHOI a legal monopoly to broadcast without interference at a certain frequency. In return, CHOI was supposed to accept certain conditions - conditions based on legislation passed by Parliament.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
dgrollins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5268

posted 28 July 2004 04:10 PM      Profile for dgrollins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Even though I have many views that would be considered 'left-wing' I could never support the NDP. This thread perfectly illustrates why.

IMO, there are far too many people in the Party that advocate the prevailing position of this thread; that we, as Canadians, are children unable to decide for ourselves if something is offensive. I'm not suggesting that out-right hate speech should not be punished, but the criminal system is in place to deal with that. I'm glad to see that Layton is taking the position that he is, but I doubt it represents the grassroots of the Party and I suspect that the stance is as much political as it is principled (after all the CRTC is an high-profile government agency. Opposing it is akin to opposing the Liberals).

About 50,000 people took to the street in support of the station; less than 100 complained to the CRTC. Why should the sensibilities of those 100 people be pandered too.

It's a simple argument, but it's a true one; turn the channel if you don't like it.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 28 July 2004 05:56 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oliver Cromwell:
But it's not a market - the CRTC had given CHOI a legal monopoly to broadcast without interference at a certain frequency. In return, CHOI was supposed to accept certain conditions - conditions based on legislation passed by Parliament.

So, IOWs, Layton and Charest are wrong. CHOI should be closed down tight. Right?

And BTW, who are the members of the CRTC board? Isn't anyone the slightest bit curious? What about the CRTC's employees? What degree of autonomy and security do they have in terms of the actions they take, and the recommendations they forward to the Board? Isn't anyone at all curious???


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 28 July 2004 05:57 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dgrollins:
I'm glad to see that Layton is taking the position that he is, but I doubt it represents the grassroots of the Party


Bingo! My point precisely!


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 28 July 2004 07:43 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I should say that I'm not a regular listener of CHOI (I only hear it when I vist my in-laws), so I have no strong opinion one way or the other. What I'm saying is that the standard free speech argument isn't relevant here. Jeff Fillion and his colleagues are not being sent to prison. What they are suffering is the loss of a federally-mandated monopoly over a certain area of the spectrum in the Quebec City area.

[ 28 July 2004: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
simonvallee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5141

posted 28 July 2004 09:30 PM      Profile for simonvallee   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's a simple argument, but it's a true one; turn the channel if you don't like it.

Tell that to the Tutsi in Rwanda that if they didn't like the open racism of Radio Mille-Collines, they could simply change the channel. Extreme analogy, still a good one. You can choose to "change the channel" but you can't really ignore the 20 000 parrots that repeat the vicious rumours of Québec city's gossip-in-chief.

Having a radio to express opinions is not a right, it is a privilege, and it comes with responsibilities. The CRTC asked CHOI many times to answer to those responsibilities and to rein in their talk-show hosts, that's why the license had before been renewed for two years rather than seven. They said to CHOI "We warn you not to let people say unacceptable things on your airwave". They didn't listen, so they had it coming. Sad to say, but it's true.


From: Boucherville, Québec | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 28 July 2004 09:46 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Now if only we could take down Ottawa's CFRA...bleah.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 29 July 2004 10:27 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
You can choose to "change the channel" but you can't really ignore the 20 000 parrots that repeat the vicious rumours of Québec city's gossip-in-chief.

In other words, "I know I can switch it off if I don't want to hear it, but I need you to switch it off on their radio because I don't want them to hear it either!"


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 29 July 2004 11:10 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Don't forget that having that racist, sexist shit blaring in workplaces constitutes extreme harassment of visible minorities and women. There is a very nasty climate right now for "non-whites" and especially people who are or are presumed to be of Haitian descent in Québec city, since the involvement of a Haitian gang in the recent teenaged prostitution ring (of course the middle-aged clients were white, many were prominent businessmen and perhaps politicos...). I have a young friend of Haitian origin in Québec - he is a student at Laval university. It is a bit like the situation Michelle mentioned a while back, in Kingston. There aren't a lot of "visible minorities" in Québec, except foreign students and former foreign students who find jobs there.

[ 29 July 2004: Message edited by: lagatta ]


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 29 July 2004 11:30 AM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Don't you people have anything better to do?

Apprently not and it seems that babble is filling that need? Got a problem with what we do in our free time do ya?

quote:
If they're successful, they're filling a need and they're generating paychecks.

