Harper Tories to Cut Funding for "Offensive" Films

[AlvinofDiaspar]

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.

Indeed, if that is the case however, then why should some groups be entitlted to the taxpayers subsidized freedom of speech while others aren't - and better yet, on what rationales should that be decision be made? On a Minister's whim and personal sense of ethics and morality? And taxpayers - which taxpayers?

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).

Canada never has unfettered freedom of speech - the area of libel is one, among many, that clearly identified the limits of such. Another area is threatening someone with violence or death. So please don't come to me telling it's black and white or absolute. Perhaps I should expect you to stand against those laws now?

Beyond that - actually you can't be hauled up to the OHRC just because joe blow said something casually - there has to be some act of discrimination (services, employment, accomodation) or harassment - also note that the majority of cases are resolved through mediation. Redress for costs can be made in cases that's in bad faith, as per Section 41(4) of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

What you've cited are extreme cases involving the HRC. Just how many of cases and what proportion of cases in practice are of this nature? And I've noticed you aren't quoting the majority of cases that makes complete sense - and justified the existence of the HRC in the first case. Like the individual who had complained the lack of accomodation by the TTC, which refused to announce station stops?

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.

Actually it's the OHRC in that case - and the regulations are also provincial in nature. The question is - and you haven't provided me with this information - whether the person in question had, upon being told he cannot be on the ride, been compensated for it (and it doesn't appear so, at that point). Not to mention, there are quite a few similiar cases where the human rights ruling are NOT favourable to the complainant, on various basis (workplace safety, etc).

And in any event, what does this case have to do with freedom of speech? Or is it about your beef with the HRC?

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.

Interesting you didn't mentioned that he is smoking it in the smoking area of the restaurant - not just any doorway. Would the customers inside have the right to ask any other smoker to take a hike and expect the owner to comply for not liking the smell of Giantes, for example? No. And in addition to that - medicinal marijuana is medication - cigarettes aren't. Does it sound right to you to deny others to right for medication while giving what is defacto special treatment to what could be an equally offensive act - i.e. smoking - to some individuals? BTW, framing it with the talk of family and children is clearly trying to sway the argument in the context of quasi-legal activities vs. kids. Oh would someone think of the children who have to, god forbid, suffer from the smell of weed while cigaratte smoke are a-okay?

Again, what does it have to do with the freedom of speech?

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.

The question of intent comes to mind - and note that in this case, the complaint has already been withdrawn by the complainant himself - with the express understanding of the role of freedom of speech in Canadian society as a reason.

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.

Taking away economic incentive to have certain types of speech/viewpoints being accessible isn't a limitation on free speech? I thought you said that there are no gradations of free speech?

The real criteria for artistic funding should be artistic excellence - not morality, controversy or the lackthereof.

AoD

 

[Hydrogen]

"In my mind, sir, and in the minds of many of my colleagues and many, many Canadians," said Mr. Batters during a Jan. 31 meeting of the Canadian Heritage committee, "the purpose of Telefilm is to help facilitate the making of films for mainstream Canadian society - films that Canadians can sit down and watch with their families in living rooms across this great country."

The suggestion here is that homosexuality is not mainstream, nor is sex (although it is not explained as to how families are made without the use of sex).

The allusion that suggests depictions of homosexuality and graphic violence as being in the same category is simply offensive. That is the inherent danger with the unquestioned assertions of such a policy.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Hydrogen:

And God forbid if you're a single Canadian with no family (i.e. kids), telefilm would have nothing for you. Guess that's because you weren't "mainstream" enough.

Then again, I suppose Hollywood fare is.

AoD

 

[Admiral Beez]

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.

How about we just stop using our tax dollars to support movies? What's wrong with letting a movie survive financially on its own merits? If it can't....then it shouldn't.

 

[jefferiah]

Indeed, if that is the case however, then why should some groups be entitlted to the taxpayers subsidized freedom of speech while others aren't - and better yet, on what rationales should that be decision be made? On a Minister's whim and personal sense of ethics and morality? And taxpayers - which taxpayers?



Canada never has unfettered freedom of speech - the area of libel is one, among many, that clearly identified the limits of such. Another area is threatening someone with violence or death. So please don't come to me telling it's black and white or absolute. Perhaps I should expect you to stand against those laws now?

Beyond that - actually you can't be hauled up to the OHRC just because joe blow said something casually - there has to be some act of discrimination (services, employment, accomodation) or harassment - also note that the majority of cases are resolved through mediation. Redress for costs can be made in cases that's in bad faith, as per Section 41(4) of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

What you've cited are extreme cases involving the HRC. Just how many of cases and what proportion of cases in practice are of this nature? And I've noticed you aren't quoting the majority of cases that makes complete sense - and justified the existence of the HRC in the first case. Like the individual who had complained the lack of accomodation by the TTC, which refused to announce station stops?



