Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Minister 'surprised' by Lee's ire

TRALEE PEARCE

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 2:28 PM EDT 21/04/08

'Our government is determined to ensure freedom of expression,' Heritage Minister says in response to Oscar-winning director's concerns over Bill C-10 ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. ah sails from Canada writes: Soon Harpo and the Cons will be back in their well deserved customary oblivion and our fine nation can resume it's natural, peaceful, free thinking ways
  2. Comments are Closed from Toronto, Canada writes: Cut off all funding and end the argument.
  3. William Ross from Victoria BC, Canada writes: I wasn't aware that Ang Lee was Canadian and if he isn't what gives this guy the right to comment on an internal canadian issue?
  4. Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada writes: And the Oscar for best rhetorical performance and obfuscation of the facts goes to ..........................Ang Lee.

    Ang was great in how he raised the spectre of censorship when this Bill has nothing at all to do with the supression of free speech and everything to do with ensuring value for money. Ang was also compelling in the way he raised the ominous spectre of Communist China and the way they censor dissenting views. He was riveting in the way he implied that Canada was worse in this manner than Communist China itself. Congratulations Ang for that absolutely breathtaking performance. Rhetoric and melodrama have never been done better.
  5. bob miller from Canada writes: Agreed...let the film industry survive on merit. End of 'problem'.
  6. Danny Jasper from Canada writes: Josee Verner says “Our government is determined to ensure freedom of expression and will continue to support the production of entertaining and high quality content,” the statement said. “We are reaching out to industry to work with them on Bill C-10. Together, we will find the best solution for the industry, for Canadian citizens and tax payers.”

    NEO-CONS!!!
  7. Dave P from Flin Flon, Manitoba, Canada writes: Verner said“Our government is determined to ensure freedom of expression and will continue to support the production of entertaining and high quality content,&8221;

    What a joke. There isn't even freedom of expression within the whole Harpo led Conservative party for crying out load. Why would they care if any one else (or thing) had such a privelege.
  8. Dave Roberts from Toronto, Canada writes: How is not providing a subsidy to a film production considered censorship?

    On another note, why are these subsidized films crap?
  9. f c from Canada writes: Ang.....say be-bi and get out! You are not a citizen so your comments rank right of there with Bono's and Paul McCartney's. You like it when government's give you our tax dollars so taht you can make money. I agree with the other posters.....scrap the tax free handouts altogethor and survive or fall on y our own merits!
  10. Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada writes: Danny Jasper from Canada writes: Josee Verner says “Our government is determined to ensure freedom of expression and will continue to support the production of entertaining and high quality content,&8221; the statement said. &8220;We are reaching out to industry to work with them on Bill C-10. Together, we will find the best solution for the industry, for Canadian citizens and tax payers.&8221;

    NEO-CONS!!!

    I am always fascinated with this term. It is obviously meant to be insulting yet when it pertains to this quote I am bewildered. Does ensuring value for money make one a Neo-Con?
  11. Robert Marshall from Scarborough, Canada writes: Comments are Closed from Toronto, Canada writes: '''' Cut off all funding and end the argument.'''''

    Yes excellent idea .... I wonder what other types of arguments that the nationalists in this country will try to argue if the feds had the balls to do something like that
  12. D. Hall from Wpg, Canada writes: Of course this proposal is censorship. And the religious right will ensure that anything that includes a bare navel is cut off from funding.

    And I like a few of my tax dollars going to fund Canadian artists. It is good for our country, our culture, and our future. Some will go to trash, some to masterpieces. I am content with that.

    As for a non Canadian commenting on a Canadian issues - I have no problem as long as they are not representatives of a foreign government. But then I have no problems with Canadians commenting on Tibet or Sudan either.
  13. epsi hax from Calgary, Canada writes: We simply must stop wasting tax payers dollars on silly things like movies and TV. Let them secure investment from capital markets like everyone else.

    When will this government take the bold move and stop this insanity?

    Epsi
  14. Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada writes: D. Hall from Wpg, Canada writes: Of course this proposal is censorship. And the religious right will ensure that anything that includes a bare navel is cut off from funding.

    And I like a few of my tax dollars going to fund Canadian artists. It is good for our country, our culture, and our future. Some will go to trash, some to masterpieces. I am content with that.

    D. Hall I agree with part of your post. The reality of what happens now is the art community policing itself. I would assume that any film that actually was based around any kind of right wing notion such as a prolife agenda wouldn't receive funding from the leftwing dominated decision makers. Having Ministerial accountability would ensure that the public would have someone to blame if censorship did take place. Funny how it is censorship if left wing ideas are stifled but when right wing ideas are stifled there is never a peep from the likes of Ang.
  15. CHP My vote from Beamsville, Canada writes: Censorsihp? How is this censorship? I can agree with an earlier poster, stop ALL subsidies and end the argument.

