# Harpo's Little Dictator headspace surfaces.....



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sometimes these guys really, really don't get it......



> *Tories plan to withhold funding for 'offensive' productions*
> 
> Committee to decide whether material meets new criteria
> 
> ...


globeandmail.com: Tories plan to withhold funding for 'offensive' productions

what a bunch asses.

Harper is right out of the 50s - McCarthy would be proud


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Thank goodness a government has finally put a stop to funding the artsy fartsy crap that benefits no one, other than a tiny minority of artsy fartsy types.

Good on 'em and please Stephen, stay the course! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> Thank goodness a government has finally put a stop to funding the artsy fartsy crap that benefits no one, other than a tiny minority of artsy fartsy types.
> 
> Good on 'em and please Stephen, stay the course!


Agreed. The government's job isn't to fund crap. If your material is deemed controversial, then go find private financing.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I think this excerpt from the story hits the nail on the head:



> “Would this committee put money into Juno? It might not want to encourage teen pregnancy. Would the government put money into a film with a dirty title, like Young People ****ing? Would they invest in something like Brokeback Mountain? They might not want to encourage gay cowboys to have sex together in Alberta.” _-Toronto lawyer David Zitzerman of Goodmans LLP_


This is what it's really all about. Gay cowboys in Alberta.

Art is art, it cannot and should not be censored.

M


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

CubaMark said:


> Art is art, it cannot and should not be censored.
> 
> M


And censorship has what to do with this story?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> I think this excerpt from the story hits the nail on the head:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nor should taxpayers be billed for these so called "artists" orgasms on our bill. 

Sorry, but there are likely less than 10 percent of Canadians who support such crap.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Yet another Blues versus Reds thread. The real issue is the fact that this current Government has begun the act of censoring what it can. What this will lead to is anyone's guess. Artsy crap or not, this is not the kind of 'leadership' I want in my Canada.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I don't see it that way at all mrjimmy.

I see it as public funds wasted on questionable art versus stopping the funding. No politics, just the fundamental, "should we fund bad art" question.


----------



## madhatress (Jul 22, 2007)

guytoronto said:


> Agreed. The government's job isn't to fund crap. If your material is deemed controversial, then go find private financing.


So who defines what "crap" is? The people, a government body, hand picked Conservative supporters?

This bill seems dangerously close to censorship. Additionally, it has the potential to cripple the Canadian film industry and put people out of work. Just what the economy needs right now. :yikes:


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> I see it as public funds wasted on questionable art versus stopping the funding. No politics, just the fundamental, "should we fund bad art" question.


I believe this is how they _want_ to be perceived although I truly don't believe that's their intention.



> This bill seems dangerously close to censorship. Additionally, it has the potential to cripple the Canadian film industry and put people out of work. Just what the economy needs right now.


This I believe fully.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

...and why should my tax dollars fund a for profit enterprise? Many bitch about "corporate welfare" but heaven forbid the gov withdraws funding from questionable film projects. My god...they're censoring ART...art I tell ya!

There's no censorship here, no one is stopping production. Wanna make a movie, find your own funding, find investors.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

kps said:


> There's no censorship here, no one is stopping production. Wanna make a movie, find your own funding, find investors.


It's not an us versus them issue. It's not a 'my damn tax dollars' issue. It's an issue regarding a heavy handed Government that wants to model it's citizens after itself. A government that is willing to second guess itself in order to achieve this. If that's not the decree of the supreme being I don't know what is. 

It's easy to get caught up in artsy bashing and tax dollar spending but realize what is at the heart of this issue.


----------



## madhatress (Jul 22, 2007)

kps said:


> There's no censorship here, no one is stopping production.


Maybe not stopping it, but certainly impeding it. I don't see how that is a good thing.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

kps said:


> ...and why should my tax dollars fund a for profit enterprise? Many bitch about "corporate welfare" but heaven forbid the gov withdraws funding from questionable film projects. My god...they're censoring ART...art I tell ya!
> 
> There's no censorship here, no one is stopping production. Wanna make a movie, find your own funding, find investors.


EXACTLY! :clap: :clap: 
I wish the government would get out of the arts business all together. I wish we approached the arts like we would a carbon tax. User pays! You want to watch some freakish sex movie or pay to see some feces spread on canvas? Fill your boots! Just don't expect me to pay for it. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> It's not an us versus them issue. It's not a 'my damn tax dollars' issue. It's an issue regarding a heavy handed Government that wants to model it's citizens after itself. A government that is willing to second guess itself in order to achieve this. If that's not the decree of the supreme being I don't know what is.
> 
> It's easy to get caught up in artsy bashing and tax dollar spending but realize what is at the heart of this issue.


I sense your concern is only because it's the Cons and perhaps Harpo has far too many neo-con Reform skeletons in his closet. 

Do they have an ulterior motive besides picking and choosing worth while projects? You betcha, but so do many other grants disbursement committees made up of the artsy crowd who wouldn't even dream of acknowledging Harpo's existence never mind support him. 

It's not what you know, it's who you know. Many worthwhile and deserving artists get didly squat and many hacks get huge grants from these self serving pretentious freeloaders populating these committees. No one ever accuses them of censorship.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

kps said:


> It's not what you know, it's who you know. Many worthwhile and deserving artists get didly squat and many hacks get huge grants from these self serving pretentious freeloaders populating these committees. No one ever accuses them of censorship.


Right kps! :clap: 

That is exactly what is wrong with the system. Fartsys helping artsys and artsys help fartsys.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> Right kps! :clap:
> 
> That is exactly what is wrong with the system. Fartsys helping artsys and artsys help fartsys.


Well, if they are the only ones in the game...

Seriously. If they were talking about picking and choosing which news stories were being told everyone would be up in arms.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

You know, I would have replied to this thread sooner but I just came from the studio where I've been busy working on a new series of excrement on canvas, pursuing the twin themes of obesity and pederasty, using live models. It's been fun while it lasted but oh my, the latest grant is just about used up and I still need to score some more street drugs for, you know, inspiration.

I don't quite know what the fuss is about, but I'm sensing it's the beginning of some sort of wondrous rapture. if this the new world we're spiralling into I suppose a grim wave of vigilant culture goons in suits will soon descend upon myself and my sickening cohorts and deal us the long knives. It'll be like Crystal Night, I'm sure. Yeah, get rid of the public money for museums, art appreciation programs and other "artistic" pap... nations don't need their own culture, much less to nurture and protect it - and anyone who tells you otherwise must hereafter be formally identified and rooted out like the cancerous cells they are. Why, the very notion that we _need_ culture - it's, it's... it's fiendishly European, is what it is! Oh man, more than ever, we need to clean house and get back to a bold new spartan outlook that we're dredging up from some crusty sense of misplaced nostalgia. Let's get the likes of Ontario's beloved Mary Brown back and get busy censoring stuff - we all miss her deft, robust ways, don't we? Oh yes, we need to protect ourselves from ourselves. Raise high the banner of Community Standards, boys - and bear those truncheons smartly now! Screw "culture." That's a code word for vermin and hey - we don't want vermin loose in our newly sanitized Canuckistan. The mantra is money and the money is where it's at. Less government is better, except, of course, when we need to create social control bureaucracies established by decree to generously determine for us what is and isn't "correct" culture. Yippee skippee, the future I always wanted. The Philistines are back and they are not about to tolerate any more tolerance.

_Crush the fartsies! Burn all the canvas and celluloid now! Crush their hard disks! Wreck their studios! Seize their property! Rub their noses in their own excrement! The state is all, and all is glorious!_


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

IMHO, the government should contribute a small, set percentage to a general arts fund that distributes the money on a per-capita or other fair basis to recognised arts groups.

Beyond that, it should have absolutely NO say in how those funds are used, because no matter what they fund (or don't fund) it puts the gov't in the position of being art critics.

Let local arts organisations answer to their "customers," but leave the patronage and support of the arts (generally) intact. Art may have its controversial and crap moments, but I think the case is easily made that support of the arts reaps rich rewards that far outweigh the occasional misfire.

To hear forum members arguing about how the few cents of their yearly tax bill which funds the arts might be funding "crap" they deem "offensive" when many, many DOLLARS of their yearly tax bill is being used to wage a war of aggression designed to prop up Bush ... talk about misplaced priorities ...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

any more questions on the ogres hanging around...



> *Evangelist takes credit for film crackdown*
> 
> Christian crusader says he pressured cabinet ministers and PMO officials to deny tax credits to productions deemed too offensive
> BILL CURRY AND GAYLE MACDONALD
> ...


globeandmail.com: Evangelist takes credit for film crackdown

They just couldn't keep McVety muzzled.....

In case any have forgotten about the RR in Canada and Harper's connection

The Walrus >> Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons >> Canada Religion Politics


----------



## madhatress (Jul 22, 2007)

chas_m said:


> IMHO, the government should contribute a small, set percentage to a general arts fund that distributes the money on a per-capita or other fair basis to recognised arts groups.
> 
> Beyond that, it should have absolutely NO say in how those funds are used, because no matter what they fund (or don't fund) it puts the gov't in the position of being art critics.
> 
> Let local arts organisations answer to their "customers," but leave the patronage and support of the arts (generally) intact. Art may have its controversial and crap moments, but I think the case is easily made that support of the arts reaps rich rewards that far outweigh the occasional misfire.


Here here! :clap: 

The way I see it, support for the arts by the government (with EVERYONE's money, including *gasp* artists) should be all or nothing, not just whatever someone on the Hill likes at the time.


----------



## madhatress (Jul 22, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> any more questions on the ogres hanging around...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why does this not surprise me?

The Great White North becomes more like the Dirty South everyday...


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!! :-( :-( :-( 

I wanna make a movie. The government won't give me money. :-( 

It's censorship! :-( 

It doesn't matter nobody else will fund my project. I wanna make my movie really bad. :-( :-( 

The government is evil because they won't give me free money. :-(


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!! :-( :-( :-(
> 
> I wanna make a movie. The government won't give me money. :-(
> 
> ...


Man are you ever missing the point.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

As much as I like Kenny Vs Spenny, it should not be funded be the Canadian Gov't.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

JumboJones said:


> As much as I like Kenny Vs Spenny, it should not be funded be the Canadian Gov't.


Jumbo

Thanks for the heads up on Kenny VS Spenny. I just watched them on Youtube and its been a culturally enriching experience.  

