Canadian whites under fire for refusing to more to the back of a concert

[flashNsmash]

just saw that she peformed at iceland airwaves a few weeks back, wonder if she pulled the same stunt there

 

[flashNsmash]

the girl on lido's left is the one who got wu-tang night banned

 

[KantoTerror]

the girl on lido's left is the one who got wu-tang night banned

but she somewhat want to be part blonde....

 

[flashNsmash]

but she somewhat want to be part blonde....

rockin dat OBJ

 

[panamaican]

I think that's an assumption you've made rather than a certainty.

Yes. It is an assumption I made based on how the venue responded. I presented it because the tone of the responses to me in this thread are based on the assumption going the other way, that the artist had no authority regarding the photographer, and ignores the alternative possibility.

Since the article is silent on that specific detail, looking to the venue's formal response gives a better indication of how much deference the artist was entitled to. An assumption, certainly, but it's better supported by the linked article than the contrary assumption - which has no support in the linked material.

It could have been an issue not envisaged by the venue and rather a retrospective decision made, rather than an expectation communicated to the photographer. The decision to back the performer was probably two-fold, firstly to preserve relations with the artist and the artistic community for future events and secondly, perhaps the venue organisers actually believe the bs they wrote. Regardless of whether or not the venue supports the decision, unless that is communicated to the worker and audience beforehand, the venue is not in the right.

If the venue organisers are contracting with photographers, even on a volunteer basis, to work the event then they likely owe a duty of care to provide a working environment free of racial discrimination, or at the very least obligated to inform that photographer prior to committing to the job that such discrimination is likely and to instruct them accordingly.

Further, in addition to the above potential liability, the venue afterwards then accused the contractor of aggression and racism damaging the photographer's reputation and of the organisation she worked for. They just shit the bed all around.

In this case, the artist apparently does this regularly and is apparently an award winner for her recent work (per the linked article). I doubt the venue that booked her was unaware of her performance style, as would be the case with a lesser known artist or if this was the first time the artist tried this.

It's more likely the photographer was unfamiliar with the specific artist, which is all the more reason to simply do as the performer requests since she's not there to unilaterally make those type of decisions. Worst case scenario, she asks venue management what to do instead of arguing with the artist during the artist's performance.

I don't agree with this statement either in the circumstances. Is it a reasonable expectation of the audience or photographers to research the 180 plus bands that are appearing during the course of the 2017 festival prior to attending? Or, instead is it that the presumption is the audience/workers will not be racially discriminated against and it is up to the venue to rebut that presumption with fair advanced warning prior to the purchase of the ticket. Were it a single performer on a bill, I would put that responsibility on the customer or at least part of the responsibility.

I would agree with you regarding the audience but the audience wasn't compelled to do anything. The artist makes the request and the audience is free to comply or disregard. The very request is part of the artist's attempt to broach a social issue by asking the audience to contemplate the effects of such an exchange. Even if the audience is unaware of this prior to attending, it's part of the unexpected nature of live performances. I presented a similar example - you attend a performance and the artist says "Now, just the ladies sing!" An extremely common performance request. Do people claim that the artist is engaging in a sexist mistreatment of the audience?

Of course not...or we'd have heard about it via litigation by now. Most people know that when you attend a live performance that the performers might ask something of the audience that is unexpected and occasionally uncomfortable.

The more callous part of my personality would say that the audience should be familiar with all of the performers at a concert if they're paying for the tickets (I would hazard a guess, an assumption, that the tickets/associated paperwork indicate that some performances might make attendees uncomfortable and represent the artist, not the venue. Standard boilerplate stuff.). The audience can't abandon their responsibility to research what they're paying for and then complain when it occurs. Especially when it's a documented aspect of a performer's schtick.

But all of that is irrelevant because the article/story is about the photographer. You simply cannot lump the photographer and the audience together when discussing their roles, responsibilities and potential negative outcomes from the artist's performance.

Another parallel just jumped into my head: Every time people scream bloody murder because some comedian tells a joke that touches on race, sexuality or gender, most of us recognize that the audience is just being overly sensitive and that the comedian isn't a racist, homophobe or misogynist just because the material touches on those subjects.

 

[wonderbread]

Can't make this stuff up!






http://nationalpost.com/news/canada...s-for-overt-racism-at-polaris-winners-concert

Can you imagine if Kid Rock invited all the white girls up front and told the colored people to move back? Tires would burn in the streets and the looting of Foot-Lockers everywhere would commence.

