Morissette: (Canada) is "censor-free" (???)

johnqjohnq
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
What Canada is she thinking about?



Quote:

Alanis Morissette didn't bare her breast like Janet Jackson, but she did bare her soul last night at Canada's annual music awards, demonstrating her disdain for what she called "hypocritical U.S. censorship."



Hey I'm anti censorship as much as the next guy (really, I despise it in almost every form).



But for her to pretend that Canada is some bastion of free expression is shockingly hypocritical of her.



Ever hear of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, Alanis?



http://www.cbsc.ca/english/cbscdocs/prs/



They ban/edit/admonish/fine/threaten artists all the time. Why the myopic America-bashing when her "strong" "true North" "homeland" is so stringent?



Oh. Canada didn't make her change her song. I see. Yet. It's great as long as she isn't affected. Okay.



Maybe she needs to tour less and stay in Canada for a while.



Here's a starter google for ya...



another google



Take your pick. Feel free to talk about censorship in general.



note: I hate this current scary, idiotic, panicky spree of censorship going around and would welcome her support to fight it but why does it need to be posed as if Canada is superior?



I know she's not exactly Noam Chomsky but she is vocal and getting headlines and has at least some following and influence.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 56
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    What a dumb cunt.
  • Reply 2 of 56
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    From one of Canada's constitutional documents, Schedule B, Constitution Act, 1982, Part I, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

    Quote:

    Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:



    Now that's not exactly what I call a promising start for a constitutional document in a free society. Wouldn't the American religious right wing love to insert that little bit into the US Constitution?

    Quote:

    Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms



    1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.



    Fundamental Freedoms



    2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:



       (a) freedom of conscience and religion



       (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other means of communication.



       (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and



       (d) freedom of association.





    It took Canada until 1982 to get around to this?



    At any rate, I imagine Canadian constitutional law is a bit more complex that I'm going to grok from a little googling, but the wording above certainly seems to promise more freedom than agencies like Canadian customs and the Ontario Film Review Board permit.
  • Reply 3 of 56
    artman @_@artman @_@ Posts: 2,546member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    What a dumb cunt.



    Damn. You're a harsh MoFo...that's it, you need poontang.



    Alanis Morissette didn't bare her breast like Janet Jackson, but she did bare her soul last night at Canada's annual music awards, demonstrating her disdain for what she called "hypocritical U.S. censorship."



    But honestly, does this reporter remember this video?







    A little blurry in spots but hell, nude is nude...and she's shown them boobies countless more times. Attention whore is more like it.



    The world is definately spinning into oblivion.



  • Reply 4 of 56
    talksense101talksense101 Posts: 1,738member
    Watching Morissette naked is like watching a naked tribal in an Amazon forest. No one really notices...
  • Reply 5 of 56
    artman @_@artman @_@ Posts: 2,546member
    Well, I'd STILL hit her.



  • Reply 6 of 56
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Out of the past three days I gots poontang twice
  • Reply 7 of 56
    artman @_@artman @_@ Posts: 2,546member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Out of the past three days I gots poontang twice



    Good to see the smile on your face.



  • Reply 8 of 56
    cam'roncam'ron Posts: 503member
    Obviously there is some censorship here but what she is referring to is the total over censorship that goes on in the U.S. Sure, we aren't quite at the level of Europe, but I am willing to bet a lot of it is because of American pressure. The Janet Jackson nipple slip would have never gone through as much scrutiny here. If you have ever watched Canadian television you would notice that there is a lot less censoring. MTV is a great example. US MTV will even edit out kissing from Miss You by Blink and when I went to see the edited version to see the difference it took me a couple tries. That is because no one in their right mind would have found it edit worthy. Over the years I have heard of a lot of anal censorship on MTV, the station that's supposed to be edgy. So, in closing, Alanis was pointing out the difference between our censoring and the U.S.'.
  • Reply 9 of 56
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    It's telling looking at the imagery for that website. Serious white-guilt going on up yonder. Oversensitivity bordering on self racism.



