So much for being an enlightened, First-World nation. By their logic, we should ban every song that is gramatically incorrect because it could offend English majors. And every song that celebrates hetero love must go because gays might feel discriminated against by the lyrics. Og only knows what the First Nationers will have to say about a song like “Indian Giver” or “Indian Reservation.”
What say you, fellow music listeners? Good idea, or a giant step backwards?
There was a similar controversy over the song Fairytale of New York by the Pogues (feat. Kirsty McCall RIP), “you scumbag, you maggot, you cheap lousy faggot…” Is this too banned from Canadian airways?
I’m not too hot on works of art being banned, no matter how nefarious I think they are. However, I’m not in any significant marginalised minority group. I can’t really think of what someone might sing that would seriously offend me, so I can’t really say whether songs such as this should or shouldn’t be aired.
In general I’d be more in favour of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council and similar entities elsewhere encouraging broadcasters not to air such songs rather than locking them down completely.
In general, I find Canada has struck a good balance between allowing free speech and not allowing hate speech. That’s how we shut down Jim Keegstra and Ernst Zundel, both of whom are major league assholes.
This particular ruling by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council is really stupid and makes us all look like fools. It’s especially embarrassing because the word ‘faggot’ is used in the song for the purpose of making the person speaking seem like a redneck asshole.
It appears that the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council only reacts to specific complaints, and they in fact received a specific complaint regarding this song. The ruling was:
What an utter disgrace. As Le Ministre points out, the use of “faggot” here is a narration by the red-neck appliance mover in the song, not a slur by Mark Knopfler.
I’m embarrassed by the ruling.
Yes, I can see “Alice’s Restaurant” following next.
I’m emailing complaints@cbsc.ca tonight and launching my own complaint regarding this decision.
Where’s the C word? I’m sure the C word was there the last time I listened but it doesn’t show up on any google searces of lyrics I can find. Sheesh! I’ll have to dig out the just put away Christmas CDs and have another listen.
Although the BBC tried this in 2007, they eventually backed down due to complaints. From MacColl’s family no less. Maybe we could get them to write a letter to the CBSC.
“Canada” has not banned anything. The ruling was made by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC), which is (according to the CBC):
Emphasis added. So the Canadian government, and by extension “Canada” as I’d suggest is commonly understood in the context of the title of this thread, has not censored anything. All Canadians’ (including the Canadian media’s) rights to freedom of expression as guranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms continue to exist.
Next, the ruling itself. Here it is, in its entirety. You can read it for yourself, if you like.
Reading through the decision, albeit quickly, I don’t see where the CBSC demands that the song must never be played again unless it is edited. Rather, the issue is more along the lines of “In playing the long version of ‘Money for Nothing,’ did this particular radio station breach any of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ (CAB) Code of Ethics and Equitable Portrayal Code?” We’re looking for a yes/no answer to a question that arose from a past event, in other words.
I also don’t see where the decision states that the song must never be played again unless it is edited. What I do see is an answer to the question (from the decision, link above):
So, te question of whether any breaches of the Code occurred is answered in the affirmative. Note that the CBSC stops short of demanding that the song never be played again unless edited; it merely indicates that the song would not breach the Code if edited.
So what’s next? Well, according to the decision, the radio station has to broadcast that it did in fact breach the Code. That’s it, that’s all.
As for what’s really next, I’d suggest that (a), the CBSC will be flooded with complaints from Canadians complaining about this decision; (b) the CBSC will be flooded with complaints about rap/hip-hop lyrics; (c), radio stations will put the full unedited version of “Money for Nothing” in heavy rotation just out of spite; and (d), music critics and columnists will have a field day.
The radio station has to announce, over the air, that they breached the code of ethics. One announcement must be made within three days of the decision and another a few days after the first; and the station must prove to the complainant and the CBSC (via copies of station logs) that the announcements were made. Like I said, that’s it, that’s all. I see nothing in the decision that mentions fines or similar punishments.
If the decision demanded no Timbits in the broadcast booth, I think we’d see a severe backlash against the CBSC.
Thanks nitpicker, i should have reviewed my comment. Anyways there’s no cunt in Fairytale of New York, I think you’re thinking of A Cunt Tree Christmas by HR Hackensack. ETA: Wait am I allowed use cunt I forget? No offence intended…