    I applaud the government for taking this step.
  16. Mike Z from Saskatoon, Canada writes: Yes, absolutely value for money is censorship -- in the same way as Directing a movie is censorship (how dare the Director decide what parts of the film reels we get to see!). At the end of the day, s/he with the money gets to decide how to spend it.

    The Government is NOT censoring anything -- it is merely telling the industry that the days of getting carte blanche approval for anything and everything is over. Can anyone really blame them, given some of the crap that was previously 'entitled' to our tax dollars? Can anyone claim that 'Young People F&^king' should have received tax money?

    If you can swallow that load, what about films about subjects you find offensive? Should the Government fund movies that call for banning abortion? What about xenophobic films calling for 'racial' or 'ethnic' purity in Canada? What about films that glorify sexual abuse?

    While some argue that their are criminal laws that guard against that, I would argue that this is a foolish argument. Do we really think that any film that doesn't land the film-maker in jail deserves to receive public funding? I sure hope not.

    I do believe that the Government should not have exempted foreign films from this requirement. Treat all applications for public funding the same, regardless of source of origin.
  17. Robert Loblaw from Canada, Canada writes: Danny Jasper - I suppose you prefer the LPC version - “Our government is determined to provide incentives, tax credits, grants - whatever it takes to insure that Canada's film industry has all the money it needs to continue to produce whatever it wants regardless of merit and we will do this courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer.

    Loser Libs!
  18. Simply Red from Canada writes: 'Our government is determined to ensure freedom of expression,' Heritage Minister says. ... 'filmmakers are free to express whatever we tell them.'

    This sounds like something from George Orwell's 1984.
  19. Haiden MitHand El from Canada writes: CHP My vote from Beamsville, Canada writes: Censorsihp? How is this censorship? I can agree with an earlier poster, stop ALL subsidies and end the argument. I applaud the government for taking this step.

    CHP-- let's stop all governement handouts! I'd like to start with corporate welfare, tax-breaks to religious instistutions, funding the military-industrial complex, etc.
  20. prospector from blackfly country from Canada writes: Is this Lee character related to Bruce Lee or Tommy Lee?

    Who is this clown and why would an elected government of any country listen to him?
  21. Con Borg from Calgary, Canada writes: I'm sick of seeing tax payers money used to subsidise such shows as 'KINK'
  22. The Iconoclast from Canada writes: William Ross from Victoria BC, Canada writes: what gives this guy the right to comment on an internal canadian issue?

    well, maybe Canadians should not comment on internal issues of other countries - like our foreign minister on Afghanistan and the tens of thousands comments on China.
  23. J F from Canada writes: Let the market decide what will be on film.
    No tax payers money should go to any of this crap.
    Don't throw the cultural garbage argument at us.
    I don't want any of my money going to some whining idiots that think they have wisdom to tell my what I should pay to watch, when I don't have the choice to pay, or refuse to pay.
  24. Danny Jasper from Canada writes: Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada writes: I am always fascinated with this term. It is obviously meant to be insulting yet when it pertains to this quote I am bewildered. Does ensuring value for money make one a Neo-Con?

    The value of a film is not soley measured in box-office receits. The value of a film can appreciate over time or as a filmmakers career evolves. If we want world renowned filmmakers from Canada not ex-pat Canadians living in America we have to offer tax-credits just like so many other industries. The film industry generates money and Nova Scotia just bosted the tax-credits to the film industry for example http://www.gov.ns.ca/news/details.asp?id=20070913008
  25. Compos Mentis from in the Darwinian Wild, Wild West..., Canada writes: Mike Z from Saskatoon, Canada writes: '...If you can swallow that load, what about films about subjects you find offensive? Should the Government fund movies that call for banning abortion? What about xenophobic films calling for 'racial' or 'ethnic' purity in Canada? What about films that glorify sexual abuse?'

    Mike, hate crimes and sexually abusive films are not funded now. Poor argument there.

    '... Do we really think that any film that doesn't land the film-maker in jail deserves to receive public funding? I sure hope not...'

    Mike, we are not talking about direct public funding per se. We are talking about indirect subsidies (tax credits). That is, if a film company spends x amount of dollars in Canada making their film, we'll reduce their taxes by a marginal amount.

    But since we're on the subject of tax credits, I'd like to see the tax exempt status of all churches revoked.

    Why should I be subsidizing the beliefs of someone's make-believe world?
  26. P Scott from Canada writes: It's amazing how many truly ignorant 'Canadians' feel the need to comment on this issue.

    Please stop providing tax breaks for oil companies, corporations, the military, religious groups or 'not-for-profit' organizations, the lumber industry, etc. I don't want my taxes supporting such irresponsible industries.

    Cause that's what the issue is about, right? Funding irresponsible products?

