Regarding Bill C-10: The Facebook Response

In the previous post, I talked about the difference between censorship and refusing to fund pornography, or other productions that one might find objectionable. I concluded that the government's job is not to provide enjoyment or entertainment, because, necessarily, people discriminate against that which they find repulsive: for example, I would never buy my neighborhood library 10 copies of "The Communist Manifesto," "Mein Kampf," or "Confessions of a Shopaholic;" but a government that was providing funding for such a library would face the Catch-22 of being accused of "censoring" the library if it did not provide funding, and supporting such vile ideologies as Fascism, Communism, and terrible-literary-tastes-ism if it did cough up the dough.

A Facebook group created to protest Bill C-10 complains:

* It is undemocratic: This controversial new provision to screen the content of productions in awarding tax credits was never debated in the House of Commons, because it was hidden away in a long, technical piece of legislation.

You know, John Milton said "When language in common use in any country becomes irregular and depraved, it is followed by their ruin and degradation." And I'm distressed to learn that that has happened to the word "democracy." Democracy describes a system of government in which majority rules - no more than that, and no less than that. There is no requirement that the participants in a democracy must know what they're doing, or even be capable of functioning at a low-level of intelligence. If our duly-elected representatives can't be bothered to read something, then they shouldn't be agreeing to pass it. There is no refuge in the excuse of ignorance: when I am handed a contract, I read the thing front-and-back, using a magnifying glass and that fluorescent spray that they use on CSI, just to be sure that there aren't any hidden clauses or fine-print restrictions that would have me inadvertently turning over my power of attorney. If I don't feel like doing that, then I don't sign the contract. So it should also be, I would hope, when you have been given the power to represent the wishes of thousands of people.

You aren't in high school anymore - you can't just eschew the reading of "Brave New World" and hope that the Coles Notes will get you through the exam.

Regarding Bill C-10

A shocking new bill has been passed:

A new bill that would give the federal Heritage Department the power to deny funding for films and TV shows it considers offensive is creating shock waves in the industry.

Changes now before the Senate to the Income Tax Act that would allow the federal government to cancel tax credits for projects thought to be offensive or not in the public interest. The amendments have already been passed in the House of Commons. (CBC)

David Cronenberg comments: "It sounds like something they do in Beijing... You have a panel of people working behind closed doors who are not monitored and they form their own layer of censorship."

The denial of funding or tax-cuts is not censorship. It is unfair, but only because my tax dollars shouldn't be supporting such exemplary programs as those that John Ivison describes in an article for the National Post:

...I'm outraged as a taxpayer. Telefilm Canada handed out $158-million last year, including to such productions as Sperm and The Masturbators. But while they or the other yet-to-be-released movies and shows may well prove to be the next Away from Her, Barbarian Invasions or Trudeau, all of which were award-winners and received substantial Telefilm funding, they are just as likely to be the next Web-dreams, Kink or G-Spot, titillating late-night fare designed almost exclusively to provoke hand-to-gland combat.

These three shows received substantial public funding over the years through Telefilm and the Canadian Television Fund. But why? Telefilm's mission is to foster productions that reflect Canadian society, with its linguistic duality and cultural diversity. Where's the Canadian distinctness in the G-Spot episode Sexorcist, where Gigi (Brigitte Bako), experiences a visit by a ghost that leaves her extremely "satisfied"? It's not that it's a bad show -- if it's on, I'll watch it because I'm Scottish and I know I'm paying for it. But the only connection to the Great White North is that Gigi is a struggling Canadian actress in Hollywood.

Why, indeed?

Part of the problem is that the broadcasters control where the Canadian Television Fund spends its $250-million. Not surprisingly, they direct funding toward shows they think will make them money. The new policy on tax suggests the government will, sooner or later, impose the same guidelines on Telefilm and CTF.

