Racism in Canadian Media

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

From the redoubtable pen of Heather Mallick:

A subtlety of words: are you Canadian or Canadian-born?

I must admit that when I wrote an internationally syndicated column on Canada's arrest of 17 alleged terrorists this month, I did something I rarely do: I held back. I didn't want to tell other nations about commentary from Canada's media that I think is fuelling racism.

This was partly to protect Canada's reputation from distortion — we are not a racist country even if some columns appear to represent Canada in this way. But it was also because the world isn't interested in Canada, a reputedly dull, nice country. I didn't think anyone would have the faintest interest in a handful of ill-read nasties.

But the great British journalist Robert Fisk noticed and, on June 10, he wrote in The Independent, one of the world's finest newspapers, a column headlined "How racism has invaded Canada: What is the term 'brown-skinned' doing on the front page of a major Canadian daily?"

Good question, Mr. Fisk.

Antonia Zerbisias is a brave unstoppable media critic for Canada's best and biggest paper, the Toronto Star. She took issue with a columnist named Christie Blatchford, who was objecting to the police statement that the accused men came from "a variety of backgrounds," for writing the following in a front-page column in the Globe and Mail: "The accused men are mostly young and mostly bearded in the Taliban fashion. They have first names like Mohamed, middle names like Mohamed and last names like Mohamed. Some of their female relatives at the Brampton courthouse who were there in their support wore black head-to-toe burkas … which is not a getup I have ever seen on anyone but Muslim women." Despite Blatchford's comments favourable to the majority of Canadian Muslims, I find the quoted material horrifying.

The Globe and Mail is known, rightly, as a civilized paper. Many readers were horrified (a few were pleased) as the Globe letters page showed the next day.

'Some things … you can never forgive'

But I had other problems. I had just read a biography by the British publisher Carmen Callil that began with the suicide of her psychoanalyst Anne Darquier, a brilliant woman devoted to her patients. As Callil was knocking on her doctor's door, Darquier was dead on the floor. She left no note. At one time she had said to Callil: "There are some things and some people you can never forgive."

It's possible that two weeks before her death she visited her father. He was Louis Darquier, one of France's most successful turncoats. An enthusiastic Nazi, he was the one who forced all Vichy Jews to wear a yellow star. He played a large part in Vichy's contribution of 77,000 Jews to the death camps. I can barely tolerate reading of this, such is my grief. He made children wear that star. It was this lifelong knowledge about her father that Anne Darquier, the kindest of women, could not live with.

Fresh from her story, I didn't read the sentence as Mohamed this and Mohamed that. I read it like this:

The accused men are mostly young and mostly bearded in the Jewish fashion. They have first names like Yehoshua, middle names like Ariel, and last names like Morgenstern. Some of their female relatives wore typical Jewish garments, black and alien, their hair covered in typical Judaic fashion, not a garment I have ever seen on anyone but Semitic women.

Blatchford did not write this. I'm sure she never would write this. But people do write things like this when they believe it is popular. Racism is lumping a people together as if they were all the same. Thus the alleged sins of one are the sins of the group and this is when the bully pulpit and the violence join forces. This is how it begins.

Fisk noted that the accused were described as "Canadian-born" and that there is a subtle difference between this and "Canadian" even when they describe the same person. Thus, they are Canadian-born (Muslim) as opposed to Canadian (the rest of us), wrote Fisk.

On that same Globe front page, an eyewitness in a news story was quoted as describing two "brown-skinned young men" who had rented the unit next to him. I have never heard these words used this way in a Canadian paper. Most of the world is brown-skinned, most of Toronto's citizens are brown-skinned. No one points this out ever but now apparently we must beware the brown-skinned.

Is 'brown-skinned' now part of our idiom?

Fisk interviewed Jonathan Kay of the National Post, seeking his opinion of describing people as "brown-skinned." To my infinite sorrow, Kay responded: "These things are heavily idiomatic in the sense that, you know, 40 years ago, we would have said 'coloured.' "

At this point, I briefly considered driving a spoon into my heart, Kay not being available. People in Britain and worldwide are now reading that "brown-skinned" is part of the Canadian idiom.

So now the world thinks we talk this way. But we don't. I don't know if Kay is Canadian or Canadian-born. I don't care to know. I do not wish to know his religion, since I don't wish to know anyone's religion. That is their concern. We don't do that here. That is why we get along. That is one of the many reasons Canada is a good place to live. Paul Darquier wouldn't like it here.

Fisk's column ends in heartbreak. He shared his flight from Calgary to Ottawa with Tim Goddard and his remaining family. Beneath them in the cargo hold was the body of Tim's daughter, Nichola, the first woman soldier to die in action in the Afghanistan war.

