J
jefferiah
Guest
Ok, then get some funding and make one yourself. It's not the job of the government to make it for you.
|
|
|
Harper Tories to Cut Funding for "Offensive" Films
- Thread starter unimaginative2
- Start date
Ok, then get some funding and make one yourself. It's not the job of the government to make it for you.
J
jefferiah
Guest
Yes I would be against it. But that does not mean I am upset by the content. It just means that I don't think it should be visited on the tax payer.
Well for one thing, I am somewhat undecided as of now on the issue of subsidy altogether. But I do think that some industries could at least be seen to be more vital. For instance, I think that it would be hard to argue the point that tax dollars which go toward the funding of health care are put to better use than tax dollars which go to fund Canadian art. A big part of the reason that these artists need funding is that no one is watching them, let alone actual Canadians. But most of us do go to the hospital.
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
- Reaction score
- 5
- Location
- a strange reality, bizarro toronto
ok. i understand the need for healthcare. it makes sense that industries vital to survival & safety should be funded. so that's it? is that the only criteria for government support?
J
jefferiah
Guest
Well now we are going way beyond the issue at hand. You'll have to allow me some time to figure everything out, which will probably take the rest of my life, and even then I wont have everything figured out....will you?
unimaginative2
Senior Member
You seem like a pleasant person. I'd love to hear your views on other issues, like urban development in Toronto. You should check out some of the other sections of the forum. There's lots of cool stuff going on here! And if you visited the city in a while, I suggest you come and see all the positive changes!
J
jefferiah
Guest
Awww shucks. I don't see myself visiting the city soon, but nonetheless flattered by your kind invitation.
You will never convert me to the Leafs though. Go Habs Go!!
adma
Superstar
It still makes me wonder why you decided to join the forum after Googling the topic--and no other discernable reason. You must be plenty lonely if you need so much to discuss these issues here
JasonParis
Moderator
There's no such thing. Either it's publically subsidized or Wall Street subsidized. In Canada, we luckily have a system that allows for both.
J
jefferiah
Guest
In response to Adma, I have to wonder why on earth you would care?
Joining a forum takes no longer than a few minutes. It is not as if I had to scale 1000 ft walls in my birthday suit in order to come on here and argue a point.
Joining a forum takes no longer than a few minutes. It is not as if I had to scale 1000 ft walls in my birthday suit in order to come on here and argue a point.
J
jefferiah
Guest
Ok, but that aside, I am absolutely certain you understood what I meant. If in a future post I reference the topic of the sunrise, are you going to jump to point out the fact that the sun does not rise but the earth rotates?
JasonParis
Moderator
No I don't understand what you mean. If the public purse isn't supporting news resources (CBC, BBC), then news programming is being financed by corporate-sponsorship instead (CTV, CBS).
J
jefferiah
Guest
Well, in general, when people refer to subsidization in this context, they mean public subsidy. But I am sure you understood that.
adma
Superstar
JasonParis
Moderator
Hey, Harper: what the bleep?
Film censorship powers snuck into feds’ tax reform bill while opposition critics were asleep at the switch
By Susan G. Cole
Cutting tax credits to films like Breakfast With Scot is just a cheap way of pandering to Tories’ right-wing base.
Call it the story of o-words. “offensive,†“odious†and “objectionable†are the adjectives being used to describe those films that might not get the tax-credit green light if the Tories have their way and sneak new guidelines into Bill C-10, an act to reform the Income Tax Act.
The law, giving the heritage minister new powers to nix films that don’t meet new subjective guidelines – vaguely related to concerns about decency and not yet on the books – has reached the Senate committee stage.
So where was the opposition when the bill sailed through two readings in Parliament? You have to wonder whether the Libs and the NDP have been snoozing through this one.
The Globe and Mail was quick to point the finger at the allegedly huge influence of Charles McVety, the outspoken president of Canada Christian College and the Family Action Coalition, on the process.
McVety does have some outrageous views. On one debate spot we did together for CH Television, he opposed a city-sanctioned Pride Day, claiming it was an all-weekend orgy that shed a bad light on Toronto. In another, he opposed Gay-Straight Alliances in high schools because they were really just glorified sex clubs.
Not exactly the kind of person you want exerting undue influence on Canadian culture. But he insists he doesn’t.
“I never took credit for this,†he says in a phone interview, “and we didn’t run a traditional all-out campaign.†He admits that he did talk with the man he cozily calls Stock, Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day, as well as Attorney General Robert Nicholson and Treasury Board president Vic Toews.
But he also talked with Liberal MPs Paul Szabo and Dan McTeague. Sure, the Tories may be looking for a cheap way to ingratiate themselves with their right-wing base, but it’s not as if the Liberals weren’t aware that the lobbying was getting hot and heavy.
Liberal culture critic Mauril Bélanger explains that the bill was originally tabled as Bill C-33 in 1998 (before his time as culture critic) and that the call for additional guidelines was buried in a complex, 560-page document 10 years later. Consultation was limited, he says, and there is no mention of the suggested guidelines in the Canadian Gazette, where new regulations are usually available for MPs’ perusal.
“The government has an obligation to explain clearly what the bill is about, and I don’t think it did that,†he says.
Yes, but you’d also think that it’s a culture critic’s job to read the damn thing before it passes.