 

[Curmudgeon]

Yes. It is an assumption I made based on how the venue responded. I presented it because the tone of the responses to me in this thread are based on the assumption going the other way, that the artist had no authority regarding the photographer, and ignores the alternative possibility.

Since the article is silent on that specific detail, looking to the venue's formal response gives a better indication of how much deference the artist was entitled to. An assumption, certainly, but it's better supported by the linked article than the contrary assumption - which has no support in the linked material.



In this case, the artist apparently does this regularly and is apparently an award winner for her recent work (per the linked article). I doubt the venue that booked her was unaware of her performance style, as would be the case with a lesser known artist or if this was the first time the artist tried this.

It's more likely the photographer was unfamiliar with the specific artist, which is all the more reason to simply do as the performer requests since she's not there to unilaterally make those type of decisions. Worst case scenario, she asks venue management what to do instead of arguing with the artist during the artist's performance.




I would agree with you regarding the audience but the audience wasn't compelled to do anything. The artist makes the request and the audience is free to comply or disregard. The very request is part of the artist's attempt to broach a social issue by asking the audience to contemplate the effects of such an exchange. Even if the audience is unaware of this prior to attending, it's part of the unexpected nature of live performances. I presented a similar example - you attend a performance and the artist says "Now, just the ladies sing!" An extremely common performance request. Do people claim that the artist is engaging in a sexist mistreatment of the audience?

Of course not...or we'd have heard about it via litigation by now. Most people know that when you attend a live performance that the performers might ask something of the audience that is unexpected and occasionally uncomfortable.

The more callous part of my personality would say that the audience should be familiar with all of the performers at a concert if they're paying for the tickets (I would hazard a guess, an assumption, that the tickets/associated paperwork indicate that some performances might make attendees uncomfortable and represent the artist, not the venue. Standard boilerplate stuff.). The audience can't abandon their responsibility to research what they're paying for and then complain when it occurs. Especially when it's a documented aspect of a performer's schtick.

But all of that is irrelevant because the article/story is about the photographer. You simply cannot lump the photographer and the audience together when discussing their roles, responsibilities and potential negative outcomes from the artist's performance.

Another parallel just jumped into my head: Every time people scream bloody murder because some comedian tells a joke that touches on race, sexuality or gender, most of us recognize that the audience is just being overly sensitive and that the comedian isn't a racist, homophobe or misogynist just because the material touches on those subjects.

Fucking lol. Spin spin spin that shit.

 

[Gunny]

I think what people are missing is that this is not some Tug-of-war thing - that you have party A on one side and party B on the other. And for equality if party A was winning for some time then it's now time for party B to be winning. No! There should be no "winning party" at all!

Discriminating formerly privileged groups does not fix inequality. Let me repeat that once again, in a larger font:

Discriminating formerly privileged groups does not fix inequality!

I am shocked how people don't understand this. If we aim to end discrimination as such then we should not perpetrate it towards ANYONE.

And since the thread started with a singer, let's brighten up the mood with a really GOOD song about equality, shall we?

A little real talk here. It's not that "people" don't understand, as you put it. It's that certain "people" are lawyers by trade - i.e. professional disagreers who stake out positions based on any number of factors and ceaselessly argue that stance whether they actually agree with it or not. It's now obvious we're weeks past the time where there was any legitimate disagreement here. Everything now is just personality profiles playing themselves out the only way they know how.

 

[Hotora86]

A little real talk here. It's not that "people" don't understand, as you put it. It's that certain "people" are lawyers by trade - i.e. professional disagreers who stake out positions based on any number of factors and ceaselessly argue that stance whether they actually agree with it or not. It's now obvious we're weeks past the time where there was any legitimate disagreement here. Everything now is just personality profiles playing themselves out the only way they know how.

I wouldn't go as far as to call it a "personality profile" but it is certainly a very addictive hobby to many ppl.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I doubt the venue that booked her was unaware of her performance style, as would be the case with a lesser known artist or if this was the first time the artist tried this.

Now you're presuming to know how promoters and booking agents think while still insisting that one subcontractor has authority over another just because their name is on the marquee. Your knowledge of how the concert business works is devoid of insight. You might take pause to remember a time when someone argued law and you knew enough to know they didn't know what they were talking about. Then give yourself here the advice you'd give them.

It's not even a given that the festival organizer (i.e. whoever booked the bands) works for the venue. For example, we used to put on shows at the Balcony Bar above the Trocadero in Philly. We did this just to get a track record in the city and to help build the overall Metal scene there. We booked the bands and promoted the show. The venue essentially rented out the space. Can't recall the specifics, but I'm thinking they took a cut from the door, nothing from merch, and cleaned up on beer sales. Reminds me of some wisdom passed on to me from our in-house booking agent who attended an industry conference. The speaker from Clear Channel boiled everything down to this. The acts are just there to sell the concessions.

