One of the things that drives me absolutely insane is hearing a debate on an issue, and one side improperly pulls in terminology that doesn’t apply to the situation they’re debating just to heighten an emotional response and try to associate the emotional connotations with the issue they’re talking about… which is essentially a deception.
For example, when people use terms like racism, homophobia, sexism and other terms like that in places that they just don’t belong. If you don’t like Chris Tucker you’re racist. If you didn’t think Brokeback Mountain deserved Best Picture then you’re just homophobic. If you don’t think J Lo is a good actress then you’re just sexist (laugh all you want guys… I’ve actually had these things said to me). Clearly they didn’t belong in the conversation we were having… but some brain dead people who can’t win a debate feel the need to make the issue about a different topic and confuse it with the one they’re on…
Just like this Bill in Canada limiting which movies get free government tax credits and which ones don’t… some opponents of the bill are deceptively trying to make it a debate about “CENSORSHIP”. No one likes censorship, and so in a pathetic attempt to make the issue about censorship instead of what it REALLY is, they keep using that misused phrase over and over and over again until they get people erroneously to associated this issue, with censorship. It’s a lie.
For those of you who may not know… there is a BIll in the Canadian government right now that will allow the government to approve or disapprove movies for free tax credits based on if the material is deemed “excessively offensive by breaking existing Canadian Law”.
NOTICE that the bill is NOT about what films are or are not allowed to be made. That would be censorship. NOTICE that the bill is not about which films are or are not allowed to be shown. That would be censorship. NOTICE the bill is not about which people may or may not make films. That would be censorship. This Bill still allows anyone, to make any movie they want and show it anywhere they please. This is NOT censorship.
I’m reminded about this issue today as I read through Variety and came across the struggle of Iranian filmmakers (which you can read here) who are giving up on making films at all because the government won’t allow their films to be shown:
Behrouz Afkhami, one of Iran’s leading post-revolution filmmakers, told Iranian newspaper Etemad that he has lost motivation for his craft since his gripping social drama “Santouri,” which he completed more than a year ago, failed to receive the nod from the censors. ” ‘Santouri’ is the victim of (the censors’) taste. I have been sitting idle at home and doing nothing, since I do not see the atmosphere suitable for filmmaking,” he told Etemad.
Iran’s culture minister Mohammad Hossein Safar Harrandi, a former member of the elite Revolutionary Guards, makes no apologies for the tougher new line. A wave of “boy meets girl” films made under Khatami were “distant from family and ethical values,” he said. “Part of it was negative and should have been stopped.”
THIS is censorship! Filmmakers being told by the government that they’re not allowed to show their work is censorship. This is a FAR cry from a government telling a filmmaker it won’t financially assist them in making his/her film. Censorship is not a part of the true issue here.
Oh, some people will try to send up the “slippery slope” alarm in a desperate attempt to try to make this look like censorship and confuse the issue… but they’re wrong.
The funny thing is, I generally side with the people who don’t like the new Canadian Bill, because I do believe that Canadian art and film should be encouraged and that even the edgier stuff needs to be cultivated. However… I want to have THAT debate. The real debate on the real issue. Not a fake, artificially constructed and ultimately deceptive one based on false associations.
I can’t support those fighting this Bill (even though I’d like to) until they stop conjuring the word “censorship” in an attempt to bolster their position. Argue the issue based on it’s merits… don’t fear monger people with alarmist “CENSORSHIP” claims. But I guess I’m just a racist, homophobic sexist for suggesting that.
thank YOU for using such an excellent example of a comparison, John. I think we all get a little too flimsy with the words that we throw around, which in turn lose their essential meaning. ‘Censorship’ is exactly what happens in countries such as Iran, where creative expression is totally eliminated of out society – putting tax on certain movies because of the content is NOT. Through the misuse of words like censorship, such as this, you ultimately end up losing sight of what situations are truly suffocating and what aren’t.
Sometimes, living in such a free country can blind you to what is true and what isn’t.
Treat the situation for what it is, and then find a solution – don’t blindly throw around big words to create something out of what it isn’t.
This taxation cause does need to be addressed, but as John said, you can’t fight the battle if you don’t know what you are targetting anymore.
John, I’m with you all the way here. Calling this censorship dilutes what it really means when it truely occurs.
Also, if you want to talk about censorship in Canada, you should read up on the Maclean’s / Mark Steyn / British Columbia Human Rights Commission trial. Agree or disagree with Steyn’s politics, the implications of that situation are scary.
Hey Andrew,
First of all… there is a distinction between criteria, and discrimination. They are not (although some people erroneously do this) interchangeable.
Secondly, each film is judged individually, regardless of filmmaker, genre, run time or medium.