Bélanger’s NDP counterpart, Bill Siksay, sounds slightly chagrined when I say as much to him. “I don’t want to make excuses. All I can say is that when you’re looking at this kind of legislation, you’re not looking for a censorship mechanism within it, and we’re going to do everything in our power now to oppose it. But you’re right. It is our responsibility.â€
He goes on to press all the freedom-of-speech buttons. “It doesn’t surprise me that the the Conservatives have an impetus to censor. It’s not unusual for them to complain about something being objectionable. I don’t think there’s been a problem with tax credits going to inappropriate projects.â€
McVety doesn’t agree. He says a film like Young People F-ing (he means Young People Fucking, which he did not see), about what he describes as the sexual escapades of four couples, including orgies, is not something government should be funding.
“A film like Breakfast With Scot, I believe, proseletyzes little boys to become homosexuals. Whole New Thing shows sex in a public place and talks about masturbation. A film like Kissed, about necromancy (sic - he means necrophilia), that’s not appropriate.â€
The fact that Whole New Thing came from the imagination of Daniel MacIvor, one of the country’s most celebrated writers and performers, and another, Kissed, is based on a story by Barbara Gowdy, a member of the Order of Canada, doesn’t keep him from insisting that they “do not meet society’s standards.â€
He does say he’s interested in an open debate, but when I suggest that he would have bee very happy had this bill slipped through Parliament under the radar, without any discussion at all, he says, “No debate? That has nothing to do with me.â€
And he has a point.
Film censorship powers snuck into feds’ tax reform bill while opposition critics were asleep at the switch
By Susan G. Cole
Cutting tax credits to films like Breakfast With Scot is just a cheap way of pandering to Tories’ right-wing base.
Call it the story of o-words. “offensive,†“odious†and “objectionable†are the adjectives being used to describe those films that might not get the tax-credit green light if the Tories have their way and sneak new guidelines into Bill C-10, an act to reform the Income Tax Act.
The law, giving the heritage minister new powers to nix films that don’t meet new subjective guidelines – vaguely related to concerns about decency and not yet on the books – has reached the Senate committee stage.
So where was the opposition when the bill sailed through two readings in Parliament? You have to wonder whether the Libs and the NDP have been snoozing through this one.
The Globe and Mail was quick to point the finger at the allegedly huge influence of Charles McVety, the outspoken president of Canada Christian College and the Family Action Coalition, on the process.
McVety does have some outrageous views. On one debate spot we did together for CH Television, he opposed a city-sanctioned Pride Day, claiming it was an all-weekend orgy that shed a bad light on Toronto. In another, he opposed Gay-Straight Alliances in high schools because they were really just glorified sex clubs.
Not exactly the kind of person you want exerting undue influence on Canadian culture. But he insists he doesn’t.
“I never took credit for this,†he says in a phone interview, “and we didn’t run a traditional all-out campaign.†He admits that he did talk with the man he cozily calls Stock, Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day, as well as Attorney General Robert Nicholson and Treasury Board president Vic Toews.
But he also talked with Liberal MPs Paul Szabo and Dan McTeague. Sure, the Tories may be looking for a cheap way to ingratiate themselves with their right-wing base, but it’s not as if the Liberals weren’t aware that the lobbying was getting hot and heavy.
Liberal culture critic Mauril Bélanger explains that the bill was originally tabled as Bill C-33 in 1998 (before his time as culture critic) and that the call for additional guidelines was buried in a complex, 560-page document 10 years later. Consultation was limited, he says, and there is no mention of the suggested guidelines in the Canadian Gazette, where new regulations are usually available for MPs’ perusal.
“The government has an obligation to explain clearly what the bill is about, and I don’t think it did that,†he says.
Yes, but you’d also think that it’s a culture critic’s job to read the damn thing before it passes.
Bélanger’s NDP counterpart, Bill Siksay, sounds slightly chagrined when I say as much to him. “I don’t want to make excuses. All I can say is that when you’re looking at this kind of legislation, you’re not looking for a censorship mechanism within it, and we’re going to do everything in our power now to oppose it. But you’re right. It is our responsibility.â€
He goes on to press all the freedom-of-speech buttons. “It doesn’t surprise me that the the Conservatives have an impetus to censor. It’s not unusual for them to complain about something being objectionable. I don’t think there’s been a problem with tax credits going to inappropriate projects.â€
McVety doesn’t agree. He says a film like Young People F-ing (he means Young People Fucking, which he did not see), about what he describes as the sexual escapades of four couples, including orgies, is not something government should be funding.
“A film like Breakfast With Scot, I believe, proseletyzes little boys to become homosexuals. Whole New Thing shows sex in a public place and talks about masturbation. A film like Kissed, about necromancy (sic - he means necrophilia), that’s not appropriate.â€
The fact that Whole New Thing came from the imagination of Daniel MacIvor, one of the country’s most celebrated writers and performers, and another, Kissed, is based on a story by Barbara Gowdy, a member of the Order of Canada, doesn’t keep him from insisting that they “do not meet society’s standards.â€
He does say he’s interested in an open debate, but when I suggest that he would have bee very happy had this bill slipped through Parliament under the radar, without any discussion at all, he says, “No debate? That has nothing to do with me.â€
And he has a point.