Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner

Harpo's Little Dictator headspace surfaces.....

15K views 242 replies 23 participants last post by  JumboJones 
#1 ·
Sometimes these guys really, really don't get it......:mad:

Tories plan to withhold funding for 'offensive' productions

Committee to decide whether material meets new criteria

GAYLE MACDONALD
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
February 28, 2008 at 2:07 AM EST

The Conservative government has drafted guidelines that would allow it to pull financial aid for any film or television show that it deems offensive or not in the public's best interest – even if government agencies have invested in them.

The proposed changes to the Income Tax Act would allow the Heritage Minister to deny tax credits to projects deemed offensive, effectively killing the productions. Representatives from Heritage and the Department of Justice will determine which shows or films pass the test.
globeandmail.com: Tories plan to withhold funding for 'offensive' productions

what a bunch asses.

Harper is right out of the 50s - McCarthy would be proud

 
See less See more
1
#4 ·
I think this excerpt from the story hits the nail on the head:

“Would this committee put money into Juno? It might not want to encourage teen pregnancy. Would the government put money into a film with a dirty title, like Young People ****ing? Would they invest in something like Brokeback Mountain? They might not want to encourage gay cowboys to have sex together in Alberta.” -Toronto lawyer David Zitzerman of Goodmans LLP
This is what it's really all about. Gay cowboys in Alberta.

Art is art, it cannot and should not be censored.

M
 
#7 ·
Yet another Blues versus Reds thread. The real issue is the fact that this current Government has begun the act of censoring what it can. What this will lead to is anyone's guess. Artsy crap or not, this is not the kind of 'leadership' I want in my Canada.
 
#10 ·
I see it as public funds wasted on questionable art versus stopping the funding. No politics, just the fundamental, "should we fund bad art" question.
I believe this is how they want to be perceived although I truly don't believe that's their intention.

This bill seems dangerously close to censorship. Additionally, it has the potential to cripple the Canadian film industry and put people out of work. Just what the economy needs right now.
This I believe fully.
 
#11 ·
...and why should my tax dollars fund a for profit enterprise? Many bitch about "corporate welfare" but heaven forbid the gov withdraws funding from questionable film projects. My god...they're censoring ART...art I tell ya!

There's no censorship here, no one is stopping production. Wanna make a movie, find your own funding, find investors.
 
#12 ·
There's no censorship here, no one is stopping production. Wanna make a movie, find your own funding, find investors.
It's not an us versus them issue. It's not a 'my damn tax dollars' issue. It's an issue regarding a heavy handed Government that wants to model it's citizens after itself. A government that is willing to second guess itself in order to achieve this. If that's not the decree of the supreme being I don't know what is.

It's easy to get caught up in artsy bashing and tax dollar spending but realize what is at the heart of this issue.
 
#18 ·
You know, I would have replied to this thread sooner but I just came from the studio where I've been busy working on a new series of excrement on canvas, pursuing the twin themes of obesity and pederasty, using live models. It's been fun while it lasted but oh my, the latest grant is just about used up and I still need to score some more street drugs for, you know, inspiration.

I don't quite know what the fuss is about, but I'm sensing it's the beginning of some sort of wondrous rapture. if this the new world we're spiralling into I suppose a grim wave of vigilant culture goons in suits will soon descend upon myself and my sickening cohorts and deal us the long knives. It'll be like Crystal Night, I'm sure. Yeah, get rid of the public money for museums, art appreciation programs and other "artistic" pap... nations don't need their own culture, much less to nurture and protect it - and anyone who tells you otherwise must hereafter be formally identified and rooted out like the cancerous cells they are. Why, the very notion that we need culture - it's, it's... it's fiendishly European, is what it is! Oh man, more than ever, we need to clean house and get back to a bold new spartan outlook that we're dredging up from some crusty sense of misplaced nostalgia. Let's get the likes of Ontario's beloved Mary Brown back and get busy censoring stuff - we all miss her deft, robust ways, don't we? Oh yes, we need to protect ourselves from ourselves. Raise high the banner of Community Standards, boys - and bear those truncheons smartly now! Screw "culture." That's a code word for vermin and hey - we don't want vermin loose in our newly sanitized Canuckistan. The mantra is money and the money is where it's at. Less government is better, except, of course, when we need to create social control bureaucracies established by decree to generously determine for us what is and isn't "correct" culture. Yippee skippee, the future I always wanted. The Philistines are back and they are not about to tolerate any more tolerance.

Crush the fartsies! Burn all the canvas and celluloid now! Crush their hard disks! Wreck their studios! Seize their property! Rub their noses in their own excrement! The state is all, and all is glorious!
 