Under Bill C-10 no film is looked at on it’s surface for who made it, what genre it is, or what medium it is. To use the word “discrimination” suggests a pre-determined negative attitude towards what something outwardly is. But this is not the case here.
For the Tax Credit committee to “discriminate”, they would have to pre-judge a movie based on it’s genre, it’s makers, it’s medium… but Bill C-10 doesn’t do that.
There is criteria, by which ALL FILMS are equally measured without prejudice or favor under C-10. No matter who made it, or the genre, or the issue or the topics covered. They are all looked at EQUALLY. That in and of itself rules out the term “discrimination”.
If one of the criteria for being granted a tax credit is “no children involved in sexual acts”, and a movie, regardless of it’s maker, or genre, or medium violates that criteria… then it isn’t afforded the Tax Credit. And rightly so if that is the pre-determined criteria which is applied equally to all films.
So no. By definition both literal and in spirit, neither the term “censorship” nor “discrimination” apply to this situation in any way.
Again, that’s just my opinion.
I’m just going by what you wrote (I haven’t read the bill – I don’t really care enough). You wrote that the government is denying or giving tax credits to films based on if the “material is deemed ‘excessively offensive’ by breaking existing Canadian Law.”
I didn’t realize that they were taking into account the artistic merits of the film as well. The way you put it, it basically sounds like a rating board that looks through a proposal and then just says, “nope, that’s too offensive. No soup for you!”. If that’s not how it is, I stand corrected. You sure make it sound that way though.
What is good? I don’t know. Whatever criteria film boards or studios use to say if a film is good or not or whether it should even get made in the first place (the Academy, critics societies, film boards, festival juries, etc).
And YES, you not getting in for the senior discount IS discrimination. Again, the word “discrimination” does not have to have a negative connotation. Ladies night at the bar is also a form of discrimination. A certain type of film project getting rejected for another type of film project is discrimination – whatever the criteria used may be.
Hey Andrew,
Yes, that is the definition… but I think your application of it takes some extreme liberties (just in my opinion)
Under Bill C-10 each film IS judged on it’s individual merits. You’re just saying it’s not.
Also you suggest:
“NOT on how good the movie might actually be”
What is “good”? What criteria are you applying?
So let me ask you this. Is the theater refusing to let me in for the “Seniors” rate “discrimination”?
I’ve read Bill C-10, there is nothing in there about creating a “category” for films refused for tax credits. No qualifications of “Any films that say “fuck” are out. Nothing like that.
So I see what you’re saying, but the definition doesn’t apply. The definition actually works against your argument.
dis·crim·i·na·tion:
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.
Looks like the shoe fits perfectly. It doesn’t say anything about what you agree or don’t agree with. It just states picking one thing (in this case film) over another based on a class or category (in this case fmily films vs sex/violence/drugs etc) and NOT on how good the movie might actually be.
Discrimiation does not necessarily have a bad connotation or have to do with race.
source: dictionary dot com
That was the best speech I’ve heard since the “I have a Dream” speech! Campea for President!
John,
Amen to your comments about the word “discrimination”! Like “censorship,” it’s a word that gets tossed around far too often. These are the black-list adjectives: if you want to shame someone or encourage others to view him with contempt, just toss in the adjective of your choice and you have an instant entourage of mindless followers, collectively crying out for metaphoric blood.
I’ve seen this at work recently, as well. A police officer who acts as a security guard for my workplace was approached by a woman who wanted to talk about why Barack Obama is the best candidate for the U.S. presidency. The police officer told her he didn’t really want to talk politics, at which the woman immediately called him a racist, and said she didn’t think “we need that kind of thing” in our police force!
Now, while I agree with some of my peers’ comments above that a government bill of this sort might eventually LEAD to censorship, I also agree with you that labeling this bill as such is incorrect. I think that, in actuality, this should be a debate with two points: 1) Should the Canadian government support the arts in a criteria-based manner rather than supporting the arts as a whole, and 2) Could this type of “discrimination,” if you will, lead to actual censorship in the future? The issues are related, but calling this bill as it stands “censorship” is just plain wrong.
I would like to know the percentage of films produced in Canada that recieve these grants. How many films per year receive them and how many apply, and what the percentage of all films produced does the applying films make up?
If a majority of films are produced this way, then it is the government stepping in to decide what is right and wrong to be produced. If it’s just a few struggling films each year, I think the government is correct in making sure they fund films they deem as “safe”.
I don’t like the term “discrimination” either because it implies connotations that aren’t in play here.
Can’t you say that ANYTHING that has criteria is “discrimination”?
Not all films BEFORE bill C-10 got approved for the tax credits. Why wasn’t it called discrimination before? It had approval criteria before?
Seems to me we only call it discrimination if the criteria is something we don’t agree with. Just an observation.
discrimination! thats the word I was looking for…
Everythings a deception John.