I didn't realize there was a need to be filled in sexist/racist/hate market. But it says volumes about your character that you think supply and demand for a hateful radio station should surpass the laws said radio station it agreed to obey when it signed on.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 29 July 2004 12:29 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:
I didn't realize there was a need to be filled in sexist/racist/hate market. But it says volumes about your character that you think supply and demand for a hateful radio station should surpass the laws said radio station it agreed to obey when it signed on.


Jack Layton, as well as Jean Charest, have said that cancelling their licence goes too far. I gather you don't agree.

Earlier I posted the items the CRTC found objectionable. While the comments on the female broadcaster might be considered sexist in tone, one wonders how they differ in substance from a feminist complaint that "lookism" makes it impossible for any woman to get a job in TV unless she meets certain male-defined beauty standards.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 29 July 2004 12:56 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Jack Layton, as well as Jean Charest, have said that cancelling their licence goes too far. I gather you don't agree.

At last check the NDP is not the Borg. I am capable of having my own opinion as is Jack. So what if I don't agree? Why are you so interested if we all are in lockstep with Jack on every issue that you need to comment on it everytime it occurs here?

quote:
one wonders how they differ in substance from a feminist complaint that "lookism" makes it impossible for any woman to get a job in TV unless she meets certain male-defined beauty standards.

Does it matter? It doesn't seem relevant to me in this thread she wasn't their only victim, they seem to hate everyone who isn't like them equally.

If you want to dicuss the feminist aspect to her career situation, try a new thread under "Feminism". Her situation is nothing new to us. According to the DJ's she was hot enought to have slept her way to the top. Others are not hot enough to get the job period. Often it doesn't relly matter how talented you are, there are plenty of roadblocks still for woman. Road blocks like the idiot DJ's. Being too pretty or not pretty enough. Too old, too young, etc. Big surprise here!


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 29 July 2004 02:18 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:

If you want to dicuss the feminist aspect to her career situation, try a new thread under "Feminism". Her situation is nothing new to us. According to the DJ's she was hot enought to have slept her way to the top. Others are not hot enough to get the job period. Often it doesn't relly matter how talented you are, there are plenty of roadblocks still for woman. Road blocks like the idiot DJ's. Being too pretty or not pretty enough. Too old, too young, etc. Big surprise here!


But are the "idiot DJ's" really a roadblock? They didn't hire and promote women on that basis. Instead they ridiculed a woman who had succeeded on that basis. If you put aside considerations of politeness, aren't they saying, in somewhat blunt language, what others have said?

As for Jack Layton, if you don't agree with him, fine. I disagree with Paul Martin all the time. Just not in public, the way Bill Blaikie does with Layton.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 29 July 2004 02:26 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
But are the "idiot DJ's" really a roadblock? They didn't hire and promote women on that basis. Instead they ridiculed a woman who had succeeded on that basis. If you put aside considerations of politeness, aren't they saying, in somewhat blunt language, what others have said?

How do you know how she succeded? An idiot DJ's engaging in slander on air about her professional abilites are road block. They spread the gossip that she's a tramp, who sucks, and not just at her job and you don't think that their behavior is a road block? You appear to be a bit of a road block yourself? Do you have proof she mattressed her way into her job? Or are you just repeating gossip?

And did they use "blunt language" to diss all the trust fund babbies on TV and in movies in Canada and the US? And which part of my post suggesting your start a thread on this in the appropriate forum didn't you think was worth listening to and why? Ben Mulroney? Or just her because she has a nice rack.

quote:
As for Jack Layton, if you don't agree with him, fine. I disagree with Paul Martin all the time. Just not in public, the way Bill Blaikie does with Layton.

I am glad you think it's fine for me to disagree with Jack. I don't work for him or as a representative of the party.

And read this next bit over a couple times, till it sinks in:

Bill Blaike disagreeing with Layton has nothing to do with this thread. It's baiting and trolling to bring it up now, in this thread.

[ 29 July 2004: Message edited by: Scout ]


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 29 July 2004 03:04 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Let's see, I'm a proponent of free speech to the point that i disagree with vague "anti-hate" laws.

On the other hand, I find these "shock jocks" and their audiences to be revolting fascists*

[*fascist, like the way nazis, klansmen, and the like trade on the prevalent prejudices of our society, in order to win easy applause, to distract themselves and others from their real problems by beating up on weaker scapegoats.],

... that and the fact that they're generally boring.

