PDA

View Full Version : Does this sound familiar?



johnw
06-25-2009, 05:46 PM
Ottawa Radio Station Chastised for Comments On Muslims (Canada) (http://www.canada.com/Life/story.html?id=1262335)

Feb 6, 2009
by Chris Cobb
Ottawa Citizen
A veteran open-line radio host in Ottawa contravened Canadian broadcasting standards when he made “abusive and discriminatory” remarks against Muslims, the national broadcast watchdog ruled Friday.

According to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, Lowell Green launched an “uninformed and unfair” attack when he told his CFRA audience in early December that the majority of Muslims are fanatics, and extremist behaviour is symptomatic of the religion, not just a radical minority.

Green had been inspired by the story of British schoolteacher Gillian Gibbons, whose elementary class in the Sudanese capital Khartoum named a teddy bear “Muhammad,” causing a storm of outrage across the Muslim world.

Gibbons was forced to leave the country after being threatened with imprisonment and death.

Green posed the question to listeners: “Is there something inherent in the Muslim faith that promotes violence and oppression of women?”

In response to one Muslim caller who tried to defend Islam, Green responded: “Baloney,” and during another call, told a sympathetic, but apparently non-Muslim, caller that she had “abandoned common sense” and was being “silly.”

“Almost every act of terrorism around the world today is carried out in the name of Islam,” responded Green. “Don’t tell me this is the work of a few fanatics.”

The broadcast watchdog, an arm’s-length organization created and funded by private broadcasters to rule on listener and viewer complaints, was especially critical of Green for refusing to listen to pro-Islam callers, especially those who were clearly informed about the religion.

“The host has mounted a sweeping, abusive and unduly discriminatory criticism of Islam,”

mmd
06-25-2009, 06:01 PM
Nice to see that decorum on our airwaves is being observed and, when necessary, enforced.

B_B
06-25-2009, 06:05 PM
Lowell's keeping everyone busy - Scot, CRTC, Popeye...:p

StevenBauer
06-25-2009, 06:05 PM
Izzat Tinny?


Steven

B_B
06-25-2009, 06:12 PM
I believe so, but could be wrong.

Keith Wilson
06-25-2009, 06:19 PM
It sounds like him. Tinman's not a bad guy, but when he gets on that subject, he sure does get wild-eyed.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
06-25-2009, 06:29 PM
Tinny is a neo con idiot, but that wasn't him.

johnw
06-25-2009, 06:51 PM
Dunno. Could be Tin, could be someone else. Tin's rumored to be on the air in Ottawa, so it's possible. I defer to the Canadians among us.

Maybe there are two Ottawa radio personalities who are rational on just about any subject but Muslims. Radio personalities in America tend to be irrational on a wide range of subjects, displaying remarkable versatility.

It interests me that some people can't tell the difference between truth and prejudice. Present company excepted, of course.

How do we tell? And how does the Canadian Broadcasting Council tell?

2MeterTroll
06-25-2009, 07:12 PM
Naa it would surprise me a whole lot where that Nick. he has more decorum.

Flying Orca
06-25-2009, 07:38 PM
I think Nick considers himself a colleague of Green's, and I believe he's given Green as a reference for some of his own concerns. Could be wrong, though; I was wrong once.

B_B
06-25-2009, 08:37 PM
apparently I was wrong again - now that it's been mentioned I do believe that Tinny's name was Nick, not Lowell. My apologies.

Who woulda thunk there was two rabid anti-Muslim dingbats on the radio in Ottawa...

johnw
06-25-2009, 08:54 PM
And here tin had an example of the kind of trouble you get in with this rhetoric, yet he did pretty much the same thing here.

Either he didn't recognize the line he was stepping over, or he stepped over it on purpose, because he thought it was important.

So how do we know where the line is? Where is the line between reason and prejudice? Like fairness, you can make some rules that seem based on logic, but in the end, it's something we feel. We know when someone is being unfair, we know when an argument is reason and not prejudice, but someone with a different set of feelings knows different. We have a social consensus, but that's a fuzzy line, not a bright one.

I've noticed that many who get banned because of things they've said in political arguments tend to combine venom and self-pity. Their beef with the larger society is that they know the "truth," and are oppressed for saying it. In this instance, the right-wing websites were saying just that -- that he was hit for saying what was "true." People like this are regarded by those who agree with them as martyrs for their beliefs. Are they ever persuaded that they are wrong?

Ron Williamson
06-25-2009, 08:56 PM
Same station
Google "Nick CFRA"
R

B_B
06-25-2009, 09:11 PM
Are they ever persuaded that they are wrong?
no, the more you try to persuade the more entrenched their positions become - they get defensive.

BarnacleGrim
06-25-2009, 10:12 PM
It's pretty low to ask that question and then pick and choose from the answers. But unless that particular radio station (like our state radio and TV) is bound to any neutrality requirements I don't think the host did anything wrong.

mmd
06-26-2009, 08:47 AM
From the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council's Equitable Portrayal Code:

"(3) Negative Portrayal

In an effort to ensure appropriate depictions of all individuals and groups, broadcasters shall refrain from airing unduly negative portrayals of persons with respect to race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status or physical or mental disability. Negative portrayal can take many different forms, including (but not limited to) stereotyping, stigmatization and victimization, derision of myths, traditions or practices, degrading material, and exploitation."

mmd
06-26-2009, 11:24 AM
Not to be too picky, but it ain't a law, it is a code of practice. Radio stations agree to abide by the code in order to get their license to broadcast. If they break the code, nobody goes to jail, but the station risks their broadcast license if the transgression is not corrected. What will probably happen is that the CRTC will demand a public apology, it will be broadcast and maybe printed in a local newspaper, the show host will be called on the carpet in front of station management and scolded, and if suitably chastised he will continue his show, sans nasty commentary. If he screws up again, he gets canned publicly, á la Don Imus.

Look at the Code as rules of etiquette - nobody is going to fine you or jail you for being an ass in public, but you may end up shunned and asked to leave the party.

Kaa
06-26-2009, 11:25 AM
From the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council's Equitable Portrayal Code:

"(3) Negative Portrayal

In an effort to ensure appropriate depictions of all individuals and groups, broadcasters shall refrain from airing unduly negative portrayals of persons with respect to race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status or physical or mental disability. Negative portrayal can take many different forms, including (but not limited to) stereotyping, stigmatization and victimization, derision of myths, traditions or practices, degrading material, and exploitation."

:eek:

That's what you get for not having the First Amendment.

Kaa

mmd
06-26-2009, 11:28 AM
I suppose we should be more like you, eh?

Except we don't want to be. We'll continue on with our experiment in polite society while we observe yours. That's freedom, right?

TomF
06-26-2009, 11:32 AM
:eek:

That's what you get for not having the First Amendment.

KaaWe get even better stuff for not having the Second.

JimD
06-26-2009, 11:36 AM
Same station
Google "Nick CFRA"
R
Crikey, how many right wing idiot talk show hosts can one radio station have?

Kaa
06-26-2009, 11:39 AM
Except we don't want to be. We'll continue on with our experiment in polite society while we observe yours. That's freedom, right?

Depends on who's "we". Freedom is individual and tyranny of majority does not freedom make.

Do you happen to speak for each and every Canadian?

Kaa

TomF
06-26-2009, 11:41 AM
Only the ones that don't say "ooot and aboooot"

mmd
06-26-2009, 12:02 PM
<lol>

Kaa, we have seen your version of freedom and, for the most part, don't think it better than our version. Let's instruct our descendants to check back on this in a hundred years or so to see which version has served it's citizens better.

Kaa
06-26-2009, 12:15 PM
Kaa, we have seen your version of freedom and, for the most part, don't think it better than our version. Let's instruct our descendants to check back on this in a hundred years or so to see which version has served it's citizens better.

