Loony evangelical claims credit for Canadian film tax-credit changes that will doom edgy indie movies

Dave sez, "New legislation is before the Canadian senate that would deny arts funding for works deemed offensive. The legislation only became public yesterday, but could according to representatives of the film industry in Toronto, shut down many Canadian film productions before they get out the door, because funding would only be confirmed upon review of the finished product. No guarantee of funding means it's unlikely any lender would issue a performance bond."
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.

Link (Thanks, Dave!)


  1. Have fun Canada, this must be karma punishing you for all those years of making fun of the U.S. and our Evangelicals. It’s not as funny when it’s happening to you huh? I’ll give you credit though, at least your Evangelicals haven’t started a war yet. :)

  2. They’d be better off denying tax credits to movies with bad production values. They’d save a lot more money that way.

  3. In other news: “Press naively believes claims of shameless self-promoter regarding his influence on public policy.”

    On the other hand, I sure wish my business qualified for tax credits like this. But I don’t do anything as important as making a movie called “Young People Fucking”, which clearly needs all the help it can get. After all, who would make a movie about young people fucking if there weren’t tax credits involved?

  4. That’s great! We won’t have to tolerate Canadian “offensive” films any more! We had too many of them in Greece in the past years, and all were very “offensive”.

    Can somebody define “other offensive content” for me? It seems a little blurry in a law text.

    I suppose they will have to make a list of “offensive” stuff and degrees of “offensivity”. A lot of people can work on that!

  5. McVety is a loon – you are correct. However, he is a loon with connections to the current occupant of the PMO.

    He’s also a raving homobigot and generally unpleasant human being that models himself after some of the more aggressive evangelicals in the US.

    Do not dismiss the man’s ravings lightly – he bears watching closely and carefully.

  6. Canadians can make movies?

    I thought only America did stupid crap like that.

    Guess we really are infecting the world with our evangelicals.

    At least they haven’t hung any women for being raped yet. It’s coming though.

  7. @#10 This isn’t about government not having a hand in the arts – it’s about the government rewarding the art it deems acceptable, and pushing everything else to the margins or right off the page. Economic incentives will not be eliminated, they will come a caveat that the work produced must pass by an appointed committees approval. It forces the people creating the works to impose upon themselves a form of self-censorship in order to gain this approval.

  8. In his short-sightedness, McVety he doesn’t realize he is negatively impacting film-makers with a Christian world view wanting to tell stories that draw from their faith. With all the sex and violence in film, I’ve never found anything as offensive as the bible or the cross of christ. Pretty sure anything I make in that regard wouldn’t make the cut with this new legislation. I’m praying it doesn’t go through.

  9. I assume that in Canada arts funding is done via the grant process…? So, someone has to arbitrarily decide if John Doe’s project is worthy of funding, which uses public tax dollars. What if the board is composed mostly of conservatives that don’t want to see John’s “Jesus Covered in Shit” series of photographic art? So, since when is art egalitarian in nature? Would anyone be so upset if a crazy libertarian said NO ART funding at all, because funding art is not what government is for? If you want to be an artist, go a head and do it on your own time, with your own money. Unless the art is a public monument, and then the public can vote on which design they like best.

  10. The biggest problem with this proposed legislation is that the funding can be withdrawn retroactively. Imagine this – you want to make a neat-o film. You pitch your idea to the government, and they think it’s pretty cool. They give you a bunch of money to make your film.

    You spend a few months of your life putting together an awesome film. You show it to the government, and they say “What? I can see a nipple there! That’s offensive! You have to give us back all of our money now.”

    Where is that money going to come from? You’ve already spent it all. Now what? Re-mortgage your house? Sell your car? Sell all of your possessions? Declare bankruptcy? It’s a pretty shitty deal.

    I think the government should just review the script/concept a little more closely before issuing the grant (and perhaps, give the filmmakers some guidelines on what type of material cannot be used), rather than yoinking back money they’ve already granted after all of the work has been done.

