Offensive vocabulary: Radio-Canada’s authoritarian drift


Radio-Canada’s “leftist” or, rather, neo-progressive bias is not new.

Sure, there are quality hosts and reporters, programs that are not unpleasant to watch, and occasionally unexpected guests, but there is such a thing as a dominant Canadian radio ideology, the core of which is certainly a radicalized multiculturalism.

But a milestone, I believe, has just been reached with the proposed new standards for regulating what we now call offensive vocabulary, The duty yesterday we learned of the existence.

Not only will hosts have to apologize if they hear the infamous “n-word” on the air, but the shows, when re-broadcast, will be “cleared of any offensive language”.

  • Listen to commentary by Mathieu Bock-Côté during his meeting with Richard Martineau broadcast live every day at 10:00 through QUB radio :


If a guest on a show uses an abusive word (we might have a list of them, and I guess we can expect it to grow again and again?), the host will need to develop an interview strategy so that they are no longer saying it , in the modality of ideological vigilance.

And anyway, I repeat, Radio Canada will give itself the right to ex post censor programs that offend the sensibilities of indignant professionals. There will therefore logically be, at Radio-Canada, employees in charge of re-listen to the programs to see what we should remember and what we should take away from them by cutting them.

I invite you to read this article since what we find there is lunar, and testifies, let’s be clear, of an authoritarian drift of the public broadcaster, which now presents itself as a police of word and thought.

Because whatever is said about it, whoever controls the vocabulary controls the conditions for formulating thought. The ideology of the vocabulary, its purification, its moralization, is part of a process of domestication and neutralization of thought, precisely to make any form of dissidence “unthinkable”.

Worse: Radio-Canada, here, rehabilitates the crime of blasphemy, even if the religious prohibitions are no longer the same as yesterday. Today the bans are the ones that founded the regime of diversity.

We have no doubt that all the fanatics gathered around the regime of diversity will make it their duty to increasingly limit public speaking, in a perspective that merges with the desire to re-educate the population, to purge it of its “prejudices”, and bring it to see the world as the ideologues of the regime see it.


We add, because it must also be said, that this call for censorship has as its background the increasingly open conflict between a moralizing English Canada hypnotized by a form of progressive puritanism and a French Quebec, which despite everything still believes in freedom of expression.

There is a form of neocolonialism here where the federal state, through its various organs, seeks to impose on us the ideological neuroses which today dominate the Anglo-Saxon world and which are inseparable from the ideology of diversity.

From this point of view, we will be concerned not only with the authoritarian drift of Radio-Canada, but with the anti-democratic drift of the Canadian federal state.


Leave a Comment