Goddard's photo only made page 6 in the Post. On the front page, the Post ran a picture of a British Muslim "who may have links to Canada."

I guess he might have links to any brown-skinned person here. Or "coloured," as we used to say ass we approached our centennial year of 1967, according to Kay.

The Canada being described in this way is not the Canada I know exists. I am disgusted by the suggestion it does. There are some things and some people you can never forgive.

[ollie]

The Canada being described in this way is not the Canada I know exists.

This seems a little naive.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

True enough - cf. all the standard epithets in the "Who's Drunk" thread.

[StoneMtn]

The accused men are mostly young and mostly bearded in the hippie fashion. They have aliases like Zenia and Cactus, and won't tell anyone their last names. Some of their female relatives wore typical hippie garments, colourful and alien, their hair dreaded in typical hippie fashion, not a garment I have ever seen on anyone but hippie women.

[meggo]

The Canada being described in this way is not the Canada I know exists.

This seems a little naive.

agreed, definitely. i hear comments from co-workers [at a high school which is very diverse] and even from my family [d_rawk can attest to this] which make me cringe.

we have a long way to go, but i'm really hoping we can get there.

[ollie]

The Canada being described in this way is not the Canada I know exists.

This seems a little naive.

agreed' date=' definitely. i hear comments from co-workers [at a high school which is very diverse'] and even from my family [d_rawk can attest to this] which make me cringe.

Yeah, that's the kind of stuff I'm referring too. I can't believe some of the things that come out of my co-workers mouths. Bad enough they would think them, shocking they would say so in public. The french, muslims, fat people, etc. are all fair game.

On the other hand, I appreciate the candor and am glad I don't work in a PC environment because god knows I say some stupid things at times. But it is a bit of an eye opener.

Nevermind a place like free dominion!

[Hux]

I can't believe some of the things that come out of my co-workers mouths

ditto.

I was on one of those parliament green buses the other day and it was full of Conservative MP's including Deepak Obhrai:

You should have heard the other Conservative MP's (who I won't name) "joking" with him, stuff like "you're not used to being at the front of the bus" etc. etc. etc. BIG laughs (for them)

I couldn't believe they would say that stuff, let alone on a bus that contained total strangers.

Unbelievable.

[bradm]

Next time you're on one of those buses, Hux, let me know, and I'll see about setting you up with some stealth recording gear.

Aloha,

Brad

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Next time you're on one of those buses, Hux, let me know, and I'll see about setting you up with some stealth recording gear.

! That would be a vital first step, imo, towards a transparent democracy.

[bradm]

I'm thinking of starting a new organization: TIFF (Tapers' International Freedom Federation) - making the world safer for democracy through the gathering of extremely embarassing recordings.

Aloha,

Brad

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Do it!

Lord knows having an open cell line, a recording walkman, or a video camera has helped out lots of people in cases where shady cops have got their hands on them.

[bradm]

Here's a question for StoneMtn: what's the law regarding recording in public?

I know (or learned, back in high school, ca. 1985) that under Canadian law, it's legal to record a phone call provided you have the permission of at least one of the parties involved in the call. Thus, it's legal for me to record any phone call I get/make at home, without even having to inform the person who called or that I call.

But what about conversations? Is it legal for me to wear a hidden recorder, all the time, say, and record any sound going on around me? If I go into an MP's office to discuss an issue with him/her, can I record that without asking permission? If I'm sitting on a bus, say, can I record the conversations going on around me, and then possibly release them to the press?

Aloha,

Brad

[bradm]

I think I figured it out: it's legal. Consider that, if it were illegal, every "hidden camera" thing a Canadian news program did would be illegal.

Now, a store (or a bus or an office) could have a "no recording allowed" rule, but that'd just mean they could kick you out if they found out you were recording, not that you would be in legal trouble. (I wonder, though, whether one's status as a journalist may come into play. I know that in the USA, there's some debate as to exactly what a journalist is, because someone who's not a journalist doesn't have to reveal sources of information. If, say, bloggers aren't considered journalists, they don't have the same protections as newspaper reporters.)

Aloha,

Brad

[StoneMtn]

I think the concern over YOU taping in public isn't too great, and there wouldn't even be an issue over the admissibility of the recording as evidence in Court if it was ever needed for that purpose. That said, the government (or its "agents") must have a reason for recording people in public; and this is all set out pursuant to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and caselaw that has developed.

Basically, there has to be some compelling and specific reason for the government to conduct surveillance of people in public. A private person, however, should have no restriction on being able to record what is going on around him/her in public; that I can think of.

[Hux]

What if I had accidentally recorded it?

[StoneMtn]

You're a private person.