Canadians will not tolerate this blatant censorship. The conservatives have lost touch with Canadian tax payers that will not stand by to see their hard earned money stripped away from such Canadian culture building classics as Lynne Stopkewich's acclaimed necrophilia film Kissed, or Martin Gero's Canadian gem, Young People [email protected]&king. This issue will kill the Conservatives in the next election. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yeah, I can hardly wait to see those two. What a waste.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I thnk that federal funding for the arts should be stabilized at zero dollars.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

As Max so eloquently wrote:



Max said:


> The Philistines are back and they are not about to tolerate any more tolerance.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I am awaiting the inevitable rise of the culture purity tests they'll be foisting on us. You know, _no culture is the best culture_ in our wonderful frontier land! I've been wondering... do the artists have to wear arm tags? Oh, I can see there's much I will have to get used to. I better start by putting the new studio underground. Let's see, that should only cost a hundred grand or so... not counting the hush money to the nabes so they won't rat me out to the New Government of Canuckistan stooges, of course.

Well, plenty to think about, that's for certain. Later... gotta go bury some paintings.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

*Canadian Government Funding for Culture*

When the government is funding cultural programs in Canada they are doing two distinct things:

Playing venture capitalist – Every now and then one of the productions that the government funds goes big. At that point the government gets a good pay back in taxes, a lot of Canadians get employment and Canada often gets a higher profile internationally, possibly bringing more work back to Canada.

Maintaining Canadian Culture – Our wonderful neighbours to the South have one of the largest entertainment arts complexes in the world. To compete with them requires extra assistance. Their marketing budgets, ability to attract talent, homogenizing (aiming at the lowest common denominator) the market prevent the Canadian voice from being heard. Also our population base is small; private industry alone cannot support the arts in this country.

For these two reasons and others the Canadian Government gives money to the arts. If you want your Don McKellars, Bryan Adams, Cronenbergs, Bruce Cockburns, etc., you’ll need the grants to help start these artists off and nurture them.

However, the government, like any bureaucracy is horrible at determining which artists deserve funding. The market should sort the good from the bad. I could see the government reacting badly to a film about a 16 year old girl getting pregnant. No money for _Juno_. (Actually don’t think there was any Canadian money in _Juno_!) If a Canadian Michael Moore appeared there would be no money for him either. (Especially with the Conservatives in power – likely to lead to another scandal!)

As for Mr. Charles McVety, a man I have met may times, he should stay out of the arts completely. He, right wing conservative, would only want us to see uplifting conservative Christian art. Similar to the fare offered in North Korea, Communist China and Communist Russia.

Art that makes people uncomfortable, challenges the status quo, goes against the grain, pushes the edge is what we need. Films (and books) like _The Diary of Evelyn Lau_ need to be made, and I don’t care how uncomfortable it makes you or I feel.

To end, the song _Maybe the Poet_ from Bruce Cockburn, captures this issue well. 

Maybe the poet is gay
But he'll be heard anyway

Maybe the poet is drugged
But he won't stay under the rug

Maybe the voice of the spirit
In which case you'd better hear it

Maybe he's a woman
Who can touch you where you're human

Male female slave or free
Peaceful or disorderly
Maybe you and he will not agree
But you need him to show you new ways to see

Don't let the system fool you
All it wants to do is rule you
Pay attention to the poet
You need him and you know it

Put him up against the wall
Shoot him up with pentothal

Shoot him up with lead
You won't call back what's been said
Put him in the ground
But one day you'll look around

There'll be a face you don't know
Voicing thoughts you've heard before

Male female slave or free
Peaceful or disorderly
Maybe you and he will not agree
But you need him to show you new ways to see

Don't let the system fool you
All it wants to do is rule you
Pay attention to the poet
You need him and you know it

Any ham fisted approach by the Canadian Government to control the arts may silence important voices. In that regard Bruce Cockburn, in my humble opinon, nailed it. 

The Canadian Government needs to be in Canadian culture as a backer; however, Canadian government can only approach their role in a non judgmental manner. Our artists make us great, and the Canadian Government should maintain its current role in supporting them.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Mrjimmy: I was wrong - them pesky Phils aren't _back_ - they never went away! They just went to ground. Sorta like cicadas... alway lurking in wait.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

mrjimmy said:


> As Max so eloquently wrote:


I can tolerate your artistic tastes though I obviously don't share them. Fill your boots. I just don't want public money funding your artistic tastes or mine for that matter.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MacGuiver said:


> I can tolerate your artistic tastes though I obviously don't share them. Fill your boots. I just don't want public money funding your artistic tastes or mine for that matter.


How come? Do you imagine the great countries of the past never had a hand in officially - behind the scenes or otherwise - propagating the work of their own painters, musicians, writers, film makers, photographers, sculptors, dancers, conductors...? Do you imagine their own citizens' tax dollars were never apportioned to fund their government decisions? Do you think we're on to something better by not funding any culture whatsoever? If we think we're being revolutionary about this, if we think we're leading the way to a better world, I'd love to know how that could possibly be so.

I doubt we are, personally - rather the opposite, actually. The stance of no culture becoming the dominant culture... great! A nation embracing negativity. That will go over well both at home and abroad.

How barren these outlooks seems to me... rigid and frigid in their brittle, spartan outlook. Terribly unimaginative, too. Can one get impassioned about denial of culture? Man, what a world.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MaX: In the bad old, olden days artists sought private patrons to support their work or--GASP!--performed the distasteful work of selling it. 

Today we offer to support artists with the right political connections, those artists best capable of writing a grant application--or films starring RH Thompson.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Max said:


> How come? Do you imagine the great countries of the past never had a hand in officially - behind the scenes or otherwise - propagating the work of their own painters, musicians, writers, film makers, photographers, sculptors, dancers, conductors...? Do you imagine their own citizens' tax dollars were never apportioned to fund their government decisions? Do you think we're on to something better by not funding any culture whatsoever? If we think we're being revolutionary about this, if we think we're leading the way to a better world, I'd love to know how that could possibly be so.
> 
> I doubt we are, personally - rather the opposite, actually. The stance of no culture becoming the dominant culture... great! A nation embracing negativity. That will go over well both at home and abroad.
> 
> How barren these outlooks seems to me... rigid and frigid in their brittle, spartan outlook. Terribly unimaginative, too. Can one get impassioned about denial of culture? Man, what a world.


Who's advocating no culture? 
Are you saying culture can't exist without taxpayer money? Thats pathetic. I've met many artists in my day that contribute greatly to our culture without a dime from government handouts. Some even make a great living at it.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacGuiver: Few bad artists can thrive in a private-economy. They need public funding to give wings to their exciting visions!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MF: in the grand old days, it was perhaps worse. Usually the patron of the arts was the church... at least in the sense of European art history; substitute "government" for "church" and the same thing went on, except the nomenclature was different. Still, you had to be recognized by the church and you had to do work they deemed suitable. Otherwise, you'd not be widely known as an artist. As such, it would be much more difficult to make a living. You might have to make do as a guild member but you couldn't sustain yourself pursuing a more individual course (one that might lead to true greatness and the kind of art a country would be proud to display and celebrate).

As far as political connections are concerned, it's an old game and it's hardly limited to the arts... it's called "networking." No doubt it's cliquey and snobbish and rude, but that's the business of the day for you. Whether it's the church running things or free enterprise (whatever that is) or the state, it remains a question of who you know and how far you're willing to go in order to get attention, curry favour, etc.

MacGuiver: you misread me. I am not arguing that culture cannot exist without funding by the state. I am merely extrapolating from this thread... clearly the Harper government is interested in establishing a new censorship regime. Accordingly, I am loathe to discover just what watered-down, common-denominator, nice and inconsequential pap will come of this control strategy... I have very little confidence, you see, in the government's ability to feed us "proper" culture; in this case I fear the state's "cure" will be worse than the disease itself.

I am also amused that people would be welcoming this move, as it will inevitably lead to new cadres of overpaid, out of touch government workers ostensibly there to serve the public but in reality acting like entitled, untouchable mandarins... whole departments of freshly minted nabobs whose living is directly dependent on your precious tax dollars. Oh, the irony is rich.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MAx: I'm not letting you misuse the word "censorship." These folk are free to express their ideas without funding. That has nothing to do with censorship.

The idea of having a bureaucracy decide which arts need funding is as crazy as handing it over without oversight or--heaven help us--letting the artists themselves decide. 

The idea that we need government supported artists to "tell us truths" is a load of hooey. That sort of thing is usually discovered in hindsight by someone writing a government-funded biography of a government-funded artist who has already died.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Nice try, mF, but it won't wash. You are the one saying it's about "telling truths," not I. I wouldn't even know where to begin with that one. Seems you're talking in code again - I'm sorry, I don't have one of those danged decoder rings!

That bit about "letting the artists themselves decide" - priceless! I see; you're attempting to suggest that it's a problem for artists and artists alone. That speaks volumes of the way you would like to imagine the scenario: artists without admirers, artists without students, artists without assistants, artists without audiences. No arts supports industries generating any additional money at all, either. Just the artists gazing forlornly at their own navels - does that about nail it? LOL! How sad that you should think that way.

I am not against "oversight" in principle - alas, the devil is always in the details. Anyone who thinks there won't be politicking and horse trading with whatever new government-stamped "committee" will be in for a rude shock. I can't wait to see what new stuff they'll be green-lighting. Maybe a Lassie In The Great White North movie... it'll be great!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> MAx: I'm not letting you misuse the word "censorship." These folk are free to express their ideas without funding. That has nothing to do with censorship.


It has everything to do with censorship and you know it. You would simply rather keep those rose-coloured glasses on and consider it "proper," wouldn't you? Yet we are talking about the state using the people's money to push culture product at the people themselves and push it abroad. Their decisions have ramifications... huge ones. The government wants to get deeper into vetting culture than it already is... wow, I wonder what the salaries and benefit packages for the newly appointed minions of culture will be like... standards must be upheld, you know! I mean, geez - it's hard work, deciding things!

It is fun to watch your torturous twists to rationalize a defense of this new blooming of government largesse, though. Carry on, sir!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Better get to the museums soon...especially the national ones..

_...cain't have no smut portrayed thar Mildread"_










I can almost see Doris rubbing his hands in glee...._"now I can finally get the film about Eve and the Dinosaur made......"_


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL

Too true.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's improper for people to wait for the state to fund their artistic endeavours. If you believe that artists can only suckle at the government teat before bursting forth with their visions, I suppose--in that narrow worldview--it would appear like censorship.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Just had to answer the door... an advanced operative of the state tried to rudely muscle past me... just a little guy but acting very Napoleonic, if you know what I mean. Apparently he was trying to ascertain something about my "culture status..." muttered some officious-sounding claptrap about "making sure you're not making any degenerate art." Pesky fellow, too - had a bloody great list on the Blackberry he was toting around... pretty chuffed when I boxed his ears and showed him the door. Warned he'd "be back" and that there'd soon be "mandatory reprogramming " slated for all "incorrect artists." Bear with me, mF - I have to say, he shook me up some.