Actually it's the OHRC in that case - and the regulations are also provincial in nature. The question is - and you haven't provided me with this information - whether the person in question had, upon being told he cannot be on the ride, been compensated for it (and it doesn't appear so, at that point). Not to mention, there are quite a few similiar cases where the human rights ruling are NOT favourable to the complainant, on various basis (workplace safety, etc).

And in any event, what does this case have to do with freedom of speech? Or is it about your beef with the HRC?



Interesting you didn't mentioned that he is smoking it in the smoking area of the restaurant - not just any doorway. Would the customers inside have the right to ask any other smoker to take a hike and expect the owner to comply for not liking the smell of Giantes, for example? No. And in addition to that - medicinal marijuana is medication - cigarettes aren't. Does it sound right to you to deny others to right for medication while giving what is defacto special treatment to what could be an equally offensive act - i.e. smoking - to some individuals? BTW, framing it with the talk of family and children is clearly trying to sway the argument in the context of quasi-legal activities vs. kids. Oh would someone think of the children who have to, god forbid, suffer from the smell of weed while cigaratte smoke are a-okay?

Again, what does it have to do with the freedom of speech?



The question of intent comes to mind - and note that in this case, the complaint has already been withdrawn by the complainant himself - with the express understanding of the role of freedom of speech in Canadian society as a reason.



Taking away economic incentive to have certain types of speech/viewpoints being accessible isn't a limitation on free speech? I thought you said that there are no gradations of free speech?

The real criteria for artistic funding should be artistic excellence - not morality, controversy or the lackthereof.

AoD

Many businesses require that you do not smoke cigarettes in a doorway. In any case the fellow suing the restauranteur for asking him to smoke a little farther away must be a royal dick. What is harder to do? Take a few steps down the block or pay several thousand in fees for representation. Not to mention the fact, that if this were the restaurants smoking area it is property of the owner. The owner should be able to say no marijuana smoking on my property. That is not denying a man his right to smoke pot, it just means you don't do it on my property. We all have those rights when it comes to property. If the man prefers cigarette smoke on his property to pot smoke (whether you think one is worse than the other) that's his perogative. No, the customers certainly have no right to tell the pot smoker or a cigarette smoker to take a hike. But the owner does, and that is who asked.

You say that speech has always been limited due to things like libel and threats. But if you pay attention to the cases in the last few years, not many of them concern issues of libel or even death threats, or else they could be better handled in a real criminal court.

What does intent have to do with Ezra Levant. If indeed Canada has free speech and freedom of the press what should it matter his intent. In any case, the Mohammed cartoons are a definite news story. Do you think that the artist who created Piss Christ should be legally liable? No one should have to answer to the government their private thoughts on why they said something. That is completely ridiculous. Combine that with the fact that you completely ignore that the HRCs do not hold the egregious complainants liable for court costs and the defendant loses even if he wins. Is this a case of libel. Has Mohammed the Prophet lost a great deal of business because of the mocking depictions. Then let him rise from the grave and sue. The fact that the case was withdrawn does little to redeem the HRCs system, because it was not the HRC which dropped the case but the complainant. That means that had another complainant continued with the charge Levant would still be there. And even when cases are dropped there is still no restitution for the costs forced upon the defendant.

As to the matter of funding, I don't understand how you can even begin to think that denying someone funding is a breech or freedom of speech. In that case, I could say it is a breech of freedom of speech that the tax payers do not pay for me to have my own film crew so I can exercise my freedom of speech.


I agree with Admiral Beez here. We should stop funding movies altogether. However if there is to be any funding, I think it makes sense that family-oriented content should be what the government funds. As much as I love shows like the Trailer Park Boys, it is kind of wierd that the Canadian government funds them. If that means some things I enjoy can't survive because they dont cut it in the real market, then so be it. Better than demanding that tax payers pay for things that could not stand on their own two legs. That simply means everyone is paying for something very few of us are watching.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

imagine PC fucks get their way and our school history books which are paid with our tax dollars are re-written in a family oriented way.

if you can't show a situation of violence in a publicly subsidized movie, how will violence be allowed in the history books which are also publicly funded?

 

[MisterF]

How about we just stop using our tax dollars to support movies? What's wrong with letting a movie survive financially on its own merits? If it can't....then it shouldn't.

Your original point wasn't that we should stop funding movies, it was your usual thinly veiled attack on homosexuals. Now that you've been called out, you're changing the subject. Really, whether or not movies should get tax breaks is a completely separate issue.