  11. Jeff, the article is about tax CREDITS not grant funding. Those are two very different words that mean very different things! (Hint:Google) This isn’t about tax payers money going to anything but the typical incentives that governments provide to encourage businesses to flourish.

    But even if we stuck to your faulty analysis this would lead to a stupid tit for tat system that people only feel apply to the arts but not to businesses or *gasp* religion. You know what? I find a lot of the pap that religions peddle to be offensive. I don’t care what benefits they may provide to the community let’s have them start paying taxes and surviving on their own merit. Businesses too. I don’t like what you’re selling? Gimme back my tax dollars. And if you want to start anything supposedly “for the public” then I insist you present your plan so that we can all vote on it!

    (Good grief.)

  12. @#13 Some arts funding in Canada is provided through a grants system. I don’t think it’s arbitrary.

    What is in question here is not so much funding as it is a tax-credit specifically for film and video productions.

    I do think alot of artists and people that like art, movies, and so forth would be upset if, as you described, “some crazy libertarian” came and removed all arts funding. I think arts funding in Canada is a good thing, and we’d be the worse for it if it disappeared altogether.

  13. I agree, Jeff. State sponsored art reminds me too much of the Nazis and Communists. Regardless of the slant it pushes someone to the edge.

    As an artist (glassblower and custom furniture maker) I’d rather see that money go towards Art classes (how many digital movie cameras could you get into the hands of young kids with money?)and Art History education for kids. Most of the current crop of kids coming out of art schools these days know too much about how to apply for grants and not enough about the foundations of what they do.

    A good artist will find ways to produce art without sucking at the teat of the government. Way too much bad art has been paid for by the people already.

    BTW I’m a Christian, but I think it’s pointless and even destructive to try and legislate morality. I’d rather see that time and energy spent feeding the hungry.

  14. @#17 There’s a big big big difference between state sponsored art such as the Socialist Realist “movement” imposed by the former-Soviet Union or the purging of “degenerate art” by the Nazis, and providing funding or tax credits as an incentive for people to create fims, videos, books, etc., all of which in some way contribute to other areas of teh economy (book binding, film processing, etc, etc, etc.)

  15. @#17 There’s a big big big difference between state sponsored art such as the Socialist Realist “movement” imposed by the former-Soviet Union or the purging of “degenerate art” by the Nazis, and providing funding or tax credits as an incentive for people to create fims, videos, books, etc., all of which in some way contribute to other areas of teh economy (book binding, film processing, etc, etc, etc.)

  16. @#20 The change in the credit is not about eliminating the credit altogether. McVety wants to eliminate the credit for art HE does not like.

  17. The Canadian government is surprisingly good at funding artists. You’d have a tough time finding an indie film without the requisite Government of Canada or Canada Council logos somewhere in the credits. Even with music, a lot of funding goes through the FACTOR grants.

    The thing with producing art is that there’s bound to be a lot of failures, and a lot of ‘wasted’ time and money. Art is like research in that sense. You can’t just magically pick the best artists who will make grand masterpieces – often the best artists are the ones who sucked at first, but stuck it through when others would have given up. We live in a socialist country, and for what it costs to feed and clothe an artist for a year we give them a chance to push the limits of their art. And that’s not really a whole lot of money – probably about $20k/year.

    I think that this bill should be passed only if another bill gets passed – the elimination of tax credits for religious institutions. The door should swing both ways.

  18. Why should artists get different rules than other businesses?

    In technology development Canada has a tax-credit system called “Scientific Research and Experimental Development”, abbreviated SR&ED and pronounced “shred”. This is similar to the system of tax credits for films, with the very big caveat that SR&ED credits have to be on projects that meet with government approval, and if your project fails final review, your company does not get the tax credit, and your investors get burned.

    There are certain types of technology development the organs of the state want to promote, and there was a bit of stink in the ’90’s when it turned out that major banks were using the credits for in-house IT development that was not at all the kind of thing the programme was conceived for.

