Interesting freedom-of-speech contrast in Tuesday’s media: CBC critiques Quebec for shutting down a Christian group’s gathering in Quebec City because it’s known to be anti‑abortion, and this goes against the “fundamental principles” of Quebec. The group is suing.
Meanwhile over on the Journal site, Sophie Durocher is livid because although an appeals court reversed the CRTC ruling that the N‑word should not have been spoken on radio, the broadcaster has maintained its policy on limiting offensive language. Yes, what is offensive is a category with blurred edges, Sophie – that’s how language is. You can’t always guarantee that nobody will be offended by anything said on radio, but there’s no reason to hold out for the “freedom” to use language that’s generally understood to offend. It is almost never necessary and common consideration would rule it out.
H. John 23:54 on 2023-06-13 Permalink
Clearly, it’s all Loyola’s fault.
The Attorney General brought a motion to allow an appeal of the decision by the CRTC. The motion, in reference to the method used to reach the original decision, quoted the Supreme Court’s decision in Loyola (Loyola High School v. Quebec ) where it ruled:
“… where a discretionary administrative decision engages the protections enumerated in the Charter — both the Charter’s guarantees and the foundational values they reflect — the discretionary decision-maker is required to proportionately balance the Charter protections to ensure that they are limited no more than is necessary given the applicable statutory objectives that she or he is obliged to pursue.”
The Federal Court of Appeal agreed, and sent the decision back to the CRTC for a re-think.
As Emmett Macfarlane, professor of political science, explains:
“in these debates, the distinction between moral and social values on the one hand, and state regulation or sanction of speech on the other, often gets a bit lost. There’s a distinction to be made between not having the social license to say the word, and whether the state (or public institutions, like universities) should sanction or prohibit the word.”
and,
“Perhaps if we were capable of having these debates and making distinctions between what you can do and what you should do in a free and democratic society, we might not be wasting resources on these easy (legally speaking) cases.”
Macfarlane’s sub-stack article is worth reading:
https://emmettmacfarlane.substack.com/p/the-n-word-quebec-and-the-crtc
Kate 09:09 on 2023-06-14 Permalink
“Social license” is interesting, and I think it may be where the anglo and franco philosophies differ on this.
GC 16:24 on 2023-06-14 Permalink
Thanks for that link, H. John. Interesting read.
I know I should know better than to ever read comments online, but I did… And, inevitably, there is someone who swoops in and tries to make the whole thing about French-Canadians-as-victims. SIGH.
qatzelok 19:37 on 2023-06-14 Permalink
In the early 60s, when Valliere wrote his book with the banned word in the title, French Canadians made about 70% of the yearly income that African-Americans made, and French Canadians had the lowest economic attainment in the developed world.
Of course, the question we don’t want to answer is: who was responsible for this oppression?
Also, which group in Canada was responsible for the atrocities against First Nations?
walkerp 07:40 on 2023-06-15 Permalink
Seriously, qatzelok?
GC 21:56 on 2023-06-15 Permalink
The only thing you’re proving, qatzelok, is that you didn’t read Macfarlane’s article. (Much like the commentator…) Thanks for being predictable, though!