The day ended as it began, with readers from New Zealand, Australia and California. In between, as the time zones rolled around, we heard from folks in Asia, Europe, the British Isles, Iceland, the Eastern Seaboard and the North American heartland who all wanted to support the campaign for free speech in Canada. Mark’s autographing arm will be a bleeding stump by the time all the books are signed but we promise to get all the orders processed and in the mail within the next few days.
Thanks again to those of you who also hit my paypal donation button, and to the very special person who dropped off her contribution – along with some very welcome words of encouragement – at my door this morning. It’s good to know we are being heard.
Pity the Sarah Polley’s of this country are deaf, and DUMB to what’s taking place in official HRC state censorship!
Sarah Polley’s position is that only other people should be censored.
She believes she should not only have total freedom of expression, but other Canadians should subsidize her exalted state of self-importance.
I have a question.
Does anyone know who is paying Warman’s legal fees?
Or is the fool representing himself?
If he has a fund raiser, who might be the ones to help him?
Who the hell is Sarah Polley when she’s not at home?
Sigh!
Who the hell is Sarah Polley?-period.
Just sent you a humble donation. And another to Ezra. Thanks for all you folks are doing.
Any way of mounting a class-action against Warman?
Sarah Polley…great young actress gone political. Since she doesn’t have all the info WRT freedom of speech she should stick to the stage of make believe.
Although sometimes politics is make-believe isn’t it?
Another two bit actor telling the people who carry the load how and where their tax dollars should go, no different than the great Suzuker and other leftards. In 1989 the great two bit actor Ted Danson, if that is his real name, who knows, hollered that we have only ten years to save the planet. Well the planet is still here and his pathetic acting career was the one in need of saving. Take you stinking paws out of my pocket Ms. Polley, and fund your own pregnant man 14 year olds movies or whatever it is you make. If we wake up tomorrow and there is no more movies or music or whatever in the arttsy world we will survive, but if we have no more food or water we are in trouble. Take a hike freeloader.
Johnny,
Enough tongue clucking already! It’s getting old.
Who the hell is Sarah Polley?-period.
Why the hell are we exposed to Sarah Polley’s period?
Prediction: Warman, after racking up some costs for the Freedom Five, will drop the law suits. He knows he has zero chance of winning and friends are no doubt explaining this to him as we speak.
Sarah Polley has always been a Trot. Communists are always pro-censorship except when Communists are being censored.
They supported the laws that made the House Un-American Activities Committee possible, because these laws started out as ‘anti-fascist’. Sound familiar?
“If he has a fund raiser, who might be the ones to help him?”
He doesn’t need a fundraiser. We’re all already paying his expenses. (Or so I gather.)
I saw Sarah Polley a couple of weeks ago on Mike Duffy. During their conversation about the film funding changes, he brought up the HRC issue and she said she was against censorship of free speech.
But irwin, the ‘free speech’ which Sarah Polley is in favour of, isn’t free. We, the taxpayer, are funding those films.
Funding films and the freedom of speech are two entirely different issues. One is purely economic; the other has to do with the political and intellectual nature of the state.
Most of us have no problem with Sarah Polley and her fellow filmmakers making their films. We just don’t think that we should be expected to fund them. If they have an idea for a film, then go out and get corporate and private funds for that film. Filmmaking is a business; treat it as such. Make films that people will pay to see. And to support.
Think people are too ignorant and dumb to go to the movies you want to make? Then don’t expect we ignorant/dumb taxpayers to have to fund them anyway.
kate ?…that was me this morning…in drag….it’s THRILLING to know i can finally pass the closest scrutiny.
Karl: ok.
I guess we will have to guess as to who Kate’s morning visitor with the VERY encouraging words was. We can speculate, since I highly doubt she will confirm. A woman of circumspection and discretion our Kate is.
If it is who I think it was and the message those words carried then that would be very encouraging for the long run.
If I have it wrong, then I am glad you had a good morning :->
Lay off the drugs Johnny
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i153/myfransphotos/unitard.jpg
The easiest way to shut up the Sarah Polleys of this world is to ask: Would you be in favour of the federal government refusing to fund a film against late term or live birth abortion? Against the promotion of gay marriage?
What she doesn’t understand is that free speech doesn’t mean a free platform, or a platform subsidized by taxpayers. This kind of confusion evidences a intellectual and cultural free fall in this country.
We shouldn’t be surprised, therefore, to see those confused Muslim children-law students being enraged about not being provided their own op-ed space with complete editorial control.
ET:
Bill C-10 is not about the funding of films by tax payers. This will continue. Bill C-10 is about the government officials (The ruling elites, who see the public as peasants) who can veto films they don’t like because the subject is controversial.
The funding process must pass through a censorship filter that will deny money to people like Pierre Falardeau because he makes movies about Quebec separatism for example.
atheist quebecois separatiste: it is not a “censorship” filter. It is a “no public money” filter. Pierre Falardeau would remain perfectly free to make his movie, distribute it, promote it, and ask people to watch it. The rest of us just wouldn’t be forced to pay for it. Tough cookies.
