Search form

To all the Canadians on this forum

12 posts / 0 new
Last post
To all the Canadians on this forum

Say 'no' to Bill C-10! :mad:

Haredevil_Hare's picture
Order my book Jesus Needs Help on Amazon or download on Kindle. You can also read the first 18 pages of my next book for free at this link: The Hap Hap Happy Happenstance of Fanny Punongtiti

Order my book Jesus Needs Help on Amazon or download on Kindle.

You can also read the first 18 pages of my next book for free at this link: The Hap Hap Happy Happenstance of Fanny Punongtiti

What the..!?!

Nah, they know it was us...Canadians don't do musicals! ;)

(Ken, I'da had a burger with Doug any day! :) )

Cheers!
Splatman:D

Nice to know the U.S hasn't cornered the market on right-wing religious self-appointed morality police. ;)

I don't think C-10 will be a threat in any case--getting it passed might be one thing, but having it upheld in the light of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is another thing.
That's the precedent to get the bill shot down in its infancy as a law.
Besides, challenging things "indecent" up here has a long history of very liberal interpretations--check out the feeds on Sex-TV or City-TV any night of the week ( If you get sattellite) to see what's being allowed.
The only materials that seem to get the heave-ho are those deemed harmful to persons via depiction.
( thus things like child molestation, incest, certain classifications of rape etc.)

From the article:

The proposed prohibition would cover a sweeping range of material, such as anything of an explicit sexual nature, that denigrates a group or is excessively violent without an educational value.

Honestly, most of the stuff I've been working on the past 20 years would fall outside of that kind of classification anyway.
Maybe "Aggggghh, its the Mr. Hell Show" would have been a no-no, but it was about as controversial as a fart.
This bill might make a guy like David Cronenburg a bit skittish, but for most of us in the animation biz it's not going to affect us, even if it sticks.
I mean........how does one define "contrary to public policy" anyway? Kind of a broad catch-all that just doesn't stand up to legal scrutiny because its so vague.

The biggest thing about those tax credits--their main thrust is that they are credits for putting Canadians to work on productions originating or working out of Canada. That's the primary reason those tax credits exist--not because of heritage or content concerns.
The dollars the various studios and productions bring up here ( from co-prods and outsourced work) is pretty big, and slapping that away would be incredibly foolish. You can bet your ass the various studios have lawyers already warmed up to bite back at this thing.

Trust me, if the bill is signed into law, it'll be challenged and struck down.

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

Sigh... and I thought human beings were making strides in stopping censorship.

-moot

I did some more thinking on this thing, and realized that these idiots in government probably don't fully grasp what this is going to do....

They have to oversee the content on EVERY production, and every EPISODE in every production produced in Canada.
Man, watching TV shows me a lot of shows getting those credits--everything from cooking shows to dramas, cartoons......you name it.....BY LAW, they ALL have to be scrutinized for content.

I mean, with all the animation studios in the country.........about.......a dozen, maybe two........producing content.......let's say there's 10 major studios. Each of them gets in two series, of 22-24 eps per ( average)
That's about 480 episodes that have to be evaluated for content--and that's just animation output.
It doesn't matter if its Lunar Jim or Spaceballs--all of that content has to be looked at and any of the declarations can be challenged, by law--because all the laws in Canada have sections for remedies and appeals.
By rights ( IIRC), a studio could challenge a withdrawal of the tax credit, on a episode by episode basis.

Then start thinking about all the live-action content from the major networks: CTV, Global, CBC, plus all the co-prods. The movies; both feature and TV-and those animated features too.
Then there's all those other shows; cooking shows, etc. that qualify--plus specialty channel material.

And this is going to be the perview of the Heritage and Justice ministries?
Its needless bureacracy, the weight of it will kill it all by itself.......
That's why I think this thing will either very seldom rear its head, and be a pointless law, or some dickleshits will try to exercise it all over the place and realize they've dug themselves in deep when EVERY production challenges the thing and ties up the courts and judiciary with pointless legal hassles.

