Much fuss has been made lately over the Conservative Government's Bill C-10 which dictates that offensive films ought not to receive tax credits from the government. Many left-wing activists and celebrities have denounced this Bill as promoting censorship.
Well, I, too, am offended by this issue; however, not at the government but at these activists and filmmakers. No film, offensive or not, should be made at the taxpayers' expensive. If these films are not good enough to recoup their expenses and make a profit at the theatre, then perhaps they should not be made in the first place. These activists are making films which lose money and they expect the Canadian government and people to pay for it.
If I want to patronize any element of the artistic community, I choose to spend my money at the theatres, museums, galleries, etc. If what an individual artist creates does not appeal to me or offends me, I instead choose not to spend my money on them. Unfortunately, some of my money does go to support these works which I do not support in the form of tax credits. This is unacceptable.
Let these films sink or swim on their own merit, not on the backs of the taxpayers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
The real question is why are we spending taxpayers' money on any of the arts. If art is worthwhile then it should be commercially viable. If people aren't willing to pay to see a show, movie or concert, or to buy a painting/statue then I would argue its probably "bad" art.
All government subsidy of the arts has accomplished is to reduce the quality of what now passes for art.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association staunchly opposed religious school funding because it took public funds to pay for private religious education.
But Gloria Galloway in Globe reports today that the CCLA has no problem promoting the unlimited use of public funds to promote what are in many cases extremist and activist opinions and ideas.
Denial of public funds to these films is deemed to be "censorship."
Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, CCLA spokesman: "could be used to ban material such as Looney Tunes."
To the libertarian activists, religious ideas and expression is hateful, yet extreme violence, porn and anti-religious propaganda should be subsidized.
Is the CCLA just another name for the Toronto Star editorial board?
Could someone explain to Noah that denying public funds to a film is not the same as banning it.
A CBC writer calls supporters of C-10 racists:
"Meanwhile, over at the Senate, this week we'll hear about how pre-censorship in Bill C10 is really good for you. People concerned about violence and REAL women who like to wear dresses and support the traditional family and stuff will tell you about how industrial tax policy the PERFECT way to insure content that doesn't feature gay or brown people."
Just like a CBC'r. Disagree with big government funding activists and you are a bona fide racist. Nice.
I understand the problem. The credits may not be allowed to Canadian productions based on loose criteria, but the credits will always be available to American productions regardless of content. That is the main issue right now with bill C-10.
The subsidies exist as a form of job creation. It is the same thing that the government does to attract businesses to set up shop in their jurisdiciton. They offer a subsidy of some kind, be it a lower tax rate, and extra tax credit, or whatever you can dream up to call it. It is a competative market and the government sees that it can play a part by offering subsidies. The problem is it is taken too far.
The subsidies are now counted upon within the funding formula. It is thought that too many productions would not be made if the tax credits are withdrawn. The idea in Canada that it is the government's job to fund things like the arts, the auto industry, and foreign aid has to change. The feds can play a part, like donating equipment for disaster situations, but should have little role in funding the arts or other businesses. If people want to see it, let them fund it privately. Hollywood does this all the time. Many screen writers are brushed aside by private investors with a quick, "that is not what we are looking for." The private funders get to determine where to put their funds. Why can't the government?
As long as some governments are willing to subsidize these efforts, then all governments have to subsidize them or else the jobs will be lost in some areas. Really, that is what is at stake politically.
The censorship meme is being brought in to fight the bill, but that does not apply. It is not censorship. They are not saying that the project cannot be made and distributed. They are simply saying that they don't want to fund everything that is outside of the already existing basic guidelines (that incidently already exclude porn). They want people to count on private funding instead of relying so heavily on the government handout.
We have to get businesses of all kinds off the government teet.
No film, offensive or not, should be made at the taxpayers' expensive. If these films are not good enough to recoup their expenses and make a profit at the theatre, then perhaps they should not be made in the first place.
Ah, shut up, scold.
Post a Comment