    How is that any different than the government deciding which artistic projects get access to similar credits, based on similarly subjective and arbitrary criteria?

    To quote from a budget document of the time:

    “Restrictions on SR&ED Tax Incentives: Pending the completion of a review of information technology R&D, all such R&D performed after February 27, 1995 by financial institutions will be excluded from the definition of Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED)”

    Where were all the howls of outrage about undue interference then?

  19. Believe it or not Canadian government funding of movies is designed and intended to promote a domestic moviemaking industry. It works too – that’s why so many movies are made in Vancouver now, because the infrastructure was put in place (i.e. people with moviemaking skills, caterers and the rest).

    It is only indirectly about funding the arts, but more directly about suppporting a multibillion dollar industry.

    Interestingly, McVety does not appear to have any issues with the much more massive subsidies to other industries that could arguably be a hell of a lot less moral (i.e. weapons manufacturers, oilsands developers).

    But of course his brand of Christianity is not interested in the sissy peace on earth stuff like that Jesus guy they pretend to worship, they are too worried about the real menace to all that is good and holy – teh nipples and teh gays!

  20. Well all of this may get pushed to the wayside if the government is brought down, which could be happening soon as the Conservatives are about to get rocked with a bribery scandal.

  21. from the article:

    “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.”

    from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

    “Equality Rights

    Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

    Affirmative action programs (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”

    All these jeebusers can do is waste some other people’s time and money – as usual. The law seems clear, any further harm will be stopped. But previous harm not undone.

    Why are christians such undying fountains of hatred? Why do they insist on costing us all money? Why is this permitted in free societies?
    Freedom From Religion! Your most important Right!

  22. If:

    you know nothing more about an issue than “fundamentalists are for XYZ”

    I am against XYX is a pretty good approximation of the right side of the issue to be on

    Fundies are not wrong on all issues, but its in the nature of “even a stopped clock is right twice a day”

  23. So. . . if a Canadian wants to make a film about evolution and Darwin, would that be considered “offensive”?

  24. I find Christianity offensive.

    Can we deny the Christian Loonies funding? We should at least tax the hell out of the churches!

    McVety is against, “gratuitous violence, significant sexual content that lacks an educational purpose, or denigration of an identifiable group”

    Has he ever READ the bible? It’s full of “gratuitous violence, significant sexual content that lacks an educational purpose, or denigration of an identifiable group”

  25. Oh god, you Canadians have them too?!?! D:

    So wait, let me get this straight…they let other film-makers have tax breaks, but not ones that have films that are deemed “offensive”? I think he’s hanging himself there. If you were to make a word-for-word film adaptation of the Bible, they’d have to ban it because there’s plenty of sex and violence in there.

    In all honesty, I don’t think people who support censorship based on good christian family values have ever really cracked the spine on a Bible, and if they have, they don’t know how to read it. :P

  26. ah ha! I see he used the christian tactic of lying. Obviously he got signatures by telling people it was an anti-pedophile petition. I am beginning to think I should not offer christians employment nor trade with them. They seem a treacherous lot.


    Attention News Editors:
    Victory for Our Children from Being Sexually Violated by Adults

    TORONTO, Feb. 28 /CNW/ – Canada Family Action Coalition rejoices with the
    news that the Senate has passed Bill C-2 raising the age of sexual consent to
    16. The President, Dr. Charles McVety, says “finally Canada has come to its
    senses and joined the rest of the civilized world protecting 14 and 15
    year-old boys and girls from being sexually violated by adults. Our ten-year
    campaign has paid off and the result is a safer Canada for our children. The
    myth that progressive liberation of sexual behaviour to the lowest common
    denominator cannot be overturned, has been shattered”.
    Dr. Brian Rushfeldt, Canada Family Action Coalition Executive Director
    adds “I want to congratulate the 750,000 Canadians that signed the age of
    consent petition and advocated for the protection of children. This victory is
    proof positive that individuals can make a difference and right the wrongs
    perpetrated by insensitive legislators acting on behalf of special interests,
    instead for the good of the people.”
    We want to thank Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Justice Minister Rob
    Nicholson, the Members of Parliament that voted for the Bill, the 19
    courageous Senators that voted for it and the “brave” Senators that abstained.

