CANADIEN

And I for one view it as a good thing (that they don;t get it). I for one need the entertainment.

New Argus' definition of evil (err I mean left-wing). Anyone who believes that Khadr should be tried, and sentenced for any crime he committed, according to the fundamental rules of justice. Don't worry, while you are technically living in the 21th century, I won't cry when you pack uup and return to the Stone Age.

Therefore, seniors who get a tax credit due to their age are getting your money. So do the parents whyo get a tax credit for their minor children. And those people who get a tax credit for donating to charities, donating to political parties, using public transit, attending universities. :lol: And if your true goal is just to end any funding of the arts (including people getting back some of their tax money), how come you have nothing to say against those people on the religious right whose objective (reflected in the proposed new rules) is to end a tax rebate only for the producers of those movies they don't like? That, as usual, they get a free pass from you is pretty indicative of your attitude.

Like it or not, they are Canadian citizens. And like it or not, their right to express their repugnant opinion is equal to your right to write your drivel.

Actually, I have no personal interest in seeing Brokeback Mountain, but if you know it's porn you must have seen it And last time I checked, a tax credit is actually a refund to a taxpayer of some of the tzxes he/she has paid. And you do care what movies other people watch and don't watch... That's why you're so bent on dictating which taxpayers should get some of their money back based on your idea of the type of movie they should produce.

And you do not view gays and lesbians as normal, and you believe that people who do not shre your prejudice do not pay tazes. No wonder that you believe the government should decide what movies I can or cannot watch.

So what don't you tell us what movies are worthy enough that their producer should be entitled to have some of their tax money returned to them in the form of a tax credit. And don't give us the line of "no movie should qualify". After that other "fine" example of the homophobic drivel you're so fond of, I do not buy it.

first it's all movies, then it's dirty movies, then all movies again... Make up your mind. , You mean the way you use the term "left-wing". Of course, those who object to the government deciding what they should be able to watch have no morality. Less we forget... The value of an opinion is measured by the size of the wallet of the person expressing it. And I am still waiting for information as to where on the income tax crap being defined of course, not by the actual quality of a movie, but what whether or not it matches conservative world view. All movie producers qualify for the tax credit. You do not know what messages bother me or not. FYI (not that it is your business anyway), I've outgrown porn and most "message" movies bore me. And I have the capacity to decide for myself what movies I will see, without the government telling me "this movie's message is so bad that we'll use any means short of outright censorship to make sure you never have to see it". The dishonesty, to use your new catch word, is to argue for freedom of expression whenever someone writes hateful drivel while applauding when the government undermines it.

I personnally do not believe he is innocent, but as I made it clear I want a real trial for him, one where he deemed legally not guilty until and nunless he is found guilty without any reasonnable doubt. And if he is found not guilty, then he should be released.

I for one wants him to rot in a US prison... once he has been convicted in a proper court of law under fair procedures, two things which are not about to see the light of day.

Nothing to do with assimilation... It has the same effect on anybody who knows bad hockey when they see it.

Nice try. There is more than one way of dictating what movies should or should not be produced. One is for the government to say: you can get some of your tax money back, but only as long as we like what you do. Nice try. A tax credit is not support for the intent, message or opinions of a film maker. Nice try: A movie glorifying 9/11 would not get financing from private banks. Nice try: There are few people in this country who believe 9/11 was a great thing, an even less who would make a movie about it. Nice try. As despicable as that opinion is, belief that 9/11 was a great thing is part of the range of opinions people have the right to express in this country. I have little doubt that a tax credit to a movie claiming that 9/11 was God's punishment for homosexuality wouldn't be rejected by a sizeable chunk of the proponents of the proposed changes.

That's the issue, Remiel. This has nothing to do with determining what movies will be box-office success es and what movies have artistic merits. It is about co-opting the government in an effort to keep out of theatre movies the religious right don't like. let's take the case of two (American) movies. Brokeback Mountain was honoured as the best movie at the Venice Film Festival, the Golden Globe Awards, the Critics Choice Awards (among others), was nominated for eight Academy Awards and won three, and by the end of its theatrical run it was eighth highest-grossing romantic dramas of all time. On the other end, the Christian evangelical movie series Left behind goes straight from church halls to DVD release - DVD release without going through movie theatres is usually the fate of movies that cannot attract an audience. If these movies had been Canadian, Brokeback Mountain would not have been deemed worthy of a tax credit under the proposed changes to the rules. Left Behind would likely have qualified.