It seems to me that in this case, the CRTC, if it is reading its mandate and its authority correctly, has every right to shut this garbage radio station down. But they should behave this way to all broadcasters, in all circumstances, with no favour to any other group.

If the moronic listeners want to hear their precious CHOI again, let them mobilize to change the laws and then support their station again.

I won't get incensed about this particular issue though. "Joking" about gassing mental patients isn't a crucial necessity for me.

On a similar note though, it will be interesting to see how Howard Stern [who i also find boring] does in his battle with the bush jr. regime.


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 29 July 2004 03:36 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
If the moronic listeners want to hear their precious CHOI again, let them mobilize to change the laws and then support their station again.

This goes for anyone who doesn't like a law as it stands. No more need to occupy offices, or block roads, or "evict" ministers. Mobilize to change the laws or go home.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 29 July 2004 03:56 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You misunderstand me Mr. Magoo.

"Mobilizing" to change the law can encompass sit-ins, protests, etc.,

If the CRTC ruling is "just" (according to that body's mandate), then I have little enough regard for CHOI and its hate-peddling to say they should change their ruling. We, the people, need some control over the private monopolies we grant to broadcasters.

And, for more important causes, like homelessness, poverty, privatization of health care, clear-cutting, I fully support those who engage in direct-action and protests.

I just don't have time to bewail this particular CRTC ruling for this group of scumbags.


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 29 July 2004 05:52 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:

And read this next bit over a couple times, till it sinks in:

Bill Blaike disagreeing with Layton has nothing to do with this thread. It's baiting and trolling to bring it up now, in this thread.

[ 29 July 2004: Message edited by: Scout ]


It sounds like you're in a bit of a bad mood.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 29 July 2004 05:58 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Pool:

It sounds like you're in a bit of a bad mood.


I think it's trolling, too. Do you have some comment about my mood?


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 29 July 2004 05:59 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by thwap:
Let's see, I'm a proponent of free speech to the point that i disagree with vague "anti-hate" laws.


I actually DON'T have a problem with anti-hate laws that need to be proven in court.

But this is an administrative body taking away licences that are worth millions based on nothing more than a few offensive comments, where the offensiveness has been determined by the board itself based on ... what?

The example of the ridicule of the TV bimbo is, IMO, not a just cause for cancellation. She is well-paid TV type who can easily defend herself, and what's more, if she really believes the comments are libellous she can sue. {BTW, ... does anyone know if she did sue, ... what were the results?}

The comments on the psychiatric patient and dispatching vehicles to people's homes are more worrisome to me, since this amounts to a broadcaster picking on ordinary people, not a rival broadcaster. But should they loose their licence for this???


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 29 July 2004 06:01 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Slim:

I think it's trolling, too. Do you have some comment about my mood?


No.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 29 July 2004 06:20 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It sounds like you're in a bit of a bad mood.

No, if I was in a bad mood you wouldn't have to ask. Your comment isn't debate or discussion. It's more baiting, are you disgruntled because I didn't take the bait about Jack and Bill? Or just stirring the pot and trying to derail yet another thread?

quote:
ridicule of the TV bimbo

I think you should refrain from using the word bimbo or slandering her charcter without proof. Your not much better than the DJ's.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 29 July 2004 08:08 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:

I think you should refrain from using the word bimbo or slandering her charcter without proof. Your not much better than the DJ's.


Oh brother! Is today a particularly bad one in Toronto for heat/humidity or air pollution? You must be getting pretty edgy to put out stuff like this!!! But hey, thanks for the laugh, OKay?


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 29 July 2004 08:22 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bah. Erik, you disappoint. My cat could have posted a better burn.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
WiLdNfreE
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6572

posted 30 July 2004 12:22 PM      Profile for WiLdNfreE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hello everyone.....
I'am a newbie on this site and since the talk of the town is mainly CHOI FM / CRTC debate, i've been reading quite a lot of stuff on that issue.
I am a regular listener to that radio station and i am wondering about how many of you guys are.
I thing they're a lot of things most people don't know about what's on the air on CHOI and maybe I can help in setting the record straight, well, as straight as possible if you're interested.
So let me know and maybe our forum might evolve in a well informed maner instead of lots of her say.
It's up to you
Regards and keep it all wild and free

From: Trois-Rivieres Qc | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 30 July 2004 12:57 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I won't get incensed about this particular issue though. "Joking" about gassing mental patients isn't a crucial necessity for me.

