Harper Tories to Cut Funding for "Offensive" Films

[Admiral Beez]

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.

Steady there laddie. Do you often try to speak for others? You have no idea what motivates people to do or say what they do. In this case, I'm not feeling threatened by anything in such films, and I didn't say that all movies that depict homosexuality are promoting it. Surely, anyone who saw the sisters in Shaw Shank wouldn't think that.

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.

How about you speak for yourself, and stop presuming to know what others are thinking?

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.

Vote however you want. No one has said here that movies depicting murder, racism, etc... are promoting it. Now take a deep breath, relax, and presume to speak only for yourself...you'll feel a lot better.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Surely, anyone who saw the sisters in Shaw Shank wouldn't think that.

If depicting gay rapists (as per Shawshank) is not promoting homosexuality, what would something that does be like then? A piece that depicting two run of the mill gay men raising two adopted kids in Cabbagetown, reading Cinderella to them in bed? In whose eyes?

Actually make that My Two Dads.

AoD

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

how long before mr. evangelical gets caught tweaked on crystal meth & laying on a motel bed receiving a cleavland steamer from a brazilian tranny?

 

[Admiral Beez]

how long before mr. evangelical gets caught tweaked on crystal meth & laying on a motel bed receiving a cleavland steamer from a brazilian tranny?

Now that's a movie I would definitely pay to see, but not want my tax dollars to fund.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Actually your tax dollars are already funding it, given these religious institutions and "think tanks" enjoys tax free status.

AoD

 

[lordmandeep]

well why can't religious places get tax free status.

Imo there is no policy here, but your just being a very hardcore atheist.

I know many places of worship would cease to exist if they are charged tax.

Also, I know your an educated man, so you know better then to "paint everyone with the same brush"

Sure there are some bad religious institutions, however I know many who act like charities and actually help society.

Should would then tax charities???

IMO religious places who act in illegal manner, should have their tax free status revoked.


Anyways the problem here is not the fact that these films are not being funded. Its the lobbying that worries me.

 

[MisterF]

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.

You forgot to add heterosexuality to that list. I don't want my tax dollars supporting movies that promote heterosexuality. Only movies that depict it.

 

[theman23]

well why can't religious places get tax free status.

Imo there is no policy here, but your just being a very hardcore atheist.

I know many places of worship would cease to exist if they are charged tax.

Also, I know your an educated man, so you know better then to "paint everyone with the same brush"

Sure there are some bad religious institutions, however I know many who act like charities and actually help society.

Should would then tax charities???

IMO religious places who act in illegal manner, should have their tax free status revoked.


Anyways the problem here is not the fact that these films are not being funded. Its the lobbying that worries me.

What the heck are you talking about?!?

 

[lordmandeep]

AlvinofDiaspar Actually your tax dollars are already funding it, given these religious institutions and "think tanks" enjoys tax free status.

AoD

I was responding to that...

 

[unimaginative2]

What makes this policy change even more horrifying is that it's designed to bankrupt people who make films Harper deems "offensive." The people at Telefilm Canada assess a grant application and disburse funding. The filmmaker then starts making the film. Potentially months later, the Harper committee meets (Made up of various reliable Tories, including someone from Justice, of all places) and can then overrule the funding and demand that it be immediately repaid. Since the fillmmaker may have already paid for most of the film, that will leave them in a parlous financial state.

Show me the proof.

Uh, how about a tape of Stephen Harper himself talking about "official representatives of the party" offering financial considerations to an MP to change his vote?

That Harper just proves to be such a class act. In that interview Beez was trying to talk about, Cadman was actually categorically saying that he was offered absolutely nothing in a meeting with Martin. Then, in an offhand question from a reporter "Harper too?" he responded, cagily, "No, nothing from Harper." Technically that was true, since he was offered the money by the Conservative Party National Campaign Chair. He, of course, wasn't going to reveal it in some interview because he still had many friends on the Conservative team and didn't want to destroy their chances in an election with a bribery scandal. And why do you think Dona Cadman would be lying? She's a Tory candidate! Hardly the type who'd want to make up lies about the party. She just seems to have been a bit naive about the implications of what she was admitting.

 

[jefferiah]

It was only a matter of time before Stephen & Co started inflincting their morality on us. I'm just surprised its taken so long.

He is not inflicting his morality on you. Nor is this censorship as some people on TV have said. I find it funny that people cannot understand this. Harper did not pass a bill taking away someone's right to make films that are offensive (the Liberal created Human Rights Commission is actually the culprit now against freedom of speech). What Harper did was to say you now have to do it on your own coin. So instead of limiting freedom, in this case Harper is allowing for more freedom.

I personally am a guy who likes alot of offensive shows, but just because I like them does not mean I should expect everyone else to pay for them. Someone else said that if not for public funding some of these artists would not be so successful. Well, yes that's right. Hey if I dug out my guitar and made a folk album no one wants to buy, some tax money would sure help me too. But the reason I would not be successful without tax dollars is because no one wants my product. So paying to subsidize an artist who no one wants to hear is like giving someone a job counting yellow passing lines on the road, just so they can make money without generating any useful income for the people investing (in this case, the Canadian tax payer)

We all have the right to free speech, but no one has a right to say to the average tax-payer "you must pay me millions of dollars so I can film my free speech." It's not a right to take someone else's money. And cutting funding to ridiculous artsy films that would not even make any return is not censorship, its good business.

