Sarah Polley and Bill C-10

August 22nd, 2008, 7 Comments »

James emailed and asked why I hadn’t written about the Conservative government’s recent cuts to cultural programs. In truth, I kind of missed that whole debacle. Plus, it looks like they’ve been sufficiently raked over the coals for that one.

It’s an odd move, because up to now it seems to me that the Harper government has been relatively benign on cultural funding. I certainly remember deeper cuts from other Conservative governments. And their cuts only amounted to less than CAN $50 million. Was saving that money really worth all the grief they’ve suffered in the media? Or maybe it’s meant to be a gesture to their base?

Section 120 is a Joke

I have, however, been meaning to criticize the Harper government’s planned Bill C-10. That link goes to the CBC’s rather critical analysis of the proposed legislation. If ever you wanted an example of the CBC’s liberal bias, there it is. Here’s a summary of the problematic section of the Bill:

The issue that concerns Canada’s film and television community is Section 120, which would allow the Heritage Minister (currently Josée Verner) to withdraw tax credits from productions determined to be “contrary to public policy.”

The minister would create a set of guidelines for film and television producers. The guidelines have not yet been established but would cover violence, hatred and sexual content in film and TV productions, or anything else the minister believes should not be financed by Canadian taxpayers. Committees within the heritage and justice departments would be charged with vetting productions and implementing the guidelines.

In essence, the legislation gives the federal government carte blanche to bypass existing vetting mechanisms to deny funding to cultural works of which it disapproves. On top of infringing on free speech (even this conservative agrees with that), it will have a chilling effect on the kinds of movies which get made in Canada. Would The Boys of St. Vincent or Eastern Promises have been made in a Bill C-10 world? It’s worth mentioning that the Liberals had similar plans to restrict arts funding. It was a lousy idea then, and it’s a lousy idea now.

Poised, Disciplined and On Message

But don’t listen to me on this. Listen to the excellent interview (MP3) that Sarah Polley gave on CBC a couple of months back. If you’re ever going to advocate in the media for a cause, this interview is essential listening. Ms. Polley is incredibly poised and disciplined, articulates her position clearly and remains on-message. She never needlessly attacks the Harper government, nor does she sound like some hippie artist who’s making porn on the taxpayer’s dollar. She makes an impassioned but rationale and professional defense of her stance.

I so often see advocates of environmental and social causes on the news, and they waste their sound bite on lame, slightly nutty critcriques of whoever they’re railing against. Plus they’re frequently dressed shabbily and look frumpy. That sounds trivial, but in a world governed by televisual aesthetics, it’s not. I don’t care if you’re just back from a week of protest and bongo drumming in Clayoquot Sound. Shave, comb your hair and put on a suit before you go on TV.

On a related note, I was amused by this quote from a story about a new Canadian-content pornography channel on satellite TV:

“I think as Canadians there is a bit of a tiredness in seeing all American stuff,” Shaun Donnelly, president of Real Productions, said during an interview on Friday.

“There is always that thrill for something that is local and you get the sense that these are people you can meet at the supermarket.”

It just struck as the most ludicrous quote to offer. We can finally enjoy Newfy accents in our porn? Is that really a priority for Canadians?

7 Comments »

Pornography is Illegal in Malta

July 7th, 2007, 4 Comments »

Like divorce and abortion, possession of pornography is illegal in Malta. I learned this through a brief, grisly article in The Malta Times:

The brothers, aged 41 and 43, pleaded not guilty to defiling their relative, holding her against her will and causing her to fear them on and before July this year. They were also charged with the possession of pornographic material and offending public morals. They were denied bail at this stage.

Ruling Out Foul Play

I first read the article because the headline made use of an unusual term: “Brothers charged with defiling niece”. I’ve noticed that Maltese newspapers tread carefully around subjects like sex and suicide.

Another example is this article, “Man killed by single gunshot - autopsy“. The article reports that “police have ruled out foul play”. Huh? A guy gets shot and there’s no foul play. It took me a little while to figure it out.

There’s no mention of it, but this is the apparently meant to imply that the man committed suicide. Malta is the most Catholic country in the world, so I suppose you’d expect that sex and suicide would be fairly taboo.

To return to illegal activities, for some reason the fact that porn is illegal is weirder than divorce or abortion. Abortion is naturally contentious across the globe. Divorce isn’t that strange to me because, when I lived in Dublin, I learned that divorce had only been legalized there 11 years ago. I do recall that they had nudie magazines in the local SPAR, though.

Anyone With a Libido

After all, I come from a continent where the porn industry is a (estimates seem to vary widely) at least a US $5 billion industry, and where pornography is marketed not only to young men, but to women, senior citizens and everybody else with a libido. And I recently happened to visit Budapest, the reputed European capital of the porn industry. It was just a two-hour flight away.

Here’s how the laws on the books read:

For the purpose of sub-article (3) of article 208 of the Criminal Code, an article shall be deemed to be pornographic or obscene if -
(a) its dominant characteristic is the exploitation of, or undue emphasis on, sex, or any one of the following subjects, namely, crime, horror, cruelty and violence; or
(b) it directly or indirectly advertises or gives information on any article considered to be pornographic or obscene under these Regulations:

Provided that an article shall not be considered to be pornographic or obscene to the extent that it serves the public good on the ground that it is in the interests of science, literature, art or
learning or other objects of general concern.

That’s a pretty broad definition of pornography. I’m surprised that I can buy Stephen King books in the local bookstores.

Ah well, I don’t think I’ll write a letter to the paper about that. I’m better off railing against the shameful hunting of birds into extinction, instead.

4 Comments »