Well a cookie and a Coke to you. What about all of the people who have needed inpatient psychiatric help? What about their families. Think maybe this might offend them?


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 30 July 2004 01:00 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm not ceding the public space to people with the wit and mentality (...and wise compassion) of a sneering, 14-year old boy. Grow up, or get lost.

I support the CRTC's decision. F**k free speech!


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 30 July 2004 01:26 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Erik Pool, you're on thin ice. Quit baiting, or you're gone.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 July 2004 01:31 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by paxamillion:

Well a cookie and a Coke to you. What about all of the people who have needed inpatient psychiatric help? What about their families. Think maybe this might offend them?


I thought the person who posted this meant that he's not going to get upset over the closing of the radio station since he doesn't need to listen to them make fun of mentally ill people. But maybe I read it wrong.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 30 July 2004 01:38 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I though the same thing Michelle, maybe we both read it wrong.
From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
WiLdNfreE
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6572

posted 30 July 2004 02:08 PM      Profile for WiLdNfreE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
OH !
And what is those comments about mental patients came after a long talk on our those patients are neglected and abused those days up here in Quebec.
Just like, oh well, if we don,t as society care for them, gas them !!!
Sarcasm, sarcasm....
WnF

From: Trois-Rivieres Qc | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 31 July 2004 06:54 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by audra trower williams:
Erik Pool, you're on thin ice. Quit baiting, or you're gone.

Perhaps you would care to explain.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 31 July 2004 06:56 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ha!...oh, Erik. You're always good for laugh! *wiping tears from my eyes smiley*.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 31 July 2004 07:13 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Audra's on vacation, so I'll explain.

Telling a woman that who disagrees with you that it sounds like she's in a bad mood is baiting because you're attacking her instead of her argument. Telling a woman who objects to your characterization of another woman as a bimbo this:

quote:
Oh brother! Is today a particularly bad one in Toronto for heat/humidity or air pollution? You must be getting pretty edgy to put out stuff like this!!! But hey, thanks for the laugh, OKay?

is baiting.

That, combined with your comments in other threads where you were labelling women as Dworkin-McKinnon types as a way of stifling their contributions to a feminist discussion, is trolling and baiting.

And if you do it again, you're outta here.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 31 July 2004 08:24 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't listen to CHOI and I don't make a habit of tuning into shock radio in general. As far as I'm concerned the things that DJ said are inexcusable. However, should the guy really be banned? Chomsky has made the argument on various occasions that we should stop concentrating on media censorship and start concentrating on combating hate speech in our schools. Making sure that our sons and daughters are educated enough to recognize racist rhetoric when they hear it or see it, and telling them why it is wrong. The bigoted comments made by that disc jockey are a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.

[ 31 July 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 31 July 2004 08:52 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Making sure that our sons and daughters are educated enough to recognize racist rhetoric when they hear it or see it, and telling them to why it is wrong. Education is the key stopping the spread of hate, not CRTC regulations.

Absolutely correct. But who undertakes the education of children? It's adults. And where do these adults get the information that shapes their world view? From the media, especially in the modern world. We can't leave media up to corporations with vested interests in delivering one particular message (capitalism=good, for example) or delivering no message at all...like CHOI, which I really think, as with most commercial radio, was just an advertisement delivery mechanism.

The point has been made that broadcast spectra are public spaces or commons that are leased to organisations under the condition that they abide by the rules set by the public. The CRTC is the only body in Canada that has any legitimacy with the public (it's part of our government). CHOI clearly violated its agreement and the CRTC shut it down. If the people are motivated to insist that other decisions be made, then the issue is more about committed citizenship and democracy than the powers of the CRTC or any American "1st Amendment rights" issues.

[ 31 July 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 31 July 2004 09:43 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Absolutely correct. But who undertakes the education of children? It's adults. And where do these adults get the information that shapes their world view?

From their parents, certainly not from CHOI FM.

The people who listened to CHOI were probably bigots before they listened to that cerebrally constrained Asshat of a radio host, and they will continue to be bigots long after the show has faded from Quebec's collective consciousness. They will probably continue to school there children in the ways of hate no matter who is on the radio.

[ 31 July 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 31 July 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 31 July 2004 09:56 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
They will probably continue to school there children in the ways of hate no matter who is on the radio.

