Liberal Senate amendments strip government of power to deny film tax c

[CANADIEN]

Funny how the very vocal opponents of C-10 howl about the lack of free expression and freedom of speech supposedly entrenched in the bill,, yet are nowhere to be seen or heard when Mark Steyn is in front of kangaroo courts HRCs for much the same issue.

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.

[Argus]

Fair enough w discrimination over censorship.They can still show the movie (not censored from doing so) but wont get funding because of Y (which is discriminatory)

Standards are a good thing. But the arbiters of the standards are not movie people nor artists. And (If I understand correctly) it is done after the film is made, not before. That is the real crux of the situation.

The arbiters ought to be those who have to pay for it.

Of course porn should be funded , it does make a lot of money, far more than Hollywood does.Porn wont get the money since the budgets are sufficiently low enough and the investors are out there ready to pay. Not to mention the perception of the whole porn thing,

Porn is funded by those who want to look at porn. Ie, the consumers. Canadian films, notoriously of poor quality, don't have many people wanting to look at them. That's why those who create them want welfare.

[Argus]

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.

As far as I'm concerned if you want to make a film you should pay for it yourself. We should not be funding any of it.

[Remiel]

Who exactly is this " we " you are talking about?

[CANADIEN]

As far as I'm concerned if you want to make a film you should pay for it yourself. We should not be funding any of it.

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.

[Argus]

Who exactly is this " we " you are talking about?

We is the taxpayer. I realize that term encompasses very few on the Left, and might seem strange to you.

[Argus]

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.

Do you actually think it is only this mythical "religious right" which has a problem with the government spending money to make dirty movies nobody watches as opposed to buying and funding MRIs for hospitals?

[scribblet]

Do you actually think it is only this mythical "religious right" which has a problem with the government spending money to make dirty movies nobody watches as opposed to buying and funding MRIs for hospitals?

Well put !!!

[Remiel]

What makes you think that government bureaucrats are qualified to judge what movies will not be watched and what movies will garner widespread attention and acclaim?

[scribblet]

I kinda think most of us would recognize a 'dirty movie' when we saw it, porn is porn. I wouldn't go for taxpayer funding of what they call 'soft porn' either.

[g_bambino]

I kinda think most of us would recognize a 'dirty movie' when we saw it, porn is porn. I wouldn't go for taxpayer funding of what they call 'soft porn' either.

Um... no. Porn is not porn. I have a pretty high tolerance of nudity and sex in movies, whereas someone else might find the mere sight of cleavage to be pornographic.

[CANADIEN]

Do you actually think it is only this mythical "religious right" which has a problem with the government spending money to make dirty movies nobody watches as opposed to buying and funding MRIs for hospitals?

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.

[CANADIEN]

We is the taxpayer. I realize that term encompasses very few on the Left, and might seem strange to you.

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"?

[noahbody]

Their objective is clear: dictate through the back door what movies Canadian should or should not see,

No, that's the objective of the CRTC. If they were dictating what couldn't be seen that would be censorship.

Do you think a film on how 911 was a great victory for Allah should be supported by the governement?

[CANADIEN]

What makes you think that government bureaucrats are qualified to judge what movies will not be watched and what movies will garner widespread attention and acclaim?

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.

[CANADIEN]

No, that's the objective of the CRTC. If they were dictating what couldn't be seen that would be censorship.

Do you think a film on how 911 was a great victory for Allah should be supported by the governement?

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.

[g_bambino]

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.

Mmm.. I think that's a bit of a stretch; the proposed changes, as far as I can tell, make the minister the ultimate decider on whether or not a film gets funding. We don't know the personal tastes of the present minister, and if these changes are implemented, they will apply to the next minister, whether they be Liberal, Conservative, NDP, or whatever.

[Argus]

What makes you think that government bureaucrats are qualified to judge what movies will not be watched and what movies will garner widespread attention and acclaim?