    The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council's website is so overly-PC that it barely has any white people (mostly French, afaikt, zero British Isle types) in it's decorative graphics:



    http://www.cbsc.ca/english/cbscdocs/prs/



    Specifically:

    http://www.cbsc.ca/image/image_top_e1.JPG Black, female, young

    http://www.cbsc.ca/image/image_top_e2.JPG Asian, male, young

    http://www.cbsc.ca/image/image_top_e3.JPG White, male, young

    http://www.cbsc.ca/image/image_top_e4.JPG South Asian, male, middle age

    http://www.cbsc.ca/image/image_top_e5.JPG Hispanic, female, young

    http://www.cbsc.ca/image/image_top_e6.JPG Hispanic (?), male, child

    http://www.cbsc.ca/image/image_top_e7.JPG (?) Ethnic, male, old

    http://www.cbsc.ca/image/image_top_e8.JPG Asian, male, old

    http://www.cbsc.ca/image/image_top_e9.JPG Asian, male, old

    http://www.cbsc.ca/image/image_top_e10.JPG White, female, middle age

    http://www.cbsc.ca/image/image_top_e11.JPG Asian/Hispanic/? female, young

    http://www.cbsc.ca/image/image_top_e12.JPG (repeat of Hispanic (?), male, child)

    http://www.cbsc.ca/image/image_top_e13.JPG Middle Eastern/(?) female, young



    C A N A D A



    yes, I've been there. Loved it. But it's nonetheless predominanty white. (Which means nothing except that it's odd someone there doesn't seem to feel comfortable expressing that fact).



    Ahhhh stock art. It is possible it is all Stone's fault or whoever the pics are from. Someone gives the mandate to make it look inclusive. Bang, wide range of people. That's fine.



    Sure, some of the ethnicities are a bit ambiguous. Race doesn't matter (or exist to some) anyway.



    But the point is, for a population roughly comprised of, let's say 60-70% "whites": (According to CIA factbook - good luck getting racial stats from Canada's census website. I didn't see it anywhere) "British Isles origin 28%, French origin 23%, other European 15%, Amerindian 2%, other, mostly Asian, African, Arab 6%, mixed background 26%", you'd never know it from that website



    Kinda silly. I mean sure there are many people from every nation/race in Canada but those graphics scream over-sensitivity.



    A little sensible proportionality in representing races in imagery isn't racism. ("Friends" wasn't racist for the same fact "Moisha" wasn't racist: people do get together with others of their own race from time to time).



    Meaning in a predominantly white nation, it isn't some outrageous racist conspiracy of hurtful intolerance to, say, have 4 or 5 white people standing around. But I guess in Canada it is.



    Instead, they take the Noah's Ark approach and it looks a bit silly.



    I mean I don't imagine I'd see more than one or two whites, if any, in decorative imagery for say, Uganda or Saudi Arabia's websites. And that would be fine, btw. It's just that it also should be "fine" for Canada, without the (seemingly) white-guilt thing.



    By the way, this is coming from a white guy who's children will not be white, so try not to label me as a racist, mkay?
  • Reply 10 of 56
    cam'roncam'ron Posts: 503member
    what does one sites choice of photos have to do with censorship? btw, seeing as white people arent sensitive about stuff like that, doesnt hurt to be overly sensitive toward other ethnic groups. as well, Canada prides itself on being multi-cultural and that is why government websites are going to depict it that way.
  • Reply 11 of 56
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Cam'ron

    what does one sites choice of photos have to do with censorship? btw, seeing as white people arent sensitive about stuff like that, doesnt hurt to be overly sensitive toward other ethnic groups. as well, Canada prides itself on being multi-cultural and that is why government websites are going to depict it that way.



    The choice of photos suggests that there is a hesitance, at the decision making level of that one particular site, to depict a/the white majority. That site happens to also be the people that are dictating what is and isn't permissible in writing/acting/music/etc for anything broadcast related for the entirety of Canada.



    So it isn't trivial. It implies a politically correct mindset that isn't comfortable or willing to depict white Canadians in any significant (i.e. realistic) number.



    Of course, I realize it's probably just a handful of people that made the site and they probably meant nothing by it. I'm not saying it's a conspiracy. I'm saying it is nonetheless suggestive of an overly-P.C. mindset and that is disturbing, if true, since the site is for Canada's broadcasting censors.



    Ergo, if they are applying that same over-sensitivity (if it in fact exists - I am asking) to all that they judge, is that ultimately fair or good to the artists?