    And if one more person uses 'Young People F@#king' without having SEEN the movie I'm going to explode! I mean, how could they have seen it? It's Canadian.
  27. Haiden MitHand El from Canada writes: Con Borg from Calgary, Canada writes: I'm sick of seeing tax payers money used to subsidise such shows as 'KINK'

    Con Borg -- I'm sick and tired of seeing taxpayers money used to subsidise religious propoganda television. What's a show called 'KINK' about -- hairdressing?
  28. Martyn Whitt from toronto, Canada writes: Well the liberal lefties who like free stuff are getting their knickers in a twist. Those who call this censorship remind me of crying children, the kind that would scream abuse if they didn't get that chocolate bar they wanted. Some kids want want want, thankfully some of them grow up and look after themselves. It is censorship is it? How about we stop ALL funding to the arts, cause 50 years of supporting it has created a whole bunch of crap. Artists in this country really do like to wine. Oh and censorship means that you are not allowed to say something, NOT the goverment won't pay you to say it. Man, just grow up! 60 years ago Canadians went off to war to save our freedom, today we wine that we're not getting enough cash from Ottawa...you'd have them tie your shoes would you if you could?
  29. Dan Weland from Burlington, Canada writes: The issue here is more than simply freedom of the press since taxpayer's monies are involved (some of which are mine). Therefore, I believe that we as taxpayers should have a say in how our money is spent in this area. I applaud the Harper government for this Bill.
  30. Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada writes: Danny Jasper from Canada writes: Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada writes: I am always fascinated with this term. It is obviously meant to be insulting yet when it pertains to this quote I am bewildered. Does ensuring value for money make one a Neo-Con? The value of a film is not soley measured in box-office receits. The value of a film can appreciate over time or as a filmmakers career evolves. If we want world renowned filmmakers from Canada not ex-pat Canadians living in America we have to offer tax-credits just like so many other industries. The film industry generates money and Nova Scotia just bosted the tax-credits to the film industry for example http://www.gov.ns.ca/news/details.asp?id=20070913008 And I am all for the continuation of these tax credits but believe that more oversight needs to be done to ensure that absolute garbage isn't given our money. Also I would like to think that fairness already exists in determing who gets said money. However the impression I get is that the artists are the ones who are policing themselves and absolute garbage like Bubbles Galore got made. Go and look it up and ask me if this piece of garbage should have received tax payers money. The gov't is trying to ensure that our tax dollars aren't being flushed down the toilet. I am for that. As long as garbage (and I mean quality not morally) is receiving tax dollars something needs to be done. This isn't censorship but the censorship accusation would be a way of misrepresenting their policyb and smearing the cons.
  31. David E from Canada writes: This bill has nothing to do with 'value for money' but ensuring Conservative Christian values in government taxation policy. No one in the industry thinks this is a good idea -- only the wingnuts that are devoid of culture.

    Verner's 'surprise' is also a crock since she herself is known to despise this legislation.
  32. janfromthe bruce from Canada writes: Ditto to 'Haiden MitHand El from Canada writes: CHP My vote from Beamsville, Canada writes: Censorsihp? How is this censorship? I can agree with an earlier poster, stop ALL subsidies and end the argument. I applaud the government for taking this step.

    CHP-- let's stop all governement handouts! I'd like to start with corporate welfare, tax-breaks to religious instistutions, funding the military-industrial complex, etc.'

    With one proviso - we start with the ones who get most of the pork - FIRST - and it sure isn't the film industry.

    This is just a 'bone' thrown to their social conservative base.

    Incidently, there are already rules for what gets funded.
  33. Trillian Rand from Canada writes: If the minister feels non-Canadian shouldn't have or voice opinions about Canadian matters, what is her belief about Canadians having or voicing opinions about foreign matters? To avoid looking duplicitous, she must believe we should hold our tongues. Perhaps she can at least limit us by shutting down these comments. After all, it seems many of us have opinions about foreign affairs and are not hesitant to express them.
  34. John Longshot from Canada writes: “Acclaimed director”??? Ignore Lee; he's an ignoramus riding a media profile! His comments demonstrate his lack of insight or comprehension regarding Bill C-10. He is unable to grasp the fact that C-10 applies to tax credits and NOT censorship. As a non-Canadian (non-taxpaying foreigner), he can keep his dirty nose out of OUR business. His sole purpose appears to be that of spreading misinformation.
  35. J L from Toronto, Canada writes: I'm not a conservative but I agree that something must be done - taxpayer's money shouldn't be used to subsidize some of these perverted shows/movies...
  36. Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada writes: And David E if it has to do with spreading Christian values then they will not fund certain projects. We will find out about it then the majority of Canadians can then determine if this was an appropriate response. You will be able to hold the Cons responsible if you have truly uncovered their hidden agenda. The Canadian voters will pounce if this is the case. So let the law come and then let the voters speak. If the cons are as evil as you suggest then you know that Canadian wouldn't approve of these actions. Its called gov't and ministerial responsibility and accountibility. But there is also the chance that they mean what they say. Imagine that.
  37. W ho from Canada writes: Let the government also stop funding 'offensive' military operations with tax-money !
  38. Broad Vacant from St. Catharines, ON, Canada writes: epsi hax from Calgary, Canada writes: We simply must stop wasting tax payers dollars on silly things like movies and TV. Let them secure investment from capital markets like everyone else.