    For further information: Dr. Charles McVety at (416) 456-0096 or Dr.
    Brian Rushfeldt at (406) 295-2159

  27. Where are the moderate christians! Why are they complicit in their silence? Do they support the christian taliban terror tactics? If they do not speak up against these dangerous extremists, the rest of us can hardly be blamed for mistrusting them.

    I want to know if the government has plans in place to safely contain the christian population in case there is a coordinated religious based attack on our freedoms. Perhaps some special camps could be prepared. There is ample precedent with the Enemy Alien laws of WW 2.

  28. Moderate Christians, like myself, understand that no matter what they say, people like you, Takuan, will always assume the worst about them. So why bother?

  29. So why bother? Because you should? Or prepare to go into the camps with the nutcases.

    Hey, its the same deal the muslims are getting.

  30. I like the disparity of concepts the article title creates.

    Someone can believe something is morally wrong, and their faith can charge them to do something about it.

    If they try to do something about it, they are loony evangelicals.

    If they simply believe hold the belief it must be respected, as it is the faith of another.

    I really think that an idea should be dealt with based on the validity of the idea. I understand, for example, why evangelicals want to stop abortions. they think its murder and they need to end it. This guy is just trying to keep evil smut out of the community.

    This needs to be approached on the level of what people believe about art and the nature of obscenity. Not wait until someone decides to act on the convictions of their faith.

    after all, its decades later and the last temptation of christ is now viewed very highly amongst christians. Minds can be changed.

  31. christians are specifically interested in sex because they wish to pervert it into a tool of control. If there were a more handy instrument to subjugate others with, they would be targeting that.

    “This guy is just trying to keep evil smut out of the community. ”


    This guy is seeking to burn witches to get the gullible to give him more money and power.

    He belongs in prison. Quickly.

  32. Why on earth would I want a bunch of bloody self-riteous moralistic jerks deciding what can and can’t be funded? I can’t imagine they’ll have people like Cronenburg on the panel. I’d be willing to bet that 1: it would be some sort of secret panel and/or 2: their definition of “offensive” will be totally differant than most of the people I know.

    We need more government funding non-mainstream products, not less. Too much mainstream schlock as it is.

  33. This is about queers and coat hangers, nothing else. No more gay characters unless they’re villains and die horribly. Nobody gets an abortion unless she dies and goes to hell. Whatever you think about arts funding or tax credits, this is a move to kill gay rights and abortion rights.

  34. The government provides refundable tax credits to productions that are certified as having x amount of Canadian content. Only slight modifications are being made to existing guidelines to explicitly deny tax credits to films promoting hate, excessive violence and pornography without an educational value.
    There are already many restrictions in place, Game and talk shows, news, sports, reality television and pornography are already excluded from access to the tax credits.

    Also, funds are not given until after the film is complete and it is determined that it qualifies. Producers shoot the film or TV show, finish post-production, pay their bills and then file a corporate tax return. The tax credit is included in the production company’s tax refund.

    This is not censorship, as you can still make whatever movies you want on your own dime, however if your production is contrary to public policy the government will have the right to not invest in it.

  35. “He belongs in prison. Quickly.”

    no one here will accuse me of loving religion. seriously, ask the moderator, but i find it endlessly amusing that you used a witch hunt analogy and then followed it up with this.

  36. @40
    “and pornography without an educational value.”

    who decides what is “pornography”? christian nut-jobs? Give them a minute and any depiction of a non-fundie xtian as human will be “pornography:

    It’s censorship.


    prisons are to keep the antisocial and dangerous from hurting others. Like by accusing infidels of witchcraft. He belongs in prison.