________________________________

"Narrow viewpoint," eh? "Improper," is it? LOL! I guess I have to expect that response by now. Yet you fail to acknowledge how your own brittle ideological proclivities preclude you from grasping certain fundamental conflicts within your stance on this matter. Look man, I'd recommend a little session of reprogramming but I gotta tell ya - I wouldn't wish that on my greatest enemies.

Stay safe, mF... it's dangerous times we're sailing into.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macfury said:


> It's improper for people to wait for the state to fund their artistic endeavours. If you believe that artists can only suckle at the government teat before bursting forth with their visions, I suppose--in that narrow worldview--it would appear like censorship.


We have censorship as it is now. Unless your work gets the nod from the black turtleneck wearing, goatee clad martini set, you'll likely never see a dime of government arts funding.
There's always censorship, even among those that decry it. Since art is subjective, what makes Lasies's Northern Adventure any less worthy of public cash as Young People F#$king? Isn't making that judgement making you guilty of the very offense you're accuse the government of doing? The difference being, you're rejecting a purist movie while they rejected an obscene one?  

Again, I don't think either should get a dime but both are welcome to make their flick. Let the public decide if they support it or not.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I believe you and mF are, as we say in the movie biz, "on the same page." That is, you support zero funding for the arts. I find that a terribly barren stance myself, but no matter - what interests me is that the Harpercrats actually find nothing wrong with funding the arts in and of itself - they just want to replace the old guard with their new one... equally Draconian, equally exclusive, equally beholden more to their own paycheques than to any serious consideration of what is and isn't art. Do you suspect the Harper gubmint people suffer from some sort of ideological impurity compared to you and mF? Indeed, have they been on the hill too long? Breathing that crisp Ottawa air has somehow dislodged their thinking, perhaps?

But hey, thanks for reminding me. My turtlenecks are pretty worn out and need critical replacing - and oh dear, now that you mention it, there's no martini ingredients left anywhere around here. Moreover, I haven't had a soul patch in, well, _years!_ Really, it's high time I got with it and dressed the part.... I mean, my enemies have their expectations and it would be rude of me to let them down.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Better get to the museums soon...especially the national ones..
> 
> _...cain't have no smut portrayed thar Mildread"_
> 
> ...


:clap:


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Unless your work gets the nod from the black turtleneck wearing, goatee clad martini set


Hey daddy-o, I feel like I just walked on to an episode of The Mod Squad (privately funded).


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

madhatress said:


> So who defines what "crap" is?


The moviegoer... Wait, moviegoers go to all sorts of crappy films, like Titanic. A movie about gay cowboys in Alberta could only be cool if the cowboys were k d Lang and that hard core lawyer from The L Word (or if the cowboys actually need to be male, then they should at least have cool actors like the dude off of Billable Hours).

All kinds of "crap" gets funded, it's all about the pork barrel. They do make good movies in Canada. I really liked Crash, and I mean the real Crash, by Cronenburg, not the fake Hollywood version which is the source of true "crap". When it comes to most Hollywood films - I'd rather watch music videos on Gaunda Punjab...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MAx: No matter which group you put "in charge" of arts funding will choose to try to influence that art. That's a given. Leaving choices to those "in the know" about arts just shifts the focus again. I prefer to leave it to chance. The true artists I know produce their art with or without funding--they're not just "grants artists" but are fuelled by something more than that sort of laziness.

But man, you sound like someone who has a vested interest in the arts--like your livelihood depended on it or something.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL

You mean like how you have a vested interest in bringing everyone down to your level so you needn't feel you're somehow missing out on something?

Oh, and love your little adjectival qualifier of "true" artists - you mean you actually _know_ some, laddie? I mean, in the wild and everything? Do they, ahhh, do they smell or anything? How close do you get to them! Tell us everything! And how do they get to be true - is there a litmus test we can subject all the faux-artists to so we can, you know, 'out' them?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Next they'll want money to produce no art...wait we've gone throught that before haven't we?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Max said:


> LOL
> 
> You mean like how you have a vested interest in bringing everyone down to your level so you needn't feel you're somehow missing out on something?
> 
> Oh, and love your little adjectival qualifier of "true" artists - you mean you actually _know_ some, laddie? I mean, in the wild and everything? Do they, ahhh, do they smell or anything? How close do you get to them! Tell us everything! And how do they get to be true - is there a litmus test we can subject all the faux-artists to so we can, you know, 'out' them?


If their 'kid coulda painted it' they're not 'true' artists.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

mrjimmy said:


> Hey daddy-o, I feel like I just walked on to an episode of The Mod Squad (privately funded).


Mod squad? Nah!
I was thinking more along the lines of...

http://www.mike-myers.net/dieter5.jpg

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Oh, and love your little adjectival qualifier of "true" artists - you mean you actually _know_ some, laddie? I mean, in the wild and everything? Do they, ahhh, do they smell or anything? How close do you get to them! Tell us everything! And how do they get to be true - is there a litmus test we can subject all the faux-artists to so we can, you know, 'out' them?


maX: You know the definition is coming don't you....


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

émeff... please, enlighten me. You are the one who has true artist friends, after all.
LOL


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mAx: All "true artists" will produce art regardless of whether some government group pays them to do so. Some "true artists" will produce art while suckling on the loving teat of government--they may just not be aware that they could do so without it. 

MacDoc apparently stole that corpse's pants and now wants to flaunt his little caper.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

That's a canard, emmeff. No artist in his right mind would refuse government assistance if it were offered.

We might instead rephrase your naive thought thusly: _you just might not be aware that artists don't require your personal approval for what they do - you merely have to get out of the way if you can neither comprehend nor approve of it._

LOL

Your serve.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MAX: Please read carefully. I said that some "true Artists" were unaware that they _could_ produce art without the assistance of the government. I'm sure that some true artists--and even people like you Max--are more than happy to cash these cheques regardless. Only a fool would turn down such lovely lolly.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Geez, I missed this whole thread of goodies, as I was only looking at my subscribed threads.

As someone who makes a living in "the arts", but has never received any government funding, I'm not too worried about Harper's impending board of good taste. ( Judging from his haircut he needs his own personal board of good taste.  ) Someone pointed out that funding the arts is a lot more of a business decision than a cultural one and I think that may be true. There are a lot of Canadian jobs in the arts sector and some of those are there through funding. There are some peripheral industries that benefit from some of this funding too, such as tourism.

I don't think politicians should be sticking their nose into the decisions about what gets funded based on their personal taste or moral absolutes. They should ensure that they have competent boards who can judge whether projects are worthwhile and exemplary in their field or they should get out of the funding business altogether. If they get out of the arts funding business the country may take an economic hit though. And to be consistent they would have to get out of subsidizing or tax breaks to any other business sector.

Ah if only we artsy-farts could get our hands on the kind of dosh they pass on to the oil industry. (greedily rubbing ink-stained hands together).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Ah if only we artsy-farts could get our hands on the kind of dosh they pass on to the oil industry. (greedily rubbing ink-stained hands together).


Yeah, but then ya gotta make something people either need or want to pay for...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I've always loved that Stalinist-era socialist-realism. 

I'm glad it's finally coming to Canada. 

Thank you Comrade Harper!!

(This painting was approved by the Conservative Party Central Committee for Morally Uplifting Art.)


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Yeah, but then ya gotta make something people either need or want to pay for...


With a stiff CO2 chaser ...


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Gratuitous:

Bravo!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

chas_m said:


> Gratuitous:
> 
> Bravo!


Thank you, but I owe it all to our beloved leader Comrade Harper.


----------



## madhatress (Jul 22, 2007)

*FYI: Film Financing*

From this article TheStar.com | entertainment | Tax credit changes are ominous for local film industry



> Tax credits – approved by the heritage and justice departments after a film is completed – are a vital part of the production process. They're part of the budget plan producers take to lending institutions for up-front financing before filming begins.
> 
> Martin Gero, director of the provocatively titled Young People F------, which opens April 18, said virtually every film produced in the country relies on bridge financing from banks – and banks do not like uncertainty.
> 
> ...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well they can all make Harpo bios..sure thing for approval. 

••



> Originally Posted by Macfury
> Yeah, but then ya gotta make something people either need or want to pay for...


succinct summary of your unbelievable lack of understanding of art....bravo.....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Certainly a summary of your inability to read the post in the context of the oil industry.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I think HarperCo's newfangled brand of cultural socialism will go over very well with Harperites. And let's be bold and admit that it will surely result in the production of great art, the very kind we as a timid nation can get behind. I'm thinking of the ill-understood, under-appreciated Soviet program of socialist realism and the startling images it produced; perhaps we can conjure up a little bit of our own magic in that regard - can we not look forward to wonderful, soothing images of irrefutable governmental splendour - say, for example, a great painting, massive and ornately framed, its filigreed details fairly dripping with gold, framing a stellar depiction of radiantly happy Canadians, surrounding the Great Leader as he, magnanimous man that he is, cuts the shiny ribbon for a grand new tar sands project... a symbolic ray of light shining on his heroic forehead, his face beaming a benevolent conservative smile at the obedient, respectful masses. I'm thinking MF will surely be there at the unveiling ceremony, understandably eager to line up in order to speak, if only for a prized moment, to Mr. Harper and to, in a stuttering, emotion-choked voice, offer unqualified praise for the New Art Initiatives that HarperCo has been toiling selflessly away at.

It's going usher in a grand new era of state-approved, culturally cleansed, practical, pragmatic and stirring Art.

It's going to be grand.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Why would I support a publicly funded art event Max? Haven't you read a blessed thing I've said?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yet I can see you there... oh, you betcha I can. Vividly.

LOL


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Why would I support a publicly funded art event


a publicly funded ..road
a publicly funded...library
a publicly funded...school
a publicly funded...firehouse
a publicly funded...parliament

ad infinitum ad nauseum



MF's perfect world..










there he may freely practice that which he preaches.......


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yes MD - I'm happy to see that I'm not the only one who perceives the pattern. Perfect? Perfectly arid, perhaps. I am awaiting MF's announcement that he is ready to back a conservative government that dares to fund no arts, period. Do you think I may be waiting for Godot?

(MF: that's a _cultural_ reference).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That dreadfully arid world free of government funded arts? Because we all know that artists don't exist when the government fails to create them. And then threads like this arise when government creates art we don't like. What a woeful, wearying world. Where is RH Thompson when you need him, eh Max?

When you're both sufficiently well prepared I'll take on MacDoc's list one at a time to show you which ones are best funded by government and which are not. But we were talking about the arts.

I find it difficult to believe that you both haven't yet predicted the pattern.