But that's not censorship. If the makers of Bliss or Webcam Girls want to continue to produce their shows -- or if they have a vacancy for a backscrubber -- then that's terrific. But they should do it without our tax dollars. As Pierre Trudeau so rightly said, there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.

The system by which "the arts" gets funding has been seriously flawed for some time. Naturally, I would prefer that the government simply stop funding all arts, no matter the content. If an artists wants to make something, they'll fund a way to make it; if the people want something, they'll find a way to get it. The good doesn't need the government to provide for it, only to protect it.

Calling the denial of a tax-cut to a production "censorship" means that you would have to also call refusing to buy a ticket to one of Cronenberg's latest "censorship." At the very least, it is mutilating the word, degenerating it to mean whatever you wish it to mean. Do they have censorship in Beijing, as Cronenberg says? Yup, they do. They also put you in jail for protesting the government's decisions. They also, reportedly, take organs out of prisoners for transplantation. This is not the kind of thing that Beijing would do - this is something Beijing would laugh at, giving it an inferiority complex.

Withholding tax credits only counts as censorship if you also consider the theater patron with discriminating taste to also be engaging in censorship when he doesn't buy a ticket to your performance. As has been repeated, ad nauseum, elsewhere, the right to free expression is not the right to an audience. Simply because you have a half-baked, poorly-considered idea for a TV series does not obligate the CBC to fund your notion, or to provide it with air-time. There are plenty of places on the internet that will happily host your mediocrity. If you can't convince anyone with money to fund your artistic endeavor, or convince those able of giving loans that enough people will want to watch your masterpiece that you will be able to pay them back, then your idea, for all intents and purposes, is worthless.

The free market always has been, and always will be, the best arbiter of the worthiness of ideas. Any program which does not provide the giving organization with a method of "discrimination," so that they can decide which projects get funded and which do not, will not survive for long. When people are left to their own devices, they decide which projects are worthy of funding by buying tickets to movies, comedy shows, and plays; by tuning in on their televisions; by visiting the websites. The quickest way to ensure that the Canadian public is not forced to pay for something that it objects to is simply not to presume to act on behalf of the Canadian public. There is no better steward for my choices than me.

I expect no government hand-out or tax-break from my artistic endeavors. As I sit in my apartment, tapping out my first novel unremittingly, I search out no government grants, no special privileges that I have not earned with regards to my work. Sure, I get a GST credit every now and then, but that's not related to my writing in any way. If the public likes my writing, then they, on an individual basis, will determine if I am worth supporting - no government agency will take over their decision-making processes, their value judgement, and decide for them. Like all values, the individual must decide which will help him to survive, and which will kill him. A man on deserted island in the Pacific Ocean must rely on his own reason to determine which of the island's fruit will poison him, and how to take the salty sea water and make it drinkable. There aren't any government bureaucrats to come along and tell him, as decided by majority vote, what he will do for food, or how to build a shelter. There is no replacement for individual judgement.

My Comments Are More Like Essays

A post on the Raven Entertainment Studio blog incited my ire enough for me to post one of my patented "unnecessarily long comments." I figured that since it was long enough to be a blog post in itself that I should post it here, as well - I'm a cheater that way.

Here's the news story that ruffled Raven's feathers:

