More on the Conservative censorship bid

24 comments on “More on the Conservative censorship bid”

1. Nathan says:
   February 29th, 2008 at 10:00 am

   The one hope here is that the boneheads behind this are taking their victory lap a little early, and that the outcry will kill it in its cradle.

   Unfortunately, if there’s one thing Harper is disturbingly good at, it’s calling everyone’s bluff.

2. judas says:
   February 29th, 2008 at 10:06 am

   Any specifics on Harper’s church? Links? Its name?

3. Kathryn says:
   February 29th, 2008 at 10:29 am

   East Gate Alliance Church, I believe.

   What really irritates me at the moment are comments like these:

   ‘Bill Siksay, heritage critic for the NDP, said he did not know about this amendment when he voted for the 600-page bill.

   “To hear now that there may be a clause in it that will allow the government to censor the creative process in Canada comes as a significant shock and surprise,” he told CBC News.’ (G&M)

   The Harper government is trying to sneak in amendments that reek of religiosity, and the voters haven’t figured out yet (duh) that they should read the bill before they wave at it. I hope they have absolution at that church Harper attends.

4. Howard Rabb says:
   February 29th, 2008 at 12:55 pm

   I am going to be blogging about this today as well. I was in the car today listening to CFRB when I heard an interview with that guy. First off… what a tool, secondly, he doesn’t want telefilm to exist in the first place. He almost sounded like this was just being done to skrew with telefilm.

5. Danika says:
   February 29th, 2008 at 3:19 pm

   Ah, yes, this with the muzzling of our scientists… have I ever been any prouder to be Canadian? -weeps in a corner-

6. Roland says:
   February 29th, 2008 at 4:55 pm

   “Mr. McVety said films promoting homosexuality, graphic sex or violence should not receive tax dollars.”

   Such an insight into the way these people think. What the fuck does it mean to “promote” graphic sex, anyway? Encourage people to have sex with the lights on?

   And I wonder how many Canadian filmmmakers have “promoted” homosexuality effectively? I’d like to see their conversion figures.

7. Allan says:
   February 29th, 2008 at 6:35 pm

   <>
   Why believe McVety, but not Day & Nicholson? How much credibility does he deserve to be given?

8. Dwight Williams says:
   February 29th, 2008 at 8:16 pm

   600 pages…

9. Roy Pepitone says:
   March 1st, 2008 at 1:42 am

   Under the same rhetoric used to justify this, BPIDP and the CC require the same governmental oversight to protect the public from immoral artists.
   I am amazed by the lack of rage over this. There were 40 posts about Leah McLaren being a doofus, but only eight regarding the idea that the conservative government has sneakily given itself the right to determine what films get made in this country. Wow.

10. ed says:
    March 2nd, 2008 at 8:30 am

    I’m as outraged as anyone but let us not forget that this proposal has been advanced by the democratically elected government of
    Canada. It thus represents the will of, while not the majority, at least a significant minority of the population. I’ve beaten this drum before but … maybe Canada isn’t the place you would like to think it is. The place seems to me, more and more every day, more reactionary, more hostile to culture, more backward. I find it incredible that a body with the lunatic views of The Conservatives is anything more than a fringe party in Parliament. I find the mere existance of Stockwell Day unfathomable and he’s a senior Cabinet Minister.

11. Paul says:
    March 2nd, 2008 at 9:54 am

    It could be, Roy, that here is not the most useful venue for our rage. For myself, I have been sending letters to MPs and senators.

12. John McFetridge says:
    March 2nd, 2008 at 11:30 am

    Just to clarify, it’s not, “the right to determine what films get made,” it’s the right to determine what films get Telefilm financing. Telefilm has always been ’selective’ in the films it chooses to finance (that’s why the old CFDC – which only looked at films as ‘investments’ was shut down and Telefilm was started).

    As long as there are small groups of people deciding which films get financed based on “artistic merit” , there’ll be controversies. Or, as Roy points out, not.

13. Art Norris says:
    March 2nd, 2008 at 12:29 pm

    You’re right, Roy, but our rage is better expressed to our MPs than to each other. We should each write to our respective Member of Parliament, assuming that he or she can read.