Public funding of the arts is of no benefit to the poor, and is therefore regressive.
End all government funding of the arts, let the rich support the artists they wish to support, and there no censorship issue at all.
Gotta disagree with you MND. The Sarah Polleys understand your point perfectly. What they are incapable of understanding is that there are people who disagree with their “enlightened understanding” of how everything should work.
People like her and aqs cannot concieve of the concept that disagreement does not equal intolerence.
Had I my way, no govt of any level anywhere would be supporting the arts in any manner what so ever.
Me, you, aqs and everyone else are the consumers of the arts and of the various different forms of entertainment. When I donate to the NS Philharmonic and then head to the theater to see the latest Rambo movie and then go buy tickets to see Alice Cooper while getting a Robert Bateman print framed, that is how the arts and entertainment world are supported. You won’t find me paying my hard earned cash to go to a museum to see a statue of Christ in a bottle of urine.
I am a patron of the arts, not all but those I enjoy, I fund by support in one way or another. Got to say it to a good man who teaches Judo to the kids in my town. I’m a patron of the arts, the Martial Arts in this case. But, if I and others didn’t support him, he’d do it on his own, as it should be.
As was said it’s not censorship it’s free enterpirse. Why should we fund something that is popular with a tiny fringe and by and large hated by the majority? Does that make sense to you? And don’t give the the “need to explore the boundaires” crap either.
AQS – First, I think you should be very careful of the term ‘censorship’ Your method of using it implies that evaluating anything is objectionable. I disagree. Evaluation is a requirement of ‘being rational’, i.e., being an adult.
You can, of course, believe that any and all kinds of evaluation are unacceptable, that a pornographic film is as valid as a, let’s say, the BBC’s Pride and Prejudice. But, in order to operate that way, I think you ought to consider something you are ignoring. Money. Money.
Should the taxpayer fund films without evaluation? Why?
If a filmmaker wishes to make a film on a controversial subject that some people might evaluate as uncritical, or amoral, or propaganda, should the taxpayer fund this – just because the filmmaker is Canadian?
Since Heritage Canada is in charge of the taxpayer’s money, shouldn’t they exercise this duty with caution and care? That’s no censorship, AQS; that’s using one’s REASON, and not accepting all and any films just because the director is Canadian. It’s called ‘due care’ for the taxpayer’s money.
To declare that anything that an ‘artist’ does is ‘art’ is pure nonsense. To conclude that anything a filmmaker does is ‘art’ is ridiculous.
Now, if these same people want to make those films, then, by all means – do so. Go out and get the funding, privately, for them. Sell them to studios to get your money back. OH??? You say that no-one wants to pay to see these films? Oh? So, no-one wants to pay to produce these films? Oh!
So, why should the taxpayer pay for a film that this same taxpayer refuses to pay to watch, or to privately fund?
Is that censorship? If X-person says ‘I’m an artist’, is everything they say and do ‘art’? Hmm?
Ever heard of evaluation?
If we as a society decide we want to fund the arts lets be clear that means a subsidy to an industry. At one level Ms Polley is no different than any other industry or farm lobby out there asking for a subsidy.
However, if we are going to subsidize this industry shouldnt we have clear rules in place to be fair to everyone. So my major objection to the legisaltion is the retroactive nature of it, that a film can be made and financed on an understanding that there will be a tax credit and then there really isnt any objective criteria to describe why it would be removed.
The decision needs to be up front, so everyone knows the rules of the game.
At the end of the day the government shouldnt be subsidizing content, nor censoring content (subject to the normal caveats on speech limits libel yada yada).
If we as a society decide that the arts industry and the film industry need the asisstance the subsidy needs to be targetted at all the things that arent content related but infrastructure related.
There are all kinds of extreme examples of content that the government rightfully should be clear that it has nothing to do with nor helps nor encourage…..
This legislation is badly structured, regardless of which side of the issue you stand on and it should be withdrawn.
stephen – what is the infrastructure of a film, that would define criteria of funding?
You also mention some content that should not be funded. Isn’t that what this bill is about?
I agree that it should be clear from the start, whether or not there would be a tax credit.
C10 is like a city applying for an infrastructure grant, having it approved and then having a buracrat decide that because the design is somewhat controversial, at least in their mind, pulls the funding.
For all those who believe that these productions have no bearing on the economy count the number of people listed at the end of a 30 minute show like Trailer Park Boys or Kenny V Spenny. Those people all earn a wage ( no matter how small) and pay taxes and spend what they make.Those shows could easily be directly affected by this bill. Business in this country is subsidized at a number of levels and saying the arts should only be funded privately loses sight of reality.
If we as a society decide we want to fund the arts
Stephen, right off the top of your post, a misapprehension. There’s really no such thing as a sentient, thinking society. Society doesn’t “think” or have an “opinion”. Only individual persons do this. From a classical liberal (libertarian) point of view, individuals should not be forced to contribute to projects that are not properly within the purview of government, no matter how popular they may be.
