The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

It's not a problem because pretty much everyone who's sane agrees that it's not a problem, even black Québécois (at least, all the ones I know, including my Haitian relatives-through-marriage, and many tenants; as well as the completely independent ones that Acajack knows, it seems).

You don't get to tell us how things are in our homeland

At the very least, even if things are not perfect, it is not even close to a situation that justifies going for blood.

[ssiguy]

The word Queer is exceptionally divisive. I don't know any gay guy that uses it. I don't and my family refuse to because it gives the impression of being odd and abnormal.

As for this A......LGBT.....Z —,it's getting ridiculous to the point of being childish. Outside the LGBT I don't know what all the other letters they add on even mean. It's a stupid notion.........can you imagine referring to ethnic and/or racial minorities and then listing every single one of them by their first letter? Absurd!

How about we simply use the non-divisive term of — & gender minorities just like racial and ethnic minorities. That is the term I use most frequently except when referring to gay men.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by lio45

For the record, same here, though to be honest, I have no qualms with expressions whenever appropriate. The big difference is that no one is on the receiving end of those.

Not long ago, I do recall thinking (entering a pitch black storage area of our leased Vancouver factory and not remembering where the light switch was) that "damn, it's as black as inside [A COW] in here"

Speaking of such, I wonder if that kind of expression will survive in the longer term. (I'm not sure how I feel about more taboos and a more sanitized language being a good thing all things considered, but on the other hand, it's not a big issue either way.)

FIFY

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

FIFY

"Il fait noir comme dans le cul d'un ours."

[p_xavier]

If people are offended and need to replace those words with letter-word to not be triggered, please invest in mental health coaching. I do not tolerate censorship of anykind and that's what differs the francos to the anglos. It's not rare te see — on a newspaper in QC.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by p_xavier

If people are offended and need to replace those words with letter-word to not be triggered, please invest in mental health coaching. I do not tolerate censorship of anykind and that's what differs the francos to the anglos. It's not rare te see — on a newspaper in QC.

About a year ago I was having breakfast and had the Radio-Canada national news on, and the first sentence that came on the broadcast was: "Le gouvernement entend resserrer les règles de vente pour les boissons Fucked Up".

In fairness, though, the f-word in francophone Quebec is arguably outside its home cultural context. Or at least its weight is greatly diminished here.

It's kinda like saying "hostie de calice" on a radio station in, say, Boston.

Though your point is still backed up by the fact that one might still hear "hostie de calice" or even "va te faire foutre" (— you in official French) on a radio or TV program here as well.

[savevp]

Its interesting, in English I believe we've come as far as '—' being uncensored if used with restraint. Just in the past few weeks I've heard it on Power and Politics and seen it printed in both the Globe and Post.

I spent half a year living in the States - Indiana and Tennessee - a couple years back. Talk about censorship. They used to censor the word 'Jesus' out of Drake songs.

I find it most interesting that as a society, we're replacing our previous profanity which mostly referenced —, with new swears that are just as much forbidden as the old ones. We like to think we're moving beyond this repressive, Victorian censorship. But really we've just changed what we censor.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by savevp

Its interesting, in English I believe we've come as far as '—' being uncensored if used with restraint. Just in the past few weeks I've heard it on Power and Politics and seen it printed in both the Globe and Post.

I spent half a year living in the States - Indiana and Tennessee - a couple years back. Talk about censorship. They used to censor the word 'Jesus' out of Drake songs.

I find it most interesting that as a society, we're replacing our previous profanity which mostly referenced —, with new swears that are just as much forbidden as the old ones. We like to think we're moving beyond this repressive, Victorian censorship. But really we've just changed what we censor.

Exactly. My kids have probably heard the n-word 67,356,368,784 more times than I ever did in my youth, due to lyrics of hiphop songs that are downloaded or shared. Obviously this stuff does not play on over-the-air radio but that's not where most kids access their music these days. And that's just one example of vulgarity in popular music young people listen. "— my ho", "lick my —, lick my crack", "— my —". It makes She Bop by Cyndi Lauper seem almost innocent.

When I was a kid stuff like "the little — with the earring and the makeup" in Dire Straits' Money for Nothing was censored on the radio, as was "makin' love in the green grass" in Van Morrison's Brown-Eyed Girl. Even "—" in Charlie Daniels' Devil Went Down to Georgia was "son of a —" on the radio, and on the 45 RPM record IIRC.

[Acajack]

One of Montreal's up and coming young restaurateurs getting crapped on (by some) for proposing a Korean-inspired fusion menu. He's been accused of cultural appropriation and racism.

Sorry, can't find anything in English.

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/premiere/emi...nt-mousso-controverse-menu-coree-racisme

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by p_xavier

If people are offended and need to replace those words with letter-word to not be triggered, please invest in mental health coaching. I do not tolerate censorship of anykind and that's what differs the francos to the anglos. It's not rare te see — on a newspaper in QC.

