Gorgeous Stuff; Autumn in Mazamet; And just for fun: The Canadian High Court Decision
The weather has been fantastic. Mild sunny days and cool nights. It feels like compensation for a summer that was very volatile.
A book by Sonia Servant via the Dept. of Culture of Occitanie has just come out showing the progression of the residential architecture of the Thore Valley. We’re in it.
Those wouldn’t have been my choice of pictures for number 42, and I may have upset them saying so, but anyway, it’s not about me (I keep telling myself). It’s a fascinating book which covers the gamut of properties, the architects, and best of all one gets to see some amazing interiors.
I recognise that staircase!!!
Speaking of which the long awaited bookcase for the hallway is being fitted. Three metres tall by 140cm wide and many shelves. It’s going to be right outside the red room which is where we spend most of our time. In Spain we had the books in the study and I really miss having them at arm’s reach. Particularly the giant Oxford dictionary which has settled many a dispute in our relationship! Pictures coming soon.
And just for the sake of an interesting debate, who amongst you read about the recent decision absolving a comic from Canadian discrimination laws? Really fascinating case which you can read about here. I found this quite surprising in that the court was actually split. To me the line between unkindness and discrimination is very straightforward — but evidently that’s not the case in Canada. In my, perhaps simplistic view, discrimination would require some sort of tangible exclusion or marginalization. If I don’t serve someone because they’re too tall, that’s discrimination, if I nickname them Eiffel Tower — that doesn’t qualify. Am I wrong?
My Mazamet 
it is a fine line, but I agree with you. an accurate description isn’t discrimination.
and as a bibliophile, I am jealous of the book shelf. We have an OED, the condensed version, four pages to one page, that requires a magnifying glass to read (or my face to be about 3 inches from the page). I’ve gleefully used it repeatedly to destroy theist arguments.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The differences between laws in different countries is really interesting. In America I believe anything goes. In France most things go except accusations. In Canada, it seems the lines are much less clear. I think the man lost every case until it got to the high court.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It looks as though the majority opinion was based on a common trait in the comedian’s performances…having a go at people commonly felt to be untouchable because they were famous. I see an argument that not to have included the singer in his repertoire might have been discrimination …..but as no one is going to bring an action on those grounds no legal point arises.
With you on needing to have books within easy reach…preferably without rising from the sofa.
That book is the justification for the existence of publicly funded cultural activites…though personally i would prefer more books and less topless men in tights swinging from trapezes, which seemed to figure largely in ‘cultural’ events organised where we lived.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The amount of work and research that went into the book is extremely impressive. She even traced the evolution of building materials — which is how we know we were the first to have metal beams in this town 😀
LikeLiked by 2 people
We’ve been shifting things around in the house now that we’re empty nesters and I am so excited that the next round of editing is going to create space for a reading area and a large bookcase. I dream about curling up on a cozy chair surrounded by books! ❤️
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s nothing like having all your books in one room. Here’s a picture of our last study, which was always a mess in the best possible way.
LikeLiked by 4 people
The book is very cool. As for the decision I couldn’t disagree more. This isn’t just a case of a person making fun of someone’s appearance, it is publicly making fun of someone’s disability and suggesting that society would be well served by their death. Honestly I hope the comedian gets hit by a bus and lives.
LikeLiked by 4 people
That’s interesting. I thought your joke was very funny. Do yo by any chance know what the joke was word for word? I haven’t found it. I suppose according to the wording you used, my question would be would society be served by his death based on his disability or his singing? I recall joking after watching When Calls the Heart (also Canadian) that they should bring back the death penalty.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The joke as I understand it was about drowning a child to put him out of his misery due to his disability.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll keep looking for it so we can dissect it in more detail.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I found this on Maclean’s:
“Ward introduces Gabriel as “the kid with a subwoofer on his head”—in reference to his hearing aid. He describes defending Gabriel against people who criticized his singing. “I was like, ‘F–k! He’s living his dream! He’s dying and he’s living his dream. Let him live his dream! He’s been dreaming since he was little to sing off-key in front of the Pope.’ ”
He describes realizing Gabriel did not have a terminal illness. “I defended him, non-stop. But now it’s been five years and . . . f–k! He’s not dead yet!” Ward continues: “And he’s impossible to kill, too! I saw him last summer at the waterslides. I tried to drown him. Impossible! So I went on the internet to check what his disease really is. And do you know what he has? He’s f–king ugly!” Then Ward tells his audience he wasn’t sure how far he could take the joke. He chides them for having kept laughing.
