Fun Stuff > CHATTER

Bill C-10, Canadian censorship.

<< < (5/6) > >>

ForteBass:
Let us not resort to name calling already.
Mycroft, if you would please elaborate on your stance, that would be fantastic.

thehollow:

--- Quote from: Slick on 04 Mar 2008, 15:23 ---Right now, the Conservatives are in power, and they are pushing their own agenda. Problem is, as I see it, people vote for them because of their fiscal points and get stuck with their social points.

--- End quote ---

That's a pretty big deal for a good amount of Republicans in the US as well. Old school republicans (small government) such as my dad are completely against universal healthcare and the like, but aren't necessarily religious and don't hate gays and such. Problem is there's not many politicians who can feasibly adopt this platform, because it's not socially conservative enough to get the evangelical vote, and too conservative for the more liberal voters.

Mycroft:
I should clarify my stance. I am not a great fan of any kind of government subsidy. When I buy music, for example, I buy it based on what I enjoy. I happen to enjoy some Canadian music (Lowest of the Low, Moxy Fruvous, to name a few). But, I disagree with the the current taxpayer obligation to pay for and support Canadian content on the sole basis of supporting Canadian cultural identity.

I will address three main points:

1. Bill C-10 is not stopping filmmakers or artists from making films or music. The purpose of Bill C-10 is to deny public funding to certain content. I will elaborate on this later.

2.The bill itself is not particularly partisan, unlike previously suggested by Slick:


--- Quote ---Right now, the Conservatives are in power, and they are pushing their own agenda.
--- End quote ---

Both the Liberals and the Conservatives are equally responsible for the bill; the original version of the bill was tabled back in 2003 by former Liberal Heritage Minister Sheila Copps.

3. Finally, if I may quote Mark Steyn:


--- Quote ---It speaks volumes for the complacency of our movie industry that the presumption of government subsidy is so universal that Canada's artists now see it as analogous to freedom itself.
--- End quote ---

For anyone to claim that they have a right to my money, regardless of the actual content of their production, is a position I cannot agree with.

Now, the fact that the content itself is being evaluated by a closed-doors committee is a Bad Idea, and I completely agree with Johnny C that concerned individuals should do their best to prevent an arrangement such as that from ever seeing the light of day.

My original point, however, was to state that the denial of public funding is not censorship, however difficult the actual process to obtain the tax credit itself may be.


Have you ever put together a grant proposal, out of curiousity? It's not easy, and if you can't justify getting public money then you don't get it. Making this law says "here are things which can never be justified, nope, nuh-uh, no way." That's garbage.

Your own phrasing is key here: "The original version." The Conservatives have mangled it into what is being protested against. The current Heritage Minister amended the bill to include the part where he can veto a production's tax credit.

The Steyn quote is an oversimplification. They're not claiming that at all. They're claiming, among other things, that genuinely artistic films might be struck down because the government considers it risque.

Certainly not, but the establishment of intentionally vague legal conditions relating to content under which such funding will categorically be denied? Sounds like censorship to me.

I fucked around with this post again because it was brought to my attention that it looked really dickish to have his points rebuffed at every turn. It did. Sorry, dude. This post-editing business will be over next Wednesday, too. I just have some classes to finish. -JC

jhocking:

--- Quote from: Johnny C on 04 Mar 2008, 10:18 ---The Hollywood Reporter did a story on the bill on Friday. The general tone of the article was one of severe caution. It would be easy to imagine from reading the article, titled "Canadian tax credits: strings attached," that there will be a decrease in Hollywood's business here further than the decrease already caused by our rising dollar. Even at the end of last year, producers were already using the strike as an excuse for coming up north for productions ("Strike shutters 'Bionic,' 'Battlestar' up north," Hollywood Reporter, 16 November 2007). Tax credits are one of the few incentives for productions to film in Canada.

--- End quote ---

Did you already send this letter? This part is confusing to me (wait, does or doesn't Hollywood want to film in Canada?) and I would rewrite it, but if you've already sent it then it's not a big deal.

I missed a "not" in there. -JC

Social Bacon:

--- Quote from: Slick on 04 Mar 2008, 15:23 ---
--- Quote from: jeph on 04 Mar 2008, 13:23 ---What I'm wondering is, who benefits by this? I wasn't under the impression that the Canadian government pandered to the hypocritical Christian moral compass like the US did.

--- End quote ---

The government isn't pandering to those people, the government is those people.
Canadian politics in thirty seconds:
Federally there are:
* The Liberals
* The Conservatives
* The New Democratic Party
* The Green Party
* The Bloc QuebecoisFirst, you only vote for the bloc if you are a Quebec sovereigntist. Then, you are probably either a conservative or a liberal. You may sympathize with the ideology of the leftist NDP, but you'll probably vote Liberal instead because a) the NDP are inexperienced at governing and b) no one thinks they'll win so you'd rather just make sure the Conservatives don't win. You may like the Green party, and they're almost a real party now, but you still will probably vote Liberal because you don't want the Conservatives to win.
Usually there is a Liberal majority or a Liberal minority propped up by the NDP (the latter is my favorite so far). From time to time, though, either a) the Liberals will screw something up, and/or b) people will get tired of them, and then the Conservatives get power (when they're not off fractioning into three or four different Conservative parties.
That's it 'in a nutshell'.

Right now, the Conservatives are in power, and they are pushing their own agenda. Problem is, as I see it, people vote for them because of their fiscal points (not all of which I agree with) and to avoid the corruption that grows up in the old, power-cosy Liberals, and get stuck with their social points.
I do not like the Conservative party. Not much at all.

--- End quote ---
Basically this is the complete and total truth. Also, our form of "democracy" is rather fucked up, better than most, but still fucked. The Conservatives took every seat in Alberta in the last federal election with only about 65% of the Albertan popular vote... Ontario just attempted to initiate a government of proportional representation but the referendum failed because the majority of voters didn't know what it was...


--- Quote from: CEOVanilla on 04 Mar 2008, 22:54 ---Wait, this got through the House of Commons? I'd have thought the Bloc, Liberals and NDP would have voted against it.

--- End quote ---
If it did get through the house (I haven't been following so I'm not sure if it has) it will be because Dion has still failed to hit puberty and doesn't have the balls to actually vote on any piece of legislature. I can't believe he chose to abstain from voting on Harper's retarded tax cut. Even right wing economists think his economic policy was a piss poor decision.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page