With a deeper understanding of democracy you would see that majority rule doesn’t necessarily mean democratic if government is doing things it oughtn’t to be doing.
Coercion should be limited to force against my doing bad stuff to you and to extracting from me my fair share of the cost of funding the proper functions of government, not using force to extract dough from me to pay for things you like to do.
I don’t known Shawn, I thought the guy had an ok package.
kevink – so, all those people, who are funded by the taxpayer, are good for the economy, because, they ‘pay taxes’? That’s not the issue. With that perspective, everyone should be funded by the taxpayer…because..they pay taxes. Pure socialism. You reject capitalism and private business. But, since our money is involved, I think you’ll have to be accountable for that money. That means that those films are accountable to the taxpayer. We shouldn’t be asked to hand over our money simply because the people who work on the films…pay taxes.
The issue is value-for-our-money. Because an individual calls it ‘art’ doesn’t make it ‘art’. Because an individual makes a film, doesn’t mean that we, the taxpayer, should fund it. If it’s crap, it’s crap. Again, if ‘the public’ wants to fund a particular film, then let them fund it by private investment in that film and by paying to see the film.
I’m afraid I don’t see the point of a small set of ‘commissioners’ deciding that the taxpayer will fund a film, despite the fact that the same taxpayer will choose not to see it.
Why are you removing ‘art’ from the free choice of the consumer? This free choice isn’t simply that of those bureaucrats you were referring to; it’s the people who will choose to actually see that film. And if a majority choose to reject that film – so be it.
Why are you moving ‘art’ into a state-subsidized program? Art ought to belong to the people. Not to the state.
just another reason to rent team america
ET – what I am saying is if you are not going to help to fund “art” then don’t complain when the government refuses to pay for your pet project or university suddenly goes to $25,000 a year or more because a future government decides that people should pay for their own education if they are going to study a subject that is felt to be “contraversial”. My point is a subsidy is a subsidy and the fact that you do not like a particular piece of art and do not want to fund it is no different than I not liking, or using, a particular widget that received a government start up grant.
Art is subjective to be sure , but to call art “crap” because you do not like it is no different than calling all those who support politicians of a particular stripe “stupid” or “brilliant” based on your general opinions.
I find it more than a litte ironic that many here will rightly call Warman a wingnut for his intolerant views but are quick to say that free expression is fine as long as I agree with it.
Sarah Polley and all Canadian actors who can,t act,so therefore we owe them a living. You know they’d be in the States in a flash if they were any good.Agreed?
Sarah Polley was a very competent child actress–Ramona Quimby, The Road to Avonlea–and has acted in and directed a number of Canadian films, some “acclaimed.” I admit I haven’t seen any of her adult work, and don’t intend to.
She should have stuck to acting, not politicking, as she comes off as a naive, entitled, leftbat. Like AtlanticJim says, she doesn’t understand the difference between another opinion and intolerance: If you don’t agree with her, you’re automatically intolerant.
Taxpayers should not have to subsidize the Arts; if contributions are needed, then they should be on a purely voluntary basis. The “Arts” in Canada STINK and it’s clear to me that’s because they’ve been government-subsidized and it’s often not the truly gifted that get to horn in on the grants and subsidies. In Ottawa, it’s who you know–the same old, same old. I know. I lived there and worked for the feds for four years (‘got out as soon as I could, financially the poorer for it, but with my sanity and integrity, I hope, intact.)
Creativity and innovation have been squelched in Canada because its artists have come to rely on sucking at the government teat and slurping at its troughs: They’re more likely to have to spend more time, and be really good, at filling out the grant forms and hauling out politically correct letters of recommendation than attending to their artistic medium of choice.
Government subsidies, in the amounts paid out in Canada, are death to true artistic inspiration, and all we have to do is look around us to see the uninspiring, often maddeningly awful, bunk and detritus produced by Canadian “artists” (how about the Breast Milk Tasting Station at the AGO here in Toronto last year?):No one wants to see their movies, much less knowing what they are, or their installations, or their “art” work.
Message to the Canadian Artistic Community: Keep your hands off my hard-earned tax dollars. Pay for your own delusions of grandeur.
kevink – what pet project of mine am I asking the government to fund?
Also, you are making the mistake of merging all govt funding into one. Art subsidies are equivalent to science subsidies? No, they aren’t. The latter have evidence of objective causal relations; the former are totally subjective.
And an artwork is not equivalent to a mechanical part (widget) produced by a company. The former, again, has a purely subjective effect. The latter had better be functional or it’s useless.
University fees won’t go to 25,000 if the subject is ‘controversial’. That’s a totally irrational argument. They’d increase when the taxpayer gets fed up with the rising costs of so many irrelevant courses.
So, I reject your arguments. A ‘subsidy’ is not a ‘subsidy’. The world isn’t a relativist morass where each entity exists with an equal value to every other entity.
I agree with babt entirely, including that creativity and artistic innovation in Canada have been harmed by the availability of funding for ‘just anything goes’. Let them make their films that the public will pay to see; rather than their informing us that we are too unsophisticated and ignorant to realize the value of their films which we reject.