Ward subsequently referred to Gabriel in several online videos, insinuating his mother wanted to profit off her child in one, in another making reference to pedophilia in the context of Gabriel’s performance for the Pope.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have to agree. The old thing about sticks and stones is simply not true. You can destroy a person without ever raising your hand against them.
LikeLiked by 3 people
As someone who’s been known as “The Biggest D*ck” in porn over my decades as an international porn star, I’d say I agree with you!
LikeLiked by 4 people
Are you sure? I thought that was me? 😛
LikeLiked by 2 people
It should ALWAYS be about you. Why wouldn’t it be? Take what you want from the world and leave the rest crying in the mud.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Agreed! When did you become a hooligan?
LikeLike
The summer of my 14th year.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What year was that?
LikeLike
The one after my 13th year… (chuckle. Which was 1974). It would have been that same summer when I traveled to the North Carolina mountains with a Lutheran youth group and there learned how to terrorize my peers with spooky tricks and ghoulish antics. Deep red cherry juice and lengthy stays in graveyards may have been at play.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Congratulations, Pinky! No. 42 has been immortalized. Don’t sweat the small stuff. 😉
Re discrimination, physically excluding someone based on some characteristic – Eiffel Tower – definitely qualifies, but denigrating people with words kind of qualifies too.
When I was 5 I attended a primary school in an…unenlightened suburb of Melbourne. As Asians were very rare back then, and as I looked vaguely Asian, the kids used to corner me in the school yard and yell “Chink, chink, bloody chink” as I cowered, unable to run away from them.
There was no physical harm done, but it did something to the inner /me/. I grew stronger, but I could just as easily have become a pathetic wreck. Words have power. 😦
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you!
And yes, words absolutely have power, and the experience you describe is harassment, pure and simple. But where does the law draw a line in the case of humour?
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is a fine line between laughing with someone about difficulties that person experiences and laughing at them for having those difficulties. If you’re looking at it from a position of privilege, you may not even see that there is a line, let alone see when it is being crossed.
I’m not sure that it’s possible or advisable to legislate away anything other than the more serious forms of harassment, but I don’t think humour gets a free pass just because it’s humour.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree with every part of your comment, start to finish. It’s certainly harder to see lines when we’re not in any risk either way.
LikeLike
I’m not sure, Pinky. Maybe the old style of courtesy is the answer – if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all?
I’ve heard some incredible comedians making fun of their /own/ disabilities. And that’s ok. You can laugh with them rather than at them. Making jokes at someone else’s expense feels like a cheat. And cruel. -shrug-
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I always wait to say horrendous things so it’s behind people’s backs 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
lmao – you are EVIL! But very funny. :p
LikeLiked by 1 person
i think the law shouldn’t draw a line in the case of humour. some jokes will be nasty or inappropriate but so what? I remember a time where we had contests- informal- of who would best the other in making jokes and some of them were so personal one would almost cry but you needed to get a good comeback.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is that how your parents decided who would get affection? Tough system! 😀
LikeLike
Pink you are being mean here😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
No! I was going to be mean and say, “decided who was allowed to sit at the table and eat”, but then I thought that sounded cruel 😀
LikeLike
Haha haha. I give up
LikeLiked by 1 person
no, you will just be mean 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Is that mean? It seems neutral to me.
LikeLike
Not really. Just kidding
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think you’re right. It’s a dick move to make fun of a disabled child, no matter how much power you think the child might have because of his fame (and possibly fortune?), but it’s not discrimination.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m sure there’s a point where ridicule crosses the line into incitement to discriminate a whole class of people, but in this case it seems a stretch.
LikeLike