p2pnet news | Movies:- "I’ve been rather quiet on the remarkable public outcry over Bill C-10, the legislation currently before the Senate that would give the Minister of Canadian Heritage the power to veto tax credits for films or television productions deemed objectionable," said Ottawa law professor Michael Geist, going on:

"I believe there is a place for government support for culture. While that support is not unconditional, neither is it appropriate for government to reserve for itself a veto power over content it finds objectionable (the loss of tax credits could effectively kill some film productions). After the Prime Minister’s Office apparently pulled Canadian Heritage Minister Josee Verner away from the media, late last night she issued a press release claiming that the provision is designed to stop tax credits from being issued to films that include content that may be subject to prosecution under the Criminal Code."

For ‘veto’ read ‘censor,’ say critics, and the beleaguered Conservative government is now under heavy fire from elements of the Canadian film and television industry and, predictably, the Opposition.

"Bill C-10 is in no way a form of censorship," Canwest News Service has heritage minister Josée Verner declaring, "its [sic] not about restricting freedom of expression, as the Opposition likes to suggest. The purpose of the bill is to bring integrity to the tax system, the goal of the bill is to reassure the public a how taxpayers money is spent."

Canadian actors, directors, producers and writers have also been vocal with their concerns, says the story, going on:

"The writer’s group Pen Canada wrote to chair of the Senate banking committee, Senator David Angus, asking him to amend the bill. The actors’ union has asked the government to drop the plan.

"Members of the Canadian Film and Television Production Association have expressed concern that the amendment would create a high level of uncertainty over production financing and discourage investors from supporting Canadian film and TV projects."

And in the National Post, John Ivison wants to know why sex needs a government subsidy.

Famous Canadian director David Cronenberg called it a "direct assault on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms" and, continues the OpEd, "This message has been bolstered by Charles McVety, the evangelical minister and head of the Canadian Family Action Coalition, who claimed credit for the amendment, saying he’s been lobbying the government to cut funding for productions with graphic sex and violence.

"This is unfortunate. To corrupt an old joke, the definition of hell is a place where the English are the cooks, the Germans are the police, the Swiss are the lovers and Charles McVety is in charge of television scheduling."

But, "I agree with him but not because I’m offended as a Christian," declares Ivison, going on >>>

Rather, I’m outraged as a taxpayer. Telefilm Canada handed out $158-million last year, including to such productions as Sperm and The Masturbators. But while they or the other yet-to-be-released movies and shows may well prove to be the next Away from Her, Barbarian Invasions or Trudeau, all of which were award-winners and received substantial Telefilm funding, they are just as likely to be the next Web-dreams, Kink or G-Spot, titillating late-night fare designed almost exclusively to provoke hand-to-gland combat.

These three shows received substantial public funding over the years through Telefilm and the Canadian Television Fund. But why? Telefilm’s mission is to foster productions that reflect Canadian society, with its linguistic duality and cultural diversity.

Where’s the Canadian distinctness in the G-Spot episode Sexorcist, where Gigi (Brigitte Bako), experiences a visit by a ghost that leaves her extremely "satisfied"? It’s not that it’s a bad show — if it’s on, I’ll watch it because I’m Scottish and I know I’m paying for it. But the only connection to the Great White North is that Gigi is a struggling Canadian actress in Hollywood.

Adds Ivison:

"Part of the problem is that the broadcasters control where the Canadian Television Fund spends its $250-million. Not surprisingly, they direct funding toward shows they think will make them money. The new policy on tax suggests the government will, sooner or later, impose the same guidelines on Telefilm and CTF.

"But that’s not censorship. If the makers of Bliss or Webcam Girls want to continue to produce their shows – or if they have a vacancy for a backscrubber – then that’s terrific. But they should do it without our tax dollars.

"As Pierre Trudeau so rightly said, there’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation."

[NOTE - p2pnet is running a special reader's survey. It only takes a minute - literally. Please click here. Cheers! And thanks ... Jon]

Slashdot it!

Also See:
remarkable public outcry – Tax credits and porn, March 5, 2008
Canwest News Service – Parties clash over ‘censorship’ bill, March 5, 2008
National Post – Comment: Sex films don’t need subsidies, March 6, 2008

---

Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php

---

Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.

This entry was posted on Friday, March 7th, 2008 at 10:26 am and is filed under Movies. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

HOME

Viewed 5382 times