  37. “prisons are to keep the antisocial and dangerous from hurting others. Like by accusing infidels of witchcraft. He belongs in prison.”

    and you seem to be accusing him of something he’s not doing and suggesting a punishment for him… sounds kind of like a witch hunt to me.

    is he wrong?


    Should we fight this? yes.

    but nice creepy police state ideas of enforcing ideas you’re selling there, guy.

  38. you seem to be accusing him of something he’s not doing

    You don’t think that people end up dying because of this stuff? Even this tiny push to make the Canadian government support right wing christian propaganda means that queers will be beaten and killed. You fail to understand the power of the media and the power of omission.

    On an unrelated note, you were in my dream the other night. What the hell is up with that?

  39. Experts fear violence against gays, lesbians under-reported
    Becky Rynor, Canwest News Service
    Published: Thursday, February 28, 2008

    OTTAWA – New statistics that show gays are twice as likely as heterosexuals to be the victims of violent crime probably do not reflect the full extent of the problem, an expert in law and sexuality at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont., said Thursday.

  40. And YOU were in my dream two weeks ago, but that seems predictable. Also unsurprisingly, you were talking volubly.

  41. hey, I’m updating my resume; do think “mindless shit-disturber” is better than “irresponsible incendiary”? I dunno, the last one sounds pompous…

  42. “Like by accusing infidels of witchcraft.”

    that specifically I did not see in the article. i know it was an example, but it was a cheap argument.

    I’m not agreeing with the guy in the slightest but trying to get bullshit laws made is what people do, and we have to fight that, but we can’t just put people in jail for beliefs we think are stupid, and i’m with you, i think this guy is stupid.]

    “You don’t think that people end up dying because of this stuff?”

    trying to stop people from making (what they claim is) obscene? I’d say probably not.

    Now if you’re trying to escalate the situation or go slippery slope (cheap) rather than talk about this specific issue then yes. people are dying. I work for an LGBT company and i’m well aware of what happens in the world.

  43. I’m Canadian and I’m finishing my first feature film. But it’s not a Canadian film. I didn’t apply for any grants or funding. I didn’t register for Canadian certification. I didn’t want to have anyone tell me how to make my film; what “i’s” to dot, what “t’s” to cross, what hoops to jump through.

    I raised the money privately and I’m proud to say that it’s a nasty-funny little movie. There’s something to offend everyone. And no, I won’t bother to apply for tax credits.

    Check us out at http://ebay-movie.blogspot.com

    “PUBIC LICE: The Motion Picture”
    Starring Gilbert Gottfried

    Proudly Un-Canadian

    “It’s disgusting, even by my standards” — Gilbert Gottfried

  44. trying to stop people from making (what they claim is) obscene? I’d say probably not.

    That sounds good until you realize that promoting the homosexual agenda (and I’m still waiting for my copy so that I can get started) is what they’re gunning for. Vanishing queers from the media, or demonizing us in the process of trying to pass this thing, does lead to murder and mayhem. Gay bashers and killers constantly cite the media as a factor in their decision to resort to violence.

  45. Hey,
    Why aren’t the moderators posting my previous message? I thought I made a valid point. Oh no! The funda-mental-ists have taken over BoingBoing!

    Kiss my fundament!

  46. Antinous, I’m with you, I am, I just think that rational discourse is what changes minds, and that what was obscene in the past doesn’t seem like it as much anymore, like my example from earlier.

    if you fight crazy with crazy, like trying to live in a world where you can throw people who propose laws you don’t like in prison, and you lose the argument, you end up with a precedent and you yourself are getting thrown in prison because the people in charge don’t like the law’s you’re proposing.

  47. Why aren’t the moderators posting my previous message?

    Moderators don’t post your messages. Software posts your messages. If you’ve actually pissed off the database, you really are in deep shit.

