| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SFrank85
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2227
  
votes: 4
Location: Toronto - Scarborough Southwest
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:33 pm Post subject: Government can withhold financial aid to films/shows |
 |
|
http://www.canada.com/windsors.....mp;k=17364
| Quote: | Censorship feared
Canwest News Service
Published: Friday, February 29, 2008
Proposed changes to the Income Tax Act would allow the Canadian government to "act as the country's morality police" by withholding financial aid for any films and television shows deemed to be not in the public interest, warns the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists.
Amendments to Bill C-10 being considered by the Senate would allow the minister of Canadian heritage to deny tax credits to productions considered unsuitable, according to ACTRA.
"The government is overstepping its bounds and interfering in an arms-length process. Withholding public funding for film and television productions it deems offensive is a dangerous direction for this government that smacks of censorship," said Stephen Waddell, ACTRA's national executive director, in a statement.
|
It is about time that the government put restrictions on what our tax money should fund and not fund. No more tax money to fund Canadian made porn, I'm all for it! |
|
|
|
 |
FF_Canuck
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3302
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's the relevant text from the Income Tax ammendment bill C-10:
| House of Commons wrote: | “Canadian film or video production certificate” means a certificate issued in respect of a production by the Minister of Canadian Heritage certifying that the production is a Canadian film or video production in respect of which that Minister is satisfied that
(a) except where the production is a treaty co-production (as defined by regulation), an acceptable share of revenues from the exploitation of the production in non-Canadian markets is, under the terms of any agreement, retained by
(i) a qualified corporation that owns or owned an interest in, or for civil law a right in, the production,
(ii) a prescribed taxable Canadian corporation related to the qualified corporation, or
(iii) any combination of corporations described in subparagraph (i) or (ii); and
(b) public financial support of the production would not be contrary to public policy. |
Hard to say what this could mean. It could be interpreted as the ability to pull funding of any project contrary to CPC policy, certainly. I can't say I'm in favour of this provision. Either pull all funding, or keep funding arms length. Don't pick and choose - the state interferes in media production (see CBC, CRTC) enough as it is. |
|
|
|
|
mrsocko
Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2380
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Could this force the McKenna brothers out of business. Billy Bishop is smiling in Heaven! |
|
|
|
|
SFrank85
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2227
votes: 4
Location: Toronto - Scarborough Southwest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I agree that all funding should be pulled. I just don’t want my hard earned tax dollars funding borderline pornographic films. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm of two minds on this one, which is odd for me.
While I hate the thought of my family's hard earned tax dollars being used to fund propaganda,( lets face it most film/artsy fartsy types are lefties and use their "craft" to highlight their social issues) I have a hard time defending any form of censorship.
Is not allowing tax dollars a form of censoreship? I haven't quite made up my mind yet.
If a project has merit, I'm sure they could find funding elsewhere. Funny how the left needs tax dollars to do just about anything, but won't open their pocket books to self fund their pet projects, just my perception, I could be wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
I am really conflicted.
On one hand I think my tax dollars should be used on more worth-while programs.
Then again... People have a right to produce whatever they want, and the government shouldn't restrict media. |
|
|
|
|
Mac
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5485
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mbennett wrote: | | Then again... People have a right to produce whatever they want, and the government shouldn't restrict media. |
How exactly are governments restricting media? Is lack of government funding equivalent to censorship or is selective funding the problem?
As far as I'm concerned, governments have no business using tax dollars to sponsor media, regardless which form of media. If any form of media is incapable of surviving without government funding, their presentation is flawed and unworthy of private support.
All we do by providing government support is take away the incentive to improve the arts and encourage mediocrity (or worse) and that's a bad idea.
-Mac |
|
|
|
|
cosmostein
Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 3200
votes: 13
Location: Toronto, Ontario
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mbennett wrote: |
Then again... People have a right to produce whatever they want, and the government shouldn't restrict media. |
I think there is a difference between restricting media, and making the tax payer pay for media.