    What utter nonsense. There are few provinces in the country, and fewer states in the union, and fewer still nations of the world, not offering tax credits for film production. I offer, as just one of many examples, the website of the New York State Governor's Office for Motion Picture and Television Development, a website where over half the content is links to various state incentive programs.

    http://www.nylovesfilm.com/index.asp

    There's plenty of writers here who for a range of reasons - it's crap, it's fiscally irresponsible, whatever - who will always fall back to the market as what should decide these matters. Show me the country where this is true.
  39. T H from Ottawa, Canada writes: What Ang Lee seems incapable of understanding, as do the rest of the arts community, is that absolutely no one is saying don't make your movie...therefore the entire term censorship has no place in the discussion making it merely fearmongering on their part.

    All that is being said is if you want to make offensive movies do it on your own dime and let MY tax money go towards education and healthcare....and that's all this government is doing....being sound economic stewards and doing what's right!
  40. D. Clearwater from Lethbridge, AB, Canada writes: I think what is scaring the film industry is that this new bill will make it difficult to secure any type of funding (including private investments) for a film that might be considered controversial because the tax credits come into effect at the end of the production. So, even though this technically will only affect a small part of the funding and come into play after the film is shot, the worry is that the bill will have wider effects (which these things typically do). Also, this will depend on the taste of politicians in the sense that a sitting politician could make a stick about a film in production and put pressure to have the tax credits removed.

    So, whatever your politics or ideology, I think these people have good cause to be worried.
  41. Compos Mentis from in the Darwinian Wild, Wild West..., Canada writes: J L from Toronto, Canada writes: 'I'm not a conservative but I agree that something must be done - taxpayer's money shouldn't be used to subsidize some of these perverted shows/movies...'

    Such as ???

    Please, give us some Canadian examples of the perverted shows/movies that have received tax credits.
  42. J F from Canada writes: The film industry should be the same as others businesses.
    If your product is crap, then you are out of business.
    Don't fund crap.
    So many people in the film industry think they can produce crap , sell it off as art ,and ask for tax payers money to produce more crap.
    And they think they are more enlightened than the average tax payer.
  43. john may from lalaland, writes: Compos Mentis writes - I would like to see the tax exempt status of all churches removed. Just another fool who wants to shut down all all those social services provided at no cost to the taxpayer. Not the first stupid poster who has a rant against religion. I cannot think of any shelters or food programmes set up by the atheists, must be too busy making 'art' about the tribulations of the poor and the homeless. Yessir, the cahttering class are really working hard to make a better Canada.
  44. Martyn Whitt from toronto, Canada writes: Sorry my earlier rant aside: OK I'm angered by the artists complete inability to frame the debate honestly, calling it 'censorship' just makes them look ignorant to the average canadian who works for a living. Censorship Mr. Lee could be better explained by showing side by side the box office take for his oscar winning film (name escapes me) in Canada and in Iran. I'd love to get my hands on those figures put them in front of his face and see what he'd could conclude from them? Mr. Lee would love to see what you come up with, and if we're censoring you, what is Iran doing? What a thick-o!!! I was pick pocketed once in Liverpool, however I didn't not make scream 'rape' to get attention-mind you I have integrity.
  45. whatevah D from Canada writes: . Hall from Wpg, Canada writes: Of course this proposal is censorship. And the religious right will ensure that anything that includes a bare navel is cut off from funding.

    And I like a few of my tax dollars going to fund Canadian artists. It is good for our country, our culture, and our future. Some will go to trash, some to masterpieces. I am content with that.

    As for a non Canadian commenting on a Canadian issues - I have no problem as long as they are not representatives of a foreign government. But then I have no problems with Canadians commenting on Tibet or Sudan either.

    I agree with all your points. I don't see this as an issue re: value for the money as some posters claim. What some people call 'value for the money' when it comes to film; ie, the big blockbuster non-creative films, I would consider a waste. I'd rather pay for an Atom Egoyan or David Cronenberg movie any day; at least they make me think.

    And herein lies the rub: Who is deciding what deserves funding. Either pull all funding (which I don't necessarily agree with), or don't. But don't start deciding for me which films are worth supporting and which ones aren't.
  46. Emilio Garazgos from Kanata, Canada writes: I can understand that a few in the film industry would be upset that a source of 'free' (to them, but not to taxpayers) money might be drying up but I don't doubt that a larger number of Canadians who are actually providing the funds through their taxes don't approve of giving away their money to projects that may offend their sensibilities and sense of decency.