  48. Oh this is just silly. Why do evangelicals think they are the the preservers of conservative social and religious values?
    There are so many disgustingly, I mean inspiringly, violent and sexual stories in the Bible, that anyone who claims it is The Source of conservative values ought to try, uh actually reading it?

    Why I don’t even need to go to the movies to get my full share of graphic sex and violence. I need only open the good book.

    Let’s start with the Rape of Tamar. In this charming conservative family tale a young virgin gets raped by her brother, and he gets away with it until two years later he is killed by one of his own brothers. Now that is a story we need our youth to watch on the big screen.
    Think of how the values portrayed in The Rape of Tamar, can just heal Canada of all it’s liberal immorality!
    Or how about that other charming family tale of Judah and the prostitute? You all remember that one right? Judah, a supposed ancestor of Christ has sex with a prostitute. Well it turns out she is Judah’s daughter in law, and she’s pregnant three months later! Well can you guess how this uplifting and clean tale ends? Why Judah proclaims that his daughter in law should be burned to death of course! But fortunately it is revealed that Judah impregnated her in the first place, and Tamar forgives and forgets. What a good girl. We need more women like Tamar–obedient, humble, and willing to do what ever men tell her. This tale, if widely adopted, could do away with womens lib permanently and get Canada back to where God wants her.

    Oh the list of culturally conservative values portrayed in the Bible goes on and on. Why there’s Sodom and Gomorrah where we have a tale to share with the whole family around the fire—why it’s nothing less than gang rape all night long followed by murder.
    Get that on the big screen quick before Canada’s culture is ruined with all those liberals with their smut!
    And if you ever are at a loss as to what to do if you can’t find a man to sleep with (as a woman) why refer to the Bible where Moab sleeps with his two daughters without the good lord saying or doing a thing about it. Now there are some family values for ya!
    I often wondered how Adam and Eve could have produced the entire human race anyway. Well it just occurred to me how they did it–incest of course! Yes yes, the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve must have slept with one another to create this fine human race right? Now there is a story we need on the big screen. Humanity is a result of incest and it was all as God intended from the beginning. I don’t see God getting down on Moab do you? Well then I suppose incest is OK then. Let’s pass legislation to permit, why even promote incest in order to get back to those good old fashioned values.

    But we mustn’t forget the positive message of the story of King David and Bathsheba either. Why I’m sure this is a tale we all remember from Sunday school right? Of course! How could we forget the classic tale of King David impregnating a beautiful woman and then having her husband murdered so he can add her to his harem of nine. I don’t know about you, but I’ve always wanted at least nine wives or more, and when I see a woman I like why its in accordance with the values portrayed in the Bible to just kill her husband and take her for yourself after impregnating her. And here I thought such behavior was the lot of utterly reprehensible sociopaths. Of course not! Its is the duty of a king to just rape and pillage with impunity.
    Now if that got on the big screen we would see a revival of conservative values in Canada that would just blow your minds.

    I’m sure you all can add all your favorite Bible stories to this list to illustrate the world view this evangelical is coming from, and the positive alternatives offered in the Bible to the moral relativism of liberal film makers.

  49. It’s a really amusing discussion up to now and I certainly improve my English reading it (that’s my secret agenda) but I think that this is serious. I mean, when you let ANYONE judge what art should (or should not) do, you certainly shoot Democracy and Basic Freedoms in the leg.
    This is not a business issue. It may look like one, but the main point is that it creates a bonus-mallus system based on the content of a work of art. And if you live in a Free Economy, this is the easiest way to control art. Making some, already difficult, issues financially “untouchable”.

  50. Steve @50: On the contrary, what you’re doing looks incredibly Canadian. You’re creating something wonderful using limited resources and extreme cleverness, while denying there’s anything very Canadian about it!

    The thing people don’t get about Canadians is that we’re not much bothered by anyone offending everyone so long as they don’t fuck with our right to offend everyone too. That most of us have no interest in offending everyone is beside the point. Most of us will stand up for each other’s right to be offensive.