#19 ·
IMHO, the government should contribute a small, set percentage to a general arts fund that distributes the money on a per-capita or other fair basis to recognised arts groups.

Beyond that, it should have absolutely NO say in how those funds are used, because no matter what they fund (or don't fund) it puts the gov't in the position of being art critics.

Let local arts organisations answer to their "customers," but leave the patronage and support of the arts (generally) intact. Art may have its controversial and crap moments, but I think the case is easily made that support of the arts reaps rich rewards that far outweigh the occasional misfire.

To hear forum members arguing about how the few cents of their yearly tax bill which funds the arts might be funding "crap" they deem "offensive" when many, many DOLLARS of their yearly tax bill is being used to wage a war of aggression designed to prop up Bush ... talk about misplaced priorities ...
 
#21 ·
IMHO, the government should contribute a small, set percentage to a general arts fund that distributes the money on a per-capita or other fair basis to recognised arts groups.

Beyond that, it should have absolutely NO say in how those funds are used, because no matter what they fund (or don't fund) it puts the gov't in the position of being art critics.

Let local arts organisations answer to their "customers," but leave the patronage and support of the arts (generally) intact. Art may have its controversial and crap moments, but I think the case is easily made that support of the arts reaps rich rewards that far outweigh the occasional misfire.
Here here! :clap:

The way I see it, support for the arts by the government (with EVERYONE's money, including *gasp* artists) should be all or nothing, not just whatever someone on the Hill likes at the time.
 
#20 ·
any more questions on the ogres hanging around...

Evangelist takes credit for film crackdown

Christian crusader says he pressured cabinet ministers and PMO officials to deny tax credits to productions deemed too offensive
BILL CURRY AND GAYLE MACDONALD

From Friday's Globe and Mail
February 29, 2008 at 4:00 AM EST

OTTAWA, TORONTO — A well-known evangelical crusader is claiming credit for the federal government's move to deny tax credits to TV and film productions that contain graphic sex and violence or other offensive content.

Charles McVety, president of the Canada Family Action Coalition, said his lobbying efforts included discussions with Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, and "numerous" meetings with officials in the Prime Minister's Office.

"We're thankful that someone's finally listening," he said yesterday. "It's fitting with conservative values, and I think that's why Canadians voted for a Conservative government."

Mr. McVety said films promoting homosexuality, graphic sex or violence should not receive tax dollars, and backbench Conservative MPs and cabinet ministers support his campaign.

Tories plan to withhold funding for 'offensive' productions
"There are a number of Conservative backbench members that do a lot of this work behind the scenes," he said.
globeandmail.com: Evangelist takes credit for film crackdown

They just couldn't keep McVety muzzled.....

In case any have forgotten about the RR in Canada and Harper's connection

The Walrus >> Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons >> Canada Religion Politics
 
#22 ·
#23 ·
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!! :-( :-( :-(

I wanna make a movie. The government won't give me money. :-(

It's censorship! :-(

It doesn't matter nobody else will fund my project. I wanna make my movie really bad. :-( :-(

The government is evil because they won't give me free money. :-(
 
#26 ·
Jumbo

Thanks for the heads up on Kenny VS Spenny. I just watched them on Youtube and its been a culturally enriching experience. :rolleyes:

Canadians will not tolerate this blatant censorship. The conservatives have lost touch with Canadian tax payers that will not stand by to see their hard earned money stripped away from such Canadian culture building classics as Lynne Stopkewich's acclaimed necrophilia film Kissed, or Martin Gero's Canadian gem, Young People F@&king. This issue will kill the Conservatives in the next election.;)

Cheers
MacGuiver
 
#30 ·
I am awaiting the inevitable rise of the culture purity tests they'll be foisting on us. You know, no culture is the best culture in our wonderful frontier land! I've been wondering... do the artists have to wear arm tags? Oh, I can see there's much I will have to get used to. I better start by putting the new studio underground. Let's see, that should only cost a hundred grand or so... not counting the hush money to the nabes so they won't rat me out to the New Government of Canuckistan stooges, of course.

Well, plenty to think about, that's for certain. Later... gotta go bury some paintings.
 
#31 · (Edited)
Canadian Government Funding for Culture

When the government is funding cultural programs in Canada they are doing two distinct things:

Playing venture capitalist – Every now and then one of the productions that the government funds goes big. At that point the government gets a good pay back in taxes, a lot of Canadians get employment and Canada often gets a higher profile internationally, possibly bringing more work back to Canada.

Maintaining Canadian Culture – Our wonderful neighbours to the South have one of the largest entertainment arts complexes in the world. To compete with them requires extra assistance. Their marketing budgets, ability to attract talent, homogenizing (aiming at the lowest common denominator) the market prevent the Canadian voice from being heard. Also our population base is small; private industry alone cannot support the arts in this country.