 

[afransen]

I know many places of worship would cease to exist if they are charged tax.

Also, I know your an educated man, so you know better then to "paint everyone with the same brush"

Sure there are some bad religious institutions, however I know many who act like charities and actually help society.

Should would then tax charities???

Many religious charities operate under the guise of charity to proselytize. They gather money from individuals, often keeping their nonsecular views quiet, and use the money to buy bibles rather than books, or housing. Many people who use these charities must be subjected to an attempt at conversion prior to receiving help. IMO, this is as low as time-share sales, although probably worse, as it's being unwittingly funded by generous individuals who wanted to help people, not buy their souls.

 

[jefferiah]

What makes this policy change even more horrifying is that it's designed to bankrupt people who make films Harper deems "offensive." The people at Telefilm Canada assess a grant application and disburse funding.

I agree with you, but from an opposite perspective. Because the problem here is going to lie within deciding what is an offensive film, which could end up being the same problem with the slippery slope created now by the Human Rights Commission punishing people for offensive speech.

The cuts should have been made to Telefilm period, not to specific films perhaps.

But I don't think Harper is trying to oust films that he personally finds offensive. That sounds a bit paranoid. Especially since no one watches these films anyway which is the reason they need funding in the first place.

But I mean you have to understand the intent behind this decision. Cuz I mean you really have to wonder sometimes. A friend of mine brought this up a few weeks ago as it happened. And I mean he and I are both people who love shows like South Park and content alot of people would find offensive, and he said "You know, even though I like these shows, you have to wonder why the Canadian government funds stuff like Kevin Spencer. Like who goes to the government and says, yeah we need cash for this cartoon about a chain smoking alcoholic sociopath, and who says yeah this is vital enough that all Canadians should fund this."

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

lordmandeep:

I didn't say I am against granting religious organizations and think tanks tax free status - I am referring to the comment re: Mr. Evangelist - and how there appears to be a double standard on the issue of values/morality and funding.

jefferiah:

What Harper did was to say you now have to do it on your own coin. So instead of limiting freedom, in this case Harper is allowing for more freedom.

There are already standards in the vetting process for eligibility re: the credits. How an expansion of such criteria, plus the additional of ministerial override constitute "Harper allowing for more freedom" is hard to justify.

Because the problem here is going to lie within deciding what is an offensive film, which could end up being the same problem with the slippery slope created now by the Human Rights Commission punishing people for offensive speech.

The HRC deals with hate speech, particularly with the intent to incite hatred or violence against identifiable groups - which is a rather different category from gratitutious violence or sexuality without "educational content" entirely. The latter falls more under the realm of censorship and "decency" laws.

AoD

 

[jefferiah]

lordmandeep:

There are already standards in the vetting process for eligibility re: the credits. How an expansion of such criteria, plus the additional of ministerial override constitute "Harper allowing for more freedom" is hard to justify.

The HRC deals with hate speech - which is a rather different category from gratitutious violence or sexuality without "educational content" entirely.

AoD

Allow me to explain. he is not limiting the freedom to make offensive films. That freedom of speech still exists. But it is not an inherent right that you should be funded to practice your free speech. To say so would actually be a breech of the tax payers rights to their own money.

The HRC is ridiculous. And no there is no different category. Either you have free speech or you don't. Saying you hate someone is not an infringement on another Human Rights. For instance if you were to say I hate Christians, that does nothing to infringe upon the rights of Christians. Because your hating them does not limit their freedom to remain Christians. However if a Christian were to take you to the HRC and have you pay large sums of money for the offense, it would be a breech of your right to free speech. Not to mention the fact that the complainant in this case is represented by the Commission and does not have to pay. As for you in this case, you would have to pay for representation and unlike real courts, even if you win you lose. Because the plaintiff does not have to pay court costs to compensate for your defense attorneys. And also unlike real courts the most ridiculous cases are given an ear, which means that over the smallest trifles you can be hauled before the Commission and be compelled to pay tons of money (first for your representation and later to the plaintiff for an egregious claim).

Have you followed some of the HRC's cases in recent years? A Sikh man refuses to wear a helmet on a ride at Canada's Wonderland. The ride, according to federal regulations requires that one must wear a helmet. So the folks at Canada's Wonderland (simply doing their job) say well if you don't want to wear the helmet that the law requires we all wear, then you can't go on the ride. Sikh takes them to HRC, wins.

Man owns a restaurant/bar frequented in the daytime by families who bring children etc etc. One customer at the restaurant is allowed to smoke medical marijuana. But he feels he has the right to smoke it in the doorway of this man's business, where families bring children in the daytime. Customers complain about the smell of it. So the restaurant owner asks the man to simply go smoke away from his doorway. The pot-smoker brings the restaurant to the HUman Rights Commission. Case has been pending for a few years now. The restaurant owner has been paying for his defense over a case that should have been denied. And even if he wins, he loses.

Ezra Levant runs a newspaper out west. During the time of the Danish Cartoon incident and the riots, he does a story about the riots, and prints the offending cartoons. Those cartoons of Mohammed were the subject of international news. Now Ezra Levant is facing a human rights tribunal for printing them.

And you people have the audacity to compare the cutting of film funding to real breeches of free speech. No one is being punished in the Tories decision. What they are saying is......tax payers simply wont be required to pay for it. That's not a breech of anyone's rights.