Given the choice between voting for a government that would subsidize business but no arts or one that would fund the arts, but no business, I would choose the latter. Now put that in your Inuit hand-carved government subsidized pipe--and smoke it.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Because we all know that artists don't exist when the government fails to create them.


Do you really think that artists are produced by the _government,_ EmEff? Oh, dear. Then I suppose you also believe that cute little tale about the stork and where you came from.... my, my, this _is_ a bit awkward.

Well, chin up, my arid friend! A few bubbles may have to be burst here and there, but I'm prepared to help you through the coming trying times. Hey, it's the least I can do. Besides, my payoff always comes when they finally see the light... it's just so glorious.

Meanwhile, I see you are still all too ready to defend HarperCo's arts funding, despite the curious pretzel logic you are forced to embrace. I hope to cure you of that soon!

Take care, man,


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Do you really think that artists are produced by the _government,_ EmEff?


No, they're sweet tender little sprouts, waiting for nourishment from on high...



Max said:


> Meanwhile, I see you are still all too ready to defend HarperCo's arts funding, despite the curious pretzel logic you are forced to embrace.


I'm glad to see a little chutzpah in your posts, there mAx. No pretzel logic, mine, however. When did I tell you that I approved of the Harper arts program--except in its stinginess?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Seems you are still trying to tread backwards while waddling sideways, EmmEph. It's not my job here to prove to you the folly of your ways, merely to note it in passing and smile in glee; it does me good to see whenever your typically careful arguments have unceremoniously fallen in disarray. You see, I fear the kind of future in which you might get your every wish. I see that future as grim and dystopian. YMMV, natch. At any rate, I'm still wondering what you intend to do to convince the populace that arts funding is nothing less than the devil's work. Perhaps you could start with the Harper government and ask them why they think it's a good idea, despite their recent announcement of wishing to act like a home-brewed answer to the Thought Police. Do you think they're simply trying to superficially appease those sheeple who - perish the thought! - actually love the arts, or have they simply weakened during their time of office?

With that, I bid you a good night, sleep tight and don't let the bed bugs bite.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

M-a-X: The tpe of meddling you see is typical of all government funding. Build the auto plant in Ontario, with an inducement from us, sir--but build it this way, on this piece of land, and hire this many and train this many as well. 

By all means place your beefy lips around the government arts teat, but don't cry foul when mastitis sets in and the milk tastes foul to you during some administrations. It's free, after all--and it's not like you're really earning the money. It's just there so that the government can tick off "arts funding" on its list of good deeds.

Imagined max Comment: "But artists are free, free I tell you!"
My imagined response: Yes, they are free to take it or leave it. Anyone who builds a life entrely based on government hand-outs may be forced to bide their time when funding comes with conditions that tick them off.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

And a cheery good day to YOU, Macfury!

As I was saying, your dance of evasion is intricate - infinitely entertaining, even! I'd rustle up a clapbot for you but as you know, I do have my principles.

But in all seriousness now, I must say that I am troubled by the naked hostility you evince toward artists. Realize I know that you certainly mean well and that you don't mean for me to take it personally! Venting, it's venting. But let's get to the root of that, shall we? OK, did some nasty, important someone tell you as a toddler that the sky is blue, not purple and pink? What I mean is, I've seen this before. I won't lie to you; it can't be undone, but rest assured it can be managed. I encourage you to speak to someone... listen, it's not too late.

Perhaps we can even encourage you to take up painting. Now _that_ would slay some demons within.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I have nothing against art or artists. But just because I find most of it of no interest to me, I do have my moments, like my feeble attempts at wood carving.

My point is that I did not ask the government for cash to buy my carving tools and I know damn well I will never make a dime on selling them. 

Hell, I can't even give them away to friends. What does that tell ya?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

max: you would be surprised to learn that I am married to an artist and have a social circle comprised of approximately 75% of people in the arts. Any efforts on your part to expose me to more artists would be overkill. Thankfully these are true artists who produce art regardless of government welfare. I applaud them.

On the other hand I also recognize that films like The Pink Chiquitas (1987) could never have been made without government funding.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I know you are not arts-hostile, mf. I yam pulling your leg. You make it very easy, you know. I am however a bit perturbed that you attribute percentages to your friendship base, but whatever. Have a good one... I have a dinner party to prepare.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Just goes to prove the tolerance of said arts ghetto dwellers.....they'll get along with ANYBODY


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

The gov't will *not* get out of the arts business, (like others, I wish they would), because they want to control our culture.

Can the Department of Acceptable Information be far behind??


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Just goes to prove the tolerance of said arts ghetto dwellers.....they'll get along with ANYBODY



MacDoc: One of them is even an environmentalist!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> EDITORIAL
> *The new censorship*
> 
> Mar 02, 2008 04:30 AM
> ...


Hey VD - no hidden agenda!!!????.......sure....let's just bury CENSORSHIP in a tax bill and hope no one notices.....keep the rabid right happy but McVity couldn't keep his trap shut.

_"Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it."
-- Mark Twain_


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

chas_m said:


> IMHO, the government should contribute a small, set percentage to a general arts fund that distributes the money on a per-capita or other fair basis to recognised arts groups.
> 
> Beyond that, it should have absolutely NO say in how those funds are used, because no matter what they fund (or don't fund) it puts the gov't in the position of being art critics.
> 
> ...


I agree with this enthusiastically. I am offended when I hear members of this forum simply dismissing some art as "crap" as if there was some common understanding of which art is crap, exactly. I don't want politicians deciding what is offensive-this is wrong headed and dangerous.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

mc3251 said:


> I agree with this enthusiastically. I am offended when I hear members of this forum simply dismissing some art as "crap" as if there was some common understanding of which art is crap, exactly. I don't want politicians deciding what is offensive-this is wrong headed and dangerous.


Exactly. Let the politicians stick to what they know best: lying, glad handing, pork barreling, lying, grandstanding, graft grabbing, lying and in the case of our 'New Government', _*evangelizing*_.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Max said:


> And a cheery good day to YOU, Macfury!
> 
> As I was saying, your dance of evasion is intricate - infinitely entertaining, even! I'd rustle up a clapbot for you but as you know, I do have my principles.
> 
> ...


hah hah. priceless. Said with a smile.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> _"Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it."
> -- Mark Twain_


And yet, censorship is NOT telling a butcher you won't pay him to hand out steaks for free.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

mrjimmy said:


> Exactly. Let the politicians stick to what they know best: *lying*, glad handing, pork barreling, lying, grandstanding, graft grabbing, *lying* and in the case of our 'New Government', _*evangelizing*_.


I get it.

Both sides of his mouth, right??


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> And yet, censorship is NOT telling a butcher you won't pay him to hand out steaks for free.


no. Censorship is your butcher yelling 'no steak for you!' when he finds out you use worcestershire sauce.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> no. Censorship is your butcher yelling 'no steak for you!' when he finds out you use worcestershire sauce.


?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Leave you guys alone for a minute and look at this thread...

We went from film/tele tax credits to an all out attach on culture and all arts. lol 

As I said to MrJimmy in my second post, there's no doubt the Cons had an ulterior motive, but if you think about it, it's quite brilliant in a sadistic way.

As I understand it, Telefilm Canada will still fund projects. It's the additional funding provided by the banks and guaranteed by tax credits that will be at risk. This will turn the *bankers* into censors and not the government...and we all know the bankers will be worse.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

kps said:


> there's no doubt the Cons had an ulterior motive, but if you think about it, it's quite brilliant in a sadistic way.
> 
> As I understand it, Telefilm Canada will still fund projects. It's the additional funding provided by the banks and guaranteed by tax credits that will be at risk. This will turn the *bankers* into censors and not the government...and we all know the bankers will be worse.


I'm not sure how brilliant it is considering the groundswell of opposition that's brewing. Cries of censorship and the leaked association with grassroots evangelicals leaves them looking less and less attractive to many Canadians. I'm sure they are even losing supporters. This and the bribery scandal are all pretty tasty to those who despise the reformers _currently_ in power.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I'm not biased one way or the other, I despise all political parties equally.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

kps said:


> I'm not biased one way or the other, I despise all political parties equally.


I'm with you there. Although, with special cases like this, I tend to despise one a little bit more.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macfury said:


> And yet, censorship is NOT telling a butcher you won't pay him to hand out steaks for free.


Funny thing is I myself have been a victim of government "censorship". Did my first artshow at 18 and continue to paint to the present day. Sold lots of paintings and met numerous other artists that were doing likewise. We contributed to the community, donating art for fundraisers, hospitals, teaching art classes. I suppose we were rank among the unjustly "censored" since we never received a dime in government handouts. 
Amazingly though, we persevered through our oppression and managed to pay the bills, painting whatever we felt inspired to do and sold countless paintings and sculptures, never compromising our expression. All without a single mouth on the government teats. :greedy: 
Hang tough through these perilous times my fellow artists, you too can overcome the oppression of the censors.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacGuiver: You only expressed the voice of artists who are inspired and committed. May we not hear the censored voices of the lazy and unmotivated as well?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

bout right....

Next up - "review "committee for the Toronto Film Festival?? 

The Globe got it correct



> A blinkered Tory values inspection
> 
> THE TAX CREDITS MEANT TO INVIGORATE THIS COUNTRY'S SLOW-TO-BLOSSOM TELEVISION AND FILM SECTORS WILL SOON BEAR THIS STAMP: CONTENT HAS BEEN GOVERNMENT-APPROVED
> 
> ...


globeandmail.com: Opinions


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I suppose we can expect these newly-minted federal culture warriors will soon mount an impressive fact-finding mission, one taking them around the world of course, to study at length how other despots handle unruly culture and its control (or "funding," in their sly parlance)... the only important question they'll be anxious about doubtless being: will there be caviar served on the plane?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Best comment from many - and an ironic location....



> Gary McKeehan *from China* writes: From this particular catbird perch, Canada and its current government are looking quite strange. Once the champions of individual freedom and the right of expression, they are walking back up a road deeded to them by the fringe of the West. Now they will pick and choose who will say what and where they will say it, with 'their money', When did it become 'theirs'? I thought it was 'ours', all of ours. Bill Davis, Peter Lougheed, hell - Brian M...where are you when you are needed? Oh, ghost of Vincent Massey - shout it out again - Politicians are not fit to make direct judgments on the value and expression of art and who shall be an artist.
> 
> Here in China there is a tremendous flowering in all kinds of expression, particularly in writing and film. And back at home - Prime Minister Clampett and the Folks are preparing to clean house, finally getting even for all that art they never understood and never will. How sad.


