The N word and Radio-Canada
In August 2020, a discussion on Radio‑Canada led to several mentions in a short space of time of a certain Pierre Vallières book. A complaint was made, and this week CRTC has upheld the complaint, saying Radio‑Canada had not been careful enough not to offend by speaking the word on air. The service is asked to apologize and not do it again.
The radio segment had been about an incident in 2019 in which a Concordia professor had mentioned the book’s title, and became the subject of petitions and complaints. This is explained by Isabelle Hachey in La Presse, who goes on to say she thinks Radio‑Canada should challenge the ruling. La Presse also runs an open letter signed by a group of mostly Radio‑Canada alumni saying that the broadcaster should not present an apology. (After the incident at Concordia, the professor had offered a fervent apology.)
I am not sure what to make of this. Yes, the word is offensive, but nobody was using it as an expletive or a slur. They were mentioning the title of a book. But maybe getting tangled up in the use‑mention distinction is beside the point here.
I’m also concerned that this CRTC ruling is going to become another strand in the chronic cultural strife between Quebec and Canada. It feeds into the kind of heels‑dug‑in stubbornness that has made the CAQ pass their academic freedom law – a law that defends professors who use offensive language in the classroom.
Update: A point that’s been made – it was in the CRTC’s dissenting opinions – and that was underlined this morning in a tweet from Guillaume Lavoie, is this: “il n’existe pas de liberté d’expression si le critère est d’éviter que quiconque puisse être offensé.” There is no liberty of expression if the criterion is that nobody can be offended. But the inevitable corollary here is that some people want their freedom to offend to be explicitly protected.
When a white man finds himself arguing for his right to offend, he should probably stop and listen to what nonsense he’s saying.
EG 19:31 on 2022-07-01 Permalink
I wonder if there is a difference between this word in French and the word in English, and if that has anything to do with the usage in French on Radio-Canada (or elsewhere.)
I think that (correct me if I’m wrong) in English, there are two of these negative words beginning with N, one considered worse than the other, but in French they’re the same word. Maybe there are francophones who don’t consider the French n-word as being that offensive?
I don’t think I’ve ever seen the issue discussed in terms of a French/English language difference.
Kate 19:47 on 2022-07-01 Permalink
I think possibly the impact of the expression might have been different in the past – could even Dany Laferrière get away with a title like Comment faire l’amour avec un n** now? – but I think the general social sense of what’s offensive may have shifted to be more sensitive in both languages by now.
Blork 19:55 on 2022-07-01 Permalink
This would be somewhat less ridiculous if wasn’t for the fact that you hear the n-word six times a minute if you tune into a radio station playing hip-hop or rap. Sometimes I even hear it in the grocery store (via the piped-in music).
Interesting side note: Vallière’s is not the only book with the n-word in the title. There’s a Joseph Conrad novel called “The Ninja of the Narcissus” (substitute “Ninja” for the offending n-word). I recently saw a copy for sale at a used book store, and regret not buying it just for the shock value of having two n-word titled books on my bookshelf.
Joey 23:08 on 2022-07-01 Permalink
That’s a weird and borderline offensive regret, to be honest. You sincerely wish you had bought the book so you could display the N-word not once, but twice? Eesh.
Blork 00:14 on 2022-07-02 Permalink
It’s not that I can “display the n-word” but that I can acknowledge that these things are not as simple and binary as kids these days seem to think.
Blork 00:24 on 2022-07-02 Permalink
More precisely, words only have the power we chose to give them. At this point in history we’ve decided that the guy across the street can use the n-word all day long and be applauded for it, but if I have a 100-year-old novel on my bookshelf that uses that word I must be some kind of racist.
Joey, you said “sheesh,” which is a diminutive of “Jesus.” 100 years from now, when Quebec’s enshrined secularism at its peak, someone will find your comment and say “JOEY WAS A CHRISTIAN” and run your descendants out of town. Because that’s how this shit works.
qatzelok 08:27 on 2022-07-02 Permalink
It’s a lot easier to ban a word than it is to cure homelessness.
And this why the rich concentrate on the former, and ignore the latter.
Which one do you think would be more useful in improving lives?
Blork 16:56 on 2022-07-02 Permalink
Regarding the update to the OP, I don’t think “arguing for his right to offend” is the only reason why someone would look askance at this. In my case, I’ve never used that word in my life and I don’t ever plan to. But that doesn’t mean I’m happy about the apparent paradox of Person A getting fired for using that word — regardless of context — while Person B gets handed a million bucks because their album containing copious use of that word is selling like crazy. And yes, I know there’s a difference, but the difference should skew towards the subtle, not the extreme.
Things like this do nothing to disempower that word or to bring people together. To the contrary, it drives people apart.
Dan 06:49 on 2022-07-04 Permalink
@Blork you’re a white guy, you can’t use the word, just accept that. You hearing it on the radio or across the street is an altogether different usage that may find ridiculous but it is not your word to reclaim.
Sometimes you can just listen, and not comment.
Blork 15:46 on 2022-07-04 Permalink
Web archaeologists of the future who are combing these archives will note that I never said I wanted to use that word or even reclaim it. My only issue is with the extremes of the sanctions involved, and the fact that they take no account for context.