People are free to produce whatever they want, however we as the tax paying public now has some criteria as to what is acceptable and what is not. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well what art should the government be funding?
Good luck coming to any conclusions on that. |
|
|
|
|
Mac
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5485
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FascistLibertarian wrote: | | Well what art should the government be funding? |
Why does "art" need to be funded by taxpayer dollars at all? As I've said before, funding simply dilutes the incentive to excel. Commercial success for an artist should depend on their skill at their chosen discipline rather than their success at scoring government loot.
| FascistLibertarian wrote: | | Good luck coming to any conclusions on that. |
My conclusion didn't require luck, good or otherwise. 
-Mac |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pulling all funding (from all 'arts') is my preferred course of action, of course. But providing funding for some projects while denying it to others, on the basis of political compatiblity, is as good as censorship. |
|
|
|
|
GMcRae
Joined: 26 Feb 2008
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FascistLibertarian wrote: | Well what art should the government be funding?
Good luck coming to any conclusions on that. |
None. Next question. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
I dunno if its true but I did hear that the federal government is refusing to fund anything that 'promotes homosexulity'
whatever that means
so the federal government will now fund anything that shows queers in a bad light, but nothing that shows them as 'normal' or in a good light, and they claim its non-partisan
at least it will stop kids being queer (lucky)
the liberal media turned me gay dont you know!
and why dosent someone name a great society that didnt fund the arts?
maybe because its easy to say the government shouldnt fund anything, but if you use real world examples you come up empty.
Every right wing government in history has funded the arts, and ignorant people here say 'cut all funding'
hahahahah its never happened in human history and wont happen now.
these are the conservative radicals but no ones going to call them on it besides me
RADICAL ANTI CONSERVATIVES.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FascistLibertarian wrote: | I dunno if its true but I did hear that the federal government is refusing to fund anything that 'promotes homosexulity'
whatever that means
so the federal government will now fund anything that shows queers in a bad light, but nothing that shows them as 'normal' or in a good light, and they claim its non-partisan
at least it will stop kids being queer (lucky)
the liberal media turned me gay dont you know!
and why dosent someone name a great society that didnt fund the arts?
maybe because its easy to say the government shouldnt fund anything, but if you use real world examples you come up empty.
Every right wing government in history has funded the arts, and ignorant people here say 'cut all funding'
hahahahah its never happened in human history and wont happen now.
these are the conservative radicals but no ones going to call them on it besides me
RADICAL ANTI CONSERVATIVES.
|
Get a grip Fas/Lib,
It has sweet bugger all to do with Gay anything.
I don't like this legislation at all, it does smack of cherry picking for propaganda purposes. This will definitely bite back in future. That old double edge of the sword thing?
As for your contention that governments have always sponsored art? Ludicrous, delusional, silly.
Up until recently artists had to starve or sell or get themselves a sugar Daddy that we politely called "patrons" today.
Are the "arts" important to a society? Sure in a way, but in my opinion ART IS WHAT PEOPLE WILL BUY. stop subsidizing it and let those who love it support it. Set up some kind of clearing house where those that think it is important can donate their OWN money to support their ideas of art.
I don't think there is a place for some bureaucrats to tell me what is art, that even a smidgen of my hard earned 55% of my families income should be spent on important works like "Teenagers F**king. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
13 words in a random tax bill that lets the government deny tax credits to film/TV that they subjectively find offensive bc of explicit sex or excessive violence or anything "contrary to public policy"? 
Anyways if you guys knew anything about this you would know the Canadian govt makes more money from most of these productions than they pay in tax credits. Its an economic stimulus which creates jobs and money.
This is so typical, goes right along with reducing aids prevention/treatment funding and refusing to accept gay organs (id mention the court challeneges program but to be honest I am kinda in favour of how the CPC handled that lol).
Course crackpots like Charles McVety want to make the revoking of tax credits retroactive, that would be horrible for the industry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