    This kind of blow-hard moralist evangelical is profoundly un-Canadian, and the best he’s been able to do is get arts tax credits treated in exactly the same way as other business tax credits, where they have to meet some test of government approval or they will be denied retroactively, just like SR&ED credits are. Yawn.

    While he’s offensive as hell–and therefore one hopes not eligible for arts tax credits–his impact on policy will be extremely limited. Although I’d really like to know where he gets his information about people promoting a secret agenda to make everyone pan-sexual. I’d really like to support those folks.

    Looks like a great film, and an extremely clever use of found footage. How are you planning to release/market it?

  51. Hi Tom,
    Thanks for your comments. We’re talking to a number of U.S. based distributors. Our completion date is April 15 and we’ve promised to have screeners out to them on that date.

    My guess is that the movie will play for a week theatrically, then do it’s business on home video.

    But I don’t see the movie as being “Canadian” at all. From my experience (30+ years in the biz), nothing happens (production wise) until you get the green light from the funding agencies.

    The reality is, Canada only supports 5 filmmakers – and I’m not one of them. If I’m going to make movies, I have to find ‘other’ ways to do it. In this case, it was financed by selling my movie poster collection on eBay. You do what you have to do.

  52. I refer you to the Saturday editorial in the Globe & Mail. Here’s a portion of what was written:

    “The Conservatives say they aren’t censoring anyone with their changes to the Income Tax Act, soon to be passed by the Senate. Artists will be free to express themselves as they wish without government funding. That misses the point. Those artists who have something to say that Heritage Minister Josée Verner and some unaccountable bureaucrats in Justice and Heritage find “contrary to public policy” (as the new law puts it, without elaboration) will be placed at a disadvantage by government. Of course it’s censorship. The government is sending artists it doesn’t like to the back of the bus.”

    — the Globe editorial concludes thusly:

    “The tax-credit regulations already require that the productions not be pornographic. The government has not spelled out why more public-policy vetting is needed. It was the Soviets who required that art serve the public good. Democracies don’t do that.”

    The Facebook Group Keep your censoring hands off of Canadian film and TV! No to Bill C-10! now has over 10,000 members and lots of good resources for us to express our outrage and concern to our elected representatives. Don’t under-estimate the power of Facebook – go join the group and lend your voice.

    Kill Bill C-10.


  53. Grimshaw said. “Some arts funding in Canada is provided through a grants system. I don’t think it’s arbitrary.”

    Why don’t you think so? Humans are always arbitrary when it comes to defining what is good or bad, what is worthy and what isn’t.

    I’m an “artist” but I don’t expect anyone to help me out. The help I –did– get was a scholarship to a very good art school. I earned that by working on my art on my own. I paid for my art by working a real job. And when I went back to art school I paid for it all, without any help. Gosh, I dislike it when people can’t pull their own weight.

  54. @ #37 [Takuan]:
    “christians are specifically interested in sex because they wish to pervert it into a tool of control. If there were a more handy instrument to subjugate others with, they would be targeting that.”

    Thanks for your sweeping demonisation there, Takuan, not to mention the rest of your flames.

    Please take a moment to remember that, like most public-facing groups, a few loudmouthed / well-connected nutjobs give everyone else a bad name. For my part, I consider it my Christian duty to oppose discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, religion etc – including so-called ‘positive’ discrimination. I personally find it sickening that so many self-appointed public advocates for my faith choose to forget the message of grace in favour of hate. To any such nutjob fundies reading this: that’s not how it’s supposed to work, guys. Go back and read it again.

    FWIW, I consider my beliefs to be ‘fundamentalist’, but in the Sermon-On-The-Mount, The-Second-Greatest-Commandment kind of way rather than a ‘OMG God hates gayz!’ kind of way. I guess most would consider me a ‘moderate’ by that standard – so here I am, standing up to be counted as requested.

Comments are closed.