For these two reasons and others the Canadian Government gives money to the arts. If you want your Don McKellars, Bryan Adams, Cronenbergs, Bruce Cockburns, etc., you’ll need the grants to help start these artists off and nurture them.

However, the government, like any bureaucracy is horrible at determining which artists deserve funding. The market should sort the good from the bad. I could see the government reacting badly to a film about a 16 year old girl getting pregnant. No money for Juno. (Actually don’t think there was any Canadian money in Juno!) If a Canadian Michael Moore appeared there would be no money for him either. (Especially with the Conservatives in power – likely to lead to another scandal!)

As for Mr. Charles McVety, a man I have met may times, he should stay out of the arts completely. He, right wing conservative, would only want us to see uplifting conservative Christian art. Similar to the fare offered in North Korea, Communist China and Communist Russia.

Art that makes people uncomfortable, challenges the status quo, goes against the grain, pushes the edge is what we need. Films (and books) like The Diary of Evelyn Lau need to be made, and I don’t care how uncomfortable it makes you or I feel.

To end, the song Maybe the Poet from Bruce Cockburn, captures this issue well.

Maybe the poet is gay
But he'll be heard anyway

Maybe the poet is drugged
But he won't stay under the rug

Maybe the voice of the spirit
In which case you'd better hear it

Maybe he's a woman
Who can touch you where you're human

Male female slave or free
Peaceful or disorderly
Maybe you and he will not agree
But you need him to show you new ways to see

Don't let the system fool you
All it wants to do is rule you
Pay attention to the poet
You need him and you know it

Put him up against the wall
Shoot him up with pentothal

Shoot him up with lead
You won't call back what's been said
Put him in the ground
But one day you'll look around

There'll be a face you don't know
Voicing thoughts you've heard before

Male female slave or free
Peaceful or disorderly
Maybe you and he will not agree
But you need him to show you new ways to see

Don't let the system fool you
All it wants to do is rule you
Pay attention to the poet
You need him and you know it


Any ham fisted approach by the Canadian Government to control the arts may silence important voices. In that regard Bruce Cockburn, in my humble opinon, nailed it.

The Canadian Government needs to be in Canadian culture as a backer; however, Canadian government can only approach their role in a non judgmental manner. Our artists make us great, and the Canadian Government should maintain its current role in supporting them.
 
#35 · (Edited)
MaX: In the bad old, olden days artists sought private patrons to support their work or--GASP!--performed the distasteful work of selling it.

Today we offer to support artists with the right political connections, those artists best capable of writing a grant application--or films starring RH Thompson.
 
#38 ·
MF: in the grand old days, it was perhaps worse. Usually the patron of the arts was the church... at least in the sense of European art history; substitute "government" for "church" and the same thing went on, except the nomenclature was different. Still, you had to be recognized by the church and you had to do work they deemed suitable. Otherwise, you'd not be widely known as an artist. As such, it would be much more difficult to make a living. You might have to make do as a guild member but you couldn't sustain yourself pursuing a more individual course (one that might lead to true greatness and the kind of art a country would be proud to display and celebrate).

As far as political connections are concerned, it's an old game and it's hardly limited to the arts... it's called "networking." No doubt it's cliquey and snobbish and rude, but that's the business of the day for you. Whether it's the church running things or free enterprise (whatever that is) or the state, it remains a question of who you know and how far you're willing to go in order to get attention, curry favour, etc.

MacGuiver: you misread me. I am not arguing that culture cannot exist without funding by the state. I am merely extrapolating from this thread... clearly the Harper government is interested in establishing a new censorship regime. Accordingly, I am loathe to discover just what watered-down, common-denominator, nice and inconsequential pap will come of this control strategy... I have very little confidence, you see, in the government's ability to feed us "proper" culture; in this case I fear the state's "cure" will be worse than the disease itself.

I am also amused that people would be welcoming this move, as it will inevitably lead to new cadres of overpaid, out of touch government workers ostensibly there to serve the public but in reality acting like entitled, untouchable mandarins... whole departments of freshly minted nabobs whose living is directly dependent on your precious tax dollars. Oh, the irony is rich.
 
#39 ·
MAx: I'm not letting you misuse the word "censorship." These folk are free to express their ideas without funding. That has nothing to do with censorship.

The idea of having a bureaucracy decide which arts need funding is as crazy as handing it over without oversight or--heaven help us--letting the artists themselves decide.

The idea that we need government supported artists to "tell us truths" is a load of hooey. That sort of thing is usually discovered in hindsight by someone writing a government-funded biography of a government-funded artist who has already died.
 