By The Canadian Press
WINNIPEG - A Judo Manitoba official reduced an 11-year-old girl to tears Saturday when he refused to allow her to compete in a tournament wearing a hijab, or Muslim head scarf.
While other children squared off in the match at a Winnipeg gym, Hagar Outbih could only watch from the sidelines and wonder why she was singled out.
"He said that I can't fight. If I want to fight I have to take it off or I have to leave," Outbih said as tears rolled down her face.
Hagar's mother, Khadaja, tried to console her daughter.
"As a mom I feel so bad that my daughter would go through this." she said.
Judo Manitoba president Dave Minuk made the ruling.
He said it was based on International Judo Federation guidelines.
"It has nothing to do with religion, it is a safety issue," Minuk said. "It (the hijab) could be used to strangle somebody. It could fall over her face."
The Judo Manitoba ruling is the latest controversy in Canada over the wearing of hijabs by Muslim girls in sports.
In April an international referee said a Tae Kwon Do team of mainly Muslim girls was kicked out of a tournament near Montreal because the sport's rules don't allow hijabs.
The team, made up of girls between eight and 12 years old, is affiliated with a Muslim community centre in Montreal and five of its six girls wear the head scarf.
Last February an 11-year-old Ottawa girl was thrown out of an indoor soccer tournament for refusing to remove her hijab.
A federal Conservative MP as well as the Liberals and the NDP have defended the right of girl's to wear religious head-scarfs.
Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer, who is Muslim, has said that kicking kids out of sporting events is not the way to help communities live together in harmony.
Hagar Outbih agrees.
"I think they should change the rules because there are lots of people in the world," she said as she hugged her mom.
"There is not just Christians, there are other religions. They should be fair to everybody."
Outbih plans to write a letter of complaint to Sport Manitoba, an amateur sports organization whose chairman is appointed by the Manitoba government.
In a bid to mollify the girl organizers of the Judo match offered Outbih a participation medal, which she politely refused.
"Because I didn't deserve it. If I keep it it would just be bad memories."

Here's a link to the post with his response:

"Muslims and Martial Arts"

And here's mine:

Whenever I hear about someone being suspended from their job for refusing to wear the company uniform, or, as in this instance, not being allowed to compete in a sport because they want to wear unsafe clothing, I think of telling them this:

"Right now, you've got to make a choice: what's more important to you? Your devotion to a god(s) who isn't putting food on your table, or your career? If your religion is more important than your goals, then it wins, and you can go home and pray."

I think the most arrogant thing you can do is to expect an organization in a free country to pay a cost in safety in order to indulge you. Swim classes wouldn't allow a person to swim while wearing the hijab, would they? And would they be expected, if they were a co-ed organization, to start holding separate practices/tournaments for boys and girls if the hijab could not be worn? You can't accomodate everyone's whims, and in the end, it's up to the organization itself to decide what is acceptable. If we don't like it, we can always start our own group, or take the easier route and, instead of demanding that THEY accomodate US, accomodate THEM.

Let me share a graphic example: I worked at Canada's Wonderland a few years ago, and it was the typical minimum wage job - which is to say, I learned to look upon everyone with equal contempt. If you've been to Wonderland, you'll know that there is a "Season's Pass" available to purchase which will get you admission into the park for the entire season, May to October - it's worth the price if you live near Toronto and you're chronically unemployed. The pass requires that a photo be taken, because the rules of purchasing the pass specify that it be used ONLY by the purchaser - this is so that a person doesn't come into the park and pass their card back to their friend waiting outside. It's business, and it's the terms of the agreement to purchase the pass: no photo, no use. I think you can see where this is going: a woman in the full-covering hijab walks into the building where the photos are to be taken, and refuses to remove the face covering. This is either clever, or adamantly stupid, take your pick. We explian that your face needs to be visible - no dice. So we tell her she can't use the pass until the picture is taken. Obviously, she gets upset, because how dare we, HOW DARE WE, try to decide the terms of admission into the park? It's not like the owners of Canada's Wonderland actually maintaint he park, or provide you with the fun you so fervently seek. How dare they presume to decide that they can run their business as they please?

No one's forcing you to take part in the martial arts tournament, or get the job, or visit the theme park: if you don't agree to the terms, you can leave. That's the cost you pay for living with other people, THAT'S the key to "harmony:" negotiation and compromise. If taking part in a martial arts tournament is not worth the cost of removing your religious gear, then don't do it, just as if I don't think a litre of milk is worth $2, I don't buy it - I don't demand that the store owner give me the milk for the more-reasonable-to-me cost of $0.30.

If the cost is too high, don't pay the price - just because a hijab doesn't have a price tag on it doesn't mean that it doesn't count.