14. ed says:
    March 2nd, 2008 at 1:55 pm

    No, it’s nothing to do with Telefilm but with Federal Tax Credits as administered by CAVCO. These credits usually account for
    between 10 to 20 percent of the budget. Obviously, like any sort of tax credit, they are awarded upon the project’s completion and subsequent certification (they are notoriously slow). Because they come at the back end of the process this proposed change to the Tax act would kill all but the richest producers (there are, like, three in the entire country) because the banks would not be able to provide bridge financing,
    owing to the inherent uncertainty in meeting an arbitrary standard of “appropriateness”. The people behind this loathe public
    subsidy to the sector so would be just as happy to shut the works down.

15. John McFetridge says:
    March 2nd, 2008 at 7:16 pm

    Oh well, that’s different then… ;)

    Now, I was at the Page to Screen thing last weeek and while I sure hope one of the producers there buys the films rights to one of my novels (I’m not sure if homosexuality is “promoted” but there are gay characters and probably way too much sex and violence and drug use for these new rules) the truth is the movie business in this country is in a bad way and it would be great if this did kick start a debate that may improve things.

    Just probably not on a site devoted to books.

16. ed says:
    March 2nd, 2008 at 8:10 pm

    It is relevent to discuss it on a site dedicated to books because it reflects the way this government thinks. Should they ever get a majority I’m sure other funding bodies and their project and methods would get similar and equally harsh, or an even more severe reassessment. Isn’t it all unnatural sex acts with the sort of work discussed here. At least I hope so.

    It’s also notable that they tried to do this in a rather sneaky way, though the back door (forgive me), with a clause in a lengthy amendment to the Income Tax Act. While it has some latitude, Telefilm is essentially an equity investor in films and supposedly makes its calls on the films
    capacity to earn revenue. As if.

17. John McFetridge says:
    March 2nd, 2008 at 9:43 pm

    Well, you’re right, Ed. And as we learned in Ontario, it really doesn’t matter which party brings in changes, getting rid of that party doesn’t get rid of the changes. Look at how many of the Harris changes live on.

    So why is Leah McLaren a much hotter topic here?

18. Richard says:
    March 3rd, 2008 at 9:03 am

    John McFetridge gets part of it, but the real point is that when you give government the power to take and give money, for every beneficiary someone else loses in some degree. It should be no surprise that a party will want to attach strings to the money they hand out. The give and take will change with each party, and this time it’s the film industry. The Right has always been concerned with controlling morality, just as the Left has always been concerned with controlling production. Heads you lose, tails you lose. Just as separation of church and state improved citizens’ lives, so will separation of economy and state.

19. Franklin Carter says:
    March 3rd, 2008 at 5:17 pm

    Yep. He who pays the piper calls the tune. People understood that principle in the days of the ancient Greeks and Romans.

20. Roland says:
    March 3rd, 2008 at 5:49 pm

    Richard, don’t you think controlling morality has been a bit of a bi-partisan effort? Remember Al and Tipper? I dearly wish there was at least one side of the political spectrum that could be relied on not to meddle with culture, but the long-term rule seems to be that when one side gives up its cultural busybodying, the other is apt to take it up.

21. susan says:
    March 3rd, 2008 at 7:29 pm

    Apparently the bill is going back to the Senate for another reading tomorrow. Here are the people who you should write to ASAP:

    Senate Committee on Bank, Trade and Commerce.

    Angus, W. David Chair – C – (Alma – Quebec)
    Goldstein, Yoine Deputy Chair – Lib. – (Rigaud – Quebec)
    Biron, Michel – Lib. – (Mille Isles – Quebec)
    Eyton, John Trevor – C – (Ontario)
    Harb, Mac – Lib. – (Ontario)
    Jaffer, Mobina S.B. – Lib. – (British Columbia)
    Massicotte, Paul J. – Lib. – (De Lanaudière – Quebec)
    Moore, Wilfred P. – Lib. – (Stanhope St. / South Shore – Nova Scotia)
    Oliver, Donald H. – C – (South Shore – Nova Scotia)
    Ringuette, Pierrette – Lib. – (New Brunswick)
    Tkachuk, David – C – (Saskatchewan)

22. Franklin Carter says:
    March 4th, 2008 at 8:57 am

    Actually, the committee’s name is the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce.

    “Banking,” not “Bank.”

23. John McFetridge says:
    March 4th, 2008 at 11:22 am

    Here, this explains how the Americans do it: [see link above]

24. Monica says:
    March 5th, 2008 at 9:40 am

    Thanks, John McFetridge. I knew there was some kind of compromise. Trust the onion, i always say.

Discuss