:clap:

globeandmail.com: Tories plan to withhold funding for 'offensive' productions - Comments

This set of some 250 comments is a very worthwhile read......killed myself laughing at come points. :clap:


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

Idiot comment time (And I don't want the board to go all off topic or a flame war occurring):

Is this a nice way of McVety, Harper and friends to only give money to their friends at Disney, The Miracle Channel, 100 Huntley Street?

I wouldn't want to be a Jewish, Muslim or Atheist (possibly even Catholic) trying to apply for a grant with McVety vetting the applications. For that matter a scientist trying to make a film about palaeontology!


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Palaeontology???

Heretic!!!!

:lmao:


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

"Contrary to public policy" could mean a whooooole lot of things.

I think it's pretty simple. They should either fund projects leaving the approval based on excellence as determined by a board of industry experts or they should get out of funding or tax breaks for anything. Leaving the funding based on the arbitrary taste and social morality of some Conservative approved ministry types is a form of censorship.

As someone said earlier, their plan is brilliant if they want to put a big chill into the expression of anything that goes against their socially conservative views. Filmmakers will have to be careful when putting their work together to avoid potentially entering the touchy area of "contrary to public policy", when their work gets submitted to Harper's new _Reichskulturkammer_.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The gov should get out of funding all businesses--including the arts. They've shown no expertise in either picking winners or turning losers into winners.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

thats just pure nonsense.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macfury said:


> The gov should get out of funding all businesses--including the arts. They've shown no expertise in either picking winners or turning losers into winners.


Yeah Macfury thats just plain nonsense. Who could people and business turn to for money? Banks? Investors? Sponsors? Customers and clients?  

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Yeah Macfury thats just plain nonsense. Who could people and business turn to for money? Banks? Investors? Sponsors? Customers and clients?
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


no one said there aren't other sources of funding.

But it seems you conveniently sidestepped the crap about picking winners and losers.

Nice try.

Next you'll be trying to tell us that banks, investors etc. are sooo much better at picking winners.

*cough* subprime *cough*


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Yeah Macfury thats just plain nonsense. Who could people and business turn to for money? Banks? Investors? Sponsors? Customers and clients?
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Do you guys even know the facts regarding this issue? Who it's affecting and how? These ridiculous comments have been reduced to petty jealousies and xenophobia.

The film industry (domestic and service) is almost a billion dollar industry in this Country. The spin off and tax base from this is huge. And do you think Canada is the only country offering these kinds of tax incentives? Think again.

Wake up and give your head a shake. If you can't get beyond cliches such as black turtlenecks or suckling off the Government teat you are really missing out on the real effects of this Bill.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

groovetube said:


> no one said there aren't other sources of funding.
> 
> But it seems you conveniently sidestepped the crap about picking winners and losers.
> 
> ...


Yes but the bank isn't picking the losers with my tax dollars. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I'll bet you the Quebec film makers won't have a problem...the Harpo appointed review board wont understand any of them. :lmao:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Yes but the bank isn't picking the losers with my tax dollars.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


you've got to be kidding me.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacGuiver: I don't know what I was thinking. When you put it that way I can see the error of my ways.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

now that would be a cold day in hell.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacGuiver: Methinks a lot of these cats have government cream on their whiskers...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Ahh, yes. Classic either/or thinking at its finest.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Can you tell us why you think that macfury?

this cat has waaaaay less cream on his whiskers than the banks do.

pretty much none to be exact. Even though, I could have many times.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

groovetube said:


> you've got to be kidding me.


No not at all From your comment I'm worried my accountant may have missed a line filing my income tax. Enlighten me! 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> No not at all From your comment I'm worried my accountant may have missed a line filing my income tax. Enlighten me!
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


after you show me the line on my return that shows the amount going to fund films.

ooh this is fun.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

groovetube said:


> after you show me the line on my return that shows the amount going to fund films.
> 
> ooh this is fun.


I don't know if I'd call it fun, certainly evasive. So you're saying Scotia Bank gets a percentage of the taxes deducted from my income? 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL

Fun, indeed. We all know that the government and the banks have zero to do with one another. Bank officers have the good fortune to report "in the black" business year after year, but it's a fact that they don't know any politicians - and really, they simply exist in a vacuum - a strong, pure, undiluted place where no political favours are trafficked. The feds never cut the banks any slack, ever. They never play with public money in a way which might benefit the big banks... _no way._ No sirree, the banks operate much like any big, highly respectable business and the feds simply have no relevance in how well or how badly any given bank does. Nor in turn do our great and venerable banking institutions ever lobby behind the scenes for any special concessions from the feds - why, that's just not on! What, the feds playing with _our_ money, willfully (obediently?) helping out the banks? Come on, man... _get real._


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Max said:


> LOL
> 
> Fun, indeed. We all know that the government and the banks have zero to do with one another. Bank officers have the good fortune to report "in the black" business year after year, but it's a fact that they don't know any politicians - and really, they simply exist in a vacuum - a strong, pure, undiluted place where no political favours are trafficked. The feds never cut the banks any slack, ever. They never play with public money in a way which might benefit the big banks... _no way._ No sirree, the banks operate much like any big, highly respectable business and the feds simply have no relevance in how well or how badly any given bank does. Nor in turn do our great and venerable banking institutions ever lobby behind the scenes for any special concessions from the feds - why, that's just not on! What, the feds playing with _our_ money, willfully (obediently?) helping out the banks? Come on, man... _get real._


AJLOIBALFR! (Actually Just Laughing On The Inside But Almost Laughing For Real) Bravo! Huzzah!

(No clapbots or laughbots dispensed in your honour.)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> this cat has waaaaay less cream on his whiskers than the banks do.
> 
> pretty much none to be exact. Even though, I could have many times.


I didn't mean you groovetube. I'm proud of you though.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Fun, indeed. We all know that the government and the banks have zero to do with one another.


Any chucklehead knows the sweetheart deal the Chartered Banks have in managing the money of the federal government. End it I say.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Max said:


> LOL Bank officers have the good fortune to report "in the black" business year after year, but it's a fact that they don't know any politicians - and really, they simply exist in a vacuum - a strong, pure, undiluted place where no political favours are trafficked.


Gee I had no idea.
And to think for all these years I thought my bank was making record profits charging the crap out of me for service charges, interest on my mortgage and winfalls from investing my money in the markets. When all along they've been collecting brown envelopes for the feds. I find that as objectionable as spending tax dollars on the box office hit, Young People F#$King! or Lasie's Northern Adventure.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Well, you know, they favour both approaches. Hey, check out their balance sheets! I mean, _they're __banks._


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Gee I had no idea.
> When all along they've been collecting brown envelopes for the feds.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Ahhh, but they have....it's called the national debt.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

kps said:


> Ahhh, but they have....it's called the national debt.


Which we're saddled with thanks to decades of government spending on rediculous programs and corporate welfare. Debt that will never go away without more prudent management of tax dollars. So where would you like to spend your tax dollars. An MRI machine, a safer highway, extra school teachers, more doctors or a wholesome Canadian flick called Young People [email protected]#4ing thats got Oscar written all over it. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

But what about that extra level of fat - sorry, I mean bureacracy - that HarperCo will inevitably create in order to best deal with the rising Culture Menace™? Whose money will be funding that flabby new blob of largesse? You guessed right, pardner.

Seeing as it's government inefficiency we're ostensibly talking about, I'm thinking quite a few MRI units and road improvement programs will be shuffled aside in favour of handsome salaries, killer benefits, holidays up the wazoo and all sorts of travel for the new commisars of culture. One step forward, two steps back... it's the federal jig.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

You're correct about one thing and that is a "Debt that will never go away".

The bankers will make sure that the "appropriate" politicians get elected. Those that will keep spending and even increase the debt. Government debt is primo to the banker as it's guaranteed by the government's power to perpetually tax the citizenry. It's a no lose situation.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yep. Federal administrations come and go. Banks, however? They're here for the long haul and pros that they are, they know how do squeeze the system.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

They've been "squeezing" for hundreds and hundreds of years, most politicians don't last even a decade. LOL


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> I'm thinking quite a few MRI units...


Nope. that was the provincial Liberals who sent the privately operated MRI units out of the province because they saw them as unfair competition.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Oh well. It's the thought that counts!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I didn't mean you groovetube. I'm proud of you though.


Well since you didn't specify in your cheap shot, and insinuated, I could only guess.

Then which cats 'around here' were you referring to then.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> I don't know if I'd call it fun, certainly evasive. So you're saying Scotia Bank gets a percentage of the taxes deducted from my income?
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


this is so silly it has to be fun at this point. Elusive no, highly sarcastic, absolutely.

record profits shouldn't be your indicator for independence of tax dollars and or tax breaks, look at the oil companies!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Then which cats 'around here' were you referring to then.


It was an analogy to go with the notion of drinking cream from teats as barn cats do. Your choice of avatar did not single you out as cream drinker.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

For all of you Crackbook members here's a group focused on defeating the Bill. It currently stands over 14000 members strong. Lots of good info and links here.

Login | Facebook

For those of you in support of censorship here is your group. I believe it's over 20 members strong.

Login | Facebook


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I once registered for Facebook, changed my mind and decided to unregister. They don't let you do that apparently. They just hold your info for the future in case you want to register.

That invades my privacy so in protest, I stay far, far away from Facebook.

Obviously, I cannot access your information.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> I once registered for Facebook, changed my mind and decided to unregister. They don't let you do that apparently. They just hold your info for the future in case you want to register.
> 
> That invades my privacy so in protest, I stay far, far away from Facebook.
> 
> Obviously, I cannot access your information.


All you need to do is deactivate your account. And you can read about the privacy policy as well. Perhaps a little investigation is in order before blindly signing onto a service?

From Facebook's privacy page:

_Individuals who wish to deactivate their Facebook account may do so on the My Account page. Removed information may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time but will not be generally available to members of Facebook._

There is also an explanation as to what the types of data that are used and what they are used for.

No hidden surprises.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Manny, I did deactivate my account, but when I try to delete my account, it tells me that I cannot delete the information. It states that Facebook will hold this information in case I want to reactivate the account in future and that is what I object to.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Manny, I did deactivate my account, but when I try to delete my account, it tells me that I cannot delete the information. It states that Facebook will hold this information in case I want to reactivate the account in future and that is what I object to.


You do realize that when you cancel a credit card, all your data is kept, right?

I fail to see what the big deal is about.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

"By the time we got to Facebook, we were 14,000 strong..."


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> For all of you Crackbook members here's a group focused on defeating the Bill. It currently stands over 14000 members strong. Lots of good info and links here.
> 
> Login | Facebook
> 
> ...


lol


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this war will be fought on the rough terrains of Facebook...