Y'know, you're right. So let's stop funding them entirely.

Widespread attention and acclaim? That's not the same as saying anyone will actually watch it, right? Because I can't think of any Canadian films that anyone ever cared enough to go watch.

[Argus]

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.

Thanks for demonstrating, once again, how dishonest you people on the Left are.

Right-wing religious organizations, in particular those lead by Charles McVety, are the leading force behind this campaign

,

PHhhttt! In the first place, you use the term "right wing" as though it were a dangerous epithet. I'm sure that religious people are generally more conservative than non-religious people, but their views are every bit as legitimate as those who have no sense of morality, and certainly more legitimate than those who pay no taxes. In the second place, there has always been a level of dislike among conservatives for funding crap which does not need to be funded by government. Fund hospitals, by all means, and roads and bridges, and the military, but we can damned well do without third rate movies and canoe museums and all the fourth rate "art" which most people will never see, and wouldn't take home if you paid them to.

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.

Funny you should complain about that - dishonestly, of course - because I've often read that the little world of Canadian "art" and grants is an incestuous one, whereby friends scratch each other's backs, awarding grants and money to those who are of a similar mentality. I've taken no scientific measure of what movies have been created with the blessing of government boards over the past quarter century, but I'm willing to bet my house that if I did we'd find that 99% of any such films which had a "message" would be a very, very left of centre message. And I doubt that ever bothered you in the least.

[Argus]

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.

And every one of them is on the Left.

[g_bambino]

And every one of them is on the Left.

Yes, I'm sure devout, strictly religious Muslims are on the Left. They're all for legalised marijuana and pre-marital sex!

[Argus]

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,

Hollywood and the gliterati have been in love with anything which advances the homosexual lifestyle as good and proper and normal for at least twenty years now. And it's well known that whether a film will win an award has less to do with its quality than the political message it carries. Oddly enough this doesn't bother you in the least.

and by the end of its theatrical run it was eighth highest-grossing romantic dramas of all time.

Inflation NOT factored in, of course. The film received adoring praise from the media, who were delighted at its homosexual message. Most of those I know who were caught up by all the fuss and went to see it, male and female, described it as pretty boring. But that isn't the point anyway. Titanic earned several times more, so did Mel Brook's dumb religious drama, and they were crappy movies too. And you know what, I don't care. None of them deserved to be funded by the taxpayer.

[Argus]

Yes, I'm sure devout, strictly religious Muslims are on the Left. They're all for legalised marijuana and pre-marital sex!

I don't regard those people as Canadians.

Edited June 22, 2008 by Argus

[Remiel]

And every one of them is on the Left.

Yes, I am sure that the people who felt that September 11 was God's punishment for the United States sinful ways were all on the Left.

And before you make some assinine comment about how you just dealt with that, I am referring to fundamentalist Christians, not Muslims. So you can take your false generalization and shove it.

And by the way, " Water " was a fine film.

[CANADIEN]

Thanks for demonstrating, once again, how dishonest you people on the Left are.

first it's all movies, then it's dirty movies, then all movies again... Make up your mind.

,

In the first place, you use the term "right wing" as though it were a dangerous epithet.

You mean the way you use the term "left-wing".

'm sure that religious people are generally more conservative than non-religious people, but their views are every bit as legitimate as those who have no sense of morality

Of course, those who object to the government deciding what they should be able to watch have no morality.

and certainly more legitimate than those who pay no taxes.

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

In the second place, there has always been a level of dislike among conservatives for funding crap which does not need to be funded by government.

crap being defined of course, not by the actual quality of a movie, but what whether or not it matches conservative world view.

I've taken no scientific measure of what movies have been created with the blessing of government boards over the past quarter century

All movie producers qualify for the tax credit.

but I'm willing to bet my house that if I did we'd find that 99% of any such films which had a "message" would be a very, very left of centre message. And I doubt that ever bothered you in the least.

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.