Yes, but we can't control that. Licensing the airvwaves through the CRTC? We can control that, in that we give the CRTC tacit consent. If we don't like its decisions, we can't sit around and expect it to change, all by itself.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 31 July 2004 10:08 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:

Yes, but we can't control that. Licensing the airvwaves through the CRTC? We can control that, in that we give the CRTC tacit consent. If we don't like its decisions, we can't sit around and expect it to change, all by itself.


Perhaps I'm missing something. Was this supposed to be a about race hatred in Québec city or a technical discussion about the inner workings of the CRTC? I think we might be talking at cross purposes.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 31 July 2004 10:12 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Do you believe that Banning choi is a steppingstone to ending racism in Québec's capital?
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 31 July 2004 10:16 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I missed the point about how racism in Quebec City is worse than anywhere else (say for example, London, Ontario)
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 01 August 2004 04:14 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Audra's on vacation, so I'll explain.

Telling a woman that who disagrees with you that it sounds like she's in a bad mood is baiting because you're attacking her instead of her argument. Telling a woman who objects to your characterization of another woman as a bimbo this:

is baiting.

That, combined with your comments in other threads where you were labelling women as Dworkin-McKinnon types as a way of stifling their contributions to a feminist discussion, is trolling and baiting.

And if you do it again, you're outta here.



This is beyond belief. I don't know if you're speaking as a substitute moderator or what.

I didn't know that poster was a woman, would it have mattered if they were not? I said they were in a bad mood because their words had an angry tone. Is that wrong?

I have used the term MacKinnon-Dworkin to describe a certain set of opinions, and I have addressed those comments mostly to posters who were men. How is that stifling someone's contribution?

Is this a banned term around here? Is there so much embarassment over the preposterous excesses of MacKinnon-Dworkin that it's now an outright epithet to suggest that someone subscribes to their utterly insincere and totally lunatic rhubbish? If so, all I can say is "That's damn good news. When did the light bulb come on?"


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 August 2004 04:55 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, I am speaking as the substitute moderator. And I'm sorry you think my post was "beyond belief", but the fact is, Scout objected to you characterizing a woman as a "bimbo", and then in response you decided to needle her further.

So my advice to you is: cut it out.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 01 August 2004 07:52 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Yes, I am speaking as the substitute moderator. And I'm sorry you think my post was "beyond belief", but the fact is, Scout objected to you characterizing a woman as a "bimbo", and then in response you decided to needle her further.

So my advice to you is: cut it out.



I most certainly did not needle her at all. I have just re-read the whole series of posts between myself and Scout.

I think it's fair to say that at every step she became more hostile in her remarks and that I tried to remain calm and stick to the issues.

She claimed I was baiting her becuase I mentionsed, in a tangential way, what I thought was a humourous aside, the differences between Blaikie and Layton during the election. Are you telling me that is unacceptable manners on this bulletin board?

To say that it's wrong to suggest she was angry, when that was very plainly the tone of her posts, is really very biased officiating indeed. Have you read the entire series of postings yourself?


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 01 August 2004 07:52 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Claire Hoy has recently written about the CHOI thing.

He's appalled.

Me, I feel like the opposite of that guy in Nazi Germany with: "First they came for the Communists, etc., etc.,"

I can't get excited about this CHOI thing. And if i did come to the aid of the fascists and stooges who listen to this crap, i doubt they'd come to my assistance on anything.

They can fight this one on their own.


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 03 August 2004 11:45 AM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by thwap:
Me, I feel like the opposite of that guy in Nazi Germany with: "First they came for the Communists, etc., etc.,"

I can't get excited about this CHOI thing. And if i did come to the aid of the fascists and stooges who listen to this crap, i doubt they'd come to my assistance on anything.

They can fight this one on their own.



I had thought the standard approach was that an attack on one is an attack on all, that freedom for one's own viewpoint requires freedom for all viewpoints. One has to stand up for the rights of others to express opinions one finds abhorent for the simple reason that freedom to express only acceptable opinions is no freedom at all.

You think these people at CHOI are fascists, and you won't come to their aid because of that. Maybe they won't come to your aid because they think you're a communist? If so, are they within their rights in sitting by an chuckling when government agencies interfere with your rights?


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 03 August 2004 01:12 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
You think these people at CHOI are fascists, and you won't come to their aid because of that. Maybe they won't come to your aid because they think you're a communist?

I believe thwap said that in his post.

[ 03 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca