An opinion on the dire straits, money for nothing controversy

 

What exactly is the difference between values, moral and ethics? In light of the Canadian Broadcasting standards council's decision to force radio stations to stop playing dire straits hit, "money for nothing". I think we in Canada  need to have a discourse with respect to values morals, ethics and censorship. From my understanding, values are beliefs of individual and group, morals are motivations of people that are based on their values and ethics are a codified system by which society use, interprets and understand morals and values. 

 

As an anarchist, I believe humans should work to build their values from their own methodological understanding,based on material interactions, of sentience. I believe values,  based on material interaction, should be the bases of how individuals work together to build morals on a community or subcultural level and that morals should make up the ethic of a broader culture or society. as an anti-capitalist, I believe that capitalism has this process in reverse; I believe the "powers that be" define our morals and values based on the ethic of the market place and that the ability to build this ethic is,at it's core, based on production relations, specifically, the theft of workers surplus labor. With that being said, I am not suggesting that there is nothing else that influences the ethics that the ruling class imposes on society. With late stage capitalism, interactions are much more complex then they were during and just after the industrial revolution. Oppressions are much more complex and it is quite possible that the ethics that ruling class impose on us, are influenced by interactions in society that are not related to production relations. it is also possible that pre-capitalists societies had interactions outside of production relations that influenced the ethics  the ruling elites imposed on society .

 

 

The interactions that are not based on production relations that may influence ethics in society, I would consider to be  secondary influences; not that they are any less important in influencing the ethics in society. For example, labor is needed to build society and thus labor relations need to be created. In our current model, surplus labor(unpaid labor) is stolen from the workers and a portion of those monies stolen by the bosses are invested in various ways, weather it be in the hiring of goons to control workers, investing in elections in order to get pro business leaders elected who will put forward policies that allow the rich to get richer or in new equipment that allows the work place to be more profitable for the bosses. These  investments are important in influencing ethics in society, however,they are secondary to the labor itself.(if the labor did not happen,societies could not be built)

 

 

Recently the 80's rock song"money for nothing" by British rock group Dire Straits, has been deemed unacceptable for play on the radio. The Canadian Broadcast standards council, who made the ruling,says that the song contravenes the human rights clause  of the Canadian association of broadcaster's code of ethics.  

 

 

When people hear the words,"Canadian Broadcast Standards Council" , they don't necessarily think about what this group is, only what it does. The group sounds like an independent standards organisation set up to set standards in radio that are for the benefit of the people. The fact is, the CBSC is not independent; they were created by the Canadian association of broadcaster to influence opinion, modify attitudes and shape minds, at least that is what their website says. One could even say that the CBSC is a cartel set up by the 730 or so private broadcasters that make up the Canadian association of broadcasters. The CBSC is not the CRTC, they are not a Human rights tribunal, nor are they a committee of public citizens that has been democratically elected for the purposes of benefiting society as a whole. The CBSC/CAB cartel have one interest and one interest only, in mind. That interest is their own interest which is involves creating profit for their shareholders, creating profit for their advertisers and using art as a medium to sell the audiences minds to the advertisers. I Do realize that some advertising in society is necessary and that it is not necessarily a bad thing to use art as a medium to sell advertising, but it should be advertisement for the public good and artists as well as the public should have some power in deciding what advertising is for the public good.Today,Canadian media, including radio,are concentrated in the hands of 7 large corporations and the CBSC/CAB cartel, is one more example of that media concentration

 

 

With respect to this ruling, there are two issues that demand our attention if we Canadians want to have a discourse on values, morals, ethics and censorship. Firstly, is it representative of democracy and in the publics interest to have the CBSC?CAB cartel  influence our opinions, modify our attitudes and shape our minds? Secondly is it necessary to censor the word "fagot" from the song "money for nothing". Because the main issue is the word "Fagot" and weather it should be censored or not, and because I have spent time addressing the first question in the paragraphs above, I am going to focus on the later issue that this ruling brings up.

 

 

"See the little faggot with the earring and the makeup, Yeah buddy that's his own hair. That little faggot got his own jet airplane, That little faggot he's a millionaire." These are lyrics that are from the song "money for nothing" and taken out of context, they may seem offensive, however when you  listen to the whole song or read all the lyrics you should realize it is satire and if you don't realize it is satire when you listen to it or read the lyrics then you should inquire about the context of the song. You have no excuse for claiming ignorance after reading this article. From my understanding of satire, it is suppose to shame individuals and society into improvement and if we start going around and erasing examples of satire that have lead to improvements, albeit small as they may be, in societies relations with the gay community,then what is stopping the powers that be and their cartels from erasing other examples of satire in society.For that matter, What is stopping the powers that be from erasing anything from our history or from pop culture. The fact is nothing is stopping them and usually nothing stops them unless people organize to resist. It is true that homophobic hatemongerers have used the term "fagot" while engaging in their attacks against homosexuals, but it is also true that there have been some in the homosexual community who have tried to use the term to disarm their oppressors. I have heard some homosexual friends of mine say, "I like the word fagot to describe myself" and just because other homosexuals may not like that some in the community use the word with pride, the fact is, there is no unanimity on the topic withing the gay community. The actions of the Canadian Broadcast standard council will only insure that the word "fagot" is that much harder for those in the gay community to use as a empowering term or as satire. people have a right  to take the tools of their oppressors and use those tools to defend themselves, weather those tools are physical objects or words. there is power in using a word that was once used against you and by censoring this word the CBSC is attempting to take that power away. I assume it is only a matter of time before the word "queer" is also put on the chopping block

 

 

In conclusion, this is just my opinion and as a heterosexual, I believe this discussion needs to be focused withing the gay community and that the gay community should be the ones who decide what words they use to define themselves. With that being said, I think that we all need to be involved in this discussion. If the theft of language and culture can happen in one community then it can happen in any community. As a worker, I want to keep the label of "worker" and I want to reserve the right to define myself as a member of the working class. I am not an associate or a partner working with the oppressive boss and when the powers that be try to steal the terms and labels we use to define our oppression then that only serves to obfuscate the essence of our oppression.

       Aaron Doncaster