    AFAIC, that isn't denying anyone their freedom of expression as Lee accuses. It's just limiting their options for free public money.
  47. Martyn Whitt from toronto, Canada writes: John May, you're out to lunch man, we should go after those Salvation Army folks with the annoying bells and singing offensive christmas songs before this season's charity season gets into full flight! I bet those guys (they must be evil they have the word 'army' in their name) have a lot of coins we could tax and get into the government's hands where they could spend it more efficiently.
  48. Compos Mentis from in the Darwinian Wild, Wild West..., Canada writes: john may from lalaland, writes: 'Compos Mentis writes - I would like to see the tax exempt status of all churches removed. Just another fool who wants to shut down all all those social services provided at no cost to the taxpayer. Not the first stupid poster who has a rant against religion. I cannot think of any shelters or food programmes set up by the atheists, must be too busy making 'art' about the tribulations of the poor and the homeless. Yessir, the cahttering class are really working hard to make a better Canada. '

    Satire is completely lost on you, isn't it?
  49. Antonio San from Canada writes: Simon Houpt seems to have a real all too Canadian problem: he cannot report anything positive out of New York City! Let's one moment imagine the opposite: let's have a New York Times culture reporter in Toronto... well that if there was anything worthwhile to report.
  50. Toast And coffee from Somewhere, Canada writes: This bill is not censorship! No one is saying the film can't be made. They are saying that taxpayers have a right to say no to a small number of 'way out there' productions.

    As a taxpayor I want this bill.

    Anyone who wants to support this 'art' can write the cheque.

    Subsidizing anything that anyone can dream up is asking for too much. The film industry will be a better place without this drivel. The real area of focus should be to streamline the process so that real art doesn't get caught in the crossfire.
  51. Tyler Christensen from Yokohama, Japan writes: Can somebody please call an election?
  52. The Wight from Canada writes: This is a TAX-CREDIT as an incentive, not direct funding, so the only question that should be asked of an applicant is:

    'Is the majority of this film going to be made/filmed in Canada, so that Canadians in the industry get employed?'

    Past that point is where the moral censor kicks in. It has nothing at all to do with value for the dollar. You could make porn or a complete stinker of a movie and as long as Canadians got employed, the incentive did it's job.
  53. whatevah D from Canada writes: Emilio Garazgos from Kanata, Canada writes: I can understand that a few in the film industry would be upset that a source of 'free' (to them, but not to taxpayers) money might be drying up but I don't doubt that a larger number of Canadians who are actually providing the funds through their taxes don't approve of giving away their money to projects that may offend their sensibilities and sense of decency.

    What would you define 'offensive to sensibilities and sense of decency?' There are already criminal laws to protect against certain films. What may offend you, I may consider thought-provoking. What you might consider great, I might consider a waste of time. See what I mean?
  54. Joe Canada from Kingston, Canada writes: Nothing wrong with trying to promote a certain level of 'standards and practices'.

    You can make it, but we won't be supporting it.

    ah sails from Canada writes: Soon Harpo and the Cons will be back in their well deserved customary oblivion and our fine nation can resume it's natural, peaceful, free thinking ways

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like sleeping with 14 year old girls? I too can't wait for Canada's 'natural' governing party to return. Ah yes the good old days of arrogant, condescending, we know better then you do, judgmental like it or else ways...
  55. whatevah D from Canada writes: Toast And coffee from Somewhere, Canada writes: This bill is not censorship! No one is saying the film can't be made. They are saying that taxpayers have a right to say no to a small number of 'way out there' productions.

    As a taxpayor I want this bill.

    Anyone who wants to support this 'art' can write the cheque.

    Subsidizing anything that anyone can dream up is asking for too much. The film industry will be a better place without this drivel. The real area of focus should be to streamline the process so that real art doesn't get caught in the crossfire.

    Well, I've decided not to support education in Canada, because I don't use it; my kids not even in school yet! And while I'm at it I'm pulling my EI contribution too. I've never had to rely on EI. And I never get sick; health dollars back please.
  56. Toast And coffee from Somewhere, Canada writes: whatevah.....well good luck with that then.
  57. Broad Vacant from St. Catharines, ON, Canada writes: Toast And coffee writes:

    Subsidizing anything that anyone can dream up is asking for too much. The film industry will be a better place without this drivel. The real area of focus should be to streamline the process so that real art doesn't get caught in the crossfire.

    Wow - so YOU know what real art is?!?!? This is exactly the point!!! Here 'Whateveh D' is bang on - we either do this, or we don't - but as soon as someone gets to be the arbiter of taste, of art, of quality, or whatever!!!, then we're sunk.

    We have a decent industry beginning to establish itself here. We're developing real talent; beginning to get an international reputation. If the state gets to decide what's acceptable and what's not, we'll end up doing Lassie remakes forever.
  58. Peter Cromerovich from Erehwon, Canada writes: If you think about it, the Globe subsidises people who comment on these boards by providing a free billboard, some editing, software and CPU cycles and temporary storage on free file servers for a lot of nasty and sometimes racist comments. In truth, almost every post will likely offend somebody somewhere globally and so perhaps the Globe should follow the New Canadian Government's Philistine lead and stop subsidising posts it deems inappropriate to its ideology?