 

[jefferiah]

imagine PC fucks get their way and our school history books which are paid with our tax dollars are re-written in a family oriented way.

if you can't show a situation of violence in a publicly subsidized movie, how will violence be allowed in the history books which are also publicly funded?

No one is saying you can't show a show with violence. You misunderstand. The conservatives decided that the government should not fund it, not that its illegal to make movies with violent content. They did not take away the right to display violent content on tv. So no rights have been violated. There is no right one has that says the tax payers must pay you for your art.

If you have a problem with PC folks, I suggest you shift your attention to the HRC where it actually becomes a legal question of whether you can say offensive things or not.

But as for sexually explicit content in a government entity, its already the norm that in most cases we don't fund that. For we all have a right to say the F-word forty or fifty times a day, but you probably won't do it at a public funded school, will you?

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

No one is saying you can't show a show with violence. You misunderstand. The conservatives decided that the government should not fund it, not that its illegal to make movies with violent content. They did not take away the right to display violent content on tv. So no rights have been violated. There is no right one has that says the tax payers must pay you for your art.

If you have a problem with PC folks, I suggest you shift your attention to the HRC where it actually becomes a legal question of whether you can say offensive things or not.

But as for sexually explicit content in a government entity, its already the norm that in most cases we don't fund that. For we all have a right to say the F-word forty or fifty times a day, but you probably won't do it at a public funded school, will you?

so why are they funding history books whose pages are drenched in violence?
there's rape, genocide, murder, etc.

and as for saying "fuck" in a publicly funded school, the catholic priest in my high school said it was okay back in the day, that it was just a word.


this whole argument isn't about funding. it's about parents that are too lazy to raise their kids and depend on the television to do the job.

 

[Hydrogen]

I agree with Admiral Beez here. We should stop funding movies altogether. However if there is to be any funding, I think it makes sense that family-oriented content should be what the government funds.

Debating whether government should be funding films is not the issue at hand. It is that a specific lobby group representing a specific political point of view is generating public policy.

As the article notes:

A well-known evangelical crusader is claiming credit for the federal government's move to deny tax credits to TV and film productions that contain graphic sex and violence or other offensive content.

Charles McVety, president of the Canada Family Action Coalition, said his lobbying efforts included discussions with Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, and "numerous" meetings with officials in the Prime Minister's Office.

"We're thankful that someone's finally listening," he said yesterday. "It's fitting with conservative values, and I think that's why Canadians voted for a Conservative government."

Mr. McVety said films promoting homosexuality, graphic sex or violence should not receive tax dollars, and backbench Conservative MPs and cabinet ministers support his campaign.

Why is an evangelical crusader dictating how tax dollars are spent?

As a lobbyist he appears to very good access to a government that proclaimed that there was far too much lobbyist influence on previous governments.

He also seems to have the agreement of the conservative party that his point of view (and by extension, the point of view of the conservative party) is more than good enough to dictate what films ought to be funded on the basis of his moral ideals.

His select list of unworthy (and supposedly worthy) content is so vague as to be laughable. But more to the point, it's idiotic in this day and age to suggest that depictions of homosexuality, sexual activity and violence are all of the same category.

And why do so many evangelists (and social conservatives) have a long-running interest in gay people having sex? They come off sound obsessed with the topic.

As to funding only family oriented films, what does that even mean?



Life contains many dimensions, not just the limited set deemed worthy by social conservatives.

 

[adma]

No one is saying you can't show a show with violence. You misunderstand. The conservatives decided that the government should not fund it, not that its illegal to make movies with violent content. They did not take away the right to display violent content on tv. So no rights have been violated. There is no right one has that says the tax payers must pay you for your art.

If you have a problem with PC folks, I suggest you shift your attention to the HRC where it actually becomes a legal question of whether you can say offensive things or not.

But as for sexually explicit content in a government entity, its already the norm that in most cases we don't fund that. For we all have a right to say the F-word forty or fifty times a day, but you probably won't do it at a public funded school, will you?

Oh, fuddle duddle.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

As to funding only family oriented films, what does that even mean?

manson family? you never really know what these nutjobs are talking about.

 

[jefferiah]

Debating whether government should be funding films is not the issue at hand. It is that a specific lobby group representing a specific political point of view is generating public policy.

As the article notes:



Why is an evangelical crusader dictating how tax dollars are spent?

I don't think its just evangelists who think money could be better spent than on Young Boys Fucking. Just because McVety is claiming credit doesn't mean he is the catalyst behind the decision.

 

[CDL.TO]

I don't think its just evangelists who think money could be better spent than on Young Boys Fucking.

And this is what we call a Freudian slip. The name of this movie is "Young People Fucking".

 

[lordmandeep]

Oh, fuddle duddle.

sure his fiscal policies were destructive, however his charm and personality, make him still the best PM in the last 40 years.