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

Well, that is quite a read. Both sides have valid points.
My personal take is the gov't should support the arts. Not bankroll, but support.
I person I know got a grant from the gov't for doing art workshops with kids.
No a waste IMHO, but that's me.
Now, if we are talking about wasting tax payers dollars, then I think the gov't should get out of sports. Now there is a total waste of money as far as I'm concerned. No loss to me.
So, I guess it is relative as to what is important to whom, eh.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

robert: Yes, they should definitely get out of professional sports as well.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Macfury said:


> Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this war will be fought on the rough terrains of Facebook...


It could be worse... they could have started an on-line petition gathering signatures.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Max said:


> But what about that extra level of fat - sorry, I mean bureacracy - that HarperCo will inevitably create in order to best deal with the rising Culture Menace™? Whose money will be funding that flabby new blob of largesse? You guessed right, pardner.
> 
> Seeing as it's government inefficiency we're ostensibly talking about, I'm thinking quite a few MRI units and road improvement programs will be shuffled aside in favour of handsome salaries, killer benefits, holidays up the wazoo and all sorts of travel for the new commisars of culture. One step forward, two steps back... it's the federal jig.


I wonder what they are going to call their new bureau of cultural protection. I hope, for entertainment value, they pick one of those transparently obvious names such as Homeland Security.

Maybe:

Directorate for the Elimination of Degenerate Art
Commission for the Adherence to Cultural Policy
Artsy-Fartsy Suppression Branch
Family Values Protection Secretariat


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this war will be fought on the rough terrains of Facebook...


:lmao: 

Oh I'm sure it's being fought on many rough terrains. It is certainly nice to see the outrage though. It sure seems as though some don't mind wasting their tax dollars on supporting the arts. And this is only Facebook! Not only that, it's only the people who decided to join this group on Facebook. Imagine all the others. Just imagine. It must be terrifying to some. Everywhere you turn, another black turtleneck wearing teat sucker.... 

Ooh, the count's at nearly 16000 now. Oh those poor misguided souls.  They have not the good sense and judgement as the 26 in support of the Bill.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

*Ministry of Truth and Beauty*


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> :lmao:
> 
> Oh I'm sure it's being fought on many rough terrains. It is certainly nice to see the outrage though. It sure seems as though some don't mind wasting their tax dollars on supporting the arts. And this is only Facebook! Not only that, it's only the people who decided to join this group on Facebook. Imagine all the others. Just imagine. It must be terrifying to some. Everywhere you turn, another black turtleneck wearing teat sucker....
> 
> Ooh, the count's at nearly 16000 now. Oh those poor misguided souls.  They have not the good sense and judgement as the 26 in support of the Bill.


yea but you must know that facebook is a liberal/socialist magnet.

All those felines with cream on their mush.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

There's nothing new under the sun... 

A visual take on the Hayed Code:









United States Motion Picture Production Code of 1930 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Directorate for the Elimination of Degenerate Art Commission for the Adherence to Cultural Policy Artsy-Fartsy Suppression Branch
> Family Values Protection Secretariat


Need a little work, to provide a roll-off-the-tongue acronym.

DEDACACPAFSBFVPS doesn't quite cut it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> And this is only Facebook! Not only that, it's only the people who decided to join this group on Facebook. Imagine all the others. Just imagine. It must be terrifying to some.


I personally think that many people are indifferent to the issue--that is they don't support Harper's move, but aren't really passionate about arts funding either. That's why you don't see huge numbers of people marching on Parliament Hill--or Facebook--to support Harper's plan.

But the idea that people registering protests on Facebook is terrifying is pretty funny. 

"I shall write you a registered letter, blackguard!"


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Now that they are no longer subject to the "scrum", thanks to their new underground escape route, Democracy has taken another hit in the balls.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> *Ministry of Truth and Beauty*


I think Orwell was worried about government becoming involved in the arts--not refusing to fund it.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> But the idea that people registering protests on Facebook is terrifying is pretty funny.


Numbers don't lie. Many many people are against this. Facebook is but one representation of those numbers.

Beware the berets and snapping fingers Daddy-o.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Lend a lobe, Mr. Jimmy: Numbers don't lie, but they're often grooving on another riff than we might think.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I think Orwell was worried about government becoming involved in the arts--not refusing to fund it.


Yes, but exactly what they are doing is getting themselves heavily involved in the arts. Previously they had commissions of specialists knowledgeable in the relevant fields to decide based on some generally agreed upon notions of merit. Now something with artistic merit could be refused funding because it doesn't meet Conservative Party ideas of social policy goals. As far as I know they are not proposing defunding the arts, they just want their social con criteria to be applied to the decision-making.

As I've been saying all along they should either leave it to commissions to decide on merit or get out of the funding all together, but meddling with their arbitrary standards is censorship. The artist can only receive funding if the Ministry of Truth Thought Police have decided he or she is practising "Goodthink" and the work is free of any "Thoughtcrimes", and certainly by all means contains no "Sexcrime". No, no, no Sexcrime. These proposed standards are a very good example of what Orwell was referring to.

Of course if they get out of arts funding and tax breaks for film altogether, - and to be consistent get out of other forms of business and corporate welfare, they may not like the economic hit that ensues. They're trying to have their "Chocorat" and eat it too.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Yes, but exactly what they are doing is getting themselves heavily involved in the arts. Previously they had commissions of specialists knowledgeable in the relevant fields to decide based on some generally agreed upon notions of merit. Now something with artistic merit could be refused funding because it doesn't meet Conservative Party ideas of social policy goals. As far as I know they are not proposing defunding the arts, they just want their social con criteria to be applied to the decision-making.
> 
> As I've been saying all along they should either leave it to commissions to decide on merit or get out of the funding all together, but meddling with their arbitrary standards is censorship. The artist can only receive funding if the Ministry of Truth Thought Police have decided he or she is practising "Goodthink" and the work is free of any "Thoughtcrimes", and certainly by all means contains no "Sexcrime". No, no, no Sexcrime. These proposed standards are a very good example of what Orwell was referring to.
> 
> Of course if they get out of arts funding and tax breaks for film altogether, - and to be consistent get out of other forms of business and corporate welfare, they may not like the economic hit that ensues. They're trying to have their "Chocorat" and eat it too.


it seems to be a conservative thing. You get into office and you start belly aching about some 'artsy fartsy' thing or 'bums on the dole' or something that sounds good in their ears. then all these schemes of we'll fix it arise, but it never actually fixes anything, nor does anyone really think things through. Corporate welfare never will be on the radar.

Remember when Harris was going to make the 'welfare bums' work on workfare until it was quietly discovered workfare was expensive to run?

All huff no puff.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Wonder what the committee to "vet" this is composed of 

How about we get the Green party ..... 



> OTTAWA -- The federal government should cancel its generous tax treatment of the Alberta oil-sands industry, putting it on the same footing as the rest of the oil-and-gas sector, says a draft report by a House of Commons committee.
> 
> *The tax break, estimated to be worth $1.4 billion annually*, has been a point of growing controversy as oil-sands operators reap record revenues. Known as the "accelerated capital cost allowance," it was introduced when the oil sands technology was still considered experimental.
> 
> That preferential tax treatment has been criticized for years,


no dirty pictures......er water....allowed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Doc: I agree with cancelling the generosity toward the oil sands. If they don't want to dig it up themselves right now, then let it mellow.

Sauce: Come to think of it, I don't think there was much art of any sort in 1984--maybe that picture of Goldstein. Perhaps we're barkng up the wrong dystopian tree.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

But you know, the portrait of Goldstein was of exceptional artistic merit. And the people don't need to look at a whole bunch of different portraits - why confuse them ? - one good one will do. Mustn't get them too excited anyway, if you know what I mean.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max: sounds like you're trying to get the government commission to paint Goldstein.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

I would love to see a list of films/television made in the last 20 years that this Bill would deny tax credits to.

I can think of one off the top, Degrassi, The Next Generation. Issues of teen sexuality (including homosexual), drug use and most likely, disobeying their parents! BUH-BYE.

When faced with an empty timeslot, CTV will turn to The Conservatives for programming advice. I sense a coin toss between Danger Bay and The Edison Twins. I would have said Leave it To Beaver but you know, _Beaver... isn't that another word for..._

In fact, at a HUGE expense to taxpayers, the Department Of Television Programming should be created. The bloated evangelical homophobe Charles McVety could be chair. I swoon with the possibilities.

As has been said before. The miserly, misguided opinion of 'wasted tax dollars' will balloon into enormous $$$ spent administering this exercise in thought control.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> I would love to see a list of films made in the last 20 years that this Bill would deny tax credits to.


The Amityville Curse?
Cube 2: Hypercube?
Casper's Haunted Christmas?
Decoys 2: Alien Seduction?
The Pink Chiquitas?
Under the Cover Cops?

Canada would have been a much poorer place had these films with questionable themes been denied funding.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The Amityville Curse?
> Cube 2: Hypercube?
> Casper's Haunted Christmas?
> Decoys 2: Alien Seduction?
> ...


Now give me some that you would miss.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Now give me some that you would miss.


This is a tough call, because most of the films I like that have Canadian content would have been made regardless of government involvement. I'm picking films that would never have been made here at all if not for government offers.

Maybe _Videodrome, Goin' Down the Road_" and _Strange Brew_--though in at least two of those cases, I suspect the filmmaker would have made them regardless.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

It's interesting to see you make these blanket assertions that these films would be made regardless of government funding, and that they would be made here. Just the wave of your conservative all knowing hand.

It almost seems like we're just handing over dollars and not seeing any return on it.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> This is a tough call, because most of the films I like that have Canadian content would have been made regardless of government involvement. I'm picking films that would never have been made here at all if not for government offers.
> 
> Maybe _Videodrome, Goin' Down the Road_" and _Strange Brew_--though in at least two of those cases, I suspect the filmmaker would have made them regardless.


It is rather convenient to your argument that the films you enjoy would have been made regardless of whether they received funding or not. Is this merely your opinion? I would bet they took advantage of public money. 

Do you think that highly successful American blockbusters as well as the 'dogs' don't take advantage of tax credits and Government incentives? I don't hear too many Americans wanting to destroy a near billion dollar industry because of the spare change spent in tax dollars. 

It is funny how the millions given to professional sports isn't held up alongside this. Games don't threaten Governments, films do. Film has to go.

The free market for profit wasteland you seem to idolize will be a utopian place where only good decisions will be made and the market will decide what's best for us. Someone will always decide what's best for us no matter what we believe.

Give me a committee of black turtleneck wearing teat sucklers over bloated evangelicals and misanthropic free-marketeers any day.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

mrjimmy said:


> Give me a committee of black turtleneck wearing teat sucklers over bloated evangelicals and misanthropic free-marketeers any day.