Do you tolerate the censorship of phrases such as "I'll kill you if you don't give me your wallet"?

[savevp]

Although that is a literal interpretation of p_xavier's comment, I can't imagine that's what was meant. Censorship of perceived offensive terms (or politically divisive language) is rather different than directly threatening violence. Obviously anyone sensible will approve of that kind of 'censorship.'

[Acajack]

I was gonna say. Making a death threat is illegal. Calling someone a racial slur is something that is more of a grey area legally. Unless people want to argue that being called a name one doesn't like (even the ugliest of ones) is illegal in the sense of being a hate crime.

I've actually heard people say that calling a trans female "sir" should be hate crime.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by savevp

Although that is a literal interpretation of p_xavier's comment, I can't imagine that's what was meant. Censorship of perceived offensive terms (or politically divisive language) is rather different than directly threatening violence. Obviously anyone sensible will approve of that kind of 'censorship.'

Right. And of course uttering a racial slur, in its own, is not a criminal offence in Canada. Indeed there is very little state suppression of such words at all in Canada (you can freely publish them in your film, book, blog etc). The state does place limits on advertising and, in some cases, on broadcast television, and maybe that is what savep is objecting to? But to me, that feels like a very minor (and mostly justified) intrusion on our freedom of expression.

Most sensible people also accept that there will be consequences to our decision to use certain language in certain circumstances: the workplace, places of worship, even at home with our families.

Anyway, I suppose saying "I oppose all forms of censorship" sounds edgy in the current zeitgeist, but it rings pretty hollow to me.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Right. And of course uttering a racial slur, in its own, is not a criminal offence in Canada. Indeed there is very little state suppression of such words at all in Canada (you can freely publish them in your film, book, blog etc). The state does place limits on advertising and, in some cases, on broadcast television, and maybe that is what savep is objecting to? But to me, that feels like a very minor (and mostly justified) intrusion on our freedom of expression.

Most sensible people also accept that there will be consequences to our decision to use certain language in certain circumstances: the workplace, places of worship, even at home with our families.

Anyway, I suppose saying "I oppose all forms of censorship" sounds edgy in the current zeitgeist, but it rings pretty hollow to me.

Note that we would not be discussing this if you had not casually equated racial slurs to the utterance of death threats in the course of committing a crime.

[SkeggsEggs]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Note that we would not be discussing this if you had not casually equated racial slurs to the utterance of death threats in the course of committing a crime.

So "I do not tolerate censorship of anykind..." is not meant to be taken literally but "Do you tolerate the censorship of phrases such as "I'll kill you if you don't give me your wallet"?" is considered equating racial slurs to death threats? Isn't that a bit of stretch?

He was merely pointing out how the free-speech absolutist position is untenable. Everyone is for the restriction of some type of speech.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by SkeggsEggs

So "I do not tolerate censorship of anykind..." is not meant to be taken literally but "Do you tolerate the censorship of phrases such as "I'll kill you if you don't give me your wallet"?" is considered equating racial slurs to death threats? Isn't that a bit of stretch?

He was merely pointing out how the free-speech absolutist position is untenable. Everyone is for the restriction of some type of speech.

Point taken, though I don't think p xavier had in mind stuff that is already illegal under the Criminal Code.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Do you tolerate the censorship of phrases such as "I'll kill you if you don't give me your wallet"?

Interestingly, since you said that, no one has yet demanded you immediately edit that out, or get banned from this forum for having said it. Or even anything close to that...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Interestingly, since you said that, no one has yet demanded you immediately edit that out, or get banned from this forum for having said it. Or even anything close to that...

Are you insinuating that it is less serious, less offensive and maybe even less threatening than certain other words?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Are you insinuating that it is less serious, less offensive and maybe even less threatening than certain other words?

You tell me. I'll just submit the following two real life examples here:

1) Employee of mine called a Congolese tenant of ours a "— —".
2) Old totally drunk tenant told me he'd kill me. (In front of witnesses.)

(For the record, I strategically used #2 to generate a police report then on the basis of it ("my life is threatened"...) bypassed the Régie du Logement to immediately (and illegally) get rid of the guy. Worked great)

My bet is that we can't discuss these situations equally; I think there'll be greater censorship of #1 than of #2.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by lio45

You tell me. I'll just submit the following two real life examples here:

1) Employee of mine called a Congolese tenant of ours a "— —".
2) Old totally drunk tenant told me he'd kill me. (In front of witnesses.)

(For the record, I strategically used #2 to generate a police report then on the basis of it ("my life is threatened"...) bypassed the Régie du Logement to immediately (and illegally) get rid of the guy. Worked great)

My bet is that we can't discuss these situations equally; I think there'll be greater censorship of #1 than of #2.

Who (or what) do you think is going to censor your discussion of situation #1?