LOL, that's Canadian politicians for ya.....

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

Ok I'll keep this short.
I am not for censorship BUT
The Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. As much as I like tax breaks and would rather not even pay taxes, who says the government has to give us tax breaks? I feel for the artist who has his vision for a series in the hands of a bureaucrat but name one source anyone can run to for money and/or a break without any strings attached? We are still free to realize our visions just fund it yourself. Don't mean to be so turse but I typed out a more articulate post before this and timed out.
BTW when there's a time it will be illegal to create whatever we want and we do what the gov't says whether we're funded or not, then that's censorship.

Ok I'll keep this short.
I am not for censorship BUT
The Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. As much as I like tax breaks and would rather not even pay taxes, who says the government has to give us tax breaks? I feel for the artist who has his vision for a series in the hands of a bureaucrat but name one source anyone can run to for money and/or a break without any strings attached? We are still free to realize our visions just fund it yourself. Don't mean to be so turse but I typed out a more articulate post before this and timed out.
BTW when there's a time it will be illegal to create whatever we want and we do what the gov't says whether we're funded or not, then that's censorship.

Well, the gold they have comes from us-- 'tain't THEIR gold, its ours-they are supposed to spend it in trust on our behalf, and not on theirs.

Oh, I'm not concerned about the censorship part of this either. 99.9% of the stuff I've ever worked on has been safe to the point of placid.
I think the problem with this comes from the potential abuse of it.
The reasoning for it is to safeguard the public from offensive material--but the public at large cannot even come to a consensus on what kinds of material are offensive.
It falls upon a ( likely small) group of people that, we have to trust, have had enough life-exposure to different values and mores to make a judgement call that serves all of Canada. Will there be partisan values or agendas at work in this? Religious values? Those are not universal in appreciation so any evaluation with regards to content will be suspect because of government appointment.
And this is being pushed by a political party, not the public at large........if it was the latter, then I'd think there's a good argument for such a bill.

I keep thinking about the BC Directors office--that classifies, ( if they still do) feature films shown in BC. IIRC, they are a body of about 6 people, who review all the material that comes into BC--everything from porn to cartoons--to give it a classification.
I think they've only banned, maybe less than a half dozen films, in all the years the office has been around--again, them seeing everything including the sleaze.
I seem to recall a moment years ago, when someone questioned their tact on a certain film, and the spokesperson for the office spelled it out--very clearly--why they made their call on whatever movie it was. And it made complete sense--the buck stopped with them, and they took on the responsibility very seriously with bias.
I got the impression that these folks had a really fair hand in judging the material because they took pains to be non-partisan or have an agenda outside of their specific criteria with these films.

We might be lucky to get a body like that in place.
Or we might get the Canadian version of Reverend Rose....

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

Z
Z's picture

I think that bill is evil because....where do you draw the line? What is defined as decent and indecent? It could potentially cause great harm.

With that said....mail from animators and geeks won't accomplish much at all.

--Z

bad, bad bill!

I think that taxes collected from Canadians that funds the production of a film, which calls for a violent overthrow of the Canadian goverment (and then has a big nasty orgy...and serves non-vegetarian burgers) should be funded!

...hmmm. Maybe not. :rolleyes:

Cheers!
Splatman:D

I think that taxes collected from Canadians that funds the production of a film, which calls for a violent overthrow of the Canadian goverment (and then has a big nasty orgy...and serves non-vegetarian burgers) should be funded!

...hmmm. Maybe not. :rolleyes:

Cheers!
Splatman:D

We'll hold it at Doug Henning's place.

No, wait he's dead. Phooey, I like a good burger...

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

Hey, it just occurred to me as to why this bill was written up. Maybe our government actually thinks we did create Terrance and Phillip's Asses of Fire. ;)

Order my book Jesus Needs Help on Amazon or download on Kindle.

You can also read the first 18 pages of my next book for free at this link: The Hap Hap Happy Happenstance of Fanny Punongtiti