    What do you think -a fee to comment -methinks that would cut the attack dog posts back in a hurry?
  59. howie long from Canada writes: Bill C-10 is Canada's Hays Code (or Production Code) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayes_code

    The Hays Code spelled out what was morally acceptable and morally unacceptable content for motion pictures produced for a public audience in the U.S.A.
  60. G. Gale from BC, Canada writes: One of the hallmarks of a free and democratic society must be that laws are objectively defined and not up to the interpretation or discretion of some political appointee. Bill C-10 does not seem to pass that test. It should not become a law.
  61. Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada writes: whatevah D from Canada writes: .
    I agree with all your points. I don't see this as an issue re: value for the money as some posters claim. What some people call 'value for the money' when it comes to film; ie, the big blockbuster non-creative films, I would consider a waste. I'd rather pay for an Atom Egoyan or David Cronenberg movie any day; at least they make me think.

    Whatevah your misunderstanding the value for money statement as I used it at least. I am not referencing the revenue generated by a film. I recognize that an indication of the value of art isn't made at the box office. In fact I share a similar sentiment with you when it comes to popular culture. I am referencing more of the fact that alot of this money is wasted on absolute garbage. Go and reference a movie Bubbles Galore that received some of our tax money and you will see kind of crap I want to stop. Not because its offensive to my morals, not because it didn't make money but because it is absolute garbage and a waste of our tax dollars.
  62. Peter S from Toronto, Canada writes: It's amazing to me how many Cons supporters are more than willing to throw away freedom of expression rights, all to fulfill a moralistic agenda. This isn't about illegal films - there are already provisions in the law against certain types of movies. Rather this is to censor points of views and artistic expression that the government finds objectionable. If this was being proposed in USSR of the 1980's, these same Cons would be pointing out the evil ways of communism. I guess the rules change when the right wing zealots are in power.
  63. F/A josquin from van, Canada writes: the minister says 'In addition to pointing out that Lee, as a non-Canadian, is himself exempt from being denied the particular tax credit included in the bill, Verner denied Lee's charges of censorship.'

    Well then, perhaps the conservative govt should just keep quiet, in that case, about internal chinese politics. They are meddling everytime they open their mouths.

    Mr lee is free to say what he would like.

    And to toast and coffee ,who says 'The real area of focus should be to streamline the process so that real art doesn't get caught in the crossfire. '

    So breakfast man/woman, who then is to say what real art is? you?

    And to mr vandangledork, who says 'Does ensuring value for money make one a Neo-Con? '

    Well yes it does, when the spectre of 'value' is measured in more than dollars.

    Both you posters reveal your true bias in your posts. You would love nothing better than censorship of art to fit your stunted world view.

    You will never understand .
  64. Bill Needle from Canada writes: Dave Roberts from Toronto, Canada asked: How is not providing a subsidy to a film production considered censorship?

    The issue is not whether Canadian movies are subsidized. They are. The issue is whether the politicians get to call the shots once the movie production is underway.

    It's a kind of censorship because the funding can be withdrawn even after it has been approved if the fat cats in parliament don't think the movie is good for you. Talk about your nanny state.
  65. Hans Lucas from Canada writes: ' Peter S from Toronto, Canada writes: If this was being proposed in USSR of the 1980's, these same Cons would be pointing out the evil ways of communism. '

    Now they say, well at least we're not the Taliban!
  66. whatevah D from Canada writes: Peter Cromerovich from Erehwon, Canada writes: If you think about it, the Globe subsidises people who comment on these boards by providing a free billboard, some editing, software and CPU cycles and temporary storage on free file servers for a lot of nasty and sometimes racist comments. In truth, almost every post will likely offend somebody somewhere globally and so perhaps the Globe should follow the New Canadian Government's Philistine lead and stop subsidising posts it deems inappropriate to its ideology?

    What do you think -a fee to comment -methinks that would cut the attack dog posts back in a hurry?

    LOL. I almost spit out my coffee reading this. well done!
  67. True North from Canada writes: This NOT funding despite what some posters who fail to even read the article claim - it is not 'free money'.

    The Harper government's proposed censorship bill would give the upper hand to foreign production companies as they would be exempt. In fact the Harper government is hypocritical - instead of avoiding involvement with productions that the dept. of Justice lawyers feel are questionable altogether, the Harper government actually seeks to make money by taxing them.

    And to posters who claim that art should receive no subsidies even though many jobs are on line - fine, then no industry should receive any subsidies or tax breaks and earn their keep solely on their market competitiveness. Under your logic, Harper unfairly announced a $1 billion dollar industry bail-out from the floor of a softwood lumber mill a few months back simply to prop up business that can't compete properly.

    Harper's government cannot be trusted and this is trying to throw a bone to their right wing base.
  68. whatevah D from Canada writes: Peter Cromerovich from Erehwon, Canada writes: If you think about it, the Globe subsidises people who comment on these boards by providing a free billboard, some editing, software and CPU cycles and temporary storage on free file servers for a lot of nasty and sometimes racist comments. In truth, almost every post will likely offend somebody somewhere globally and so perhaps the Globe should follow the New Canadian Government's Philistine lead and stop subsidising posts it deems inappropriate to its ideology?