Less we forget. The only people paying taxes those who believe the government has no business investing in scoial programs or in public infrastructures but is entirely justified to poke its nose in people's private life and decide what movies we should or should not see. Mind telling me where on the income tax form I check to get the "left wing tax exemption"?

I thought it was about government funding for any movie, Argus. Thanks for confirming it is about deciding which movies are worthy enough for their producers to get some of their tax money back in the form of a tax credit. Right-wing religious organizations, in particular those lead by Charles McVety, are the leading force behind this campaign, and have exercised a direct influence on thoe current legislation. Their objective is clear: dictate through the back door what movies Canadian should or should not see, And it's not just about "dirty movies" - any movie that carries a message at odds with their agenda is their target. They don't want movies in theatres that would, for example, portray gays and lesbians as every-day people but they won't say no to a tax credit for movies approved by them that denounce gays and lesbians as perverts bent on raping little boys. This campaign to stiffle voices not to the taste of the religious right has nothing to do with quality or audience size. As for the "it's about MRIs" argument... pleeeeeeeeeeeease. The majority of organizations and politicians in favour of this campaign are also clamouring for a growing role for the private sector in health delivery. We sure don't hear them say "what about MRIs?" when the government proposed to increase military investment.

Not providing tax credits (also knowns has giving people part of their tax money back) for any movie productions would be one thing. Deciding which movies would be eligible for a credit based on the prejudice of the religious right (disguised as ""public policy") is another thing.

Funny how some who view Mark Steyn as a hero of free speech have no problem with the government deciding which movie maker can get some of his/her tax money back as a tax credit.

Arrgh... you use some French words... you racist Nothing in Ontario's laws prevents any municipality for passing a by-law regarding commercial signage. As for the morons who scream "Nazi!" and threathen physical violence over a by-law that, while a bad idea, does not violate their rights one bit, most of them would rejoice if any municipality had a by-law mandating English or prohibiting French.

(note to those who might think I believe in the stereotypes I will write below... I don't) Yes, and we will all wear turbans, have scalps on our belts, and go to the mosque every Friday on the way to mandatory same-sex orgies.

You haven't seen racism? You just responded to it Interesting though, to see someone say that Quebec's language laws are racist, then try to do with English in Ontario the same that is being done with French in Quebec.

He does review his posts... all good stand-up comics do. That being said,for one would think that looking in his mirror eveery morning would give him an idea of what a racist looks like.

So, theyre not part of Canada? A land claim is essentially a statement by a given First Nation that either there has been no treaty regarding the land the have traditonnally occupied or that the Crown has not fulfilled commitments they made when signing a treaty. They want the recognition of something that never ceased to be theirs, a title to their land. As per the Royal Proclamation of 1763, First Nations' title to land they have traditionnally occupied exist as long as it is not formally surrendered to the Crown. Their may be other rights, such as the right to continue fishing and hunting, which exist even after title has been surrendered, because they were recognized by treaty. A lot has been said about misinterpretation such as "the total area convered by claims in BC is larger than the province itself". Such statements fail to recognize a simple fact: there are rival claims in some areas. It is doubtful that recognition of Indian claims will lead to nightmare scenarios such as the country going bankrupt or 30 million plus non-Aboriginal Canadian being served legally enforceable eviction notices. That being said, sensotionalism by both sides and their lawyers (or by people praying on fears or prejudice) does not help. A just resolution of these claims necessitate: - a fair, non-confrontational, independent negotiation and adjudication mechanism, agreed upon by both parties (the current and recent federal governments have tried to unilaterally set the rules, therefore acting as judge and party) - recognition that settlements must respect the interests of the First Nations, the Crown and the whole population.

Nunavut was on the ancestral land of one nation, the Inuit. What you propose is lumping all First Nations together. Not the same, and not workable.

Hear hear

Appears indeed. I don't view the apology as ammunitions for everything. And you and anyone else whowants to compare past and current governments are welcome to do it, but it sidetracks the real issue: is what the current government doing what it needs to do. In case of the apology, the answer is a definite yes. In the case of the Kelowna, it's no: stop-gap measures like are not as good as the clear targets set up in the Kelowna accords, targets that originated in collaborative work between the involved parties and included acountability measures. This is not about how much money was to be invested - it is about the fact that all the parties said "this is what we need to do and we will do it together:. In the case of expending human right protection to First Nations, the answer is no again. The lack of real colloboration with First Nations to establish a human right structure has been denounced by both the Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Bar Association, for good reasons. The result did not meet FH's needs and the process repeated the old "we'll make your decisions for you" modus operandi. Once again, it is not about money, it is about involving FN in decisions that affect them primarily. Because of the apology, I'll give the Harper Government a B-.