Heritage Ministry: Censorship Board?
March 6, 2008 · By Shane Edwards
The debate over bill C-10 rages, with opponents trying to frame the bill as creating a tool of censorship.
It is interesting that they do this at a time when the Human Rights Commissions are doing just that, but the difference being they are going after bigger fish than an aptly named film entitled “Two Young People F**king“. They are going after members of the media who dare to offend the politically correct.
But back to the subject at hand. The libertarians amongst us would probably cry, “hands off” right alongside the political liberals, citing freedom of expression. However, the reason why this is in the public jurisdiction is because it involves the use of public money to support the arts. The government, as patron of the arts, does and should have some say in what is art. It has ever been thus.
Historically, artists were dirt poor. Artists rarely ever got rich off their art in their lifetimes. It was often once they were dead that people began to realize that they were any good. The lucky ones who managed to get recognized for their skill did so by finding rich patrons. It was the rich of society which decided what was “art” and what was not. If you found someone rich who thought your art was good, then it was.
I am not sure when government decided that there weren’t enough rich people around to patronize the arts, that the public needed to do it. But when they did that, by that decision, the government began to have a say in what is considered art and what is not. Overnight, it no longer mattered whether anyone liked it or would pay for it – it only mattered if one could convince the government that it was art, and you would be supported.
When the government spends tax dollars, they need to justify those expenses to the people whose money it is. You knew that, right? The government doesn’t have its own money. It has YOURS. So, they need to spend it in accordance with what Canadians think is art. If a given piece of “art” offends Canadians, it should be denied funding. If a given piece of “art” hurts people physically, socially, emotionally, then it should also be denied funding.
What is being railed against is this reality. If a piece of art demonstrably hurts society by encouraging violence or abuse, then it needs to be discouraged, or at least not supported by public tax breaks. If you’ve got a problem with that, then you should stand up and fight for the ending of ALL governmental support for the arts. If people think art has value, then it will be supported in the public marketplace. North America is the wealthiest civilization that has ever existed. Even if your “art” only appeals to a small percentage of people, you should be able to find a buyer somewhere to support you. The patrons will again come from people.
The government has been actively engaged in curtailing sex, violence and religious content in broadcasting for decades.
As self-professed ‘artists’ have broken down the barriers of the former two taboos, the third remains their pinata.
Anything moral or religious is the target of these artists. They have and continue to fully expect to use the financial resources of the government to mount their attacks.
I say great, fund them, but also, give McVety and the lot the equivalent amount of funding to fire back.
Everyone else can sit back and watch the culture war as truly ‘Canadian entertainment.’
By taking my money away from me to give to these bums who can’t sell films – the government is censoring me, not them.
These welfare cases still have every right to make films without my money. They’re simply revealing that they’re idiots by calling it ‘censorship’ when their free ride is over.
Canadians are forced to fund prgrams no one else would want to make or watch, through our tax payers dollars.
Lets face it, the vast majority of Canadian programming is gawd awful and horribly produced.I have suffered through years of the Night Heat’s, the Littlest Hobo’s, the Robo cop:the series and wish they would just stop.
Lets face it, the funding was for ‘make work’ projects for the same 10 Canadian actors to perpetuate their schlock ad nauseum.Incestuous does not even begin to describe the culture of telefilm Canada.
Will somebody please put a stake through Harvey Atkins before he rises from the crypt again?
I agree with the way philanthropist puts it. Ultimately, this bill (while appreciated personally) is wrong because it is the same as the government reacting to the CCP by giving funds exclusively to church groups and fiscal libertarians. Using public money to pay off your supporters is a Liberal/Red Tory way of doing things and the CPC should not be engaging in such corrupt ways.
The way I figure, everybody should get tax breaks. The more tax-breaks, the better.
—
The film industry getting tax-breaks is no big deal. We may as well complain about people getting tax-breaks if they make a living by selling bottled air. I would rather the efforts of Josee Verner be spent on fiscal policy that affected a hell of a lot more people.
Government at various levels subsidize tons and tons of different markets. Unless you are ready to demand that the government stops handing out money willy nilly, complaining about one tiny industry getting preferential treatment is an exercise in futility.
You raise some excellent points Shane. I’d like to point out, though, that there is potentially some real benefit to society through government support for films that would not otherwise be produced. This is most relevant when considering subjects that would be considered unpopular at the time.
Some filmmakers may have an insight into a topic that may be controversial at the time, but later may prove to be ahead of their time. Society benefits from these points of view being expressed. Of course, other artists and private journalists may have equally valuable points of view, and yet remain unfunded. How many blogs receive public funds, after all?
Perhaps the system is being run unfairly (particulary with respect to right-of-centre views, I’ll admit), and perhaps the costs outweigh the benefits. All I’m suggesting is that there may be a place for this type of public support, and I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss it outright.
Wouldn’t the dawn of the internet have eliminated such a need though Abattoir? Messages that resonate don’t need high-end budgets to be effective (we’ve seen many blogging partisans create cheap yet effective TV spots on Youtube over the past couple of years) and if Canadian Nazis have an internet presence, it leads me to believe that every minority can establish some sort of following and influence in the electronic super highway.
You can say what you want, but it is not censorship if I refuse to buy you a bullhorn. Ditto for filming.
Matthew, that’s a great point. The situation has changed from 10 years ago, so what made sense then may need to be rethought now. The relative benefit to society may have declined to a point where we need to rethink the whole idea. For that matter, maybe it’s time to reconsider the whole CanCon philosophy now too.