    What do you think -a fee to comment -methinks that would cut the attack dog posts back in a hurry?

    But the problem is everyone has a different definition of what is valuable. So who should get to choose? The government? Seems frightening to me. I still stick by my point: offer the subsidy to everyone or noone.
  69. Dick Nails from Canada writes: Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada writes: Danny Jasper from Canada writes: Josee Verner says “Our government is determined to ensure freedom of expression and will continue to support the production of entertaining and high quality content,&8221; the statement said. &8220;We are reaching out to industry to work with them on Bill C-10. Together, we will find the best solution for the industry, for Canadian citizens and tax payers.&8221;

    NEO-CONS!!!

    I am always fascinated with this term. It is obviously meant to be insulting yet when it pertains to this quote I am bewildered. Does ensuring value for money make one a Neo-Con?

    >> Well, yes, that is the point. Shout neo-con and the debate is over. If the neo-cons were in power, CBC would be shut down in a minute. The psuedo-lefty-ish types don't know or care about money for value which is why unions, esp pub sector unions, are the thing. CBC does not care for the viewer numbers. If they did, they would be doing something else that people actually want to see, not the 200 people in Winnipeg that are 'passionate' about ..... insert your favourite 99% publicly funded arts/group/culture thingy here.

    Value for money? Can you say P3?
  70. Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada writes: I change my mind. Considering how offended the artistic side is when it comes to this and how offended they are that the unwashed masses dare tell them what constitutes art and what doesn't then we should do away with any of these stupid subsidies. Handing out money without any checks because its their artistic license to do with it as they pleased is stupid. The immature and entirely arrogant attitudes of these people is astounding. So now I agree with other posters and feel we should just do away with these programs.

    This quote from Broad Vacant sums it up 'but as soon as someone gets to be the arbiter of taste, of art, of quality, or whatever!!!, '

    Are you kidding me. We aren't allowed to make any comment as to quality because we are the unwashed masses. Pay up and shut up is how you would have it.
  71. Dick Nails from Canada writes: Simply Red from Canada writes: 'Our government is determined to ensure freedom of expression,' Heritage Minister says. ... 'film makers are free to express whatever we tell them.'

    This sounds like something from George Orwell's 1984.

    >> But that is not what he said. FACTS: you don't need no stinkin'... jus' make em up and then shout neo-con.
  72. True North from Canada writes: Canadians are also surprised that the Minister is championing a bill she is reported to 'hate' by senior members of her own party.

    Harper's government cannot be trusted.
  73. Bubbles McBubbles from Trawna, Canada writes: I wish the minister would own up to her own comments re: her negative opinion of this very same bill. Until then she is just another con tackle-dummy.
  74. Dick Nails from Canada writes: Dave Van: exactly. 'You are too stupid and oafish phillistines to possibly comprehend MY ART. Give me the money and shut up.'
  75. Reg Anderson from Canada writes: Acclaimed director Ang Lee has ruffled the feathers of Canada's Minister of Canadian Heritage, Josée Verner by criticizing pending legislation affecting the film industry. If passed, Bill C-10 will deny tax credits to Canadian-made films and videos deemed offensive to the public.
    ---
    Really? And who will deem what is offensive and what is not. I would think both the liberal and conservative voters would be up in arms about this. Do we need more government legislated political correctness? I don't think so!
  76. Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada writes: True North from Canada writes: Canadians are also surprised that the Minister is championing a bill she is reported to 'hate' by senior members of her own party.

    Harper's government cannot be trusted.

    Anymore innuendo you want to post as fact? After all nothing beats the truth then alot of rhetoric and innuendo. How come you didn't bring up Bush or McCarthyism? It would have added the needed umph for your post.
  77. Unknown Philosopher from Canada writes: Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada writes: I change my mind.

    Never seen that happen on these boards before. Welcome aboard.

    'Art is anything you can get away with'
  78. Henry Wysmulek from Winnipeg, writes: Enough of this whining from these arts welfare bums. Cut them off the Taxpayer money tree, and let them get a real job like the hard working ordinary Canadians, that these bums are constantly ripping off!
  79. ali mansur from Etobicoke, Canada writes: This is censorship.. How?

    Well, the way this form of censorship works is that government will only fund the type of indie film it wants. Oh let's say, Christian-Genre movies.

    Because the subsidy exists for some but not all, some movies of equal popularity will have more difficulty being produced and marketed, since others get an advantage based on political inteference.

    If you think the government should not fund 'immoral' movies, then you'd best be prepared one day that Christian movies be refused funding because a minister takes offence to its subject matter, regardless of the actual content.