Goodbar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_films#Canada
According to wiki (which has been known to be wrong on occasion) “presently no film is banned in Canadian provinces that doesn’t contain “prohibited material.” But the list has a few recent titles that are banned and doesn’t say they were overturned.
So it looks like other than a few small exceptions, I was wrong.
On the first point, it’s just a matter of personal opinion on where you want your tax dollars going. Admittedly arts are a bit tougher in Canada because they have to compete with The U.S. Some don’t want their money to go to a movie studio – although tax “breaks” and money “going to a studio” are two different things. Gov’t money going to public radio pisses me off however… but that’s a different debate.
I figure Andrew James is right in pointing out that this is discrimination and not censorship. I suspect that it is only called censorship by those with a highly developed sense of entitlement.
It’s not “censorship” in any conventional sense. But the end result of a bill like this would be to limit the diversity of films produced within Canada. Which I’m guessing is exactly the opposite goal of public funding for cinema in the first place.
Film producers aren’t likely to make a movie about the canadian drug trade if the other movie about bi-lingual hockey players is gonna get hefty government financing.
I don’t really know where I would fall on this issue. I don’t really believe state funded art at all.
It seems to me that the problem with more socialist systems like this is that it becomes more difficult to discern where the public sphere begins and personal liberty ends.
@ “I can’t support those fighting this Bill (even though I’d like to) until they stop conjuring the word “censorship” in an attempt to bolster their position.”
I don’t know that much about the issue, but I really doubt that every single person opposing the bill is using the word “censorship”. You should probably just base your opinion on the bill itself.
Also Goodbar, the Canadian gov. banned the importing of Fat Girl in 2001.
I don’t know how good a source this but it’s easy to research yourself.
http://www.xtra.ca/public/viewstory.aspx?AFF_TYPE=1&STORY_ID=4439&PUB_TEMPLATE_ID=9
oh i agree it is not direct censorship. No one is stopping anyones ideas or telling people what kind of stories to tell but ultimately it will lead to the death of certain types of films.
If certain types of films keep getting denied funding while other types get funding then one style will flourish and the other will fade away and die and I think that is a shame.
Andrew:
I have to disagree with your first point..also would like to know where you got your information for your second point
However i do agree with your 3rd point lol
I believe public funding for the arts to be crucial in Canada. With all the competition from the US its very important we make it worthwhile for Canadian talent to be seen/heard. The amount of private funds for Canadian films i believe is quite small.
Plus its been around in Canada for a while and hasn’t really got much opposition from the electorate. Well except for in the more conservative areas. I say stick with what works. Personally i would mind paying $20 bucks (guess amount)a month to see some great Canadian films. But thats just my view.
anyways great topic for discussion for sure
Hey George,
I’m not sure I even disagree with you… HOWEVER… it’s still not, by any stretch of the imagination… “CENSORSHIP”.
They are still free to make their film however they see fit, say whatever they want in it, and make the subject matter about anything they want. Just because someone outside of themselves (government or not) refuses to give them aide, doesn’t make it censorship.
John you said “In other words… according to this argument, if a filmmaker comes to me ask asks me for $30,000 so they can make their film… if I say “no”, then I’m engaging in “censorship” against that filmmaker… and obviously that’s ridiculous.”
and while I agree i can see how some see it as a type if censorship in this way – Say 6 films applied for 3 grants. Each prodduction was as prepared and ready to go as the other.they were on equal footing in terms of readiness yet three films were family friendly and 3 contained what some may consider “objectional” material yet every time they gave the 3 grants to the family friendly films.
I can see how if you were making one of the 3 edgier films and you got denied yet “The Adventures of Yaru The Talking Moose” got a grant time and time again then I can see how you might feel you were being a bit hard done by.
As a government body I don;t believe they should base these types of decisions this way. I mean who are they to determine what is objectional? I am not making my argument very well but I guess what I am saying is I don’t believe government bodies should be saying that they will fund one type of movie and not another. I mean it is tax money after all. So therefore everyone applying should be treated fairly and evenly.
Plus it has huge p otential to water down and neuter canadian film making. and lets face it if they repeatedly turn down more edgier films then edgier films will fade away. films are an expensive business. Its tough. government funding is a terrific idea and incredibly important ot lower budget indie films and helps greatly and if you make it too hard for film makers to get their films made we will see a lot more Adventures of Yaru then we will saucy canadian birds with their gear out!!
Hey SFSilver
You said “I think it would be far more interesting to actually have you write about this issue on it’s merits rather than focus on a peripheral semantic technicality of the pro or con arguments.”
I don’t disagree… but until this “semantics” issue gets sorted out, then we’re not having the same debate. One side is trying to argue against censorship… which this isn’t. But how to you argue against protesting censorship?
