August1991 Posted July 23, 2004 Report Share Posted July 23, 2004 What is this? CRTC Rulings The CHOI-Fm ruling is censorship. The RAI decision is dumb. The CRTC and the Supreme Court are now direct subsidiaries of the Liberal Party and its Plan for Canada. When other countries are auctioning off bandwidth and opening up to new ideas, we are regressing to a top-down ideology imposed on the masses, supposedly for their betterment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakunin Posted July 23, 2004 Report Share Posted July 23, 2004 CHoi-Fm have been told since 2002 to stop insulting peoples constantly. they didnt stop so... they pay the price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I miss Reagan Posted July 23, 2004 Report Share Posted July 23, 2004 It's always been the case that those who claim to be the most open minded are actually the most close minded to others ideas. It isn't coincidence that peace protests often turn violent against those who oppose "their right to free speech". It's these same "open minded" people who cry censorship when ordinary citizens and business decide not to patronize them. Canada is a selectively tolerant country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted July 24, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2004 CHoi-Fm have been told since 2002 to stop insulting peoples constantly.One person's insult is another's opinion. The test is whether some other radio station with a different editorial policy would make as good use of the spot on the radio dial. Like it or not, many people listen to Andre Arthur. And like it or not, CHOI was financially successful. Countries that employ censorship become boring and lethargic. Society is moribund. The free expression of ideas however insulting or ludicrous is a major achievement of liberal society. Quebecers should know better having so recently dispensed with Catholic bureaucracy. Surely, we no longer have need for the main de Dieu to guide us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted July 24, 2004 Report Share Posted July 24, 2004 How about if we let the radio station stay, no one needs to listen to it if they do wish to, and secondly, how about removing the restrictions on Al-Jazeera? After all, what's good for the goose, is good for the gander, or so they say! Funny expression - do you think they were talking about sex? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakunin Posted July 24, 2004 Report Share Posted July 24, 2004 i agree that closing the station is not a good approach, but i don't sympathize with an animator who make personal attack on people with repetition. Liberty of expression is precious but when it become a weapon to hurt others personal life, its breaking the victims liberty, wich is more important in my opinion. When i say insult, i mean stuff like talking about the physic of someone to explain that he isn't intelligent. We can say the people have the right to listen to it if they want but thats not the point, that people listen to him or not, he is using his liberty of expression to attack others liberty and its just not acceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakunin Posted July 24, 2004 Report Share Posted July 24, 2004 here are a sample from the crtc report: 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playfullfellow Posted July 24, 2004 Report Share Posted July 24, 2004 We should just do away with the CRTC, it is an antiquated system that just sucks up more money. We have plenty of anti-hate legislation that if some one is truly offended or disturbed by airways comments, then there are plenty of legal routes to follow. Just out of interest, what does the CRTC cost us every year to run? I am sure the money could be better spent somewhere else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 24, 2004 Report Share Posted July 24, 2004 How about if we let the radio station stay, no one needs to listen to it if they do wish to, and secondly, how about removing the restrictions on Al-Jazeera?After all, what's good for the goose, is good for the gander, or so they say! I don't believe the Quebec radio station - apparently the most popular in the city, btw, was accused of repeatedly inciting hatred and violence, as Al Jazeera is. I have seen enough reports and studies of Al Jazeera to conclude it is a mouthpiece for the most violent and inflammatory elements of Islamic society, a propaganda organ for anti-semites and everyone in the Arab world who hates and despises Israel, the West and the Americans. It is not a "news" station, but a hate station. Now if you people on the left want to eliminate the laws against hate speech, then fine, but as long as they're in place you can't have hatemongers like Al Jazeera spewing venom all over the airwaves. That's not quite the same thing as talking rudely about the physical assets of some actress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted July 24, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2004 I have seen enough reports and studies of Al Jazeera to conclude it is a mouthpiece for the most violent and inflammatory elements of Islamic society...And you have the authority to decide Argus. Why not allow others to have the same authority? In fact, why not allow each of us to decide?Children must be raised. But adults in a sophisticated society do not need the hand of the Liberal Party, like some latter day Church, guiding us along the path to true civilization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted July 24, 2004 Report Share Posted July 24, 2004 I think Argus is much more likely to be a supporter of Harper's Conservatives. August1991......it is difficult to be a democrat. It takes a lot of work and some personal pain to grow into that way of thinking. You have intrigued me with your comments about Rene being a democrat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 24, 2004 Report Share Posted July 24, 2004 I have seen enough reports and studies of Al Jazeera to conclude it is a mouthpiece for the most violent and inflammatory elements of Islamic society...And you have the authority to decide Argus. Why not allow others to have the same authority? In fact, why not allow each of us to decide? The point I'm making is that those who are calling for Al Jazeera to have unrestricted access to Canada are, for the most part, the same ones howling for censorship of any and all speech which might tend to offend anyone of any minority ethnic, religious or sexual persuasion. The hate speech laws are theirs, and they support them entirely - except in this case, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.