I have spent the last four or five months watching the governing Conservative Party act like a bunch of bullies and frankly I am getting tired of of what passes for a commitment to democracy in the halls of Parliament.
When Harper et al were still the loyal opposition, one frequently heard rumblings of a "democracy deficit" in parliament. The Prime Minister's Office, or so the story went, had centralized so much power under the various Liberal incumbents that the Prime Minister of Canada now has more direct power than the President of the United States. Under the Tories, however, Members of Parliament would become relevant again, Senators would serve a viable purpose, and politicians of all stripes would cooperate and sing Kumbaya as a new golden age of Canadian democracy unfolded.
Now, I haven't been to Ottawa in over a decade, but I can pretty well guarantee you that you won't be hearing Kumbaya anytime soon. In fact, the only singing you are likely to hear is the Liberal caucus singing The Death March every time He Who Passes For A Leader enters the room, but that is something for a future post.
The reason I am mad enough to start up this blog again is Bill C-10, particularly Section 120. C-10 is an omnibus bill -- a technical phrase for tacking on a whole bunch of garbage that one wants to enact into law but which is so contentious (and, often, mean-spirited) that the only way you can pass it is by attaching it to a law that no opposition parties can defeat without looking like mother-hating baby-killers. It is a notorious tactic for people who are so scared of losing a free vote that they do not have the balls, guts, or backbone (take your pick) to propose it as a separate bill.
This particular omnibus bill is designed to amend the Income Tax Act, which probably does need amending. Unfortunately, the Tories have added in a bunch of amendments which are assaults on free speech and therefore do not belong in a democratic society.
In particular, Section 120 would allow the Heritage Minister to pull tax credits from production if the Minister determined them to be "contrary to public policy". The Minister and, presumably, his or her henchmen would create guidelines to identify topics that should not receive taxpayer funding. Television programs or films that contravene the guidelines would risk having its tax credits withdrawn. They might even be asked to repay funding that was already received.
In effect, the government would be denying access to tax credits to anyone who expressed a viewpoint that differed from the authorized version of acceptable content. Think of this as a made-in-Canada version of the Hays Code, albeit a version that was introduced 78 years later. If you want to look at it a different way, the government wants the power to censor productions that do not meet its definition of good taste or political correctness.
The Tories, of course, deny this. The Heritage Commissar, I mean Minister, Josee Verner claims the bill "has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with the integrity of the tax system. The goal is to ensure public trust in how tax dollars are spent." Well, Minister Verner, putting limits on artistic expression and free speech does not increase this member of the public's trust in how you are spending his tax dollars.
I am not surprised that some people have praised the legislation. I would never have expected groups like the Canada Family Action Coalition or Real Women of Canada to oppose any legislation that would put a muzzle on anyone who does not support their "traditional" value system. Nor am I surprised that Canadians Concerned About Violence In Entertainment would come out in favour of this. I just don't think they have the right to limit the rights of others to address serious matters.
I have to wonder if any of these proponents of Bill C-10 have ever read any good novels or seen any good television or movies, because if they had they might realize that the world is a complex place. Now, I do not advocate casual violence. I do not encourage abuse of alcohol, tobacco, narcotics, or prescription drugs. I oppose racism in all its forms, sexism, religious bigotry, and attacking people because of their sexuality.
I also oppose a simplistic mindset that refuses to accept the fact that one can include any or all of these themes in a movie without being "contrary to public policy". Especially in a diverse, multicultural democracy. Which Canada is. Or so I thought.
Here are just a few works that address issues which would not be eligible for tax credits were they to be filmed under the proposed rules:
- The Englishman's Boy, a powerful novel that was recently aired as a magnificent two-part miniseries on the CBC. There is abuse of corpses, assault and battery, gang rape, and genocide.
- The Wars, the novel by Timothy Findley, that includes a scene of homosexual sex at a brothel, violence towards rabbits and horses, and several suicides.
- A History of Violence, David Cronenberg's dark masterpiece which is filled with casual violence, matter-of-fact portrayal of prostitutes, and a horrifying, hypnotic knife-wielding ballet between naked mobsters in the shower of a Turkish bath.
- The Boys of St. Vincent, the classic but controversial docudrama about the physical and sexual abuse of orphan boys at the hands of Roman Catholic clergy.
I suppose, though, that there is one silver lining if the bill becomes law. It's been a while since I read my Bible, but I seem to recall rapes, murders, incest, violent attacks, genocide, religious persecution, witchcraft, and other activity which surely would never meet the Minister's guidelines. If the bill passes, I reckon I will be spared the indignity of having to see Biblical bio-flicks financed using credits paid for by good Canadian taxpayers like me.
No comments:
Post a Comment