This isn’t just mere semantics… this is an outright twisting of the issue and changing the focus of what the debate SHOULD be on.
This twisting needs to be highlighted and stopped.
I can understand your semantics objections, we should all strive to use language correctly, but I think it would be far more interesting to actually have you write about this issue on it’s merits rather than focus on a peripheral semantic technicality of the pro or con arguments. The issue will have a real impact on film production in Canada and as such is worthy of serious discussion on the blog.
1) gov’t shouldn’t be providing tax credits to the arts anyway. Taxes exist for a reason. Everyone should be taxed (or not taxed) equally. Taxing the arts differently is absurd.
2) Canada already has a banned list, so they already censor what you can and can’t see legally anyway.
3) The word is not censorship in this case, it’s discrimination. You decide which is worse.
I think this argument is called the straw man argument in debates. It drives me nuts too.
I think censorship is the wrong term. I think a more accurate description would be affirmative action, which is unfair to all involved.
I think any government body put in charge of determining what is moral for the country is a bad idea be it though money or just out right banning films from being shown.
But then again I’m from the UK and we DO have a moral body which can ban films entirely at a whim.
1138:
the only reason the government isnt going farther is they have to win votes in the more centrist/liberal areas of the country.
ie. Ontario, Quebec & BC
If it wasn’t for that this Bill could be waaaaay worse.
your right John,
as in your previous post…this issue isn’t censorship
But that still doesn’t make it OK!!.
The Canadian Government has been helping filmmakers fund there project since i can remember (im only 29 so i don’t really know how long its actually been going on)
To me it just reeks of forced morality from our lovely Conservative government. For some reason its only THIS administration that seems to have these issues with content. The Progressive Conservatives (from the 80’s) and the Liberals (90’s) didn’t ever mess with the program.
Since we elected this new brand of Conservatives they have been trying their best to force their limited world view on the rest of the nation.
Half the party is made up on evangelical Christians ( some quite extreme…example…our Heritage minister doesn’t believe in the dinosaurs!)
Trust me on this..i come from Alberta (Canada’s version of Texas)
This is just there way of sneakily forcing a tamer, more family-friendly, Candian film industry. Yes I KNOW this isnt stopping filmakers . They are still able to show/make whatever they want.
Its just alot of people depend on this help ( a few friends of mine for example)…and for the government to suddenly change strikes me as peculiar.
As for Iran your right we have it WAAAY better than them. But that still doesnt make it right.
Granted the Bill isn’t about censorship in it’s current drafted form, but I do agree with Peter that it could lead to censorship.
Who decides which film deserves the the free government tax credits? On what basis is that judgment made? What’s the criteria for who deserves what?
Is it the openly gay film or the family oriented one like Peter said?
I’m not sure what is happening in Canada, but here where the religious right have made head roads into government, people are worried about public monies that are being handed out to the arts. These People whom Bush put into power have been under scrutiny for fear that they will base their handling of monies solely based on content. Is Gay the right message for people? Is against the Iraq war the right message for the people? Is abortion the right content for public monies?
It’s one thing to say there isn’t enough public funds to go out…but people will always be suspicious about how public funds are handled especially in this day and age of mistrust, vehement disagreements and the lust for power.
Hey Peter,
You said:
“It is potentially censorship to a degree that the appeal of filming in Canada is the tax breaks. Take those tax breaks away and some films will never get produced.”
I see what you’re saying, but the reason I reject that argument is that it assumes onus or obligation on the part of someone to give free money to another.
In other words… according to this argument, if a filmmaker comes to me ask asks me for $30,000 so they can make their film… if I say “no”, then I’m engaging in “censorship” against that filmmaker… and obviously that’s ridiculous.
It is the filmmakers responsibility to raise the needed funds to make their movies. Just because they fail to raise the needed amount, doesn’t mean I, or the government is somehow now obligated to give them the extra needed to finish, and if we refuse, then somehow we’re exercising censorship against them.
Just my opinion.
Censorship is the act of forbidding the public distribution of material deemed inappropriate, obscene, or politically unacceptable.
Some people who have used the censorship argument aren’t saying the bill is and of itself an absolute vehicle of censorship. They are concerned that it may LEAD to censorship.
It is potentially censorship to a degree that the appeal of filming in Canada is the tax breaks. Take those tax breaks away and some films will never get produced. And if a government body is in control of whether or not a film is eligible, that government body has the ability to say yes to cartoon family film and no to a provocative film exploring gay relationships.
The bill isn’t 100% censorship. But what it represents is the ability of the government to influence what films are and are not produced in Canada. With the increasing number of productions coming to Canada, any government influence will only grow as the industry flourishes. And placing immediate limitations on film does not set a good precedent.
Nice John,you really put this one into perspective.I agree 100%
Well said sir!