Deal :-)

Kaa

Bruce Taylor
06-26-2009, 12:40 PM
Lowell Green has been on air since I was a little kid. He's your basic talk radio troll, and a prominent figure in our local Indignation Industry.

Nick (Tinman) sometimes sits in for him on his morning show, and seems to share most of the old fool's opinions, but his delivery is less strident.

johnw
06-26-2009, 01:37 PM
What interests me here is that both Nick and Mr. Green knew the rules and chose to violate them. Braam, I think you're right, guys like this aren't amenable to logical persuasion. It's been a few years since I read Hoffer's "The True Believer," but I think I recognize the signs. How does a society deal with this?

In our little society, the Godlike Scot has the power to ban someone who goes too far. And posting blood porn is so far over the line, tin had to know he'd get banned. It seems these fellows are seeking out the martyrdom of censorship. What's the point? Are they setting themselves apart from the larger society for the personal drama, or do they hope to accomplish something by it, and if so what?

BarnacleGrim
06-26-2009, 03:34 PM
So Canadians broadcasters aren't allowed to criticise religious movements?

That sounds unreasonable. The radio host was certainly out of line, but if sanctions against him are made, doesn't this put other, more legitimate criticism of religion at risk?

Flying Orca
06-26-2009, 04:26 PM
"Unduly" is an important word in the interpretation of this regulation.

mmd
06-26-2009, 04:41 PM
Barnacle, criticism is fine as long as it is fair, justified, and accurate. Wild accusations smearing a whole group of people with unreasonable vitriol goes beyond the pale. Saying that Lutherans are generally a conservative and pious group of people is probably a fine statement to broadcast, but saying that all Lutherans are fanatical zealots who are intent on destroying your homes and sodomizing your children probably would be difficult to defend under the code C&P'd in a previous post of mine. Therein lies the intent of the Code.

Kaa
06-26-2009, 04:51 PM
...criticism is fine as long as it is fair, justified, and accurate

I would like to point out that the text of the Code says nothing about fairness, nothing about justification, and nothing about accuracy.

It speaks of "negative portrayals", like, for example, "derision of myths, traditions or practices."

Kaa

mmd
06-26-2009, 05:03 PM
Kaa, I am not going to rise to your bait. I have no interest in trying to explain the Code to you piecemeal. Google it, read it in its entirety, and take from it what you will. If you don't understand what the Code is trying to do, then you don't understand why Canadian society is different from US society. We try to live up to the intent of such ideas, you seem to want to disect it, looking for loopholes to exploit. Societal differences, eh?

Time to go close up here at the office and go home. Gotta pick up the fireboat nameboards from the gold-leaf guy in Lunenburg tomorrow, and prepare for haul-out on Monday. Big week comin'.

BarnacleGrim
06-26-2009, 05:17 PM
Let's analyse.

Here's what he asked:
Is there something inherent in the Muslim faith that promotes violence and oppression of women?So far so good, it's a valid question.

Then he said "baloney" to a Muslim he didn't agree with. I believe you are allowed to say "baloney" to people you disagree with, even if baloney happens to be haraam.

Then he made two different claims:


Almost every act of terrorism around the world today is carried out in the name of IslamPossibly, it does seem likely considering the media coverage.


Don’t tell me this is the work of a few fanatics.He says that terrorism is widely accepted among Muslims.

His view may be incorrect, but did he REALLY go over the line here? Or is there something they don't mention in the article?

BarnacleGrim
06-26-2009, 07:47 PM
Sorry about the double post, but I want to make my point before I go to sleep and risk being declared a racist for defending this guy :rolleyes:

Consider the following claims:

#1 Terrorism is widely accepted among Scientologists
#2 Terrorism is widely accepted among Muslims
#3 Terrorism is widely accepted among Sikhs
#4 Terrorism is widely accepted among Buddhists

Is one of these claims more objectionable than another?

