Harper Tories to Cut Funding for "Offensive" Films

[Hydrogen]

Whose life? Certainly not mine, no violence, extra-marital sex or sodomy in my life, and I'd rather not support promoting it with my tax dollars. Again, that's just my opinion, so feel free to do whatever floats your boat.

Remember, if you don't like Harper, then don't vote for him. He's just another politician who can be chucked out at the will of the people.

Why do you conflate depiction with promotion?



By the way, Harper's riding is in Alberta. One can't vote for him when living in Toronto.

 

[MisterF]

As for myself, I'm quite pleased that my tax dollars won't go towards media promoting promoting homosexuality, graphic sex or violence.

Care to tell us what's wrong with homosexuality and sex? Sex (in a marriage or otherwise) is as natural as eating. Should films that show eating be denied funding? Homosexuality is as natural as having red hair. Should films with redheads be denied funding?

 

[JasonParis]

IMO, the government should not be in the business of financially supporting films, authors, arts, etc. If no one wants to pay full value to see Canadian movies, then let them die. Our musicians seem to understand that they must succeed without public subsidies, do Celine, Shania, Nelly Furtado, Avril, etc. ask for tax dollars? No...they go out there and become not Canadian success stories, but global success stories.

There's a wide variety of Can-Con rules that have supported the music industry on commercial radio, public radio, satellite radio and cable-tv. Moreover, there's also a variety of government programs involving grants and foundations that help support Canadian musicians in a variety of ways (particularly to help them finance the filming of music videos).

Whose life? Certainly not mine, no violence, extra-marital sex or sodomy in my life, and I'd rather not support promoting it with my tax dollars. Again, that's just my opinion, so feel free to do whatever floats your boat.

You live in Cabbagetown, so there's gays in your life darling. You live close-enough to Regent Park and St. Jamestown that you can't pretend you've never seen crime or violence either. I'm sure someone you know has also taken it up the bum as well (perhaps unbeknownst to you, but the odds are they have). It also stands to reason that someone in your circle of friends is having an extra-marital affair. And guess what? They are all Canadian! It's all part and parcel of our lives and of telling our stories.

Homosexuality can't be promoted by the way. Take a course on human sexuality.

If you don't believe in government money for the arts, just say that. But no, you've done your typical thing and dragged woman, gays, crime and all your other derivative issues into the argument. And for the record, all western countries have various policies that protect, promote and finance their artistic communities (even the U.S.).
`

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

But of course, the Conservatives has been particularly keen on politics and policies that operates on the premise of division and exclusion.

Come to think of it, I wonder why a much higher proportion of my tax dollars are going halfway around the world to support a regime with values that are distinctively Un-Canadian.

AoD

 

[adma]

Whose life? Certainly not mine, no violence, extra-marital sex or sodomy in my life, and I'd rather not support promoting it with my tax dollars.

It is a "to each their own" matter, but when it comes to what a man and a woman do in their private time, I'd rate "sodomy" rather lower on the objectionability pole than "extra-marital sex" or "violence"...

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

full of shit this reply is

Should films that show eating be denied funding?

yes because they encourage obesity and whenever someones eats something, this is murder. a mouth is a slaughter house.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

beez, do you wear green pants?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Thanks for the reminder! I nearly forgot.

Exactly. I think of lot of folks think Harper's a right wing nut job, or at least is a little too close to that group of people, yet Canadians will likely continue to support him by voting for his party or when possible, for him directly.

 

[afransen]

Well, a third of Canadians. The other two thirds find him pretty objectionable. Unfortunately, our electoral system doesn't reflect this.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Those who equate popular support (however tenuous it may be) to any kind of moral high ground would do well to study the lessons of history.

AoD

 

[Admiral Beez]

There's a wide variety of Can-Con rules that have supported the music industry on commercial radio, public radio, satellite radio and cable-tv. Moreover, there's also a variety of government programs involving grants and foundations that help support Canadian musicians in a variety of ways (particularly to help them finance the filming of music videos).

Some how I think our stars, like Celine, Avril, etc. didn't need Can-Con or tax dollar support to gain international success. Did Margaret Atwood use tax dollars to fund her first books? If yes, then that's a good example of prudent arts funding, as eventually the public teat is removed and the artist takes off in the private sphere.

You live in Cabbagetown, so there's gays in your life darling.

Goodness, of course there are, I wouldn't want it any other way. Most of my neighbours and many of my closest friends, neighbours and fellow church-goers in Cabbagetown are gay. Anyone who's a fan of urban gentrification must thank and embrace their gay neighbours, and they were the pioneers of the movement.

I didn't introduce homosexuality to this thread, and I've only replied to the post that said violence, sex and homosexuality are part of our lives, and clearly thought that was not the case of my life.

You live close-enough to Regent Park and St. Jamestown that you can't pretend you've never seen crime or violence either.

I've seen petty crime, sure, but not violence. Even if I did see violence, that would be part of someone else's life, not mine. Now, if we're using the word "life" to mean not each of our own personal lives, but society in general, well, then sure, we could say that life is full of a variety of things, sex, violence, homosexuality, right-wing nut jobs, lunatics on street corners, lovers, cheaters, alien abduction fearing red necks, whatever and everything could apply.

Back on topic, mostly, I'm all for tax dollar support of the arts, provided that there is a business model behind it, meaning that tax dollars are eventually weaned off, and the art stands on its own merits as a business venture. Now, some arts will always need support, such as the TSO, but if it's only a small portion of the total, and the costs are mostly covered from other non-tax sources, I can also live with that.

 

[allabootmatt]

Well, glad to see the Harper Tories standing up for 'morality.' I wonder where on the morality scale trying to bribe a dying MP to change his vote stands.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Well, glad to see the Harper Tories standing up for 'morality.' I wonder where on the morality scale trying to bribe a dying MP to change his vote stands.

Show me the proof. We've got a widow and daughter saying one thing, and the man himself on television before his death contradicting them. Not that I wouldn't put it past Harper, or any of the politicians to offer "incentives" both legal and otherwise to influence voting. These are politicians after all, which are only just worse than lawyers on the snake scale.

 

[doady]

Whose life? Certainly not mine, no violence, extra-marital sex or sodomy in my life, and I'd rather not support promoting it with my tax dollars.

This is pure ignorance. Just because a movie depicts homosexuality doesn't mean that it promotes homosexuality. Not that homosexuality can be promoted in the first place. The only really reason you think these films promote it is because you feel threatened by it.

I am straight but I still own several gay/lesbian films on DVD and can watch them without feeling my sexuality is being threatened, unlike you. To assume that movies that depict homosexuality, crime, murder, racism, sodomy, alcohol/drug-abuse, etc. is promoting them is just ridiculous beyond belief, and this is yet another reason why I will never vote Conservative.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Not that I wouldn't put it past Harper, or any of the politicians to offer "incentives" both legal and otherwise to influence voting. These are politicians after all, which are only just worse than lawyers on the snake scale.

On one hand you argue there is no "evidence" of wrongdoing, on ther other, you've excused any potential act of such as part of the politics game. You certainly have a more twisted sense of morality than I thought.

Which bring us back to this:

I'd rather have leadership and morality, than immoral leadership.

Indeed. Clearly, some personal reflection is in order.

AoD