The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) is having a big ol' rethink about its banning the song "Money for Nothing" by Dire Straits, based on feedback it has received from the general public across Canada.
I never thought I'd ever see the day. I am over-the-moon delighted about this, absolutely no question about it.
What gives me pause is the fact that the CBSC required just one heterophobic, brain-dead, culturally ignorant, context-oblivious, attention-seeking, illiterate, freakin' MORON from Corner Brook - ONE SINGLE INDIVIDUAL who probably smoked way too much crack cocaine at Lady Margaret Bowater Park - to get this whole artistic and cultural nightmare going in the first place, yet it's going to take hundreds, if not thousands of outraged Canadians to answer a three-part essay question-like exam posted on the CBSC's website, to undo what this Neanderthal was able to do singlehandedly. (Here's the link to the webform)
Here is a link to the original complaint, OZ-FM's response, and the CBSC's decision.
About these questions... You pretty much have to have a sociology degree to capture the nuances of the questions. I can assure you that there are no subtle nuances to my answers.
QUESTION ONE -
Considering the use of the word “faggot” in the context of this song, what effect do the song’s theme and intended message play in determining the acceptability of such language over the air?
MY ANSWER -
It's all about freedom of speech, not about context. "Nice" speech is not what freedom of speech is about. It's about protecting ALL speech. I am a free-thinking Canadian, and if I don't like what I hear, I can change the radio station. I can be my own censor. I do not need Big Brother telling me what's 'nice' and what's 'not', or what I am ALLOWED to listen to in a supposedly free society!!!!
QUESTION TWO -
The song was recorded in 1985. What role, if any, does the age and origin of the work play in determining the acceptability of such language over the air?
MY ANSWER -
The age and origin are irrelevant. It's all about freedom of speech. "Nice" speech is not what freedom of speech is about. It's about protecting ALL speech. I am a free-thinking Canadian, and if I don't like what I hear, I can change the radio station. I can be my own censor. I do not need Big Brother telling me what's 'nice' and what's 'not', or what I am ALLOWED to listen to in a supposedly free society!!!!
QUESTION THREE -
Does the repetitive use of the word “faggot” play a part in determining the acceptability of such language over the air?
MY ANSWER -
Absolutely not. The artist supposedly has the right and freedom to choose what message (s)he wishes to convey. It's all about freedom of speech. "Nice" speech is not what freedom of speech is about. It's about protecting ALL speech. I am a free-thinking Canadian, and if I don't like what I hear, I can change the radio station. I can be my own censor. I do not need Big Brother telling me what's 'nice' and what's 'not', or what I am ALLOWED to listen to in a supposedly free society!!!!
I hope I pass their test. How ridiculous.
Here is a link to a blank complaint form, just for comparison's sake. It's a whole lot easier to get the ball rolling on something like this, than it is to undo it once its lunacy becomes evident.
I cannot believe that my tax dollars are spent supporting this socialist organization. It's outrageous.
No Canadian should EVER have to defend our freedom of speech. It's what our Newfoundland and Canadian soldiers died for in the two World Wars - our FREEDOM. Freedom does not mean the right to walk down the street. It means, among other things, being free to live, work, worship, socialize and communicate in whatever way we choose. I don't need some suit in Ottawa telling me what I can or cannot listen to on the radio or television, when I have a perfectly good on / off switch and can censor myself.
I don't want them telling me what I can or cannot read in books or magazines, either. Do you know that Canada is the only country in the world in which it is impossible to purchase the American version of Time magazine? We had to purchase the Canadian edition, no choice. Even as a subscriber, I could not do what someone in Tibet or Botswana or Moscow could do - purchase the American edition. I could either subscribe to the Canadian version, or not subscribe at all. Outrageous. And this is a supposedly free society? Poppycock.
And don't even get me started on what they're trying to do to the works of Mark Twain. I will truly have a stroke if I go down that road.
This cry-baby, bleeding-heart-liberal, cretin who laid the original complaint must love to wallow in his sense of victimization. He must love to feel helpless and hopeless, instead of feeling empowered to turn off the song if he doesn't like it.
This self-proclaimed member of the LGBT community should instead be thanking his lucky freakin' stars that he is free to express his LGBT-ness in a society that promotes the very freedom of speech he is trying to obliterate. It is that right to freedom of speech that has allowed for such gains for the LGBT community in the mainstream of society. Are there more gains to be made? Of course. But what this guy has done has set the whole of the LGBT cause back 20 years, and has victimized them yet again. I hope someone who knows him has told him to STFU and grow up.
Better still, he should go cry himself a river in countries like Mexico or Iraq or Saudi Arabia, and see how far it gets him. A bullet to the brain in less than 5 seconds, I would imagine. Yes, how hard-done-by he is here in Canada. Boo-effin-hoo.
I hope that if anyone actually reads this blog post, or has heard about this potential reversal by the CBSC, that you will take the time to go on their website and support our rights and freedoms, as ridiculous as it is to find that it's necessary to do so in this day and age. So much for the sophistication, enlightenment and empowerment of the 21st century. I feel like I'm watching remnants of Communist Russia at work, and they're using my tax dollars to do it.
Furthermore, if you look at the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council's history on their website, they claim to be "non-governmental". However, they further state that they had to submit guidelines to the Canadian Radio - Television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to develop the Council back in 1987. The CRTC is most definitely government-run. Their website is http://www.crtc.gc.ca/ - the 'gc' in the website address being an abbreviation of 'Government of Canada'. So, any BS that the CBSC is trying to sell, about being "non-governmental", is a load of crap and just goes to show the deceptive underhandedness of this organization, that my tax dollars DO support, despite their assertions to the contrary.