Is it perhaps a matter of how true the claims are? Or how politically correct they are?

#1 may very well be true. #2 is not likely to be true, #3 is not likely to be true and hardly ever suggested, #4 is absurd.

johnw
06-26-2009, 09:25 PM
Almost every act of terrorism around the world today is carried out in the name of Islam Seems like we've actually had more incidents with right wingers, though the 9/11 incident puts the jihadists ahead on body count. Of course, it depends on how you define terrorism.

Look at the fellow who shot up the Holocaust museum, the fellow who killed the abortion doctor, and Timothy McViegh, and you've got a picture of an ideology that accepts terrorism. And it looks a lot like the far right wing of Green's audience. Having the extreme right accuse Muslims in general of accepting terrorism is like accusing conservatives in general of accepting terrorism.

One of the flaws in his logic is that he assumes the Muslim religion is the reason some people from Muslim-majority countries approve of terrorism. Is it the religion, or is it politics? Gallup did a poll of 500,000 muslims in 35 countries, and found that 7% approved of the 9/11 attack. The minority that approves of this is no doubt higher than you'd get among Christians or Buddhists in a similarly broad survey, but do they give religion as the reason for supporting it? No, the support it for political reasons.

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/02/27/poll-majority-muslims-worldwide-condemn-9-11/


Poll: 93% of Muslims Worldwide Condemn 9/11 Attacks - 0% Approve of Attacks on Religious Grounds (http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/02/27/poll-majority-muslims-worldwide-condemn-9-11/)
Jon Ponder | Feb. 27, 2008
This poll from Gallup (http://www.twocircles.net/2008feb26/politics_not_piety_dictate_radicals_muslim_world_p oll.html) is based on a huge worldwide sample:
One of the largest-ever opinion polls conducted in the Islamic world found that seven percent of Muslims condoned the Sep 11, 2001, attacks on the US, but none of them gave religious justification for their beliefs, according to the figures released Tuesday.
The Gallup organisation’s poll of some 50,000 people in over 35 predominantly Muslim countries found that what motivated those considered “politically radicalised” was their fear of occupation by the West and the US, though most even admired and hoped for democratic principles.
“Politics, not piety, differentiate moderates from radicals” in the Islamic world, said Dalia Mogahed, executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim studies. “Terrorism sympathisers don’t hate our freedom, they want our freedom.”
The overwhelming majority of Muslims - 93 percent - condemned the Sep 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, and most said the biggest obstacle to better relations with the West was the latter’s lack of respect for Islam.http://www.amperspective.com/html/gallup_poll_2008.html

Bruce Taylor
06-27-2009, 12:36 PM
:eek:

That's what you get for not having the First Amendment.

Kaa

Your first amendment guards against attempts by government to curtail freedom of expression. The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council -- unlike the FCC, the body that monitors broadcast standards in the United States -- is a private organization -- an industry watchdog, not unlike the Motion Picture Association of America, and its predecessor the MMPDA (the brain trust behind the infamous Hays Code which was in effect for over thirty years, and killed not by the first amendment but public indifference and the willingness of some movie producers to bypass the MMPA entirely).

Now, as we both know, such "arm's length" bodies are vulnerable to governmental influence (and often formed as a response to threats from regulation-happy governments). Nonetheless, it's pretty hard to see how your first amendment would protect us from the interference of such groups when it plainly failed to do much against HUAC, the Hollywood blacklists, Dr. Wertham's comic book crusade, etc.

As it happens, freedom of expression is protected under our constitution. The second article of the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms identifies "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication" as a fundamental freedom -- that is, a natural right that no government has the authority to either grant or rescind. Since the phrasing of the second article is somewhat broader than that of your first amendment (which simply puts limits on congressional legislation) it seems unlikely, in the long term, to provide weaker protection in our courts of law.

The organization Reporters without Borders publishes a Worldwide Press Freedom Index. 2008 rankings are available here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders#Worldwide_Press_Freedom_ Index