    The government choses not to terminate all funding because it agrees that funding is necessary; so instead it choses to discriminate politically. If at least the funding was selectively given to producers based on expert opinions regarding potential successes, that would be more appropriate.
  80. L.B. MURRAY from Canada L.B. MURRAY from Canada from Canada writes: -
    FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.... Yes!!

    PM Harper, Sir, would you kindly advise your CPC Ministers and MP's to stop scurrying down the back staircases!! Please ??

    Let them do what they want, do some ''giving the finger a la Trudeau'', some ''pirouetting behind'' anyone if they chose to do so...

    But running away from the media, scurrying down back staircases, hiding, being happily muzzled... all of this spells ''Scared COWARDS''...

    Let your MP's face the music, no matter what...

    Thank you very much, Sir.

    -
  81. Patrick M from Canada writes: Con Borg from Calgary, Canada writes: I'm sick of seeing tax payers money used to subsidise such shows as 'KINK'

    Con, unpucker and live a little. It's a lifestyle and members of the lifestyle are taxpayers like yourself you spoiled you know what!!

    Do you poke out your pinky when you sip tea? Go Flames Go!!
  82. Dick Nails from Canada writes: Peter S from Toronto, Canada writes: It's amazing to me how many Cons supporters are more than willing to throw away freedom of expression rights, all to fulfill a moralistic agenda. This isn't about illegal films - there are already provisions in the law against certain types of movies. Rather this is to censor points of views and artistic expression that the government finds objectionable. If this was being proposed in USSR of the 1980's, these same Cons would be pointing out the evil ways of communism. I guess the rules change when the right wing zealots are in power.

    >>I guess the rules change when the Left wing zealots are in power. In totalitarian states, artists are chosen by the state. That = crap. In a 'free' state, the artist can do what he wants and sell what he makes to anyone at any price. Obviously this is an evil thing. Markets are bad and the gov't should appoint artists for our own, collective good, whether we like it or need it.

    If you don't want any strings attached to your 'art', don't attach any strings. Easy eh?
  83. Broad Vacant from St. Catharines, ON, Canada writes: Dan Van Gageldonk writes: This quote from Broad Vacant sums it up 'but as soon as someone gets to be the arbiter of taste, of art, of quality, or whatever!!!, ' Are you kidding me. We aren't allowed to make any comment as to quality because we are the unwashed masses. Pay up and shut up is how you would have it.

    Of course you're allowed to make comment; I actually WANT to hear your comment; I want to live in a society where ideas and issues get debated - but the question not whether you (or anyone) gets to make comments; it's WHO GETS TO BE THE ARBITER? You? Me? That freaking weird guy at the next cubicle? Steven Harper? Larry Flynt? This is not about whether anyone gets their say - it's about a law that requires someone have the legal force of the state behind their opinion. That's scary.
  84. The Wight from Canada writes: Henry Wysmulek:

    'Enough of this whining from these arts welfare bums. Cut them off the Taxpayer money tree, and let them get a real job like the hard working ordinary Canadians, that these bums are constantly ripping off!'

    I'm 100% with you ... as long as every other industry that gets a tax incentive loses them, too. I suspect, however, that it is only the 'arts welfare bums' that some people will want to remove the incentives from. In the other industries, it will be deemed an appropriate social investment.
  85. spicydoc--That'll do, spicydoc, that'll do... from Canada writes:

    Let me get this straight. Let's assume some guy wants to produce a film about the perfect penis. (google it--it was done).

    He goes to a film studio, and they say not with our money. This is okay. Not censorship.

    He then goes to a group of 'art lovers' for cash, and they tell him to get stuffed. This is okay. Not censorship.

    Then he asks his parents. They say no. Not censorship.

    However, he goes to the government and asks for a handout in the form of a tax-credit. The government says no.

    Uh-oh. As soon as the government says 'no' to some project that nobody else will touch, there is censorship. Ridiculous.

    Lefties always squeal when they get yanked from the trough. Of course, they get big headlines while they oink. Good on the government for delivering on an anti-parasite bill that was originally tabled by Sheila Copps (!).
  86. Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada writes: Unknown Philosopher from Canada writes: Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada writes: I change my mind.

    Never seen that happen on these boards before. Welcome aboard.

    'Art is anything you can get away with'

    I'll actually agree with you there. As long as there is a sucker to pay for a mans fecal matter in a can then that is art. But the gov't is saying that they won't be those suckers anymore. I know people want to ascribe nefarious motivations here but if censorship is exerted then we will find out and we will make the gov't pay. If it is you and others fear then be happy. We would have finally unearthed the hidden agenda and the Canadian populace will vote the Liberals back in. Until then I see this as a way to ensure that movies like Bubbles Galore never gets another nickel of our money.
  87. F/A josquin from van, Canada writes: once again, to Mr dangledork, who writes 'I change my mind. Considering how offended the artistic side is when it comes to this and how offended they are that the unwashed masses dare tell them what constitutes art and what doesn't then we should do away with any of these stupid subsidies'

    I dare say, you have no idea, that what you