Give me none of the above.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Give me none of the above.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Someone has to do it. Whether we like it or not.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Fo those of you who disagree with censorship, here are some things you can do:

(1) Write to your local MP: find him/her at Find your Member of Parliament using your Postal Code. 

Given how many letters are being sent, yours is likely to be counted but not read in detail; so no need to go on at length.

If you like, you can print out your emailed letter and send it to your MP by snailmail, since hard copies are taken more seriously by MPs than email; you don't even need to use a stamp! (Include your postal code so your MP knows you're a voter from their riding).

(2) Email the PM and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, copied to the party leaders and members of the Senate. 

(1) The PM and Josee Verner, the Minister of Heritage: 
[email protected]
[email protected]

(2) Members of the Canadian Senate:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

(3) The party leaders:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

(4) The Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office (CAVCO)
[email protected]

(5) National media:

Globe and Mail: [email protected]

National Post: Letters | Contact Us | National Post

CTV: [email protected]

CBC: CBC.ca - Contact Us

And getting in touch with local media would be good too!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

mrjimmy said:


> Someone has to do it. Whether we like it or not.


Thats true... if we continue the arts welfare.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Fo those of you who disagree with censorship, here are some things you can do:


Thanks for the list mrjimmy. As it turns out it works just as well for those of us who want to support the initiative.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> It is rather convenient to your argument that the films you enjoy would have been made regardless of whether they received funding or not. Is this merely your opinion? I would bet they took advantage of public money.


They definitely took advantage of public money. But from my understanding of who the backers were and other industry information with which I am well familiar, I suspect that of the three only _Goin' Down the Road_ would probably not have been made.

And I agree with your assertion that American filmmakers will accept checks cut by the government, whether or not these films would have been made anyway.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Thanks for the list mrjimmy. As it turns out it works just as well for those of us who want to support the initiative.



SINC: I'm just e-mailing them to cut arts funding altogether--this issue is too contentious.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Thanks for the list mrjimmy. As it turns out it works just as well for those of us who want to support the initiative.


Aah, a supporter of censorship. Nice to see your true colours.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Thats true... if we continue the arts welfare.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


How about the sports welfare, and big oil welfare and and and....

Interesting how the arts get picked on. Guess it must be dangerous.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Aah, a supporter of censorship. Nice to see your true colours.


Wrong, but I am a supporter of not publicly funding smut.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Wrong, but I am a supporter of not publicly funding smut.


Call it what you like but it is censorship through and through.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Call it what you like but it is censorship through and through.


Exactly, just like smut is smut. Someone has to stop it.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Exactly, just like smut is smut. Someone has to stop it.


Like I said...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

I grow weary of hangin' with the censor happy Philistines. 

Philistinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I grow weary of smut and those who support it:

Obscenity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: The day that the government refuses to pay a man to urinate in a jar, then put an art gallery label on it is the day that I lose faith in my government to act rationally.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yeah MF, either that or pay a million for some guy to paint a sheet of plywood with three colours with a paint roller or have some person make a dress out of rotting beef. Then toss in such classics as Young People F***ing and your art display is complete.


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

Thanks for the laughs from the pro-cencorship crowd. I particularly liked the bit about "smut".
Can't wait till you all get around to our school libraries and start burning books. Wwwhhooo-wwwhhee, that'll be a great party, huh.

You do realize where you are living right? This is Canada.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

robert said:


> You do realize where you are living right? This is Canada.


Sadly, that is the reality.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

robert said:


> Can't wait till you all get around to our school libraries and start burning books. Wwwhhooo-wwwhhee, that'll be a great party, huh.


The school boards choose books all of the time.The school library can't buy every book ever printed. Invoking images of "book burning" is quite a leap.




robert said:


> You do realize where you are living right? This is Canada.


Thanks, I forgot--the dress is made of rotting _beaver_ meat.


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

Sinc, you could always move south, non?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

robert said:


> Sinc, you could always move south, non?


Why would he leave his home just so you can pee in a jar on the public dime?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

robert said:


> Sinc, you could always move south, non?


I could, but I prefer to remain here and fight for changes in the law to stop such smut.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: Maybe he thought you were moving to Devon or Spruce Grove?


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Bad news everyone; this has just hit home for me. I was going to post a profound essay with my considered opinions on this issue. However, I have called my MP and other representatives and none of them will provide any funding for me to so. I'm shocked at this outrageous example of censorship... I had no idea that things like this could happen in a supposedly free country like Canada. What's become of my right to government funding???!!!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

mrjimmy said:


> How about the sports welfare, and big oil welfare and and and....
> 
> Interesting how the arts get picked on. Guess it must be dangerous.


Why would you assume I support sport or corporate welfare? Cut that out as well.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Thanks, I forgot--the dress is made of rotting _beaver_ meat.


And Tom Green humped a dead moose on our dime too, that must have been approved because of its Canadian heritage, or is it a Canadian past time? I always forget that one.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MacGuiver said:


> Why would you assume I support sport or corporate welfare? Cut that out as well.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


And sports welfare!


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

JumboJones said:


> And Tom Green humped a dead moose on our dime too, that must have been approved because of its Canadian heritage, or is it a Canadian past time? I always forget that one.


If I recall, Tom Green was originally on Rogers public access and when he (briefly) went national the production company (MTR Productions) involved might have had _tax credit_... and that's about it.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I seem to remember a Canada logo in the credits of the Tom Green Show.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Yes... they add typically add the logo and a qualifying line beneath it.

For example:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Not the Cons strong suit...



> *Three-year Study At Seven Major Universities Finds Strong Links Between Arts Education And Cognitive Development*
> 
> Quote:
> Washington, DC, March 4, 2008 — Learning, Arts, and the Brain, a study three years in the making, is the result of research by cognitive neuroscientists from seven leading universities across the United States. In the Dana Consortium study, released today at a news conference at the Dana Foundation’s Washington, DC headquarters, researchers grappled with a fundamental question: Are smart people drawn to the arts or does arts training make people smarter?
> ...


Now we know......maybe we could consider the Con art dysfunction a "disability"


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

But it's definitely a Conservative mindset.  



> Her fellow Conservatives pointed out that the idea began with the previous Liberal government, which had wanted to limit tax credits for a movie about serial killers Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka.


Senate Liberals vow to protect film industry from government bill - Yahoo! Canada News



> The Liberals acknowledged yesterday that they tried when they were in office to eliminate tax credits for offensive movies, *but only to prevent a film about schoolgirl killers Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka.*


globeandmail.com: Liberals moved first to limit film tax relief

And this is different how?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Jumbo don't be such a prude!

Censorship is censorship! 
I suppose you'd rather fund more episodes of the littlest hobo? 
A Paul Bernardo movie would show just how progressive and edgy our Canadian culture is. Make us the toast of the world film industry don't ya know. It seems that the more morally bankrupt the art is, the greater it becomes (In the eyes of those "in the know" at least). This would be a modern day Rembrandt.

I think I'm going to start a facebook group against this blatant censorship of a Paul Bernardo flick and insist they fund it with our taxes. I'm pretty sure I'll have at least 14,000 supporters right off the bat.   

Cheers
MacGuiver

P.S.
Sarcasm meter off the charts.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Sign me up 

And what do you know, this movie got made! Censorship my ass.

Karla (2006)


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Jumbo don't be such a prude!
> 
> Censorship is censorship!
> I suppose you'd rather fund more episodes of the littlest hobo?
> ...





JumboJones said:


> Sign me up
> 
> And what do you know, this movie got made! Censorship my ass.
> 
> Karla (2006)


My goodness you two have really figured it out, haven't you?

Oh, by the way, the Facebook group managed to attract quite a bit of press as well as mobilizing over 27000 people in a week's time. People seem to take the little social networking site fairly seriously.

Many have listened and it is likely the offending article within Bill will be rewritten or removed. 

I do like the way you have both presented yourself through your arguments, beliefs and blatant disregard of the broader issue. Good work.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Woo hoo! Facebook is so kew-l-l-l-l-l!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Woo hoo! Facebook is so kew-l-l-l-l-l!


:lmao: 

Honestly, is that your best?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Oh, by the way, the Facebook group managed to attract quite a bit of press as well as mobilizing over 27000 people in a week's time. People seem to take the little social networking site fairly seriously.


Holy cow!

That's an astonishing 0.0008 percent of the population.

Seems a lot of people don't take Facebook seriously either. Like 99.9992 percent of us.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Like 99.9992 percent of us.


Who is this us you always refer to?

Also, please show me the numbers in favour of this Bill. It would be enlightening.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> My goodness you two have really figured it out, haven't you?
> 
> Oh, by the way, the Facebook group managed to attract quite a bit of press as well as mobilizing over 27000 people in a week's time. People seem to take the little social networking site fairly seriously.
> 
> ...


It's amazing what people will join when they don't have to get off their ass, or really do any leg work themselves. How many of them wrote or called their MP? No one in their right mind will take a facebook group seriously, shall we go through all of the ridiculous groups there are?

What do you mean broader issue? The one where the gov't _should_ be able to choose not to fund crap?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> It's amazing what people will join when they don't have to get off their ass, or really do any leg work themselves. How many of them wrote or called their MP? No one in their right mind will take a facebook group seriously, shall we go through all of the ridiculous groups there are?
> 
> What do you mean broader issue? The one where the gov't _should_ be able to choose not to fund crap?


Many in fact. They post their responses. Also, a huge rally is in the works as well.

Your attempts to diminish this really are amusing. Looking very forward to keeping you updated on the progress. How's your camp doing?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

mrjimmy said:


> :lmao:
> 
> Honestly, is that you're best?


Sure 24,000 people on facebook object to censorship. The support is hardly surprising. In our current culture, censorship is likened to clubbing baby seals.
Lets say that instead of asking people to join to voice there objection to the all encompassing notion of "censorship" you asked them to object to an actual case of censorship.
Lets say our group was objecting to Fred Phelps being muzzled or a Holocaust denier being deported for his objectionable expressions of his opinion. How about an artist that portrayed homosexuals or women in a deeply degrading and offensive manner?

I guarantee you 99.9% of those same people that are outraged at "censorship" would run for the exits. You'd be lucky to get a dozen names. When rubber meets the road, I think the vast majority these anti-censorship folk would be hypocrites when faced with something they find offensive.

Cheers
Macguiver


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Sure 24,000 people on facebook object to censorship. The support is hardly surprising. In our current culture, censorship is likened to clubbing baby seals.
> Lets say that instead of asking people to join to voice there objection to the all encompassing notion of "censorship" you asked them to object to an actual case of censorship.
> Lets say our group was objecting to Fred Phelps being muzzled or a Holocaust denier being deported for his objectionable expressions of his opinion. How about an artist that portrayed homosexuals or women in a deeply degrading and offensive manner?
> 
> ...