What a promoter or venue cares about is how many asses a band will put in the seats. That's what they're going to look into. Not the specific content of the performance. Unless a stink of controversy precedes the band, that's just not something for them to worry about. Beyond that, they're mostly gonna rely on the strength of the headliner and their trust in/relationship with the agent.

 

[Islam Imamate]

That's exactly how I interpreted it as well...

An attempt to justify racism, or a racist act...

@Kafir-kun , do you find the actions by the performer in the article to be racist?

In some sense but I sort of see what she's trying to do with the social message and whatnot. Its not something I rather like so I'd likely not like her or her fans that appreciate this stuff but I get it on some level.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I don't see how?

He's trying to hand waive this into something which it was not. And that was a demand based on skin color alone. Excuse making is all I see.

Not really...he's just doubling down on what he said earlier and attempting to obfuscate the matter using circumlocution.

I think the distinction he made between the crowd and the photographer as well as situating it all in the context of performance art was fair and relevant. Doesn't mean I don't think this artist is a bad example of what we see from some on the left though.

 

[Islam Imamate]

How so? He seems to be leaning hard on the belief that the artist can order around event staff. Sure, sound and lighting are there to service the artists's needs. People like concessions and security have their own marching orders. It's not customary that artists position photographers. It's certianly not customary for artists to segregate by race. I guess I will give Pan credit for shifting the argument onto a worthless point when the real problem is the artist created a hostile environment for white people and deprived many (via mob pressure) of what they were legally entitled to when they purchased their ticket.

Yeah despite his defense I still think she's a nasty woman

 

[The Diplomat]

Yes. It is an assumption I made based on how the venue responded. I presented it because the tone of the responses to me in this thread are based on the assumption going the other way, that the artist had no authority regarding the photographer, and ignores the alternative possibility.

Since the article is silent on that specific detail, looking to the venue's formal response gives a better indication of how much deference the artist was entitled to. An assumption, certainly, but it's better supported by the linked article than the contrary assumption - which has no support in the linked material.



In this case, the artist apparently does this regularly and is apparently an award winner for her recent work (per the linked article). I doubt the venue that booked her was unaware of her performance style, as would be the case with a lesser known artist or if this was the first time the artist tried this.

It's more likely the photographer was unfamiliar with the specific artist, which is all the more reason to simply do as the performer requests since she's not there to unilaterally make those type of decisions. Worst case scenario, she asks venue management what to do instead of arguing with the artist during the artist's performance.




I would agree with you regarding the audience but the audience wasn't compelled to do anything. The artist makes the request and the audience is free to comply or disregard. The very request is part of the artist's attempt to broach a social issue by asking the audience to contemplate the effects of such an exchange. Even if the audience is unaware of this prior to attending, it's part of the unexpected nature of live performances. I presented a similar example - you attend a performance and the artist says "Now, just the ladies sing!" An extremely common performance request. Do people claim that the artist is engaging in a sexist mistreatment of the audience?

Of course not...or we'd have heard about it via litigation by now. Most people know that when you attend a live performance that the performers might ask something of the audience that is unexpected and occasionally uncomfortable.

The more callous part of my personality would say that the audience should be familiar with all of the performers at a concert if they're paying for the tickets (I would hazard a guess, an assumption, that the tickets/associated paperwork indicate that some performances might make attendees uncomfortable and represent the artist, not the venue. Standard boilerplate stuff.). The audience can't abandon their responsibility to research what they're paying for and then complain when it occurs. Especially when it's a documented aspect of a performer's schtick.

But all of that is irrelevant because the article/story is about the photographer. You simply cannot lump the photographer and the audience together when discussing their roles, responsibilities and potential negative outcomes from the artist's performance.

Another parallel just jumped into my head: Every time people scream bloody murder because some comedian tells a joke that touches on race, sexuality or gender, most of us recognize that the audience is just being overly sensitive and that the comedian isn't a racist, homophobe or misogynist just because the material touches on those subjects.

It was a racist act. No need to circumvent the truth and double down.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

It was a racist act. No need to circumvent the truth and double down.

No wonder the mods dumped this thread initially...

Lol

 

[DragRacer]

Bad example. If Kid Rock was gonna bring anybody specific up close to him it’d be the black girls.

Can you imagine if Kid Rock invited all the white girls up front and told the colored people to move back? Tires would burn in the streets and the looting of Foot-Lockers everywhere would commence.