    And no, the "whites have had it made for so long, tough sh*t" excuse isn't valid.
  • Reply 12 of 56
    cam'roncam'ron Posts: 503member
    <quote>Ergo, if they are applying that same over-sensitivity (if it in fact exists - I am asking) to all that they judge, is that ultimately fair or good to the artists?</quote>



    By artists, are you referring to musicians, etc or to the ones being used to build said website?
  • Reply 13 of 56
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Cam'ron

    <quote>Ergo, if they are applying that same over-sensitivity (if it in fact exists - I am asking) to all that they judge, is that ultimately fair or good to the artists?</quote>



    By artists, are you referring to musicians, etc or to the ones being used to build said website?



    Oh just I meant any and all that are under the power of the broadcast censors. Which can be a wide range of artists.



    No, I didn't mean the website artists sorry for being vague.



    Anyway it's just an observation, not so much a crusade on my part.
  • Reply 14 of 56
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    What a dumb cunt.



    What a really nasty thing to say.
  • Reply 15 of 56
    hassan i sabbahhassan i sabbah Posts: 3,987member
    edit: read cam'ron's post wrong, sorry. my knee's a-jerkin' again.
  • Reply 16 of 56
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah

    Have you been to a corner newspaper shop in Amsterdam? Do you know anything about Spanish theatre companies? Have you been to any art galleries in London recently? British artists get into trouble in America all the time and can't show work there they can show here.



    I don't particularly want to see another round of us vs. you, but really.



    ... meanwhile, in the Land of the Free, you can't drink aged 20 and get a ticket for crossing the road without a green light.



    (you may flame me once and i won't reply, so you get the public diss in, then keep it to PM. don't want to derail this one)
  • Reply 17 of 56
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,839member
    Canadian censorship is largely skewed the other way, i.e. focused on the "right wing" side of things than on the left (entertainment).



    Fox News is banned by law in Canada, and, while I'm no great fan of tele-evangelists myself, I know that Jerry Falwell's and John Hagee's sermons are regularly censored before airing, particularly when homosexuality is mentioned.



    The same sermons, I understand, are shown unedited on basic cable channels in the U.S.
  • Reply 18 of 56
    stupider...likeafoxstupider...likeafox Posts: 1,618member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah

    Seriously, what on earth makes you think that there's more censorship in Europe than there is in the United States?



    I think cam'ron (who I'm guessing is Canadian) is saying that the US has stupid overcensorship (particularly of nudity and/or sex), that Canada is better, but not as open about them as the European countries. (I had to read it twice before I got it).



    You can of course make the opposite argument with US freedom of speech vs. French anti-Nazi rules etc. but I think if you stick to nudity and/or sex then it's fairly clear cut.
  • Reply 19 of 56
    hassan i sabbahhassan i sabbah Posts: 3,987member
    edit: hit 'reply' rather than 'edit' above. oops
  • Reply 20 of 56
    chinneychinney Posts: 1,019member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Frank777

    Canadian censorship is largely skewed the other way, i.e. focused on the "right wing" side of things than on the left (entertainment).



    Fox News is banned by law in Canada, and, while I'm no great fan of tele-evangelists myself, I know that Jerry Falwell's and John Hagee's sermons are regularly censored before airing, particularly when homosexuality is mentioned.



    The same sermons, I understand, are shown unedited on basic cable channels in the U.S.



    Your post is misleading. There is no Canadian law that bans any news channel based on its right wing vs. left-wing affiliation. Rather, it is fair to say that broadcasting is regulated in Canada primarily from the perspective of Canadian protectionism ? i.e. to encourage Canadian broadcasting and to Canadians to watch programming produced by Canadians. We can certainly debate the merits of such protectionism - and there are many very good arguments against it, and perhaps some arguments in favour of it ? but it is a different matter than a ?ban?, especially a political ban. Lot?s of other American stations are also not licensed for broadcast on Canadian cable, including MSNBC, HBO, MTV and Comedy Central.



    That being said, I would welcome Fox News on Canadian cable. I don?t think that there currently is an adequate domestic Canadian source of right-wing jingoistic blather. Certianly there would be at least some market for this here among conservatives in Canada, so I say that we should let it in. And for the majority of Canadians, it could serve as a comedy network.
Sign In or Register to comment.