#41 ·
MAx: I'm not letting you misuse the word "censorship." These folk are free to express their ideas without funding. That has nothing to do with censorship.
It has everything to do with censorship and you know it. You would simply rather keep those rose-coloured glasses on and consider it "proper," wouldn't you? Yet we are talking about the state using the people's money to push culture product at the people themselves and push it abroad. Their decisions have ramifications... huge ones. The government wants to get deeper into vetting culture than it already is... wow, I wonder what the salaries and benefit packages for the newly appointed minions of culture will be like... standards must be upheld, you know! I mean, geez - it's hard work, deciding things!

It is fun to watch your torturous twists to rationalize a defense of this new blooming of government largesse, though. Carry on, sir!
 
#40 ·
Nice try, mF, but it won't wash. You are the one saying it's about "telling truths," not I. I wouldn't even know where to begin with that one. Seems you're talking in code again - I'm sorry, I don't have one of those danged decoder rings!

That bit about "letting the artists themselves decide" - priceless! I see; you're attempting to suggest that it's a problem for artists and artists alone. That speaks volumes of the way you would like to imagine the scenario: artists without admirers, artists without students, artists without assistants, artists without audiences. No arts supports industries generating any additional money at all, either. Just the artists gazing forlornly at their own navels - does that about nail it? LOL! How sad that you should think that way.

I am not against "oversight" in principle - alas, the devil is always in the details. Anyone who thinks there won't be politicking and horse trading with whatever new government-stamped "committee" will be in for a rude shock. I can't wait to see what new stuff they'll be green-lighting. Maybe a Lassie In The Great White North movie... it'll be great!
 
#42 ·
Better get to the museums soon...especially the national ones..

...cain't have no smut portrayed thar Mildread"



I can almost see Doris rubbing his hands in glee...."now I can finally get the film about Eve and the Dinosaur made......"
 
#44 ·
It's improper for people to wait for the state to fund their artistic endeavours. If you believe that artists can only suckle at the government teat before bursting forth with their visions, I suppose--in that narrow worldview--it would appear like censorship.
 
#46 ·
We have censorship as it is now. Unless your work gets the nod from the black turtleneck wearing, goatee clad martini set, you'll likely never see a dime of government arts funding.
There's always censorship, even among those that decry it. Since art is subjective, what makes Lasies's Northern Adventure any less worthy of public cash as Young People F#$king? Isn't making that judgement making you guilty of the very offense you're accuse the government of doing? The difference being, you're rejecting a purist movie while they rejected an obscene one? :rolleyes:

Again, I don't think either should get a dime but both are welcome to make their flick. Let the public decide if they support it or not.

Cheers
MacGuiver
 
#45 ·
Just had to answer the door... an advanced operative of the state tried to rudely muscle past me... just a little guy but acting very Napoleonic, if you know what I mean. Apparently he was trying to ascertain something about my "culture status..." muttered some officious-sounding claptrap about "making sure you're not making any degenerate art." Pesky fellow, too - had a bloody great list on the Blackberry he was toting around... pretty chuffed when I boxed his ears and showed him the door. Warned he'd "be back" and that there'd soon be "mandatory reprogramming " slated for all "incorrect artists." Bear with me, mF - I have to say, he shook me up some.

________________________________

"Narrow viewpoint," eh? "Improper," is it? LOL! I guess I have to expect that response by now. Yet you fail to acknowledge how your own brittle ideological proclivities preclude you from grasping certain fundamental conflicts within your stance on this matter. Look man, I'd recommend a little session of reprogramming but I gotta tell ya - I wouldn't wish that on my greatest enemies.

Stay safe, mF... it's dangerous times we're sailing into.
 
#47 ·
I believe you and mF are, as we say in the movie biz, "on the same page." That is, you support zero funding for the arts. I find that a terribly barren stance myself, but no matter - what interests me is that the Harpercrats actually find nothing wrong with funding the arts in and of itself - they just want to replace the old guard with their new one... equally Draconian, equally exclusive, equally beholden more to their own paycheques than to any serious consideration of what is and isn't art. Do you suspect the Harper gubmint people suffer from some sort of ideological impurity compared to you and mF? Indeed, have they been on the hill too long? Breathing that crisp Ottawa air has somehow dislodged their thinking, perhaps?

But hey, thanks for reminding me. My turtlenecks are pretty worn out and need critical replacing - and oh dear, now that you mention it, there's no martini ingredients left anywhere around here. Moreover, I haven't had a soul patch in, well, years! Really, it's high time I got with it and dressed the part.... I mean, my enemies have their expectations and it would be rude of me to let them down.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top