Okay, so it’s got the usual 3rd grade argument level and is only written by one of his toadies but, hey, baby steps, right? I have to confess that I’m in agreement with the spirit of this post (albeit tentatively). Dr. Charles McVety is a very respectable figure in the Christian community in southern Ontario but I think that he and the government are setting up a dangerous situation in having the Canadian Film Tax Credit conditioned on the content of the project.
I think we all have a strong objection to the money that we earned by our own sweat being used to fund programs that we find offensive or objectionable.
For any Christians who think that this is a step in righting the wrongs of past Liberal governments who have used taxpayer dollars for Christianophobic material is that the shoe will eventually get onto the other foot; not if, WILL! A Liberal government in the future need only redeclare the program as serving to protect minority voices and volia, feminazis will be the typical type of group getting film funding.
The same goes for those on the left who are self-professed agnostics, atheists and the like. Think of how you would feel if this program in its current form went through. Not nice to know that your money is funding ignorant, intolerant hate-speech, or whatever you’re describing religious opinion as these days, is it? As I said, the shoe will always go on the other foot in a democracy like ours, so why are we taking turns being offended when we should just let the people who make the money such programs are greased by make the decisions themselves…with their dollars?
In extension, my only hope is that now that we’ve woken up the socialites to the notion that group-specific funding can be divisive, they won’t be as hypocritical as to call for programs like the Court Challenges Program to be reinstated. Just some food for thought…
(h/t to Bene Diction Blogs On)
Scott from Winnipeg wrote:
Some fairly articulate 3rd graders out west. Why do they move to the east when they grow up I wonder? (wink).
Posted on 01-Mar-08 at 4:04 pm | Permalink
Crazymamma wrote:
Just scrap the whole damn thing why don’t they?
If it’s art and has an audience it will make money. If it doesn’t sell then it just isn’t wanted or needed. Go to Paris, live on cheap wine and moldy bread for all I care. Just don’t expect my hard earned dollars to fund a movie like Teenagers fu**ing and expect me to smile while being fu**ed over thru my taxes.
Posted on 01-Mar-08 at 4:19 pm | Permalink
Joe wrote:
I’m not a fan of “state sponsored” anything especially art and culture. Either the product is worth supporting in the market place or it is not worth producing. The state should not have to supply a wad of cash every time someone who calls himself an artist has a brain fart.
Posted on 01-Mar-08 at 5:22 pm | Permalink
anonymous wrote:
Ditto. Funding for artsy garbage must stop. We are taxed to death as it is. If your so-called art doesn’t sell then get a real job. Anything else is called a hobby. No government program pays for my hobbies why should I pay for someone else’s?
Posted on 01-Mar-08 at 11:25 pm | Permalink
Nick D. wrote:
re: anonymous
“If your so-called art doesn’t sell then get a real job.”
It’s nice to see that there are people out there that think culture is only worthwhile if you can make a buck from it.
Posted on 02-Mar-08 at 1:11 am | Permalink
Charles Anthony wrote:
“
”
If only you were treated like everybody else.
From the worthless civil servant who plays computer games all day long to the scientist who researches his life-long passion, the tax-payer funds a lot of people’s “hobbies” so to speak, unfortunately.
—
Matthew,
Do you actually read CanCer’s crap? I guess you do.
Posted on 02-Mar-08 at 6:09 am | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
Actually Charles Anthony, I got the tip off from Bene Diction Blogs On (I made sure to h/t the site at the end of the post above).
Here’s a problem that I know Nick D might have if he’s a strong secularist:
Religion can be seen as a hobby by those who don’t practice it (it’s much more to the religious of course), so if we shouldn’t be funding religion on the basis that it only benefits a few (which I could argue otherwise but will refrain from for brevity’s sake), then why should be also be funding other hobbies that are at best, equally as exclusive?
Culture is derived from what the people of the time and place participate in. We’re already seeing how the traditional video arcade was part of 1970s-1980s culture, and is something that is arguably more classy than a modern LAN party is. Would you suggest the government fund classic arcades now to keep them alive?
Or how about Elvis? I read some time last year that Elvis’ company which is in charge of maintaining his legacy and has the rights to all his products/his likeness/etc. is concerned that the teens of the 50s are starting to thin out and that Elvis’ influence on society may soon wane to that of the likes of Beethoven or Louis Armstrong. Again, I ask whether it is worth while to have an Elvis Fund set up by the (U.S.) government in this case?
Ultimately, I take the culture argument (if it can’t make money on its own, it needs government support) to its foregone conclusion and suggest that if we are going to fund some things, we should fund ALL things: there should be museums for every single century of history, every type of society that ever existed, every fad, every hobby, etc., etc. If we cannot do that, then we are being cherry pickers and allowing those of influence to make the call on what is and isn’t worthy of our attention. Of course, having such a system is prohibitively expensive, so with that taken into consideration, yes, we have no choice but to let the free market determine what lives and dies.
Let’s dwell on that for a moment too. It’s not like we’ve forgotten about much of the U.S.’s culture over the past 200 years — much of which went without government funding at various points in time. The reason is that if we let some of these organizations and acts out into the world to swim on their own, loyal fans and collectors do a nice job of preserving their interests for us. There are those who purchase classic arcade machines, or Elvis memorabilia, keeping the flame alive. The ones that don’t survive are the loopty-loos who write albums no one would buy if they were giving them away for free (iTunes is proving this with their Song of the Week) and no one missed when the thing first came out. It again begs the question of whether everything everyone everywhere in Canada does deserves to be preserved and promoted?
Posted on 02-Mar-08 at 11:07 am | Permalink
anonymous wrote:
That’s right Nick D. I think you’ve got it through your thick head. Wow!
Oh, those evil bucks huh? I’ll bet you cringe every time one passes through your limp-wristed, lily-white hands. Yeah, riiight.
Posted on 02-Mar-08 at 3:08 pm | Permalink
Grog wrote:
Matthew:
You claim that
Liberal governments who have used taxpayer dollars for Christianophobic
I’m going to push this one a little - provide examples, please. You’re making a very broad claim for something that I don’t think there’s any significant evidence to back that up.
Posted on 03-Mar-08 at 7:45 am | Permalink