Maybe. Maybe not. 

What I do know is that they would all want to make these decisions for themselves. Not by Stock Day, Charles McVety, Steven Harper or their ilk. You don't like? Don't watch.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Lets say our group was objecting to Fred Phelps being muzzled or a Holocaust denier being deported for his objectionable expressions of his opinion. How about an artist that portrayed homosexuals or women in a deeply degrading and offensive manner?
> 
> I guarantee you 99.9% of those same people that are outraged at "censorship" would run for the exits. You'd be lucky to get a dozen names. When rubber meets the road, I think the vast majority these anti-censorship folk would be hypocrites when faced with something they find offensive.
> 
> ...


I think you are confusing restricting illegal hate speech with restriction of free speech. As it stands in Canada advocating genocide or inciting hatred against an identifiable group is considered hate speech and is a crime. There is definitely a grey area between free speech and hate speech. I tend to be of the more libertarian bent when it comes to those issues. I think that we don't need to baby people and if the KKK stands up in public and makes racist comments, I think their offensiveness can be easily exposed and countered by reasonable people.

Portraying homosexuals, a particular racial group or women in a deeply degrading or offensive manner may not be hate speech, depending on the context. For instance a character in a film might be a racist and will be doing things that are racist, but I don't think this would be considered hate speech or should be restricted.

But the Cons seem to think that restricting anything that doesn't conform to their social policy goals is OK. This is censorship.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Many in fact. They post their responses.


You mean people do this online? You don't say.



mrjimmy said:


> Also, a huge rally is in the works as well.


I bet, so how many of the guys wont be there just to pick up? I can see the headlines now: "Facebook users unite to battle censorship, all 12 that could get out of their computer chairs that is." :lmao:

Believe it when I see it. :yawn:


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> But the Cons seem to think that restricting anything that doesn't conform to their social policy goals is OK.


 I guess the Liberals didn't do the same.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> This is censorship.


No it's a denial of funding it is not saying you cannot make the film what you want.

And have we heard a list of denials yet? Pretty hard to come to that conclusion without it.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> I guess the Liberals didn't do the same.
> 
> 
> No it's a denial of funding it is not saying you cannot make the film what you want.
> ...


Not difficult at all. Re-read the thread, Jumbo. Many have given very well-thought-out arguments and reasons.

They are not defunding all films, just the one's they decide based on their social-con criteria. That's censorship. If they wanted to not be censors they would simply say we are cancelling all film funding, not just the ones that don't measure up to our arbitrary "social policy goals".

Don't need a list of denials to see that they're injecting their morality into decisions about the arts, something that politicians should stay at arms length on.

BTW, what does what the Liberals may have done or not done have anything to do with my opinion of what the Cons are planning now?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Not like the other parties are on the ball either



> *Censorship foes asleep at the switch*
> 
> Mar 06, 2008 04:30 AM
> THOMAS WALKOM
> ...


One reason the fourth estate is a pillar of vibrant democracies....of course then there is Canada


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I love it when aritsts rally. They wear such interesting costumes. Some of them dress like jesters. Sometimes there are clowns.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I love it when gripers snipe. They are so arid in their exhausting execution. So exacting in their parsimonious persnickitude.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> I love it when gripers snipe. They are so arid in their exhausting execution. So exacting in their parsimonious persnickitude.


You may kiss my ring.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

For you I offer a _special_ ring... a ring of fire.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I love it when aritsts rally. They wear such interesting costumes. Some of them dress like jesters. Sometimes there are clowns.


I bet you're the guy that asks the busker if he has change for a 100.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Perhaps this is not so much a question of censorship as one of the appropriate role of government. One of the primary roles of government is to use tax dollars for economic leverage, picking and choosing which industries or social causes to support, based on economic goals, social priority and ultimately whether or not they believe their decisions on which things to support will translate into votes. Government is really after all in the business of staying in office.

At least in BC where the government track record gets really bad is when they attempt actually run enterprises. Support for the forest industry may be valid and even effective at some points, but history shows us that if government buys and runs forestry companies or sawmills it is almost always an unmitigated disaster.

So, perhaps the best question here is whether or not the government should be providing support for the arts "industry". I think there is a sound policy argument for doing so based on overall health and somewhat fledgling status of the arts industry in Canada, as well as on the unequal playing field in competing with the USA. If I was totally anti subsidy, free market in my thinking then I'd say hell no don't support anything-but I'm not-so the arts "industry" seems like a qualified candidate for government support, at least to me.

Now, given the government track record on running enterprises, they ought not to try to use the money to "run" the arts. They won't make good decisions about what will make the arts viable and healthy, so they should let the artists and their customers decide what they want. If they start dictating what is fundable content and what is not, then we have the government in the position of not only supporting but attempting to actually define and manage the priorities of the arts "industry". And that can only lead to disaster.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Holy cow!
> 
> That's an astonishing 0.0008 percent of the population.
> 
> Seems a lot of people don't take Facebook seriously either. Like 99.9992 percent of us.


We get it, SINC. You don't like Facebook. 

It should be noted, that Facebook is used by over 20 million people (and counting; 2 million are Canadian) and it's owner is the youngest billionaire in the world.

How many go to _your_ site?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> We get it, SINC. You don't like Facebook.
> 
> It should be noted, that Facebook is used by over 20 million people (and counting; 2 million are Canadian) and it's owner is the youngest billionaire in the world.
> 
> How many go to _your_ site?


As of today, 29,400.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> As of today, 29,400.


How about unique visits per day or week or month? The total number is meaningless.

Nice try.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Not difficult at all. Re-read the thread, Jumbo. Many have given very well-thought-out arguments and reasons.
> 
> They are not defunding all films, just the one's they decide based on their social-con criteria. That's censorship. If they wanted to not be censors they would simply say we are cancelling all film funding, not just the ones that don't measure up to our arbitrary "social policy goals".


So when the Provincial Liberals choose not to fund faith based schools, are they not censoring religion?



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Don't need a list of denials to see that they're injecting their morality into decisions about the arts, something that politicians should stay at arms length on.


So why not support cutting all funding if they have no right having opinions on what is moral?



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> BTW, what does what the Liberals may have done or not done have anything to do with my opinion of what the Cons are planning now?


Because it wasn't a problem back them for you, why is it all of a sudden now? And the fact that every party wants to be able to do this really should make you think what the other partys are planning. Insert tinfoil hat here.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

JumboJones said:


> So when the Provincial Liberals choose not to fund faith based schools, are they not censoring religion?


Good points Jumbo,

I seem to recall a thread on here not too long ago where many of these anti-censorship folk were screaming foul when the gideons were offering free bibles to school kids (only with parental consent) in Southern Ontario? All their anti-censorship beliefs were conveniently tucked away as they protested the distribution of the book, and one that would only be given to people that actually wanted it!  
A later thread was outraged that a Catholic school would think of banning a childrens book that was blatantly anti-Catholic and anti-Christian. Many of the same bunch that wanted the bibles turfed jumped back on the anti-censorship bandwagon. Hypocrasy comes to mind. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mc3251 said:


> They won't make good decisions about what will make the arts viable and healthy, so they should let the artists and their customers decide what they want.


Here's the rub--supposing that Wal-Mart decides it can sell actual oil reproductions of great masters and is willing to pay a set amount for each painting, guaranteeing a market for 100,000 of such "artworks." Should the government assist in developing that market by assisting artists to gear up for it, or should it become a judge of the enterprise, declaring it culturally void and not worthy of funding?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> So when the Provincial Liberals choose not to fund faith based schools, are they not censoring religion?


The government doesn't give tax breaks to help schools develop a market, it runs the market. Therefore it needs to be run in a way that serves all equally. Why would the government want to set up a hundred different school boards to cater to all the various belief and non-belief systems? How about the Radical Vegan School Board or the Scientologist School Board? Best to leave the question of personal beliefs out of it altogether.



JumboJones said:


> So why not support cutting all funding if they have no right having opinions on what is moral?


That goes to the point I've made several times in the thread. If they are going to give tax breaks and grants to the arts, they need to leave the judgement up to professional boards based on merit. Politicians rarely have any experience in judging art and I can safely say that the Cons idea of what is "moral" or fits their "social policy goals" will have nothing to do with what many or even most Canadians think. I don't see how their one-third share of votes entitles them to dictate their narrow-minded beliefs to me.

They need to keep their nose out and not try to run the arts. I thought you conservatives were against the big government "nanny state" telling you what to do? Well here it is in its full glory, you've got social conservatives telling you what you can and cannot look at.

I'm not arguing whether they should or should not fund or give tax breaks to the arts. I'm sure the arts will survive either way, although we may not have a Canadian film industry anymore if they dropped the tax incentives. Social cons may be happy that what they think of as morally questionable films are no longer being made, some may not like the economic fallout that ensues and ripples through the economy. Also to be fair, they should then drop their subsidies and special tax breaks for all business sectors. They could start with tax exemptions for churches.



JumboJones said:


> Because it wasn't a problem back them for you, why is it all of a sudden now? And the fact that every party wants to be able to do this really should make you think what the other partys are planning. Insert tinfoil hat here.


Jumbo, I have no idea what you are referring to here or what tin foil hats have to do with any of the points I've made. If we're going to discuss this you need to attempt to remain coherent.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> you've got social conservatives telling you what you can and cannot look at.


Source?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The government doesn't give tax breaks to help schools develop a market, it runs the market. Therefore it needs to be run in a way that serves all equally.


So how exactly does having a Public and a Catholic board serve everyone equally?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Source?


The proposed bill  ...do try and keep up.....

THESE social dinosaurs



> 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.
> 
> "We're thankful that someone's finally listening," he said yesterday. "It's fitting with conservative values, and I think that's why Canadians voted for a Conservative government."
> ...


even Doris "walk with the dinos" Day himself....

••

The Catholic Board is an anomaly hanging over from the BNA act.....and if they keep up the nonsense with THEIR censorship they'll soon be toast as well.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> So how exactly does having a Public and a Catholic board serve everyone equally?


Not having lived in Ontario since the early '80s I couldn't tell you. It doesn't make any sense to me either. So what's with the rolleyes icon? I never argued in favour of separate school boards. Please address points I'm making, not things you're imagining.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Source?


:lmao: That's funny JJ!

The source is the proposed change in legislation my friend.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'd say that the "evangelical crusader" has as much right as anyone to have his views expressed on how the arts money should be spent.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Not funding something and saying you can and can't watch are two very different things. Movies were made long before tax credits, and will continue to do so in the future.


----------