You happen to work for the government, but if you were just recording things around you as a private person (not pursuant to your employ with the government) I see no issue at all. If, however, you recorded something as an "agent" for the government, then there could be concerns, but if the recording was truly made by accident, I think that would cure those concerns too.

Okay, I think it is once again time for the old disclaimer...

NOTHING ABOVE IS OR IS INTENDED TO ACT AS LEGAL ADVICE ON ANY SPECIFIC FACTS OR FACT-PATTERN. IF YOU REQUIRE LEGAL ADVICE ON WHICH YOU CAN RELY, CONTACT A DULY LICENSED MEMBER OF THE BAR IN YOUR JURISDICTION.

Love, SM.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I love your disclaimers .

This is a little tangential, as it has more to do with racism in politics as reported on in the media; I just thought this little bit of doublethink was interesting.

From CBC, Crown appeals Ahenakew decision

In his 35-page written ruling, Laing said the judge in the trial last year erred because he didn't properly consider evidence that suggested Ahenakew did not intend to incite hatred.

On Monday, the Saskatchewan Justice Department announced it would proceed with an appeal of that decision to Saskatchewan's highest court.

During the trial, court heard Ahenakew gave an interview to a newspaper reporter in 2002, during which he praised Adolf Hitler and called Jewish people "a disease."

Ahenakew apologized for the remarks, but told his trial that he didn't mean to promote hatred.

So what, then, he was trying to offer an objective description?

[StoneMtn]

[color:purple]I'm sure he meant "a disease" in the nicest possible sense of the word.

Y'know kinda like when people say, "I love that musician! Man, is he 'bad'" or "That was one 'sick' guitar solo.".

In this case, he probably meant. "I love Jewish people. Man, they sure are a 'disease'. Rock on Jews!"

... and it's not like there's no precedent for this. Dr. John first coined such terms, and I think Jews are 'a disease' akin to the "Rockin' pneumonia, and the boogie-woogie flu."

[Birdy]

what's the point of recording this stuff really? to ruin a person's life for something that might have been in jest or that might just have been an idiotic moment, the kind that EVERYONE is capable of having? i don't think anyone can claim perfection and in that, taping this shit is like pointing a finger at people's flaws. not a charming quality.

[StoneMtn]

Unless the recording is of a public-figure, whose biases are up for examination by the electorate; given that those biases will likely come into play in influencing that public-figure's conduct while discharging the duties of that person's profession.

If someone made an off-colour joke, and was recorded doing so, the onus is on that person to explain. The onus is not on the rest of us to ignore it.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

The onus is not on the rest of us to ignore it.

Well put (me being someone who has the problem of keeping his mouth shut at the worst times).

[Birdy]

i dunno. like meggo and ollie have both acknowledged, and i now too, people that we know and love sometimes open their mouths and insert their foots. myself, growing up in a rural area, can definately attest to some pretty off the hook comments that i've heard come out of good people's mouths. biases and stereotypes are, unfortunately, so commonplace in today's society and most of the time, show little to no reflection of a person's genuine character. People are a product of their environments and the concept of 'political correctness' is still relatively new.

In light of it all, I tend to be a little more forgiving when these off the wall comments come out of even public-figures mouths. I'm not going to sit in a coffee shop and gossip about it to my friends, nor am I going to march Parliament Hill and demand explanation. I'm going to sit back, drink a beer, and cough it up to a bad moment and concern myself with what truly matters - ie, war, famine, poverty, etc. Until our public figures fail us in these departments of true worth, we shouldn't waste out time with all of the pettiness.. in all of it's expose fashion.

[ollie]

I strongly believe that public figures should be held to a higher standard. It's that simple to me. Holding public office is a privilege.

biases and stereotypes are, unfortunately, so commonplace in today's society and most of the time, show little to no reflection of a person's genuine character.

Am I wrong to hold these biases against a person's character? I think it shows at least some reflection.

[Hux]

pointing a finger at people's flaws. not a charming quality.

Sure, maybe if it was a birth mark, fart or a mispronounced or wrong word in conversation, ie. something said by accident - but I would say that racist humour in public by elected officials is a flaw that I would want pointed out, charming or otherwise.

[Birdy]

ok... some. really i was referring to comments made in jest, tape recorded, and played back to the public ear in an expose fashion, intending to create commotion or produce some sort of reaction. too much dramatics for me.

holding public office is a priveledge no doubt, but these people are by no means super human. everyone has their flaws, has less than perfect moments, and might just at some point say something that doesn't appeal to the masses. that really is the way things roll. if we held every man accountable for every action and every word, a, we'd be really big LOSERS, and b, we'd deter our minds and hearts from topics that truly matter.

i just think we as a human race could find way better and more constructive things to do with our time. like post on jambands.ca!!